Get Everything Done

My pet theory about this is that there is a non-linear, non-monotonic relationship between the external complexity of time management systems (including the people who use them) and the increase in fundamental capabilities to handle increasingly complex responsibilities.

Specifically, I think there is a progression through time management systems as one becomes more and more capable both within a specific environment and across multiple environments that goes from "simple and naive" to "complex and involved" to "simple yet sophisticated." I see this pattern a lot, where you see the people that are low on the "environmental complexity" ladder using simple, naive approaches to getting work done, and doing fine with that, and then you see a myriad of complex systems emerging as people start engaging with more and more responsibility across wider domains or dealing with more abstract requirements. This is where the vast majority of modern knowledge workers exist, I think. But then at some point you get to these ultra-high performers. These are the people who are really pushing things, and I've noticed a disproportionate number of them have insanely simple systems.

I think this has to do with a couple of preconceptions that tend to emerge in modern work. As we move into the more complex environments, the people in the "majority middle" as it were, are emerging from a fixed mindset with regard to their own capabilities and the like, leading them to engage with their personal TMS in a way that allows them to consciously alter how they do work, but they *retain* a fixed mindset about their external environment.

You hear this all the time when you see people discussing their lives.

"I need a system to handle all my crazy incoming inputs."

"My work changes on a minute-by-minute basis and I need to deal with that."

"My inbox is full of tons of things I need to keep track of, so I need a system for that."

"I was using to do lists, but now I need something more because my work environment is just too complex to keep on a single list."

These are the sort of people who reject simple to do lists or the like and start using ever more complex systems in order to ensure that they are able to organize and handle their workloads. Lots of plates in the air, lots of things to deal with, lots of everything. More more more.

And you see systems coming out of this mindset that are just as complex as their workloads. I think GTD is the quintessential example of this in most people's practice, though ironically, I don't think David Allen actually teaches it that way. But there are so many knobs to tweak with GTD that everyone tends to think they need X Y or Z new or different thing to help tweak their performance. So their GTD systems become more and more complex. Same goes with people using sophisticated software to manage their workflows in a Scrum or Agile style.

But if you look at a lot of the top performers, they don't need any of that, and their lives are actually relatively simple by comparison. How is that possible? I think the key insight that takes them there is a recognition that you have a lot more agency over your external environment than you think you do, usually, and that the systematic addressing of each of these potential environmental factors removes the need for additional internal complexity. In other words, these ultra-high-performers are tweaking their systems not to manage complexity, but to reduce that complexity from ever emerging in the first place.

I see a lot of people who aren't willing to do this. Rather than cutting into the root of things and altering fundamental things about the nature of their work, they assume that the nature of their work is fixed, and the try to deal with what emerges out of that.

Thus, I think that many of the TMS systems that people reject beyond the 2A level as being unable to handle the bigger stuff, actually prove to be *more* effective at handling the more complex stuff. The problem isn't so much the system, but the misuse of the systems by people who don't understand the bigger picture.

But what's that phrase? Simplicity is found at the far end of complexity or something like that? I think a lot of times it's hard to see how the simple things work until you've experienced the complex things.

As an example, the WIP principle is something a lot of people won't grasp easily, and so if you tell them something like using a closed list or a Kanban board with a fixed WIP limit, many of them will feel that the system is too restrictive, and too unsophisticated to be able to handle their needs. But the people who really get that principle are able to leverage that simplicity to eliminate the need for a whole host of complex issues, thus improving their performance by large margins. Meanwhile, those people who dismissed such things as too simplistic to apply in their case are constantly struggling with systems that are attempting to help them cope with systemically inefficient environmental factors.

A lot of the most brilliant systems create these subtle, simple rules that have magical emergent properties that allow you to effortlessly grapple with some of the hardest issues of time management or other organizational questions, but seem to be almost trivially unsophisticated on the surface. Not the least of these principles is the idea of a simple system being easier to stick to.