When I write I know that I'm going to have to produce 40 percent more than I need.
Through great input you get great output.
What we make is more important than what we are, particularly if making is our profession.
Order - the accurate arrangement of things - increases productivity. Productivity decides rewards.
I've found that there isn't any correlation whatsoever between the hours put in and the quality of what comes out. Most of the Beatles' songs probably originated in about five minutes.
I am not at all in favor of hard work for its own sake; many people who work very hard indeed produce terrible things, and should most certainly not be encouraged.
So, I think the output of our innovation is great. We have a culture of self-improvement. I know we can continue to improve. There is no issue. But at the same time, our absolute level of output is fantastic.
The carpenter is not the best who makes more chips than all the rest.
If there's garbage in one's head, that's what will come out.
It would be a fallacy to deduce that the slow writer necessarily comes up with superior work. There seems to be scant relationshipbetween prolificness and quality.
True effectiveness is a function of two things: what is produced (the golden eggs) and the producing asset (the goose).
The skills associated with knowledge creation are totally different from the skills associated with production.
Efficiency is anything that scores.
