Form on the day in everyday working life

Why the form on the day deserves more attention

I had planned three hours. Four with a buffer. But it was already the sixth hour and there was no end in sight. Somehow I couldn’t manage to even begin to implement the task as I had planned. Neither in terms of time nor quality. At least the phone had done me the favour of not ringing continuously. Unsurprisingly, my mood was at rock bottom and my frustration grew by the minute.

Do you also have days when nothing works? Even getting out of bed is difficult, the coffee doesn’t have the desired effect and every task that normally comes easily feels like an insurmountable mountain. In sports, we like to talk about ‘bad form on the day’ – usually as a synonym for performance fluctuations and defeats.

In the world of work, however, it is rarely discussed and when it is, it is often interpreted as a sign of weakness. Many of us work in jobs where consistent performance is expected, regardless of how we feel. But what if we challenge this assumption? What if fluctuations in our daily performance are not the exception but the rule? And what does that mean for the way we plan our work and communicate with our colleagues?

Form on the day: a complex interplay of numerous factors

The truth is that our form on the day is no coincidence. It is influenced by a variety of factors, some of which we can control, but others we can’t. Sleep quality, stress levels, nutrition, physical activity and even the weather can determine whether we are capable of peak performance on a particular day or whether we are more likely to work in survival mode.

In addition, there are deeper, biological factors such as biorhythms. This internal clock determines the times of day when we are particularly full of energy and productive – and when we need a break. However, in many companies, little consideration is given to these natural fluctuations.

Added to this are gender-specific aspects such as the menstrual cycle in women or the menopause in men and women [1], which influence our performance over days and weeks, sometimes months or years. These aspects are not only rarely taken into account in daily work planning, but are also often neglected in research [2].

The challenge: a standard that doesn’t exist

One of the biggest misconceptions in the modern working world is the assumption that there is a constant ‘normal’ performance against which we can measure ourselves. The reality is different: days are as individual as people. Our performance not only varies from person to person, but also from day to day and from hour to hour. The idea that we can always do the same amount of work to the same standard is not only unrealistic, but also counterproductive.

This disregard for natural fluctuations often leads to frustration – both in ourselves, because we feel we have ‘failed’ on some days, and in our interactions with colleagues when expectations are not met. Another challenge is that many common methods for planning workloads are based on the assumption that our performance is stable. However, this is not the case. We are not machines and should not pretend to be.

Before we can discuss how to plan our work better and have more realistic expectations of ourselves and others, we need to be clear about one thing: daily form is not an exception – it is the normal state of affairs. The first step is to accept this and understand that the way we work should not only take these fluctuations into account, but actively consider them.

A look at the practice in everyday working life

In many areas of the working world, it is common practice to estimate and plan efforts. Both are usually based on the assumption that the required amount of work can be completed in a fixed, defined time. An activity on an assembly line where a certain part is always installed in the same way usually takes the same amount of time. Here, planning can be done with a high degree of accuracy based on experience. These activities are reproducible, i.e. there are only a few variables that influence the time required.

However, this is rarely the case with knowledge work. Tasks such as solving complex problems or developing creative solutions often involve many unknown factors that can have a significant impact on the duration. The same task can take a very different amount of time from day to day, depending on the complexity, the individual understanding and the mental and emotional state of the person performing the task.

Ergo: Linear productivity in knowledge work is a fallacy.

Time pressure is often a direct consequence of inaccurate or unrealistic estimates. If the estimated duration of a task is exceeded, pressure arises to complete the work faster. This often not only leads to a deterioration in the quality of the work, but can also further impair the mental state, which in turn has a negative impact on productivity.

Time pressure is often particularly harmful for knowledge work, as cognitive and creative processes cannot be accelerated by stress. (Exceptions prove the rule.) Rather, stress often leads to a blockage that further increases the duration and effort of the task.

Ergo: Time pressure is very often a bad advisor.

Unfortunately, many common methods of effort planning do not adequately consider the work context. Planning is usually based on experience and the best possible estimate at the time of planning. What is often overlooked, however, is the reality of the work at the time the planned service is provided. What happens when the boss calls an emergency meeting on another topic, colleagues need help several times a day and the phone is ringing non-stop? In such situations, it doesn’t even take a bad day to fall behind schedule.

Ergo: Effort and duration are two sides of the same coin, which should be considered separately in the context of work.

And there are a whole range of techniques to help improve personal time management:

• The 5 second rule, for example, is a self-management technique that amplifies an impulse to move from thinking to action before objections prevent it.
• The Eat-that-Frog method encourages you to complete the most important, difficult and possibly most unpleasant task of the day – such as eating a frog – first.
• And the Pomodoro technique advocates a continuous alternation of 25-minute work intervals and 5-minute breaks.

Of course, you can try out any technique and get started. But what if you don’t want to eat a frog today, your objections are so great that you can’t get started in five seconds, or colleagues are constantly storming into your office, making 25 minutes of continuous work illusory? Then none of these time management methods will probably help you.

Ergo: Time management techniques sound good in theory, but often fail in practice.

Approaches to dealing with the form on the day

The good news is: even if the form on the day is unpredictable and individual, there are approaches to dealing with it better – both at the planning level and in interpersonal relationships. It is not about eliminating fluctuations, but about accepting them and integrating them into the daily work routine through flexible techniques and more empathy.

There are various planning techniques that are less rigid but still provide a comprehensible and reliable basis for collaboration. These techniques allow you to react better to performance fluctuations without jeopardising the entire project plan.

• Buffer times are an often underestimated but extremely effective tool. By consciously planning generous buffer times, you can take into account the inevitable fluctuations in daily performance. Buffers are not a sign of inefficient planning, but an important means of cushioning risks and giving the team the opportunity to work effectively even on less good days. These buffers can be designed not to delay the entire project, but to serve as a safety net for unexpected difficulties.
• The so-called 3-expert concept is a process for estimating costs by means of expert surveys. Three experts independently estimate the cost of a task. Each person formulates an optimistic, a pessimistic and a realistic cost estimate. The estimates are then discussed: different optimistic estimates are opportunities, different pessimistic estimates are risks and different realistic estimates are an indication of individual assumptions, which, like the optimistic and pessimistic estimates, should be scrutinised. If you want to take the daily workload into account in your planning, it certainly makes sense to tend towards the pessimistic estimate [I say this as a generally optimistic person!].
• Kanban and the pull principle offer a flexible alternative to rigid planning methods. Instead of assigning tasks in fixed time periods, employees can decide for themselves when to ‘pull’ and process tasks. This allows them to take their form on the day into account and complete tasks when they feel ready. In combination with WIP (work in progress) limits, which prevent too many tasks from being processed at the same time, this approach enables a focused and resource-efficient way of working. The result is a fluid, flexible work process that allows for fluctuations in productivity.
• The No Estimates approach also dispenses with detailed estimates and relies on continuous delivery. In the context of planning T-shirt sizes (small, medium, large), tasks can be roughly categorised according to their scope without building up the pressure of exact estimates. This approach offers both orientation and flexibility, as it takes into account fluctuations in the daily routine by avoiding fixed time frames. This keeps the workflow flexible and the focus is on the continuous completion of tasks without rigid deadlines.

Can you think of any other approaches that directly or indirectly take into account the form of the day when planning or executing tasks?

Conclusion

The form on the day is not a flaw, but a normal phenomenon that affects everyone – just to varying degrees and at different times. It is important to accept to yourself and to others that not every day can be equally productive. By better understanding our own performance curve and the factors that influence it (such as sleep, nutrition or stress), we can develop more realistic expectations of ourselves and others.

Some people are most productive in the morning, others work best in the afternoon or evening. Hormonal fluctuations or health factors also influence daily performance. These fluctuations should be seen as normal and not as weakness. It is about accepting these differences and communicating openly.

To better deal with natural performance variations, organisations should use planning methods that are flexible enough to integrate this variability. Generous buffer times, pessimistic or cautious estimates and pull principles help to better balance opportunities and risks in planning.

And last but not least, empathy is an important element in dealing with the form of the day – both towards oneself and towards colleagues. If we understand that it is perfectly normal to perform less well on some days or in some situations and talk openly about it, we can create a working environment based on mutual understanding and support. I firmly believe that teams that allow room for fluctuation and respect each other are not only happier in the long term, but also more productive.

Notes (partly in German):

If you like the article or want to discuss it, please feel free to share it with your network.

[1] Männer in den Wechseljahren: Symptome, Mythos, Behandlung
[2] Menopause: Die Folgen lückenhafter Forschung in der Frauengesundheit

Michael Schenkel has published more posts on the t2informatik blog, including:

t2informatik develops and modernises software as a service provider. Click here to learn more.