Discussion Forum > Resistance-- task size and list length
There are a few tricks I use to try to keep things going. When you are first entering a task onto the list, you don't want to second-guess yourself too much, because that would lose the flow of just getting the thought out of your head. But you can consider if this task will become important or ripe for doing soon. If you're not sure, you could simply append a question mark at the end. For me, this trick allows me to simply answer "No" and then cross out the task. Mark and others might say that this deleting of an entered task (which is not the same as dismissal) is always a valid action, but I feel uneasy crossing it out, unless I had put the question mark down. A similar method involves prefacing the task with "Consider …" or "Think about …" but that requires thinking ahead (if you write left-to-right).
As far as actually beginning a large task (when you might not have phrased it to make the first easy micro-task explicit), the least action you can do is just place the dot (i.e. mark the task as what you will now do). From that point, it's entirely up to you how much time you will spend on it now, or how significant the first step will be. Anything, even "getting out the file" or perhaps jotting down a note or two and creating a file folder for it, will suffice. Then cross it out, and enter the next logical step. You can also set a timer and "force" yourself to (at least) think about the task for X minutes. You might surprise yourself with a productive start by just taking time to focus on it for a few minutes.
As far as actually beginning a large task (when you might not have phrased it to make the first easy micro-task explicit), the least action you can do is just place the dot (i.e. mark the task as what you will now do). From that point, it's entirely up to you how much time you will spend on it now, or how significant the first step will be. Anything, even "getting out the file" or perhaps jotting down a note or two and creating a file folder for it, will suffice. Then cross it out, and enter the next logical step. You can also set a timer and "force" yourself to (at least) think about the task for X minutes. You might surprise yourself with a productive start by just taking time to focus on it for a few minutes.
December 8, 2011 at 20:40 |
ubi
ubi
I basically agree with what ubi has written. Just a few thoughts of my own:
I've never been afraid of entering a task at more than one level at once because that way one can respond more easily to one's psychological readiness to work on a particular project at any particular time. So I might have "Summer Ball" and "Ask John to serve on SB Committee", "Look at suitable venues for SB", etc.
I don't think one should ever set a task at a level which doesn't make sense in itself. So "Get the Summer Ball file out" is a pointless action unless one is going to do something with the file. Grading one paper is a pointless action unless one grades the other papers too. So the task should be set at the level that is meaningful, e.g. "Review SB action" or "Grade Papers". Maybe at your first attempt at the task you won't get further than getting the file out, or grading X's paper, but then the task will be re-entered and you will progress further.
On overwhelm in general, I recommend that you grade everything on your list Must Do, Should Do, Could Do and cross out everything that isn't Must Do. You can't afford to spend time on stuff that isn't essential.
I've never been afraid of entering a task at more than one level at once because that way one can respond more easily to one's psychological readiness to work on a particular project at any particular time. So I might have "Summer Ball" and "Ask John to serve on SB Committee", "Look at suitable venues for SB", etc.
I don't think one should ever set a task at a level which doesn't make sense in itself. So "Get the Summer Ball file out" is a pointless action unless one is going to do something with the file. Grading one paper is a pointless action unless one grades the other papers too. So the task should be set at the level that is meaningful, e.g. "Review SB action" or "Grade Papers". Maybe at your first attempt at the task you won't get further than getting the file out, or grading X's paper, but then the task will be re-entered and you will progress further.
On overwhelm in general, I recommend that you grade everything on your list Must Do, Should Do, Could Do and cross out everything that isn't Must Do. You can't afford to spend time on stuff that isn't essential.
December 9, 2011 at 0:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
My experience with using only small tasks = micromanaging tasks = only "next steps" in GTD style is not very positive. This defining of only small, actionable tasks led me to confusion, loss of feeling of relevance, loss of focus and inability to decide intuitively, when suddenly hundreds of small tasks appeared in my task list without apparent goal/end point to see in that list. I lost the forest for the tree and defining only first actionable task in my to-do list never helped me to go over procrastination (as books promised), but on the contrary I felt demotivated, because I lost bigger picture from my sight.
Later with AF I started to define my tasks logically/ in intuitive wholes (as Mark writes above: set task so big/small so that it makes sense at the moment). And now, sometimes I have one task really small (read that email), some bigger (buy Christmas presents) and at the moment I start to work at them I do the first steps which seems logical and relevant to me (think about what to buy, check e-shops)... When I stop doing the task, I can rewrite it in the manner that I know where to continue if I am anxious that I will forget. (Christmas presents / buy the rest when in city centre, list is in email). Such approach + using superfocus (urgent tasks) + the awareness that AF will take care itself about all next steps, reviews, projects and all the myriad of processes which GTD defined on paper better than in reality, helps me overcome overwhelm considerably. And - I still see why I do it, as I have defined my tasks in logical wholes.
When I need to fight resistance, I just use timer (a la pomodoro technique) to stay 20 minutes with the tasks, or trick myself by telling: "just 5 extra small tasks" (small task= opening app, finding that, writing down this...) and suddenly I find myself in the middle of the activity, half-enjoying it and surprised that 20 minutes passed: so in fact I maybe create this "microactions/small actions" in my mind just before starting to do the task, not in my task-list. That is effective for me.
And I feel making progress also on big projects (paradoxically sometimes defined just by three four words in AF), much bigger progress than with more "elaborated" approaches which I used before.
Later with AF I started to define my tasks logically/ in intuitive wholes (as Mark writes above: set task so big/small so that it makes sense at the moment). And now, sometimes I have one task really small (read that email), some bigger (buy Christmas presents) and at the moment I start to work at them I do the first steps which seems logical and relevant to me (think about what to buy, check e-shops)... When I stop doing the task, I can rewrite it in the manner that I know where to continue if I am anxious that I will forget. (Christmas presents / buy the rest when in city centre, list is in email). Such approach + using superfocus (urgent tasks) + the awareness that AF will take care itself about all next steps, reviews, projects and all the myriad of processes which GTD defined on paper better than in reality, helps me overcome overwhelm considerably. And - I still see why I do it, as I have defined my tasks in logical wholes.
When I need to fight resistance, I just use timer (a la pomodoro technique) to stay 20 minutes with the tasks, or trick myself by telling: "just 5 extra small tasks" (small task= opening app, finding that, writing down this...) and suddenly I find myself in the middle of the activity, half-enjoying it and surprised that 20 minutes passed: so in fact I maybe create this "microactions/small actions" in my mind just before starting to do the task, not in my task-list. That is effective for me.
And I feel making progress also on big projects (paradoxically sometimes defined just by three four words in AF), much bigger progress than with more "elaborated" approaches which I used before.
December 9, 2011 at 8:28 |
Daneb
Daneb
I'm going to quibble with Mark about the value of grading one paper - sometimes that's all you can stomach, although I usually set 3 as the minimum grading-unit (and if I don't grade 3 it counts as an un-finished task and goes in C2 of my SF list).
Quibbling with Mark aside... I, too, try to fight resistance with little-and-often. But I don't legislate at what scale I write things down - it's at whatever level it occurs to me. To continue with the example of grading... my students hand in all of their written work online. So when I have a set of essays to grade, I'll just put "grade essays" on my list. The smallest meaningful task that I can do is to download the submissions. Sometimes that's all I do; other times I download them and dive into the grading right away. It just depends on what else is going on / how much resistance I'm feeling to the task at that point.
I often do consider rewriting to be action on a task. As an example... if I have on my list "Look at data on X" and the vagueness of that is creating resistance, the first step of working on the task will consist of just writing down the specific parts of the data that I want to look at, or the questions that I'm trying to answer with those particular data. Sometimes I will put that broken-down list straight into my SF list as individual tasks, or other times as a separate list elsewhere in my free-form book. It really depends on my mood / how I feel about that particular task.
On the "little and often" end of things... yes, I do feel like I make progress on big projects by working little and often. For me, L&O has been the biggest revelation of Mark's systems... I used to beat myself up for flitting from thing to thing, thinking that it meant I wasn't working efficiently. Now... I have accepted that that's just the way I work. Sometimes I work on something for 10 minutes, other times for a couple of hours. And that's OK.
I feel like I'm rambling now. What it comes down to really is that different ways of engaging with the system (and different systems!) work best for different people. Shocking, I know, that human beings are individuals.
Quibbling with Mark aside... I, too, try to fight resistance with little-and-often. But I don't legislate at what scale I write things down - it's at whatever level it occurs to me. To continue with the example of grading... my students hand in all of their written work online. So when I have a set of essays to grade, I'll just put "grade essays" on my list. The smallest meaningful task that I can do is to download the submissions. Sometimes that's all I do; other times I download them and dive into the grading right away. It just depends on what else is going on / how much resistance I'm feeling to the task at that point.
I often do consider rewriting to be action on a task. As an example... if I have on my list "Look at data on X" and the vagueness of that is creating resistance, the first step of working on the task will consist of just writing down the specific parts of the data that I want to look at, or the questions that I'm trying to answer with those particular data. Sometimes I will put that broken-down list straight into my SF list as individual tasks, or other times as a separate list elsewhere in my free-form book. It really depends on my mood / how I feel about that particular task.
On the "little and often" end of things... yes, I do feel like I make progress on big projects by working little and often. For me, L&O has been the biggest revelation of Mark's systems... I used to beat myself up for flitting from thing to thing, thinking that it meant I wasn't working efficiently. Now... I have accepted that that's just the way I work. Sometimes I work on something for 10 minutes, other times for a couple of hours. And that's OK.
I feel like I'm rambling now. What it comes down to really is that different ways of engaging with the system (and different systems!) work best for different people. Shocking, I know, that human beings are individuals.
December 9, 2011 at 14:25 |
Sarah
Sarah
Sarah:
<< What it comes down to really is that different ways of engaging with the system (and different systems!) work best for different people. >>
And for the same person at different times.
<< What it comes down to really is that different ways of engaging with the system (and different systems!) work best for different people. >>
And for the same person at different times.
December 9, 2011 at 14:39 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi silviastraka, I am happy that you post this topic about resistance because I have encountered this problem many times with AF and others systems.
Here are some tips I use.
1. Take altitude. When I have done really urgent things I take a piece of paper and report all the project I have a lot of resistance. Sometime they are dismiss sometime they are really active.
2. Then I decide to cross, asking myself "must I really do this ?" What will be the consequence if I don't ? If I don't know the answer I let it in the system.
3. Then I work on the project and decide of one action for each of them. Watever.
4. Then I do the action, if it is urgent I do it now, if it is not I will do it on the flow.
5. Then I it is something really complicated I must indeed focus on I plan it a day and take it as an appointment.
6. And If whatever I do I really can't do it then I decide not to do it. It is that it is not so important.
7 and if I really don't know what to do I put them on a piece of paper in a box and take one of them out of the box and try to do all I can do on it in a batch.
Here are some tips I use.
1. Take altitude. When I have done really urgent things I take a piece of paper and report all the project I have a lot of resistance. Sometime they are dismiss sometime they are really active.
2. Then I decide to cross, asking myself "must I really do this ?" What will be the consequence if I don't ? If I don't know the answer I let it in the system.
3. Then I work on the project and decide of one action for each of them. Watever.
4. Then I do the action, if it is urgent I do it now, if it is not I will do it on the flow.
5. Then I it is something really complicated I must indeed focus on I plan it a day and take it as an appointment.
6. And If whatever I do I really can't do it then I decide not to do it. It is that it is not so important.
7 and if I really don't know what to do I put them on a piece of paper in a box and take one of them out of the box and try to do all I can do on it in a batch.
December 9, 2011 at 17:49 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
silviastraka:
I think the L&O method works hand-in-hand with the "stands out" feeling. If the project or task stands out, then your mind knows what needs to happen next. It may be your overwhelm comes from not having a clear idea of what the outcome is or what the next physical action should be; in those cases, a task may not stand out because your mind's background processes may still be breaking them down or the task needs to be refined further.
L&O works best for me when the unit size of the work is well known (as in Sarah's "grade 3 papers" example or "address 5 Christmas envelopes"). When the project is for me something amorphous, like "redesign dashboard reports," my default action is to work for 1 Pomo (ie, 25 minutes, from the Pomodoro Technique), and maybe a few more Pomos that become time periods where I focus just on that project. Usually after 1 or 2 pomos, I have a better idea of what I need to do next and the tasks get more granular.
A few techniques I like from Mark's book "Get Everything Done and Still Have Time to Play" is working in bursts of time (work on the next 8 projects for 5 minutes each, cycle back and then work for 10 minutes each, cycle back and work for 15 minutes each, etc.) and "halving" (chapter 9), where you take a big project, break it in half, and then divide that half further and further down until you have a small enough task to actually take action on or for which there is no resistance. Then continue to divide up the remaining chunks accordingly. This requires you taking a little time to actually think about the work you have to do and create a checklist on paper, but it can make a big project less overwhelming.
And of course, if you're overwhelmed -- breathe! Say a little prayer or affirmation. Re-center yourself. If you're in overwhelm or panic mode, you can't really consider or think about your work from a neutral place.
I think the L&O method works hand-in-hand with the "stands out" feeling. If the project or task stands out, then your mind knows what needs to happen next. It may be your overwhelm comes from not having a clear idea of what the outcome is or what the next physical action should be; in those cases, a task may not stand out because your mind's background processes may still be breaking them down or the task needs to be refined further.
L&O works best for me when the unit size of the work is well known (as in Sarah's "grade 3 papers" example or "address 5 Christmas envelopes"). When the project is for me something amorphous, like "redesign dashboard reports," my default action is to work for 1 Pomo (ie, 25 minutes, from the Pomodoro Technique), and maybe a few more Pomos that become time periods where I focus just on that project. Usually after 1 or 2 pomos, I have a better idea of what I need to do next and the tasks get more granular.
A few techniques I like from Mark's book "Get Everything Done and Still Have Time to Play" is working in bursts of time (work on the next 8 projects for 5 minutes each, cycle back and then work for 10 minutes each, cycle back and work for 15 minutes each, etc.) and "halving" (chapter 9), where you take a big project, break it in half, and then divide that half further and further down until you have a small enough task to actually take action on or for which there is no resistance. Then continue to divide up the remaining chunks accordingly. This requires you taking a little time to actually think about the work you have to do and create a checklist on paper, but it can make a big project less overwhelming.
And of course, if you're overwhelmed -- breathe! Say a little prayer or affirmation. Re-center yourself. If you're in overwhelm or panic mode, you can't really consider or think about your work from a neutral place.
December 9, 2011 at 20:50 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
Thanks, everyone! Your thoughts were all very helpful! I have learned a lot and am incorporating it into my approach.
December 11, 2011 at 15:03 |
silviastraka
silviastraka
Right now I am feeling really overwhelmed with my workload and I am so far behind that I feel paralyzed. But I have some questions about little and often:
- what is the mechanism to writing tasks as micro actions? My understanding of AF is that we just dump our tasks into it as we go without a lot of editing. But the wording of a task really affects my resistance. So is it via the dismissal system that I rewrite tasks to be smaller? Or is there another mechanism to be able to rewrite a task to be more specific and granular before it is at the dismissal stage? (maybe as a repeating AF item to rewrite tasks... But this would build a review aspect into the system and could change its nature and add a level of complexity)
-do people who do little and often feel like they are making progress on big projects?
-does your list size really increase if you define your actions in more granular terms? I think it might not necessarily be larger, but I am wondering how people have experienced the difference. I think that having a high number of total tasks can also be overwhelming.
-does anyone use micro actions to just get past your resistance to starting a task ("just get the file out") and then end up most often doing a lot more? In this case, the micro action becomes a device to enter the task by lowering resistance. In other words, "grade X's paper" has much lower resistance than "grade 70 papers", but I might grade that one paper and then 3 others at the same sitting.
-are micro actions sometimes demotivating? If I see "grade X's paper", I know that there are still 69 others to grade before I am done, I think that grading one paper is not chipping away at this enormous task very much. In other words, I sometimes find it hard to take the micro task at face value.
I know Mark has written a lot about resistance and I really appreciate his work in this area. I am trying to integrate it and apply it to my situation of overwhelm right now. So I am interested in how others have experienced this and what they have found helpful.
Thank you.