5 ms·

Inefficiency isn’t the same as adaptability. It has no intrinsic value. Ineffective people aren’t automatically great generalists and ineffective companies aren

Inefficiency isn’t the same as adaptability. It has no intrinsic value. Ineffective people aren’t automatically great generalists and ineffective companies aren‘t better suited to adapt to new market trends. This is a bad case of one-dimensional thinking. All the anecdotes in this thread are about optimizing for a particular outcome and failing to anticipate variations there. Even the human body stores fat not because it‘s an inefficient machine, but because it has adapted to (sometimes rare) situations of low food availability. So, let‘s not celebrate slacking by claiming it to have some intrinsic value.

marcus_holmes 8y ago
OK, no they're not the same things, but there is a trade-off there. Large companies in stable markets reward efficiency. Staff KPI's are all about reducing costs, because that's where the profit growth is (because the market is stable and so is revenue). But efficiency is achieved by streamlining processes. That streamlining is almost always at the expense of adaptability. The processes become optimised, but brittle and resistant to change. Which is obvious if you think about it - the process becomes designed to do one thing incredibly well, and the staff become adapted to that one process. Trying to change the process (or staff) makes it more expensive, by definition: because if it made it cheaper it would be an optimisation and would have happened already. "cutting out slack" does equate to making the process less adaptable. Then something changes and it's hard, if not impossible, to get the process to change and the people to think differently. Managers whose bonuses are tied to their KPIs are reluctant to make necessary but costly changes to their department if those KPIs are all linked to efficiency. This is why large organisations are doing their innovation thinking in smaller, separate "skunkworks" or "labs" units. Also, why large companies are incredibly efficient at producing profits from a stable market, but get out-competed instantly by smaller, more adaptable, less efficient startups.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > Also, why large companies are incredibly efficient at producing profits from a stable market, but get out-competed instantly by smaller, more adaptable, less efficient startups. Because if they‘re worth their money, they can afford to. Large corporation routinely buy small competitors with profits made from their streamlined operation.
  - marcus_holmes 8y ago
    true. And then immediately destroy them by trying to make them efficient ;)
PavlikPaja 8y ago
>So, let‘s not celebrate slacking by claiming it to have some intrinsic value. This is the exact reason why slacking evolved. We are unable to expend all the energy, because those who were and faced an emergency at the wrong moment when they were already exhausted were either unable to deal with the problem or collapsed and died.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > This is the exact reason why slacking evolved. Speculation! Slacking individuals probably got turned into food more often than not, until we discovered agriculture. > those who were and faced an emergency at the wrong moment when they were already exhausted were either unable to deal with the problem or collapsed and died. Those who weren't prepared probably died. Preparation could mean stocking up in supplies, training, building weapons.
  - ramblerman 8y ago
    > Speculation! Slacking individuals probably got turned into food more often than not, until we discovered agriculture. Speculation, followed by your immediate counter speculation! Yoel Harari, using examples from still living hunter gatherers calculated their avg 'working' week was ~20 hours.
    - crawfordcomeaux 8y ago
      Was about to make a case around how indigenous cultures work, but you nailed it. I'll go a step further: I think the future holds for the world an emergent culture of compassionate giving. A world designed to be loving as a first principle. In that world, "slacking" is what you do when you let out some rope. Or it's a word that old people use to signal when they're either having a flashback, have chosen to carry on judgmental ways of the past, and/or are triggered. Unless we're talking about the loving world beyond the point where all the slacker-haters died off.
crawfordcomeaux 8y ago
Hi, I'm a recovering information addict. My particular outcome that I optimized for is to learn to sustainably coevolve with information, something I am and am immersed in, according to the perspective that all existence is information. Inefficiency is not the same as adaptability; it is a strategy for adaptation & one that's more sustainable than perfectionism. What you subjectively call slacking, I call rest or emotional avoidance. Rest is extremely undervalued in this capitalistically enslaved world; people are literally working themselves to death or debilitation. Emotional avoidance is highly promoted in America; escapism is the norm for those who distract themselves from their emotional growth, whether it be via video games, binge watching stuff, following and debating politics, or just learning things. I'm not saying those activities are bad, btw...simply that people are using them addictively to avoid working on themselves & we can see it reflected in social media all over the place. Slacking to me: remaining the same person I was 3 months ago. If my personality isn't changing, I'm certainly not growing.

marcus_holmes 8y ago

OK, no they're not the same things, but there is a trade-off there. Large companies in stable markets reward efficiency. Staff KPI's are all about reducing costs, because that's where the profit growth is (because the market is stable and so is revenue). But efficiency is achieved by streamlining processes. That streamlining is almost always at the expense of adaptability. The processes become optimised, but brittle and resistant to change. Which is obvious if you think about it - the process becomes designed to do one thing incredibly well, and the staff become adapted to that one process. Trying to change the process (or staff) makes it more expensive, by definition: because if it made it cheaper it would be an optimisation and would have happened already. "cutting out slack" does equate to making the process less adaptable. Then something changes and it's hard, if not impossible, to get the process to change and the people to think differently. Managers whose bonuses are tied to their KPIs are reluctant to make necessary but costly changes to their department if those KPIs are all linked to efficiency. This is why large organisations are doing their innovation thinking in smaller, separate "skunkworks" or "labs" units. Also, why large companies are incredibly efficient at producing profits from a stable market, but get out-competed instantly by smaller, more adaptable, less efficient startups.

lazyjones 8y ago
> Also, why large companies are incredibly efficient at producing profits from a stable market, but get out-competed instantly by smaller, more adaptable, less efficient startups. Because if they‘re worth their money, they can afford to. Large corporation routinely buy small competitors with profits made from their streamlined operation.
- marcus_holmes 8y ago
  true. And then immediately destroy them by trying to make them efficient ;)

PavlikPaja 8y ago

>So, let‘s not celebrate slacking by claiming it to have some intrinsic value. This is the exact reason why slacking evolved. We are unable to expend all the energy, because those who were and faced an emergency at the wrong moment when they were already exhausted were either unable to deal with the problem or collapsed and died.

lazyjones 8y ago
> This is the exact reason why slacking evolved. Speculation! Slacking individuals probably got turned into food more often than not, until we discovered agriculture. > those who were and faced an emergency at the wrong moment when they were already exhausted were either unable to deal with the problem or collapsed and died. Those who weren't prepared probably died. Preparation could mean stocking up in supplies, training, building weapons.
- ramblerman 8y ago
  > Speculation! Slacking individuals probably got turned into food more often than not, until we discovered agriculture. Speculation, followed by your immediate counter speculation! Yoel Harari, using examples from still living hunter gatherers calculated their avg 'working' week was ~20 hours.
  - crawfordcomeaux 8y ago
    Was about to make a case around how indigenous cultures work, but you nailed it. I'll go a step further: I think the future holds for the world an emergent culture of compassionate giving. A world designed to be loving as a first principle. In that world, "slacking" is what you do when you let out some rope. Or it's a word that old people use to signal when they're either having a flashback, have chosen to carry on judgmental ways of the past, and/or are triggered. Unless we're talking about the loving world beyond the point where all the slacker-haters died off.

crawfordcomeaux 8y ago

Hi, I'm a recovering information addict. My particular outcome that I optimized for is to learn to sustainably coevolve with information, something I am and am immersed in, according to the perspective that all existence is information. Inefficiency is not the same as adaptability; it is a strategy for adaptation & one that's more sustainable than perfectionism. What you subjectively call slacking, I call rest or emotional avoidance. Rest is extremely undervalued in this capitalistically enslaved world; people are literally working themselves to death or debilitation. Emotional avoidance is highly promoted in America; escapism is the norm for those who distract themselves from their emotional growth, whether it be via video games, binge watching stuff, following and debating politics, or just learning things. I'm not saying those activities are bad, btw...simply that people are using them addictively to avoid working on themselves & we can see it reflected in social media all over the place. Slacking to me: remaining the same person I was 3 months ago. If my personality isn't changing, I'm certainly not growing.