The Mirage of Motion: Mistaking Activity for Progress
There's a common illusion that can trap even the most diligent among us: the conflation of sheer activity with genuine progress. This phenomenon – where constant motion masquerades as effective advancement – is a pervasive force.
It troubles us in two distinct ways. The first is an individual productively sinkhole.
Activity presents itself as a hallmark of productivity. Packed calendars, a relentless stream of emails, and the constant reshuffling of schedules create an aura of importance and urgency. But beneath this veneer of bustling efficiency is a question we often avoid: How much of what we’re doing is actually doing much of anything?
Think about the day you called in sick – somehow work managed to get done without your immediate email replies. Or what of the meetings that were cut short yet still produced a valid decision? What seems inevitable often proves itself to be quite evitable, indeed.
The allure of activity is understandable. It offers immediate gratification – the sense of being engaged, the appearance of commitment. It’s more like running on a treadmill; there's exertion, but no change in scenery. True progress, in contrast, demands not just action, but directed, purposeful action. It requires setting clear goals, prioritizing tasks, and most importantly, pausing regularly to assess the direction and impact of our efforts.
I hope in 2024 we can pause more throughout our day and ask ourselves: if I didn’t do XYZ, what would go wrong? From that vantage point – one far-less constrained by the trap of activity – a better cost/benefit analysis can be had.
Second is the desire to change simply to avoid momentary stagnation.
All of the emphasis on innovation and dynamism can inadvertently encourage a mindset where change is pursued as an end in itself, rather than as a means to achieve well-defined goals.
We are constantly reminded to be change-agile. As well we should be. But one result is that any path of execution is susceptible to diversion. “Pivoting” is a verb du jour. Nobody wants to be responsible for a failure because they weren’t quick enough to change. “Change resistant” is a harsh black mark on an annual performance review. You must seek to change and adapt – or die. But this pursuit of change, devoid of clear direction or purpose, often leads to a series of half-starts and incomplete initiatives.
To be clear, we must embrace change. This is much of what it means to be strategic: deciding when to change proactively, before change is our last chance at avoiding extinction. But we should embrace the need to change after we embrace the destination and not the other way around.
I hope that 2024 is a year of fewer false-starts and incomplete assignments. I hope that we don’t change horses in midstream simply because a different thoroughbred begs to be ridden.
I hope we can be deliberate. Pause, reflect, hold strong opinions loosely, and try to make sure most of our motion is forward.