I think this is true and I use my "background brain" a lot, specially overnight to deal with problems. Sometimes I'll even intentionally not give any thought to a problem of the day because I know I'll wake up with the answer tomorrow anyway, why waste time with my "primary brain" train of thought on it?
What “work” looks like
61–70 of 236 posts
Re: What “work” looks like
#62These people going for walks, taking showers, napping and solving problems: I don’t have this experience. Instead for me it is using pen and paper that does it for me. And it seems more efficient to have a computer nearby to browse code or docs while I do it. Breaks are helpful for maintaining energy but not for eurekas. But I agree that if walks make you more productive and you are thinking about work then that is a…
For me it is the reverse. My best creative time is the sauna, followed by the shower, and lying in bed in third position. Pen and paper work great for fleshing out stuff, but not for the original insights. Once we get to the keyboard and screen that is the implementation of ideas already formed elsewhere.
This is not a straight cascade, but different phases influencing each other. I also want to point out that its not a value statement. All phases have their own merit, and all of them pose their own challenges.
At least for me, doing without any of them will grind creative productivity to a halt.
Re: What “work” looks like
#63A big part of the problem is the perception of what work is.
When someone can see you at your desk hitting keys or standing in front of a white board drawing diagrams there is the perception thaat you're doing something. When you're staring out a window or go for walk during "work" time the perception is that you're goofing off because there is no visible evidence of the mental processes going on.
So the interessting question is how can we change the perception?
Re: What “work” looks like
#64Back when I started as a freelancer, I initially copied the 9-to-5 rhythm of „working“. That, despite having viewed this forced window of work as one of the biggest annoyances that come with a job. Over time, I could overcome this „weird“ feeling of not sitting at my desk while working. It went quite a bit like the author describes: - Load up on context and information. - Start outlining the problem. - When stuck, tr…
> However, while employed, have you tried to go out for an extended walk or do something else away from your computer, outside of the building you are required to work in? I'm 2 decades into my career amongst multiple different employers in different industries (including traditional stuffy ones), and I've never had anyone even raise an eyebrow at people wandering off for a few hours unannounced if you're billing the…
I've been recently reprimanded for being seen too often drinking water at the kitchen.
Re: What “work” looks like
#65I strongly agree: "The mantra of sharing your work and involving everyone in decisions naturally leads to inviting and copying people into things that add no value to them, or you." Fred Brooks, in his book The Design Of Design, includes a section on "The Magic Power of Teams Of Two". In his opinion, large teams cannot get anything done, and most innovation comes from individuals, but Brooks feels that teams of two p…
I can attest to this. Furthermore, teams of two make it more difficult to check out of a shared problem and allow the other team members to do the work, thus it improves the overall performance.
Re: What “work” looks like
#66That's one of the reasons I think being a founder is probably the most freeing job title one can have. There's no single human making judgements about your performance. Instead, the market is the judge. That way, you focus on leverage and impact, not on "time on desk". Also worth noting that sometimes there's no substitute to just sitting down and grinding away.
Many founders report to their shareholders though.
That’s true, but, in my experience, shareholders are way more likely to judge you for impact rather than “grind time”, especially because they cannot measure “grind time” anyway.
Re: What “work” looks like
#67Part of the brainstorming method with a room full of people is to extract insights that should have already have been gathered in research.
It lessens the likelihood that the wrong person is left to solve the problem by themselves because you have the input from others too. Even if they are the person who eventually carries selected idea through to implementation at least they’ve been exposed to insights and conversations from other ‘stakeholders’.
Often consultancies will involve more people (e.g. the customer) in the idea generation activity to bring them along on the journey. Brainstorms can definitely be done badly but also managed well by experienced facilitators.
Re: What “work” looks like
#68I do a 5K walk each morning. Takes most of an hour (I’m just getting up, now, and will be walking in a few minutes). I put on headphones, and listen to fairly mindless techno music, while I walk.
I use it to “triage” the day’s tasks.
I often figure out solutions to blockers, during this time.
Re: What “work” looks like
#69I do a 5K walk each morning. Takes most of an hour (I’m just getting up, now, and will be walking in a few minutes). I put on headphones, and listen to fairly mindless techno music, while I walk. I use it to “triage” the day’s tasks. I often figure out solutions to blockers, during this time.
Honest question (as in, I'm not insinuating what I expect the answer to be): do you think you'd be less efficient or more efficient if you triaged the day's tasks at your desk?
Re: What “work” looks like
#70I strongly agree: "The mantra of sharing your work and involving everyone in decisions naturally leads to inviting and copying people into things that add no value to them, or you." Fred Brooks, in his book The Design Of Design, includes a section on "The Magic Power of Teams Of Two". In his opinion, large teams cannot get anything done, and most innovation comes from individuals, but Brooks feels that teams of two p…
I, personally, feel that instead of two it would need to be three to have a more diverse set of opinions and to break any stalemates. I've worked for many years with just one other person and the number of times where we had ideological differences and not enough exposure to alternatives are innumerable.