Posted on Thursday, January 9, 2014

In 2014, Accomplish More By Doing Less

Instead of bullying yourself into adopting new practices that are designed to overhaul your life for the better in 2014, consider finding the path to success by simply doing less.

The arctic blast of our fledgling 2014 offers a chilling reminder that the kindred warmth of the holiday season is over.

That’s enough being. It’s time to get back to doing.

“So, how’s it going?”

“Good. Busy. Super busy.”

“Me too. Never been so busy.”

It’s as if there is a self-worth contest sure to be won by the contender most frazzled.

But busyness is no virtue. If anything, it makes us—me included—distracted, forgetful and often late. It diminishes our capacity and saps our creativity.

That’s why we can actually accomplish more by doing less.

But how do we decide which activities absolutely must stay and which might have to go?

Five Minutes to a Leaner You

This quick and simple exercise should give you several top candidates for the chopping block. You need only one piece of paper with a line down the middle (or click HERE for a printable form). On the left side, write LIFE-TAKING, and on the right side, write LIFE-GIVING.

Fill the Life-Taking column with the roles (or tasks within roles) that drain you. They’re onerous chores, not labors of love.

On the Life-Giving side, list the opposite—those practices you can pursue for extended periods of time, wondering where the time has gone. You might be tired after a long day of life-giving activities, but you’re not weary.

I should be clear that this exercise is not a license to shed roles to which you’ve pledged yourself—like being a good parent or spouse—or common duties that appear on no one’s life-giving list—like changing diapers or cleaning dishes. Heck, the president of my company, Drew Tignanelli, washes whatever dishes he finds in the company kitchen sink.

But if the majority of your roles and the duties you’ve accepted are life-taking, I encourage you to consider making some difficult decisions in an effort to improve that ratio. That may mean saying yes to something, but it almost certainly means saying no.

Two caveats:

1) Following through on this exercise may be simple, but it’s not easy. Stakeholders are likely to be disappointed, whether you’re giving up a board seat, book club, church committee or poker night. Your income may also be reduced if you sacrifice an activity that creates income, change jobs or invest in furthering your education.

2) Many activities are not wholly life-taking or life-giving. For example, last year I decided that maintaining a presence on Facebook took more life than it gave. I certainly derived some benefits from being on Facebook, connecting with friends and family, but the net effect was life-taking. (By the way, I dumped FB six months ago and don’t miss it at all.)

Addition by Subtraction

You can cause a monumental shift for the good in your life and work by simply removing life-taking activities. Your performance in life-giving roles has room to flourish, increasing your productivity and satisfaction. Even more surprising, some activities will move from life-taking to neutral—or even life-giving—after your overall burden is lightened.

Hitting the delete button on even one or two life-taking commitments can make you a better partner or parent, boss or employee, friend or family member. And especially for those whose vocations fall under the creative heading, creating more blank space on the canvas is essential to maintaining and improving your art.

Special thanks to Josh Itzoe, a colleague and good friend, for encouraging me to undertake this exercise several years ago.

If you enjoyed this post, please let me know on Twitter at @TimMaurer, and if you’d like to receive my weekly post via email, click HERE.

Posted on Thursday, November 7, 2013

Don’t Bet Your Portfolio On The Twitter IPO

Consider keeping your social media activity on your computer, phone or tablet—and out of your portfolio.

People seem to either love or hate Facebook and Twitter, with emotions ranging high, like rooting for our favorite sports teams. Personally, I’m unlikely to win any football or basketball office pools because I’m so biased toward my favorite teams.

We can also suffer from some of these polarizing bias issues with individual stock selections—and especially social media stocks bearing the names of the most recognizable thumbnail icons of our time.

There will be winners and losers with Twitter, as with any stock, but I’m content to be an observer. This is for a couple specific reasons:

1) I am biased. Unlike Facebook, which I dumped as a personal social media outlet (for seven reasons that were important to me), I really like Twitter. I hope Twitter continues to do well so that those of us who are fans will continue to benefit from its many uses well into the future. In other words, I’m biased. I’m vested, and that detracts from my ability to be the best investor.

2) Another reason that I’m tentative about this whole Twitter IPO business is that, well, the company has never made a profit. One of the reasons for its cult following is that you don’t get slapped in the face by endless ads hunting for the content you seek (unlike some other social media platforms). You don’t have to be a stock picker to know that Twitter will have to access “as-yet-untouched monetization levers,” according to Jeff Bercovici at Forbes, in order to reach the upper end of its anticipated price range. That means they’ll have to find new ways to sell us, and if you’re anything like me, you’re probably hoping to be an untouchable monetization lever.

This is not investment advice—it’s gambling advice, because at this stage of the game, it’s anyone’s guess whether or not Twitter is going to successfully remake its loyal followers into a money-printing machine, 140 characters at a time.

TWEETABLE: Consider keeping your social media activity on your computer, phone or tablet–and out of your portfolio. #TwitterIPO

If you enjoyed this post, please let me know on Twitter at @TimMaurer, and if you’d like to receive my weekly post via email, click HERE.

Posted on Thursday, September 5, 2013

Facebook Isn’t Always Your Friend: Don’t Get Burned By Social Media

We’ve known for a while now that employers are scanning the social media presence of would-be employees before making a job offer. More recently, we also learned that our very own credit worthiness could be impacted, not only by the content we put forth, but also by the knuckleheadedness of those to whom we are connected online. Alternative lenders, such as Lenddo, Kreditech and Kabbage, may track social media activities of you—and your friends—in determining whether you or your business are a worthy credit risk. So unless you decide to follow my personal path—Facebook abstinence (the only method proven scientifically effective in 100% of cases)—I hereby offer the only slightly less certain way to avoid being haunted in the future by your social media past: Don’t “say” stupid [stuff] online.

Consider this litmus test to be applied before liking, updating, tweeting, sharing, tumbling or pluss-ing:

Only share that which you would be happy to see appearing in BOLD CAPS on the front page of USA Today, the New York Times and your home town paper.

Even if we’ve been duped into believing that social media offered any level of privacy whatsoever, the reality is that it doesn’t. Its inherent design is to compound, to magnify and to extend the reach of whatever message we communicate, for better and worse. Privacy settings, if anything, obscure the fact that we are exposed.

It deserves mention that Facebook, contrary to some reports, is not the devil. Nor are they, or any other social media outlet, an altruistic venture. They all teeter on the fence between the seemingly opposed realms of Beneficial and Intrusive. Ironically, however, it is hard to imagine their offering much of a benefit were it not for their intrusion. It is our input that builds the algorithms in Facebook to direct us to the friends we seek and the artists, brands and personalities we follow. In the case of these unique lenders, it is individuals and businesses lacking sufficient credit history to receive loans through conventional means who are divulging their online activity to the alternative lenders who find parallels between social media activity and credit-worthiness. We’re not talking about major credit agencies, banks and insurance companies requiring our social media login information—yet.

Whether we are looking up old schoolmates on Facebook, scanning for trends on Twitter, building our virtual networks on LinkedIn or applying for a loan, it is up to us to determine what information in our possession is worthy of dissemination in these venues. While it seems that every third person we meet these days is a “Social Media Consultant,” the aforementioned litmus test for online activity won’t cost you an awkward lunch meeting and is simply based on applying the 2,400 year old Hippocratic Oath to ourselves—first, do no harm.

Whether we like it or not, we may need to consider protecting our social media footprint the way we protect our credit score, for the sake of our available credit, our employment and even our reputation with family, friends and colleagues. As Will Rogers said well before Al Gore invented the interwebs, “It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation, but you can lose it in a minute.” The advent of social media has given us the opportunity to fast-track reputation building, but it has also shortened the journey to embarrassment and magnified every online misstep. You can’t delete your past, but you can delete your post. So unless you’re willing to see that post, tweet, status update or email making headline news, consider hitting delete instead of send.

If you enjoyed this post, please let me know on Twitter at @TimMaurer, and if you’d like to receive my weekly post via email, click HERE.

Posted on Thursday, June 20, 2013

7 Reasons I Dumped Facebook

It’s official. I’m off the Facebook grid. Nobody offended me. I didn’t have a bad experience. While I’m not thrilled about the idea of Big Brother watching my every move, I’m not particularly paranoid about social media sharing. Therefore, I’m sharing why I’m dumping Facebook and committing to Twitter and Instagram.

1) Facebook sucks time from my life, and unlike money, time is a zero sum game (thanks to Laura Vanderkam for reminding us). Without question, some of the time I spend on Facebook is edifying and life-giving. For example, my good friend, Nick Selvi—a husband, father, teacher and musician—is stricken with stage four rectal cancer, and his Facebook page keeps me informed of the battle he and his family are waging. I’ll miss that, but hopefully I’ll be a real friend and call and visit to support him.

2) Most of my Facebook friends aren’t (actually friends). They’re not enemies. It’s not that I wish them ill, but for the majority of them, there’s a reason we don’t associate other than on Facebook. For most, it’s not because of a geographic disparity or because they don’t have an email address or phone number—it’s because we’re simply not actual…friends. (This makes me wonder if the reason I initially got on Facebook was actually a matter of pride. “How many virtual friends can I assemble?” I appreciated the reminder from Leo Babauta this week that comparing ourselves to others is an exercise in futility.)

3) There are other (better) options for photo sharing. Seeing my friends’ and family’s pictures, and sharing my own, is what I like most about Facebook. A picture and a caption can generate a belly laugh or bring tears to my eyes. I also know that it is the real-time exchange of family pics that likely inspired 90% of the grandparents who are on Facebook today—so I’m not going to leave them hanging. Now instead of merely using Instagram to obscure my lack of photographic skill and then upload pictures on Facebook, I’ll simply use Instagram as my photo exchange medium, inviting only family and close friends to follow me there.

4) Facebook brings out the worst in people. How I didn’t quit Facebook during the last presidential campaign, I’ll never know. The willingness of so many to spew half-baked punditry that almost assuredly alienates them from half of their friends—and convinces precisely no one of their opinion—boggles the mind! Yes, these offenders are buoyed by the 10 Likes they get from the people who think similarly, but scores more harden their opinion in opposition and are likely offended in the process. (If this point doesn’t resonate with you, you may be an offender.)

5) I learn more on Twitter. Twitter is to Facebook as a biography is to a novel. I know there’s nothing wrong with reading fiction, but I confess that I (wrongly) feel a little guilty when I spend time reading something that didn’t (or won’t) actually happen. I enjoy being on Twitter, much as I enjoy reading a good biography, but I’m allowed to feel like I’m better for having done so—that I’ve learned something beneficial. Twitter is now my number one source for hard news and opinions I value, as well as a relational connecting point. Twitter is more of a resource and less of a popularity contest. And let’s face it, for all too many, Facebook is really closer to the intellectual or emotional equivalent of eating a tub of Ben & Jerry’s in one sitting. (It’s not good for you.)

6) The presence of ads on Facebook is getting ridiculous. I care more about you than the fact that you like Cherry Coke. I certainly care more about you than whatever Facebook wants me to buy, and it seems like there are increasingly more ads every day. Am I the only one who notices that?

7) Less is more. I’m on a mission to simplify life, to slow it down to a pace at which it can actually be consumed, not just tasted. I don’t want to hide behind the ubiquitous, “I’m really busy” as a badge of honor. I want a lower cost of living (not just financially) and a higher quality of life. I want to limit the number of [things] that compete for my attention so that I can apply more attention to those [things] I care the most about. Less is the new more.

Goodbye, Facebook.

If you enjoyed this post, please let me know on Twitter at @TimMaurer, and if you’d like to receive my weekly post via email, click HERE.

(And just to keep me out of any potential regulatory hot water, my comments here are regarding Facebook as a service—not an investment.)

Posted on Friday, March 15, 2013

There Are No Free Skittles

Last week, I went on a mission with my two sons, Kieran and Connor, ages nine and seven. The mission was to acquire newly released Lego sets bearing the resemblance of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles with whom the boys particularly identify. And while any expedition to Toys-R-Us can be fraught with peril, this one was an especially harrowing trip.

After claiming our intended purchase, we waited in line. (Have you ever seen two boys, ages seven and nine, wait in a line?) Not without a penchant for distraction myself, I wandered momentarily out of the cue and asked the boys to stay in line. Upon my return—no more than 20 seconds hence—I noticed Connor chewing something.

“What are you chewing, Connor?”

“A Skittle.”

“Where’d you get that Skit—Oh, Connor, did you pick that up off of the floor?”

“Yup.” (Proudly.)

Later, when my wife asked him why he felt compelled to forage for food (we’d just eaten dinner, by the way) on the floor of the toy store, he answered quite matter-of-factly, “Free Skittle.”

Of course we know there are no free Skittles, but even we adults continue to be drawn to that which has no apparent cost. How else is it, then, that a frightening plurality of the phone calls and emails we receive each day are goading us to simply receive a gift that is seemingly priceless with supposedly no price? Obviously, there’s a market for it. So whether it is our hopeless good nature that wishes to believe in the altruism of the free gift giver (unlikely) or our burning desire to receive something-for-nothing (more likely), the freebie-seeking thread is so persistent in us that the theme remains a constant in money and life.

We need not submit ourselves, however, to the entirely skeptical or willfully naïve camps. There is a third option: to recognize that everyone (and nearly everything) has a bias. The bias may be personal, but is quite often an economic bias—a conflict of interest where money is somehow involved. It is most likely this bias that is affecting the behavior of the grantor of a “gift” and its actual price. And lest you think economic bias is reserved for swindlers, it serves us well to recognize that it is actually quite ubiquitous. Pastors, priests, aid workers and (gasp) doctors are no freer from economic bias than anyone—indeed, the bias may be even more powerful when it’s presumed nonexistent.

Everyone has a bias. It doesn’t make them—us—bad people, but we’re all selling something, and the sooner you recognize that, the less likely you’ll be to get on that email list, hit LIKE on Facebook, sign up for that seminar…or eat free Skittles off the floor.