“Efficiency” is inefficient

17 May


If efficiency is satisfying only the completion of tasks or economic productivity, it is only benefitting the beneficiary. Now, if 98% of the people involved in any process are satisfied with that process, then they are beneficiaries. If the result is economic and 98% are happy with that, the top 1% could be no more a beneficiary than the poorest 1%. You could be really efficient at making progress in a computer game and watching your scores go up, but you mightn’t necessarily be enjoying any kinda numbers game.

If a system is efficient in getting decision making, meetings and tasks done in a way that satisfies everyone in enjoying the results and feeling a part of something, then it is efficient because it is satisfying people’s needs. If a percentage of people are left out, the happy majority have more than enough resources to give them guidance. If they don’t want to help, you gotta question just how satisfied they are with the “efficiency”.

You get the point. We are all aiming to satisfy our needs. Real efficiency is not measured in numbers. If we focus solely on getting more done in less time, we are very inefficient at generating, receiving and sharing fulfillment. Your eye’s not on the ball if your heart’s not on the prize.


One Response to ““Efficiency” is inefficient”

  1. enchantedlynx May 22, 2017 at 9:18 am #

    Totally, we need to wake up and remember our spiritual, heart-centered base. How do we do that? We release negative energy from within ourselves and consciously fill our every day with positive intent. Nothing happens w/o intent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: