3 min and 55 sec to read, 978 words

Here is a simple test to apply to any project that you are asked to participate in, or that is proposed for your review: ask what the difference will be in two years time if we engage in this project and then ask what will happen if we do not do it. It is – intentionally – an annoying question, because it forces you think through what will actually change in a more substantial way because of the work you put in – and so can help you prioritize.

Why two years? Well, you don’t have to stop there — you can ask what the overall change will be in 10 years, or put the bar even higher — you could ask what will be different in a 100 years time if you do this. Now, this becomes a kind of spiritual exercise, since there are very few things you can do that will matter in a 100 years – and it is not even obvious that this bar makes sense; but it forces you to look at things and realize that what you do will matter in some timeframe.

There is some comfort in this, and a fair bit of sorrow as well — but I find it important. It reminds me of Shelley’s poem about Ozymandias:

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

At last, we all will be Ozymandias, no matter how mighty we are. You could argue that this is an argument against the two year question: why care about impact in two years, if there will be no impact at all in a thousand years? If all of our mighty, or perhaps, more likely, somewhat ok, works fade into the sands of time anyway?

There is some truth to that, but I do think that the two year test allows you to put effort into things that you can observe having a difference, and that is in itself a kind of pleasure. To see the world change because you are in it, to understand that you are an agent of change and, hopefully, improvement. So the two year test is really not meant to sound important, or to be annoying, it is a way to help us all work collectively towards change such that we can enjoy it, look at it and say “we did that”.

This is a privileged question, to be sure: many people do not have the opportunity to create things that might matter in two years in their day-to-day job — but if you do, you sort of owe it to yourself to figure out what makes a difference. I suspect that there is a lot of work in organizations that is channeled into maintaining a kind of organizational homeostasis: ensure that there are enough meetings on calendar, that the budget is spent, that the emails are written – because this is what it means to sustain the organization as organization. Without those meetings, that spend, the emails — there is no real organization. This is when works becomes less oriented towards change, and more oriented towards homeostasis. I suspect it often happens in very large organizations, to some degree – in pockets. The two year test can help you sort out if work is sustaining homeostasis or if it is impactful.

And I don’t mean to ridicule homeostasis work — I think we just find it less satisfying. Keeping The Lights On or Business As Usual is actually enormously important, and it actually is true that organizations need some level of that to maintain a sustained existence over time. Not all the collective intentionality that an organization consists of can be directed outwards, towards change – some needs to be directed towards ensuring that the organization continues to exist. But if it is, make sure it is understood, and perhaps also limited to what is needed for the organization to maintain its identity and coherence?

Asking what happens if we do not do this, is a good way to check another tendency in organizations – not looking at what will happen if you do nothing at all. Often someone else will step into the role you envisioned for yourself, and sometimes that can be acceptable. Sometimes you want the work and the role, and so you want to be the one to do the work.

Strategies to engage with time matter – and finding the right questions to do so can help. The Ozymandias test can be used to assess how we use our time. Look at the work you do now — for how long will it matter? How long a shadow does this work cast? Is it 6 month work? 2 years? 10 years?

As I look at my own work, it varies. Some work matters very little, and is essentially just heat, without impact. Some work does have a longer shadow, and I feel very different when I engage with it. I think I would like for that horizon to become longer, more complex, and matter more as I grow older. This may be a deceit; a wish to make a mark that betrays a certain vanity. But it could also be a sense of a broader engagement with the world.

I am not sure which it is, but am hoping the latter.