In Italy, primarily but not only, there exists a culture called “Doing.” An expression that read this way seems positive and without problems. But it hides a much deeper pitfall that I’ve collided with multiple times in my life, often generating strong friction and anger that fuels rumination.
Objectively useless rumination because it drains cognitive energy and above all leads you to not see events objectively and clearly. And this last part has also been a source of part of my unease because with rumination ongoing you tend to put everyone in the same cauldron, sometimes exaggerating, and you create prejudices and objectively stupid damage because it hurts you first, and a lot, and then them.
But the theme of rumination is broader, maybe we’ll talk about it later. Let’s return to “Doing.”
What “doing for the sake of doing” means
The problem with this culture is not the action itself, noble and potentially of enormous value, but how it’s approached and how, often, it’s compared with other capabilities and activities.
If we take a dictionary at the word “do” we read at least two meanings: to perform a specific action or activity, execute, realize; to take action, be active.
If we observe the meaning, undoubtedly it’s positive. But the problem, as I mentioned, arises in how it’s approached and how it’s rendered. I was thinking about this part: “be active.” Here in Italy it has become almost a mantra. If you do you’re active, if you’re active you’re useful, if you’re useful it’s good.
What has this equation led to? That people’s value is measured by what they do that makes them active. For a very long time this logic was the total exclusive domain of physical doing actions. In recent years also of cognitive actions, a banal example coding or other activities done with a computer, but not only.
But why do I say the “how”? Because often thinking is not tolerated, the systematic approach is not tolerated, but only directly “you’re doing.” I’m using quotes deliberately, by the way. If you don’t start doing you’re lazy, you’re useless, you get lost in chatter. If you then say “I’m reasoning how to best approach an activity” you get labeled as “don’t philosophize,” “don’t waste time,” “you’re not an intellectual” and similar phrases.
The damage of “doing for the sake of doing”
As can be deduced, this approach carries damage on multiple levels. Let’s try to analyze and understand them together.
Doing without a systematic approach means immediately starting to execute the activity but without a method. Ok having experience, but it can often mean making errors, finding yourself correcting them, fixing them, intervening and on with the loop. It leads to fatigue, nervousness and who knows what else.
Think of an event. We need to set up tables, gazebos and maybe chairs to host people and those who operationally run the event. If we used a systematic approach it means stopping for a moment, evaluating spaces, materials and possibilities, then understanding how to best approach the organization.
But what often happens? “Tomorrow there’s the event, let’s all meet at 7 because we need to set up tables and gazebos.”
Result: everyone at 7 starts doing but without criteria, putting, moving and arranging. There’s discussion. If someone doesn’t show up or is late they get accused of not wanting to do. If someone else says “Let’s stop for a moment and think” they receive phrases like “It’s late, come on, let’s move.”
You’d probably exclaim reading these phrases “It doesn’t make sense, it’s true, it’s stupid.” But then stop and think how many times you’ve seen similar scenes in different contexts. In my opinion many, too many times.
Same thing in cognitive work. People who put their heads down to write code as if there were no tomorrow, demanding time and budget but with zero problem-solving ability, often. Why? Because it doesn’t arise from writing code uninterruptedly for several hours every day with the same routine.
I could also write 14 consecutive hours of coding, I don’t deny it. But if it arises from a systematic approach it’s efficient. If it arises from mere doing it works, but at what cognitive and then physical price? Let’s think about it.
The sick comparison: Doing vs Thinking
This culture of “doing for the sake of doing” besides damaging the activity itself also leads to those famous comparisons of “don’t play the intellectual,” as if thinking, reasoning systematically were playing the intellectual.
Some tend to say that if you do you’re useful, good. If you think ok fine, but… That “but”… Why? Because then they add: “but if you also did it would be perfect.” As if to say that thought alone makes no sense and has no value.
Here though I return to the initial theme of anger and rumination. You’ll surely have noticed in my words that resentment that still burns hidden, but unfortunately it’s not an easy passage.
We shouldn’t have resentment if such things are said and affirmed to us, because they need to be contextualized and understood. In some cases they could indeed have negative value, but in other cases maybe the person saying them exclaims them in good faith because they think it in a positive sense and often have never had examples and contexts able to show otherwise.
And there, if we use words like communicate, accept and respect, we could establish a dialogue with reciprocal growth. Not easy, especially when we come from years where we’re labeled. But if done it can bring benefits to us first of all.
True leaders don’t just do for the sake of doing
I want to draw attention to a theme that often, especially in Italy and I say this with regret, we don’t evaluate.
People like Steve Jobs, Enzo Ferrari, Toto Wolff: were they people who “did for the sake of doing”?
Someone will say: “Yes, but they’re unreachable geniuses!”
Stop. This is exactly the problem. We see them as “unreachable” and therefore think: “They can think strategically. We normal people just have to do.”
Mistake.
Their “genius” doesn’t lie in being superhuman. It lies in the mechanism they use. And that mechanism is applicable by anyone.
Let’s observe what they really did.
Steve Jobs didn’t solder iPhones. Product intuition. He asked: “Is this simple enough?” User focus, aesthetic vision, team inspiration. He could spend hours walking, thinking, discussing the design of a single detail. Then in a 2-hour meeting: a decision that changed the entire product.
Enzo Ferrari didn’t assemble engines. He created vision. He chose drivers, inspired the team, decided race strategies. Days where he seemed to do nothing, then a critical call, a decision on the driver, and the season changed.
Toto Wolff doesn’t change tires in the pit. He builds winning culture. Leadership, problem solving, pressure management. He seems to “not do,” but he’s creating context where others can excel.
What do they have in common?
Systematic approach. They allow the brain to create connections, therefore solutions. Apparently ethereal phrases, if seen alone, that fuel a complex gear and unleash the individual’s potential.
And you?
You don’t have to be Jobs to apply this. You too can stop for 10 minutes before the event and think about table organization. Walk for 15 minutes before the coding session and think about architecture. Chat with the team before the project and share vision.
You don’t need to be a “genius.” You need to allow your brain to work before doing.
Jobs, Ferrari, Wolff did this on a large scale. But the mechanism is identical on a small scale.
Systematic approach isn’t for “unreachables.” It’s for anyone who wants to do well, not just a lot.
Even in emergencies, true rescuers don’t just do for the sake of doing. Their doing arises from observation, analysis, systematic approach. Like Winston Wolf in Pulp Fiction: it seems immediate, but it’s a rapidly organized system. It’s not “doing for the sake of doing.” It’s “doing intelligently.”
Operators and visionaries: both are needed
We are human and what I’d like to arrive as a message is not to demonize the word “Doing,” but to provide it with a new context.
There are operational people who are excellent at doing, whether physical or cognitive. There are people by nature who move with elegance in operations and often apply systematically, therefore with valid and powerful results.
But there also exist people who are not operational, are not people of doing but have vision, leadership and medium-long term outlook. People who also struggle and often their results are by nature invisible, not to say they’re only seen at the end with the entire complex result.
They must not be denigrated. They must not be pushed to do to be complete. It’s a mistake, it’s not their nature, it’s an incorrect forcing given by an incorrect context. This creates misunderstandings, disappointments, bitterness and discussions. And in a global context like ours it’s a shame to add new negative fuel.
Hope, not condemnation
My hope is to have given a different look at the word “doing.”
“Doing” is not the enemy. “Doing for the sake of doing” is.
If you’ve felt out of place because you “don’t do enough,” if they’ve told you “don’t philosophize,” if they’ve labeled you as “too cerebral”: you’re not inadequate. Your approach is different. And it’s needed.
Excellent operators who “do” with elegance and system: they’re needed. Absolutely. Visionaries who think, observe, intuit: they’re also needed. Equally. Not one above the other. Both necessary.
And who told you “nice thinking but if you did…”? Often they say it in good faith. Really. They haven’t had different examples. They haven’t seen that Jobs, Ferrari, Wolff thought before doing. They haven’t understood that systematic approach is doing, just intelligent.
Let’s not condemn them. Let’s dialogue. Let’s show. Let’s share.
Communicate, accept, respect: they can establish dialogue with reciprocal growth. Not easy, especially when we come from years where we’re labeled. But possible. And it brings benefits to us first of all.
The only true negativity is “doing for the sake of doing.” And we can all learn to do differently.
Let’s think about it.