Just Suppose...
Sunday, November 1, 2020 at 18:45 It’s sometimes useful to play a game of make-believe, and this is particulary relevant when one is dealing with the future from the perspective of the present, as when thinking about how best to manage one’s time.
So, just suppose for a minute that you have no resistance to your work at all. All you have to do is to decide what to do next and you can do it without a moment’s hesistation or reluctance.
For most of us that is probably quite an unlikely scenario. But if your fairy godmother waved her magic wand over you and all your resistance disappeared for ever, what then?
Would you still need some sort of time management system?
If so, what would such a time management system look like?
Would you take on more work or less work?
Would you stay in the same work or move to something different?
Would you have more or less leisure time?
Would having no resistance result in your having more or less focus?
Would your lack of resistance tempt you to take on work which is beyond your skills?
Answers in the comments please!
Reader Comments (30)
The Randomizer system is very effective at getting things done, and also causes resistance to melt away - just like the fairy godmother!
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2014/1/22/random-time-management.html
But with Randomizer, I would eventually start resisting the system itself. Presumably that would never happen under the fairy godmother's regime!
So I considered what causes this general resistance to occur (for me at least), and how the fairy godmother might address those problems:
(A) Randomizer would eventually take too long to select pressing items that I knew needed more attention. This misalignment would cause me to work those items "off list", creating more and more resistance to the whole system.
(B) I would grow addicted to the fast results that resulted whenever Randomizer selected smaller items. This tended to generate some resistance to larger, more complex activities. As a result, when Randomizer selected those larger items, I would tend to take only cursory action on them, so I could move on to things that would give faster results. This would generate a growing conflict between the desire for fast results, and the need for deeper attention to more complex items. This conflict would create resistance to the whole system.
With the fairy godmother, all these forms of resistance are 100% gone forever. But how would that be possible? I suppose it would mean (A) the items on the list are always in alignment with the reality of my situation and objectives, and (B) I'd be able to switch between fast action, and deep action, on a moment's notice, as the situation demanded, without any mental difficulties or addictive withdrawal.
I can think of various ways to address (A) -- for example, regularly pruning the list, to ensure it has the right focus.
But I don't think (B) is possible. The fairy godmother would need to change basic human nature to allow mental switching of this sort.
Actually my current time management method goes at this problem directly. It has a pretty sharp distinction between two distinct modes: fast-action kinds of things, and more reflective kinds of things that require deeper thought.
The fast action kind of thing can be taken up at any time -- start of day, end of day, in between meetings, etc. In this mode, I just cycle through my checklists and inboxes in order, and it generally works pretty well. There isn't any resistance, it's just FIFO, bang through the lists. If I run into any difficulties, I spend a bit of time sorting out the problem, make some change to the ordering of my checklists/inboxes, and the problem is fixed. Works great.
The more reflective things require longer blocks of time, free from interruptions and distractions. I mean blocks of 30-45 minutes or more, maybe 2-3 hours sometimes. Ideally I do this for an hour or so at the beginning of the day (reminiscent of DIT's "current initiative"), and then carve out a block of time in the afternoon for it as well. This is my chaos-surfing mode: wander and explore, sifting through and thinking about things, going through my notes, exploring the conflicts and problems, trying to find the focus, trying some experimental actions, letting the priorities emerge. This tends to generate a flow state and deep engagement, and I can get tons of important stuff done this way.
This system works really well until I have several days when I cannot find any time for that latter kind of work, because of too many meetings or emails or whatever. Then I feel an intense conflict between the two kinds of work -- do I focus on the FIFO tasks, or do I focus on sorting out the chaos and figure out what really matters? The root cause is usually overcommitment -- which generates too many meetings and too many FIFO tasks, leaving no time for the exploration/thinking/emergent priorities. The way to prune the overcommitment is to sort out the chaos, figure out what really matters, and find the leverage points that will allow me to get 80% of the results with 20% of the effort. Armed with this new focus, I can cancel or decline meetings, delete or delegate FIFO tasks, and bring things back under control.
But I do wish I had a better method for not getting into those overcommitment situations in the first place! Maybe the fairy godmother has some ideas about that.
Thus, the ideal system if you have no resistance is the same as the one to minimize resistance. It's all about knowing.
I would think for the vast majority of people, there will be tasks that they resist. I am of the increasing opinion that there is no task management solution for this, you must look elsewhere to reduce resistance. It may be to cultivate a life that has less resistance, or grin and bear it and attack the resistance head on, analyze thyself and find the source of the resistance, other strategies, and/or a combination of these things.
What I'm also finding that when I question my destination everything has resistance.
<< The best system in a resistance free world would probably need to be a map and a destination. Once you have that, the next thing you need is movement and momentum. >>
It sounds like driving a route using Google Maps. You tell it where you want to go and it takes you there turning by turning. And if you miss a direction it immediately adjusts and takes you from where you actually are.
> yes, definitely
If so, what would such a time management system look like?
> Can't say, but its main goal would be identify long term objectives and define when to act on them, and for how long at a time
Would you take on more work or less work?
> a lot more, unless my TM system prevents me from from it (and it should)
Would you stay in the same work or move to something different?
> stay in the same work, unless my TM system help me carve new, better goals for myself
Would you have more or less leisure time?
> probably none at all, unless the TM system forces me to take some
Would having no resistance result in your having more or less focus?
> no focus at all
Would your lack of resistance tempt you to take on work which is beyond your skills?
>on the contrary
> I am of the increasing opinion that there is no task management solution for this, you must look elsewhere to reduce resistance.
Why not both? I think good task management can weed out a lot of resistance but not all. Some source of resistance like too vague goals, lost momentum, lost actuality etc can be rooted out by a good task management system.
There is however also "natural" resistance stemming from our self-talk. Psychological factors like fear of success amongst others. These can be overcome partly with strongly established routines, these in turn can live through support by a good time management system.
But there is a rest and that needs not a task list, but examination and improvement of self-talk.
I found the exercises in Mark's "Dreams" very helpful with that.
<<It sounds like driving a route using Google Maps. You tell it where you want to go and it takes you there turning by turning. And if you miss a direction it immediately adjusts and takes you from where you actually are.>>
I would love a system that was smart enough to give me turn by turn directions for the day!
This has really got me thinking about how I should at least weekly, or maybe daily, pick my true end of the week/day "destination" and at a minimum let my intuition guide me on what "detours" and "stops" I allow myself to take and yet still make it to my "destination" on time.
I know from a road trip I took to a couple of National Parks (Yellowstone and Mt Rushmore) that I had to drive approximately 6-8 hours a day to make the round trip in 4 days. I only punched in the coordinates of the National Parks and hotels I was staying in but through out each day I had the choices of where to eat, fuel up, or potentially stop for the attractions along the way. Obviously the end goal was always on my mind but I was able to relax and enjoy the things that came up, even road construction, because I had a solid idea of what the big picture was.
It ought to be a simple as that but I'm afraid I have too many days were I drive and drive the same old routes with nothing but an empty fuel tank to show for it. (figuratively speaking of course)
Revisting your questions this one now sticks out to me "Would you stay in the same work or move to something different?" I think for me, progress is measured by how many new "destinations" or projects I can "go to" or accomplish.
This "just suppose" question has been really fun to explore for me. Thanks!
Be careful what you wish for! :-)
Manna 1.0: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1
<< Be careful what you wish for! :-) >>
I noticed many years ago that if one asks oneself the question "What am I resisting?" the answer comes without the resistance. So for instance if you are sitting at your desk and say "What am I resisting?" you might get the answer "Clearing my email". You may have been avoiding clearing your email all morning but as soon as you get that answer you are able to start on it. And once you've started you can usually keep going. (I describe this in more detail in "Get Everything Done and Still Have Time to Play")
This leads me to think that resistance is more a matter of the decision process than the action process. We humans can cope with a lot of physical resistance once we have dealt with the mental resistance. Compare thinking about going to the gym with actually being at the gym!
In the "Manna" book which Seraphim references the employees (at first anyway) actually found it easier to do their work when a voice in their ear was telling them what to do at every step, even though they were doing more work as a result.
So all my time-management systems have been at heart ways of making easy the decision about what to do next.
So for instance "little and often" has the effect of reducing the effort involved in the decision process rather than the actions themselves. There's a big bonus attached to this in that working little and often is more efficient for the learning process.
So the question is how can we best remove the resistance involved in the decision process?
One answer is to use a randomizer. A lot of us have remarked on how choosing what to do next this way almost entirely removes resistance. The problem is that a randomizer is entirely indifferent to our priorities and concerns. And so the work we do as a result probably won't reflect the best selection of tasks we could have done during the time concerned. To some extent the increased speed of work can compensate for this.
I posted before on this. Other times I've attempted followup, this site would not allow me.
Fingers crossed for getting through this time.
<< Other times I've attempted followup, this site would not allow me. >>
I'm sorry this has happened. If you get any further problems of this nature, please email your post to me and I will post it myself under your name.
I hope you post more, I would like to see your randomizer tweaks
Here are my answers:
<Would you still need some sort of time management system?>
Yes, I definitely would.
<If so, what would such a time management system look like?
For me, procrastination and resistance are the major driving factors that make me seek out a time management system that can cajole and coax me into doing something I don't want to do. If there was no reluctance or resistance to doing any task, I would still need a system that helps me to choose what to do and in what order, and that acts as a reminder of my commitments to myself and other people, core day-to-day things to keep me functioning well in all areas of life, and ideas that I want to capture for further exploration.
<Would you take on more work or less work?>
I certainly wouldn't take on more at the moment - I have so many backlogs that need to be cleared.
<Would you stay in the same work or move to something different?>
I'm retired so I have plenty of choice of what to do.
<Would you have more or less leisure time?>
I would have more leisure time, once I'd cleared the backlogs. That leisure would be more fulfilling because it wouldn't have the backdrop of anxiety/guilt brought about by my usual procrastination.
<Would having no resistance result in your having more or less focus?>
Probably more focus because I wouldn't have the backdrop of anxiety/guilt as above.
<Would your lack of resistance tempt you to take on work which is beyond your skills?>
Not likely, but it could possibly help me to extend my skills.
question of some kind. More regret? More urgent? More important? If any hesitation about
the answer, stick to the random choice.
More complex example: When you enter a task, place a H, M, L in front. Best to stagger
the letters. All H go in single column. Same for other two types. Makes selection easier
when scanning. You could allow yourself one L for low rated task in the morning and another
in the afternoon. Maybe have two M medium tasks similarly in am/pm. Then all rest of time
cycle through the H high tasks.
Again, I state I have thought of a great variety of other ways to skew results. In future postings,
I may offer a few more to get your own creativity sparked. It was something about the captcha
in the past that disallowed me to post. I swear I entered correctly. Thankfully, I am getting
through now. Enjoy if it helps anyone.
a couple BOTH in morn/afternoon, instead of a single each, as for a Low task. Or your preference may be allowance of 3 mediums each in am/pm. You can either use a check off
scratch pad for your L and M allowances, to do them randomly as they are selected. Or you
could choose a time of day to select only from one of them. And/or a time to only choose
from the H list. Or set your limit of Lows and Mediums as a total per day, no matter the timing.
Maybe have a goal of no M or L until some number of H has been worked on first.
So many versions of skew. The oft stated downside of randomizer, lack of prioritizing, is no
longer true.
Side note. I use changes on my watch to select next number. Works for both
analog or digital. It is random when you glance at it.
Thanks for these examples, and I'm glad you managed to get through this time. I reiterate my offer to post comments for you (or anyone else) if you have this type of trouble in the future. Just send them to me at the email address in the Contact tab in the top menu. The problem with the Captcha is a long-standing one and Squarespace will do nothing about it as they no longer support this version of their blog.
A variant of your first example would be to always have the right to refuse a task when selected, in which case you leave it where it is, throw again and progress further through the list. Or alternatively cross it out and re-enter without doing any work on it and then throw again. In the first case the task will have the same chance of being selected in the future; in the second case the task will have a reduced chance of being selected in the future. You should of course decide which method you are using before starting selecting!
With Randomizer, this right of refusal should be exercised sparingly, I found. If I exercised this right too often, I would find myself second-guessing the random selection process, and resistance would start to take over the system.
<< With Randomizer, this right of refusal should be exercised sparingly >>
Maybe the choice should be to do the task or delete it.
1. Do?
2. (if immediate reaction was no) Do a little? In which case I would do something and add it to the end of the list.
3. If both are no, then delete.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2012/1/26/urgency-the-natural-way-to-prioritize.html
Now let me point out something interesting: why is it that when you use a system that removes urgency from the equation, Randomizer, resistance also disappears? Could it be that urgency and resistance are related?
<< why is it that when you use a system that removes urgency from the equation, Randomizer, resistance also disappears? >>
It removes the need to make decisions about what to do next. It's a bit like being a soldier in the Army and the Lieutenant says "Do this" or "Do that" and you simply have no choice about it (unless you want very unpleasant consequences). But if you are the Lieutenant, you are the one making the decisions and you know that a wrong decision may lead to disaster. So you are actually in a more stressful situation than the ordinary soldiers, even though you are not doing as much obvious work. (I have been in this situation for real so I know what I'm talking about).
The problem with the Randomizer is that you are playing the part of the ordinary soldier but the "Lieutenant" is not in fact in the slightest bit concerned about you or the danger or the objectives or even his own wellbeing. He is just issuing orders in any old order about what needs doing. This is fine as long as nothing is so urgent that it can't wait for a day or so. But if urgent stuff starts getting behindhand your anxiety and resistance will start to rise.
The key requirement for the Randomizer to work well is that there are no tasks which cannot wait longer than the maximum time between a task going on the list and its being actioned. For instance if your Randomizer list is short enough for every task you put on it to be cleared within a couple of hours, then it will probably work just fine. But if you have such a mammoth list that some tasks take a couple of weeks to be selected, then you are going to be in trouble.
feed tasks onto the working list gradually according to some selection method. For example, tasks could be kept in separate category lists. Either lists made up of similar nature,
and thus all on that list should have same priority, or use the same H,M,L sorting. Fun list
may have a lower priority than Earning $, for example. You might give different rank numbers
to the different categories. Some have #1, meaning only one task at a time may be fed onto
the actual working list. Another have #9 if a very important list. Nine different tasks at once
from there on the working list. Any time a particular task is completed permanently, it is of course
crossed off. In its place is a new task from the same rank category. You might use simple
scanning of list to choose what stands out, or maybe FV on the category list to select for the
working list.
Even if not using random selection, there may still be advantage to the idea of having a shorter
list, skewed towards higher priorities, that we work from. I suspect myself to have some degree
of attention deficit disorder. My mind so quickly will veer off to shiny baubles. Decisions always
seem harder for me than for other people. A skewed, random, short list is the best method I've
found for me personally. I have Mr. Forster's discussion forum to thank for this discovery.
At one time, I had each task with a number beside it, on one long list of everything. When counting the random number, I had to pause at numbers greater than one until using up the
# assigned to the task, before moving further. High number tasks have the best chance to be
chosen.
<< At one time, I had each task with a number beside it, on one long list of everything. >>
That's something I never thought of! How did it work out?
http://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh/807f85b3-a4b6-4052-b22a-8ce117cba04e/5ffab8788c557c05ebefa5690044ccc7
Working on 3 tasks in rotation, completing them all around the same time, versus one at a
time to completion. The latter method provides value of the 1st task while doing 2nd. Working
3rd last gives value of 1st two finished already.
Make it even more concrete. Let the tasks be shelter, food, and firewood. If each takes a
minimum of a week to finish, obviously having any one of them complete 1st is superior to
having none done until all cross finish line together.
That's correct and it's something I made a major part of my teaching when I was still giving seminars.
If you have three major projects which will each take exactly a week to complete, then it will be three weeks before you complete all of them.
But there are two possible ways of working on them:
Week 1: Rotate A, B, C
Week 2.: Rotate A, B, C
Week 3: Rotate A, B, C
If you do it that way, all three projects will finish on the last working day of Week 3.
Or you can do it like this:
Week 1: A
Week 2. B
Week 3: C
In this case, A will finish at the end of Week 1, two weeks earlier than in the first example. B will finish finish at the end 2, one week earlier, and C will finish at the end of Week 3, the same time as in the first example.
So you will have done exactly the same amount of work in both examples, but in the second example you will have gained two weeks on one project, one week on another, and the third will still finish spot on time.