Get Everything Done

At work, I have to deal with many requests for my time. Most of these people think their requests are important to the exclusion of everything else I do.

I used to try to post an a shared Outlook calendar with my agenda to let everyone know how I was going to spend my time. This took time and I hated doing it and didn't fit in with the AF vibe. Also, I would just receive reasons about how I should amend the agenda to fit the absolute importance of everyone's requests.

The secret is that most of what is seemingly urgent for these people today is often forgotten a few days later, so:

I ignore them. I do nothing, not even read an email from someone until I have received it three times, then it goes into the list.

The requests have diminished and the quality of my day has increased as has my work, which is acknowledged by everyone I ignore.

When asked by one person what I changed to get more accomplished, I told her. She said now she will immediately send me three requests. I ignore her, until request seven now.

Contrarywise, those who understand their unimportance and over-value my importance get immediate attention.

How do you know that the things you feel are important actually are, and the things others deem important actually aren't? Do you work in isolation, or do you also put requests on other people? Do they ignore you too?

These are good question although you probably mean most of them rhetorically.

If I am honest, nothing I want is important in any real sense of the word. And yes people ignore me, in fact most people aren't even aware I exist.

I cannot live without putting requests on others. I do it without even realizing it most of the time. This is how I try to keep thing in general in perspective.

So now that we got that out of the way.

What I am speaking of here are explicit demands in the workplace. And what I am offering is a little "hack" everyone just loves that I have found works for me.

My workplace is driven by a culture of crisis. If I were to tell you what primarily is produced by this company, you would most certainly laugh that anyone could take it too seriously. Any sane person would.

So how do you work effectively, if you are expected to do more than you possibly can in a given time period where all tasks are considered equally urgent (when you know they are not, since you are one of the few sane persons there?)?

The above is part of my solution.

At work, I am rarely ignored, because I rarely ask for much and I bypass email and approach the person I would like help from personally and treat them like someone whose help I would like to have rather than someone who has to help me (no matter where they stand on the food chain).

The world has a way of taking care of itself. I am not too important. Nor is anyone else. AF helps me keep aware of my place in helping things get done which want my help, rather than wrestling with the world according to my "values" and "goals". That discipline is difficult enough.

The extension is how to deal with others who have no clue about the vanity of their passions.

Norman

Ignoring requests could put you in a difficult position if one of them turns out to have been vital. Say HR ask you to remind staff at your next team meeting that desks must be clear at the end of the day. This is part of disaster recovery if there is a bomb. You've got one request which you ignore. No consequence unless disaster strikes. How could you defend your no action til the 4th request policy?

You are right though that one needs a way of ignorring silly requests and letting one's boss know when there is simply too much work. Without systems to monitor how much work there is it is difficult to push back on requests. And unfortunately when one is foot to the boards trying to deliver, running systems to push back is also difficult. Answers on a postcard please.

My questions weren't retorical, and you answered them nicely, thanks. My answer to requests on my time varies according to the request. Sometimes it's immediate response, sometimes a "later today", but my favorite response is that it's on my list.

I get to it according to the dictates of AF4. If it feels important, it will happen soon. If it feels unimportant, it will happen when it's the last thing left after it migrates to the closed list. Or if it's really unimportant it will be deleted then.

Many things come up which go on the list, and later get deleted. That's the value of delayed response: it negates the false sense of urgency.

Now it is time for me to bite my tongue, Norman....chomp...chomp. Smiles...

-David

Why bite?

If I were David I wouldn't so much 'drop a few balls' as put them down, gently...

Norman, aren't you covering a bullet wound with a bandaid?

I'd get out and into a culture that I respected a bit more with an organization I believed in myself instead of playing childish games within the culture.

<<Why bite? >>

If you're real identity is anything like your virtual one, I'd imagine those closest to you are missing 2/3's of their tongues ;)

Again... it's 'your".

Does anyone know why squarespace does not include an "edit" button on their forum module?

Nope, just going to bite my tongue....have a good day, Norman.

-David

This is varsity interwebs. My point in this post is about "hacks" or tactics in general. How could the particulars of my work day, relationships with others, my personality, etc. and how they intersect possibly be of much meaning to anyone here except as a curiosity.

Tactics are either so specific as to be meaningless to nearly everyone, or so vapid and obvious to meaningful only to the most unaware.

That is really the brilliance of Mark's work. He strikes an incredible balance of elegance and effectiveness. It ain't rocket science. But it is just enough of a revelation and scales well it seems by those who give it an honest commitment.

If a tactic works, how is it childish?

Do what works.

Attic Greece had a culture. Multi-Nationals do not.

"Culture" used to mean something like "the fine things of civilized life", but now it more commonly means something broader, the "way of life, typical behavior patterns", and stuff like that. If you are still using the first definition of "culture", then I can see why you limit it to things like Attic Greece.

But using the first meaning, I think anytime you have a "society" of people, whether it's through sharing a nation or a locale, or sharing an employer, or sharing a faith, or sharing a political party, that society will take on specific characteristics.

Even this forum has a "culture", a distinctive "feel", typical behaviors, typical attitudes, that make it quite distinct from many other forums. For example, Mike's spinoff Yahoo group has a similar culture but is still quite distinct.

I've worked in many multinationals and they really do have distinct cultures. E.g. I worked in the Silicon Valley office of a Japanese company. Trying to fix problems there was always like walking on eggshells. You had to learn the right way to say things without causing anyone to lose face, while still really saying what needed to be said and not glossing it over. It was a real struggle for me.

But at my current employer, they specifically have a behavior called "constructive confrontation", and it is *expected* that you will go to your management or whoever needs to know, to deal with fixing painful problems. It's not just constructive *criticism*, but constructive *confrontation*. It doesn't mean you just go yell at people -- that's missing the "constructive" part. But it is *expected* that issues will be raised, early and often and directly.

This is just one example. The point is that it is very common usage to speak of "corporate culture" and in my experience the term has real meaning.

Norman, that tactic (waiting till you get three requests) probably works for you because the corporate culture there is so dysfunctional. If you tried that tactic in a different setting, you might find it backfiring.

Good point, Seraphim. It certainly would not work in my culture.

-David

I agree with Norman's basic point that sending me a mail does not in itself earn priority over other commitments I already have.

However, every mail conversation (not every mail) with an action for me will go on my "+week" list and I will use DWM to work it in or out. In a perfect world, I would at least send a response within a couple of days.

Isolating new requests and keeping track of the number would actually take more work than dropping them into my task list. (I have to put them somewhere when I go through my "process" folder.)

Norman, regarding "importance" of people and their goals...

I know you have been reading the Greek Fathers, and specifically Father Seraphim Rose, and you will eventually find, if you haven't already, that they deal with this topic quite often, and in depth: Being made in the Image of God gives an intrinsic importance to every human being, and to every human action. The fact that we fail to live up to the potential of the Image in which we are made, does not make us unimportant, but rather tragic.

Our relationship to *ourselves* should be one of self-reproach, not self-denigration. Self-reproach says, "I can do better than this, I MUST do better than this, it's IMPORTANT that I do better than this", where self-denigration says, "I may as well give up, I can never do anything good, and nothing I do really means anything anyway". Self-reproach acknowledges our basic dignity and importance, where self-denigration denies it.

But our relationship to others should be very different: it is to be defined by LOVE. Some imagine that this means you should "tell it like it is", that our self-reproach should translate into reproach and correction of others as the most honest expression of love.

But this is not quite right. For one, there is always the tendency to want to have other people judge us by our *intentions*, but we judge others by their *outward behaviors*. Truly we very rarely have insight into other people's intentions, so all we have left is outward behavior. But this tells only a very small part of the story. As a result, giving advice, especially corrective and reproachful advice, is dangerous business: it is so easy to get it totally wrong.

"Love suffers long, and is kind; love envies not; love vaunts not itself, is not puffed up, does not behave itself unseemly, seeks not her own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil; rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." --1 Cor. 13

Before we go to others and "tell it like it is", we first need to really KNOW "what it is", which presupposes a real relationship and real insight into that person's life. We also need to have earned the right -- earned the respect, earned the trust of that person -- by having shown them that we trust, we respect them. Where there is no respect and no love, or when they are not clearly made known and mutually accepted, how can any good come out of "telling it like it is".

People's goals ARE important, because PEOPLE are important. We often take ourselves too seriously, but before we go to others and tell THEM that THEY are taking themselves too seriously, I think we need to earn the right to that, by proving our love and respect for them.

Thanks for those thoughts, Seraphim.

Seraphim,

I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts, but frankly I think it is too complicated a discussion to have.

Cherry-picking scripture, Church teachings, words from Saints, is just too easy to do and leads nowhere.

"Love" is too loaded a term in the English language.

But I will offer you this, most folks will agree with you. It sounds nice. In my experience and consul from others' when it comes to things of this nature, thread carefully when the world is in much agreement with you, even if just in sentiment and not action.

And I ardently believe that the plans of others are of little importance as is their importance in any absolute sense. First and foremost this begins with me.

Someone once mentioned having to hate everyone including one's own family in order to follow God. He wasn't well liked or very polite. He called people "dogs" and other insults. But he supposedly loved people a lot.

Your comments again are appreciated and if we could sit down face to face, these sorta discussions would probably be more profitable and would probably find more agreement than disagreement. "Love" is shown and given in many different ways.

Norman, I think I know what you're trying to say. You can tell me if I'm right. Are you saying that love is too seldom partnered with truth in our culture? You are absolutely right, but so is Seraphim. 1 Cor. 13 is hardly cherry-picking Scripture. That passage is central to understanding love.

We can and should speak truth to those we love after we have examined ourselves. We cannot point out the splinter in someone's eye while the log remains in our own. So for me, I have to have a loving relationship with someone (which means I know them and care for them) and/or permission to speak truth to them. Secondly, I have to think about my own issues before confronting someone with theirs. If I don't have these two key factors, I risk coming across as an arrogant hypocrite and even worse, I risk pushing someone even further from good choices.

That's why the Forum Coward's post to David really bothers me. He doesn't know David (or more specifically isn't willing to be known by him), doesn't care about him, and certainly doesn't have permission to play prosecutor here. I think Mark's a big boy and if he doesn't want David asking him how he is, he'll tell him. Good grief. How many of us would like to read a continuous listing of our posts here? That reminds me of an exception to the above rules for me. When someone attacks someone else in an unloving way, I feel it's perfectly appropriate to speak truth to that person in return!

Wrote a bunch of poorly formed sentences that weren't appropriate to your thoughtful post. Will reply later.

In short though, if time and space change, Seraphim, you, and I should sit down work out all the world's problems over coffee. I am confident we can do it!

<< if time and space change, Seraphim, [mel], and I should sit down work out all the world's problems over coffee. >>
Wouldn't a skype video chat (or something) be good enough? Based on what I've read of your discourses, all three of you, I would certainly love to read the "over coffee" solution.

On my side of the world, lots of problems are also "solved" over cups of coffee, which is why we have many "kedai kopi" or "kopitiam".

BTW, thoughts of "brutally truthful" comes to mind after reading this thread. ;-)

sabre23t,

Which part of SE Asia are you from? Where I live the reflective coffee culture is nil. Coffee shops are loud, frenetic places, where one rants and raves on various internet boards and newsgroups. I cannot imagine engaging in such behavior.

I dunno about "brutal" or "nasty". My dictionary would suggest nothing approaching that occurred here.

As Mark's sidebar suggests:

The beginning of wisdom is to call something by its correct name. Chinese saying

<<Coffee shops are loud, frenetic places>>

Yes, same here in Malaysia, many of them are. There are some more conducive for less frantic loud discussions. Tends to be upscale designer ones though.

That "brutally truthful" thoughts was what came to my mind, not that I think this thread is so.

One of the cultural traits of Malaysians (all ethnicity) is that we have great difficulty in saying "no", even if that is the "brutal truth". A "yes" is more often a "maybe" or even "fat chance". It seems saying "no" is perceived as being too "brutal" and may cause you to "lose face". Ref http://www.ehow.com/way_5318261_malaysia-business-etiquette.html . ;-)

Mmm ... Is not saying no but just ignoring, similar to saying yes but meaning no?

Sabre: Here's a frenetic, neighbourly wave from a loud kopitiam in Singapore...

After hearing an airline announcement that a flight had been cancelled and that passengers should join a long queue at the customer service desk to get re-booked.

Most people glumly did as requested, but one very self-satisfied looking chap pushed to the front of the queue and demanded that he be dealt with immediately "because he was in a hurry to get to a very important meeting blah blah blah".

The desk agent explained patiently and courteously that she would deal with him in turn, and asked him to join the queue. However, he was having none of this and continued to demand that he get Special Treatment. "Do you have any idea who I am"? he shouted self-importantly.

Without missing a beat, the desk agent turned to the public address system and announced to the whole airport "Can a member of staff please come to assist? We have a passenger here who doesn't know who he is".

He meekly joined the end of the queue...

Airports can be great levellers, I always try to stay on the good side of the most important people there: check-in staff and US border agents.

A former German client of mine was standing in the queue at Heathrow's Terminal 4. In front was an arrogant British businessman like the type Dave mentioned above. This person was so rude that Dietmar, a tall well-built man in his 60s, was on the verge of intervening and telling this arrogant fellow to stop. Mr Big then stormed off and the BA lady asked Dietmar how she could help him.

"I would first like to congratulate you on the way you handled that rude man, your smiling and calm voice were effective."
"Thank you sir, we have ways of getting our own back on such people."
"How?" asked an intrigued Dietmar.
"He's going to the West Indies, his luggage is going to India!"

Off topic, but a favourite story of mine.