An N of 1 | May 18, 2026

When I teach about the behavioral science of productivity, I always start with the same scenario question. And nobody ever agrees on the right answer. Here’s the setup:

I’m in the kitchen cooking and you come in and want to help.

I’m already stirring the rice.

There is a dessert on fire, which I clearly notice.

There is a chicken, which looks done, which I don’t notice.

There are vegetables that need chopping to add to the rice.

My taxes are on the table, due in a couple months.

And there is a paint chip on the wall that has been there since I moved in.

What do you help with first?

Each of the options has a case to be made.

• You could ask me what to do, since it is my kitchen and I know what matters. But if you’ve ever been deep in overwhelm, you know how annoying this is.

• You could take over the rice, so that I can move on to whatever is next. But I’m already in the flow and so I might lose momentum in the transition.

• You could extinguish the dessert, because fire is bad. But if I know it is on fire and don’t seem to care, maybe it is baked alaska and supposed to be that way.

• You could take the chicken out, because you don’t want it to overcook. But looking done and being done aren’t the same thing and you weren’t around when it went in.

• You could work on the veggies, since I’ll need those to finish the rice. But compared to the rest of the cooking, it feels like the least urgent task.

• You could do my taxes, because they’re very important. But they’re not due for a while and won’t help my overwhelm right now.

• You could fix the chipped paint, because it is quick and easy and helps you build momentum without getting in the way. But if it has been there since I moved in, I might not see that as adding any value at all.

Those are all reasonable arguments about which people could disagree. And that’s the point: when it comes to adding value, everyone has a different concept of what it means. And how you resolve those disagreements is key to how you work and feel supported.

Personally, I’m Team Veggies: it unblocks the next step without mucking with priorities. If you’re ever in my kitchen, that’s what I would want you to do.

What feels productive to you?

Knowing how you resolve questions of value may help you pick your next workplace.

At one end of the spectrum, you have companies like Valve. There are no managers, employees work on whatever project interests them, and it doesn’t matter if they don’t share the same concept of value, because value isn’t tracked in any traditional sense. This tends to create boom-or-bust outcomes, with a few massively profitable hits like Steam and other projects that languish forever.

At the other end, you have companies like Amazon. Massively hierarchical, with large approval pyramids and rigid, heavily documented definitions for productivity and how to get promoted. Compared to other big tech companies, they launch much more slowly but most of the launches “work” - even if they shut down, they are generally merged into other projects.

This spectrum exists all the way down to dyadic work relationships. Some of our clients at Oceans want their Diver to work on rigidly defined task lists, checking things off from top to bottom. Others, and I’m part of this crew, just want them to add value any way they can; my Diver started a travel agency so that we could help attract more people to visit Sri Lanka, introduced a new newsletter format, and is selling off my stockpile of old electronics.

Again, there is no right or wrong but few things feel worse than a misalignment. Taking the time to understand what your company, boss, and potential kitchen helper want is key to a better outcome.

Jared Furuta and Patricia Bromley argue that climate change is often treated as a purely technological problem, with the assumption that innovation, better policies, or scalable solutions will naturally produce meaningful change. While technology and policy are important, they believe this “tech-first” mindset overlooks the social, political, and cultural dynamics that actually determine whether climate action succeeds.

They challenge the idea that worsening environmental conditions automatically lead to stronger action. Historical examples like London’s deadly smog show that serious environmental problems can persist for decades without reform unless political conditions, public narratives, and social organization align. Similarly, awareness of climate change does not automatically produce mobilization or policy change; meaningful action requires institutions, movements, and collective pressure.

The authors also argue that adopting the “right” policies or technologies does not guarantee real-world impact. Countries and companies often implement environmental policies symbolically to appear modern or responsible, without fully enforcing them or changing behavior in practice. Likewise, even effective technologies can fail to spread because of social norms, costs, habits, or resistance to change. Climate solutions interact with people’s identities, livelihoods, and daily routines, meaning technical effectiveness alone is insufficient.

Another major point is that scale is not always the answer. Policies or interventions that work in one setting may fail elsewhere, and large-scale reforms can provoke backlash when people feel threatened or ignored. Protests against fuel taxes and environmental regulations illustrate how climate measures can create resistance if they are perceived as disconnected from local realities or unfair to certain groups.

You’re not “just” a behavioral scientist — you’re someone who knows human behavior is a competitive advantage. Here are 5 companies hiring people like you this week 👇

• Sr Staff Behavioral Data Scientist - Customer Success - Dexcom

• Behavioral Design Lead, AI Health Behavior Change - Prime Health Technologies

• Innovation Strategist, Design & Innovation - Sutter Health

• Senior Behavioural Scientist - Intact

• Senior Director, Club Strategy - Major League Baseball (MLB)

Watch the previous episodes

Start FREE Course