Maker Schedule vs Manager Schedule

1. Overview

The “Maker Schedule, Manager Schedule” is a concept that differentiates between two fundamental ways of managing time and attention in a professional context. The core purpose of this pattern is to highlight the conflicting needs of two distinct types of work: the “maker” role, which requires long, uninterrupted blocks of time for deep, creative work, and the “manager” role, which operates on a schedule of frequent, short-duration meetings and context switching. This pattern provides a framework for understanding and mitigating the friction that arises when these two schedules collide, a common problem in many organizations, especially startups. The problem it solves is the loss of productivity and morale that occurs when makers, such as programmers, writers, and designers, are forced to adopt a manager’s schedule, which fragments their day and prevents them from entering the state of flow necessary for high-quality creative output. By recognizing and respecting the different scheduling needs of makers and managers, organizations can create a more productive and harmonious work environment.

The concept of the Maker Schedule versus the Manager Schedule was first articulated by Paul Graham, a programmer, writer, and co-founder of the venture capital firm Y Combinator, in a 2009 essay of the same name [1]. Graham’s insights were born from his own experiences as a programmer and a startup founder, where he observed the detrimental effects of a meeting-heavy culture on the productivity of those responsible for creating things. The pattern has since been widely adopted and discussed in the technology and startup communities, as it provides a simple yet powerful lens through which to view and improve time management and collaboration. In the context of commons-aligned value creation, this pattern is particularly relevant. Commons-based peer production, a cornerstone of many commons-oriented projects, relies on the voluntary contributions of individuals who are often intrinsically motivated to create and innovate. By creating a work environment that respects the maker’s need for deep focus, organizations can foster a culture that values and supports the creative contributions of its members, thereby enhancing the overall health and productivity of the commons.

2. Core Principles

1. Respect for Deep Work: The pattern is founded on the principle that creative and intellectually demanding work requires long, uninterrupted periods of concentration. This is in line with Cal Newport’s concept of “Deep Work,” which he defines as “professional activities performed in a state of distraction-free concentration that push your cognitive capabilities to their limit” [2].
2. Recognition of Two Distinct Work Modes: The pattern acknowledges that not all work is the same. It distinguishes between the maker’s mode of creating and the manager’s mode of coordinating, each with its own set of requirements for time and attention.
3. Minimization of Context Switching: The pattern emphasizes the high cost of context switching for makers. Every interruption, such as a meeting or a notification, forces a maker to switch out of their creative flow and then expend significant time and mental energy to get back into it.
4. Autonomy and Control over one’s Schedule: The pattern advocates for giving makers more autonomy and control over their schedules. This allows them to structure their days in a way that is most conducive to their work, rather than being at the mercy of a manager’s fragmented schedule.
5. Intentional Communication: The pattern encourages more intentional and asynchronous forms of communication, such as email and instant messaging, as a way to reduce the need for synchronous meetings. This allows makers to respond to queries and requests at a time that is convenient for them, without interrupting their flow.

3. Key Practices

1. Block out large chunks of time for deep work: Makers should proactively block out large, uninterrupted chunks of time in their calendars for focused work. This signals to others that they are not available for meetings during these times.
2. Establish “office hours”: Managers can adopt the practice of establishing regular “office hours” for meetings and discussions. This consolidates meetings into specific time slots, leaving the rest of the day free for makers to focus on their work.
3. Use asynchronous communication tools: Teams should leverage asynchronous communication tools, such as email, instant messaging, and project management software, to reduce the reliance on synchronous meetings. This allows for more flexible and less disruptive communication.
4. Batch meetings: When meetings are necessary, they should be batched together to minimize the disruption to the maker’s schedule. For example, a team could decide to have all of its meetings on a specific day of the week.
5. Decline unnecessary meetings: Makers should feel empowered to decline meetings that are not essential to their work. This requires a culture of trust and respect, where everyone understands the importance of protecting the maker’s time.
6. Set clear agendas for meetings: When meetings are held, they should have a clear agenda and a specific set of goals. This ensures that the meeting is productive and does not waste anyone’s time.
7. Embrace a “no meeting” day: Some organizations have successfully implemented a “no meeting” day, where one day of the week is completely free of meetings. This gives makers a full day of uninterrupted time to focus on their work.
8. Partition the day: Individuals who have both maker and manager responsibilities can partition their day into two distinct blocks of time. For example, they could dedicate the morning to maker work and the afternoon to manager work.

4. Implementation

Implementing the Maker Schedule, Manager Schedule pattern requires a conscious effort from both individuals and the organization as a whole. The first step is to educate everyone in the organization about the two different types of schedules and the costs associated with forcing makers to adopt a manager’s schedule. This can be done through workshops, presentations, or simply by sharing Paul Graham’s essay. Once there is a shared understanding of the problem, the next step is to implement a set of practices that support the maker’s need for deep work. This could include establishing a “no meeting” day, encouraging the use of asynchronous communication tools, and empowering makers to decline unnecessary meetings. It is also important to create a culture of trust and respect, where everyone understands and respects the different scheduling needs of their colleagues.

For individuals, the key to implementing this pattern is to be proactive and intentional about managing their time. Makers should block out large chunks of time in their calendars for focused work and be disciplined about protecting this time from interruptions. They should also be assertive about declining meetings that are not essential to their work. Managers, on the other hand, should be mindful of the impact that their scheduling decisions have on makers. They should try to batch meetings together, use asynchronous communication tools whenever possible, and respect the maker’s need for uninterrupted time. A real-world example of this pattern in action is the software company Basecamp, which has a strong culture of asynchronous communication and a deep respect for the maker’s schedule. They have very few meetings and rely heavily on their own project management software to communicate and collaborate.

5. 7 Pillars Assessment

6. When to Use

• In organizations that have a mix of makers and managers.
• In teams that are struggling with low productivity and morale due to a meeting-heavy culture.
• In startups and other fast-paced environments where it is essential to protect the time of those who are responsible for creating the product.
• In commons-based peer production projects, where it is important to create a work environment that is attractive to volunteer contributors.
• In any organization that wants to foster a culture of deep work and continuous learning.

7. Anti-Patterns and Gotchas

• Ignoring the manager’s needs: While it is important to protect the maker’s time, it is also important to recognize that managers have legitimate needs for meetings and other forms of synchronous communication. The goal is to find a balance that works for everyone.
• Being too rigid: The Maker Schedule, Manager Schedule is a guideline, not a rigid set of rules. There will be times when it is necessary to deviate from the schedule. The key is to be intentional about these deviations and to minimize them as much as possible.
• Creating a two-tiered system: The goal of the pattern is not to create a two-tiered system where makers are seen as being more important than managers. Everyone in the organization has a valuable role to play. The goal is simply to recognize and respect the different ways in which they work.
• Using the pattern as an excuse to be unresponsive: The pattern is not an excuse to be unresponsive or to ignore the needs of your colleagues. It is still important to be a good team player and to communicate effectively with others.
• Failing to get buy-in from everyone: The pattern will only be successful if everyone in the organization buys into it. This requires open and honest communication, as well as a willingness to experiment and find what works best for your team.

8. References

1. Graham, P. (2009). Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule.
2. Newport, C. (2016). Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World.
3. Farnam Street. (n.d.). Maker vs. Manager: How Your Schedule Can Make or Break You.
4. Atlassian. (2023). Maker vs. manager: how to schedule for your productivity.
5. Scrum.org. (n.d.). Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule.