A Perfect Mess
The premise is intriguing and intuitive: time spent organizing one's inner and outer lives had better have a positive ROI, or the entire industry of personal organization gurus like Peter Walsh can be shown to be a con.
Well this book is, as befits the predilections of its authors, a mess. They have an theory: neatness is a sign of internal and external inefficiency, and they proceed to look for validating instance proofs. But their instance proofs were only useful ones for a nanosecond after they wrote this book - it feels like they picked plausible existence proofs, present them as definitive and then ask us to move on quickly.
Well, reading this book four years after it came out (I bought it when it came out but never found it interesting enough to continue to read at the time), here are some of their existence proofs and a more considered examination of the results rendered by their examples.
Example 1 - Steve Jobs and Apple are obsessively neat while Bill Gates and Microsoft are described to be relatively messy in organizational structure. Gates, the authors say, "is known for encouraging independent teams to go off in many, often conflicting, directions, and is more tolerant of delays and changes" than Steve Jobs is. Jobs is "a fastidious, turtleneck-only control freak widely know to rage at his teams when they've diverged from precise goals and schedules". This existence proof is made by citing examples like the success of Windows, Word and Excel, and noting that "by early 2006 analysts were predicting the iPod would soon be losing market share". True - until the industry-shaking Apple iPhone was released six months after this book was published. Oops!
Example 2 - Arnold Schwarzenegger has, the authors say, a "messy formula for success". Unlike most executives, Schwarzenegger operates his daily life as the Governor of California without a schedule. One cannot schedule a meeting with him. If you want an appointment with him, the authors admiringly describe how you should just call him up and, if he's free when you call, you can talk to him. Otherwise, try again later. If he does meet with you, it "might be for five minutes or five hours - he'd see how it went".
Schwarzenegger is "a master at looking neat while keeping major aspects of his life steeped in a mess". They note that most professionally successful people shoot for planfulness and consistency, while Schwarzenegger "has overachieved through improvisation and inconsistency". Interestingly, this was particularly helpful to him when it helped him created a variable exercise regime during his body-building days that resulted in a flexible set of exercises that fit his mood, rather than a set schedule of exercises like most body-builders. The authors imply that his success was directly tied to this one behavioral component. One wonders if other factors were at play here, but no other factors are addressed. Moreover, like the Gates/Jobs example, the authors necessarily stop at the time of publication. If they were more honest though, Californians were disappointed with Schwarzenegger's lack of success at fiscal reform, and as time has gone on, the basic feeling in California is that he was a disappointment.
These are just two examples put forth to prove the book's thesis. Really, none of their examples were conclusive, because one cannot be definitive when talking about a dichotomy about this, in which the 'right' answer is situational. The authors huff and puff about how different the philosophies of consistency and improvisation are, but in fact pragmatic, high-achieving people travel between these two poles when one or both qualities are called for.
In the end, the book was though provoking, and for that the book was probably worth reading, if disappointing. You have to wonder if the authors ever really convinced themselves their animus towards neatness and personal organizers was really heartfelt or a 316-page defense of their wanting to live a messy life and write messy books like this one.