Lazy isn’t a moral failing. It’s an economic consideration.
We have limited time, limited energy and limited resources. Allocating that effort is often done in response to what’s at stake and what’s on offer.
The clean room at a silicon fab or operating theater is clean because everyone involved puts in a lot of effort to keep it that way. And that effort is expensive.
It’s not efficiency or precision. Those are important on their own. The gap between laziness and not-lazy requires effort in the face of nuance, challenges or frustrations.
The staff at Motel 6 will put less effort into each guest’s requests than at the Ritz down the street because there’s a lot more staff per person at the Ritz.
There’s organizational laziness, in which a system is designed to have each person care a bit less about each task in exchange for completing more tasks, and there’s individual laziness, which is the natural consequence of disrespectful management.
If the boss insists on non-lazy behavior, but doesn’t give the team the time, the training, the tools or the compensation to do so, it’s not going to happen, not in the long run. Over time, not-lazy is rarely free.
AI bots have an economic incentive to do as little as they can get away with, and so do we. Programmers around the world are frustrated that coding bots almost solve the problem, but don’t seem to care enough to put in the extra cycles to get it right. But that’s what we’re (not) paying for.
The mismatches are frustrating. We might be delighted when we get not-lazy responses that we didn’t pay for, but it ruins a brand or a project when the effort we expected from a system or a person doesn’t match what we think we paid for.
Some clarifying questions:
Are our customers already paying for the non-lazy option? Or do they think they should be getting it for free?
If we wanted to disrupt our competitors by being the non-lazy option, what would we have to do and how could we communicate that?
How can we manage systems, processes and people so they have the resources and rewards they need to take the non-lazy approach?
If we’re trapped or pushed into the lazy path, how can we build systems so that laziness doesn’t damage our work?
How much extra could we charge for not-lazy? And are we prepared to keep that promise?
“You’ll pay a bit more but you’ll get more than you paid for” is almost always a winning market position.
One kind of school is about culture, compliance and community. We indoctrinate kids, for better or worse, in what it means to be in this world we’ve built, and how to do it together. We teach them how to be kids, how to be citizens and hopefully, how to be adults.
And the other kind of school is about the content. All the ‘R’s. The software that goes with the operating system we taught in the other school.
For obvious reasons, these have always been integrated.
Now that Socratic and infinitely patient and customizable AI tutors are everywhere, perhaps it makes sense to consider each separately. Let’s not compromise either on the behalf of the other.
The opposite of “I don’t know” isn’t “I’m certain.”
No, the opposite is, “I’m not sure, but…”
“I don’t know” is a conversation ender. It is almost never followed by a useful question. Instead, it’s a form of surrender. Teach me! Show me answer! Don’t make me figure it out. Most of all, let me off the hook.
Traditional education is built around the helplessness of “I don’t know.” It gives the teacher and the system all of the authority, and requires the student to memorize, obey and regurgitate.
But useful inquiry doesn’t work that way. Neither does effective conversation or even therapy.
Instead, we engage.
We engage with our hunches and our inkling, and we examine the safe spot our apparent ignorance has landed us.
Socrates had no students who sat in the back row, taking notes.
Front row, hands up, ask questions. Inquire.
We’re not asking for a guarantee or a certificate. We want your focus, your analysis and your investigation.
Culture is built on the stability of persistence.
Pop musicians have farewell tours that last for decades. The local print shop is still there, reliably getting the job done. We want things that last.
And yet…
When it’s time for a company to raise another round of investment, the smart investor treats the new round as if the old one never happened. Today, right now, is this the best use of my capital?
And the person at the buffet does the same thing. Right here, right now, which dish appeals the most?
We don’t get tomorrow over again. We can choose to spend it on the best option, not the option we committed to ten years ago.
At the lab, they don’t know the right answer. They are explorers and scientists. If you’re not failing, you’re not trying hard enough. The work at the lab requires mutual support, shared information and a commitment to the process of discovery.
At the factory, the answer is known. It’s productivity that’s being pursued. Do it a little faster, a little better and a little more reliably than yesterday. Cut costs. Repeat.
And the dentist? It’s not rote work, but it’s not a dance with the unknown. Meet a client, diagnosis the problem and do the work efficiently as well. Different than yesterday, but it certainly rhymes.
Where do you work?
It could be that you’re getting exactly what you signed up for.
[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]
Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe.