There is an apocryphal [1] story that Warren Buffett once asked someone to list his top 25 goals in order. Buffett then told him that he should avoid items 6 through 25 at all costs. The idea is that worthy but low-priority goals distract from high-priority goals.

Paul Graham wrote something similar about fake work. Blatantly non-productive activity doesn’t dissipate your productive energy as unimportant work does.

I have a not-to-do list, though it’s not as rigorous as the “avoid at all costs” list that Buffett is said to have recommended. These are not hard constraints, but more like what optimization theory calls soft constraints, more like stiff springs than brick walls.

One of the things on my not-to-do list is work with students. They don’t have money, and they often want you to do their work for them, e.g. to write the statistical chapter of their dissertation. It’s easier to avoid ethical dilemmas and unpaid invoices by simply turning down such work. I haven’t made exceptions to this one.

My softest constraint is to avoid small projects, unless they’re interesting, likely to lead to larger projects, or wrap up quickly. I’ve made exceptions to this rule, some of which I regret. My definition of “small” has generally increased over time.

I like the variety of working on lots of small projects, but it becomes overwhelming to have too many open projects at the same time. Also, transaction costs and mental overhead are proportionally larger for small projects.

Most of my not-to-do items are not as firm as my prohibition against working with students but more firm than my prohibition against small projects. These are mostly things I have pursued far past the point of diminishing return. I would pick them back up if I had a reason, but I’ve decided not to invest any more time in them just-in-case.

Sometimes things move off my not-to-do list. For example, Perl was on my not-to-do list for a long time. There are many reasons not to use Perl, and I agree with all of them in context. But nothing beats Perl for small text-munging scripts for personal use.

I’m not advocating my personal not-to-do list, only the idea of having a not-to-do list. And I’d recommend seeing it like a storage facility rather than a landfill: some things may stay there a while then come out again.

I’m also not advocating evaluating everything in terms of profit. I do lots of things that don’t make money, but when I am making money, I want to make money. I might take on a small project pro bono, for example, that I wouldn’t take on for work. I heard someone say “Work for full rate or for free, but not for cheap” and I think that’s good advice.

***

[1] Some sources say this story may be apocryphal. But “apocryphal” means of doubtful origin, so it’s redundant to say something may be apocryphal. Apocryphal does not mean “false.” I’d say a story might be false, but I wouldn’t say it might be apocryphal.

It’s been eight years since I started my consulting business. Two of the things I love about having my own business are the stability and the reduced stress. This may sound like a joke, but I’m completely serious.

Having a business is ostensibly less stable and more stressful than having a salaried job, but at a deeper level it can be more stable and less stressful.

If you are an employee, you have one client. If you lose that client, you lose 100% of your income. If you have a business with a dozen clients, losing a client or two at the same time is disappointing, but it’s not devastating.

As for stress, I prefer the stress of owning a business to the stresses of employment. My net stress level dropped when I went out on my own. My sleep, for example, improved immediately.

At first I never knew where the next project was coming from. But I found this less stressful than office politics, questioning the value of my work, a lack of correlation between my efforts and my rewards, etc.

If you’re thinking of striking out on your own, I wish you well. Here is some advice I wrote a few years ago that you may find helpful.

The Peter Principle is an idea that was developed by Lawrence Peter and expanded into a book coauthored with Raymond Hull in 1969. It says that people rise to their level of incompetence. According to the Peter Principle, competent people are repeatedly promoted until they get to a level where they’re not bad enough to fire but not good enough to promote.

I haven’t thought about the Peter Principle in a while, but I was reminded of it when I was reading One Giant Leap and was struck by this line:

He was the opposite of the Peter Principle.

What a great thing to have someone say about you. So what was the context of that line?

Jane Tindall said it about her husband Bill. The title of that chapter in One Giant Leap is “The Man Who Saved Apollo.” The author, Charles Fishman, is saying indirectly that Bill Tindall was the man who saved Apollo by getting the program’s software development effort on track. The previous chapter, “The Fourth Crew Member” explained how Apollo’s guidance computer, primitive as its hardware was by contemporary standards, was absolutely critical to the missions.

Here’s the paragraph containing the line above.

By 1966 Tindall had had years of management experience; one engineer who worked for him said that Tindall liked remaining the deputy in the divisions where he worked because it gave him more actual ability to get things done, more maneuvering room, and considerably less bureaucratic hassle. Said his wife, Jane, “He was the opposite of the Peter Principle.” [1] Tindall had the ability and experience to absorb, understand, and sort out serious technical problems, and that ability earned him the respect of his colleagues, even when they didn’t get the decision they wanted.

More Peter Principle posts

• Super-competence
• Intellectual traffic jam
• Decentralized knowledge, centralized power

[1] No one used the term “Peter Principle” during the Apollo program because Dr. Peter had not yet coined the term yet. The quote from Jane Tindall came from Fishman interviewing her in 2016.

The reason businesses have employees rather than contracting out everything is to reduce transaction costs. If a company needs enough graphics work, they hire a graphic artist rather than outsourcing every little project, eliminating the need to evaluate bids, write contracts, etc. Some things are easier when no money has to change hands.

But some things are made more complicated because money does not change hands. In-house transactions don’t require monetary negotiation, but they require emotional and political negotiation. Discussions can become unnecessarily heated because things don’t have prices. Discussions drift toward arguments over what is and is not possible rather than discussions of trade-offs based on cost.

Yesterday I was at a wedding, and a vase broke in the aisle shortly before the bridal party was to enter. Guests quickly picked up the pieces, but the vase left a pool of water on the hard floor.

A security guard ran (literally) for a mop and cheerfully picked up the water. He could have easily stood in the corner and said that mopping floors is not his job. And if he were guarding a jewelry store, it would be inappropriate for him to leave his post to get a mop. But his presence at the wedding was a formality, presumably a venue requirement, and no one was endangered by his fetching a mop. There was more danger of someone slipping on a wet floor.

I enjoy seeing anyone do their job with enthusiasm, doing more than the minimum required. Over-zealous people can cause problems, but I’d much rather deal with such problems than deal with people passively putting in their time.