Wednesday
Feb172021
"Get It Right Keep It Right" Progress Reports
Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 23:30 If I’ve counted right there are twelve entrants in the Lenten Challenge, including myself, who have put Get It Right Keep It Right as the method they are going to keep to for the duration of the Challenge.
As I’m particularly interested in how this particular method works for people, could those using it please put comments on how they are getting on in the comments to this post please.
Comments on how people are getting on with other methods should go on the previous post (Lenten Challenge Entries).
Reader Comments (57)
<< In the morning I transfer all tasks due today from GoodTask into my GiRKiR (the majority of them being daily tasks which I do not want to rewrite immediately since I don‘t want to do them twice a day). >>
The "original" Get It Right Keep It Right should be quite capable of handling this without having to transfer you daily tasks from GoodTask each day. You don't have to do a task every time you pass over it. You just leave it in place so it's there for you each day.
It's important to only add one task at a time though (I'm not sure whether you are doing this from your description). Otherwise it's just Simple Scanning by another name.
I think following the rules exactly means I don’t get to add small tasks as and when they crop up. At the moment it might take 2-3 days until I get to the end of the list. E.g. the email tasks usually takes 3-4 hours per day. Then I might work on project X and then project Y for the rest of the day.
Not a problem as things like telephone call notes all just go in a notebook and I can work through them when I get to that task on the list.
So it is turning into a sort of static checklist at the moment. Is that how it is supposed to work?
But it is working as I’m plate spinning on all the things I need to get done.
<< Only in the morning I transfer a batch of tasks from the electronic system to my GiRKiR list. This way I ensure that everything which is due today is on the list. >>
So you add everything which is due today to the list in one go at the beginning of the day? What I'm not clear about is whether you are starting a new list each day, or adding these tasks to the previous day's list.
Either way, this is not Get It Right Keep It Right, but that doesn't mean it won't work.
<< So it is turning into a sort of static checklist at the moment. Is that how it is supposed to work? >>
No.
As I understand it you are working on each task until it's finished, e.g. you spend 3-4 hours dealing with all your email before you move on to the next task.
The result of doing it this way is that you only reach the end of the list every 2-3 days.
If my list consisted of only five tasks, I would have circulated through it possibly 10-20 times throughout the day, which means I would have reached the end of the list that number of times and 10-20 smaller tasks could have been added and dealt with.
The whole idea is not to spend hours on a task before you move on to the next one but to circulate rapidly through the tasks spending a relatively small amount of time on each one in turn.
It's the little and often principle.
However if what you are doing is working for you, I suggest you keep to it.
So I think I am someone who does not create a long list as life is pretty simple (work, sofa, beer, repeat), but the system will flex to those that do so it should cater for all. Liking it so far and will continue using it and report back on anything interesting.
<< within my emails are loads of small tasks and I notice I get about 30 typically a day which generally get cleared in a few hours. I also email myself a lot with things to do so I’m sort of using email as a task list as well. >>
In that case you might like to consider using your email as your only task list. And process it with Simple Scanning or some other similar system.
One thing I have noticed, which I think has to do with the maturity of the list right now, is that I sometimes cycle through the whole list without adding anything and without doing anything yet because it's not quite ready, or because I have an intuition that something should be done, but I feel the need to "double check" the rest of my list first so I end up scanning my whole list first before I take action on the thing I want to start working on. I suspect that I might not need to do this as much if I were taking each action in smaller chunks, but a lot of the things I'm working on require a little more focus and deep investments of mental energy, so my "little and often" involves larger time blocks simply because those are the smallest units of time for which I can make meaningful progress.
Otherwise, my list isn't growing too quickly, and I'm staying up on things. It's also making me confront a few areas of my life where I don't think I was being honest about time commitments, and where I need to do some more re-evaluating, so that is good.
<< my "little and often" involves larger time blocks simply because those are the smallest units of time for which I can make meaningful progress. >>
"Little and often" is always a relative term. For instance I am just finishing Barbero's "Day of the Barbarian", which I've read a few pages at a time about five or six times a day. This is a very good way of reading a non-fiction book because it enables the mind to make mental links which it would otherwise miss.
On the other hand I'm also learning Turkish at the moment, which is completely new ground for me. I've never tried to learn an agglutinating language before. This I do in one or two sessions of 30 to 40 minutes a day. Again this is a good way of getting stuff to "stick".
My email is done in penny packets throughout the day and I always completely clear it each time. And the same with blog comments and other similar tasks.
So "little and often" should always be tailored to fit the task.
Either way, this is not Get It Right Keep It Right, but that doesn't mean it won't work.>>
I‘m not starting a new list everyday, but at the end of a day my list is usually quite short (less than 10 items). In the morning I usually add 5 to 10 tasks and during the day another handful (following GiRKiR principles).
So “all the good things since” I started this approach:
Songs writing from nowhere 15 songs
Unconscious retrieval – is amazing what my future self comes up with
Dreams I have started rereading the book
Ketogenic Diet and Weight Loss
Alcohol break I’ve continued on the wagon 35 days now
Bed early
I have cleaned the bathroom, the stairs twice, the kitchen once, and am chipping away at my home office.
Writing down ideas and insights
I think I have been more assistive at work.
Signed up for Mark Forster’s Lenten challenge.
I agreed to do something Dream-based every day. What areas are a struggle? Sometimes there is some resistance to self-coaching - which my future self-points out. I'm not reading as much as I would like. Need to work more on the objectives and make the vision more attractive. I need to start walking each day.
Very impressive - and I'm sure the best is yet to come!
I think this is only happening on occasion as I get things totally in control and then some of the other things that were waiting in the wings requires some thinking about new processes. I imagine that this will happen less often as my list matures further.
I don't know how many tasks you've got on your list at the moment, but I think this would be a fairly common experience when the list is still small. It's an opportunity to get rid of some small one-offs though.
I haven't been very disciplined with the method, but I like it so far. One question, the task that is added has to be something that you're going to take action on right away?
So, if I add, sweep kitchen, that means that on the next pass I have to do something about it?
Best,
<< the task that is added has to be something that you're going to take action on right away? >>
Technically no, you don't have to. But since the idea of the system is to get something right and then keep it right, there doesn't seem to be much point in entering something you're not going to start getting right yet. Better to use the slot for something you *can* start work on.
Makes perfect sense, thanks! Makes me think harder about what I add, definitely.
Best,
My list is currently staying very small, and I kind of like it that way. ;-)
Eugenia:
As I talk about above, I've found that sometimes I add something to the list and then immediately realize that I need to do something else first, so I end up circling the list once or twice and adding some things in that don't get actioned immediately.
<< I've found that sometimes I add something to the list and then immediately realize that I need to do something else first >>
Yes, that happens to me too, but when it does I just cross it out and enter the thing I need to do first.
As far as I understand the system by now, when you enter a task as the new task and then later on work on it for the first time, you work on it until you "Got It Right" and only then, in subsequent list circling you work a bit to "Keep It Right."
So this could mean to work on a, say, clearing your email inbox for hours in order to Get It Right.
Otherwise you will enter a new task at the end of the list, without everything else on the list already "righted." You accumulate a a bunch of not-righted tasks, just because you passed trough the list. The trigger for entering a new task should be that everything on the list is now kept right and you can add something more.
<< when you enter a task as the new task and then later on work on it for the first time, you work on it until you "Got It Right" >>
You work on it with the *aim* of getting it right. Depending on the nature of the task, this may take multiple passes.
<< So this could mean to work on a, say, clearing your email inbox for hours in order to Get It Right. >>
The principle of little and often still applies here. You will certainly have to work on it for longer than if you'd kept your inbox clear, but working on it for hours on end is not the best way to do it. What you must do is ensure that it is getting emptier each pass.
<< Otherwise you will enter a new task at the end of the list, without everything else on the list already "righted." >>
That's correct. You may be working on getting several tasks right at the same time. But if you ensure that progress is being made on each, you will eventually get all of them right.
<< The trigger for entering a new task should be that everything on the list is now kept right and you can add something more. >>
No, that wouldn't work, unless your tasks were already in pretty good shape.
When my current system loses it's shiny newness (hopefully it will last the Lenten Challenge), this will be a top candidate.
Others are the sort that have no real "end point" because they are creative endeavors or the like where I can't really set a target (not even something like, "write 200 words" or the like, simply because it's not really meant that way), and there, I often find myself arguing myself out of not doing them, even though when I do them I know I like myself better at the end of the day. The challenge right now is remembering Little and Often and that it's okay if I even do, say, the most trivial thing with these tasks, and I can still mark them off and I'll be happier at the end of the day for having done anything with them at all.
I'm starting to make headway with these, in part because I hate seeing them languish on the list, but also because I've been able to re-evaluate a little bit what "keep it right" means to me with regards to these tasks.
So I´m using the Get It Right system, but I´ve had to restart a couple of times, and that´s ok. It´s better than abandoning the challenge!
Best,
In the days leading up to the start of the challenge, I tried out GIRKIR, but I wasn't confident I'd be able to sustain it for 6 weeks. My biggest worries were not being able to capture everything onto the list, and only being able to add one new task when the end of the list was reached. For the first two days I tried running an SNL list alongside the GIRKIR list - as I was afraid of forgetting tasks, and not feeling confident that I would do tasks in the correct priority if I didn't have a full SNL list that captured all my potential tasks/projects. Then I tried GIRKIR without the SNL side-list, but used the humble post-it note stuck on my PC for things I absolutely shouldn't forget to do.
I felt that using the SNL side-list was maybe a tweak too far, and not really in the spirit of the new system. What finally made up my mind to try GIRKIR for the challenge was that, in a reply to Seraphim about similar difficulties, Mark had posted the following, which seemed to give the OK to using SNL as a side-list to use for choosing the one task to GIRKIR at the appropriate time:
"Seraphim:
What I do, once I'm past the obvious things is jot down on a small piece of paper the things I really don't want to forget. I then enter them one by one on the main list.
Currently I have 26 tasks on the main list and 9 on the reminder note.
The beauty of Get It Right - Keep It Right is not in the selection process but in how well it processes stuff once it gets on the main list. So it doesn't really matter how you choose the one task per pass. You could even use Serial No-List for that purpose."
( February 15, 2021 at 9:58 | Mark Forster )
I'm still finding GIRKIR a bit of a challenge (no pun intended): I'm finding it hard to decide whether to put on tasks at a general level (do housework) or at an individual level (clean bathroom). I'm leaning a bit more towards the general level, so that when I come to “do housework” I have a checklist to decide what particular task to work on. Is that still within the spirit of the system?
<< I'm finding it hard to decide whether to put on tasks at a general level (do housework) or at an individual level (clean bathroom). I'm leaning a bit more towards the general level, so that when I come to “do housework” I have a checklist to decide what particular task to work on. Is that still within the spirit of the system? >>
It's a matter of finding whatever level you are comfortable with according the job. You may want to use a different level depending on whether it needs "getting right" or whether it just needs "keeping right".
For instance, if I'm sorting out an untidy office, I might start with putting "Sort Office" on my list and might end up with a whole series of tasks like "Tidy Desk", "Put Away Papers", "Clean Floor", which each take no more than a few minutes, or even seconds.
The sorting process takes a long time, but once something is sorted it can be kept that way easily, particularly if you deal with it on a "little and often" basis.
But regardless of how you choose to split up the tasks, it's still within the spirit of the system.
<< SNL has been my go-to system for quite a while now - thanks Seraphim >>
Glad to hear it's been useful for someone else besides me! :)
For a couple days, I also tried using SNL to feed GIRKIR, but it didn't work for me. It felt too restrictive, and I found myself processing lots of trivia and maintenance tasks. So I am back to ordinary SNL. I will be interested to know how the combination works out for you!
<< I found myself processing lots of trivia and maintenance tasks. >>
I don't know about trivia, but without processing maintenance tasks how will you succeed in doing the important stuff?
I should have been more clear: I found myself focusing *too much* on maintenance tasks. For example, checking my email far more often than I really needed.
It worked something like this: I found myself acting in a more reactive way, looking for external stimulus. I think that was the outcome of being limited to one new thing at a time. My mind just doesn't work that way. I need to get everything out on the table where I can see it and sort through it, try this, try that, till the natural focus emerges. Finding it difficult to do that, I kept doing the easy things like checking the email, washing the dishes, shredding papers, etc., when those things could have easily waited.
<< I kept doing the easy things like checking the email, washing the dishes, shredding papers, etc., when those things could have easily waited. >>
And they will stay easy if you do them often. If you let them wait they become difficult.
If you're adding one task per pass, you will gradually over the course of a few days have got well into the difficult stuff, and have tamed a lot of it.
That's certainly what I have found. Things which have been bugging me for ages, have suddenly got resolved.
I don't doubt it. I guess I still wonder, though, how much is due to the "new system" effect, rather than to the specific dynamics of GIRKIR?
I suppose only time will tell. In the meantime, I am content to observe and learn. Even if I don't use GIRKIR myself, I always learn something from the discussion.
<< I guess I still wonder, though, how much is due to the "new system" effect, rather than to the specific dynamics of GIRKIR? >>
That's a good question. The crunch point will probably come when the system gets so full that it slows right down. I don't know what will happen then because I haven't reached it yet!
It's not the fault of the system itself, but of the operator! I obviously haven't been entering the right tasks in order for me to have a productive day. I've been entering them at an individual level but that got too clunky, and then I tried entering them at a broader level, and that got too hazy.
I've experimented with using a full-capture side-list (SNL) to feed the main list but that didn't work as well as I'd hoped, and I've also experimented with using a short as a reminder note for “must do today” tasks. The SNL list is great for capturing everything I don't want to forget, and ranges from someday/maybe tasks and projects with no deadline, through to “must do today” tasks – but it felt like too much overhead to use it to feed the main list.
However, I'll keep experimenting – I'm determined to stick it out with the Lenten Challenge this year.
<< I'm struggling a bit at the moment with GIRKIR. I have multiple one-off tasks and ongoing projects that haven't been touched over the last 11 days >>
As far as the one-off tasks are concerned, I suggest you have an item on the Main List called "One-Offs" and keep them all on a separate list, which you work on whenever the main "One-Offs" task is selected. So you're dealing with the tasks in much the same way as you deal with email.
I also meant to ask earlier: I'm assuming that any task that needs doing "now" just gets done straightaway outwith the list, as in most of your other systems. I suppose if I wanted to keep strictly to the system, it could be added to the end of the list then you could scan from your current position down to that task, knowing all the while that you weren't going to action any of the scanned tasks. That would mean you get to add another new task because you've (artificially) reached the end of the list - though maybe that's not a bad thing.
You could do it either way. Whichever you are the more comfortable with.
Wouldn‘t it make the system unnecessarily complicated? I see that separate project list are helpful (one has everything at the same place, sometimes other tools have to be used). But for the rest one would have two separate todo-lists... How does one work through the one-off list? Also GIRKIR? Simple scanning?
<< But for the rest one would have two separate todo-lists... How does one work through the one-off list? Also GIRKIR? Simple scanning? >>
What method do you use to process your e-mail? I suggest you use the same for the one-off list.
At the moment, this means they stay on the list, but unactioned, but I'm not sure how I feel about that. Sometimes even spending a little bit of time on them feels like too much taken away from other things that seem more pressing. Suggestions?
Sounds like you have a conflict going on.
To sort out things like this, I use the conflict process I described in another thread recently. Whenever something on my list feels persistently "stuck", or I start feeling unfocused or overwhelmed, I use this process. It not only gives a sense of relief, but also a new sense of focus and direction.
Not sure if it will do that for anyone else, but it works great for me!
The process is great at getting things unstuck, but even more importantly, helps to elucidate deeper motivations, aspirations, unverbalized fears, hidden obstacles and assumptions. It combines all the different aspects of "standing out" and "what are you resisting not doing", as well as identifying the positive reasons for any inertia you may be experiencing, and whatever forces there are that keep pushing you away from your aspirations back to your inertial starting place.
The process takes some practice but can usually provide useful insights after 10-15 minutes or so. Here are the steps:
(1) Describe (in a short paragraph) your undesirable situation (the fear, the pain, the frustration, the vicious cycle, how it impacts you, how it blocks you from doing what you want to do). When I am facing the kind of thing you describe -- a handful of tasks that I can't bring myself to complete, but neither can I just drop them -- I try to do a brain dump of whatever comes to mind that is bothering me about this situation. What bothers me about these tasks? Why do I want to do them? Why do they keep coming to mind, but I can't do anything about them? Why can't I just delete them? Just do some free-writing -- a short paragraph trying to express some of that.
(2) Look back over what you wrote in (1), and describe (in one sentence) the most important need that is jeopardized by this situation
(3) What key action do you want to take in order to satisfy (2) ? (Maybe one of the tasks that's stuck; maybe not)
(4) Describe (in one sentence) the most important need that prevents you from doing (3)
(5) What key action do you take to satisfy (4) ?
(6) What is the common need satisfied by both (2) and (4)?
Typically you end up with a succinct definition of your conflict. You need (2) and (4) -- but to get them, you need to do (3) and (5), and you CAN'T do both (3) and (5) because they are mutually exclusive.
If the way you wrote it doesn't give you a clear sense of the conflict, try to rewrite it so that the conflict becomes more clear:
-- (2) and (4) are *required* to realize (6)
-- (3) is *required* for (2) but threatens (4)
-- (5) is *required* for (4) but threatens (3)
-- (3) and (5) are mutually exclusive
If you explore the Important Needs a little more deeply, you can usually find a good solution that eliminates the conflict. Ask yourself -- why do you want Important Need (4)? Why do you want to escape from it? Then ask -- why do you want Important Need (2)? Why do you avoid it?
(2) usually represents an aspiration -- the ideal future state you are trying to achieve. But it also comes with risks, dangers, unknowns, fears, or other negative side effects that block you from achieving it and push you back to your inertial state.
(4) generally describes that inertial state. For all its problems, there are positive things about your inertial state. It is generally well-known and familiar ("the devil you know"). It represents a kind of security. But it also has a lot of negative side effects. These are all the negative results of doing nothing -- of staying where you are -- the things that cause you to "resist not doing" the aspirational thing that will get you out of this situation.
After you explore the Important Needs and ask yourself those questions, scan back through your answers and look for **behaviors** -- things you can control. Those behaviors can give you the clue that leads you to eliminate the conflict. Not just find the best compromise -- but break the vicious cycle altogether that is keeping you stuck in your inertial state and blocking you from realizing your aspiration. Look for the behaviors you can challenge -- sometimes they just look silly after you write them down, and it's obvious how you can fix them.
If this works for you as well as it generally works for me, you'll not only get new insights about the tasks that are bothering you, but lots of other things as well that can help you get a real breakthrough with whatever is causing you to get stuck.
This sounds like a straightforward binary choice for each of the tasks.
1) Take it off the list
2) Leave it on the list
Neither choice will have disastrous results as you can reverse it easily, although putting a deleted task back on the list may take time while leaving a task on the list unactioned is against the spirit of GIRKIR (though the GIRKIR police have other priorities at the moment)..
I note that you said that spending even a little bit of time on the tasks would feel like time taken away from other things. So if you want a slightly quicker solution than Seraphim's try http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2008/6/19/overcoming-procrastination-over-decisions.html
I *think* that this might be a signal that I am trying to spend too much time on too many things, but it's not clear to me from a systems point of view what the appropriate "actions" to take are when I encounter a situation like this, where some tasks are eating up too much time, and where some actions (such as "Sleep") are not getting the right amounts of time dedicated to them at the right times in the day. What's the meta-level approach when using GIRKIR to address this?
Obviously, there are approaches I could take simply by recognizing that this is happening and then taking steps outside of the system, but I'm trying to understand how best to work within the system rather than trying to "break it" or work outside of it. I already have identified another problem I have with having a tendency to do things outside of the system (which then get away from me) rather than inside and under the management of the system.
<< I'm finding that I'm struggling a little bit with maintaining a consistent sleep schedule and with allocating the amount of time that I spend on any given thing. >>
The system is not intended to control things which normally happen at fixed times like sleep or meals, and I think to try to include them in the system results in exactly the problem you are having.
It's important to be very clear what is controlled by the system and what isn't. So if you have a tendency to do things outside the system, you might do well to audit them to see which belong in or out of its control.
<< this might be a signal that I am trying to spend too much time on too many things >>
Quite possibly! The remedy is keep actively weeding the list.
<< other times I am convinced I could have paced out the work somehow and finished other things rather than letting those other things languish to get that email written. >>
The rule I've always worked on with long-list systems and no-list systems is to work on a task for as long as I want to. If that's not working for you then you might try time blocking the type of task which is causing you this trouble.
The way you do it is to start with a timed period of 5 minutes. When you reach the end of the 5 minutes, you have a choice. You either stop working, or commit yourself to a new immediate time block - this time of 10 minutes. When you reach the end of the 10 minutes (assuming you haven't finished the task) you commit yourself to another time box, this time of 15 minutes. And so you continue, committing yourself to a new time box each time of 5 minutes longer than the previous one.
The point is that it forces to commit yourself each time to an exact period if you want to continue This is very different from "ignoring my own timebox and keeping going", where you fail to commit yourself and just carry on for an indeterminate period.
It's still not exactly clear to me what things should go on the list or not. In my case, with maximal discretionary time, it's important to me that the system I use is capable of handling as much "in system" as I can. I can see the point of having things with fixed schedules outside of the list, which makes sense, but what about things that have a tendency to be done during certain times of day or at certain cadences, but that you wouldn't want to commit to doing at a fixed time? For example, I could think of hygiene tasks that you might do at night, but which aren't necessarily something you would do at the same time each night (shower, shave, brush teeth), or about regular breaks for tea or just taking a mental break throughout the day. Are those things you put out of the system or something that you would put into the system? It seems desirable for me to be able to put something like "break/tea" in the list.
Then there's the quesiton of items that are a part of "work" versus those things that are "personal". For me, sometimes the line is a little blurred, and I generally don't seem to do well with trying to segregate things out into "work lists" vs. "personal lists" and then working on one then the other, but what do you recommend in this regard?
For example, at varying times, I sometimes have a tendency for work items to take over personal items in time, or the opposite occurs and I do too much personal items and not enough work items. I feel like I'd prefer a system that allowed me to intuitively balance these inside of a single system, especially since work and personal items can be intermingled throughout my day and they are all "discretionary time" based tasks.
<< It's still not exactly clear to me what things should go on the list or not. In my case, with maximal discretionary time, it's important to me that the system I use is capable of handling as much "in system" as I can. >>
It's an important principle in time management that your system is there to help you do your work, not to get in the way of your doing your work, This applies especially to a system like GIRKIR, which is not very time sensitive. By which I mean that, if what you should be doing is at the opposite end of the list from where you are on the list, it's the list that has to give, not the work.
If you have a time clash, you basically have two ways of dealing with it:
1) You work on the principle "If it needs doing now, do it now". You step out of the list, do the needed work and go back to the list where you left off.
or
2) You stay in the list, but make a long jump to the task(s) which you need to do, and then carry on from there.
The basic difference between the two methods is what you do after you've done the urgent work. With 1) you re-start from where you were *before* doing the urgent work. With 2) you re-start from where you are *after* doing the urgent work.
Personally I put everything I can on the list and use 1) for something which is not on the list, and 2) for something which is, but is in the wrong place. This is a guide rather than a hard-and-fast rule though.
As far as the rest of the points you make go, I tend to make no distinction between personal and work items. I want them all to get done, so why differentiate? That would of course be different for someone in employment.
However I don't put on the list things which I do more or less automatically. That would include getting dressed, having a shower, cleaning my teeth, making a cup of tea and so on.
Thanks a bunch for taking the time to elucidate these points! I think I've got a better picture of the "system as a whole" now. As an application of this, i sometimes have things on the list that I sort of feel I should do right now, or that I want to do right now, but they are "far away" on the list. In this case, you're saying that it's perfectly "in system" to make a long jump to that item without scanning the rest of the list for something else first, do that thing, and then keep scanning from that point? I mostly feel this desire when I feel that things are out of order for me, such as me really wanting to do X before Y, even though i could do both at this point.
Whatever system I'm using, I usually see it as a 24/7, fully-comprehensive one, but that can lead to more overhead, which is what I've found with GIRKIR.
I'll just ask myself "Would I be doing this task anyway, no matter what system (or none) I'm using?". If the answer is yes, it won't go on my GIRKIR list.