The dark sides of deadlines

Over the past few years, I’ve been devoting less time to reading books. My reading time has gone to magazines, articles, and other short-form journalism. I wasn’t happy about this, but I didn’t do much to change it.

A few weeks ago, we visited the beautiful Central Library here in Seattle to get my daughter her first library card. When I inquired about my card, the librarian said it was long expired, and issued me a new one.

Curious about Seattle Public Library’s online collection, I checked out a couple of non-fiction books that I’ve been meaning to read (Business Adventures which Bill Gates recommended a couple of years ago, and The Hard Thing About Hard Things which more than one person recommended to me at work).

When I checked the electronic books out and downloaded them to my phone, I saw that I had 21 days to read them before they were automatically returned. 21 days! And then they’re gone! I had a deadline.

I read these books during my commute. I read them at night before bed. I even check out the audiobook versions so I can listen to them being read to me during chores at home. The result: I’m reading more books now than I have in the past few years. This is the power of deadlines: it provides clarity in priorities, and forces you to decide what’s really important to hit the date.

However, there are dark sides to deadlines, too.

The dark sides

When you apply time pressure on tasks, creative thinking can suffer. Worse, a Harvard Business School study found that people under time pressure think they’re being more creative when they’re actually less creative. Even worse, there seems to be a hangover to the lull in creativity that can last for a few days after the time crunch.

Why is this? The root cause appears to be lack of focus. Here’s what the study says about people who lacked time to focus during time-pressured days:

But when this protected focus was missing on time-pressured days—and it very often was—people felt more like they were on a treadmill. On these days, our diarists reported a more extreme level of time pressure even though they were not working more hours, and they felt much more distracted. When recording the number of different activities they performed, they were likely to use words like “several,” “many,” and “too numerous to count.” They were pulled in too many directions, unable to focus on a single activity for any significant period of time. One diarist, paraphrasing the oft-repeated lament, said: “The faster I run, the behinder I get.”

Cramming work at the last minute can also result in lower-quality work. A study from Syracuse University showed that patent applications clustered near the deadlines, and those that were completed at the deadline were both more complex and of lower quality.

And, too many aggressive deadlines with no end in sight can create a condition of chronic stress on the mind and body, which can lead to burnout.

Use deadlines wisely

Deadlines are of course not inherently bad. Work can fill all available time, and if there is no bound to that time, you and your team may never get a plan together to deliver something of value. The trick is to use deadlines in a productive way.

As for my library reading, I’ve decided to check out only one or two books at a time. After all, I don’t want my library checkouts to mean I never read magazines and articles anymore!

Remember to have a good reason for each deadline you communicate to your team. Make sure the deadline is achievable. And, above all, make sure your team uses the deadline as a way to focus on what is most important, instead of trying to do too many things at once and doing them all poorly.

Snapchat’s Twitter lesson

One of the things that initially drew me to Twitter years ago was celebrities. Actors, authors, musicians, and tech investors were all directly posting and sharing their thoughts to this medium, in a seemingly unfiltered fashion. This was pretty exciting; you couldn’t friend a celebrity on Facebook, but you could follow them on Twitter and get a peek into their thoughts.

Posting to Twitter is another matter. Hashtags and at-replies are part of the vernacular, but it’s not obvious when and how to use them. Conversations among people are hard to follow and join. Most importantly, it’s hard to find your social graph there. Sure, you can add people via your address book, but an address book is not a complete network, given how easy it is to make casual acquaintances online.

I post to Twitter, but I don’t get a lot of return from it, such as replies, likes, and retweets. And, a lot of people I know are either on Twitter purely for consumption, or don’t bother with the service at all. For me, this turns Twitter into a source of breaking news and celebrity chatter, and not a place to have a conversation with my social graph. This is an engagement problem for Twitter; there’s only so much one-to-many broadcasts from celebrities one can consume before wanting to move on to a real, engaging conversation.

Snapchat Stories vs Instagram Stories

When I first started using Snapchat, I had that same feeling as I did with Twitter. Here were people like Macklemore, Mark Suster, and Bob Saget posting videos, and I could watch them, unfiltered. How cool! But, posting to Snapchat had echoes of Twitter’s troubles: it’s tough to figure out how to post to Snapchat, conversations between people are difficult, and social return is low. Most people I know are not on the service. My posts get seen by 4 or 5 people, at most.

Recently, Instagram unabashedly copied Snapchat stories. I was surprised to see about a dozen friends had already posted to Instagram Stories. I tried it out, and found it simpler to use than Snapchat. And, in 18 hours, my first Instagram story had 10 times as many views as my most popular Snapchat story.

At this point, I’m questioning whether I’ll continue to post to Snapchat. Why post there when all of my friends and family are on Instagram (or, by extension, Facebook)? And here’s where Facebook’s advantage shines through: Facebook has the most complete social graph and is able to bootstrap any new feature or service they build or buy with it. The network effect is strong, and draws people in.

Snapchat’s Twitter lesson

Snapchat’s Twitter lesson is this: one-to-many broadcasts from famous people with millions of followers is great, and will get you far. But, at some point, you’re going to want everyone to post and consume to have a vibrant, growing social service. And to do that, you need to make it easy for users to find those they know and to post very easily. Right now, Snapchat is not that place.

For Snapchat to scale, it will need to heed Twitter’s hard lessons, invent new ways to differentiate, or suffer a usage plateau. There’s only so many videos of Bob Saget telling puns one can stomach.

Want to predict the future? Think 100x.

My first computer was a Tandy 1400FD. It had an 8MHz processor (which you could slow down to 4.77MHz for those games that were synchronized to the processor). It had two floppy drives, 768KB of RAM, and no hard drive. It had a CGA monitor. The first modem I purchased for it was 1200 baud.

My smartphone is an iPhone 6. It has a 1.4GHz processor, 64GB of storage, and 1GB of RAM. It has a high-quality, multi-color screen. It has a host of other technologies like WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC, LTE, and sensors galore. It can download and upload data at speeds measured in tens of megabits.

When you compare these two computers, you see that their processor speed, storage, memory, and bandwidth are all at least 100 times (100x) different. And, my smartphone can also do about 100x the things my Tandy could do.

At the time I was using my Tandy, I don’t think I ever envisioned something like an iPhone 6 (though I did envision having a Tricorder). However, I could have predicted parts of the experience of using an iPhone 6 if I had asked myself, “What happens if all of these things in my computer became 100x faster, smaller, cheaper, or better?”

If you want to predict the future of technology, imagine what will happen if something in today’s technology gets faster, smaller, cheaper, or better, by a lot. For example:

  • What if everyone had bandwidth measured in the terabits, anywhere they went?
  • What if computers were as small as a grain of salt?
  • What if everyone had exabytes of storage, both locally and in the cloud?
  • What if you could put dozens of touch screens around your house, car, and workplace, for the same cost as one inexpensive tablet today?
  • What if every light, appliance, wall, floor, and piece of furniture in your home had an Internet-connected computer within it?
  • What if your devices understood not only your speech as well as a person, but could anticipate your thoughts by analyzing your brain waves?

Of course, not all of these things will happen at the same rate, if ever. And speed, size, cost, and quality are not the only factors that drive new technology. Yet, imagining 100x improvements are a good thought exercise if you are trying to look ahead beyond two or three years.