Does quality belong in American efficiency?

In American business, efficiency typically emphasizes two points:

1. Do something as cheaply as possible.
2. Do something as quickly as possible.

Quality is often an afterthought, if it’s a consideration at all.

So, I ask: Where does quality fit into the American efficiency equation?

This question has been on my mind lately, as I’ve been developing some habits that might be considered inefficient.

For one, I’ve started printing articles I want to read. Some will argue I would be more ‘efficient’ if I read these articles on my computer because I’d save money by not printing. While a computer can be used for reading the latest news you care about, it’s also a gateway to endless distraction. Is it really more efficient for deep reading? Is it more efficient if I must read the same material multiple times due to the constant wave of distraction that either interrupts me or hinders my ability to recall what I’ve just read?

Learning requires a certain quality of experience which may be at odds with the dominant ideal of efficiency. Sometimes the path to knowledge is long and meandering.

The obsession with only cost and time in regard to American efficiency has led to the comical requirement that employees must be able to multitask, despite study after study showing that true multitasking is impossible¹. When you think you’re multitasking, you’re instead just doing a mediocre job at multiple tasks at once. Or you’re switching between tasks far more than you realize, and the constant context switching is actually making you less effective.

Yet the seekers of American efficiency hold us to the impossible standard of the unattainable ideal of multitasking.

And so, in the name of American efficiency, we convince ourselves we can perform multiple steps in a layered task at once. For an example, let’s look at a ‘simple’ task like writing.

Writing includes numerous tasks, such as:

• Creating ideas.
• Conducting research.
• Writing the first draft.
• Seeking and considering feedback and criticism.
• Revising your draft (as many times as needed).
• Formatting.
• Editing.
• Proofreading.

Yet we’ve convinced ourselves we can combine many of these steps into one if we use the right program, such as Microsoft Word (which, for this reason, I consider the worst writing app of all time), though we’d be better served by adopting an iterative writing process.

Perhaps we’d be better off accepting the iterative requirements of our projects and seeking to become more efficient at each subtask. Maybe then we can focus on being more efficient in regard to quality work. And maybe we can reform American efficiency so that it can mean something more than fast and cheap.