7 Habits of Highly Effective People Recommendation of Weekly Planning

[ivanjay205]

I am in the midst of reading 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and the parallels to GTD are really great.

I am in the chapter currently dealing with the quadrants and also the time management principles. Learning to say no which I did today and it felt great! That being said, one principle I can resonate with that Stephen refers to is deferring to Quadrant 4 as a safe space. And to help combat that he highly recommends planning the major milestones in Quadrant 2 you want to hit.

Years ago I tried the full focus planner. I did enjoy it, but fell back to Omnifocus and GTD. A major principle in the full focus planner system is the weekly big 3. Essentially mirroring what Stephen is referring to where on Sunday (or whenever you do your planning) you map out the 3 most important bigger picture ideas you want to accomplish in addition to all of the "small stuff."

Based on all of this:

1. Do you follow this weekly plan allow that is one thing that seems to contradict GTD where we let contexts and time dictate our energy
2. If you do, and if you by chance use OmniFocus or similar, how do you set that up to ensure it happens?
3. Anyone use the full focus planner in conjunction or in lieu of GTD? I love the idea of the paper book except for when I am not carrying it lol. My phone is always in my pocket hence why I go back to that.
4. Any tricks or best practices as they related to GTD to allow yourself to stay in Quadrant 2? In my GTD system where I clearly define my Areas of Focus and my next actions based on context and time I really do not have anyway of identifying it. Is it worth another tagging system? And a perspective in OmniFocus to view these quadrants?

Thanks!

 

[Tom_Hagen]

In my opinion, all these systems can be complementary to the GTD stage - choosing what to do. Let's be honest - this element of GTD is poorly described. Of course, Allen writes in detail about contexts, energy levels, priorities, horizons of focus, which certainly helps to make a choice but - intentionally - does not introduce the only right solution. Rather, it limits itself to the statement: do and choose as you feel comfortable with it. Hence there will be supporters of sticking to one project until it is completed, there will be supporters of the Eisenhower Matrix or ABC, there will be supporters of Keller's "one thing", and finally there will be those who prefer pushing multiple projects one step each day. I don't know if there is any right solution. The GTD system alone does not solve these types of issues. Rather, it serves to clear the mind, ensure that no idea escapes, organize all commitments, etc. However, it does not give a clear strategy on how to deal with all this. Perhaps Allen is right not to give a single canonical solution, perhaps each of us has to work out our own solution - to feel comfortable with it.

 

[ivanjay205]

In my opinion, all these systems can be complementary to the GTD stage - choosing what to do. Let's be honest - this element of GTD is poorly described. Of course, Allen writes in detail about contexts, energy levels, priorities, horizons of focus, which certainly helps to make a choice but - intentionally - does not introduce the only right solution. Rather, it limits itself to the statement: do and choose as you feel comfortable with it. Hence there will be supporters of sticking to one project until it is completed, there will be supporters of the Eisenhower Matrix or ABC, there will be supporters of Keller's "one thing", and finally there will be those who prefer pushing multiple projects one step each day. I don't know if there is any right solution. The GTD system alone does not solve these types of issues. Rather, it serves to clear the mind, ensure that no idea escapes, organize all commitments, etc. However, it does not give a clear strategy on how to deal with all this. Perhaps Allen is right not to give a single canonical solution, perhaps each of us has to work out our own solution - to feel comfortable with it.

It makes sense but I really wish that David Allen would describe a system or optimal approach. But I guess that isn't happening lol. I am debating on going to a planner and as part of my weekly review identifying my big goals for the following week or at least some key accomplishments. Otherwise I find I get in the "rut" of my next action list without having any sense of prioritization. That being said I am in the midst of re-engineering my system and I think a lack of attention to my horizon of focus and meaningful contexts has led my system to be more about maintaining my AOF rather than developing them. So that is getting my attention first to see what happens. perhaps allI really need is to change the nature of what is on my lists.

 

[mcogilvie]

A bit of history: The Franklin planner company was in malls across the US in the early 1990’s as they brought corporate time management to the masses, in particular the A1, B2,… daily prioritization which David Allen says, correctly IMHO, doesn’t work. They eventually “merged” with the Covey organization (were acquired by them). Although Covey had a planner product, they did not have a practical system for living one’s life day-to-day, week by week. The combined company had problems integrating the two product lines, and ended up out of the retail business, largely due to an inadequate response to the rise of digital technologies. This is where David Allen thrived, with an agnostic approach to implementation, and an appreciation of which issues were universal and which were not.

This is not just a b-school case study, or a part of the history of ideas about personal productivity and time management. Millions of people have read the books by Hyrum Smith (Franklin), Covey and Allen and attempted to put their ideas into practice. Covey’s ideas about “staying in Quadrant 2” (important but not urgent) appeal to us both as the outer manifestation of equanimity and as the Olympian viewpoint of a business leader. I could go on about our collective embrace of “Eastern” and “Western” ideas, but the appeal is clear. As David Allen very clearly points out, none of us live our lives this way. Neglect of Quadrant 4 (not urgent and not important) eventually catches up with us, because things in Q4 have a way of moving into Q1 when we are not looking.

 

[TesTeq]

I don't know if there is any right solution. The GTD system alone does not solve these types of issues.

@Tom_Hagen I think that's the biggest advantage of GTD: it doesn't try to solve things that are not solvable! It gives us tools but doesn't force us to use them in the "only right" way.

It makes sense but I really wish that David Allen would describe a system or optimal approach.

@ivanjay205 There's no optimal approach. I like to work on one Project (switching Contexts), other people like to work in one Context (switching Projects). Some people must process hundreds of emails daily, others… hundreds of emails yearly. And GTD is compatible with all those needs!

 

[schmeggahead]

Covey’s ideas about “staying in Quadrant 2” (important but not urgent) appeal to us both as the outer manifestation of equanimity and as the Olympian viewpoint of a business leader.

What a boring life it would be to be in Quadrant 2 all of the time. Fire drills are a part of life from that little pesky detail of the unforeseen that exists in our lives (and the not-yet-experienced part too).

When David talks about deciding to do nothing that is on his lists, isn't that sort of Quadrant 4?

Still, the quadrants are a tool that David talks about using to help you navigate. If you are a fireman, you will inevitably be in Quadrant 1.

I used the DayTimer for a number of years without and with GTD and the Franklin Covey products. They served me well in the day. GTD is easier, but requires more skillset building which for me makes it more worthwhile.

Clayton

Squirrels are like cigarettes: Largely harmless until you stick one in your mouth and set it on fire. - Spaf

 

[mcogilvie]

QUOTE="schmeggahead, post: 136379, member: 6410"]
I used the DayTimer for a number of years without and with GTD and the Franklin Covey products. They served me well in the day. GTD is easier, but requires more skillset building which for me makes it more worthwhile.
[/QUOTE]

I used a Franklin planner when I was a new assistant professor and had small kids. It was all Quadrant 1.

Long after Covey took over Franklin, Hyrum Smith admitted he didn’t actually use the Franklin planner the way he taught it, and many of the stories he used in teaching were embellished. I think this highlights the problem of appealing theoretical constructs which lack empirical grounding, especially when combined with hucksterism and self-delusion.

 

[Matt_M]

I confess that I have not read Covey's book (I own it, but I have not read it yet) so my knowledge of the source material is quite limited. However, I think there are a slew of issues with the productivity methodology world, some of them being:

• No methodology can guarantee results as nobody can be forced to do any particular methodology. Much like no toothbrush can guarantee no cavities because no toothbrush can force you to brush your teeth.
• Methodologies can sometimes turn into their own form of work. There is a definite correlation to the people that like productivity methodologies and the people who focus on the process for the sake of the process (a.k.a. deck shuffling on the titanic).
• All methodologies are incomplete because society moves on, values change, technology and environments change, markets change, etc. It is impossible to create a timeless methodology simply because the world is changing so much faster than ever before (just rewind 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, and 100 years).
• People will often interpret any methodology into much stricter dogma than may have been originally intended. On the other side of the coin, productivity gurus need to make money so they have to sell their work.

I agree with the earlier comment by @Tom_Hagen that GTD absolutely has shortcomings. Whether that was an oversight or inspired wisdom, is a mystery. However, I don't believe GTD was ever shooting for: the be all, end all to everyone and everything under the sun. It had a very particular and focused objective: get things out of your head and into a trusted system so that you could do any of the other approaches, your own approach, or nothing at all.

I tend to mix all sorts of methodologies, approaches, and philosophies whether it be classic management theory, GTD, Eisenhower Matrix, ABC, Agile, Scrum, Kanban, Six Sigma, Lean, etc. as they all bring something unique enough to the table and formulate a piece of the overall puzzle. I think it's wishful thinking to expect any one approach to be the best, optimal, or the one true way. It's a conglomeration of them by taking the best parts of each and discarding what may not work for you, your industry, or your goals. It's like a lot of other things in life: there is no such thing as perfection (no matter how many of us would really, really like there to be).

Those are my thoughts anyway. Good discussion so far.

 

[ivanjay205]

I am reading 7 habits actively and I think the thought of only being in q2 is severely idealistic. The reality is there are routine things that may be less important and less urgent that still have to get done. And important is SUPER subjective.

I also think when in a leadership position q1 is a real reality and the reason you are in leadership is typically you excel at resolving those items quickly and efficiently.

I do understand the importance of developing q2 projects in gtd and for those not following my other thread I went through a complete update to my system this weekend. Part of what that did is really open my eyes to not enough development projects around my vision and goals. A bit too much in maintenance mode so that will be a focus in my next weekly review to develop or at least ideate on some of those ideas or set a next action to brainstorm on them.

 

[schmeggahead]

Long after Covey took over Franklin, Hyrum Smith admitted he didn’t actually use the Franklin planner the way he taught it, and many of the stories he used in teaching were embellished. I think this highlights the problem of appealing theoretical constructs which lack empirical grounding, especially when combined with hucksterism and self-delusion.

I got that feeling after taking the course "What Matters Most."

Looking at the workbook (©1998) and my notes, there's a lot of GTD-esk concepts in it. Is it true, what am I going to do about it. How much do I control what I'm doing, Use only one system and eliminate floating paper and customize your system. There's even a hint of the proper use of calendar with Time specific, Time flexible, but it really misses the point because date/time independent items have no place in the system. It includes a kind of processing of the day's note pages (daily review) and an explicit Weekly Planning. It had a lot of higher horizons work and even roles (areas of focus). Control opens opportunity. The four quadrants in the book are labeled 1. Necessity, 2. Leadership, 3. Deception and 4. Waste/Default.

It kind of primed me for GTD concepts that were clarified and made more useful.

The interesting thing is there are long range goals that I just put into my system from this old workbook that I now know how to properly process.
Clayton

Is it useful and helpful? - Criteria for passing on information or feedback.

 

[mcogilvie]

I got that feeling after taking the course "What Matters Most."

Looking at the workbook (©1998) and my notes, there's a lot of GTD-esk concepts in it. Is it true, what am I going to do about it. How much do I control what I'm doing, Use only one system and eliminate floating paper and customize your system. There's even a hint of the proper use of calendar with Time specific, Time flexible, but it really misses the point because date/time independent items have no place in the system. It includes a kind of processing of the day's note pages (daily review) and an explicit Weekly Planning. It had a lot of higher horizons work and even roles (areas of focus). Control opens opportunity. The four quadrants in the book are labeled 1. Necessity, 2. Leadership, 3. Deception and 4. Waste/Default.

It kind of primed me for GTD concepts that were clarified and made more useful.

The interesting thing is there are long range goals that I just put into my system from this old workbook that I now know how to properly process.
Clayton

I agree completely. When I first ran across David Allen’s work, I immediately felt like what I was reading resonated with my own experiences and addressed the problems I had encountered with other systems. The effort with the Franklin-Covey material wasn’t wasted, but it wasn’t as nearly as effective as I had hoped.

 

[ivanjay205]

I agree completely. When I first ran across David Allen’s work, I immediately felt like what I was reading resonated with my own experiences and addressed the problems I had encountered with other systems. The effort with the Franklin-Covey material wasn’t wasted, but it wasn’t as nearly as effective as I had hoped.

I cannot speak to Franklin-Covey as I never read it. I dont remember where I found GTD or how. And truthfully I started implementing it from software and google searches before I fully read the book. It was an on and off read for a couple of years, soft implementation... Eventually went back and properly read the book and lots of tweaking since to get me to where I am today.

I dont know how to explain it to people (and my colleagues I think find me annoying about it) but the system resonates and just works. I am a VERY forgetful person yet I forget nothing. I have complete clarity in what I do. However, when I dont do my weekly review (which is very rare as I am diligent about it) it sets me off like no other. I am anxious and unable to relax. My wife even knows and will tell me to go do my review so I can chill out lol.

I have moved away from it countless times as I am a persistent tweaker always trying to improve or try the new software and I always come back to my same system and find myself so much more engaged in my work when I am in that state. To the point where I bury a next action in my system to surface once a month to tell me to stay the course and not waste hours to move to a new system.

For example right now I am in that mode where I have work to do but I feel my work schedule a bit lighter and under control and I can take some of those bigger ideas on my horizons and grab a couple into my system. What a great place to be!