Get Everything Done

Great book review that I thought others on this forum might like. There are many overlaps with the Autofocus method -- especially keeping things simple and focused.

In the last two years, the author has:

- Quit smoking (on Nov. 18, 2005).
- Lost 40 pounds.
- Gone from a non-runner to completing several marathons and triathlons.
- Become a vegetarian.
- Tripled his income.
- Written a novel and a non-fiction book.
- Eliminated his debt.

Book review is posted at http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/01/07/the-power-of-less-leo-babauta-zen-habits/

This book looks great and I will read this asap. This may be what I was asking for. A simple time management system. I'd bet though that's it's not as simple as it seems at first glance! What did you think Seraphim?

I haven't read the book (yet), but from the review (and other reviews on Amazon), it seems more like a book about principles for getting more out of life, really doing what's important to you, rather than a time-management system per se.

That's why I posted it here -- it seems very complementary to Autofocus.

By the way, the fourhourworkweek site in general has many ideas that are very complementary to Mark Forster's work.

<a href=http://dysonbladelessfan.com>Dyson Air Multiplier</a>
The tease is over and the word is out: the Dyson Air Multiplier, the world's first bladeless, desktop fan is the mystery gadget we saw trailed yesterday

Thanks Seraphim! You piqued my interest in the Zen habits blog. In my current frenzy-filled-AF4-to-AF2-reversion work mode, it would a welcome detour to stop and smell the roses.

I've read it, and there are lots of good things in it (though of course I didn't like everything). In particular, the advice about making changes and developing new habits worked extremely well for me: I had the most success I've ever had, by far, with getting onto a regular sleep schedule using the approach Babauta describes.

There are recommendations about time management, in the book, too, and they're largely quite at odds with AF, despite the common interest in simplicity. The POL approach is top-down: choose a goal for the year, then a sub-goal for the month, the week, etc., then choose three Most Important Tasks every day (at least one of which should be related to the big goal) and do those first before doing anything else, and let the little stuff take care of itself. So very different.

Incidentally, the POL stuff about change has some significant elements in common with the approach laid out in Robert Maurer's "One Small Step Can Change You Life: The Kaizen Way" (though also some important differences). The Maurer book is really excellent.

Hi Martin: I do get what you mean about the top down approach, but may I suggest that AF is not necessarily at odds with it.

So, AF may have something like this as a cross section to the task list:

1. Review/Create Goal for the year (GFY)
2. Create 3 supporting tasks to support GFY for this month
etc...

I think AF can support any level of thinking, top down or bottom up.

Hi JD,

Fair point: AF doesn't preclude top-down thinking. I suppose I was thinking about some of the things Mark said when first developing and introducing AF, along the lines that his experience has been that top-down approaches don't work, and that the idea behind AF is that what's most important to you is something that will emerge as you let yourself respond to what "stands out" or "feels ready to be done" as you work, rather than deciding ahead of time what your priorities are.

Of course, there's still a sharp difference between AF and the Power of Less /Zen Habits approach. On the latter, if you're following the rules, you have to decide on a goal for the year first, then sub-goals, etc; and you have to start each day with your three MITs. On AF, you might put the sort of items your describe in your list, but not get to them for a while, or ever.....

Exactly right. The point of top down planning is to decide what you WILL do. But AF leaves that to your gut feelings. It comes down to a rational choice or a gut feeling. The systems are very much at odds. Or maybe better ... approach life from a different perspective. In order to make it work for me I have to add the rational part and do AF as a subset of that ... IOW, I schedule the work I want to get done and then do AF in my slack time.

I'm not sure how Leo did it, but he made a killing on recycling time management cliches, and morphing them into a book deal. Amazing.

Martin & Mike,

You may be right guys. But this rational/intuitive divide may not be as wide as it may seem, in my opinion. For eg, choosing the goal for the year, creating the rules to subdivide it by month and week - it's all a choice, and at some point your intuition tells you it is time you get on with it, if that is what you want is important for you. And there it goes, right into AF: goal, rules and all.

And again, in the act of choosing between tasks, your goal-aligned self will make a bee-line to those tasks that bring your goal forward.

I just bought Power of Less, and I like it. (Why do I keep thinking POL means Plain Ordinary Life though?)

The author emphasizes focusing on one major habit and three daily important tasks and focusing on those (which sounds like a Do-it-tommorow kind of thought). But towards the middle of the book he also talks about having a running todo list on a pad of paper and scanning through those items. He isn't explicit about how to process the paper but the notion is very compatible with AF4. I wouldn't be surprised if the author has been reading Mark Forster's stuff.

Anyhow, David Allen has the philosophy side of all this explained very well: You can't effectively set and pursue goals when you are constantly lost in a morass of "open loops". Writing those loops down is the first step to get them out of your head. Next you must have a trusted system that makes you confident the tasks will get done. (AF4 is such a system.) THEN, you will have a clear mind and will be able to effectively process major goals and focus on them. And for me, I'll put those goals on my AF4 list.

Power of Less does however rightly emphasize one point: You get more done by being more selective what goes on your list. Put more Important things on it, and less Maybe Good things.

I read 'The 4hr Working Week' when it was first published. I like many aspects of it. But not the time management approach. This guy is a typical scanner. He uses his online business (which takes 4 hours of his time per week to manage) to generate the funds for his travels and exploits.

His advice on setting up and running such a business seems good - if one wanted to run such a business. And his knack for getting to the essence of a new skill or tallent is amazing.

I have subscribed to his blog and learned many new and interesting things from him.

But none of his techniques have had as big an impact on my life as AF.

I am using his suggested approach for losing weight and improving my fitness. But it is too early to report any breakthroughs yet.

And his trick for balancing a fork and a spoon on a tooth-pick on top of a drinking glass has entertained many of my mates down the pub!

Respect
Paul

Alan,

You mentioned David Allen

Anyhow, David Allen has the philosophy side of all this explained very well: You can't effectively set and pursue goals when you are constantly lost in a morass of "open loops". Writing those loops down is the first step to get them out of your head. Next you must have a trusted system that makes you confident the tasks will get done. (AF4 is such a system.) THEN, you will have a clear mind and will be able to effectively process major goals and focus on them.

The more I study time management and management in general the more I realize how one size does not fit all. David Allen has a way that works for him. He may need to close his open loops in order to be focused and productive, other may not. I have seen wildly successful people operate on the edge and their lives looked like mayhem to outsiders with tons of open loops and yet they were relentlessly pursuing a goal and getting very wealthy along the way.

I personally implemented GTD at one point as a paper based system and it worked, but what I found was the overhead was not worth the effort, the contexts were not helpful and that it was another thing to manage just like all of the things it was designed to manage.

I now view time management like medicine, I only want to take just enough to heal the problem, not any more and not any less.

Gerry
http://simpletimemanagement.blogspot.com/

JD,

>>> And again, in the act of choosing between tasks, your goal-aligned self will make a bee-line to those tasks that bring your goal forward. <<<

That is the problem in a nutshell. I'm not even sure what "goal-aligned self" means, but it clearly reduces to "motivation", on some level. The thing is that with all of this stuff it all comes down to what works for each individual. Personally, I need to set my direction more clearly and know how things mesh with my "goal-aligned self". OTOH, I have not the slightest doubt that Mark works well working from his gut. It really is a question of different people working differently.

Agreed Gerry. I understand that many people of other personality types are successful without such a system.

For me, I found that Allen's philosophy of work made sense, but his GTD system was just too difficult to manage. I think the sheer difficulty of it is why there are so many people who talk about "falling off" and "getting back on". Even the inventor admits he doesn't always stick to his system. That's why something simpler is needed. I find I work well following his ideas, and merging them with systems like Mark's.