Navigation
To Think About . . .
My Latest Book
Also available on Amazon.com, Amazon.fr, and other Amazons and bookshops worldwide!
Search This Site
Log-in
Latest Comments
Most Popular Content
My Other Books
Here are my observations after a few days of working this alternative system.
The system definitely feels "heavier". I think there are several contributing factors:
-- Similar to SNL, the focus of the list is on the last section.
-- But this last section is spread across more than one page / spread. This makes it harder to see at-a-glance everything that needs my focus today.
-- This last section is also longer, since it includes all the tasks from yesterday, as well as the tasks from today. This makes it take longer to cycle through it.
-- Because the last section takes longer to cycle through, it feels less fresh and alive and relevant. It just feels slower and less engaging.
-- As a result, I don't feel quite so much in touch with my intuition for the day. I feel myself relying a lot more on the list to guide me.
-- These factors themselves cause the system to go even slower -- compounding all the above effects.
-- Instead of just *knowing* what my focus areas should be, and using the list to help me sort it out, I feel like I don't really know, and I need to read the list to remember. It almost makes me feel half asleep.
Also, I somehow find myself collecting recurring tasks. It feels more necessary to write them down. I am not sure why. With SNL, these tasks just seem to take care of themselves as a matter of habit, and never stay on the list very long, if they make it onto the list at all. With SNL, they often seem to happen during transitions -- e.g., when I sit down at my desk, after doing my brain dump, I generally go clear out my email inbox. I just do it. I don't need to write it down. It's an automatic habit. Or when I get up for a break, I check the trash to see if it needs emptying, and just do it. With the longer focus list, somehow I feel a need to write these things down. Maybe it's because I don't feel quite as intuitively engaged.
This is only after 2-3 days, but it's such a contrast! Cycling through only today's tasks, as the focus area, makes a really big difference.
Anyway, has anyone else tried this alternative method? Any observations? Maybe others' experience is different than mine.
I'm finding Mark's suggestion good i.e. cycling through yesterday and today before returning to earlier pages. I suspect I don't pick up as many tasks as you might do and this may be a factor (my list isn't getting too long to manage).
One thing that could be different for each person is when to write a new list. By default most people will do daily lists, but some might prefer weekly lists using the same fundamentals. Others might like a new list in the morning, afternoon and evening. And of course, as people change, what they like might change. There is something very liberating about writing down what is important to you now, and getting to work on it now without baggage.
Thanks!
<< I guess I find most systems end up with lists of stuff that I don't want to do, and don't want to delete >>
This is so so true for me too.
I have followed and tried to implement Mark's amazing ideas (and they're all amazing) for years. And tripped over this same thing every time.
There's something about putting something on a list that makes me not want to do it. But I daren't delete it either, 'cos it's on the list and needs doing...
<< There's something about putting something on a list that makes me not want to do it. But I daren't delete it either, 'cos it's on the list and needs doing... >>
This is not at all uncommon. Fortunately there are various ways of overcoming this. Here's three possible methods.
1. Instead of writing "Income Tax Return" on your list, just write the first step - which may be no more than "Find my Tax File".
2. Work for a specified time using a stop watch. You can alternate with one or more different tasks. You can Increase the time each set, i.e. 5 mins, 10 mins, 15 mins, etc.
3. A very effective one-task method I have used myself on occasions when faced with a particularly hard-to-get-moving task (yes, I have them too!) is similar to pyramid sets in weight training. Using a stopwatch or countdown timer, work on your task for one minute. Then immediately set your stopwatch for two minutes. Then three minutes. And so on, increasing by one minute each time. There should be no pause between the steps except to re-set the stop-watch. Carry on until your mind refuses the next jump, and then work your way back down. If you can make it up to 15 minutes and then work back down to 1 min you will have worked for 3 hours 45 minutes in total on the project without a break!
<< There is something very liberating about writing down what is important to you now, and getting to work on it now without baggage. >>
Yes, the no-list systems (and SNL) always feel very alive and engaging to me. There is little or no sense of task debt to drag you down.
<< I guess I find most systems end up with lists of stuff that I don't want to do, and don't want to delete >>
Yes, I run into this too. 🙂
So many things just don't feel ready to be worked on -- and neither do they feel ready to be deleted.
It's not a problem unless those things start to accumulate and create a sense of debt / backlog.
No-List systems avoid this by only focusing on the things that are top-of-mind. There is no mechanism for creating a backlog.
SNL avoids it the same way, by always starting out with what's top-of-mind. And the older items generally lie happy waiting till you have time to review them. So the sense of task debt is minimized. However, SNL can still develop a sense of task debt if the older pages hang around too long, and the items on them are still relevant.
I've been giving this problem a lot of thought lately. That sense of "psychological readiness" is persistently elusive for these tasks: (not ready for action) + (not ready for deletion) = (accumulation of a backlog). Why is the psychological readiness so elusive?
For me personally, it is almost always because of some sense of conflict. I feel pressure to do that task, but also I feel pressure to do other things, and I also feel like I just want to drop all that and go with whatever is top-of-mind, following my intuition, and this often takes me somewhere else completely. But this sense of *conflict* is at the heart of it.
<< There's something about putting something on a list that makes me not want to do it. But I daren't delete it either, 'cos it's on the list and needs doing... >>
I think the way you worded this highlights the conflict even more. Just writing down these tasks makes them more concrete, and if there is a conflict there, it makes the conflict more tangible, more visceral. But neither can I delete the task, for the same reason.
I've been exploring this idea of underlying conflicts a lot lately. I tried to put it into words in another post (here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2755989 ) but it was a bit long and rambling and apparently incomprehensible, based on the comments. 🙂 So I need to keep working on it.
These techniques are great when I just have to get something done and the sense of psychological readiness has still not appeared. These techniques help generate the psychological readiness "artificially".
But how do you personally determine when to apply such a technique? If we follow the "standing out" process -- only actioning things when they match our psychological readiness -- then in theory, these items would never stand out.
For me it works something like this: I am not feeling ready to do those tasks. But I feel more and more pressured to get them done for one reason or another. This pressure feels like the *opposite* of psychological readiness. But at some point I break under the pressure -- "enough already!" And then I find a way to break whatever is blocking it -- using a technique like you describe, or just powering through that initial resistance and then letting the natural momentum of the work carry me through to the end.
I have a theoretical problem with this. In theory, we should be actioning things only when they stand out - that is, when there is psychological readiness.
To solve this, I suppose I can look at it similar to how Theory of Constraints handles "expediting" in a factory. "Expediting" is basically "management intervention in the natural flow of work, in order to get a late order back on track or meet some other urgent need". TOC reduces expediting dramatically -- but it doesn't eliminate it. TOC claims it can reduce expediting to any arbitrary level that is desired -- but it comes at a cost of larger protective buffers and longer lead times. So they are happy if they keep the expediting at some small level.
Similarly, your systems that create and rely on psychological readiness, will eliminate more and more of the "expediting", but will not eliminate it 100%. It might still be needed to force through a stubborn task sometimes, using techniques like you describe, or just powering through, or whatever works.
But I still wonder how you decide when it's time to stop waiting for the item to stand out on its own. Is it as simple a matter as "this items is standing out to be broken into smaller tasks / attacked with a stopwatch / etc." ?
So since I've just gainsaid your premise, I think everything that follows has become moot in my eyes.
<< But I still wonder how you decide when it's time to stop waiting for the item to stand out on its own. >>
Well, as Alan has pointed out if it's bothering you enough to ask the question then it's standing out already!
I don't think the fact that you need to use a technique to get the task done means that you're "cheating". Every task requires some form of technique. If it's something which you've done over and over again, the technique will have become just about invisible. But nevertheless if you look at how you deal with the task you will be able identify the techniques you are using.
So for example when I deal with email I have a set procedure I go through. I do it automatically, and it's highly efficient. But it didn't just happen. Years ago, I forget how many, I worked out the best way to process email, and I've stuck to it ever since. On the rare occasions I've deviated from it, chaos results.
The same applies to doing the dishes, tidying my office, filing vouchers, cleaning my car, etc etc. There's nothing remarkable about any of these routines... except that at some point in the past I sat down and worked out a best practice for each of them.
It's quite possible that some of the routines aren't in fact the best possible way, but that really doesn't matter. The fact that I have a routine means I'm not resisting the work - because I know how to approach it.
Now when one gets a task which one's resisting, usually the reason for the resistance is that you haven't yet got a routine for it in your mental routine library. So you don't know how to approach it. The three techniques I've mentioned are ways of getting moving even when you are lacking a specific routine.
So what I'm saying is that the three techniques are not ways of *overcoming* resistance, they are ways of *preventing* resistance - because when you have a task which you haven't a set routine for you know that you can use these techniques until you *have* developed a routine.
So your task list works like this:
Email - existing routine - no resistance - will action when ready.
Doing the dishes - existing routine - no resistance - will action when ready
Project A - no existing routine - suitable for Method 1 - no resistance - will action when ready
File Vouchers - existing routine - no resistance - will action when ready
Project B - using Method 3 while developing routine - no resistance - actioning.
etc, etc.
For this reason I am reuptaking SNL or a variant of that. What really works for my medium is looking down a list and *moving* a stand-out task to the end (where today lies), and then just focusing on Today by looking at the end of the list without scrolling.