Is Technology Wasting Your Time?
Got your attention, didn’t I?
In a recent HBR blog post, Bain & Company’s Michael Mankins answers with a strong very likely.
Twenty years ago, new technologies like email and teleconferencing were key drivers in dramatically increasing productivity. Information flowed faster, collaboration was easier. However, by 2007 year-to-year growth in productivity was on the decline. Yet, today, a decade later, organizations continue to invest in new technology for white-collar workers. And, increases in benefits are no longer visible.
Why might this be true? To begin to understand, we need to go back to Bob Metcalf’s postulate that the value of a network increases with the square of the number of network users. (Metcalf is an early internet giant and co-inventor, with David Boggs, of the Ethernet.) As an example, consider a world with only one cellphone – very little value (assuming no connection to landlines); you might choose just to use if as a paperweight. Two cellphones, more value, but not much as you can only connect with one other person. A million cellphones, you can connect with any one of 999,999 others with cellphones. Lots of value.
The downside of this is that as the number of possible interactions increases, so does the time required to process all of them. And, of course, there is the potential of even more value – a positive – and increased time to process the interactions – a negative – every time you add a function — not just talk, but email, txting, Facebook, Twitter, and the list goes on and on.
Mankins’ interest is the impact of all these interactions on the workplace. He estimates that 30 years ago a manager might have received an average of 20 “pink slips” per day. (A “pink slip” refers to the color of the message pads on which a manager’s assistant wrote notes about incoming telephone calls that the manager was unable to take.) And, that’s about the number I received each day when I first became CIO at MIT.
Today, with the advent of voice mail and other applications like email, IM, Twitter, etc. the number of pink slips has gone to essentially zero and the number of messages has grown significantly. Estimates of several hundred messages per day per manager are common, each requiring some level of interaction, and therefore some amount of time, to handle.
Mankins’ research has also shown that the advent of on-line calendars and the ease of scheduling meetings with multiple participants has resulted in more meetings, each with more participants. These observations led Mankins and his colleagues at Bain to study these effects on how people in organizations spend their time. Here’s some of what they found:
· 15% of an organization’s collective time over all employees is spent in meetings.
· A typical mid-level manager, who works 47 hours per week, spends 21 hours in meetings (involving at least three others).
· This mid-level manager also spends 11 hours processing electronic communications of all forms.
· This leaves 15 hours for everything else. Over half of this 15 hours is spent going to and from meetings, eating lunch, in bathroom breaks, and in small blocks of time, 20 minutes or less, not long enough to do substantive work.
· As a result only 6 ½ hours are available each week for uninterrupted time to work on the staff member’s own priorities.
That is not much time to meet the demands on today’s leaders. And, these findings for how time is consumed seem low based on with what I hear from leaders today. So, what gives? Today, leaders work more than the 47 hours reported in the study and those hours mean less time with family and friends and for down time.
Other results from the study included the finding that interactions required to get work done have increased. Sixty percent of the employees needed to consult with 10 others to get their work done. This adds to the time required to complete a task. For example, the study, also reported that it took 50% longer to hire a new staff member and 30% longer to complete IT projects.
Have we reached the point of diminishing returns? Perhaps. At a minimum, we have to begin to think about how we can more effectively use the time we have. Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel, once wrote: “Just as you would not permit a fellow employee to steal a piece of office equipment, you shouldn’t let anyone walk away with the time of his fellow managers.”
What Grove is saying is that we have to be much more intentional about how we consume our time. Here are several suggestions:
· Separate the urgent, that which is critical to you and your organization’s success, from the merely important. Focus first on the urgent.
· When that next meeting appears on your calendar, before you automatically accept it, ask for the agenda and determine what value you can contribute or receive by participating. Does it contribute to your urgent priorities? If not, excuse yourself from the meeting.
· When initiating a meeting, begin with an agenda having a clear objective. Limit invitees to only those individuals essential to the meeting. Provide materials in advance so that everyone arrives at the meeting prepared. And, instill a practice of everyone arriving on time for meetings so that time is not wasted.
· Limit addressees on electronic communications to those who need the information for their work or who can provide information you need. Don’t “cc all” on your responses unless there is real value in doing that.
· …
As you work through your week, think carefully about how you are making use of the limited time you have. It’s an expendable resource. So, be intentional and focus time in meetings and communicating electronically on tasks that address your highest priorities. If you do, I believe that you will find that you will have a more productive week.
Do make your week a great one. . . . jim
Jim Bruce is a Senior Fellow and Executive Coach at MOR Associates, and Professor of Electrical Engineering, Emeritus, and CIO, Emeritus, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
References:
Michael Mankins, Is Technology Really Helping Us Get More Done?, Harvard Business Review.
Michael C. Mankins, Chris Brahm, Gregory Caimi, Your Scarcest Resource, Harvard Business Review.
- December 2024 (3)
- November 2024 (4)
- October 2024 (5)
- September 2024 (4)
- August 2024 (4)
- July 2024 (5)
- June 2024 (4)
- May 2024 (4)
- April 2024 (5)
- March 2024 (4)
- February 2024 (4)
- January 2024 (5)
- December 2023 (3)
- November 2023 (4)
- October 2023 (5)
- September 2023 (4)
- August 2023 (4)
- July 2023 (4)
- June 2023 (4)
- May 2023 (5)
- April 2023 (4)
- March 2023 (1)
- January 2023 (4)
- December 2022 (3)
- November 2022 (5)
- October 2022 (4)
- September 2022 (4)
- August 2022 (5)
- July 2022 (4)
- June 2022 (4)
- May 2022 (5)
- April 2022 (4)
- March 2022 (5)
- February 2022 (4)
- January 2022 (4)
- December 2021 (3)
- November 2021 (4)
- October 2021 (3)
- September 2021 (4)
- August 2021 (4)
- July 2021 (4)
- June 2021 (5)
- May 2021 (4)
- April 2021 (4)
- March 2021 (5)
- February 2021 (4)
- January 2021 (4)
- December 2020 (4)
- November 2020 (4)
- October 2020 (6)
- September 2020 (5)
- August 2020 (4)
- July 2020 (7)
- June 2020 (7)
- May 2020 (5)
- April 2020 (4)
- March 2020 (5)
- February 2020 (4)
- January 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (4)
- October 2019 (4)
- September 2019 (3)
- August 2019 (3)
- July 2019 (2)
- June 2019 (4)
- May 2019 (3)
- April 2019 (5)
- March 2019 (4)
- February 2019 (3)
- January 2019 (5)
- December 2018 (2)
- November 2018 (4)
- October 2018 (5)
- September 2018 (3)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (4)
- June 2018 (4)
- May 2018 (5)
- April 2018 (4)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (5)
- January 2018 (3)
- December 2017 (3)
- November 2017 (4)
- October 2017 (5)
- September 2017 (3)
- August 2017 (5)
- July 2017 (3)
- June 2017 (8)
- May 2017 (5)
- April 2017 (4)
- March 2017 (4)
- February 2017 (4)
- January 2017 (4)
- December 2016 (2)
- November 2016 (7)
- October 2016 (5)
- September 2016 (8)
- August 2016 (5)
- July 2016 (4)
- June 2016 (12)
- May 2016 (5)
- April 2016 (4)
- March 2016 (7)
- February 2016 (4)
- January 2016 (10)
- December 2015 (4)
- November 2015 (6)
- October 2015 (4)
- September 2015 (7)
- August 2015 (5)
- July 2015 (6)
- June 2015 (12)
- May 2015 (4)
- April 2015 (6)
- March 2015 (10)
- February 2015 (4)
- January 2015 (4)
- December 2014 (3)
- November 2014 (5)
- October 2014 (4)
- September 2014 (6)
- August 2014 (4)
- July 2014 (4)
- June 2014 (4)
- May 2014 (5)
- April 2014 (5)
- March 2014 (5)
- February 2014 (4)
- January 2014 (5)
- December 2013 (5)
- November 2013 (5)
- October 2013 (10)
- September 2013 (4)
- August 2013 (5)
- July 2013 (8)
- June 2013 (6)
- May 2013 (4)
- April 2013 (5)
- March 2013 (4)
- February 2013 (4)
- January 2013 (5)
- December 2012 (3)
- November 2012 (4)
- October 2012 (5)
- September 2012 (4)
- August 2012 (4)
- July 2012 (5)
- June 2012 (4)
- May 2012 (5)
- April 2012 (4)
- March 2012 (4)
- February 2012 (4)
- January 2012 (4)
- December 2011 (3)
- November 2011 (5)
- October 2011 (4)
- September 2011 (4)
- August 2011 (4)
- July 2011 (4)
- June 2011 (5)
- May 2011 (5)
- April 2011 (3)
- March 2011 (4)
- February 2011 (4)
- January 2011 (4)
- December 2010 (3)
- November 2010 (4)
- October 2010 (4)
- September 2010 (3)
- August 2010 (5)
- July 2010 (4)
- June 2010 (5)
- May 2010 (4)
- April 2010 (3)
- March 2010 (2)
- February 2010 (4)
- January 2010 (4)
- December 2009 (4)
- November 2009 (4)
- October 2009 (4)
- September 2009 (4)
- August 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (4)
- April 2009 (4)
- March 2009 (2)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (3)
- December 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (3)
- October 2008 (3)
- August 2008 (3)
- July 2008 (4)
- May 2008 (2)
- April 2008 (2)
- March 2008 (2)
- February 2008 (1)
- January 2008 (1)
- December 2007 (3)
- November 2007 (3)
- October 2007 (3)
- September 2007 (1)
- August 2007 (2)
- July 2007 (4)
- June 2007 (2)
- May 2007 (3)
- April 2007 (1)
- March 2007 (2)
- February 2007 (2)
- January 2007 (3)
- December 2006 (1)
- November 2006 (1)
- October 2006 (1)
- September 2006 (3)
- August 2006 (1)
- June 2006 (2)
- April 2006 (1)
- March 2006 (1)
- February 2006 (1)
- January 2006 (1)
- December 2005 (1)
- November 2005 (2)
- October 2005 (1)
- August 2005 (1)
- July 2005 (1)
- April 2005 (2)
- March 2005 (4)
- February 2005 (2)
- December 2004 (1)