Brandon Donnelly

Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Subscribe

Tag: adam grant

  • Uninterrupted flow

    Adam Grant’s recent NY Times article about languishing — the psychological middle state that exists somewhere in between depressed and flourishing — has been making the rounds online. Perhaps it is because COVID sucks and many of us can relate.

    Either way, three points in the article really stood out to me (at least one of which, in my mind, directly ties back to real estate).

    Firstly, I found it helpful to hear him describe what flourishing is. In his words, “flourishing is the peak of well-being: You have a strong sense of meaning, mastery and mattering to others.” This resonates with me. I know that I am at my best when I’m accomplishing things and making progress.

    Secondly, he puts forward a possible solution to languishing — it’s the concept of “flow.” Flow is when we are absorbed in meaningful and challenging work and where, again in his words, “your sense of time, place and self melts away.” This also resonates with me. I am a big fan of a flow (even if I didn’t know what it was called).

    Thirdly — and this one is important as we all think about the future of work/office space — focus is paramount to doing exceptional things! Here’s an excerpt that I immediately paused on as I was reading the article:

    Fragmented attention is an enemy of engagement and excellence. In a group of 100 people, only two or three will even be capable of driving and memorizing information at the same time without their performance suffering on one or both tasks. Computers may be made for parallel processing, but humans are better off serial processing.

    For the rest of Grant’s article, click here.

  • What did Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, and Steve Jobs all have in common?

    According to Walter Isaacson – the bestselling author of their biographies – it is this:

    I started with Ben Franklin, and then Einstein, and then Steve Jobs—[they were all] innovative and creative. And I said, “Well, what pattern [leads to] that?” The pattern wasn’t that they were smart, because you’ve met lots of smart people, and they don’t usually amount to much. The pattern tends to be curiosity across disciplines.

    This excerpt was taken from a conversation between Isaacson and Adam Grant, which you can read or watch here. 

    Here is another excerpt that speaks to the way in which Jobs prided himself on working at the intersection of technology and the humanities:

    I’ll give you a tiny example. The Mac that came out in 2000 had a handle on it, and they say, “This is a desktop machine. We don’t need the handle—people aren’t really supposed to move it around. It’ll cost us another sixty dollars [per computer].” And Steve said, “The handle is there because it makes the machine approachable. My mom is afraid of her computer, but if there’s a little thing [where] she can put her hand, where she can touch it and she knows it won’t break, that makes her connect emotionally to the computer better.” And he was right. But it cost money, and the Mac didn’t make as much.

    The entire conversation resonated with me partly because I think of development as being a career that, by necessity, requires you to work across disciplines. 

    I also sometimes wonder if I have too many broad-ranging interests. It can be overwhelming. But apparently that’s a good thing for innovation and creativity.

  • How to achieve peak productivity

    image

    Lately I’ve been finding that I need to divide my time between multitasking and blocks of uninterrupted time. The multitasking phase is doing calls, responding to emails in 3 seconds, going from meeting to meeting, and so on. It’s a mode that many of us probably exist in virtually all of the time.

    But I can’t stay in this mode all of the time. I think of it as short attention span mode. There are times when I need blocks of uninterrupted time so that I can “go deep.” One example would be to review drawings. I really need to focus so that I can think of all of the externalities associated with the decisions being made.

    This is related to my post about managers and makers, but it’s also the focus of a recent book by Cal Newport called, Deep Work: The Secret to Achieving Peak Productivity. You can read more about the book here at Knowledge@Wharton, but I wanted to highlight two concepts. The first is this equation:

    High-Quality Work Produced = (Time Spent) x (Intensity of Focus).

    Obviously the argument here is that if you want to maximize your output, you need to increase the intensity of your focus. Minimize distractions. Ratchet up the intensity. There’s only so much time in the day.

    Newport gives the example of Adam Grant. He is a New York Times bestselling author and the youngest tenured professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. 

    He is so committed to intensity of focus that he batches all of this teaching into the fall semester, allowing him to truly focus on the students. He’s the highest rated teacher at Wharton. At the same time, this lets him focus on research and writing during the spring and summer semesters. He’s also known to regularly use auto-of-office responders when he’s in the office, but needs to focus.

    The second concept is that of “attention residue.” The idea here is that when we switch from some Task A to some other Task B, our attention doesn’t immediately snap over. A portion of our attention remains on the original task and distracts us from fully focusing. There’s residue.

    An example of this would be when you’re working on something and you see an email come in. As soon as you turn your attention to that notification, your attention gets divided. And even if you don’t immediately respond to that email, a portion of your attention now remains with that uncompleted task. It lingers in the mind.

    The above probably makes intuitive sense to a lot of you, but in many ways our work culture today does not encourage intensity of focus.

    Thanks for reading today. There’s lots of evidence to suggest that the best way to learn new things is to not simply read about it, but to share it with others. That’s one of the reasons I blog and hopefully you find that valuable.

  • Writing every day

    I often get asked about my daily routine and how I manage to write, every, single, day.

    Oftentimes people will say that I must not sleep. But the reality is that I love sleeping and I generally need a lot of it. I’m not someone who can function on 5 or 6 hours. I’m useless with that amount of sleep. One of the best productivity hacks for me is to simply sleep more and work less.

    In terms of when I write, my preference is to write first thing in the morning – even though I don’t consider myself much of a morning person. I like to wake up, make breakfast and a coffee, and then sit down at my desk to both read and write. I like to do this before diving into email, before thinking about all the stuff that I need to do that day, and before going into the office.

    Some days a post might take me 20 minutes and some days it might take me an hour. Where I struggle the most to write every day is when I’m traveling or when I have to be somewhere super early, which then means I’m writing in the evening. I like my routines.

    I’m thinking about this right now not only because I often get asked this question, but because I’m currently making my way through a book by Adam Grant called Originals. 

    Though talent still matters, one the things he argues is that creative people tend to be creative because they are prolific. They produce a lot of whatever it is they do. And while much of it may be crap – he argues that Shakespeare penned a lot of crappy plays – it is through sheer volume that they end up achieving those creative breakthroughs.

    This goes against the traditional notion of the “creative genius”, but I think there’s a lot of truth to it. It’s why good architects will iterate through many different building designs and it’s (partly) why bloggers like myself see value in showing up every day.

  • Come original

    I am thinking about nonconformity and originality this morning because I just ordered a book by Wharton professor Adam Grant called, Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World. I ordered it along with another book that was recommended by a regular reader of this blog. (Thanks Daniel.)

    I find this topic fascinating because there’s clearly a deep appreciation for originality and creativity in our society and yet I think we do a lot to encourage the opposite: conformity. Of course, part of this is that it’s inherently easier to conform. Think about how much pressure we have in our lives to please others and generally just “fit in.”

    This is something that I think about and try to fight in my own life, particularly as I get older. As a teenager, I was a skateboarder with bleach blonde hair who rode around in a t-shirt that said “skateboarding is not a crime.” That’s clearly not me anymore (I prefer my natural hair color), but I continue to believe that a bit of rebelliousness can be valuable.

    For instance, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that San Francisco – the epicenter of counterculture in the 1960s – ended up becoming such a hotbed of entrepreneurship.

    To drive that point home even further, here’s a quote from a recent interview with Adam Grant:

    “It often starts with a slight recalibration in perspective followed by a small, but defiant act. It’s the originals who keep pulling on that thread — they instinctively know that that’s the difference between inspiration and innovation.”

    So there’s also a lesson here for cities. Most cities around the world believe in the value of a thriving startup ecosystem. They want entrepreneurs to start companies and create jobs. But we shouldn’t forget that starting a company is also “an expression of nonconformity.” It is someone deciding to carve out their own path in life.

    If that’s what we’re trying to encourage – and most places are – I believe we should also think about what we’re doing and not doing to encourage the right kind of nonconformity in our cities.