The Five Species of Hard Work and Why “Work Harder” Is Usually Bad Advice

The Five Species of Hard Work and Why Work Harder Is Usually Bad Advice

0:00

/878.064

Too often the concept of "hard work" is treated as a single moral substance: pour in more of it and performance improves. Better yet, if a situation is poor or going South fast, "hard work" or showing grit or knuckling down will supply the delta to success. That belief may be comforting for some. It is also wrong on so many levels. For leaders it can be crippling because it hides the real question: "what impact are we trying to achieve?"

Consider the familiar scene. An Executive reviews disappointing EBIT results and reaches for the managerial hymnbook: we need more hustle; we need to lift the intensity; we need to work harder. The room nods, because to oppose "hard work" sounds like a vote for slacking off—worse yet, that YOU are the one who isn't pulling their weight. Yet, if employees are exhausted, teams are flooded with activity and little impact, and the business is strategically lost it is highly unlikely that the problem was ever a shortage of effort. The more likely cause is a mismatch between the type of hard work being demanded and the kind of problem being faced.

At this point a practical taxonomy helps. Across leadership practice, five distinct forms recur which better described what is often blanketed under the term "hard work":

Outthinking—work that reduces effort: a better strategy, a superior design, a shortcut that is earned rather than wished for.
Pure Effort—the only one in the taxonomy that is truely "hard" in way most believers in hard work mean it. Examples are more time, stamina, or intensity: longer hours, higher throughput, sustained pressure. Note: while this can be powerful in the short term, the long term result of this approach is it always burns out people and teams—without exception. Manage this way at the organisation's peril.
Opportunistic Work—work as positioning: building options and relationships so that discontinuities (shocks, shifts, regulatory changes, technology turns) can be converted into advantage.
Consistency—work as compounding: doing ordinary things for longer than others can tolerate because of sustainable pacing.
Focus—work as refusal: saying "no" to distractions, protecting attention, finishing.

This first article covers the first three. The second will address Consistency and Focus, and—more importantly—how to build a portfolio of the five without becoming a cult of busyness or engendering high staff churn and Fair Work complaints.

A golden rule here is that "leadership"—note the sarcastic scare quotes—fails when all it can do is demand "more" of people (more effort, more speed, more meetings) when what is required is "different" (different thinking, different positioning, different constraints).

Outthinking: the Work that Makes other Work Unnecessary

Outthinking is the kind of work executives publicly praise but privately underfund: deep diagnosis, genuine trade-off decisions, and the design of systems that make performance easier. It is hard because it requires restraint—the refusal to do everything—and because it exposes leaders to the risk of being wrong in public. It is also hard to tangibly endorse because—politics. The inability or unwillingness to make hard choices which invite possible retribution from other executives.

Strategy research has been making this point for decades. Porter's famous warning is that operational effectiveness (doing similar activities better) is not strategy (choosing a distinctive position with fit across activities). Strategy, in his formulation, requires "discipline" and "the ability to set limits". That discipline forces explicit trade-offs, disappoints internal factions, and kills cherished projects. Which is why so few managers are willing to embrace outthinking.

Organisational learning adds a second pressure: the tension between exploration (search, experimentation) and exploitation (refinement, execution). The exploration–exploitation framework, devised by the late James G. March (1928–2018), remains the cleanest statement of the dilemma: over-invest in exploitation and you become efficient at yesterday's challenges; over-invest in exploration and you become brilliant at never shipping the product.

Outthinking is the craft of governing that balance through the clear and deliberative allocation of resource and attention.

A third strand is dynamic capabilities: in volatile environments, advantage depends less on any single asset and more on managerial capacity to sense, seize, and reconfigure.

That is not an invitation to "be agile" in the poster sense. It is an invitation to do the hard work of recombining what you already have: talent, processes, partnerships, and institutional cohesion.

So what does outthinking look like as leadership practice—what can a manager do next week that is more than rhetoric?

1) Turn Decisions into Hypotheses with Kill-criteria

Many executive teams "decide" by selecting a preference and then gathering just enough narrative to defend it if challenged. Outthinking flips the sequence: define the decision as a testable hypothesis. What would need to be true? What evidence would falsify it? When will we check? This is not academic fussiness; it is how you prevent sunk-cost escalation from masquerading as commitment.

2) Time-box Exploration; But Don't Starve it

Exploration is costly and embarrassing—because its outcome is often failure. This is why managers tend to underfund it and then complain about a lack of innovation. A practical rule: allocate a fixed percentage of attention to exploration work (customer discovery, scenario design, pre-mortems), and protect it from quarterly panic. The point is not to worship experimentation; it is to ensure you do enough to avoid blind / political commitment.

3) Use Cognitive Diversity Deliberately, not Sentimentally

The concept of emergent strategy is often misread as permission for strategic vagueness. It is better read as a warning: patterns will emerge regardless; the question is whether leaders have the mechanisms to notice them and choose what will be consequential for the organisation.

Mechanisms matter: red teams, structured dissent, independent market scans, and "what would change my mind?" prompts in decision memos. These are the unsentimental tools of outthinking.

Outthinking is "hard work" because it competes directly with urgent execution. It is also the only form of hard work that reliably reduces future hard work. Leaders who fail at outthinking typically compensate by demanding pure effort.

Pure Effort: when the Answer is Known and the Deadline is near

Pure Effort is the form everyone recognises as hard work: longer hours, higher intensity, sustained push. In some contexts it is exactly right. A crisis response, a safety remediation, a regulatory deadline, a peak seasonal demand—these often require throughput more than creativity.

But pure effort as an approach to BAU has two persistent failings.

The first is effort theatre: rewarding visible strain rather than valuable output. If managers praise the last person online, they are selecting for poor prioritisation, weak systems, and performative exhaustion. Not to mention overvaluing people who have the luxury of sitting around until the boss goes to bed.

The second is non-linear productivity: working more hours does not scale output linearly. Evidence from labour economics shows diminishing returns: beyond a threshold, additional hours produce less incremental output, and error risk rises. Analysis of munitions workers is a canonical demonstration of this non-linearity (output increases at a decreasing rate as hours rise beyond a threshold).

For leaders, the implication is blunt: beyond a point, "work longer" becomes "pay more for worse work".

Pure Effort, done well, therefore requires leadership craft—not motivational shouting.

1) Convert Effort into Goal Clarity, not Anxiety

Goal-setting research is not about creating posters of soaring eagles or rowing teams; it is a robust finding: specific, challenging goals—paired with feedback—improve performance more reliably than vague exhortation. Pure Effort without goal clarity becomes thrash. Pure Effort with clear goals becomes a sprint with a finish line.

2) Design Recovery as part of Performance

If you treat recovery as optional, you are not demanding resilience; you are renting it from the future at punitive interest rates. Leaders should plan intensity cycles (peaks and troughs), enforce rest after surges, and reduce "always on" expectations that create continuous partial attention.

3) Stabilise the Work System before You Moralise Effort

Leslie Perlow's "time famine" work shows how interruptions and fragmented time create an environment where people feel constantly busy yet struggle to complete meaningful tasks. If the system produces fragmentation, exhorting effort is managerial laziness. Fix the system: meeting load, handover clarity, queue discipline, escalation pathways.

Pure Effort is not ignoble. It is simply expensive. And if leaders spend that expense on the wrong problem—when Outthinking was required—they burn trust and capability.

Opportunistic Work: Positioning to Benefit from Change

Opportunistic hard work is the least understood, partly because it does not look like "work" in the narrow sense. It is relationship-building, option-building, and situational awareness. It often resembles wandering—until the discontinuity arrives and the "wanderer" suddenly has leverage.

Network research gives this sharp edges. Granovetter's "strength of weak ties" showed that information and opportunity often travel through acquaintances rather than close colleagues.

Burt's work on structural holes sharpened the mechanism: brokers who span disconnected groups are disproportionately exposed to novel ideas and can translate them into advantage.

This is not a plea for shallow networking. It is a claim that position matters—and that leaders can shape position through deliberate boundary-spanning.

Event system theory adds an organisational lens: events vary in strength (novelty, disruption, criticality) and their timing and duration shape impact.

Opportunistic work is the habit of being prepared for events whose timing you cannot control.

In entrepreneurship research effectuation logic makes a related point: rather than starting with a fixed goal and acquiring means, successful actors often begin with available means (who they are, what they know, whom they know) and co-create opportunities with stakeholders.

Within large organisations, this translates to leaders who cultivate optionality: partnerships, pilot permissions, procurement pathways, regulatory relationships, and internal credibility—so that when a window opens, they can move.

Practically, Opportunistic hard work can be led and measured.

1) Maintain an "option register"

Not a fantasy pipeline, but a list of real options: dormant partnerships, capabilities that could be repurposed, customers who would trial, regulators willing to talk, talent that could be redeployed. Review it quarterly.

2) Build Boundary Roles and Protect Them

Cross-functional brokers are often punished: they do not "own" a KPI, they attend too many meetings, their output is hard to attribute. That is precisely why they are valuable. If you want opportunistic advantage, you must protect boundary-spanning roles from narrow scorecards.

3) Make Ethical Opportunism Explicit

Opportunism can drift into exploitation if leaders treat shocks as excuses for sharp practice. A simple constraint helps: opportunistic moves should be explainable without embarrassment to a sceptical customer, regulator, or staff member. If you cannot defend it in daylight, it is not strategy; it is extraction.

A Quick Diagnostic: Which Hard Work Are You Actually Demanding?

Before you tell a team to "work harder", ask:

Is the constraint cognitive? (We don't know what to do.) → Invest in Outthinking.
Is the constraint throughput? (We know what to do; it's just a lot.) → Use Pure Effort, but engineer goals and recovery.
Is the constraint positional? (The environment is shifting; we need options.) → Do Opportunistic work.

If you choose the wrong species, you do not merely waste time—you teach cynicism.

Part 2 completes the taxonomy with Consistency (compounding advantage through routines) and Focus (attention as a strategic resource), then offers a practical "hard work portfolio" leaders can use to rebalance their week and their team's operating system. If you want the second essay, become a member to read Part 2.

Good night, and good luck.