“The essential takeaway is that the new economics of personal productivity mean that the better organized we try to become, the more wasteful and inefficient we become.  We’ll likely get more done better if we give less time and thought to organization and greater reflection and care to desired outcomes.”  – Michael Shrage

I will call Michael and raise him @F-L-O-W…, which says, that the way to be personally more productive is to design systems that are consistent with our happiness profile.  Forget about outcomes.  We have almost zero control over them.  As change accelerates, we will have less and less control, because of the disadvantage of adapted rules.

The problem with getting traction using this @F-L-O-W idea is with the superficial understanding of the @F-L-O-W model.

In a (BS) world that values particular things… more than others… if your happiness profile is OUT in alignment with what is valued by perceivers, they will say you are less productive, even though, you are more productive when you work within those elements of inbornness.

Most of us may need "transcription" and "translation" in the gap… to transcribe our profile, and translate that into requirements the BS world will monetize.  Because, for the most part, if it doesn’t reduce to money, then one will say it’s not productive, another caveat in and of itself.

An outcome often has emergent properties in complex environments.  This means the outcome has a set of properties without showing the properties of what went into the mix.

Therefore, by attempting to control something that we have little control over, which is the original idea in the quote above… modeled unsuccessfully in the quote’s solution, which is to focus on outcomes, we fall victim to complexity… not productivity.

What little we do have control over is often the process (to some extent), not the product, EXCEPT in bounded reality.  Individually, inbounded realities mean that we fully don’t understand or participate in the collective whole anyway, and that our outcome is suboptimal for EES, in most cases.  This also depends on the perspective, because of the false set of assumptions creating the bounded reality.

Helpful Hint: SOME (1-5%<G>) will chose to live in bounded reality and force a set of assumptions, which can be "managed at some level" through fractionalization, not the banking kind, but the fracturing of reality.  While many claim it is a fractal, it is not, because it doesn’t contain all the parts of the whole.  Anyway, it’s not part of the holographic reality where fractals can produce (like DNA) the whole.

Action Step: My suggestion is to focus on knowing yourself well enough that you know at least your top strength area.  For those who can’t clearly agree what your top strength area is, use your top two, or three, at most.  In those areas, the highest levels of productivity for YOU will emerge.

NOW, because productivity MIGHT be defined by BS currency, you will need some help in transcription and translation, in order to translate the @F-L-O-W productivity into a BS equivalent.