In general I try to avoid bringing up something negative unless I can also supply an idea for an alternative.  If someone I’m working with is doing something and I say “Hey, I think this thing you’re doing is garbage” and then just … leave it at that, it sucks.  If I say “Hey, this thing could be better, maybe you could try X” then not only does it give them an alternative, but it opens up the opportunity for disagreement.  It’s possible they’ve already thought of (or tried) the alternative, and then we can have a discussion about it.

Last week I let the book “effortless” by Greg McKeown have it.  I stand by my criticisms, but in the spirit of offering an alternative I want to talk about what I would do differently.

(to be clear, I did offer some alternatives in the review, but it wasn’t particularly comprehensive or structured.  I definitely complained without offering alternatives more than not)

So here are a couple of things I want to talk about, and I specifically want to contrast “effortless” (which I did not like) with “essentialism” (which I like a lot).

In the beginning …

… of both books they have an image showing “the model.”  Here is “the model” for essentialism:


And here is “the model” for effortless:

OK, man, why do I dislike this book so much?

(you know why?  Because it reminds me of seasons 4+ of Arrested Development.  Seasons 1-3 are close to perfection in my book, seasons 4+ are not nearly as good — so much so that they make me wonder if I was wrong about seasons 1-3)

Look at the model for effortless, though.  The “exhausting” side of the model is basically a straw man.  They contrast “effortless” with someone who thinks “anything worth doing takes tremendous effort” when the vast majority of people would not agree with that statement.  They might say “most things worth doing take effort” and they are frequently right, but few people would say anything worth doing takes tremendous effort.

Likewise, when we get to the “get” section the results of “exhausting” is “burnout and none of the results you want” which is also not correct.  People who burn out frequently get LOTS of results that they want.  I mean, people in the video games industry burn out constantly, and also churn out games that make millions or billions of dollars.

The problem is not that anyone who applies lots of effort will inevitably burn out and will not be successful at anything.  I would argue that the real problem is people that burn out frequently ARE successful — or at least successful people cause other people to burn out.

But that is a much more nuanced book.  It is harder to tell someone “Hey, I know you’ve gotten results, but look at the cost.  This isn’t sustainable.  There’s a better way to do this — and the results may be better, or they may not be, but you will be happier and healthier and your lifestyle will be sustainable long term.”

It’s much easier to say “Work hard, burnout, everything is a failure.  That’s bad.  Listen to me and you WON’T work hard, but everything will be a success.  That’s good!”

Now that I’ve gotten THAT out of my system, look at “the model” for essentialism.  Give it a read and note that it is more complex and nuanced than the model for effortless.  Notice the bad entry in the “get” row for each:

• Nonessentialist gets Lives a life that does not satisfy
  • Takes on too much, and work suffers
  • Feels out of control
  • Is unsure of whether the right things get done
  • Feels overwhelmed and exhausted
• Exhausting get burnout and none of the results you want

Neither of those are particularly pretty grammatically, but one is giving a nod to nuance, and one is speaking in absolutes.

The Core Concept, I guess

And that brings us to those absolutes.  The problem with effortless is the title itself: effortless.  Not only does it smack a little too much of “the 4-hour work week” type thinking, it is incredibly, staggeringly inaccurate.

Was writing a book effortless for Greg McKeown?  He would argue that there was less effort involved, but I think it’s clear it’s not effortless.  I have written a book and a bunch of screenplays and nine-million blog posts and can attest that the act of writing can, at times, be engaging, fun, and feel almost effortless.  But there is always effort.

I think a better way to discuss effort is from Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind, where Shunryu Suzuki says:

… when you do something, you should do it with your whole body and mind; you should be concentrated on what you do.  You should do it completely, like a good bonfire.  You should not be a smoky fire.  You should burn yourself completely … Zen activity is activity which is completely burned out, with nothing remaining but ashes.

I love that description, because is indicates a balance — your effort should be exactly equal to the task at hand.  “Effortless” doesn’t exist, but the right effort DOES exist.

Suzuki’s description reminds me a lot of “flow,” the concept of being perfectly engaged in an activity (what csikszentmihalyi calls “optimal experience”).  Flow is the state you enter when you have a task in front of you that is engaging, one that you have the tools to perform, but also requires you to stretch just a little bit.  Musicians and athletes frequently talk about entering a “flow” state, but so do authors, programmers, and my son when he gets a new lego set.

Flow is sometimes described as “effortless” and, in the moment, it does feel that way, but if it were truly effortless it could continue endlessly.  Flow is very similar to “zen activity” that Suzuki described.

That is what the book should have been about.  Not “effortless” but, instead (as Suzuki calls it), “right effort.”  By calling it effortless you bring it into the aforementioned “4-hour work week” area, and out of the helpful , applicable and nuanced area that “essentialism” lived in.

The content and the structure — again

In my review I mentioned that I didn’t like much of the content, and also I didn’t really like the structure.  I’ve spoken above a little about why I didn’t like the content above, so let’s talk about the structure.

A couple pages after introducing the model in Essentialism McKeown says this:

There are four parts to the book.  The first outlines the core mind-set of an Essentialist.  The next three turn the mind-set into a systematic process for the disciplined pursuit of less, one you can use in any situation or endeavor you encounter.

Then McKeown goes more in depth into those parts of the book.  Here’s the analogous paragraph (right before introducing the parts) in effortless:

[Effortless] is about a whole new way to work and live.  A way to achieve more with ease — to achieve more because you are at ease.  A way to lighten life’s inevitable burdens and get the right results without burning out.

There is a vast difference in tone, and a subtle difference in setup as well.  In Essentialism McKeown is saying “Here is a system you can apply in your life to live in a more focused manner.”  In Effortless McKeown is saying “This book will change your life” and that’s it.  There’s no mention of the application of a system because there is no system.  It is just a whole bunch of ideas that might help you “achieve more with ease” and “get the right results without burning out.”

Now, maybe people like this type of book.  They are immensely popular.  So what follows is my personal opinion.

I like a book that presents a system — something that “you can use in any situation or endeavor you encounter.”

Essentialism presented a system for finding the many things you could do, narrowing it down to the most important and saying no to everything else.  Effortless (which ideally would’ve had a different title because effortless isn’t really a thing) should’ve hooked into that system directly with it’s own additional steps and processes.  

A good example of this is “Tiny Habits” by BJ Fogg (a book referenced by McKeown in effortless).  Tiny habits outlines a model for habit change, and it outlines processes to utilize this model to change habits.  It is prescriptive.  It can be so because BJ Fogg is part of a research institution and his prescriptions are rooted in actual experiments performed with real people.

Maybe McKeown didn’t have time to perform his own research, but he could’ve referenced the research performed around flow, mindfulness and a few other subjects and created processes and systems that help you identify and then apply exactly the right effort to the items you identified after reading “essentialism.”

But that’s just like … my opinion, man


Ultimately everything I said above is my opinion.  I didn’t perform textual analysis to determine which book was superior and which was inferior.  I read both books, one struck me as great, and the other struck me as … not.

I think if McKeown had abandoned the idea of “effortless” as the title (and focus) and instead pivoted to something a little more … let’s say possible?  Honest?  I’m not sure.  Anyway, had he pivoted the focus to be about applying the right effort, instead of not needing effort I think the book in general would’ve felt less forced.

And if he’d created a system with a structure and processes much like essentialism, instead of a book that is essentially a bunch of tips, it would’ve led to a book that is significantly more likely to be applied and remembered.  A book with a system leaves a scaffolding in your mind that the rest of the content hangs off of.  A book that is a collection of anecdotes does not.

On the other hand, Greg McKeown has written or contributed to multiple New York Times best sellers.  I … well, obviously have not.  It is possible that I’m frustrated because I just didn’t “get” effortless, and in my attempt to prove to myself that I’m a smart guy who gets smart stuff I wrote two ridiculously long blog posts tearing them down, filled with references to other books I’ve read proving that I am, indeed, a “smart” guy who “gets” “smart” “stuff.”

Eh, either-or, I suppose.