Goals then AoF? Or, Roles then Goals?

J

JeffB

0
I was reading this very engaging thread on Areas of Focus (AoF) and have a question based on this that I have been thinking on. http://forum.gettingthingsdone.com/f...responsibility

The questions on AoF actually struck close to home, due to my 7 Habits background. Covey encourages you to flesh out your major roles first, and then base your goals on your major life roles. (as Folke opined eloquently in the above thread, the use of the words "Roles" and "Areas of Focus" can be used interchangeably, and that jives with me...)

It seems that DA teaches that your Goals (Horizon 3) should come from your Vision (Horizon 4) and Purpose (Horizon 5). From their your Areas of Focus/Roles (Horizon 2) would come from the Goals that you have selected...

This isn't a life changing conversation or deal breaker for me, however, I am curious about how this group feels about the difference. Does it make sense to have Goals first that define your Roles, GTD style? Or is it better to inventory and define your Roles/AoF's first, then base your goals on that, 7 Habits style?

I am genuinely interested in all opinions, as I am here to learn. I appreciate whatever you feel you can share. Thanks.
 
From my perspective, it's a more organic process. On the one hand, at any moment there are AOFs that are part of my immediate reality. I have a job, I am part of a family, and I have a body I need to take care of. I don't need to clarify my life's purpose to know these things are important.

But if I am dissatisfied with any of my roles -- perhaps because I want a better job or to run a marathon -- clarifying the AOFs may suggest some longer-term goals, visions, etc. By the same token, thinking about my life's purpose, vision, and goals will naturally cause me to add to my AOFs, projects and next actions.

I think what's important is to clarify the actions and projects levels first to give you the comfort to think about the higher levels. Since you don't need to manage your thinking at the higher levels day-to-day, you can be a bit looser about how you clarify them, review them and use them to keep a clear head.

But that's just my perspective. There are others in these forums who prefer more structure and maybe they will chime in.
 
I agree that the process should be organic. In fact, like a lot of GTD, it's typically a big loop, or at least an ever-evolving intertwining of levels. The levels are structured in rough order of frequency of review. Sometimes Horizon 5 directly drives a next action, but then sometimes that next action may change your understanding of Horizon 5. I wouldn't worry much about getting it all right the first time. Capture what you think when you think it, and refine as you go. You're steering the ship, not building a house.
 
I also agree that the process should be organic. My own background with 7 Habits and Covey had me questioning how I view the Areas of Focus vs. Goals. From Covey's perspective, you assign goals for each of your identified roles (Areas of Focus). The end state is that you're giving appropriate attention to each area of your life. The way I interpret David Allen's advice is that you identify big goals and then the Areas of Focus needed to complete each goal. The difference is subtle. If I were to have a goal of growing a business, for example, my Areas of Focus might be: entrepreneur, marketing, financial management, and so forth. If I have a big goal of supporting my family, my roles might include husband, father, brother, son, etc. I'd want to ensure in my weekly review that each area is receiving appropriate attention and that my projects and next actions map to my goals and purpose.

In my opinion, both approaches accomplish the same thing, so it's all in how you're comfortable mapping out your higher horizons. The important thing is having clarity of the big picture.
 
mcogilvie said:
I agree that the process should be organic. In fact, like a lot of GTD, it's typically a big loop, or at least an ever-evolving intertwining of levels. The levels are structured in rough order of frequency of review. Sometimes Horizon 5 directly drives a next action, but then sometimes that next action may change your understanding of Horizon 5. I wouldn't worry much about getting it all right the first time. Capture what you think when you think it, and refine as you go. You're steering the ship, not building a house.
Click to expand...

This was very helpful in my understanding. Don't know why that didn't register, but the Horizons are a loop designed to be reviewed at certain times. Got it!

Count me as someone who has been stuck on my mission statement for a long time now. Would you say that the GTD approach to high level Horizons is to get you off your meta-physical rear and put your Purpose, Principle, and Vision (no matter if you call those things your "mission", etc) into action? If so, I think I just had a light bulb moment...
 
I agree it goes both ways, both up-down and down-up. In fact, I think it is very often like this in situations where you seem to have a choice between a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach, not only in GTD, especially if it is something you are not familiar with.

In such cases I personally tend to start at both ends and work my way towards the middle. In GTD terms, for me, this has meant leaving out levels 3 and 4 the longest. Levels 5, 1 and 0 seem to be the primary levels to me, and level 2 I find very useful, too, whereas levels 3-4 are mainly just a way of joining those primary levels in a structured way which is useful but far from necessary.

The same often goes when I undertake something new and exciting. I often try to form a good picture at an overall level of what the purpose might be and also a bunch of details at the bottom level of what I need to investigate or try in order to get going be able to determine what is even possible. And then the connecting structure comes from both ends.
 
I am sensing that I've been my own worst enemy on this score. "Mind like water" = relaxed. I've been trying to strangle my mission statement out of my head. That stops today. :)

Appreciate the very wise words everyone.
 
JeffB said:
This was very helpful in my understanding. Don't know why that didn't register, but the Horizons are a loop designed to be reviewed at certain times. Got it!

Count me as someone who has been stuck on my mission statement for a long time now. Would you say that the GTD approach to high level Horizons is to get you off your meta-physical rear and put your Purpose, Principle, and Vision (no matter if you call those things your "mission", etc) into action? If so, I think I just had a light bulb moment...
Click to expand...

Glad I helped. When it comes to those higher-level goals (3-4-5), it's always a work in progress for me. When I was reading books by Covey and Hyrum Smith, I never succeeded in writing a single coherent mission statement. Several years ago, I was in a meeting and someone said "We just have to all agree on the purpose of [an evaluation process], and we'll agree on what to do." I realized then that that there were too many different opinions about the purpose, and we would never agree, nor did we need to. We only needed to find something that worked for most of us. I have been content with a less top-down-driven approach since then, which is what GTD advocates: "If I want this, then I need to.." but also "I want all these because.." In other words, goals can be inferred or discovered from our projects and next actions.
 
Here's an interesting quote from Making It All Work on pg 115: "Training yourself to overcome the need to "have it all together" before you define what you're really seeking to finish or accomplish has a profound impact on your ability to get things done in a sustainable, relaxed way."

Soooo, that probably applies to me. :) Btw, I am really enjoying Making It All Work. Great follow up to GTD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top