GTD for Managers

[Scharin]

Any pointers on using GTD as a manager?

I currently have the following lists (categories in Outlook or contexts in GTD) set up for each of my directs:
* Surname - Agenda
* Surname - Waiting For
* Surname - Projects

This seems to work fairly well for me, because it covers all of the things I need to talk about next time I meet with them (Agendas), all of the tasks I've delegated (Waiting for), and all of their larger responsibilities (Projects).

I'd be interested in hearing how other people manage their teams with GTD.

Thanks.

 

[mcogilvie]

Any pointers on using GTD as a manager?

I currently have the following lists (categories in Outlook or contexts in GTD) set up for each of my directs:
* Surname - Agenda
* Surname - Waiting For
* Surname - Projects

This seems to work fairly well for me, because it covers all of the things I need to talk about next time I meet with them (Agendas), all of the tasks I've delegated (Waiting for), and all of their larger responsibilities (Projects).

I'd be interested in hearing how other people manage their teams with GTD.

Thanks.

I think many people have one list of waiting fors, with entries like "WF Tom re XXXX". Similarly for Agendas and Delegated Projects. Too many contexts otherwise.

 

[mih]

Your structure seems OK.

I have one Projects-Delegated list that contains "Person - Project Name" tasks. The note of each task could contain project plan if that project requires my personal attention (for example a key customer project). The same structure is @Agenda but I use it only to be reminded of "asap" items to discuss in person, maybe even not related to any of the projects on the list. If I need to delegate something or make a conversation to move a project further I would put that NA into @Call context. I don't use @WF anymore, prefer active followup (i.e. if I wait for something I can differ a NA for some point in the future when I need to call or email or whatever I need to do to followup to get the results).

 

[sdann]

Your structure seems OK.

I have one Projects-Delegated list that contains "Person - Project Name" tasks. The note of each task could contain project plan if that project requires my personal attention (for example a key customer project). The same structure is @Agenda but I use it only to be reminded of "asap" items to discuss in person, maybe even not related to any of the projects on the list. If I need to delegate something or make a conversation to move a project further I would put that NA into @Call context. I don't use @WF anymore, prefer active followup (i.e. if I wait for something I can differ a NA for some point in the future when I need to call or email or whatever I need to do to followup to get the results).

May I ask, how do you identify what you are waiting for from someone, whether it is on your, their or another's project. I can understand the follow-up at a later date, which I use myself, but I don't see how you can see what you are waiting for. Do you add the waiting for into the follow-up?

 

[mih]

Sdann: imagine I called one of my managers and asked him to find a document describing some procedures. Instead of putting "Manager XYZ 101010 waiting for the procedure describing document" on my @Waiting For list, I would put "Call Manager XYZ re: procedure describing document" on my @Calls list with Start Date in 2 days. I assume that the task is asap basis otherwise I would put it into the calendar. And the task will appear on my Outlook based action list in 2 days. When I see it I follow up.

For the delegated projects I prefer to have regular weekly meetings to discuss the overall progress and brainstorm possible solutions to problems. So there's no need in WF at all.

 

[ozspyke]

Minimise the contexts

I agree with mcogilvie - minimize those contexts where possible (too many will kill you).

I have just a persons' name for context for my direct reports - no need to break up into the other subcategories. I find with even my busiest report that the next action items for them never become that large that they need sub contexts.

Plus being with the person means that you are in context with them and can cover off all items in one go if time allows.

Hope this helps!