Do Less to Do More

Resisting operational bureaucracy in favor of actually getting work done

This is my second in what will be a series of posts reflecting on various themes on work and productivity I’ve picked out of Cal Newport’s book Slow Productivity. But before we get into the meat here, let me address something.

Why Does Any of This Even Matter?

Maybe you’re reading this and you’re like, “Why does this guy who writes devotional reflections or essays about social media care about productivity and work culture stuff?” Fair question. Let me do my best to answer this if it’s bubbling up for you.

Like I will say in the article below: we only have one life to live, and many of us will spend much of this life working.

Because of that reality, if nothing else, we should take our work seriously! Not all of us work traditional jobs—some of us are keeping homes running, ferrying kids around town, and doing other kinds of work that doesn’t result in a paycheck—but for those of us who have careers, we are called to steward those careers well! Usually this means we need to be “productive” however that is measured in our specific lines of work. If we are not productive, or if we are not accomplishing the goals set before us in our work, we may not be employed very long.

So to be good stewards, as we’re called by God to do (Gen. 1:26-28, Matt. 25:14-30, etc.), we need to be “productive.” The problem is that much of what goes into how we work today is not actually productive it’s just busy.

One of the most common causes of busy unproductivity is operational bureaucracy—some call this “red tape,” “meeting culture,” or “busywork culture.” Some, like me, even call it “managerial theater” or “administrative theater,” likening it to security theater (looking at you, TSA).

Operational bureaucracy leads to people having meetings or operational processes without even knowing why they exist or how they promote the overall goals of an organization.

Operational bureaucracy is a spiritual problem. It’s poor stewardship. It’s at best foolish and at worst sinful. If that seems a bit extreme, remember that the master does not deal kindly with the man who buries his talent (see Matt. 25:14-30).

But I’m not here today to talk about the cancer that is operational bureaucracy—that will have to wait for another time. Today, I want to dive into how we actually get work done. How? By actually doing less.

Fermat’s Last Theorem and You

In the third chapter of Slow Productivity, called “Do Fewer Things,” Cal Newport writes about just that: there is wisdom in not taking on all that we possibly can manage.

Doing more can often actually make us less effective than if we decline to take on tasks and opportunities that may appear productive. Now of course there are guardrails to this. Neither Newport in his book nor I in this article are calling for laziness or sloth. That would be simultaneously foolish and outright against what God wants for his image-bearers who are called to work and steward creation!¹

In this chapter, Newport shares about a mathematician and his pursuit of his lifelong goal.

Princeton University mathematics professor Andrew Wiles learned of Fermat’s Last Theorem—a centuries old math problem, basically—when he was 10-years-old. From that young age, he set a goal to provide a solution to the theorem sometime in his life.

Fast-forward to his time as a mathematics professor. Wiles came across another mathematical development artifact called the “Taniyama-Shimura conjecture,” that, if solved, could lead to his achievement of his lifelong dream: solving Fermat’s theorem. When Wiles discovers that his goal is within reach, his life dramatically changes.

Newport quotes Simon Singh in his book Fermat’s Enigma, who writes of Wiles:

Wiles abandoned any work that was not directly relevant to proving Fermat’s Last Theorem and stopped attending the never-ending round of conferences and colloquia.

Later, Newport explains Wiles and his focus:

To prepare himself to focus on a single large and meaningful project, Wiles limited large pursuits and commitments that would compete for his time. Crucially, he was systematic in this reduction. He didn’t resolve, in some generic fashion, to try to take on less; he instead put in place specific rules (e.g., no conferences), habits (e.g., work from home as much as possible, and even ploys (e.g., trickling out his already completed research)—all directed toward minimizing the number of big items tugging at his attention.

Whatever kind of job you have, it is likely that if you asked your manager for one, single “reason” or “goal” for your role, you could probably get one. Sure, most of us have a number of goals that may change quarterly or annually—based on sales, project completion, or some other kind of countable metric. But all of those cycling goals are usually manifestations of a singular goal—to increase revenue by driving more sales, or to prepare sixth graders to read literature and write essays, or to keep a production process running on-time and on-budget.

However, if you’re like me, you have been in a role that has a clear, singular objective, but that is also bound by all kinds of other requirements and tasks that may hinder your ability to pursue that singular goal.

For instance, I have had a job in which my goal and direction was clear. But the team, and the broader organization, required so many different processes and meetings and other forms of operational “red tape” that accomplishing the goal for which I had been hired proved to be functionally impossible.

That role was, without a doubt, simultaneously the busiest and least productive job I have ever had.

No one could have doubted that I was working at any time, but I also failed to have much fruit to show for my dozens of emails and weekly meetings on account of all of the sideways energy I was expelling in an attempt to fulfill process expectations in a sort of “performative compliance” that much of the “work” I was doing had no real bearing on the success of the mission I was given.

Andrew Wiles provides a hopeful example of what it can look like when we take the mission of our work seriously and we don’t let superfluous systems or tasks get in our way. Wiles had to be creative, to be sure, to make sure he didn’t get fired from his job for neglecting responsibilities the university had deemed important. But he pulled it off, and he accomplished his goal.

We can learn a lot from Andrew Wiles, I think, in his pursuit of finding a solution to Fermat’s Last Theorem.

Just Say No…and Guard Your Time

Sometimes we just need to decline that meeting invite in order to get real work done.

Sometimes we need to look at internal processes and ask those in charge, “I understand why this process is in place, but do you know how this cumbersome process will keep us from accomplishing our objective?”

We only have one life to live, and as Christian workers, we are called to steward the gifts and talents God has given us for his glory and the good of other people. This requires us to take seriously the goals we have and the work we are called to do.

Sometimes this requires us to submit to authority and do what is required. Sometimes it means we must have the courage to call out how an organization’s operational requirements and other “red tape” have begun to hinder the shared mission of the team.

But as Newport says, “There are only so many times you can offer an unqualified no without either losing your job or being sidelined as an unreliable curmudgeon.”

And this is true! It’s a difficult line to walk. So what do we do? Newport makes a solid suggestion when he writes, “This leaves us with a more nuanced option for limiting projects: appeal to the hard but unimpeachable reality of your actual available time.”

Blocking time for projects on my calendar has been, without a doubt, the most important practical step I’ve taken to “do less in order to do more.”

Virtually all of the roles I have held in my career have not only been “knowledge work” roles, they have been creative knowledge work roles. I don’t know how much deep work time accountants or project managers need, but I can say as someone who has always lived at the intersection of content creation and creative marketing work, having large blocks of deep work time is absolutely essential.

It is nearly impossible to do effective creative work in 30-60-minute periods of time scattered between meetings on any given day—at least for me, anyway! My best creative work always comes within some kind of two-to-three hour window. It has always been most “productive” for me to dedicate a half-day to a creative project of some time.

It is not “less productive” for knowledge workers to block of windows of time like this to get projects done. It can actually prove to be much more productive in the long-run than sitting in a bunch of meetings, filling out even more forms, or responding to emails as soon as possible. That is all activity, but perhaps it is not productivity.

We have just one life to live. Most of us will spend a lot of this life at work. We have a lot to do. Praise God! This is good. But sometimes, to get a lot done, we actually have to do less. However we can best steward the work we’ve been given, let’s do what we can to make it count.

1. See Proverbs 18:9-12, 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12, and plenty of other Scriptures on why Christians should flee sloth.