Forget Setting Goals. Focus on Systems Instead
entrepreneur.com
entrepreneur.com
Then one of my mentors gave me a challenge: 1) In 15 seconds, write down all of the things that you can think about, in the entire world, that is the color white...(I could only muster up about 2 things)...Then, 2) in 15 seconds, write down all of the things that you can think about, in you refrigerator, that are white...(I came up with about 8 things)
This was then led to him describing how I should not think about the entrepreneurship life as an unlimiting venture, he argued that I should put limits on myself and develop a process to get to whatever goal I set out to achieve.
This article echoes that sentiment of focusing on making the process more efficient and use the goals as a way to plan, but don't focus on the goal, focus on the process. I really liked this article. Thank you for sharing!
I guess my question is how are things in my refrigerator only white by happen-stance and not by definition? As everything that I see (regardless of where I see it at) is a product of my own definition, so that should not be of matter. What should be of matter is how quickly I am able to recall the things that are only defined by the scope I place them in (be in everywhere or in my refrigerator)
But I don't see any reason you couldn't name a specific object in response to the "everything in the world" question. I also can't think of many objects that are white but not prototypically white. So maybe I've misunderstood too.
On the other hand, when considering my fridge, I only thought of what is white-looking in there... Milk is prototypically white, but cheese, eggs, bread, mold on some old sausages, etc... are just kinda sorta white sometimes. But within the limits of a fridge they're acceptable examples of white.
I think that's what the GP was arguing: when asked for "white things in the world" you naturally place the bar for "white" much higher than when asked for "white things in your fridge".
In contrast, when thinking of white things in your fridge, you can answer "eggs" if the eggs in your fridge are white, even though eggs may or may not be white in general, so they are arguably not valid for the list of things in the world.
I'm not saying you consciously went through this line of reasoning; I'm saying that the question frames different kinds of answers, entirely apart from your mentor's intended lesson of "reducing scope allows you to think more deeply about what's left in scope".
It bothers me when ideas are presented without even a nod towards their history. I guess all writers are not obliged to do scholarship like journalists and academics, but I wish the publication would point out that we are not reading journalism right now.
Even if this guy developed this stuff all by himself, the fact that these are not globally original ideas should be acknowledged. Adams' book cheerfully points out that none of his stuff is really new apart from his personal anecdotes.
I think it might be easier to just recognize that an awfully lot of the web isn't any kind of journalism. For instance, this is a reposted blog entry on a site full of "Top X" lists. The context is the disclaimer.
">Even if this guy developed this stuff all by himself, the fact that these are not globally original ideas should be acknowledged. Adams' book cheerfully points out that none of his stuff is really new apart from his personal anecdotes."
Why?
One is a 1300 word blog post, the other is a 257 page book with a major publisher.
It would make for an arduous life if everyone was required to research and/or acknowledge the first recorded instance of every notion they have before sharing.
Such is the nature of professional standards. Just a nod is enough.
It's a great idea, certainly, but this type of thinking has been around for decades. The first major adoption was probably W. Edwards Deming's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming) quality principles that were used to pull Japan out of the post-WWII recession. His ideas on systems thinking and management are still relevant today.
This idea -- that systems thinking is valuable, and how to approach it -- is such a generic concept as to be unattributable. It would be nice to have a nod toward history, certainly, and it would help support his writing; but I just like to see it in the first place. We need more of this.
In fact, Scott Adams' piece of wisdom was written in much the same manner, and with exactly the same source: the writer himself.
Systems thinking has been around for a long, long time and this wisdom is not new. We should just be glad it's coming up again and again, because it is correct, and that's what's important.
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/goals_vs_systems/
EDIT: oops, this was after the book. The one before the book is as follows:
The Goal vs System approach work for two distinct types of people. If you generlaly like laid back, passive work (ex. stable job with a a few nice sideprojects, worksout everyday, has a nice rythmic life), then the System approach is for you. You're already pretty content with your life, and everything you do should work toward maximizing stability and hapiness.
The goal approach is different. If you're a frequent procrstinator; if you have brief bursts of productivity followed by long lulls of laziness; then goal is for you. Goal forces you to deal with situations that you'd rather procrastinate, essentially keeping your energy in check.
For most entrepreneur, I'd imagine the second approach would work better.
The way you'd think about procrastination, for example, wouldn't be to simply set goals of productivity, but to find the underlying causes of your procrastination. Often this is a lack of organization, a lack of system to determine what to do next, a physiological issue, a lack of time to meet your basic needs, or a lack of ability.
All of these have systemic roots, and systematic solutions. Improve your system and get your tasks out of your head (GTD), fix your metabolism (systematic exercise, diet, etc), change your schedule to make time for your unmet needs, or systematically learn skills that allow you to progress faster.
Systems thinking isn't about ignoring goals, but rather about solving the roadblocks, which are usually systemic in nature due to the natural complexity of human nature.
Rarely are solutions so simple as "want your goal harder." Look one or two levels deeper, and you get into systems thinking, and you find better solutions that are more effective. You still have to want your goal, but you'll be more successful at actually reaching it.
I specifically bring up entrepreneurs because 1.) I assume most people here can connect and 2.) it's one of the professions where short term productivity fix (2-3 years) is more important than bringing a lifetime of "fixes"
Yes you can solve your underlying procrastination problem. But assuming it's an underlying psychological issue, can you genuinely undue decades of "damage" in short enough timeframe to run your company?
Simply put, there just isnt' time for you to accomplish whatever habit you didn't have before but want to gain by using a system. That's why a system is great for people who are fine with a stable, long-term job. But for an entrepreneur, a "quick fix" solution of using goals will get you further.
Sure you can procrastinate or eat that bag of chips - if your system sucks, then your system sucks.
His last sentence: Goals can provide direction and even push you forward in the short-term, but eventually a well-designed system will always win. Having a system is what matters. Committing to the process is what makes the difference.
If you are a procrastinator, how will goals help? Everytime you miss your goal, wouldn't you just push off to next week / month / year?
I think your aim should still be to, at minimum, cultivate a system that is aligned with both your short and long-term goals. Then, when circumstances allow, you are free to exceed that minimum by racing to meet ambitious goals. But you should never let anything break the 'background process' or the 'system' (aka. routine). Write 50 words a day, anything. It really does add up big time.
"Education is what remains when what has been learned has been forgotten", Skinner, I believe. Well what is education then? I believe it is the holistic coherent state of mind which hoovers above individual subjects. But nobody tells you how to acquire that. In school we are only taught separate subjects. Nobody guides us in making a coherent hole of it. So that we can if not fully understand then at least recognize and respect the complexity and dynamics everywhere in the world around us.
I'm also finding learning about systems practice is making a huge impact on how I consider my work and my role within it. My goal in taking the MSc was to eventually become a "real" engineer and I'm finding systems to be a hugely important first step with that.
>Can you imagine if I had made it my goal to write two books this year? Just writing that sentence stresses me out.
This is precisely why the goal is important. This guy focused on the system, and instead of writing two books, produced twice as many words of not-books.
At college I had some friends who wrote many extremely cool game demos. Not one published a game. I focused on publishing a game. It turns out that writing a game involves a hell of a lot more than writing a demo (a lot of boring shit actually).
I expect it is the same with books and online articles. 115,000 words of articles doesn't make a book, and I expect doesn't require the practitioner to develop a system capable of writing books.
Jack Dorsey recommended this book at the recent Startup School
http://www.amazon.com/The-Score-Takes-Care-Itself/dp/1591843...
> In the last 12 months, I've written over 115,000 words. The typical book is about 50,000 to 60,000 words, so I have basically written two books this year.
No, he hasn't written two books. A book is usually not a collection of random articles, but has a clear structure. Furthermore, only writing the book will never get it published. Whether one wants to self-publish or work with a publisher, both things will need a significant time/work investment at various points in time, and will most likely not be covered in his (initial) system.
Similarly, if you wanted to launch a software business, you'd probably create a system that includes writing software. If you're good, it may also include talking to users. If you'd forget about your goal and just followed that system, you'd never launch. Even if you arrive at a state where you want to release your software, you need to (consciously) break your system and care about one-off tasks like setting up a company, terms of service and what-not.
"You know those things that we start doing almost by chance and they end up becoming a goal in life? There's a lot of people that choose their profession like this: do something because you want to and then that thing ends up being so important that it lasts many, many years. It doesn't mean that it's any less important than the projects that already start out with large goals."
There's obviously something to be said for marrying the two. I've been captivated by a subject matter for my entire adult life (though I'm only in my 30s) but I never seriously tried to make it into a business. I never made it a matter of 'sink or swim' and I think that's been my problem.
Built to Last by Collins covers this a lot. They don't skip goals (it's a big part of it) but much of the book is about soft things done right. Leadership is huge. Building systems is huge.
1. Make it easier to exercise everyday by choosing sports that are close to home (or at home).
2. Make it easier to not indulge in junk food by not having junk food at home.
3. Make it easier to drink more water by having the same water bottle as part of the gear you carry with you.
4. Make it easy to not waste time watching TV by not having a TV.
5. Make it easy to not waste time playing video games by not uninstalling video games once you are done indulging in them.
Never.