Makers, managers, builders and maintainers
Back in 2009, the prolific programmer, venture capitalist and essayist Paul Graham wrote about how people, depending on their role, use time in one of two fundamentally different ways: the maker’s schedule and the manager’s schedule. The manager divides up a day into several regularly-sized chunks and allots tasks to each one, while a maker spends the better part of a day (if not more) on a burst of creative effort pursuing a single task.
Graham was, quite understandably, speaking from his experience of the Silicon Valley startup environment. Other industries operate less frequently on the cutting edge, being largely concerned with the continuity of existing knowledge and practices. In such places, the creative makers are often overshadowed by the less glamorous builders and maintainers. The distinction may not be obvious to outsiders, but is usually quite clear to insiders.
How builders and maintainers differ from makers and managers
A builder makes things too, but not something entirely original and innovative. The purpose is not to realize a grand futuristic vision, only to solve a practical problem. It requires the application of precise knowledge and long experience, with perhaps a sprinkling of intuition that marks an epoch-making genius. Once in a while, the builder is forced to come up with a creative solution to an unusual problem, and temporarily resembles a maker. But that is the exception rather than the rule.
A maintainer does not make things and is primarily concerned with ensuring the continuity of things made by the builder, as well as preserving the body of knowledge and experience that the builder needs to do his/her work. For any mature industry, this is a non-trivial task and often demands more resources than the drive for new inventions.
Both of these roles are distinct from a creative maker who is expected to produce something original. Admittedly, Graham does not discuss this role in detail. His discussion focuses on the irregularity and unpredictability of a maker’s schedule, which goes against the bureaucratic grain of a manager’s regimented schedule.
What distinguishes builders and maintainers from makers is the routine nature of their tasks. Say that an inventor designs and creates a machine, the first of its kind. A second person has to manufacture copies of it, while keeping costs down and ensuring in works reliably. A third person would have the job of periodically repairing any damage and replace worn-out parts. Only then would the machine be suitable for use by the public over any length of time.
Time usage
Graham’s essay distinguished makers and managers on the basis of how they used time, but it is harder to make that distinction for builders and maintainers. They are able to chop up their days into irregularly-sized but definite chunks. Unlike makers, they don’t necessarily need long periods of time to simply get going. Any irregularity and unpredictability in their schedules comes from the novelty of their tasks. Like managers, they are sometimes called upon to perform tasks outside their daily routine. Other than those unique situations when they are forced to create a non-standard solution to a non-standard problem, builders and maintainers operate on a schedule similar to managers. Even those non-standard situations rarely involve more than a deeper dive into existing knowledge, rather than creating new knowledge.
Why builders and maintainers matter
In any industry mature enough to rely on a complex body of tried-and-true knowledge, preserving functionality and maintaining steady growth are often bigger concerns than the lack of new ideas. This is why builders and maintainers are needed. These occupations are a departure from the idealized notion of a creative individual, because they are mostly concerned with the mundane day-to-day practice of an established craft. However, they do have a role to play in the emergence of something new.
Popular imagination and the media are heavily biased towards revolutionary ideas and their progenitors. The language of breakthroughs and geniuses has no vocabulary for the small, incremental, unremarkable (at least to outsiders) steps required to turn a momentary creative spark into a massive world-changing wildfire. For every successful innovator with an invention, there are a hundred others who must work to scale it up, make it usable by humans, and constantly overcome new challenges.
The worship of innovation has its costs
Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison may have been pioneering visionaries, but the modern electric grid exists because of the continued efforts of many others who improved upon their inventions and kept them in good order. Someone has to do the grunt work of keeping the lights on. The ideology of our era treats innovation as the end goal rather than a milestone, which risks devaluing the work of builders and maintainers. “Innovation is only a small piece of what happens with technology,” comment the authors of an essay titled Hail the maintainers.
Building and maintaining is what the majority of humans do. Most of them probably wouldn’t even imagine winning any awards for just doing their job. But by ignoring their contributions, we risk not only losing out on future innovations, but also being cut off from the fruits of past ones.
Are you a maker?
What does Graham’s insightful albeit somewhat limited analysis mean for you? In your professional domain, you are most likely a builder or maintainer, unless your primary responsibility is to manage people. Occasionally, you may encounter problems where the solution is unclear or extremely complicated. This is your chance to temporarily step into the shoes of a maker. Try to give yourself long periods of uninterrupted time to work on the problem. Remember not to grade your efforts based on the time spent.
Whatever their professional role, anyone can be a maker in their personal domain. This does create a potential for inner conflict, similar to the maker-manager clash mentioned in Graham’s essay. Your “maker self” wants to spend time on creative pursuits, but your “manager self” wants to treat it like any other task with definite time limits. Once again, the key to solve this conflict is to for the two selves to understand each other. Set aside some time for that novel or painting or whatever hobby you have. Tell your manager self that you’re unavailable for meetings.