Being a perfectionist is an obstacle and how to beat it
mediatag.io
mediatag.io
I used to do whatever I felt like, and typically, I was doing the hardest tasks first. I would leave the little stuff. "Oh that's easy, I can just do that at the end".
Creating social media accounts was the last thing on my TODO list. One day, I thought I'd apply Dave Ramseys "Pay off your debts smallest to largest" principle to my technical debts.
One of the first things I did was create social media accounts. And a bunch of other small stuff that was biting at me.
Another decision I made was to launch earler with fewer features. Why? Because many of the sample use cases (the simple ones), didn't need the more advanced features.
So, smallest to largest dictates that I must make the easy samples before I finish the advanced features. And, if I have samples, I can launch.
So, my perfectionism was a symptom, but the problem was my priority system: hardest to easiest, not easiest to hardest.
(Inevitably, someone will write about "do your hardest task in the morning when you have the most energy". Well, I freelance in the morning when I have the most will power, so this is moot. Doing tasks easiest to hardest gives the most accomplishments earliest [ more items checked off the todo list ], which provides positivity and motivation to keep going.
Imagine the scenario:
You have 3 hours to work, you do your hardest task, which takes 5 hours. You don't get it done, and think "omg I didn't finish and I still have 9 other things to do".
Or, you do your easiest tasks first. Most take 5-10 minutes. You finish 5 tasks in your 3 hour window, and think, Geez! I'm really productive today! I should keep working, so you work another 2 hours and get 6, 7, 8 done.
Momemtum is key. Doing easy tasks first creates success feelings that make you work longer. It also frees up mental space ( you no longer need to mentally track those tasks ).
Launch is almost always EASIER than the hard PERFECTION features that a perfectionist makes.
I've definitely noticed the benefit of this. On the other hand, small things add up and occasionally I've just got to tackle that 5 hour task.
GTD also recommends sorting next actions into contexts where, for example, you don't even think about computer tasks when a computer is not around. By the time an action hits a list, it should be reasonably small yet well defined, similar to Scrum backlog refinement.
Perhaps playing to the crowd, he also wrote[0]
The biggest procrastinators are usually the most sophisticated, sensitive, creative, and intelligent people.
Nailed you, did I? Well, I assume you’re in the sophisticated, creative, and intelligent category. That probably means you have large numbers of things stuck in your mind, in your briefcase, and on your desk about which things are not moving forward quite as consistently as they could be.
Major reason: the precise next physical visible activity (next action) has probably not been decided on the to-do’s. The bright people usually have some sort of reminders about their projects and things to do on lists, in piles, or lying around, so they won’t forget to think about their commitments. Bully. But every time they catch the briefest glimpse of any of them, they instantly race forward in their mind, rapidly and intelligently creating images of all the possible pieces that have to fit together and all the things that might have to be involved in getting them to happen and all the possible negative consequences if any one of them slips (and all the things that they might be forgetting in all this). Whew! Freaked themselves right out. I’d quit, too.
[0]: https://gettingthingsdone.com/2016/06/who-are-the-biggest-pr...
I managed to do this for about a year while working on my thesis. I finally realised I wasn't making any forward progress.
I find 1 or 2 quick tasks then straight to the most valuable work is a good way to get the momentum going.
Momentum is easily one of the the most powerful forces in my life, both good and bad, so I try hard to keep it working in my favor.
Of course, this relates more to artistic work than technical matters. But I think it is damaging to act as if all work is equivalent to deadlined development work. Great things come from people being impractical.
1. Many great artists were extremely prolific and created lots of mediocre work, we just forget about those. There seem to be very few perfectionists who just created a few great works, not “releasing” them until they were perfect. There are some, but they’re the exception.
2. You’re also not seeing all the many perfectionists who waited until things were perfect and then never finished at all, which is by far the biggest risk. I’d argue there are orders of magnitude more of these than perfectionists who ship perfect things.
I suspect that many of the “just get it done” people who do lots of bad or mediocre work will end up creating great things, you’re just catching them earlier in their learning / experimentation cycle. But those people will learn and adapt so much faster than the perfectionists will.
I don't see anyone suggesting this.
Yes, but in my experience this is more an exception, compared to the vast majority of people who never ship anything, because "it's not quite right yet". That's where the danger lies.
And I think there are plenty of similarities between art and tech, regarding this.
For a web app, it will have to be shared before growing in quality and becoming great. Github, Basecamp, Twitter all did that. It's always about having a first released being a kick ass half or a half ass product (Getting Real was phrasing it like that if I recall correctly).
Same for a film. It might be released on a specific date to a wide audience, but it has gone through many iterations, discussed between dozens of people.
And just getting it done does not mean that you have to stop everything once your deadline has passed. If there is more work that you want to add to improve it, do it. But at least you've shared it as an intermediary stage, and you and your work have probably both grown from that. And you can now give yourself another deadline.
In my opinion, every single one of these companies was effectively a zombie: dead, but unaware of it.
If that's what you are saying, I'd love you to elaborate, because I can't see how one could see this.
But even when it comes to personal projects it's useless to work on the same project forever. Often that stunts growth (new pieces teach you new things) and it also makes you a lot less prolific. I've met so many artists who let the fear of not being perfect stop them from drawing much at all. They fidget over the same drawing for months and even when they finally finish it's because they give up, hate what they made and are sick of looking at it. Something they might have been passionate about is now a source of sadness and frustration to the point they don't want to do it anymore. There is no such thing as perfect. Even the best masterpieces in history had to be declared "finished" at some point.
And since progress tend to be logarithmic (the last 20% taking 80% of the time), the last bit will be the least pleasant. So that's where we become less efficient.
Of course that doesn't mean either that we should stop when it gets hard. But being aware of this should help you decide if you should keep pushing or if it's time to take a break (which can be a few minutes or maybe weeks).
Obviously this doesn't apply to software that goes into medical equipment, planes etc that can harm people.
Smart people spend lots of time learning, thinking about things, and relying on their (often overactive) imaginations. It's not surprising that spending so much time in your own head can sometimes lead you astray.
A helpful response would be to reassure and encourage your peers. Point out when there's objective evidence that they are doing a good job, because they may not be able to see it on their own.
In this light, the attitude displayed by the current top level commenters is extremely disappointing [0,1]. Insinuating that your coworkers are slow or out of their depth in circumstances like these is counterproductive. IMHO, this "maybe you're just not good enough" attitude is one of the most toxic aspects of living in silicon valley and the bay area.
I am a perfectionist, and I know that I waste gobs of time over-analyzing absolutely everything [2]. I also know that my best work only happens when I force myself to set aside that perfectionism and just start. It doesn't matter if it's terrible, it doesn't matter if I picked the wrong library -- wasting more time over-analyzing everything never gets me anywhere, and leaves me feeling miserable at the end of the day.
I know, objectively, that this is the case, and yet I still hesitate to start big projects, and still attempt to use spreadsheets to plan the most trivial of things. It's not an easy habit to break, but it's absolutely worthwhile to keep trying. I owe a lot to the peers and managers who have helped me stay on track.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16335156
First, try and understand why you care so much, if that excess of care is giving you too much pressure.
Maybe you care too much because that's your livelihood, and that prevents you from taking risks? In that case, try and shop for other jobs and maybe seeing what other options are available will make you be more relax.
Or maybe you care too much because the timing means you have only one shot at whatever you're working on? Then work beforehand on having more options. Or lowering the risk of your project failing. Think about a plan B, or C.
What I'm trying to say basically is that if you feel that you're at your best when you don't care too much, find ways to create that distance or relaxation. That might need some time, logistics, or introspection, but it's certainly worth it.
Not someone I’d want to work with, but I’m sure he’d think I’m too slow and stupid anyway :)
The people that turn out near perfect work are usually the fastest and just get things done. It is a pity they are so rare.
In other words, the "causes" you identify in your first sentence are actually the consequences of the affliction.
And inasmuch as you merely disagree with it because you think it's the wrong term, well, that's even shakier ground, because the formal definition of language follows from its real-world usage.
There's room for both types of people in the world, but only one should call themselves an engineer.
But I would call this: just my fucking job. Not perfectionism. But I realise also: I'm wrong. Tons of people are unable to do this and call this ability perfectionism, as if it's something bad.
Those that know do, those that don’t perfect.
By that logic, Steve Jobs should have never been good at what he was doing...
I'm sorry, but this notion of yours is kinda insulting to all the perfectionists that had the misfortune of living in a world that doesn't appreciate them.
It is more of a rant caused by me having to wait for the perfectionists to finish their third rate work so I can get on with mine :)
But in all seriousness, I feel like it's a false dichotomy. You can be practical and still demand thoughtfulness and quality. It really kills me when people come to the conclusion that they're mutually exclusive.
If you have skill and understanding of your goals you know exactly how much effort is required for each task and you can balance the competing priorities well.
I think it's a shame that we don't encourage something closer to that balance with professional software development.
The fastest results can be half cooked, when reduced time comes at the cost of shortcuts and trade offs taken. It's all the matter of balance.
Most of all, it seems that 'perfectionists' don't see that it is actually a derogatory term.
It means: you can't distinguish between what's important and what's unimportant, so you loose yourself in unimportant details and waste time.
The real value is in knowing what is important and what is not. The real value is to be able to make sane tradeoffs within a particular context.
That is how to get things done.
[0]: https://gettingthingsdone.com/2016/06/who-are-the-biggest-pr...
Don't hesitate to shoot any questions if you have any.
This blog is mostly oriented towards filmmakers, but the concept of perfecting vs completing can apply just as well to web or technical endeavors.
In which case, it's hard to tell, since it is quite subconscious.
I'd be tempted to say that being in the zone (if that's what you mean, let me know if not) happens to people who allow themselves to be less self-conscious, to be less disturbed by their own ego. In which case it may help them create better or more focused work.
Although I realize I will probably give this a bit more thoughts, since that's interesting :)
Yep, exactly! I could see people who try to control things too much having a hard time getting into that state/zone and replacing it with a long cycle of fussing, but that's just how I imagine it might work. Thanks for the reply :^)
1. Being in the zone is good, but you may be functioning mostly on instinct, so the more experience you have, the better results you ll get. By that I mean that it s where that thing called craft helps you. You then have some techniques that you can rely on, and not only your gut feelings.
2. While being in the zone, it's still good to jump out of it and criticize your own work (as in you always have to be your best critic). It s almost as if criticizing yourself should be a reflex, part of your instinct. Sometimes I imagine someone commenting what I do and me trying to defend my work. If I can't defend it well, that means I better look into :)
And I've mentioned that in another comment, but that applies to any work, whether it is considered creative or technical (knowing that there is a big overlap between those). As a person doing films and web app, my thinking is not very different from one to the other.
(Thanks to you for making me think about this)
Absolutely! The work of creating comes in the preparation - on one's self and craft. It's like a boxer or mixed martial artist. The time in the ring is the payoff for all the hard work. It's also the moment of judgement for that work and talent. 2 Chainz says, Hard work beats talent, and I tend to agree.
>2. While being in the zone, it's still good to jump out of it and criticize your own work (as in you always have to be your best critic). It s almost as if criticizing yourself should be a reflex, part of your instinct. Sometimes I imagine someone commenting what I do and me trying to defend my work. If I can't defend it well, that means I better look into :)
For writing poetry, I've settled on something similar. I do think the medium affects the approach. There are times when I will write a page and a half in flow state and read it to realize I only like two lines, and I'll still feel it was time well spent. In visual arts, you can't really do this. Most of the time, I write in a flow state until something breaks the rhythm - typically the emotional/mental impact, rather than meter. When the rhythm breaks, I rewrite the part that works (physically, not editing) and attempt to take a different turn from that point. So, in the process of creating, for writing anyway, I think the editor should hang around just enough to shoo the creator onto the right path. The cutting room is a different story.
Really enjoy learning about the way you approach all this! Thanks! :^)
I feel this diagram sums it up very succinctly: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Ch...
Powerful stuff.
I love the last point "Done is the engine of more"!
Reality is engaged with only when you have secret tricks or hacks so that any game can be ended at will. When you engage in games as a gamemaster it is no longer a game, it is boring.
Executives use similar methods to create an image of perfection. This is actually good and necessary as their main function is to create games for others as a bubble while also siphoning value. Without the game, the master-slave dynamic is too raw.
Perfectionists are people who don't play games they don't think they can win. This can stifle learning, create aloofness, and make for a boring and meaningless life. At its core it is an illusion of the self having more control over reality than a human possibly can. It is a desire to be closer to God and so gives up some humanity. (which is necessarily imperfect)
Of course, when pushing or expanding the limits of humanity, pefectionism can sometimes be good. Shutting yourself in for a while can be very useful for creation. Learning is not necessary as the act is of the self, the raw knowledge being acquired already. Meaning is also not necessary because it is self-generating.
However to lock in that meaning, what is created must eventually be released and tested in the world. The 2 way interaction within a network is what creates larger meaning. Small releases are like small strategic bets. Big releases (perfectionism)are like going all in and hoping for the best.
I think you defined the opposite of a gambler more than a perfectionist here. As in, most normal people.
Perfectionists are people who don't play a game they do not completely master. Also attempt to hide eons of practice and mistakes to appear saintly. This is a vast difference.
What leads us to perfect our work (and prevents us from shipping) is hopefully not an ego problem. It's just that we might be too eager to keep improving it, instead of enjoying the current state. It's just like the belief that adding yet another feature to an app will solve everything.
You have one half where you need completely crazy and wild ideas, where it's vitally important to get started and not be paralyzed because you think that something is stupid or wrong or will not work. Here perfectionism is an enemy.
But you have the other half where you look at what you did and you try to figure out how good it is, and how it can be improved. Here, perfectionism is important because it's what will point out to you the flaws in what you have done so far.
I think the best work is created by iterating between these two mindsets. (It's even better if you can iterate with someone, where you go over what the other did until you converge.)
So I think perfectionism is something that can drive you to improve, as long as you retain the capacity to turn it off half the time, especially where you're trying to get started.
But I rarely witnessed that.
What I see very often, though, is people not feeling ready to share what they have. And I've been in countless conversations to urge people to fight this instinct (which I'm guilty of too often as well).
For instance, I re-read my posts several times before publishing (and still wondering if I left typos). But for the design, I'm happy to leave things as a work in progress, knowing I will come back to it later.
It's all about choosing your battles.
Yeah, I'm old enough to see how that works out on large timescales. No thanks.
I think it's important to show your work early, in order that others can feedback. It's very easy to perfectly create something but to make some fundamental miss-step with the overall design.
Obsessing over minutiae won't help you to see the bigger picture.
There are flavors of good engineering that allow the team to maintain velocity year over year. Too often those techniques get thrown under the perfectionism bus and then later the team blames “bad luck” [edit or ‘stupid people’ not them] for their failures.
I frequently meet people that believe themselves to be 'perfectionists' but whom create poor quality work due to a reluctance to let other see their work before it is 'done'.
In order to get perfection, you need to be doing the right thing. In order to do the right thing, you cannot be working within a bubble.
Edit: I think everybody read things into what I said which weren't there. "Look an anti-perfectionist! He must be against quality work. Little does he realise that we can be faster by focusing on 'perfection'." This is true but you need to make sure that you are not adding finesse to the wrong solution!