Working under Pressure

ON occasion I have been told that I am *too* laid back at work. Usually by a manager who feels that there is some virtue in rushing around like a head-less chook, in such a state of stress that you can't think straight. Obviously if I am not constantly active in pursuing my work then I can't be taking the deadline seriously enough.
Personally I find that most of the time, a more *effective* response is to slow down; to identify what truly needs to be done - and that is often NOT what is on the project plan - and to make sure it is done in the simplest and more useful manner. In other words, to take the time to understand the problem and generate a straightforward solution. Even if that means short-cutting the existing project plan.

This is not new. I do recall that when at Uni, and even at school, I could not understand how much effort everyone else seemed to put into their study. I had friends who would spend hours endlessly memorising formulae and doing problem after problem. I tended to find it sufficient to take a little time to concentrate on exactly why the theory worked and how the equations were derived, often running just a few key problems just confirm. I was generally not the highest ranking student but I was certainly up there - and with considerably less effort than most of my class-mates.
To be clear I believe the best students were the ones that did both - understood the theory AND memorised the text. But I have since found that it is rare that the diminishing returns are worthwhile in a real business, especially taking into account the opportunity costs.

There is also a tie in with another observation I've had about people I have worked with - and would avoid ever working with again if I have a choice. Those who work best under pressure.
If you are one of these people there is a distinct advantage to putting a project into crisis. You get to shine and display the heroic actions to save the day.
One of the most egregious examples of this was a lead I worked alongside. Another architect assigned to a project came came up with a practical solution to the business problem, but one that side-stepped the lead's vision. So he re-designed it himself - halfway through the testing phase. After a complete re-write of the solution, and with the deadline pressing, it was found that the theoretical approach could not deal with real world necessities and they had to revert. For various reasons this meant another re-write, re-testing, deployment etc. all happening after the original deadline.
A month of over 80 hours a week by the entire team got the project over the line. The lead was promoted for 'saving' something that he put in danger and the original architect left he company.
I wish I could say this was an isolated occurrence, but that lead could *only* work well under pressure. And after a couple of repeats he was the chief architect of the whole programme.
Needless to say - we did not get on well together.

One final point that occurs to me in re-reading this: How much of the work being done actually needs doing? How much is due to the inability of people to 'work smarter not harder'? And how much effort could be saved if people would just THINK about the problem a bit instead of falling into the Politician's Fallacy.

Some thoughts on job creation

The justification for governments giving incentives to companies and cutting spending on individuals - especially in 'tough' economic times - is that companies create jobs and so there is a natural trickle down of funds to the population.
Of course, this approach was dis-proven by Thatcherism and Reaganomics but it still seems to be a common anti-pattern for governments.
The error is the theory is that companies create jobs. Any company worth its share rating considers job creation as a last resort. Almost any other efficiency will be sort to reduce costs and increase productivity. The larger the company, and therefore more distant from the people of which it is composed, the less feeling it has about those people.
The only reason for an organisation to add jobs would be if they could not meet demand any other way. In other words the best way for a government to increase jobs would to increase the demand for services that jobs provide. i.e. increase the disposable income of individuals.
Of course, if you are looking across an entire country, shifting jobs from one industry to another does not really achieve the goal. Hence attacking the issue by dealing with large established industries is just shuffling jobs between one company to another - with little room for growth in the total.
Instead focusing on new and innovative industries - especially those which are labour intensive is likely to provide more bang for your buck. IN today's world that means knowledge based industries and new technologies. Apart from anything else the nature of the internet means that individuals are more capable of creating their own jobs now than at any time in the past. The options for commerce that it opens up, particularly in small, personal operations is enormous.
But the nature of politics has never been attracted to de-centralisation and distributed growth. It is much more flashy and news-worthy to publicity hungry politicians to focus on large showy projects.