Don'T Set Targets For Thinking Time In Your Work.

If you spend 10% of your time thinking is regarded as a very encouraging thing, it is equivalent to recognizing that it is totally acceptable to not think in 90% of the time. In fact, it sounds unreasonable.

I like thinking very much.

In fact, I love thinking so much that I feel that there is no reason why people should not spend 100% of their working time on keeping their brain in a basic state of activity.

Or if the goal of 100% is too high, it will take at least 90% of the time to do so, and the rest of the time can be used to fill in forms like human resources department to exchange ideas.

I am not saying that in the office of 90% of the time, we should try our best to conceive some great ideas, because most of us do not have the ability, and the great idea that any enterprise can digest is limited.

If everyone can accept my 90% time of thinking high

Then office life can become better overnight and efficiency will be greatly improved.

All the useless activities that do not need to be mental should exist.

First of all, almost all meetings must be cancelled.

Some very smart people can't help breaking the rules and playing candy Candy Crush during the meeting. These games are addictive. It's only a part of the reason. The reason is that these meetings are not interesting enough, not only do they not encourage us to think, but they prohibit us from thinking.

However, although I have just proposed the implementation of the 90% time of thinking policy, I do not fully agree with this policy because I feel that setting a time goal is totally meaningless.

Delineating specific time thinking is contrary to the working mechanism of my brain, nor is it consistent with the way I work in any place.

If I sit down for 1 hours every day, there is no doubt that in a few seconds, my mind will drift elsewhere and begin to wonder where I have put the Christmas gift receipts. Those gifts are just rushing to buy at the last minute, and I realize that these East West buys so failed that they will almost certainly return the goods at last.

On the contrary, those really important ideas came out when I was doing something else, such as chatting with others, riding bicycles, and sometimes even reading mail.

There is only one time when they will never happen, that is when I sit there and play with my fingers and wait for them.

The last problem of the policy is that this policy assumes that the results of specialized thinking will be beneficial.

In the business world, most of the "ideas" put forward by people are not good ideas at all.

Evidence of this, when I was working, came to my inbox at least once every hour.

The title of the latest evidence is "let you have a special Christmas..."

The beginning was acceptable and not boring until I saw "project management course 30 percent off..."

For a special Christmas, most people will think of ice skating on a frozen lake, or drinking a large bottle of champagne on ice.

At a price of 30 percent off, you can learn a management course, and finally get the certificate of project management, which is not related to "special Christmas".

What should we do in the face of such foolish ideas? Armstrong's solution may be to let the person responsible for this foolish idea spend more time concentrating on thinking.

It may help, though I can't help thinking that a better way is to stop him or her from thinking about the product preferences.

To those who are more gifted for thinking.

For more information, please pay attention to the world clothing shoes and hats and Internet cafes.