I know this is old, but in case you or your readers are still looking: the second question here is so absolutely relevant to me. Add to the fact that I am a bit of a big fish in a small pond (putting it more charitably, there are several research/policy areas that I am, in my context, possibly one of the *few* people who can make a contribution), so even from a level 5 perspective, I find it difficult to refuse many opportunities. I have always thought that the best way to approach making progress on these multiple commitments is to knock off the easier ones first, so that they are done. Example, writing a blog rather than starting on a report or book. Your approach suggests the opposite. What is the underlying thinking?
I think it's important not to get the size and scope of your *values* commingled with the size and scope of the *commitments* you make. When a whole lot of opportunities to commit to a task or project come along, as is the case with for example new faculty, the tendency is to want to say Yes to all of them and sort it all out later. The problem with that approach is that inevitably, something "falls through the cracks" -- which is code for saying, we committed to it but lack the time or energy to execute properly. In a worst case scenario our time and energy levels are 100% divided by the number of things we committed to, and that number can get so low that *nothing* gets done. It may not even matter which ones are easier/less costly than others -- if there's nothing in the tank, even the cheapest tasks "fall through the cracks".
So there is a need to filter out what you say yes to and what you don't, one way or the other -- we can choose to do this on the front end, using our higher horizons and thus we are in control of what we are doing, or on the back end deciding which commitments we are going to let "fall through the cracks" because we wrote a time/energy check that we can't cash.
The filter I propose we use is Horizon 5, our large-scale overarching purpose, along with Horizons 4 and 3 which make Horizon 5 more concrete. That filter lets through all kinds of commitments, both big and small. When it comes to in-the-moment execution -- making progress on the things you committed to -- it makes more sense to go small. That's why GTD methodology focuses on the Next Action, the single physical action that can be taken that moves something forward for you, once it's past that filter. A lot of times that's some very basic thing and often such things take 2 minutes or less and thus would be subject to the 2-Minute Rule.
So when FILTERING to know what you should be doing, think big. When EXECUTING, and actually doing the thing, think small.
I know this is old, but in case you or your readers are still looking: the second question here is so absolutely relevant to me. Add to the fact that I am a bit of a big fish in a small pond (putting it more charitably, there are several research/policy areas that I am, in my context, possibly one of the *few* people who can make a contribution), so even from a level 5 perspective, I find it difficult to refuse many opportunities. I have always thought that the best way to approach making progress on these multiple commitments is to knock off the easier ones first, so that they are done. Example, writing a blog rather than starting on a report or book. Your approach suggests the opposite. What is the underlying thinking?
Hey Dileni, thanks for your comment.
I think it's important not to get the size and scope of your *values* commingled with the size and scope of the *commitments* you make. When a whole lot of opportunities to commit to a task or project come along, as is the case with for example new faculty, the tendency is to want to say Yes to all of them and sort it all out later. The problem with that approach is that inevitably, something "falls through the cracks" -- which is code for saying, we committed to it but lack the time or energy to execute properly. In a worst case scenario our time and energy levels are 100% divided by the number of things we committed to, and that number can get so low that *nothing* gets done. It may not even matter which ones are easier/less costly than others -- if there's nothing in the tank, even the cheapest tasks "fall through the cracks".
So there is a need to filter out what you say yes to and what you don't, one way or the other -- we can choose to do this on the front end, using our higher horizons and thus we are in control of what we are doing, or on the back end deciding which commitments we are going to let "fall through the cracks" because we wrote a time/energy check that we can't cash.
The filter I propose we use is Horizon 5, our large-scale overarching purpose, along with Horizons 4 and 3 which make Horizon 5 more concrete. That filter lets through all kinds of commitments, both big and small. When it comes to in-the-moment execution -- making progress on the things you committed to -- it makes more sense to go small. That's why GTD methodology focuses on the Next Action, the single physical action that can be taken that moves something forward for you, once it's past that filter. A lot of times that's some very basic thing and often such things take 2 minutes or less and thus would be subject to the 2-Minute Rule.
So when FILTERING to know what you should be doing, think big. When EXECUTING, and actually doing the thing, think small.
Thank you - this makes sense and is very clear, and the last line deserves a catch-phrase to make it stick - Filter big, execute small!