The Game with Alex Hormozi - 25. Maker or Manager | $100M Lost Chapters Audiobook

Episode Date: November 14, 2025

Welcome to The Game w/ Alex Hormozi, hosted by entrepreneur, founder, investor, author, public speaker, and content creator Alex Hormozi. On this podcast you’ll hear how to get more customers, make more profit per customer, how to keep them longer, and the many failures and lessons Alex has learned and will learn on his path from $100M to $1B in net worth.Wanna scale your business? Click here.Follow Alex Hormozi’s Socials:LinkedIn  | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube  | Twitter | Acquisition 

Maker or Manager How to Turn Time into Money Lost Chapter, Author Note Time is the only resource we're given. The people who make the most money know how to trade it for the highest return. I wrote this on how I run my time. It's ruthlessly simple.

It's also how we run the teams at Acquisition.com and if you spend time or manage people who do, this may be one of the most important things you ever read. Also, special thanks to Paul Graham, who wrote about this concept 14 years ago, I brought the title an ode to it. and to expand upon it, given my personal experience. A conversation happening everywhere around the world.

You got time tomorrow morning? I looked over my empty calendar. I suppose I could fit it in, but I was planning on taking a big chunk out of this project. Uh, yeah, I have some openings. How long are you thinking? Shouldn't take longer than an hour, say 10 a.m. Hey, I'm reaching out because John introduced us.

Want to grab a coffee sometime this week? I didn't think I needed anything at that. the moment, but I don't want to be rude. Yeah, yeah, I can make time. Cool, here's a great spot, address. I'll meet you there at, say, 2 p.m. Yeah, that works. See you then. The two types of calendars. Both of these examples represent hundreds of millions of exchanges that happen every day. What you don't see is that to one person, this type of exchange costs 10 times more than the other. Let me explain. There are two very different ways to manage time for two very different types of work and workers. There are makers and there are managers. I'll start with the one that most people

are familiar with, managers, because this is how most of the world manages their time. Managers. Managers divide their time into small 30 to 60 minute blocks. This gives them between 10 to 20 chunks of work time per day. And each block often differs from the block before. Their work often depends on meetings where they direct others. They collect data and report data to persuade, lead, train, encourage, and make other decisions. They talk to lots of different people. They talk to lots of different people and do many different kinds of tasks all day long. They have a pretty clear beginning and end of their workday. They basically worked until their last calendar slot or appointment. For managers, an empty slot is a lost opportunity. For that reason, they treat time like currency. An empty slot

means free to fill with manager's stuff. The only real cost for them to fill is to coordinate with another person's empty time slot. On paper, since they quote, work on meetings, a mutually filled slot makes both people more productive. Their objective is to use up all chunks in their days, they can maximize their time. Fair enough. Makers. Makers, on the other hand, make up a much smaller number of workers and shrinking. They actually make stuff, and they cannot make in small 30 to 60 minute blocks of time. And depending on what they make, it takes very large chunks of time, half-day or full-day blocks. Therefore, they have fewer of them. They may only have one or two chunks of time per day, maybe 10 to 14 per week.

The work is often similar on the outside, especially day-to-day. For them, they have known work inputs like keystrokes, but variable outputs. They often make something different every time. So seldom, if they ever do have a task they finish on any given 30-minute block. Their days typically have a similar start time but variable finish time. They work open to goal. In other words, they work until their quality output per unit time drops. Their performance decides when they're done for the day. And compared to managers, they have a more limited time they can work until they mentally exhaust themselves. And on a larger time horizon, the best makers only switch tasks when the project they work on is finished. So their work has relatively

lower urgency compared to the swashbuckling manager, but at the same time can have the highest importance. And from the outside, a lot of their work may not look like work at all. An impressive percentage of the time doesn't go into labor people see. It often goes into figuring out how to do the work that people see. They don't solve the problem so they can work. Solving is the work. They might get stuck for 45 minutes and then bang, it comes to them. Sometimes problem-solving dry spells can last days. In my case, it can be upwards of six months just to figure out the table of contents for my second book. That is the maker's work. It means doing things, producing what nobody else has produced before, at least not by anyone they have access to. It also means producing in ways maybe nobody has

gone about producing it, otherwise they would make something else. Based on the immersive nature of their work, they incur monumental cost of switching tasks. A meeting, even a short one, breaks the larger chunk into two smaller chunks near unusable for makers' work. A whole work unit, poof, for example, a 10 a.m. meeting, even for 30 minutes, breaks their morning block into two hours and one and a half hours. Not enough to get back into their deep, immersive, flow-dependent makers' work. What's worse, when they do have something on the schedule, they suffer from something called the Zegernick effect. The Zegernick effect states that you will tend to remember open loops better than closed loops. Normally this is a good

thing. Like managers, for instance, it helps them remember the stuff that they have to do during the day. But for a maker, it's a mind parasite. For them, the open loops and pending tasks eat up attention, disrupt immersion, and destroy a maker's productivity. Even if you know something happens in the afternoon, you know you must limit your morning work. You have to pay attention to make sure you end on time. Never mind the intrusive thoughts interrupting your day. Now you must also watch the clock at regular intervals, which interrupts the work you do leading up to the meeting. and at some point you begin to think about what needs to be covered in the meeting, wholly removing the maker from the project at hand.

Makers get their work done outside of meetings. To a maker, an empty calendar means full productivity. For makers, unless they have the luxury of working in a bomb shelter, it's easier to work when other people don't, early morning and late evenings. This limits interruptions, but it also drastically inflates the amount of time they spend on their jobs versus the time they spend working. They clock in during the day, only to be interrupted all day, and then finally start working when everyone else stops.

Their objective is to maximize the blank space on their calendar so they can have as many large, uninterrupted chunks of time as possible. The problem. Makers and managers can both exist at the same time. Problems occur when they try to work together. When a manager tries to work with a maker, not knowing how makers work, at least for productivity disasters. Since the relative time slot for the manager costs so little and makes the manager more productive,

they assume, and for good reason, it's also true for the maker. It's just 30 minutes, and you've got free time. What's the big deal? But it couldn't be further from the truth. It costs the makers 10 times more. A short meeting costs one measly work unit for the manager and a giant work unit for the maker. What's worse, if a manager asks a maker to block time, the maker has two terrible outcomes. First, they either offend the manager and incur other risks by declining the invitation.

oftentimes this damages the relationship or decreases the likelihood of the collaboration happening in the future, which they might need, or they accept and then take unreasonably high cost for a meeting that often yields nothing. Managers often assume that makers can work like they do on demand, but this confuses the nature of managerial work and makers work, and given the fact that most people work on manager's schedules, it leads to huge losses and productivity in very late nights or early mornings for the maker who must accommodate everyone else's schedule, mostly out of fear and politeness. This means managers often prevent the work that they actually check in on.

And when this happens, often, both parties lose. The manager takes a hit because the maker takes the hit. But this creates the trap. The worst the maker's performance gets, the more managers try to keep tabs on them. Lose lose. Unfortunately, this is how most of the world works, but there is a better way. The solution. We attack the problem on three fronts.

To the manager, to the makers and to the organization. To the managers, step one. understand both costs you put on a maker. First, the cost of coordinating times while they work destroys their productivity. And once you have a time set aside, understand that the time itself eats up an entire work block. Know the difference between your work and a maker's work. When you ask for a meeting, it costs them 10 times more. You use up one of their 10 slots per week. I'm not telling you not to meet your makers, just that if you want your organization to be more productive, understand the cost of your requests.

And when you make them, be sure it's worth it. Step two, understand the value of the makers know. If a maker declines a meeting, do not take offense. See it as them trying to keep their larger commitment to you and others to get the meaningful project done. To the makers. Step one, good managers want to help you. Let them.

Part of that responsibility lies on you to make managers aware of the differences between your work and schedules. Send this piece of content to them to help them help you. And yes, you will have to take meetings that eat your intentions. entire day sometimes. When that happens, fight fire with fire. Swap to a manager's calendar style. All makers have some administrative tasks to do. And since you lost the chunk anyways, you can get some good feedback, serious wins, and other benefits by just dedicating the entire chunk to as many meetings at other administrative tasks as you can. That way, you can save other blocks of time in the

future from being made unusable. Step two, make meeting blocks and stick to them. In addition, you can have standard meeting blocks where you accept these, and you must offend these. It's rare that a meeting is truly urgent. See if you can push them off to designated blocks that you set aside ahead of time. Make this time available to anyone who meets with you on a regular basis and to people who meet spur of the moment. Since I'm an entrepreneur, I like to dedicate the first half of my day doing makers work and the second half of the day for managers' work. So people can meet with me pretty much every day just after 1 p.m. Also, I schedule my meetings from back to front. This way, if somebody does get scheduled with me, it happens as late in the day as possible.

This way I can extend my makers block a little bit, and even though Zegrenick effect takes hold, I can still get a little more done than I otherwise would have. Pro tip. How to apply this as a freelancer or solopreneur? No one works in your calendar and you don't have anyone your team to block for you. Expect no one to know how you work or why. When I had fewer means, I worked from 4 a.m. to 10 a.m. on my quote maker work,

then tended to the usual fires of business during the day. This gave me nine work blocks, one per day, during the week, and two chunks each weekend day. You may have to adopt a schedule like this, with your real work happening before or after the manager's interruption ceased. This got me through the earlier years. Beyond sharing this piece of content with everyone you work with, it may be a good in-between measure. Step three.

Set expectations for slow responses during your Maker's block. People have an amazing ability to adapt if you tell them ahead of time. People really only get upset when you don't meet expectations. So change them. Let everyone know this is how you work and this is when you'll be responsive versus not. Step 4. Work when you say you work. You'll only get to claim the title of Maker if you actually make stuff.

Otherwise, you're a fool and you make a fool out of anyone who calls themselves a maker. If you have the luxury of people who respect your schedule you owe to them to make, if you waste time, you'll confirm all their suspicions. They will think you never work to begin with, and you damage your reputation and the reputation of all makers. You make it less likely they will respect your work and your word in the future. To all the organizations, step one, consider mandated quiet time chunks. During these, entire teams cannot message one another or meet. Either a chunk of time, daily, or entire days of the week, it doesn't need to apply to the entire organization, only the ones who have makers, engineers, developers, copywriters, builders,

presenters, media editors, et cetera. Step two, spread this content to makers and managers alike so everyone can use the same language to describe this large source of waste and prevent it. My goal is to increase awareness of these two types of working styles and put words to something that plagued me for a long time and hopefully give words to the makers out there whose work moves the world so that they can share this to the people who work with them and hopefully explain how costly God a minute really is.