Hello there, friend!

Originally I wanted to focus this week's newsletter on a different topic, something along the lines of creating wiser organizations. But since I started writing this on Monday, i.e. less than a day before I want to publish, this was far too daunting a task, as I realized how much thinking I will have to do to write anything somewhat meaningful on that. I will need to spread out the writing over several days, both to let my ideas marinate, and to have the time to research the questions that come up. In other words, I need to change my writing workflow to tackle more challenging subjects.

But as you can see here, I realized this already last December, when I challenged myself to write a short essay every day. However, I had an even deeper realization this week. One that I hope will be really radical and transformative.

I need to switch from a cost to a throughput view of learning.

What does all that even mean? The metaphor comes from the manufacturing world, where cost accounting roughly means that profitability is measured at the product level as the difference between the price of the product and the cost that went into making it. This view encourages the prioritization of cutting costs, which leads to the pursuit of efficiency at every step of the production process. In other words, cost accounting assumes that the way to achieve the maximum output of the factory is through achieving the maximum output of every station in the manufacturing process.

Throughput accounting, on the other hand, assumes that the global optimum can only be achieved by considering the whole manufacturing process as one system and analyzing the flow of products through the system. Accumulation of inventory (parts of the product) means that it's not flowing through the system, so instead of seeing it as an asset, we see it as a liability.

What this view leads to is the identification of bottlenecks in the system, and the realization that only these can (and must) be exploited to maximum capacity, while the rest of the system has to be subordinated to the bottlenecks, even if it means that non-bottlenecks have to idle. This throughput paradigm comes from the Theory of Constraints (or ToC, created by Eliahu Goldrat and popularized in his management novel The Goal, which I strongly recommend), which can be summarized into five focusing steps:

1. Identify the bottlenecks

2. Exploit – decide how to ensure they're operating at maximum capacity

3. Subordinate non-bottlenecks to bottlenecks: prevent them from letting the bottlenecks wait and don't let them produce more than the bottlenecks can process

4. Elevate the bottlenecks – find ways to increase their output

5. Repeat – when the system's output has increased, it's possible the bottlenecks will change. Repeat the five focusing steps for a process of ongoing improvement.

So, how does this apply to learning?

Well, if you're not learning purely for joy, you're learning to do something, to solve a problem. In the throughput paradigm, this means the goal of learning is maximizing the amount of problems solved. Learning without application is like stacking inventory – until learning is applied to solving a problem, it's a liability. 

You know this too well – how many books have you read, how many podcasts have you listened to, only to find out that you hardly remember anything a few weeks or even days later, and what you do remember is a fragmented set of ideas with no clear connection? Without application, learning is inert and prone to decay and all the time you spent on it will be wasted.

"But I DO need to learn this, even though I don't have a problem to apply it to right now", someone might say.

Oh, but you do. Because you can always apply your learning for teaching. What's more, even if you do have a direct problem to work on, you always want to reflect on what you learned and document how it helped you in solving that problem, at the very least so you can uncover the less obvious lessons and revisit all your learning in the future. But you already did the hard work of figuring out how the theory applies in the real world, why wouldn't you articulate your insights and share them with others? Why wouldn't you expose your thinking to feedback from others, and learn even more? This is how individuals build their brands and how entire organizations learn.

So, we've established that in the throughput paradigm, the goal of learning is maximizing how much you teach. Since the five focusing steps are about ongoing improvement and everyone's situation is different, it's not possible to list all the practical implications ToC has for your learning. However, you can read faster than you can write and listen faster than you can talk. What's more, you learn the most from your work itself and you can also learn by listening to podcasts or audiobooks while doing many other things, but teaching requires your full attention. Combine this with the principle of subordinating non-bottlenecks to bottlenecks, and one universal implication emerges:

Either optimize for teaching what you learn or admit to yourself that you're learning just for fun.

Last week’s dig-ups

Personal metawork

• I got the inspiration for applying the Theory of Constraints to learning from The Throughput of Learning by Tiago Forte. While I wanted to stress the importance of prioritizing teaching (writing in my case) over passive learning, his piece helped me realize it's speeding up the production process that can help uncover its weaknesses.

Collective metawork

• A really fun and insightful slide-deck by Alex Komoroske, current Head of Corporate Strategy at Stripe, on what makes large organizations inefficient and an article on how to simplify coordination using "Schelling points"

• These two articles worked great in tandem, illustrating that technology enables self-management, which in turn enables people to be more authentic and weird, which in turn drives innovation

Entrepreneurship

• How to build a world-class network either by podcasting, writing online, joining communities (article) or by being very intentional and proactive in messaging people you want to get to know (podcast)

Philosophy & Sense-making

• John Vervaeke is one of the thinkers I admire the most, and in this conversation with Ryan Barton, they talk about a good life requiring balence between Mastery, Morality and Meaning, and about most businesses, with putting profit above everything else, are focused on Mastery at the cost of both Morality and Meaning

• Also, on the Tim Ferris show, Vervaeke explained (among many other things) how love is not an emotion, but an existential binding

• Also, I found this hilarious

Reflection

• Well, this week's essay was actually the reflection – I need to subordinate everything to writing: Primarily my thesis, but also this newsletter and tweets. To that end, I want to get back to writing daily.

• Also, I'm starting to realize how important are affirmations for maintaining focus and not falling for the temptation of any infinity pools.

So, there it is. Reply to the email and let me know how you liked this week's newsletter!

See you next time

Chris