Time cannot be found, it can only be made by reducing unnecessary tasks
I consider it of utmost importance, in the context of time management, to introduce the concept that time is not found, but made. The thesis of “made time” derives, again, from scientific tradition1. This one specifically from Russian science2, but we will get to that in the next note; before that, I would like to speculate about the historical genesis of the concepts of productivity, efficiency and time-management.
I tried tracking back to the root premise from which the contemporary view on the concepts I listed above stems. If we skip Ancient times and the principle of cognitive apprenticeship3, we find ourselves squarely in the 20th century, before the work of Frederick Taylor, “Shop management”. Obviously there were others, but Taylor was the first4 who applied scientific methods to managing time, as far as I can see, without conducting a proper literature review.
No matter my view on Taylor’s work5, he devised the basic techniques that are used (even nowadays) to measure productivity: output multiplied by time. In other words, the more you produce (usually a unit) in the shortest period possible, the more productive you are. This calculation and perception of productivity is more than adequate for plant workers, but crumbles when applied to office executives.
The first6 who noticed the discrepancy that arises from measuring the productivity of office workers in the same manner as plant workers was Peter Drucker, somewhere in the sixties. He believed that a person who is not working with his hands in the plant, but uses his brain7, cannot be counted as productive or, in many cases, as unproductive by the amount of output he produces8. Even though Drucker was the first, he is not the last to raise the question of what tools and what parameters had to be measured, so that it might afford enough transparency to confidently state that this or that person has or hasn’t been productive/efficient.
This question is followed by another: what is productivity, or who is the efficient person? As my friend and I said previously, we consider an efficient and productive person the one who does more important tasks than urgent tasks. Which leads us to a conclusion. The one that might be common sense, but, alas, as Voltaire used to say, common sense is not so common.
The prime example of such an attitude towards productivity was Alexander Lyubishev, a Russian biologist who chronicled 56 years of his life. About his system of logging and how it helped him avoid unimportant and urgent tasks we shall discuss in the following note.
BIO
🧠 theBrain mapping
ID: 202605300658 Source:: Friend:: Child:: Next:: Chronometry that helps protect schedule and manage your life
Footnotes
-
I fancy myself a scientist of sorts, and hope that I am perceived as such. ↩
-
We will talk a lot in the following note of Lyubishev and his system of chronometry. ↩
-
The concept whereby a child learns how to manage time and his daily activities by modeling what adults do. ↩
-
At least I think so ↩
-
I consider it a poor example. It set a precedent that plagues us nowadays. The majority of office workers lean towards Taylorism when the issue of productivity is raised, and in my opinion it is the poorest theory for drawing inspiration. ↩
-
In my opinion, first. ↩
-
Scientists, the majority of modern office workers, accountants, IT specialists, teachers, doctors, engineers, etc. ↩
-
Lines of code written, patients treated, lessons conducted, etc. ↩
-
Yes, I added a descriptive adjective to the basic concept of productivity. ↩
-
In the best tradition of Russian science, I learned one trick that helps me protect my calendar: when somebody approaches me, I use Lyubishev’s saying that he used to express his unwillingness to commit himself to an undesired task: I say that I haven’t planned time for this in my schedule. ↩
-
This last one is not about doing urgent tasks instead of important ones; on the contrary, it is about prioritizing important tasks. Which to make first under certain conditions. ↩