Ben Horowitz, cofounder and partner of famed venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, delivered the commencement address at his alma mater Columbia University last month and offered up some pretty unconventional career advice. The gist: don’t follow your passion.

If you poll a thousand people who are successful, they’ll all say that they love what they do. And so the broad conclusion of the world is that if you do what you love, then you’ll be successful. That might be true. But it also might be the case that if you’re successful, you love what you do. So which one is it?

Horowitz broke down a few reasons why blindly following your passion in hopes of finding success and fulfillment can be inadvisable:

Passions are hard to prioritize. Are you more passionate about math, or engineering? Are you more passionate about history, or literature? Are you more passionate about video games, or K-Pop? On the other hand, what are you good at? That’s a much easier thing to figure out.

Passions change. What you’re passionate about at 21 is not necessarily what you’re going to be passionate about at 40.

You’re not necessarily good at your passion. Has anybody ever watched American Idol? Just because you love singing doesn’t mean you should be a professional singer.

Following your passion is a very me-centered view of the world. What you take out of the world over time, be it money, cars, stuff, accolades, is much less important than what you put into the world.

And so my recommendation would be, follow your contribution; find the thing that you’re great at. Put that into the world. Contribute to others. Help the world be better. That is the thing to follow.

His advice is a variation on the classic Venn diagram for business success, which aims to identify what business idea satisfies the following three requirements: what you’re good at, what you love, and what there’s market demand for. Passion is just one third of that equation. Honing in on what you feel fired up about is important in internally searching for a career path that will sustain you financially and intellectually, yes; but it shouldn’t override factors like what you’re the most talented at and what there’s a need for in the world.

You know that saying “If you love what you do, you’ll never work a day in your life”? Here’s the thing: what makes you love what you do isn’t just a deep-seated passion for the work. It’s also a certainty that what you’re doing is making an impact and is a positive contribution to the planet.

[via]

When Mike Thompson was only four years old he could do something very few other children that age could; ride a two-wheel bike without training wheels. This was not the wobbly riding of a novice. He rode one-handed, did jumps, and attempted tricks. He was a bike-riding phenom and people noticed. Neighbors, family, the letter carrier, all commented on how incredibly talented the young boy was. “He’s going to be in the X-Games someday,” said the amazed 13-year-old boy living next door.

While Mike spent every opportunity riding around on the front lawn of their house, his older brother Ben, age six, sat on the front steps reading. Ben had been an early reader and got lost in story books. But Ben had never attempted to ride a bike and when asked, he said he had no interest. Who could blame him? His first attempts would be awkward and clumsy, and involve falling in front of a potent audience, that not only included his family, but all the other observers that commented on his younger brother’s talents. He would immediately feel like a failure and pale in comparison. There was little payoff in trying to learn to ride a bicycle. He would always be number two.

Ben and Mike are now adults. As you might expect, Mike spent much of his life in sports, hanging with other athletes, and becoming indoctrinated into its accompanying culture. In middle school, high school, and college, the athletes are often the high status kids. These experiences shaped Mike’s identity and self-esteem. As an adult he is social, confident, and a successful Wall Street executive; a position he got due to college sports connections. Ben, by comparison, spent much of his time with kids of like interests; the more scholarly, or “nerdy,” types. He was exposed to an entirely different circle of friends with a unique social culture. Ben grew up seeing himself as smart, curious, introspective, and is now a successful university professor.

Based upon the expression of their talents early in life—and how they compared to their sibling’s talents—everything else in their life changed. These sibling experiences were central to each’s success.

In fact, all their life choices were influenced by who they had as siblings. Had Ben grown up with a sibling that was less athletic, who would he be? Perhaps he would have ridden his bike, become interested in sports, and focused less on academic pursuits. Who we have as siblings influences our identities, aspirations, relationships, and interests. Consequently, our siblings have great influence in our life choices and success. However, how much of this occurs is largely gradual, and thus invisible. It is unlikely that Michael or Ben would credit each other for their success.

It’s rare enough for a family to have one child achieve a high level of success, so when multiple siblings achieve success it is fairly remarkable. Family economists, by measuring sibling pairs, have reported that only about half share the same level of economic and educational success. Of this group, most are not at the high-end of wage earners or education. This finding also suggests that there is disparity between half of all sibling sets. For every Williams sisters, Bush brothers, or Gyllenhaal siblings, there are many more families in which only one, or neither, child achieves high success.

There are other factors that contribute to success, and no explanation of achievement is complete without the argument that working hard is the primary cause. While it is true that perseverance and dedication to tasks are both predictive of success, it is not true that all people who work hard experience success. There are also countless examples of those who did not need to work hard to achieve high levels of accomplishment. Hard work is important for some and not for others. The trait of “hard worker” may be a combination of genetic temperament, family expectations, environmental opportunities, and other factors. From a sibling perspective, the “hard worker” label and trait may have emerged and been fortified in the context of having a “lazy” brother or sister via parental comparisons.

An additional important point; not all success is economic. Success in careers does not mean success in marriage, friendships, or as parents. The factors that promote financial and educational success may not necessarily promote healthy marriages, parenting, or friendships.

So why do some individuals enjoy success while others do not? In recent years, a growing and impressive body of research has been demonstrating that siblings are highly influential in human development, perhaps even more so than parents or peers. Although the research on how siblings directly contribute to individual success is limited, there are some compelling considerations that can be derived from research findings. The following five elements are the ways in which our siblings affect our own success.

1. Genetics

Genes are certainly important, but do not tell the whole story. If genes were to thank for talent or success, you would think that more families would have multiple offspring rather than single-offspring successes. While one can name many examples of sibling sports stars, such as the Williams sisters or the Manning brothers, most stars do not have sibling who is also a professional athlete. To that point, Michael Jordan certainly possessed the genetic constitution to become one of the greatest basketball players of all time. He had the height, coordination, and physique required for such success. If success were purely explained by genes, why were none of his siblings also professional athletes? Research has shown that siblings, despite shared genetics, are quite different from each other.

In fact, siblings are as different from each other on personality and psychological adjustment (e.g., anxiety, depression) tests as complete strangers are, despite sharing genes and environment (more on that shortly). Why are siblings so different? It seems that growing up with each other generates difference (as in the case of Michael and Ben from earlier in this piece), who were each successful in very different areas. Each pursued trajectories that made sense given their genetic constitutions. If we do not possess the build or temperament for an endeavor, success is less likely.

2. Environment

As in the case of genetics, siblings also share environments growing up. They live in the same homes, attend the same schools, experience the same cultural and family traditions, and so on.

Again, you might assume the same environment would produce the same level of success across all inhabitants, so what is it about the environment that contributes to differences in siblings?

First, researchers have found that siblings actively strive to be different from each other, particularly if they are close in age.

Second, there is abundant empirical evidence that parents treat each of their children uniquely, and allocate resources differently. Contrary to the often-heard claims by parents that they treat their children the same, they do not. Children have different individual needs, temperaments, and interests; parents treat their children otherwise as a matter of pragmatics and emotional investment. These disparities are often loaded. Research has fairly consistently [pdf] demonstrated that parental differential treatment is linked to individual problems for disfavored children, and to poorer sibling relationships, which continues into adulthood. Research has also suggested that in families with limited resources parents will sometimes invest more in the one child that seems to possess the most potential.

Third, siblings use distinctive strategies for allocating resources, which seem to be influenced by birth order. There is research evidence that siblings select different “niches” to increase parental investment while avoiding direct competition. Firstborns tend to be more rule-abiding and academically focused (particularly firstborn girls), whereas laterborns tend to be more risk-taking. Like Ben and Michael, siblings typically select different areas of expertise in order to distinguish themselves and earn parental investment without having to fight it out.

Fourth, parents value niches differently. A parent may be excited by a child’s interest in sports but not in the arts. Although research on niche availability is non-existent, I have argued that parents who limit niche possibilities (e.g., “all my children must play football”) are more likely to have children compete directly and potentially succeed in the same endeavor (or have one drop out entirely), whereas parents who support a wide range of interests are more likely to see diversification and successes in different areas.

Fifth, families also live in environments that either promote or inhibit success with particular endeavors. Individuals who grew up in households close to golf courses are more likely to excel in that sport than those from urban environments. There are cultural, religious and gender expectations that can support or limit success. Culture influences children’s available extra-curricular activities. There is also the element of time and place in providing opportunity for success, as Malcolm Gladwell argued in his book Outliers. Offspring that graduate college and seek jobs during economic upturns have more opportunities to become employed in economically rewarding situations than siblings from the same family who enter the market during economic recessions.

Finally, families that hold social positions and offer unearned privileges to their children are more likely to produce multiple offspring success. Success is more likely in families that are wealthy, white, educated, and well-connected.

It is clear that environment matters, but it alone does not tell the whole story either.

3. Competition

Sibling competition increases skill sets and is an ingredient of shared sibling success. Individuals do not improve without engaging in competition and siblings represent an early, long-term, and potent relationship. Competition teaches you about your limits, about losing and getting up again, about working hard in the face of adversity, to be creative, and about winning and losing. It is hard to imagine that the Williams sisters or Manning brothers would have been as skilled at their sports without having competed against each other since childhood. Each competition offered opportunities to try out new techniques in order to raise the bar and best the other. Competition, however, can be both beneficial and damaging.

For both siblings to be successful within the same endeavor, the competition has to be well-intentioned and not with the aim of psychologically injuring the other. Interestingly, same-sex combinations may increase competition, whereas cross-sex may lessen it. A recent study reported that having an older sister was linked to lower male preference to be competitive. As such, growing up with a same-sex sibling may increase competition and opportunities for success.

4. Comparison

In no other relationship are individuals compared as much as siblings. Parents and siblings often describe themselves in terms of opposites, and these comparisons might be exaggerated. Assessments start even before the second child enters the world. A pregnant mother may feel her future child actively kicking and say, “This one is more energetic than our first born.” The siblings’ personalities are already being compared and being used to define them as different. Throughout life, siblings use each other as reference points for success.  One study even reported that individuals who were perceived to make more money than their siblings reported greater life satisfaction. Experts have long suggested that active parental comparison can be problematic, particularly if it casts one child at a disadvantage, such as carrying the label of the “bad one.” A recent study has reported that siblings who are frequently compared by parents have more anxiety about their economic success in adulthood. Comparison results in winners and losers, with one being more motivated and the other feeling diminished.

Children and adults pay close attention to comparisons and labels. Labels, such as the “good one” and the “bad one,” or the “overemotional one” and the “stoic one,” reinforce personality differences in invisible ways. For example, consider two siblings described by their parents and others as “serious” and “silly.” The more ridiculous the silly one behaves, the more serious the other appears by comparison. These labels are often potent and lead individuals to make different life choices.

To promote success for all of their offspring, parents should avoid making comparisons, and instead teach the children how to compete to achieve personal success while supporting each other. That is, low parental comparison should increase the chances of multiple offspring from the same family becoming successful.

5. Sibling Closeness

Sibling support has emerged in research as particularly beneficial. It has been shown to buffer children from the harmful effects of circumstances such as divorce, domestic violence, and substance abuse. Close siblings encourage and provide resources for success. Positive siblings view competition as friendly and bonding, whereas negative sibling relationships experience competition as antagonistic and aimed at diminishing the other. A fairly recent and most interesting research study suggests [pdf] happy people are more likely to experience economic success. It seems that not only does money buy happiness (up to a point), but evidence suggests that happiness also buys money. Sibling closeness is associated with increased life satisfaction, an important ingredient in economic success.

***

The more we know about our sibling relationships and how they influence us, the better we can make informed life choices that promote success. Understanding that one’s internalized sense of self as a “low achiever” was heavily influenced by comparisons to a high achieving sibling, allows the individual to reconsider and evaluate their own actual abilities. For example, Darlene, the youngest of four siblings, graduated from Johns Hopkins University, one of the top educational institutions in the world. Her three older brothers all attended Harvard University and mercilessly teased her about being “dumb.” Darlene internalized this label and sense of self and avoided taking jobs that she thought she was not smart enough to handle, although she clearly was. Reflecting upon her sibling experiences, she acknowledged that it was only with them that she felt unintelligent and that she may indeed be capable of more than she was attempting. With this knowledge now in hand, she landed a challenging but high paying job as a biochemist for a pharmaceutical company and has quickly moved up the ranks.

In sum, positive sibling relationships are beneficial in many ways including promoting physical, mental, and relational health. When relationships are positive, competition is healthy and promotes success. Take time to build positivity into your own and your children’s sibling relationships. This can be done by minimizing comparisons, openly talking about distribution of resources and equity, insuring that competition is not meant to diminish the other, creating opportunities for sibling closeness, support and bonding, and identifying endeavors in which one has the best biological fit for success.

—

How about you?

How have your siblings affected your success?

The problem is that in the heat of the moment of conversation, our leadership brains are wired to take control and give direction. It feels good. We get to solve problems, reduce uncertainty by giving instructions, and raise our level of status and authority.

Unfortunately what feels good for us feels bad for our people. No one ever did anything awesome or great because they were told to. The degree to which we order people around suppresses any opportunity for greatness.

On the contrary, telling people what to do is the opposite of responsibility. When we tell people what to do, we should preface it with “I absolve you of all responsibility for what happens here, and what I want you to do is …” The danger is people are “doing” their jobs, not “thinking” them.

***

In the early 1960s Stanley Milgram wanted to learn how susceptible people were to doing what they were told and what their willingness to obey an authority figure was, even when ordered to take actions that would hurt someone else.

The experiment went like this: Participants were placed in the role of a “teacher” who administered electric shocks to a “learner.” Every time the learner answered a question incorrectly, the teacher was supposed to administer greater and greater levels of electric shock. The settings on the machine at the higher settings indicated that the learner would be harmed at those levels.

The teachers were led to believe the learner was in a different room although there was no learner and no one was shocked. Milgram played recordings to make it sound like the learner was in a great deal of pain and wanted to end the experiment.

Despite these protests, many participants continued the experiment when the authority figure urged them to, increasing the voltage after each wrong answer until some eventually administered what would be lethal electric shocks.

Similar experiments conducted since the original have provided nearly identical results, indicating that people are willing to go against their consciences if they are being told to do so by authority figures.

So any business, any club, or any society which fosters an “I’ll tell you and you do it” approach will be susceptible to this disconnect. It’s the “I’ll tell you” from the leader that absolves people of the responsibility for their actions and allows humans to do the worst things possible. The age-old response to mass crimes has consistently been “I was just doing what I was told.”

Relying upon a benevolent leader isn’t the answer—the answer is to get everyone thinking and everyone taking responsibility for their behavior. The next time you are tempted to tell someone what to do, and enforce a degree of power over them, whether formalized or not, think twice—and ask them what they think the right thing to do is.

The problem is that it seems like a big step from telling people what to do to not telling people what to do. Turns out that this journey can be done incrementally, using what I call the “ladder of leadership.” The ladder of leadership (below) is a construct for measuring and affecting empowerment based upon the words people say.

At the bottom we have “tell me what to do” by the worker and “I’ll tell you what to do” by the boss. As we move up the ladder the worker gains in voice and authority and ownership. The language we use matters immensely when leading. 

The point of this is not to force the worker to move up the ladder but to move ourselves, as leaders, up the ladder. It is very difficult for workers to be higher on the ladder than the boss. Whatever level the boss is on puts a ceiling on the level of empowerment the workers could attain. While we cannot force someone to move from being a level 1 (tell me what to do) to a level 2 (I think) worker, we can consistently show up as a level 2 boss, asking our teams what they think. This is not only a more enjoyable dynamic; it taps the collected knowledge of your team rather than just the knowledge of one leader.

I learned these lessons in my days as a U.S. Navy Captain on board the nuclear submarine USS Santa Fe when I gave an order that could not be performed, but the watch officer ordered it anyway. He knew it couldn’t have been performed, but he ordered it because I “told him to.” We train people to be compliant and conform. Then we hope that they think for themselves—but this is a long shot.

When leaders make mistakes, we point to them and make scapegoats of them. Often the organization follows the leader over the cliff. The problem is not leaders making mistakes, the problem is leaders giving the orders. For example, Captain Schettino of the cruise ship Costa Concordia was vilified because he drove the ship too close to the island of Giglio, turned too late, ran aground and sank his ship with the loss of 39 lives. The focus of press attention was on the error he made. This missed the point.

The real question isn’t “What was the captain thinking?” but “Why was the captain of the cruise ship giving orders?” While this might seem like an unusual question, we know that when the top person in a hierarchy gives an order, the lower levels are likely to follow. But who has the most information about what’s happening on the ground? The lower levels. The solution isn’t a personnel change, it’s a process change.  We shouldn’t be calling for the heads of those at the top of the tree, but instead calling for the leaders to push decision-making down the hierarchy.

Level 1 of the ladder of leadership, “tell me what to do,” is often camouflaged. For example, bringing a problem without a solution is a camouflaged “tell me what to do.” When you hear “tell me what to do,” resist providing an immediate answer. Providing an answer promotes dependency and deprives your people of the ability to grow into leaders.

If people have had a long history of working for a top-down boss then they might be reluctant to immediately volunteer what they think. So here are some strategies you can try to encourage someone at “tell me what do” to tell you what they think:   

• Make it small – Let’s look at one tiny piece of the problem. “What do we know about this client that’s important to them?”
• Change perspective – “How do you think the customer would want this solved?” OR “What would you do if you were me?” 
• Fast forward – “Let’s say it’s Friday at 5 p.m. We have solved this perfectly. What would we have done?” OR “It’s six months from now? What have we done to be wildly successful?”

***

Over the next several months, we’ll be publishing a series of articles to help you practice strategies to move yourself, and your team, up the ladder, one step at a time. Follow along with us, and while you do this, encourage your team to move with you. For now, however, pay attention to how your people interact with you on decisions and train yourself to recognize level 1 (“tell me what to do”). 

—

Part One: Why Motivating Others Starts with Using the Right Language
Part Two: The Counterintuitive Art of Leading by Letting Go
Part Three: How to Source Suggestions from a Reluctant Team Member

by Anshuman Kashyap

There’s no shortage of advice from motivational speakers and self-help authors preaching that success is the byproduct of a positive attitude. The Power of Suggestion, as popularized by The Secret, posits that positivity attracts success. No matter whether in an organization, freelance, or as an entrepreneur, being overly (and unrealistically) optimistic can grossly backfire and have devastating consequences. Not only can it stifle you and your team, but it can undermine your decisions and affect your morale, outlook, and ultimately your bottom-line. So how can you be an optimist without being foolish?

Jim Collins, author of the famous book Good to Great, suggests making one small change to your thinking. Collins recounts his interview with General Stockdale who was a prisoner for eight years during the Vietnam War, about his experiences in captivity. After surviving torture and losing many friends in jail, General Stockdale miraculously made it out alive. The General shared with Collins how he managed to survive the torture, starvation, and horrors of captivity, when all hope was seemingly lost.

I didn’t say anything for many minutes, and we continued the slow walk toward the faculty club, Stockdale limping and arc-swinging his stiff leg that had never fully recovered from repeated torture. Finally, after about a hundred meters of silence, I asked, “Who didn’t make it out?”

“Oh, that’s easy,” he said. “The optimists.”

“The optimists? I don’t understand,” I said, now completely confused, given what he’d said a hundred meters earlier.

“The optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say,‘We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart.”

Another long pause, and more walking. Then he turned to me and said, “This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”

To this day, I carry a mental image of Stockdale admonishing the optimists: “We’re not getting out by Christmas; deal with it!”

Of course, optimism, and the confidence it creates are essential for creating and sustaining the motivation that you need to reach your goals. In fact, research indicates that positive thinkers tend to do better in school, work and life. A psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania proved that optimists are more successful than equally talented pessimists in business, education, sports and politics. But the key here is to balance optimism with pessimism.

There must be be a balance between objectives and projections; bold objectives can motivate your team and improve your chances of success, but calculated projections should be used to decide whether or not to make a commitment in the first place. 

As you carefully balance optimism with realism, be careful not to slip into pessimistic thinking. When you assume the worst case scenario and weigh difficulty, disappoint, and failure in greater proportion than any positive outcomes, you can lower morale, undermine promising new ideas, and hamper progress. Author Bernard Marr compiled a list of ten phrases that can act as your barometer for when you start to slip into pessimistic thinking:

1. That won’t work.
2. I can’t do it.
3. Impossible
4. That’s not fair.
5. It’s not my fault.
6. I might be able to…
7. That’s not my job.
8. Need
9. I think…
10. I’ll try.

If you catch yourself considering the consequences of a situation, and bordering on pessimism, reframe the problem so that it’s not so severe. Success occurs when you push through the odds without losing faith in the eventual (positive) outcome.

[via] 

by Lana Kasianova

If you want to foster creativity, the common advice is to step outside of your comfort zone to gain inspiration. The general solutions include everything from mixing up your daily routine, to traveling to new cultures, or anything else that will aid you to take risks and try new things in your work. However, we must be careful to not build so much discomfort that we end up producing fear.

Discomfort encourages creativity by opening our mind to the new while fear locks us down in survival mode. Inflexible deadlines with hard deliverables create anxiety where we are not willing to risk failure. We are concerned only with our personal task at hand and lose sight of the project end goal. In an article for Harvard Business Review, Yesware VP of Product Jake Levirne explains the difference between discomfort and fear:

There was discomfort with how big our goals were at the beginning, but discomfort put us on edge in a different way than fear did. Fear was paralyzing, but discomfort made us want to move, want to act, want to create. When we made the roadmap more aspirational and less cut-and-dry, our team was much more comfortable asking questions like “Why?” and “Is this the best way?” and “What if?” They were also more comfortable communicating these thoughts with one another and working together to solve problems.

Finding the perfect balance between discomfort and fear comes down to changing your creative process and continually reevaluating it.

We realized that the first roadmap’s lack of flexibility set us up for failure. This time, instead of setting a checklist, we set a vision. We considered the big-picture goals we wanted to accomplish and left it up to the team to decide how to execute.

By encouraging open and honest communication within the team, he was able to ensure a level of discomfort without producing fear. In Levirne’s experience, they found that employees enjoyed the challenge of deciding how to execute a project goal, but not the act of deciding what that goal should be. Their evaluation of the creative process allowed them revise their process and address any problems before moving forward.

Personal evaluation is important as well. Be honest with yourself and ensure that you are being challenged, but not taking on too much that you are paralyzed. If something isn’t working for you, it’s okay to change how you work.

[via]

The reason is simple: There is no one-size-fits-all approach to productivity. Instead, we need personalized approaches. This means employing work strategies that align with our own cognitive styles, and allocating efforts in a way that suits our strengths and preferences.

Ironically, most of us do this unconsciously. After all, these are habitual patterns of perceiving, processing, and managing information that guide our behavior. However, because we’re inundated with “proven” programs, tips and tools (backed by a bevy of consultants, academics, and practitioners), we often go against our natural instincts. The first step in making your productivity personal is to identify your Productivity Style, so that you can work in sync with your natural inclinations. Each one has its own strengths and preferred tools based on those powers.

Illustration by Oscar Ramos Orozco.

The Prioritizer

A Prioritizer is that guy or gal who will always defer to logical, analytical, fact-based, critical, and realistic thinking. To increase their efficiency, they will time how long it takes to complete certain tasks in order to more accurately plan their days and weeks. They have never met a goal they did not like and apply a laser-like focus to ensure they accomplish their goals.

They are so focused on execution that they don’t spend much time or energy on how it is completed. At times they have a tendency to be controlling and rigid, and may be known in the office for their drive and competitiveness. They hate chit-chat, missing data, or oversharing of anything personal. Their emails are often only a few sentences, or if possible, just a few letters.

Contributions to the team:

• Analyzing data
• Critical analysis and logical problem solving
• Goal orientation, consistency, and decisiveness 

Productivity tools:

• 42Goals: Tracks your daily goals and keeps a log of your daily activities.
• Daytum: Helps you collect, categorize, and communicate any and all of your data.
• Moosti: A timer-tool based on the Pomodoro Technique.
• Witty Parrott: Enables you to create snippets of content once and then seamlessly reuse or share them.
• Wunderlist: Tracks and reminds you of your to-dos.
• Classic low-tech tools, like legal pads and a label maker. 

Illustration by Oscar Ramos Orozco.

The Planner

The Planner is the team member who thrives on organized, sequential, planned, and detailed thinking. Though at first glance they may appear as a Prioritizer, the Planner will immerse themselves in the details of a project, while the Prioritizer focuses on only the details that help them complete the project quickly and accurately. The Planner has never met a calendar or project-planning tool that they did not like.

They are not known for their spontaneity, and in fact they have missed opportunities due to their resistance to deviate from plans. They have been known to write something on their to-do list that has already been completed, just so they can cross it off. They thrive on schedules and action plans, and are known for their timely follow-ups. They want you to get to the point; they’ll read the fine print later. They hate attending a meeting without an agenda. Their emails are detailed, often including bullet points and clearly stated next-action steps.

Contributions to the team:

• Action orientation and practicality
• Finding overlooked flaws in plans or processes
• Organizing and maintaining data and project plans 

Productivity tools:

• Toodledo: Lets you make custom lists, create structured outlines, and view tasks on a calendar.
• HabitForge: A habit-forming tool designed around accountability that includes daily check-ins and progress reports.
• Agendas: Creates interactive agendas and broadcasts them to iPad users.
• Objectiveli: Manages and track goals in real time.
• Low-tech tools like label makers, file folders, filing cabinets, drawer organizers, pen holders, and other office organizational supplies. 

Illustration by Oscar Ramos Orozco.

The Arranger

An Arranger prefers supportive, expressive, and emotional thinking. They are the ultimate team player and excel at partnering with colleagues to get work done. They are a natural communicator and deftly facilitate project meetings. They hate when people lack that personal touch or rely too heavily on data or facts. Arrangers are talkers; they love stories, eye-to-eye contact, expressing concern for others, and asking questions about the way a project or task helps others. They have been known to need to institute a personal chat budget, only allowing a few minutes of chit chat during work hours, and have to avoid adding one more person to the cc: line on their email messages. 

Contributions to the team:

• Anticipating how others will feel and understanding their underlying emotions
• Facilitating team interaction
• Persuading and selling ideas 

Productivity tools:

• focus@will: A neuroscience-based music service that helps you focus and retain information when working, studying, writing and reading.
• stickK: A habit forming tool that focuses on incentives, accountability and community (and if you are unsuccessful, stickK lets your friends know).
• workshifting: A resource site that shares ideas to help you shift when, where and how you work.
• Redbooth: A complete collaboration and communication solution that enables you to leverage your existing work flow infrastructure like Outlook, MSProject, Box, Gmail, DropBox, Evernote, and more.
• Visually and kinesthetically pleasing office supplies, things like Moleskin notebooks with unlined pages, and pens in a variety of ink colors. 

Illustration by Oscar Ramos Orozco.

The Visualizer

A Visualizer prefers holistic, intuitive, integrating, and synthesizing thinking. They thrive under pressure and are easily bored if they are not juggling multiple, diverse projects. A Visualizer focuses on the big-picture and broad concepts making connections. At times, they have a tendency to overlook details and tend to value the possibilities over process. Their excessive spontaneity and impulsiveness can lead to breakthrough ideas, but can also derail project plans at times. A Visualizer has probably not seen the surface of their desk in years because if something is out of sight, it is out of mind. And, their emails tend to be long, filled with concepts and ideas.

Contributions to the team:

• Innovation; serving as a catalyst for change
• Creative problem solving
• Ability to envision the future, recognize new opportunities and integrate ideas and concepts 

Productivity tools:

• Lifetick: A highly visual dreams achievement tool where you can create and add to your lifelong “bucket list.”
• iThoughts HD: A digital mind-mapping tool.
• AdBlock Plus: A tool that blocks ads automatically and speeds up page download times.
• ZenPen: A tool that creates a minimalist writing zone where you can block out all distractions.
• Visually vibrant, low-tech tools: multicolored Post-It notes, colored folders, notebooks with unlined pages, pens in a variety of ink colors, large white boards, baskets, folders, and bags and clipboards for keeping papers visible while still organized. 

***

These profiles aim to guide you towards which tools will work best for you, so don’t worry if you find yourself spanning two or more styles. Try tools from each, mix and match—it’s about what actually sticks with you in the end that is important.

Your productivity must be personal. And the moment you discover your Productivity Style as it fits into your personality and instincts, you’re working smarter in a way that fits you. From there, you will begin to work simply and live fully.