Fine-tuning GTD: Should we use 7-minute "micro-tasks" instead of "Actions" ?
- Thread starter Ship69
- Start date
bcmyers2112
Registered
I think the issue of how much sustained attention is ideal is highly dependent on the individual, the nature of that person's job and personal lifestyle, and the types of actions and projects on that person's plate. There are some people who do best in environments where they can focus on one thing for extended periods, others who do better switching gears a lot (I tend to fall into this category), or something in between.
Regardless of where one falls on that spectrum, however, I think we're at a point where for the overwhelming majority of us the nature of our work (both professionally and personally) no longer affords us the luxury of working on only one project at a time until it is concluded. Many of my projects require short activities followed by lengthier waits: a phone call to my lawyer to ask why I haven't seen the estate planning documents he promised, an email to a sales prospect asking her to clarify a requirements document she sent to me, a skype sent to my boss asking him about the status of a couple of things he promised me (these are all real examples, by the way). Regardless of how I feel about this, the genie is out of the bottle.
One of the reasons why I gravitated to GTD was that the system was geared toward the world as I recognize it: one in which we are required to juggle lots of balls simultaneously, and where those who lack a better coping mechanism will find themselves buffeted by the waves of the "latest and loudest" rather than steering the ship in a direction of their choosing.
In my experience, having a complete and truly clarified inventory of what has my attention gives me the ability to focus as appropriate, whether that means for 30 seconds while I leave a voicemail for someone, or for an entire day working on a complex sales proposal. Moreover, it enables me to take advantage of interruptions that represent vital opportunities (such as a phone call from a sales prospect who suddenly has an urgent need to buy something within a short period of time) without having my world unravel. After all, I know what other tasks are on my plate, and if I decide that the newest input takes precedence over predefined actions, my actions list will be there waiting for me when the time comes to get back to them.
I said earlier that I've been trying to be less dogmatic about GTD, but I think I missed the mark with earlier posts in this thread. The issue for me isn't that the "seven-minute" rule "contradicts" GTD, and that wasn't great phrasing. After all, one thing I've learned from reading this forum is that there are many people who report successfully incorporating things that are not "by the book" such as time blocking.
But my own experience with GTD has been that any time I've found myself having trouble focusing on the task at hand, it's generally been because I've done an inadequate job of capturing and clarifying individual tasks and projects that are rattling my cage (like a sink at home that needs to be snaking that I kept forgetting to write down til this morning), or a poor job filtering everything through my higher level horizons (for instance, there's a small scratch on my car that I had an action item to fix til I realized I just don't really care about a little scratch on my car, and that's OK).
I've tried things like linking tasks to areas of focus, priority flags, daily to-do lists and more and in my experience they've always been the equivalent of applying a band-aid when the bleeding is internal. If someone else's experience is different, I can certainly respect that and would encourage them to share their point of view. I'm not trying to argue for the superiority of my viewpoint, but instead I am sharing it in the hopes that someone, somewhere might find it of value.
Regardless of where one falls on that spectrum, however, I think we're at a point where for the overwhelming majority of us the nature of our work (both professionally and personally) no longer affords us the luxury of working on only one project at a time until it is concluded. Many of my projects require short activities followed by lengthier waits: a phone call to my lawyer to ask why I haven't seen the estate planning documents he promised, an email to a sales prospect asking her to clarify a requirements document she sent to me, a skype sent to my boss asking him about the status of a couple of things he promised me (these are all real examples, by the way). Regardless of how I feel about this, the genie is out of the bottle.
One of the reasons why I gravitated to GTD was that the system was geared toward the world as I recognize it: one in which we are required to juggle lots of balls simultaneously, and where those who lack a better coping mechanism will find themselves buffeted by the waves of the "latest and loudest" rather than steering the ship in a direction of their choosing.
In my experience, having a complete and truly clarified inventory of what has my attention gives me the ability to focus as appropriate, whether that means for 30 seconds while I leave a voicemail for someone, or for an entire day working on a complex sales proposal. Moreover, it enables me to take advantage of interruptions that represent vital opportunities (such as a phone call from a sales prospect who suddenly has an urgent need to buy something within a short period of time) without having my world unravel. After all, I know what other tasks are on my plate, and if I decide that the newest input takes precedence over predefined actions, my actions list will be there waiting for me when the time comes to get back to them.
I said earlier that I've been trying to be less dogmatic about GTD, but I think I missed the mark with earlier posts in this thread. The issue for me isn't that the "seven-minute" rule "contradicts" GTD, and that wasn't great phrasing. After all, one thing I've learned from reading this forum is that there are many people who report successfully incorporating things that are not "by the book" such as time blocking.
But my own experience with GTD has been that any time I've found myself having trouble focusing on the task at hand, it's generally been because I've done an inadequate job of capturing and clarifying individual tasks and projects that are rattling my cage (like a sink at home that needs to be snaking that I kept forgetting to write down til this morning), or a poor job filtering everything through my higher level horizons (for instance, there's a small scratch on my car that I had an action item to fix til I realized I just don't really care about a little scratch on my car, and that's OK).
I've tried things like linking tasks to areas of focus, priority flags, daily to-do lists and more and in my experience they've always been the equivalent of applying a band-aid when the bleeding is internal. If someone else's experience is different, I can certainly respect that and would encourage them to share their point of view. I'm not trying to argue for the superiority of my viewpoint, but instead I am sharing it in the hopes that someone, somewhere might find it of value.
Last edited:
bcmyers2112
Registered
My experience has been the same.
KNielsen
Registered
Yeah, it really depends on the context and time and atmosphere (internally in my head and externally).
You summarized the Lewis (the book):
I especially noted "on average" and that the advise is precisely 7 minute time-blocks ...
As you can ask many business, personal, political and creative goals; why does average dictate a good goal for all of us/me?
You summarized the Lewis (the book):
I especially noted "on average" and that the advise is precisely 7 minute time-blocks ...
As you can ask many business, personal, political and creative goals; why does average dictate a good goal for all of us/me?
severance1970
Registered
That's the way it started. Next Action thinking guru Dean Acheson (not the former US Secretary of State) first came up with the rule, "Is this a short action?" By "short," he meant: Would it take longer to write down and review later than it would be to just do in the first place? David reified it into the Two-Minute Rule. Two minutes is arbitrary, but it has the advantage of being less subjective and more user friendly. As long as the underlying principle is understood, there's no harm in accepting the dogma and adjusting as needed.
bcmyers2112
Registered
I suppose one could. And if it works for someone, great. For myself, I'd be concerned about that putting me in a constant reactive mode where I'm driven by the latest and loudest rather than acting purposefully and with a plan. One of the things I like about the processing phase of GTD is that it acts like a filter, putting me in a frame of mind where it's easier to make decisions about what to engage with, and when. Not everything that comes into my life deserves to be acted on immediately. And some of it doesn't warrant being acted on at all.
severance1970
Registered
One sitting is a commonly inferred requirement for next actions, but David has stated otherwise. “Draft report” might take multiple sittings, but as long as it has no dependencies (e.g. research and outlining are done), it’s a next action. Depending on the anticipated length of a sitting and your other schedule commitments, it’s sometimes worthwhile to block out the action as a calendar entry.
Call me cynical, but the 7 Minute Life, like the 7 Minute Workout, seems driven by the perceived time famine of dilettantes rather than being derived from actual concentration threshold research. Seven minutes can be more than enough for rote tasks, but for anything intellectually demanding, like answering a difficult email with finesse, such a short interval is insufficient for gaining cognitive momentum.
My experience with timer-based prescriptions like the Pomodoro Technique is that they’re useful for getting into flow, but not maintaining it. I find that it takes up to 20 minutes to reach a productive level of focus, and that an alarm at the end of this interval is a colossal distraction. There are times when two or three shorter timed focus sessions are useful, like chipping away at first blank page of a new novel; longer commitments can be intimidating for new tasks without prior experience. If 7-minute windows help overcome resistance to getting started, by all means, use them, but don’t balkanize your attention making a ritual out of them.
So many sevens. Sounds more like numerology than cognitive science.
I find it psychologically healthier to capture and process everything rather than let something as arbitrary as paper size determine the window of my attention. A set of project and action lists, however large, feels finite as long as the review is carried through to completion. Incomplete lists, however short, feel infinite and will always generate a liminal anxiety from the metal flotsam of unmanaged things hovering in peripheral attention. “You can only feel good about what you’re not doing when you know what you’re not doing.”
Attention is a muscle that needs to be strengthened over time. If 25 minutes is too long, set a timer for 10 minutes, take a short break, then go for another timed session. One or two shorter sprints as “stretch sessions” are useful for laying track, experiencing doing. After your second or third timed sprint, let your intuition tell you whether or not you still need the timer. Once you’re in the zone, there’s no reason to let an alarm take you out of it.[/quote]