Monthly Archives: May 2009

Getting Things Done (GTD) vs. First Things First (FTF)

Stephen Covey’s First Things First (FTF) will help you examine priorities and focus on what is important. It won’t help you end procrastination when it comes to lots of important things vying for your time. David Allen’s Getting Things Done (GTD) is a more systematic approach to task fulfillment when there are a myriad of important but not urgent projects on your plate.

FTF sets out two really good principles of time management. The first is the idea of the Ladder. We’ve all heard about the corporate ladder – the stages of professional advancement in the world of corporate executives and lawyers. There are equivalent “ladders” in other professions, of course. The academic world has a ladder toward tenure; the political world has a ladder toward elected position; the list goes on. The ladder is the set of steps leading to a particular kind of success. FTF stresses that the First Thing should be to determine if the ladder is “leaning against the right wall.” That is to say, the success at the top of the ladder is not necessarily the best life for any given person. Since it takes a lot of time and effort to climb such a ladder, the success at the end had better be of the right kind.

The second thing that FTF does really well is to split all activities according to a 4 part matrix. Tasks are split according to their importance and according to their urgency. FTF points out that most people get focused on urgent things, sometimes at the expense of important things. An approach to life that will have an effect consistent with a person’s goals is one that focuses on things that are important to those goals. That’s sort-of a tautology. But what’s frustrating is that lots of times tasks and interruptions present themselves as urgent and critical even though doing them won’t actually create progress. Getting focused on important things is the most important message of FTF.

So, assuming you have found an appropriate goal and you are prepared to focus on things that are important to achieving those goals, how do you actually go about the day-to-day business of that? There are a few suggestions in FTF, like setting aside scheduled time for non-urgent tasks on a weekly basis. I can certainly see that being useful for a manager or executive with lots of interruptions. Setting aside an hour for private time to work through a strategic plan might be the only way he could actually have time to do that. For those of us in more free-form enterprises (like science or studying) that’s not so relevant. In a life filled with urgency, I’m sure setting time for non-urgent activities is critical, but my life is not filled with urgency.

I have 6 hours a day to do whatever I feel is important. There are not schedules, no interruptions. That’s great, but writing down in my planner that I want to spend an hour on strategic work during those 6 unscheduled hours seems arbitrary and I seldom make good on the plan. It’s a lot easier to procrastinate when there are no obligations than when there are. When I had classes, I would demand that I plan out the time between them so I could use it effectively. Now I have no classes, and such plans tend to get pushed aside for the importance of the moment (as opposed to the urgency of the moment). Now, that’s not great, because it means I’m not working from pre-planned priorities. I’m “winging it.”

The FTF mentality doesn’t help avoid procrastination when there is no urgency and many important tasks are doomed to failure. That’s science in a nutshell. Often there’s no hard deadline, since we all know it’s impossible to predict how an experiment will go. Although scientists know that it’s important to do the next experiment, without a deadline or any particular assurance of success, it’s a motivational nightmare. Science is all about the Q2 activities, but among Q2 activities it can be hard to discriminate. Reading the Literature, having ideas, surfing the ‘net looking for motivation all can conceivably be classed as Q2 activities, so how do we get pumped to actually get the experiments done?

This is where GTD shines. It won’t help you put the ladder against the right wall. It won’t help you cut out the Q3 distractions. But if you have those issues more-or-less settled, then you can get a lot from the GTD mentality.

The GTD mentality is a lot like a Virtual Assistant. The idea in hiring a Virtual Assistant is that this person will take care of certain things so you don’t have to stress about them any more and can really focus on the tasks at hand. What kinds of a things could a virtual Assistant take care of? Well, he could call you to make sure that you got to appointments on time. He could go through your inbox and make sure that all of the appointments to which you were committed were in the list of appointments about which he would remind you. He could parse emails and phone calls into the bare bones questions and flag them for you to answer. And he could tell you what was the next thing to do between right now and your next appointment so that you could use that time effectively and make progress on longer term projects.

Hiring a person to do all of that for you all the time is rather expensive (though with the connected nature of the world, you can hire a person to do the job at a long distance for a lot less than a personal executive assistant). GTD lets you do all of that efficiently for yourself.

The system works like this (or at least this is my boiled down version): you put everything in a trusted receptacle (like email inbox, phone, Thunderbird Task List, etc.). Call this your “bucket.” You have to make putting things in your bucket a really consistent habit or you won’t trust your bucket. If you don’t trust it, you might as well not waste time creating it. But once you trust it to have everything important inside, start the following loop:

When there is a lull (as when you have completed a task) check the bucket

Look for upcoming time critical appointments and set a timer (unless your bucket beeps at you, like my phone does)

Do any task you can do in 5 min immediately, this includes things like delegating, filing away for long term, short emails, or triaging a task as no longer mission-critical.

Do the thing on the top of the list until your next time critical appointment, or until it is done as much as it can be at the time. Add the next step in this project (and only the next step) to the bucket.


The most important thing about this is that you must trust your bucket to have everything in it. If it is a trustworthy bucket (if your habit of adding things to the bucket is good enough) then you will never be blindsided by an appointment you forgot about or a deadline that came out of nowhere.

Both the GTD and FTF systems remind their readers to re-center once a week. Process everything, prioritize, decide if projects are worth continuing. FTF organizes this according to “roles and goals” which is a fine way to do it, maybe a little more systematic than the “altitude analogy” treatment in GTD.

Hope that’s useful to you all.

P.S. David Allen did a Google talk where he talked about his method. That might explain it better if you have 45 min. Alas, he’s not as polished a speaker as S. Covey, but it’s still a fine talk.

On Long Drinks, Cravings, Moving

I went looking for the recipe for a tequila sunrise (International Bartenders Association standard: grenadine, orange juice, tequila) when I discovered the term “long drink,” the class of beverage to which the aforementioned Tequila Sunrise belongs. A long drink is usually served in a highball glass.

This led to the Finnish Long Drink (Thanks Wikipedia!) which is gin and, most commonly, grapefruit soda. I have not seen grapefruit soda in a store since I wore short pants. Now I crave the stuff and wish to mix it with spirits. A quest may be in order. (Edit: Alert Reader Robert informed me that Squirt is a name brand of grapefruit soda! This quest will be a success!)

For tonight, it will be Bushmills Malt, 10 year, neat. I’m moving in a month (or so) and I intend not to move bottles. When I arrive in Texas, I shall skype all of my local grocers and determine the closest establishment where a man may procure grapefruit soda.


P.S. From Wikipedia: “In Finland, the term “long drink” or lonkero (which also means “tentacle“) refers exclusively to a mixed drink made from gin and, most commonly, grapefruit soda. Originally developed for the 1952 Summer Olympics in Helsinki, as of 2007 the Hartwall Original Gin Long Drink remains the most popular single product sold by Finnish state monopoly Alko, outselling even Koskenkorva, the most popular Finnish spirit.”

Peter’s Take on the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

Introducing the 7 Habits is rather silly at this point considering how old and well regarded it is. Time magazine said “Over the past two decades, Stephen Covey’s best seller The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People has become a management bible in the boardroom.” Its merits are well known. I happen to love the book, but I have some reservations.

The Jester is right on the following point: the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People is not about “Success” in the common sense of the word. In my estimation, that is a very good thing. It is extremely different from How to Win Friends and Influence People, for instance. The 7 Habits addresses the distinction between effectiveness and conventional success pretty directly: It’s more important to develop character than it is to learn any given technique.

A large part of Character is responsibility (read “response ability”): the ability to respond to a stimulus by choice rather than by instinct and emotion. Character means never saying “I was so mad/sad/frustrated that I couldn’t help what I did.”

The book talks about the reasons for building responsibility and some methods for doing so. The first half really focuses on personal responsibility, and the second half is more about social responsibility (read, “not being a jerk”). Despite what the Jester may believe, people can learn to lead, communicate carefully, and really consider the needs of all stakeholders involved. That builds trust, and with trust there can be a whole different level of productivity.

I have never read Machiavelli, but I’ve learned a bit from others who have. From what I can tell, the 7 Habits principles are really a better approach. Even if both achieve the same result, effectiveness can leave a real legacy; brutality only leaves a power vacuum. I talked a while back about ways to motivate others, and there really are not all that many. Reward and fear are the two most basic (and widely used). There are better ways, based on trust and mutual aspirations. But the Jester is right about this: the higher path is not the easy path.

I will say this about the 7 Habits: I find some of it to be a little hokey. Nonetheless, it is of real value that someone has spelled out a clear framework of concepts around the central principles of personal growth, trust, and shared enterprise.

Next week, I’ll talk about the differences between Allen’s Getting Things Done system and Covey’s First Things First.


The Revolution Will (or Will Not) be…

I’ll get to some thoughts on the 7 Habits next week. Suffice it to say that I don’t hold to the Jester’s cynical assessment of the book. The principles in that book are fundamentally decent, the kind of truths that can change a person’s life. I’ll admit that some of the more hokey suggestions in there have not worked out particularly well for me. For the most part, though, Covey did a great job in presenting empowering material to a wide audience.

On an unrelated note,
I have heard the phrase “The Revolution will not be Televised”
– it gets bandied about from to time. Removing the entries for “televised”, here are some amusing google search samples of peoples’ opinions on “The Revolution,” a collection of mutant memes.


(out of 185,000), The Revolution Will Be…
Downloaded, fictionalized, mobilized, Wikified, Digitized, blogged, Photocopied, Syndicated, Caramelized, Streaming, Litigated, Personalized, Twittered, Digitized, localized, Prosthetized

(out of a close second place at 135,000) The Revolution Will Not Be…
Socialized, Microwaved, Designed, Funded, Destabilized, Motorized, Advertised, pasteurized, Bolshevised, American, Invoiced, Podcast, T-SHIRTED, Theorized, YouTubed

My contribution: The Revolution will be poorly defined.


our magical culture

Subrationedei brought my attention to this quote from Raymond Williams. In Culture and Materialism, p. 185:

It is often said that our society is too materialist, and that advertising reflects this … But it seems to me that in this respect our society is quite evidently not materialist enough, and that this, paradoxically, is the result of a failure in social meanings, values and ideals.

It is impossible to look at modern advertising without realizing that the material object sold is never enough: this indeed is the crucial cultural quality of its modern forms. If we were sensibly materialist, in that part of our living in which we use things, we should find most advertising to be of an insane irrelevance. Beer would be enough for us, without the additional promise that in drinking it we show ourselves to be manly, young in heart, or neighborly. A washing-machine would be a useful machine to wash clothes, rather than an indication that we are forward looking or an object of envy to our neighbors. But if these associations sell beer and washing machines, as some of the evidence suggests, it is clear that we have a cultural pattern in which the objects are not enough but must be validated, if only in fantasy, by association with social and personal meaning which in a different cultural pattern might be more directly available. The short description of the pattern we have is magic: a highly organized and professional system of magical inducements and satisfactions, functionally very similar to magical systems in simpler societies, but rather strangely coexistent with a highly developed scientific technology.

That seems highly salient to anyone who would like to live a simpler life or, indeed, merely a rational life. Our superstitious brains seem to be built to see magic even in the midst of a world crafted by our rationality. We buy objects of “value” for the same reasons and with no better justification than a cave man trading food to the witch doctor for a love amulet designed to attract affection from the prettiest cave woman.

Imagine I go buy a really nice car for a lot of money. Now, a car seems to have more value than a horse bladder pouch filled with herbs and teeth (a voodoo love amulet). You can drive the one, but the other you just hang around your neck.

But consider: the price difference between a Honda and a BMW doesn’t represent a real increase in functional utility – the one costs twice as much but it won’t get you to twice as many destinations. What are you buying with that extra money?

Social meaning. You’re buying others’ perception that you are a man (or woman) of means. Some people might even perceive themselves differently if they own a BMW. This might give them confidence. Confidence and conspicuous wealth (perceived according to our society’s measure of such things) may actually help a person get a mate… and within another society the material object that imbues its owner with those qualities might take the form of a magical charm. And it might, therefore, work.

So let me say it again: your expensive stuff is expensive because you are buying magic.