discussing time (& speed expectations)

================

“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.
“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
―

J.R.R. Tolkien

================

“How did it get so late so soon?”
―

Dr. Seuss

=================

The other day I eavesdropped on an interesting conversation between two people discussing ‘time expectations <under the guise of “why did you do this?”>.

It reminded me how often we miss the coded language in conversations.

What began my eavesdropping?

“I can give you…” <implication: “I, personally, don’t need”>

Therein began the negotiation of speed expectations.

“Today is Thursday <establish base> … how ‘bout Monday you get it done?” <Implication: I could certainly get it done by Monday>

“Its noon <establish base>, can we get it done by 3?” <Implication: Well, I could>.

The code in the conversation is always there when discussing time if you pay attention to it.

Pick a topic.

Time of response.

Cadence of communication.

Fast, festina lente, quick or quicker.

What is fast enough?

But I can guarantee whenever time is discussed there will be a conflict between Time expectations.

Why?

Speed seems to have increased in value, at least perception-wise, to a point where its perceived value is higher than, well, almost anything else.

This is contrary to reality.

Speed far too often forces us to make decisions based on limited or ambiguous information. Done well, decision making and consequences is actually a patient methodical process where at the beginning of the process, when the finer details have yet to be clarified, there is a need to be bolder in our decision-making – particularly because these early decisions have the most far-reaching consequences. I call these the decisions that make THE decisions.

Conversely, when we know more and have fewer doubts, there are less fundamental things to decide & it is all about speed in terms of assimilating what you know into some meaningful ‘thing’ to make the real decision.

This is called the Consequences Model created by the Danish organization theorists Kristian Kreiner and Søren Christensen.

Philosophically this means the most important question with regard to speed is how we can bridge the chasm between doubt and decision. Too many people tend to do this by ‘feel’ or ‘gut.’

We should be patiently providing stimulus and assessing cues and responding to those cues. This does not mean slow or lack of speed, just not impatience.

================

“Impatience kills quickly.”

Katerina Stoykova Klemer

=================

That said.

I believe we could all become more adept at making choices.  Because, if anything, we seem to have become worse at making thoughtful choices.

Now. I am all for, and a huge proponent of not dicking around <the technical term for ‘not wasting time overthinking’> when a choice needs to be made. But there is a difference between making speedy decisions and making a decision because speed is the main criteria.

Of course … this is festina lente. Make haste slowly.

This is becoming more important because the fear of choices, leading to making the most obvious or most popular or the most expedient <speediest>choice, is plaguing not only our personal lives but more importantly the business world.

Fortunately there are scientists at work trying to figure out why.

Psychologist Barry Schwartz shared an interesting (and slightly disturbing) theory about choices and happiness.

======================

“The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all that is disappointing about the option that you chose.”

Barry Schwartz

================

Barry Schwartz studies the link between economics and psychology and calls it the paradox of choice.   It seems the more choices we have, the less likely we are to make a decision, which ultimately makes us unhappy.  Schwartz suggests that choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed and, ultimately, not happier but more dissatisfied.

I found it interesting because he actually suggests <kind of> that having more options doesn’t increase our overall satisfaction <benefit + happiness>.

I will say that not discussed often enough is the relationship between speed <time> and regrets. The fear of choosing one thing before you even choose the other <which drives regret>. I call this the internalization of opportunities/costs/loss.  Or maybe it is simply dwelling on the benefits of the next best options that have been forgone by a choice <losing something, albeit even speculatively, that you never had>.

Every choice has opportunity costs and since we live in a world of infinite possibilities, it’s so hard to figure out what to do, when, and where.

If you start thinking this way, you begin living in a world strewn with hypotheticals.

If I do A, then this will happen. 

But what if I do B?

Will I be happier?  Will I get back more? Will everyone around me be more satisfied?

Or what about C? That looks good.

But someone suggested D.

You get it. There are 26 letters in the alphabet and while most of us stop way before Z … even getting to D can be maddening. Worse? All 26 letters offer you 25 regret opportunities <of varying degrees>.

It seems like the world is your oyster in that everything is possible, but you don’t take advantage of any opportunities because you’re not sure of what’s best.

To make matters worse, more choices tend to raise our expectations: we think more choice = better quality.

Anyway. I use scientific advice to suggest that there are some happy few people who look at each choice discreetly. More choices do not equal better quality to them. They do not need the ‘more’ they simply need the context. These people drive us crazy because they do not typically offer us choices <we may like ‘more’ but they offer ‘less’>, but rather they offer us ‘the’ choice.

And it is often a good choice <not the best>.

The best? Shit. Is there really a best? There are most often better choices than others … and they identify the better of the better. This is typically where we end up screwing up the value of these ‘good choice people’. We want ‘more choice’ and they want ‘make a right choice’ <and move along>.

We are impatient humans yet we always want more and we seem to always want it all in less time.

I actually call this ROC <Return on Choice>. Most of us are not good at assessing ROC <return on choice: the return on whatever we have invested in making the choice as well as once the choice is made>.

We suck at this.

There is the investment in developing the choices <and however many we need to feel like we have enough to assess, assuming that is a finite number>.

There is the investment in actually assessing the choices <better, betterest & best … assuming a best can be actually identified>.

There is the investment in the actual choice.

Oh.

And there is investment post-choice.  Yup. Even if we choose the rightest choice we either have angst over whether it was the best or we have angst hangover from the choice process.

Business also has their own variety of this which I call the paradox of organizational choice.

The end result is the same as Schwartz’s <too many choices creates diminished value>. But the path to the result is different <if not just as paradoxical>.

Here is that paradoxical business organization logic path.

Faster good choices are better.

Few good “choicers” <people who can do the first thought> available.

Many within organization believes they are good ‘choicers’  <and permitting them to make choices has a paradox effect of building their personal self-esteem as ‘good choicers’ while actually implementing less than optimal choices thereby encouraging poor choice making>.

Organizations, to be more efficient & effective, should drive choices <all> to the select few good ‘choicers’

Unselected majority ultimately grumpy <but organization actually benefits>.

Wow. That is not only a paradox but a Gordian knot <or in layman’s terms … ‘playing Twister with your organization’>.

Look. All I am suggesting is that some people are really good at making ‘impatient choices.’ They have that mental clarity that actually improves in impatient moments and the maturity to slow down the moment and say ‘let’s not be so quick to make haste’ <and actually be right about it>.

But not everyone is like this. And, in fact, they are a minority.

I imagine the optimal world would be to funnel all choices through this minority.

Imagine being the key word because that is an imaginary world. We couldn’t do it.

If your life, or your business, has one or two … use them, preserve them, foster them … and trust them <you will go farther than you ever imagined>.

If you do not have the luxury of having one of them around <which by the way … is an entire article on how most of us suck at accepting someone is better at this than we are> you have to learn to manage impatience. Yeah. Easier said than done.

I imagine the point here is by acknowledging and accepting the issue gives you the opportunity to actually deal with the issue.

In the end, the way we discuss and think about time & speed in business & Life is rarely a simple discussion. I could actually argue it is a battle between patience & impatience.

I will point out that organizational impatience leads to the permitting of poor choices <and a quicker death of a thousand cuts>.

Personal impatience in choice making probably just leads to general unhappiness <kind of a different thousand little cuts>.

Listen the next time you discuss speed. It’s really about choices, decision-making and what makes everyone happy than it is about speed & time.