The word “efficiency” has seen an increase in use lately. But what exactly is it, and is it always a good thing?
While the term efficiency has been in the news recently, it is hardly a new phenomenon. When you were a student, you may have been encouraged to study more efficiently. At work, you may have been praised for being efficient as an employee.
The general idea is that you should get from point A to point B in as few steps as possible. If you can do it in, say, three steps, then doing in five steps is less desirable. Steps 4 and 5, then, are wasteful and unnecessary. Three steps is optimal, the most efficient route.
Of course, this is an overly simplified example, and real life tends to be more more complicated.
For example, let’s pretend that the project can be done in three steps, but you are more likely to make mistakes than if you were to do it in five. If you need to do the entire project over again regularly, then is three steps really more efficient than five?
Some endeavors are independent from the normal rules of efficiency. Let’s consider creative or artistic expressions. Is it possible or even desirable to write a poem more efficiently? Can creativity be regulated in some way? When brainstorming, might it not be more helpful to think in unconventional ways, even if they happen to be conventionally inefficient?
In other cases, a certain amount of inefficiency is fundamental to the process. In science, it is regularly impossible to predict how an experiment will unfold. A scientist might have to try dozens or even hundreds of approaches to problem solving before finding the right one. Each invalid attempt is not a waste, as it may very well illuminate a rule or behavior that was previously unknown, which obviously has value.
Doing things quickly is the right thing to do in some cases. But not all. Can you think of examples from your life where being inefficient was better? And if so, isn’t that approach more efficient after all?
Related questions: What is the value of inefficiency? How can we be more productive? What is waste?
If efficiency is a goal, it assumes that any deviation from the direct route to the final product is waste. While this may be correct in some processes or everyday tasks, it is worth questioning occasionally.
Like science, learning in general may not advance through efficiency. Making mistakes while practicing a process can help your brain understand how not to do things, which can be just as valuable as quickly arriving at the correct answer or process on your first attempt.
When reading non-fiction books, plowing through may sometimes be acceptable. However, absorbing the content, underlining sections, and writing notes in the margin can enhance your retention. Embracing inefficiency could be a strategy for tackling challenging material.
Does one want to travel efficiently? Perhaps meandering about is an inappropriate use of time. However, deciding to walk down a winding pedestrian walkway could be far more enjoyable than taking a direct route to your destination.
Is eating efficiently the right decision? Isn’t savoring your food not only good for the joy of a sensory experience but also a strategy for preventing overeating? In other words, eating slowly allows your brain to register that you are full before consuming too much of what’s in front of you.
Lastly, in this critique of efficiency, as I harvest vegetables in my heirloom garden, some of the joy comes from taking things slowly. I enjoy smelling the tomato plants, admiring the beautiful and diverse colors of the plants and veggies surrounding me, and observing the bees and butterflies as they pollinate the plant life.
Efficiency has its place. In fact, we are bombarded with examples of when that is true. However, I encourage people to challenge this assumption before diving into a project, process, or life experience.