I remember the first time I heard of the pareto principle of 80-20. It sounded fascinating to me. I wanted to use it to drastically improve my time management skills.
I find that I gravitate towards such mind hacks to get more out of my routine. it is only 2020 that made me realize that the most effective way for time management is not to over commit to begin with. Regardless, I always like to discover things like the 80-20 rule so I can improve.
Recently, I started to wonder if 80-20 is really a good idea. Why is it that we only dedicate 20% of our time for the most productive outcome? Why does only 20% of our input result in 80% of output? Is it really efficient to have 20% lead to the other 80%?
Maybe this 20% is limiting us to think that only 2/10 things we do are what matter. Maybe we have been conditioned to believe in 20% of whatever we do as productive?
How about I create a 40-60 rule? What if it is more balanced and our inputs equal outputs?
Even better - according to the ONE thing - how about we just focus on the 20% only and totally ignore the rest so we essentially have 1 bucket for 100% of things that matter and everything is completely off our minds and offers no distraction?
Maybe it's time to patent my 40-60 rule.
I find that I gravitate towards such mind hacks to get more out of my routine. it is only 2020 that made me realize that the most effective way for time management is not to over commit to begin with. Regardless, I always like to discover things like the 80-20 rule so I can improve.
Recently, I started to wonder if 80-20 is really a good idea. Why is it that we only dedicate 20% of our time for the most productive outcome? Why does only 20% of our input result in 80% of output? Is it really efficient to have 20% lead to the other 80%?
Maybe this 20% is limiting us to think that only 2/10 things we do are what matter. Maybe we have been conditioned to believe in 20% of whatever we do as productive?
How about I create a 40-60 rule? What if it is more balanced and our inputs equal outputs?
Even better - according to the ONE thing - how about we just focus on the 20% only and totally ignore the rest so we essentially have 1 bucket for 100% of things that matter and everything is completely off our minds and offers no distraction?
Maybe it's time to patent my 40-60 rule.
My interpretation of this is that you can't always do the Thing. Usually doing a thing is assemblaged to a network of responsibilities.
Like let's say I want to write for example. I can't just write. I have to go live life and have experiences that inspire me to write.
Let's say I want to code software for writers. I can't just code. I need to write to know what writers want. I need to also setup a dev environment. I need to setup the server or go serverless. I need to do all these other things that aren't the thing.
How I interpret Pareto Principle is not as a sign that I need to shift 80-20. But rather making damn careful that I align my energies and times with the 80-20. I kind of see the 80-20 as an inevitable fact of nature -- similar to what Brandon noted at -- where I will never be able to escape 80-20 but I can however know clearly what my 20 is and what my 80 is. This allows me to use my best energy time on the 20 to really have most impact while at the same time modulating myself for the 80 to not burn out.
I see it similar to sleep. If someone were to come to me and say the optimal sleep/wake cycle is 8/16 to 10/14 I wouldn't try shifting that. I wouldn't try seeing how I can maybe get by on 4/20 sleep/wake cause then i have all these hours! I'd rather try to maximize the 14 through iterative reflection.
I think that in great founder relationships 1+1 != 2 but rather a much higher value.
In great founder matches, you have a complimentary fit between Founder A and Founder B's 20%s and 80%s.