Early in my career, I had a friend who was basically the human Duracell Bunny (link for the younger generation).
He worked every waking second, often crashing at the office, yet he hardly ever got promoted. He was the definition of “hard work,” but his actual output was close to zero.
His case was extreme, but every team has both types:
The people who deliver results with minimal effort.
The ones who practically live at work yet create little value.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking and talking about this, and I even came up with “Ahmed’s First Law of Success.” (Still debating if I should trademark it.)
Some definitions to ground us:
Work → It’s all about delivery. If you work 60 seconds and ship something, you’re more valuable than someone who grinds for a year with nothing to show.
Delivery → Giving customers something they actually want. Do that, and you’re already a rock star.
Hard work → Raw effort, in whatever form.
Smart work → Allocating effort optimally.
Growth work → Investing effort today for future payoff (think compound interest).
Busy work → Anything that doesn’t connect to the points 1, 2, and 5 above.
So Ahmed’s first law of success states:
Success = ((Smart Work * Hard Work ) - (Busy Work))^(Growth Work)
Put simply:
To succeed, you need both hard and smart work, cut out the busy work, and consistently invest in growth. Organizations reward you when you deliver things customers use. You’ll reward yourself when you invest in personal growth—because tomorrow you’ll be more effective than today.
Of course, this is an oversimplification. Real success also depends on being in the right environment, aligned with your skills and passions, and sometimes—unfairly—on things like gender, birthplace, or even your name.
But still, the formula holds up surprisingly well.
What do you think?