Discussion Forum > A possible culprit for procrastination: too orderly, too neat?
nuntym:
I know exactly what you mean. At one stage in developing my new system I had it so that it presented me with a list of what I needed to do all neatly written out on one page. All I had to do was action the things in that list and then move on to the next list. It worked extremely well for a few days and then, like you, I got to the stage where I couldn't bear to look at the list. The current version is messier but gets the job done much better.
I suspect this is a another application of the rule that I put in my most recent blog post:
"Good ideas arise from a seed-bed of bad ideas"
I know exactly what you mean. At one stage in developing my new system I had it so that it presented me with a list of what I needed to do all neatly written out on one page. All I had to do was action the things in that list and then move on to the next list. It worked extremely well for a few days and then, like you, I got to the stage where I couldn't bear to look at the list. The current version is messier but gets the job done much better.
I suspect this is a another application of the rule that I put in my most recent blog post:
"Good ideas arise from a seed-bed of bad ideas"
September 20, 2011 at 10:44 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I think another reason that these things fail is because more structure requires more overhead. How many of us have dropped systems because it required too much effort to maintain the system which prevented us from actually doing the work?
I'm also recalling a theorem that says something along the lines of, "No single part of a system can be completely efficient without detracting from the efficiency of the system as a whole." I know that's not the right phrasing and I can't remember who said it, but I think it applies here. Basically, if we pour all of our energy into using and maintaining the perfect TM system, then we don't have enough energy left to actually do the work that's listed in the to-do list.
I'm also recalling a theorem that says something along the lines of, "No single part of a system can be completely efficient without detracting from the efficiency of the system as a whole." I know that's not the right phrasing and I can't remember who said it, but I think it applies here. Basically, if we pour all of our energy into using and maintaining the perfect TM system, then we don't have enough energy left to actually do the work that's listed in the to-do list.
September 20, 2011 at 15:20 |
jFenter
jFenter
I know for me, the system works because of the lack of rules. I know the notebook has all I need to think about in it. Personally, I do not want to think about rules for processing things. Rules stress me out, freedom releases tension for me. I let my brain sort out what is urgent and needs to be done. As I have written before, the peace of mind knowing everything is in one place gives me the space to actually work and get things done. Additionally, I have never found that complicated time management systems actually make one more productive because they take so much time maintaining. If I need something like a dashboard or a hotlist, I will just create a page with those things on it and keep it open to that page until it is all done.
Of course this is all personality dependent, others crave rules and want a "system" to guide them. The key is to match the system to the user.
Good luck
Gerry
Of course this is all personality dependent, others crave rules and want a "system" to guide them. The key is to match the system to the user.
Good luck
Gerry
September 20, 2011 at 16:39 |
Gerry
Gerry
+JMJ+
@jFenter: You are right, but I think what you pointed out does not apply to what I was trying to say and in Mark's agreement, because as I said above, the "neater" methodology was actually simpler and easier to do than the one I am currently using.
However, I think what Gerry said points to the right direction: "I let my brain sort out what is urgent and needs to be done...others crave rules and want a "system" to guide them." And I think that is the key: <<guide>>, not spoon-feed. I think our minds sometimes need help and guidance, which could be had from systems, to make decisions, but resent being spoonfed, of anything outside of themselves making the decisions for them.
So I guess the right system for someone is a system that can guide in making decisions, but not make the decisions for the user.
God bless.
@jFenter: You are right, but I think what you pointed out does not apply to what I was trying to say and in Mark's agreement, because as I said above, the "neater" methodology was actually simpler and easier to do than the one I am currently using.
However, I think what Gerry said points to the right direction: "I let my brain sort out what is urgent and needs to be done...others crave rules and want a "system" to guide them." And I think that is the key: <<guide>>, not spoon-feed. I think our minds sometimes need help and guidance, which could be had from systems, to make decisions, but resent being spoonfed, of anything outside of themselves making the decisions for them.
So I guess the right system for someone is a system that can guide in making decisions, but not make the decisions for the user.
God bless.
September 20, 2011 at 17:55 |
nuntym
nuntym
I'd like to present the broader definition of systems, as proposed by Michael Gerber. Anything can be a system, and A system can be more or less constricting.
"write in a notebook with a blue pen, and pick tasks at whim" is a system.
"enter all tasks on computer, with estimated size, due date, importance, and viable time slots, and let the computer algorithmically determine your detailed schedule for the coming week. ". That's a system I pondered implementing in college but never achieved.
"write in a notebook with a blue pen, and pick tasks at whim" is a system.
"enter all tasks on computer, with estimated size, due date, importance, and viable time slots, and let the computer algorithmically determine your detailed schedule for the coming week. ". That's a system I pondered implementing in college but never achieved.
September 20, 2011 at 19:28 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
"enter all tasks on computer, with estimated size, due date, importance, and viable time slots, and let the computer algorithmically determine your detailed schedule for the coming week. ".
That's called Above and Beyond! www.1soft.com
That's called Above and Beyond! www.1soft.com
September 20, 2011 at 20:23 |
David Coyer
David Coyer
One metaphor that may apply to the situation of "why doesn't the neater method win?" is that of the Elephant and the Rider (explained very well at this blog post: http://sourcesofinsight.com/the-elephant-and-the-rider/ , with references to a couple of books where the blogger got his info).
I think the dashboard makes intellectual sense, puts everything into straight and perpendicular and non-overlapping boxes, and the rational Rider loves it. But our emotional Elephant wants to roam and hates being told where to go.
One of the reasons I think AF made such a big hit was that it unified the Rider and the Elephant, so that both were going in the same direction much of the time rather than fighting each other. AF's rules set very sensible limits without being too confining and without relying overmuch on rules. (The poet/essayist Wendell Berry says somewhere that people confuse limits with constraints.)
I think the dashboard makes intellectual sense, puts everything into straight and perpendicular and non-overlapping boxes, and the rational Rider loves it. But our emotional Elephant wants to roam and hates being told where to go.
One of the reasons I think AF made such a big hit was that it unified the Rider and the Elephant, so that both were going in the same direction much of the time rather than fighting each other. AF's rules set very sensible limits without being too confining and without relying overmuch on rules. (The poet/essayist Wendell Berry says somewhere that people confuse limits with constraints.)
September 20, 2011 at 20:38 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
David Coyer:
Using Above & Beyond has one great advantage. It puts forever out of one's mind the idea that you can have 800 tasks on your to do list and somehow fit them all in to your schedule.
Using Above & Beyond has one great advantage. It puts forever out of one's mind the idea that you can have 800 tasks on your to do list and somehow fit them all in to your schedule.
September 20, 2011 at 23:29 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mike:
I had to correct your link for the Rider and the Elephant because it didn't work. You need to leave a space after the url before any punctuation marks.
I had to correct your link for the Rider and the Elephant because it didn't work. You need to leave a space after the url before any punctuation marks.
September 20, 2011 at 23:31 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Thinking aloud here...
For me, the free-form notebook is the most like my mind. My mind doesn't contain only a list of things I need to do, it's got my relationships with my friends and family in it, it has snippets of my dissertation in it, it has the funny quote I heard during my kid's ballet class in it, and so on. Most of these things are represented in my notebook as well, in one form or another. And so rather than feeling like a tool, the notebook feels like an extension of my brain, probably moreso than any of the previous systems I've used.
For me, the free-form notebook is the most like my mind. My mind doesn't contain only a list of things I need to do, it's got my relationships with my friends and family in it, it has snippets of my dissertation in it, it has the funny quote I heard during my kid's ballet class in it, and so on. Most of these things are represented in my notebook as well, in one form or another. And so rather than feeling like a tool, the notebook feels like an extension of my brain, probably moreso than any of the previous systems I've used.
September 21, 2011 at 3:22 |
Sarah
Sarah
Hi - I've been following the evolution of Mark's methods and the forum discussions here for 2 or 3 years. Just wanted to echo the sentiment that I too experience major resistance to a 'too tidy' list. I used Franklin Covey for many years and always found myself resisting my neat, orderly, pre-prioritized list of things to do today (and feeling guilty about my resistance). The principle of 'little and often' wasn't part of the equation either, so maybe some of the resistance came from knowing that if I started on my A-1 todo, I 'shouldn't' work on anything else until it was completed. Especially when a task involves creativity, I hit that point where my brain says that's enough for now on that task and wants to move on to other things for a while.
I currently use a loose collection of 3x5 cards clipped together with a binder clip as my collection system, and in portrait orientation I write multiple items on each card. I tend to use different cards for shopping items vs action items. Work and personal items go on separate cards, and separate clipped groups of cards when there are several cards in either group. I cross off completed items and use a big dot in front of started/ in progress items a la Franklin Covey. Often as the weekend approaches or when I feel the need at work, I will scan all my cards for items I feel need action soon, but rather than prioritize and regiment, I work on the items that stand out for as long as I feel it's productive.
In writing this post, I find I'm articulating my 'rules' for the first time. Hopefully this won't jinx my system for me by defining it too much. I don't consciously go through any rules as I capture and work items, just do what stands out.
Appointments go in my iPod with a couple of reminder alarms, and in my work calendar which is visible to colleagues so they can see where I am or schedule meetings around existing commitments. If I have a particularly busy week or month coming up, I will create a printed 8.5 x 11 calendar so I can get the big picture.
I'm of course looking forward to the Final Version with lots of anticipation.
I currently use a loose collection of 3x5 cards clipped together with a binder clip as my collection system, and in portrait orientation I write multiple items on each card. I tend to use different cards for shopping items vs action items. Work and personal items go on separate cards, and separate clipped groups of cards when there are several cards in either group. I cross off completed items and use a big dot in front of started/ in progress items a la Franklin Covey. Often as the weekend approaches or when I feel the need at work, I will scan all my cards for items I feel need action soon, but rather than prioritize and regiment, I work on the items that stand out for as long as I feel it's productive.
In writing this post, I find I'm articulating my 'rules' for the first time. Hopefully this won't jinx my system for me by defining it too much. I don't consciously go through any rules as I capture and work items, just do what stands out.
Appointments go in my iPod with a couple of reminder alarms, and in my work calendar which is visible to colleagues so they can see where I am or schedule meetings around existing commitments. If I have a particularly busy week or month coming up, I will create a printed 8.5 x 11 calendar so I can get the big picture.
I'm of course looking forward to the Final Version with lots of anticipation.
September 21, 2011 at 12:41 |
DaveL.
DaveL.
"I find I'm articulating my 'rules' for the first time. Hopefully this won't jinx my system for me by defining it too much."
I find articulating helps, doesn't hinder.
I find articulating helps, doesn't hinder.
September 21, 2011 at 15:15 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark wrote:
<<Using Above & Beyond has one great advantage. It puts forever out of one's mind the idea that you can have 800 tasks on your to do list and somehow fit them all in to your schedule. >>
Since I am the one with 800 tasks on my list, I suppose I should respond. :-)
I am not looking for a system that will help me accomplish the impossible, bend time, etc.
I already know that I will actually *do* maybe a quarter or a half of those tasks (I actually don't know the percentage, but I know it's a fraction of the total). Let's say I can actually do 200 of those 800 tasks.
The thing I want a system to do is help me decide which 200 tasks are the ones that get the attention, and what to do with the other 600 -- defer, delegate, dismiss, or delete... -- and feel happy with the results at the end of the day, at the end of the week, at the end of the quarter: that I got the right things done, and the right things got deferred, delegated, dismissed, and deleted, at the right time, and in the right way.
All of Mark's systems have helped me get closer to that goal.
In keeping with this thread, I think too many rules and structures get in the way, especially when there is no room for discretion in their application.
The concepts I have found most useful and helpful are:
1. Capture everything in one place.
2. Cycle through all of it repeatedly.
3. Achieve the balance between your rational mind and your intuition by giving reign to your rational mind to determine the overall structure of your work process, while giving reign to your intuition to decide what to do at the moment of action.
<<Using Above & Beyond has one great advantage. It puts forever out of one's mind the idea that you can have 800 tasks on your to do list and somehow fit them all in to your schedule. >>
Since I am the one with 800 tasks on my list, I suppose I should respond. :-)
I am not looking for a system that will help me accomplish the impossible, bend time, etc.
I already know that I will actually *do* maybe a quarter or a half of those tasks (I actually don't know the percentage, but I know it's a fraction of the total). Let's say I can actually do 200 of those 800 tasks.
The thing I want a system to do is help me decide which 200 tasks are the ones that get the attention, and what to do with the other 600 -- defer, delegate, dismiss, or delete... -- and feel happy with the results at the end of the day, at the end of the week, at the end of the quarter: that I got the right things done, and the right things got deferred, delegated, dismissed, and deleted, at the right time, and in the right way.
All of Mark's systems have helped me get closer to that goal.
In keeping with this thread, I think too many rules and structures get in the way, especially when there is no room for discretion in their application.
The concepts I have found most useful and helpful are:
1. Capture everything in one place.
2. Cycle through all of it repeatedly.
3. Achieve the balance between your rational mind and your intuition by giving reign to your rational mind to determine the overall structure of your work process, while giving reign to your intuition to decide what to do at the moment of action.
September 21, 2011 at 22:09 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
This is a very good summary of why programs like Above & Beyond don't work. Or perhaps it would be better to say don't work for people with minds like yours and mine!
This is a very good summary of why programs like Above & Beyond don't work. Or perhaps it would be better to say don't work for people with minds like yours and mine!
September 22, 2011 at 10:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I am seeing a pattern here.
Mark F.'s systems. Markhedm's "free form notebook," inspired by Gerry's systems. Seraphim's current method. What is the same with these? They are not THAT orderly, not THAT neat, and yet people are reporting that they are successful in using these systems.
I tried GTD, and I really tried very hard to use it, but I couldn't somehow adhere to all the rules of organizing the tasks by strict contexts. Upon being first introduced into Mark's systems I distinctly remember feeling sense of freedom and power to get things done that ironically GTD didn't give me. The main difference is (as we all know) having all the tasks needed to be done in a list, not organized in anyway except by the order of when we wrote them. Of course, weaknesses in the systems crept up and we tried again and again to remodel the systems...but we didn't go back to our old systems or give up, did we? That sense of freedom never left me with respect to any of Mark's systems, that's why I never did choose any other family of systems since then.
But now comes Gerry's systems, Markhedm and others' systems, and Seraphim's current system. All share one striking characteristic: each page may contain only certain types of information, yet these pages are not ordered but jumbled up in the notebook, depending on the temporal order they were entered in. I am speculating that this disorganization actually HELPS getting tasks done, although I do not know why.
This was most strikingly shown to me today. You see, my system has proven itself to me how powerful it is, but I am quite concerned by how <<dirty and disorganized>> the whole methodology is. My vision for my system is that by working on its methodology, the system will automatically order and present to the user the most important tasks to do today, tell the user how many times it has worked on each task and whether he has to work on them today still, and lighten the user's load by both weeding out the tasks that are not that important and putting out of the user's mind those recurrent and unfinished tasks he will be doing the next day, while remaining a universal capture system. The system can currently do ALL of these requirements and THEN some.
And yet the "dashboard" that the system will present the most important things to consider today is not neat and ordered: yes, all these said tasks are in one place everyday and can be readily recognized, but interspersed between them are other less important tasks. What's more, the methodology is not simple.
I then brainstormed of an alternate methodology which is simpler than the original and yet will always guarantee a neat "dashboard" of the important items that is free of all less important stuff and will retain all the apparent advantages of the original methodology.
It worked. I tried it today, and it came out with a gorgeous dashboard of all the recurrent and unfinished items from yesterday along with some tasks that I had designated to be important for today.
And I couldn't stand to even look at the list! O goodness the resistance to work the system was considerable, and I knew right there and then that though my idea to make my system more neat was apparently a success, it failed miserably where it counts the most: in getting everything done.
So why was it that too much ordering and neatness in the system can in the end be a hindrance to getting everything done?
I don't know.
Any thoughts?
God bless.