Mise-en-place: The Most Important Part of Any Task is the Beginning

A wonderful piece in Harvard Business Review argues for the technique mise-en-place. The piece highlights chef and best-selling author Anthony Bourdain, for whom the ritual is more than the latest time-saving trick; Bourdain starts his day the same way every time—and so do the chefs who work for him—because it’s an invaluable professional practice. 

Because Anthony Bourdain prepares early, he has plenty of time to relax.

“Mise-en-place is the religion of all good line cooks,” Bourdain wrote in his runaway bestseller Kitchen Confidential. “As a cook, your station, and its condition, its state of readiness, is an extension of your nervous system… The universe is in order when your station is set…”

Mise-en-place

Chefs like Anthony Bourdain have long appreciated that when it comes to exceptional cooking, the single most important ingredient of any dish is planning. It’s the “Meez” that forces Bourdain to think ahead, that saves him from having to distractedly search for items midway through, and that allows him to channel his full attention to the dish before him.
So what is it?

Mise-en-place  translates into “everything in its place.” In practice, it involves studying a recipe, thinking through the tools and equipment you will need, and assembling the ingredients in the right proportion before you begin. It is the planning phase of every meal—the moment when chefs evaluate the totality of what they are trying to achieve and create an action plan for the meal ahead.

Avoiding the worst thing

If mise-en-place can plausibly be described as the best way to start one’s day, what’s the worst? What’s the thing to avoid at all costs?
Glad you asked.

Shane Parrish, author of the irreplaceable blog Farnam Street, made a similar point in the LinkedIn piece ‘9 Habits You Need to Stop Now’. Second on the list was: Do not e-mail first thing in the morning or last thing at night.
Parrish cites Dilbert creator Scott Adams as thinking, “One of the most important tricks for maximizing your productivity involves matching your mental state to the task.”

In fact matching skills to the time of day is one of the most important changes you can make to improve your working habits.

Why?

Parrish has answers, “You want to get out of a reactive loop. If you move creative and thinking work to the start of the day, when we’re at our peak, you’ll have the rest of the day to be reactive.”

Of course, utilizing the ritual mise-en-place at the day’s beginning will allow for the early part of the day—before fatigue sets in—to be used for creative work. The kind of creative work Rafael Nadal does in between points—toweling off, examining a series of balls, um, adjusting his pants—is an elaborate set of rituals that allow him to take stock, to buy time for the mental (and sometimes physical) process of going through a mise-en-place. And once the points start, there are few in the history of his sport more creative or more powerful than Nadal.



And all that work before points lets him do stuff like this during them:



Plato was right—the most important part of any task is the beginning. Starting the day with mise-en-place (and not email!) will assist in many good beginnings.

Reading for judgment, not just information

Shane Parrish, who publishes the terrific blog Farnam Street, recently posted a piece on how to read profitably. He doesn't explicitly write it, but his argument (rightly) implies that one of our biggest problems is our habit of consuming information rather than reading. His diagnosis is specific, "we fail to remember a lot of the stuff we read because it’s not building on any existing knowledge."

When it comes to reading, Charlie Munger has plenty to add.

Think about how you consume information and the sources for what you read everyday. If we follow Michael Oakeshott in thinking that there are two components to understanding: 1) information and 2) judgment, it's amazing how much better our access is to the former. It's amazing how much better off we could be directly because of digital technologies.

Charlie Munger is famous for saying, "In my whole life, I have known no wise people (over a broad subject matter area) who didn't read all the time - none, zero." Newspapers and periodicals are two types of publication he mentions as being part of any person's intellectual diet (he, rightly, singles out 'soft science' academics as an area that focuses too narrowly on peer reviewed journals at the expense of newspapers and magazines like the Economist).

But, despite an unprecedented access to information, I'm not sure we're as far ahead regarding judgment. Talking about Facebook, Munger said, "I don't hate the technology, I hate the use of the technology." "I hate the idea of young people putting in permanent form the dumbest thoughts and the dumbest reports of action...I regard that as very counterproductive." Obviously, Facebook and other contemporary technology make more things possible rather than less. The only way technology can limit us is if we use it wrong. Munger talks about some older technologies he likes--ranging from the telephone to the Xerox machine--that are not exactly immune from abuse. But, unlike copiers (the video below notwithstanding), more than a few of our current technologies are built to be used in counterproductive ways.

Munger is an infamous curmudgeon. Still, it's hard to argue that people, including many beyond young demographic Munger targets, use technology to "endless gab on the internet" and other unproductive ways. As Parrish puts it, using technology in these ways is akin to "uncritically letting other people do the thinking for us."

Parrish would, instead, redirect our attention to a technology that Munger professes love for: the book (and I think even the eBook may qualify here). Parrish makes an interesting point: "one thing that most people don’t appreciate enough is that what you read makes a huge difference for how well you remember things." When we're reading about material that's difficult (and it's hard to get significantly smarter without reading tough stuff) those who have a significant intellectual foundation will do better than those who don't. Parrish writes, "We’re often trying to learn complex things (that change rapidly) without understanding the basic things (which change slowly or not at all)."

His prescription will be familiar to anyone who has ever read this blog: "to build a latticework of Mental Models. That is, acquire the core multi-disciplinary knowledge and use that as your foundation."

That knowledge is parallel to the physical foundation that Kelly Starrett thinks makes opens up infinite possibility in physical movement. Once people have the foundation down (what Starrett calls the capacity to "get organized"), then functional movement becomes possible in a range of activities. Munger has talked about the satisfaction that comes from sitting on one's ass for hours until a difficult problem is solved. And anyone who has ever done CrossFit recognizes this prescription. Seeing someone successfully complete a difficult movement or skill for the first time is a memorable event.

Crossfitters are good at many things. They're competitive and capable. Doing CrossFit leads to grittiness. And grit is a great determinate of success in just about every facet of life. One thing CrossFitters are warned against, though, is ego. Letting one's ego get in the way while doing CrossFit can lead to bad form and worse injuries. It's not much different in the intellectual realm.

Ego and CrossFit don't mix.

Shane Parrish writes for an audience that, presumably, uses technology better than the tweens who gab endlessly about the most unproductive activities they'll ever engage in. Still, writing to people who are using a difficult-to-abuse technology (books), he notes that reading uncritically and reading without cultivating a latticework of mental models is "the adult equivalent of regurgitating the definition of a bolded word in our high school textbook." Which leads to "the illusion of knowledge and overconfidence."

Destroying Good Ideas is a Good Idea; Bad Ideas a Great Idea; Bad Behavior the Best Idea

Charlie Munger is famous for recommending that people radically reconsider even their most firmly held ideas. His oft-repeated quote, "Any year that passes in which you don’t destroy one of your best loved ideas is a wasted year," has become something of a slogan among those interested in understanding Munger's ideas and approach to seeing the world.

A recent Farnam Street blog post outlines the way this works in doing the work Munger thinks is required in holding an opinion. Citing Munger it reads, "The ability to destroy your ideas rapidly instead of slowly when the occasion is right is one of the most valuable things. You have to work hard on it. Ask yourself what are the arguments on the other side. It’s bad to have an opinion you’re proud of if you can’t state the arguments for the other side better than your opponents. This is a great mental discipline."

In this destructive process, timing is important. Warren Buffett has famously credited Munger with having the best 30 second mind in the world. I wonder if Buffett would have done better in responding to a recent query about Berkshire's abstention from voting on Coca-Cola's executive compensation if he'd had Munger next to him as he does at (this weekend's) annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting.

In a recent interview with Becky Quick of CNBC, Buffett explained his decision to abstain, "Well, we abstained because— we didn't agree with the plan. We thought it was excessive. And— I love Coke. I love the management, I love the directors. But— so I didn't want to vote no. It's kind of un-American to vote no at a Coke meeting. So that's— but we— I didn't want to express any disapproval of management. But we did disapprove of— of the plan." I'm not quite sure how to take his 'un-American' comment, it seems as though he's just trying to lighten the mood (you be the judge: the interview is embedded below). But the sentiment doesn't seem to be at all consistent with Buffett's or Munger's normal positions...or common sense.



Consider Buffett's concerns from later in the interview, "The plan— compared to past plans was a significant change. And— there's already a 9 percent or so overhang in terms of options outstanding relative to the amount of sh— shares outstanding, 8 percent— 8 percent— 8 percent to 9 percent. And— this authorization of another 500 million shares. Not all of which would've gone on options. But that's another 11 percent of the company. And— and— I thought it was too much. And— I talked to my partner Charlie Munger, and he thought it was too much. So we abstained." Buffett has been, rightly, criticized for his response. The tenor of Buffett's remarks evolved a bit after that initial response, as in this interesting interview with Stephen Gandel. But I wonder if the change was for the better or worse.

To paraphrase Buffett, I love Warren Buffett, I really do. But I disagree with his position. I realize that going against the Oracle of Omaha is kind of un-American, but I think he's wrong on this one. Worse, he's wrong in a way that's a huge departure from his past position, "The way to get big shots to change their behavior is to embarrass them. The press has great opportunities for this, but the big institutional investors could help." 

If, for example, you used Buffett's line from the CNBC interview, "but taking on a committee...is a little bit like belching at the dinner table. I mean, you can't do it too often. If you do, you find you're eating in the kitchen pretty soon" on the Charlie Munger I've read about, wouldn't you expect him to reply, "Acquire worldly wisdom and adjust your behavior accordingly. If your new behavior gives you a little temporary unpopularity with your new peer group...then to hell with them." Peter D. Kaufman thought this insight so important, he used the sentiment in his dedication to Munger in the edition of "Poor Charlie's Alnamack" he edited (picture below taken from "Poor Charlie's").

Charlie Munger on importance of adjusting behavior to acquired wisdom.

It's not because his son is on the board, but Buffett would have hewed closer to his principles by saying to hell with them. At the very least, he could have spoken out publicly concerning the compensation plan in advance of the vote. Yes, he's right that the vote happened on 83-17% lines. Berkshire's 9 percent wouldn't have made a difference. But the reason the Berkshire annual meeting is finance's Woodstock is because Buffett and Munger tell the truth. And, usually, have the courage of their convictions.

If destroying good ideas is important, getting rid of bad ones should be even better. Of course, making sure your behavior comports with one's best, most current ideas is crucial.