Why is there such a proliferation of productivity writers? (And am I one of them?)

(This article was partly inspired by this great article about the proliferation of the same types of stories.)

Maybe I need to tweak my Medium follows or start rabbit-holing in different places. Perhaps it’s just my imagination, or maybe there’s some sort of subconscious competitiveness stirring within me, but…

Aren’t there a lot of productivity writers popping up lately? (Or their cousins, the writers/bloggers who write about writing/blogging.)

This is the general narrative theme:

1. I didn’t particularly like my previous career/life/habits.
2. I had an epiphany.
3. I made a change.
4. I realized that I can turn my epiphany outward and help others make change.
5. I am recruiting others to join me on my journey! I am building a community!

This is how I imagine the thought process actually went:

1. Ugh, this sucks.
2. I don’t want this to suck anymore. I should Google around to see what others in this boat have done.
3. I can do this too!
4. I can do what those people did too!
5. They all say to make a mailing list. This guy says if I only get 100,000 e-mail addresses, I can get a book deal and a sweet advance! This gal tells me exactly how to write my article headlines for the most reads. This couldn’t be easier!

Perhaps this analogy is a stretch, but in some ways, these dynamics play out like a pyramid scheme. Of course, there’s no one directing this so it’s not really a “scheme” (although in some cases…), but there’s an Invisible Hand at work for sure.

So, who the heck am I to make the above statements?

I’m someone who has flirted with some of the above: I didn’t like my trajectory, I changed it, and I like to write about it. Oh, and my book costs money, and I am considering making an online course on productivity and such.

I am dangerously close to the productivity writer that this article is aimed it… and I might even be that writer.

I just shuddered.

With that important caveat made, here’s why I think there’s such a proliferation (by extension these reasons apply to me too):

Writing about productivity is easier than actually being productive.

We’re immersed in our productivity, even when we write about productivity. If we’re vaguely self-aware, we can observe ourselves and write about what we see. It’s easier than creating something.

Writing about writing is easier than actually writing.

There are several authors on Amazon who have transitioned from writing works of fiction or general non-fiction into writing works about writing works of fiction or general non-fiction. Why? Because it’s easier (and maybe it sells better, I don’t know.)

Writing about productivity and/or writing about writing feels productive.

Someone might read this and it might change their world! Look, I wrote something! Writing is what I do. It’s inherently productive. I’m productive!

When others perceive us as a guru, we feel like a guru.

It’s so much easier when others perceive us as great because we needn’t ask ourselves tough questions. It’s usually only when we sense that others do not perceive us as great that we start looking within. This is dangerous.

An identity as a writer of productivity or writer of writing is a wonderful way to productively procrastinate.

Most people get things done via “productive procrastination.” There’s often one (or several) things we don’t want to do, so we do everything but. Used mindfully, this is a great productivity technique. But without self-awareness, it’s a mask. It’s a delusion. And worst of all: It allows us to hide in plain sight as a productive person when we’re actually neglecting our innermost aspirations.

OK, smartass, what’s the solution?

I don’t know. But here are two rules that guide my thinking as a productivity “producer” and “consumer.”

Look for systems, not people.

The stories of productive people are very interesting, and they can be very helpful in illustrating how various principles and concepts are applied. But they should be there to serve as examples — means to an end, not means unto themselves.

Systems are far more valuable takeaways than “here’s what I realized this morning as I tried to write this sentence that I am now writing.”

As a general rule, don’t subscribe to mailing lists.

It’s so easy to type in our e-mail address and it’s rewarding to get some neat freebie in the mail. I’m already subscribed to 572 lists, what’s one more? I might really benefit from this one!

But, with few exceptions, mailing lists are a raw deal. Having a blog e-mailed to you is one thing, as are one-and-done lists that serve some purpose (like an e-mail course or such.)

With permanent lists, you’re there to bolster a number and to become the sought-after repeat customer. Will you get some “freebies?” To be sure.

But are they worth your precious resources?

In a few cases, maybe. But overall, no. And the chances of a list being the former are so small that it’s not worth subscribing to find out.

The SMART Method isn’t that smart. It really isn't.

Here I elaborate on why I prefer the term goal management versus goal “planning” or “creating” or “setting”:

The typical goal planning/creating/setting plan-of-action is the SMART Method. This is a great method — don’t get me wrong — but it’s inadequate. Let me explain. 

Below are the SMART characteristics that each goal should have, interjected with why each is lacking. (This is why I prefer the SMARTEST Approach.)

According to the SMART Method, goals ought to be:

(S)pecific

If you don’t make some decisions up-front about what your goal is, and what it is not, you’ll never quite know where you’re heading. This is why it is important that goals are specific.

Here are some examples:

• The goal “self-publish a book” is within my control and seems tractable, but more work remains. There are infinite types of books one can write. Fiction, nonfiction, something in the middle. Hundreds of genres. Any imaginable topic. “Self — publish a fantasy novel” is specific.
• “Learn the ten most important Calculus theorems” is far better than “Get better at the GRE Math section.”
• “Lift weights three mornings a week, alternating muscle groups” is more specific than “I will gain muscle this winter.”

It is not always easy to make a goal specific. But this is a good thing. The process of taking a goal and making it specific forces you to think hard about what it is you actually want. This clarity allows you to make informed decisions about what to focus on and which steps you should take.

Critique: Too much specificity ignores those “near-misses” that are really successes or situations when you purposely tweak what you’re trying to accomplish.

(M)easurable

A good test of whether your goal is specific enough is if it is relatively easy to measure progress. Progress needs to be measurable — otherwise you won’t know if you are actually heading in the right direction.

This requires a bit of thought. For example, suppose you are trying to get a job in a particular industry. If that was your stated goal, you would not be able to “measure” the goal because it could take a week, a month, or a year to get a job. You either still don’t have the job or you do. How do you divide that?

The easiest way to measure is numbers, so in the example above, job applications sent or network connections sought might be better. Easy to track. Easy to know whether or not you are making progress.

Although not all goals are number based, subdividing can still be easy. For example, if you’re learning a particular subject from a textbook, you can break it down into units, chapters, and pages.

Critique: Goals often have different “phases” that complicate measurement. The drafting of a book, for example, can obviously be number-based (word count), but you still have to revise, edit, proofread, etc.

(A)chievable/(A)mbitious

The ‘A’ in SMART usually stands for Achievable or Ambitious. I think both are necessary.

Here’s how I think of it: ‘Achievable’ ensures that you meet the minimum requirements; ‘Ambitious’ ensures that you aren’t choosing only low-hanging fruit.

It should be possible — given your abilities, habits, etc. — for you to achieve the goal. To continue with the self-published book example: If you lack the discipline to sit down and write x amount of words per day, then your goal is not Achievable.

Don’t aim too low, though. Be ambitious.

Critique: Humans overestimate what they can accomplish in the short term and underestimate what they can accomplish in the long term. This makes it very difficult to know beforehand where the “sweet spot” between achievable and ambitious is.

(R)easonable

Whereas Achievable/Ambitious is about the particular goal you’re trying to achieve, Reasonable (often called Realistic or Relevant in other descriptions of the SMART method) is the goal in the larger context of your life.

It’s almost too obvious to say: Goals cannot be achieved, and life’s commitments cannot be balanced, in isolation from other goals and commitments.

Critique: How the heck to do this? It sounds easy in the abstract, but once you start thinking it through, you realize how hard it is to 1.) know your other aspirations and commitments and 2.) figure out how to balance them in any meaningful way.

(T)ime — bound

Aspirations often begin with: “Someday, I will…” or “One of these days, I’m going to…” SMART goals, on the other hand, define a when.

A time-bound goal allows you to work backwards from a particular date and determine guideposts along the way. In other words, it makes measurement much easier.

For example, if it is June 1, and you hope to achieve a goal by September 1, you can divide the measuring units by for monthly measuring sticks, and then again by 4 for weekly.

A time-bound goal also helps estimate if and when you will pursue other goals. Suppose your goal in the previous example was to self-publish a book. If you know you will be writing a book from June 1 through August, you might choose to forestall writing something else.

Critique: How often is the purpose really to ensure that we achieve the goal by a particular date? In so many cases, it doesn’t really matter if we’re a week late. Besides, life is complicated and much is not predictable.

The above is why I added the ‘-est’ to the SMART Method. I added my favorite Stoic philosopher, Epictetus, to the mix alongside Synergy and Tractability. (You can check out those additions here if you are interested.)

Don’t plan, set, or create goals. Instead, manage them.

My writing on goals emphasizes goal management instead of the usual: goal planning, goal setting, etc. This is more than just a linguistic or SEO choice.

Here’s why:

You plan a birthday party, then it happens.

You set a doctor’s appointment, then it happens.

But goals are different beasts: They take on different forms. They change entirely. They are dropped in favor of other, more important goals. They become moot, null, etc. And we rarely pursue one at a time; our lives are too complicated for that. They overlap and compete and a million other things.

In short: they must be managed. Goals are more like finances and lawns than birthday parties and doctor’s appointments.