Reader request: Feed the IdeaMatt!

Sorry for the delayed posting these last few weeks. I've been working on v1.2 of my workshop for an up-coming on-site series, and it's dimmed the lights (a term a favorite client came up with) on other projects.

(Sidebar: Why dimming the lights can be bad: While I recommend against this practice I've been drawn into it, and it stinks. Not only because it's stressful, but because the promise of "simultaneous progress on multiple projects" falls apart. Yes there's a dozen small - 5-15 minute - tasks on my list, and each one would not take much effort, but drat it's hard make them go when overshadowed by a big difficult project with a near term deadline. Makes one think of urgent/important, eh? And of course: Teaching this doesn't mean I'm perfect at practicing it myself. No mistake, I'm good at it, but "practice what you preach" is always good advice for me. How about you - do you dim the lights? What's the impact? And how do you avoid it?)

OK, so we interrupt the usual broadcast etc. to bring you a special request:

Send me good stuff!

I love to receive timely and relevant articles and news relating to productivity, and it helps my development of ideas here on this blog. Why am I asking you? Because you're a terrific resource: 1) you know what I like, 2) you're out there reading the best productivity sites (don't deny it - I attract what Pamela Slim called my "smartie productivity geeks" (paraphrasing here - sorry, Pam!), 3) you know I'll read and integrate it into my Big-Arse Text File, and 4) I'm lazy. And hey - If you want to help people you gotta' know what they want, right? :-)

Are you up for it? Email your goodies to brain@matthewcornell.org. Samples of things I loved getting:

• Anything from the Harvard Business Review
  
• The power of a note
  
• How to dig out from the information avalanche
  
• What would you do with an extra day?
  

Variation: Feel free to snail-mail things - contact information here.

So please: Feed the IdeaMatt! No job too big or small! We aim to please; your aim helps! (Further sidebar: I'm continuing to develop the idea of living an experimental lifestyle, and I'll be treating this request as such. Like my A Daily Planning Experiment, these results are fun to write about, they often influence my worldview, and sometimes inform my consulting practice - the daily plan is now a fundamental recommendation, for example. [sound of lab book opening...] Cheers!)

IdeaLab 0604: Giving, horse mouths, allergic cars, and a 2x2 matrix grab-bag

(Note: Coming soon, a thought-provoking interview of Scott Ginsberg - a variation on my interview series. Stay tuned!)

• Life's more interesting at the boundaries: That's why getting out of the comfort zone can be so rewarding. For example, gifts: The once with the greatest possible impact (read surprise + delight) require being on the "I love it!"/"Hmmm. Interesting" boundary. Giving a good one requires knowing the recipient well, plus taking a chance. But there's a risk! It might spectacularly fall flat.
  
  
• What do we always have to give?: Compassion, love, attention, quality listening, a positive attitude, inspiration, support (for being courageous/making change). Others? My friend Samantha Bennett says "Our identity and our ability to choose." Wow.
  
  
• Some accidental mashups of folk wisdom:
  
  
  • Don't bite a gift horse in the mouth.
    
  • "This package been pampered with" (from my seven year old daughter :-)
    
  • Too many griddles on the skillet.
    
  • A bird in the hand gathers no moss
    
  
  
  
• Is it all about prioritizing and reminding?: I think first about this from Nicholas Bate, and was reminded when reading Constant, Constant, Multi-tasking Craziness:

  Because frequent interruptions are expected we noticed that some of our subjects use special artifacts that help them to PRIORITIZE and MAINTAIN [ed: my emphasis] their attention over their working spheres. These artifacts function like containers in that they hold information about central working spheres. The information included in the artifact plays the role of a REMINDER and, as pointed out by Miyata and Norman [8], it both SIGNALS the working sphere to be attended to and DESCRIBES with some detail what has to be remembered. The artifact is often updated across the day with results when work within a sphere has to be postponed.

  
  
  
• Energy doesn't scale: In consulting and business, if you have to put more energy into something to generate income each time, it's not going to allow scalable growth. The opposite is products (information, software, atoms, etc): Yes there's a large up-front expenditure of energy, but it pays off after that with very low (or now) additional work on your part. (From my very good friend Liza's Power of One Blog: The Secret of Scalable Business.)
  
  
• Two questions to ask when inviting something into your life: "Does it change the way I think, or make me smile?" Or maybe: "Does this help me professionally (do my job) or personally (give joy)?" Stimulated partly by VII Pillars Of Productivity:

  A basic principle of information economics is that information has no economic value if it doesn't change a decision.

  
  
  
• Make cars allergic to people: My daughter and I came up with this when reflecting on the insanity of allowing these dangerous machines (fast, heavy, relatively uncontrolled, polluting) near where people walk. The idea is to mandate all autos come with a human proximity sensor governor. when. This would force cars to slow down (or completely stop!) when around people. Wouldn't this incentive drive people to take routes that avoid high pedestrian areas? Imagine!
  
  
• The 2x2 matrix: In Value-Based Fees Alan Weiss says "I can prove anything on a double-axis chart." This little tool [1] is lots of fun, though, and can lead to insights. A few examples follow (cell names are definitely beta).
  
  
• 2x2: Thought About vs. Decided:
  • No thought, No decision: Stuck?
    
  • No thought, Decision: Loose cannon?
    
  • Thought, No decision: Procrastinating sufferer?
    
  • Thought, Decision: Wow!
  
  
  
• 2x2: Style vs. Talent:
  • No style, No talent: Stuck?
    
  • No style, Talent: Competent?
    
  • Style, No talent: Flamboyant?
    
  • Style, Talent: wow!
  
  
  
• 2x2...blog?: From What If You......started a blog on a very tiny topic? How about a 2x2matrix blog? I'd be pretty surprised if someone hasn't done one yet... I'd be fun, though.
  
  
• 2x2...?: What are your favorites?
  
  
• "Crusty jugglers": From a hilariously odd scene in Hot Fuzz. A video
  Ohrwurm (eyewurm?) for me. (Related: Check out Mathematician Has Popular Equation Stuck In Head All Day.)
  
  
• So now you want to know me!: Here's a networking test: Are you thinking of re-connecting with someone who you didn't take the time to get to know in the past, but whom you realize could now be of use to you? Bad news: It's pretty much irreversible with these folks. Good news: Change the way you look at people in your life now. Importantly: Practice palm upnetworking.
  
  
• When does incremental processing not make sense?: That is, when is it better to let work collect and do it as a batch? Examples of when incremental wins: Small tasks that, individually are simple and fast to enter. For example, entering business receipts, processing business cards, shredding papers, daily checkbook balancing (if possible). Thoughts?
  
  
• Why you never heard "I lost three hours surfing my microwave": One problem with modern work: A general purpose desktop computer is too general for humans to maintain focus. Because this one machine makes so much is possible, we get distracted and drawn in. Similar: TV. Unlike years ago when one artifact did pretty much one thing. Books are different of course - worlds unto themselves. Libraries are an interesting example. Bad if you're trying to work on one things ("yum! soooo many nice books..."), but great if you're open to happy accidents as a side effect of the shelving algorithm. Compare this to a mixer/blender. Biggest choices: grind, frazzle, explode... ?
  
  
• How to use your IM status message for productivity: The default iChat choices for status include the expected ones like "Available," "Away," and "Out to lunch." I tried changing mine to match the workflow phases I teach - Gathering, Emptying, Planning, and Acting, and I found it helped me be clearer about what I'm doing in the moment. It also helped me stay focused when temptations arrived. What about adding non-productive ones like "wasting time" or "multitasking?" You could use Twitter the same way too. Related: A GTD WorkFlow Tool: The Five Stages On A Business Card Cube.
  
  

References

• [1] Apparently I'm not alone in my love for these things. Check out: 2x2 matrix illuminates strategies and An Infamous 2X2 Matrix. There's even a book of ~50 great ones from business: The Power of the 2 x 2 Matrix: Using 2x2 Thinking to Solve Business Problems and Make Better Decisions.
  

What are the laws of work?

This comment by JP on my post 10 GTD "holes" (and How To Plug Them) got me thinking about whether there's a set of laws (JP more correctly called them postulates) of how we (i.e., "knowledge workers") manage ourselves (i.e., "work") in our CrazyBusy (i.e., "insane") lives.

Here I'd like to play with the idea and to ask you: Is there a small set of axioms that fully describe the challenges we face? Huge question, but my hope is we can reason from first principles to create (or validate) methods for metawork [1]. Stimulated by JP's comment I started with four categories: Time, Attention, and Environment, and tossed in some ideas for each.

What do you think? I'm shooting for something here that's good enough to criticize.

Time

Time has special properties. For example, it is irreversible, it can't be invested, and is limited in supply. The article 169 Time Management Tips has a nice section on this: 12 Important Characteristics of Time:

1. It is an economic resource
   
2. It cannot be expanded or contracted
   
3. It is irrecoverable and irreplaceable
   
4. It is expensive and precious
   
5. It is highly perishable
   
6. Most of what is called 'cost' is the cost of time
   
7. It is a flow from past to present to future in the context of experience
   
8. It is a flow from future to present to past in the context of planning
   
9. The flow is one way and irreversible
   
10. It is quantifiable (seconds, days, years)
    
11. All processes that we manage are time processes
    
12. Time is the dimension in which change takes place (space is the dimension in which motion takes place)

Attention

As a function of how our brains work, we should be able to tap into brain research to infer some axioms. For example, attention seems to have a fragile quality, and it can be very sensitive to attention requests (internal and external). Other aspects of mind: They risk perfectionism, avoid fear, and form habits (or not).

The Secret Pulse of Time has some useful thoughts, including:

• Experimental evidence that our attention is automatically directed inward when there is little else to occupy. The author calls it Banal Banter.
  
• Attention is porous.
  
• The three main stages of the executive function are working memory, attention and self control.
  
• Fear and anxiety [themes] grab people's attention.

Another possibility: Does the Yerkes-Dodson Law apply? From Aiming for the Brain's Sweet Spot:

The Yerkes-Dodson Law pieces together two distinct dynamics: The downward curve of the inverted U shows the negative effects of stress on thinking and learning, or performance in general. The upward part reflects the energizing effect of arousal and interest.

Environment

Our modern environments overlay constraints. What are they? A few thoughts:

• Interruptions are unpredictable, frequent, and central. Two types: internal (see attention above) and external (e.g., email, people). (Question: Is it all about attention requests?)
  
• There will always be more work to do than is possible (at least for most of us).
  
• Work arrives disorganized.
  
• Not all work is important (the Trivial Many vs. Vital Few).
  
• What's the role of Parkinson's law and productivity?
  
• Artifacts naturally spread themselves out.
  

Future

I'd like to develop this to a point where we can create a methodology (or adapt current ones) that are consistent with it. Questions:

How do goals and values fit in?

How can we structure our environments for success? Fritz's Path of Least Resistance should play a big role here.

How can we use our perception of time? (See Perception of Time & Priorities: Polychronic vs. Monochronic, and the extensive entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

Can we apply work like Maeda's The Laws of Simplicity? Summary: 7 Tips to Manage and Use Your Attention Wisely:

• Law 1: Reduce - The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction.
  
• Law 2: Organize - Organization makes a system of many appear fewer.
  
• Law 3: Time - Savings in time feel like simplicity.
  
• Law 4: Learn - Knowledge makes everything simpler.
  
• Law 5: Differences - Simplicity and complexity need each other.
  
• Law 6: Context - What lies in the periphery of simplicity is definitely not peripheral.
  
• Law 7: Emotion - More emotions are better than less.
  
• Law 8: Trust - In simplicity we trust.
  
• Law 9: Failure - Some things can never be made simple.
  
• Law 10: The one - Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful.

References

• [1] This comes from Constant, Constant, Multi-tasking Craziness, a paper by González and Mark at University of California, Irvine:

  Individuals spend part of their day on a set of activities that is not connected with any specific working sphere but rather related to the management of all of them. We call these activities metawork. People periodically conduct metawork throughout the day, which involves coordination, checking activities, organizing email, organizing their desk at the start or end of a working day, and catching up with teammates on what they have missed.

  
  

What if you...

...ignored people who said "You shouldn't..."?

What if it was new, risky, or uncertain? What if you invited those people out of your life?

...told yourself it's OK you made that embarrassing copy/paste error in an important email?

You might even generate a chuckle or two (at least from yourself). What if you're still ruminating about it on your death bed?

...refused to pay attention to conventional wisdom?

What if you don't want to do it, don't like doing it, or aren't good at it? What if it sounds reasonable. What if it's some "know you should be" advice?

...listened to yourself and did something you believe in?

Even if everyone else warned you off?

...decided not to ever catch up on your RSS backlog?

Would it really matter? Maybe you're probably already reading the important ones?

...had a conversation where you only listened and asked questions?

What if you don't get to make a point? What if you do this with someone you don't like or don't agree with?

...took a minute to ask about someone's life?

What if she carries your mail, picks up your garbage, or works in customer service? Would this change anything - for either of you?

...dropped that client who a) you don't like, and b) is pushing you to lower your rates?

What if you raised the rates you charge them?

...decided to expand your social network?

When's the last time you actively looked for new friends? What if someone says no?

...substituted wit for profanity and sarcasm?

What if it was hard to do?

...reflected for a few days on that compliment you received?

Is that a better use of your wetware than mulling the negative?

...always had three questions that apply to anyone in any social situation

How about "What do you do for a living?", "What do you love about your work?", or "What makes your job hard?"

...made a big effort to listen to someone's name when you're introduced?

People really like to hear their own names. And they do notice when you try to converse when you can't remember them.

...started a personal humor regime?

Kaizen it: Notice one little thing that surprised and delighted you each day.

...got more comfortable with not knowing where you're going?

Would it help you to better enjoy the ride?

...put "please" at the start of sentences instead of at the end?

Would "Would you please __" convey something different than "Would you __ please?"

...listened to that little "Maybe I should..." voice the moment you hear it?

How about when you think you recognize someone? Or when something attracts your attention, but you're afraid to go over because you'll attract a little attention.

...sent free books to people when they show interest during a conversation?

What if you didn't tell them? What if you did this with everyone?

...said yes even though it's a stretch?

What could you learn? What if you look bad or fail?

...started a blog on a very tiny topic?

What if each post was one sentence. What if it was funny? How about "Medical words you really don't to hear your doctor use" or "Funny things my kid said"? Would it change how you see the world?

...went one whole evening without turning on your laptop?

Or checking your Blackberry? Kaizen it: Just one night. What if instead you spent it with someone you love?

...called one of your competitors just to chat?

What if they said no? What if it was uncomfortable?

...lowered your standards and planned to do less tomorrow?

What if someone noticed? How would you feel after?

...tracked things you love doing during your workweek?

Kaizen it: Just one week. What if they were far less frequent that those you hate doing, or are no good at? What could you do about it?

...there was a name for all this?

"Experience?" "Maturing?" "Living?"

A daily planning experiment: two weeks of accountable rigorous action

(An update: I am delighted to announce my guide, Where the !@#% did my day go? The ultimate guide to making every day a great workday, a downloadable PDF. I've updated, improved, and expanded the idea of daily planning with worksheets, answers to common questions, example plans, and unique experiments to get insights into how you use your time. It also ties in important topics like prioritizing, procrastinating, handling interruptions, and finishing your entire list - getting a "touchdown." Take a look! -- matt)

For the last two weeks I tried an exacting method to help make solid daily progress, to which I added the extra spice of an accountability partner to keep me on track. The goal was to determine if the traditional productivity advice to plan each day ahead of time works better than an ad hoc "select the next action in the moment" one, as popularized by David Allen's Getting Things Done (GTD) methodology, among others. This is meant to plug one of the 10 GTD "holes" I identified recently.

Here's what I did: For two weeks I did a nightly planning session for the next day, which I then worked from. To plan, I printed my calendar and all my actions as a list, then went through a simple estimating and prioritizing process: Calculate available hours (workday minus calendar, personal time, and emptying inboxes), review your master task list, pick a handful to include, compare to available and adjust (painful!) During the day I used this list by 1) sticking to it (!), 2) tracking actual time spent on each action, and 3) logging interruptions (both internal and external) that took me off plan.

For accountability I committed to sending check-in emails at the start and end of the day. The morning message was simply a list of what I wanted to accomplish that day (split into "must dos" and "like to dos"), and the evening one summarized what I actually did, with a short analysis.

The result: Very helpful, and a real eye-opener. Two surprises: Emptying my inboxes always took at least two hours per day (the consequence of what I've invited into my life - notes from meetings and reading, ideas, and the usual "stuff of life"). And: Everything always takes more time than expected. A general guideline: Double estimates. (This should get better with feedback.)

More specifically, daily planning was helpful because it forced me to think about what's important (prioritizing), what's possible (being realistic), how much time a task should take (estimating), and how much time the work actually took. Finally, it helped me focus by constraining choices, mostly by being a closed list [1] that I wasn't allowed to add to; my only edit choice was to check things off. Overall: Highly recommended. I'm now integrating this into my consulting as the main way to choose from a large master list of work to do.

Future: I'll definitely keep doing this. The exercise/ritual builds in a comprehensive review, and makes explicit my action choices. What's more, there's a gold mine of information to use for positive feedback, including:

• more accurate estimates ala Extreme Programming [2],
  
• better focus (staying on target),
  
• more realistic about expectations, and
  
• more aware of and manage distractions.
  

Finally, there's a larger piece at work here - deciding what constitutes a "good workday." This is relevant because I found myself being a too-demanding self manager. At the end of many days I felt dissatisfied with my accomplishments, which is both discouraging (didn't I do enough?) and just plain wrong (I did a lot!) The estimated-vs-actual task information is helpful in working out what is realistic. And this leads to making those tough choices around that basic productivity question: What should I be doing? I'll have to re-read the wisdom of lowering my standards (see Great Time Management Ideas From The World Of Improv Wisdom, esp. the fifth maxim: Be Average).

My Idea Collaborator Liza writes more about "What makes for a good work day?" at Power of One Blog: A Whole New Work Day.

What do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts on any of this, including the experiments in daily planning you've tried.

References

• [1] For more see Are Daily To-do Lists And GTD Compatible? and Mark Forster's Do It Tomorrow.
  
• [2] I've written about XP and productivity here, including Is GTD The "Extreme Programming" Of Time Management?. And no, I'm not talking about the XP that is giving Eric Mack fits (heh heh heh).