Habit change frustration

Imagine you’ve decided to change a habit – for instance, you’ve decided you’re going to replace time watching Netflix with time reading a book.

For most people, the next step is encountering a familiar foe I call habit change frustration. You’ll find yourself struggling to break old habits easily and will get frustrated.

And that frustration will likely build over time. If you have some form of weekly review system, you’ll realize you’re performing woefully against your goal.

That’s when you’ll find yourself with two choices –

(1) The default choice will be to simply give up on the goal. You’ll find some justification for that decision and move on.

(2) The non-obvious choice will be to continue living with the habit change frustration.

The benefit of doing so is that you keep the tension. That tension will keep building till it hits a point when you’ll decide to make the change.

I’ve had experiences with some habit changes that took months before the switch flipped.

The tension that causes habit change frustration is a feature, not a bug.

Adaptive systems

We use a travel checklist in our phone’s notes and run through the checklist every time we take a trip.

We’ve been using this system for the past 4 years and the difference in the packing experience pre- and post- checklist is night and day. We used to leave for a trip asking each other random questions about whether we remembered x or y.

And we’d inevitably realize we forgot something.

Over time, we’ve continued to iterate on the checklist of course. It is definitely not perfect. But if we forget something this time around, we just add it in and know it’ll be better next time.

This is a simple example of an adaptive system. The lesson to take away is that the best processes and systems are adaptive. They’re continuously learning from previous attempts and getting better.

That’s applicable to the most productive humans as well. They’ve built in learning loops that help them continue to adapt.

That makes it impossible to bet against adaptive systems.

No man’s land

Marcus Rashford, a former Manchester United player who was transferred to Barcelona, recently shared in an interview that he felt the club was stuck in no man’s land.

It’s easy to dismiss criticism from a player who grew up at the club and was eventually forced out by the latest in the string of managers he’s played under. But there was truth in what he said.

The real issue he pointed to is one of instability. Managers have been cycled in and out so quickly that none have been given the 4–5 years typically needed to mould a team in their philosophy. No manager in the past decade has lasted longer than three years.

In retrospect, the club lurched from one short-term and ill thought out managerial decision to the next.

That’s why Rashford’s point resonates.

Too much change creates chaos and prevents long-term progress.

Too little change – especially when results are consistently poor with no line of sight to improvement – is equally ruinous.

Sustainable success, whether in football or in organizations, lies in knowing when to persist and when to pivot.

As always, the magic is in balance.

The goal of the first attempt

The goal of the first attempt is to learn. We do that when we give ourselves the space to understand what we’re up against.

On our first day in a new place, we’re going to make mistakes. If we’re a tourist, we’ll have to keep that sheepish tourist grin handy as we figure stuff out.

If we’re operating a machine for the first time or trying out a new process, we’re not going to figure out the optimal approach till we try it once or twice.

Best to approach the first time with a gentle reminder to cut ourselves some slack when we’re attempting something for the first time.

Focus on the learning. There’ll be plenty of opportunities to optimize later.

Hampton Inn

I was fascinated by Bloomberg’s story about Hampton Inn. A centerpiece of the story is the free waffles available at breakfast.

The key constant is the tub of Hampton’s malted vanilla waffle batter. In a now-familiar ritual, guests push a plastic tab to extrude the mix into a paper cup, drizzle it over a waffle iron, then flip the handle and watch the seconds tick down on a digital timer. As with almost everything at Hampton, the process has been rigorously engineered. Those little paper cups of batter are what peak hotel performance looks like.

Last year, Hampton Inns around the world cooked up more than 2 million gallons of batter, or about 30 million waffles. With all due respect, they’re not great. Nor is the coffee or the orange juice, the bananas or the convection-oven eggs. What all these things are, crucially, is free to lodgers. It costs a US Hampton franchisee less than $5 per occupied room to furnish this cornucopia, but to a family of four, the perceived value is closer to $50, or roughly one-third of the average cost of a nightly stay. That math has helped power Hampton Inn’s unlikely rise to become the world’s largest lodging brand, with almost 350,000 rooms spread across 43 countries. Hampton sold almost 90 million room nights last year, according to Bloomberg estimates, a few million more than its closest competitor, Holiday Inn Express. That helped it generate nearly $12 billion in room revenue, dwarfing that of the industry’s luxury leaders.

Those are impressive numbers. There’s more about the waffles though.

“Everybody’s like, ‘Oh, waffles are just for kids,’” s“Everybody’s like, ‘Oh, waffles are just for kids,’” says Buckley. “It’s surprising how many men in suits will pretend nobody’s looking and grab their little waffle.” The self-serve aspect of the experience is also a plus: Hilton toyed with the idea of using machines that dispensed waffles with the press of a button before deciding that pour-and-flip made for a homier experience.

I enjoyed reading this because we’ve stayed Hampton Inn for a few nights over the years. And I can attest to both the popularity of these waffles and how much we enjoyed them.

I now have more appreciation for the rigorously engineered processes that make such experiences possible.

Woz and smiles minus frowns

On his 75th birthday, there was some discussion in the Slashdot forum about how Steve Wozniak made a bad decision to sell his Apple stock back in the day.

The man himself jumped into the comments to add his 2 cents –

I gave all my Apple wealth away because wealth and power are not what I live for. I have a lot of fun and happiness. I funded a lot of important museums and arts groups in San Jose, the city of my birth, and they named a street after me for being good. I now speak publicly and have risen to the top. I have no idea how much I have but after speaking for 20 years it might be $10M plus a couple of homes. I never look for any type of tax dodge. I earn money from my labor and pay something like 55% combined tax on it. I am the happiest person ever. Life to me was never about accomplishment, but about Happiness, which is Smiles minus Frowns. I developed these philosophies when I was 18-20 years old and I never sold out.

Classy and wise.