Discussion Forum > Deadlock
I do. I can't claim this is a perfectly satisfying solution, but it's a start:
Apply the little and often approach anyway.
At some point I find one of the bigger tasks gets me in the mood.
I may work that for a couple hours or until I get stuck.
Then I continue through other tasks.
At some point I may choose to focus on another task, or even the one I put on hold.
This tends to be dictated by the internal rhythm of my system, but if you set that aside, it's just : focus on one task for hours, not the whole day. Then do many small things including bits of other big tasks, then focus on one task for a while, then more bits.
Apply the little and often approach anyway.
At some point I find one of the bigger tasks gets me in the mood.
I may work that for a couple hours or until I get stuck.
Then I continue through other tasks.
At some point I may choose to focus on another task, or even the one I put on hold.
This tends to be dictated by the internal rhythm of my system, but if you set that aside, it's just : focus on one task for hours, not the whole day. Then do many small things including bits of other big tasks, then focus on one task for a while, then more bits.
October 22, 2011 at 13:13 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I concur with Alan. This may mean that some larger tasks get "dismissed" (whether formally, or just de facto).
I'm finding dismissal of ostensibly "critical" work is less of a problem that I would have expected.
Dismissed doesn't mean deleted. Dismissal allows me to focus on the rest. Perhaps its random what actually gets the focus -- or perhaps it's the intuition raising its voice. In practice, I don't think it really matters. What matters is the indecision is broken and progress is being made.
Once I make progress on the remaining active work, I can then review the things that got dismissed, and see if I am ready to re-activate any of them.
If I find that important commitments are getting dismissed, and this puts them at risk, then this becomes a good conversation starter with my manager and stakeholders to negotiate priorities.
I'm finding dismissal of ostensibly "critical" work is less of a problem that I would have expected.
Dismissed doesn't mean deleted. Dismissal allows me to focus on the rest. Perhaps its random what actually gets the focus -- or perhaps it's the intuition raising its voice. In practice, I don't think it really matters. What matters is the indecision is broken and progress is being made.
Once I make progress on the remaining active work, I can then review the things that got dismissed, and see if I am ready to re-activate any of them.
If I find that important commitments are getting dismissed, and this puts them at risk, then this becomes a good conversation starter with my manager and stakeholders to negotiate priorities.
October 22, 2011 at 16:48 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
"Deadlock" is the perfect term, DavidC. I can totally relate.
How do I combat this? With a coordinated, multi-phase strategy:
1. Be very busy getting lots of little things done instead of those big, deadlocked ones.
2. After a few weeks, feel sad about lack of progress.
3. Use "little & often" ad hoc, unstructured; make a little progress, feel a lot of hope.
4. Use a system like SuperFocus or AutoFocus to great effect, for a few months of productive happiness, until I clog it up and and can no longer face all the dismissals.
5. Return to (1).
Believe it or not, this represents great progress. I used to lack phases 3 and 4. Instead, I had a phase called "dive into one of those big projects exclusively until the rest of my life demands my urgent attention," and that phase received a minor fraction of my time.
The "menu of life" theme points the way to my next step: my appetite continues to be far too great, and until I get that under control, these projects will remain indigestible, whether I use AutoFocus, SuperFocus, GTD, the Law of Attraction, or scraps of paper.
Mark's "Dreams" system has succeeded at gradually convincing me of this fact. By not resisting resistance, Dreams aims to transmute resistance into a lesson, leading to improvement. I'd certainly heard of "not taking on too much at once," and I used to be a firm believer, but years of life in busy industries and our culture of multi-tasking had gradually eroded my commitment. At this point, I'm looking back at the last N years and re-appreciating how a smaller appetite truly could have gotten more done.
*BUT* (and here's the gotcha), only in conjunction with little & often! That old "dive into one project" approach had truly become unworkable. So, little & often, plus a smaller appetite, plus allowing more dismissal to happen ... no, no, *REALLY* allowing more dismissal to happen ... The pieces are coming together!
When I was fifteen, after three years of attempts, something clicked, and I suddenly began playing barre chords smoothly on my guitar. I hope this will be the same way, and if it takes two more years, it will still be worth it.
How do I combat this? With a coordinated, multi-phase strategy:
1. Be very busy getting lots of little things done instead of those big, deadlocked ones.
2. After a few weeks, feel sad about lack of progress.
3. Use "little & often" ad hoc, unstructured; make a little progress, feel a lot of hope.
4. Use a system like SuperFocus or AutoFocus to great effect, for a few months of productive happiness, until I clog it up and and can no longer face all the dismissals.
5. Return to (1).
Believe it or not, this represents great progress. I used to lack phases 3 and 4. Instead, I had a phase called "dive into one of those big projects exclusively until the rest of my life demands my urgent attention," and that phase received a minor fraction of my time.
The "menu of life" theme points the way to my next step: my appetite continues to be far too great, and until I get that under control, these projects will remain indigestible, whether I use AutoFocus, SuperFocus, GTD, the Law of Attraction, or scraps of paper.
Mark's "Dreams" system has succeeded at gradually convincing me of this fact. By not resisting resistance, Dreams aims to transmute resistance into a lesson, leading to improvement. I'd certainly heard of "not taking on too much at once," and I used to be a firm believer, but years of life in busy industries and our culture of multi-tasking had gradually eroded my commitment. At this point, I'm looking back at the last N years and re-appreciating how a smaller appetite truly could have gotten more done.
*BUT* (and here's the gotcha), only in conjunction with little & often! That old "dive into one project" approach had truly become unworkable. So, little & often, plus a smaller appetite, plus allowing more dismissal to happen ... no, no, *REALLY* allowing more dismissal to happen ... The pieces are coming together!
When I was fifteen, after three years of attempts, something clicked, and I suddenly began playing barre chords smoothly on my guitar. I hope this will be the same way, and if it takes two more years, it will still be worth it.
October 22, 2011 at 19:55 |
Bernie
Bernie
DavidC:
<< But I've got no equivalent decision rule for longer tasks on my AWP list. >>
Generally speaking the rule is "do the one which will make the most difference to your life/work once it's done.".
It's also worth remembering that it's faster to do three major tasks one by one than to do them bit by bit. Compare:
Day 1: Do Task A
Day 2: Do Task B
Day 3: Do Task C
with:
Day 1. Do a bit of Task A, Task B, Task C.
Day 2. Do a bit of Task A, Task B, Task C.
Day 3. Finish Task A, Task B, Task C.
In the first example you finish Task A on Day 1, Task 2 on Day 2 and Task 3 on Day 3.
In the second example all three tasks aren't finished until Day 3.
<< But I've got no equivalent decision rule for longer tasks on my AWP list. >>
Generally speaking the rule is "do the one which will make the most difference to your life/work once it's done.".
It's also worth remembering that it's faster to do three major tasks one by one than to do them bit by bit. Compare:
Day 1: Do Task A
Day 2: Do Task B
Day 3: Do Task C
with:
Day 1. Do a bit of Task A, Task B, Task C.
Day 2. Do a bit of Task A, Task B, Task C.
Day 3. Finish Task A, Task B, Task C.
In the first example you finish Task A on Day 1, Task 2 on Day 2 and Task 3 on Day 3.
In the second example all three tasks aren't finished until Day 3.
October 23, 2011 at 19:54 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Got stuck on the "AWP List" part. Googling got me either Association of Writers & Writing Programs or Average Whole Price, neither seems to fit here.
October 25, 2011 at 3:01 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
"AWP" list: Active Without Priority? Always Worth Procrastinating?
October 25, 2011 at 6:40 |
Bernie
Bernie
I have no idea why I wrote AWP. I meant AF1.
October 25, 2011 at 10:40 |
DavidC
DavidC
I've put a note in your post to correct it.
October 25, 2011 at 11:31 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark wrote:
> It's also worth remembering that it's faster to do three major tasks one by one than to do them bit by bit.
My head hurts.
I find this hard to square with Mark's aphorism that a goal or project that isn't visited every day tends to die, like a house-plant that isn't watered every day.
Chris
> It's also worth remembering that it's faster to do three major tasks one by one than to do them bit by bit.
My head hurts.
I find this hard to square with Mark's aphorism that a goal or project that isn't visited every day tends to die, like a house-plant that isn't watered every day.
Chris
October 26, 2011 at 8:45 |
Chris Cooper
Chris Cooper
Chris:
You don't have to start watering a house-plant until you've bought it.
Similarly you don't have to work on a project every day until you've started it.
You don't have to start watering a house-plant until you've bought it.
Similarly you don't have to work on a project every day until you've started it.
October 26, 2011 at 8:49 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Thanks for the instant reply, Mark.
"Little and often" has been a life-saving principle for me. But I need to crack the other side of things - defining projects and prioritizing them. I have an extreme aversion to these.
Chris
"Little and often" has been a life-saving principle for me. But I need to crack the other side of things - defining projects and prioritizing them. I have an extreme aversion to these.
Chris
October 26, 2011 at 8:56 |
Chris Cooper
Chris Cooper
Chris:
You might find the following helpful:
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2008/3/1/dealing-with-projects-that-dont-have-a-deadline.html
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2007/3/2/from-pipe-dream-to-project.html
You might find the following helpful:
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2008/3/1/dealing-with-projects-that-dont-have-a-deadline.html
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2007/3/2/from-pipe-dream-to-project.html
October 26, 2011 at 10:03 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Older article: "it’s essential to have a deadline"
Newer article: "giving them an artificial deadline. This can work - but often, because the mind knows that the deadline isn’t a “real” deadline, it gets ignored in favour of the projects"
is this a refinement of thought, or a change in context?
Newer article: "giving them an artificial deadline. This can work - but often, because the mind knows that the deadline isn’t a “real” deadline, it gets ignored in favour of the projects"
is this a refinement of thought, or a change in context?
October 26, 2011 at 12:53 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
I don't think there's a conflict between the two articles. One is saying that an artificial deadline which has no basis in reality is nothing like as effective in getting something done as a real deadline. Compare your boss saying "I want that report by the end of the week or else" with your saying to yourself "I'll try to get that report finished this week".
The other article is saying that to get something moving you need to give yourself a deadline AND start planning and acting on that basis.
An artificial deadline is not a good motivator on its own (though it's better than no deadline at all), but is none the less an essential prerequisite to an action plan.
And of course once you have really committed yourself to a plan of action, particularly if you've involved other people, the deadline ceases to be artificial and becomes real.
I don't think there's a conflict between the two articles. One is saying that an artificial deadline which has no basis in reality is nothing like as effective in getting something done as a real deadline. Compare your boss saying "I want that report by the end of the week or else" with your saying to yourself "I'll try to get that report finished this week".
The other article is saying that to get something moving you need to give yourself a deadline AND start planning and acting on that basis.
An artificial deadline is not a good motivator on its own (though it's better than no deadline at all), but is none the less an essential prerequisite to an action plan.
And of course once you have really committed yourself to a plan of action, particularly if you've involved other people, the deadline ceases to be artificial and becomes real.
October 26, 2011 at 22:01 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Given an AWP [should be AF1 - Ed.] list of things to do, there will be some that I can get done in just a few minutes. But then there will be a residue for which there is no obstacle to starting now, but which can't all be done now will each take the rest of the day.
I find myself saying "If I do task A, then I won't be able to do task B or C today." All of those task are worthwhile and need doing. The consequence is deadlock, wheel spinning, and no useful progress.
Of course, one answer is to do a bit of each task. Little and often is certainly useful, but there are cases when there is a high cognitive cost of switching between tasks, and just pushing through to completion one at a time is more effective.
Mark Forster has compared these choices to reading a menu in a restaurant. You can't eat everything offered by the restaurant. You have to choose something and forego the rest. In a restaurant, when I realise that I am dithering over choosing between alternatives, I always choose the cheapest, on the grounds that my indecision means that I am attributing no value to the incremental cost of the more expensive one.
But I've got no equivalent decision rule for longer tasks on my AWP list. Do others suffer from similar deadlock, and what are their workarounds?