A Surprising Driver of Positive Outcomes

I recently wanted to submit a proposal for a conference talk. Here are three of the requirements; can you see what’s common to them?

The talk’s description can’t be longer than 150 words.
The proposal must include exactly 3 learning objectives.
The talk must fill 45 minutes.

These are all enabling constraints. I have to abide by them in order to proceed.

If I don’t like them, I can grumble, or blame the people behind them for curbing my freedom, or decide to walk away.

Or, maybe, there’s another perspective: these constraints can also make some positive outcomes more likely.

Summarizing the talk in 150 words forces clarity on me.
Three learning objectives make the talk digestible.
The talk won’t be so long as to lose some of the audience.

Now, let’s consider another constraint for when I’m designing the talk: use the Pomodoro method (25-minute bursts of activity followed by 5-minute breaks).

This one is deliberate or voluntary (or, more bluntly, self-inflicted). Its positive outcomes: increase focus and reduce procrastination.

Your processes at work have enabling constraints. In fact, Lean/Agile methods are full of them: WIP limits, two-week sprints, big-room planning, bi-weekly integrated demo, one-page charter. You’ll also find them in hackathons, one-on-ones, and Jira templates.

That last example might make you think that certain enabling constraints aren’t always appropriate or effective, and you’d be right. Notice, though, that all the examples I gave are of deliberate constraints. They are not laws of nature, government, or a licensing body. We use them to design our methods, hoping to get better outcomes.

The next time something about the process bugs you, see if you can trace it back to a deliberate enabling constraint, and then ask yourself “What positive outcomes might it produce?”. You might find this reframe helpful.