|
To organize a to-do-list, one tool that you can use is the 4 D's. For every item on the list, you are either going to do it, delegate it, delay it, or dump it. While this might seem rather straight forward, there are few tricks to getting the most out of the method.
Create a Comprehensive List The first thing you want to do before organizing your to-do-list is to make sure you have a complete list. The list should include individual tasks, but can also include any projects or ideas you have floating around in your head. This process of creating an exhaustive list helps clear your mind, reducing cognitive fatigue. In fact, researchers E.J. Masicampo and Roy Baumeister discovered that similar to the Zeigarnik Effect, organizing your list actually helps free up cognitive resources, allowing you to be more productive and focused. After you have a comprehensive list, it is time to clean it up. To do this, create three columns with the labels "Do", "Delegate", and "Delay".
Delegate or Outsource
Now you want to go through and decide on any items you can delegate. This includes items you can outsource. In the digital world this includes cost effective solutions like upwork.com, fiverr.com and Amazon's mechanical turk. Do Once you have figured out the items you want to delegate, go back over the list and pick the items you believe are your high priority items that you want to accomplish within the next seven (7) days. If this is your first time using the process you will want to pick a start or end of your week, such as using Sunday or Monday. Delay Next you want to look for any items you can schedule to do later. Put those under the delay column. This may include recurring items, such as birthdays or filing taxes. It can also include items you wrote down that need to be structured, that need to be planned and broken down into smaller tasks. For example, you may want to publish a book or take a vacation. These are not tasks you normally accomplish in 7 days, requiring you schedule a time when you will assess the item and determine next steps. Dump or Archive At this point, the only items remaining on your list are those that did not fit under the first three columns. These are items that you need to dump. Before the digital age, to dump it meant to literally toss those items into the waste basket or if you felt you might want to save them for later you placed them in a manila folder in a metal filing cabinet. Today you can think of dumping it more as a digital dump with the option to either delete the item or you can archive your ideas electronically. Personally, I have an archive folder that is searchable. This allows you to retain your ideas or notes in a safe location while keeping your mind decluttered, allowing you to focus on your high priority items. Finalizing Your List With all items accounted for, the last step is to turn your to-do-list into a working document. Besides all of the "do" items you already listed, you want to add the task of scheduling any delays. This guarantees that over the next 7 days you will open up your calendar and set dates and times when the delays will turn into do items. Also, create a task to resolve those items you are going to delegate. In some cases it is a 5 minute phone call, but for some items you may want to actually schedule a meeting with whomever you will be putting in charge of the item.
Last, either below or off to the side of your to-do-list, keep some space available to take notes. This will allow you to quickly jot down any new ideas or tasks, allowing you to keep your mind decluttered throughout the week. Then, revisit the 4D process at the end of your week, cleaning up your notes by once again deciding to either do it, delegate it, delay it or dump it.
3 Comments
Can repeated exposure to your name make people like you more? The answer is a resounding yes…well almost a resounding yes. Studies on what has come to be known as the 'mere-exposure effect' or the familiarity principle have demonstrated a strong relationship between frequency of exposure and likeability.
THE SCIENCE In 1968, one experiment exposed participants to a series of Chinese characters, presenting some a single time or up to twenty-five times. The more they were exposed to a particular character, the more they associated the character as having a positive meaning. A key aspect of the study was that participants were not consciously aware of the difference in frequency. Since the 1968 study, over 200 additional studies have been conducted that have verified that from sounds to smells, from tastes, to faces to shapes, typically…familiarity breeds likeability. Notice I said typically breeds likeability. In a 2009 study, it was demonstrated that when perception is already negative, then repeated exposure only serves to reinforce that negativity. In the study, British participants believed they were evaluating how much British people liked French names and vice versa. In one condition they were informed French students had been fair in their ratings and in a second condition were informed that French students had been rating British names as less appealing. The fact is, the French students didn't really even exist. In the first condition, were students thought the French had been fair the mere exposure effect stayed true to form, the more times a name was repeated, the more participants liked the name. But, in the negative condition, the more times a French name was presented, the more they disliked that particular name. APPLICATION For years advertisers have used the mere exposure effect to breed likeability of their product or brand. Instead of spending money across a broad audience, having every person see an ad only once, they buy ads that will be repeated again and again only on certain channels or at specific times as to reach a narrow audience repeatedly. They penetrate the market by being that squeaky wheel you can't ignore. To use the mere exposure effect in your life, consider the following:
Hard wired into our mental DNA is the need to reciprocate. When we receive a gift, the regions of the brain associated with emotion and decision-making light up. Studies on the social and psychological aspects of this activity show that receiving the gift triggers a cognitive dilemma that must be resolved. The easiest way to resolve the conflict is to give something in return of equal or greater value. In psychology this is known as the theory of reciprocity or social reciprocity. The Science The "Coca-cola" experiment is probably the most well known study on reciprocity. It was published in 1971 by Dennis Regan. In the study, the participant believed they were there to evaluate paintings. Also in the room was a fellow participant named Joe, but Joe was really Regan's assistant. First, Regan manipulated the degree to which a participant liked Joe, by having the subject overhear Joe being either polite or rude to a person during a phone conversation. In one condition, Joe would leave and bring back two soft drinks, giving one as a gift to the participant. In another condition, Joe would leave and return empty handed. After evaluating some art, Joe was then left alone with the participant at which point he would hand them a note, asking them to buy some raffle tickets. The results of the study showed the power of giving. In the condition where Joe did not give the participant a soda, the degree to which they liked Joe influenced how many raffle tickets they would buy. But, in the condition where Joe did give a soda, participants bought twice as many tickets as the no soda condition, regardless of the degree to which they liked Joe. So not only did people that did not like Joe buy tickets at twice the rate, they end up buying more raffle tickets than the cost of the soda. Application Since the "Coca-cola" study there have been numerous experiments that confirm that when you give, you shall receive. This is great if you are giving in a principled manner, but this is where the slippery slope of ethics enters the equation. Marketers use the principle to generate revenue. When you receive a letter in the mail asking for donations, it often comes with something for free. Years ago it was a small packet of stamps or address labels. Recently, I received a letter from a non-profit organization that contained a brand new, crisp, one dollar bill. At a shopping mall if you go near the food court there is almost always someone handing out free bites of their most popular items. Go to a trade show and you will walk away with a bag full of "freebies" or "swag". Surf the Internet and inevitably you will be offered a free newsletter, samples, or a free trial. It is up to you to decide where to draw the ethical line, how exactly you want to use this tool in influencing others to help achieve your goals. Personally, don't send me a crisp dollar bill, I know you don't really care about me and I see it as intentional manipulation. On the other hand, keep the free samples coming in the food court. I think you believe in your product and just want to offer me a tasty treat that might just convince me to take a seat. References Kawai, N., Yasue, M., Banno, T., & Ichinohe, N. (2014). Marmoset monkeys evaluate third-party reciprocity. Biology letters, 10(5), 20140058. Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(6), 627-639. Sakaiya, S., Shiraito, Y., Kato, J., Ide, H., Okada, K., Takano, K., & Kansaku, K. (2013). Neural correlate of human reciprocity in social interactions. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 239. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00239 Being motivated short-term is common.
Having woken up after a night of heavy drinking or other debauchery, more than once I have said the words, “Never again.” And while one might think my motivation to avoid a recurrence of a night of regret should be high, research on lasting motivational change proves otherwise. As it turns out, good intentions are not enough to create and sustain enduring motivational change. It is not all about debauchery. Whether it is a goal you have set, a resolution you want to maintain, or a habit you want to establish, Dr. Bobby Hoffman has developed an evidence based five-step method for motivational change I want to share. This method can be used to help create lasting change for yourself or others. Step 1: Raise Self-Awareness Before any real change can occur you first have to be self-aware. This requires deliberate effort to raise your awareness as opposed to the concept of waiting until one hits the proverbial, “rock bottom.” Raising your self-awareness can be accomplished by creating a conflict. This means finding dissatisfaction or establishing disequilibrium with the current state. The goal is to maintain a level of cognitive dissonance that provides motivation to look for an alternative. A tactic I use for creating conflict is a journal I keep which forces me to reflect. Cemented on digital pages, I have a way to document both my struggles and successes. Periodic review helps raise my self-awareness, challenging me to search for ways to improve. Step 2: Present Plausible Alternatives Once you recognize things are not working out as intended, the next step is to develop plausible alternatives. What options are available? The best alternatives are those that can help you completely reframe the issue. The root cause of our behaviors often stems from our underlying beliefs or philosophies we hold about the world. Therefore, if you can explore a new way of looking at the issue then it is more likely you will find a plausible alternative that can have lasting results. For example, one plausible alternative for avoiding waking up with a hangover is to resolve to never again drink alcohol. While plausible, it doesn’t challenge the underlying belief about why I would drink alcohol to excess in the first place. Not challenging that view my resolution is only avoidance of a headache, not a reframing of my philosophy that drinking is a social custom that must be observed. While I recommend reframing, this can be difficult to accomplish without help from friends, family or a professional like Bob. In lieu of reframing, coming up with two or three good alternatives to your current behaviors is still a good approach that will get you to the next step. Step 3: Present Evidence Just because you have developed some plausible alternatives doesn’t mean you will instantly recognize the alternatives as being better than your current situation. At this stage you only have plausible alternatives that now you need to explore and reinforce with evidence. There is plenty of research that demonstrates we all have cognitive bias, favoring information that helps us maintain our current way of doing things. Therefore, being able to create an actual shift takes a bit of convincing. It is hard to acknowledge that all along the world has been round, not flat. It is hard to acknowledge that a belief you hold might be wrong. To overcome this resistance to change means you need to gather and present evidence. You need to keep in mind cognitive bias and try to find evidence that supports the alternatives. This is not to say blindly accept the evidence, rather to ask the question, “If it is true, how does it change things?” Step 4: Create Relevance When asking how it will change things if true, if there is little or no perceived value then you are not creating relevance. Perceived value over the status quo is important, as without it there is little motivation for enduring change. To help create relevance you need to have a good understanding of your goals, what you are trying to accomplish. Ideally having a vision of what you want to achieve or some future state will help in determining if a particular alternative is relevant. One way to help determine whether relevance has been created is by the degree to which the conflict created in Step 1 has been resolved. Another way is to once again seek out the support of a family member, friend or professional that can help you with discussing the alternatives, the evidence you have gathered and the new path you want to take. The goal is to reduce cognitive dissonance, putting you on track as you head into step 5. Step 5: Provide Scaffolding The final step is to go through the process of testing and reinforcing the relevant alternative. This requires scaffolding, using the evidence you have gathered to prove the alternative is a better or more useful approach than previously held beliefs. It is a process that takes time, learning the potential consequences and implications of a round vs. a flat world. Like a scaffold in construction, the idea is to present lower level concepts first and as those foundations are established you can then build off this foundation, moving to more complex, higher level concepts. An example of scaffolding in education is going from addition to multiplication to calculus. When it comes to sustaining motivational change it requires a similar philosophy, building up the alternative by presenting the evidence you have found over time, not all at once. A Final Note From a general standpoint what is nice about the 5-step model is the ability for anyone to use the model as a stand-alone tool, yet this tool is really only the tip of the motivational iceberg. For a deeper understanding of how the model was developed and how it can be applied, Dr. Hoffman wrote a book titled, “Motivation for Learning and Performance.” In the book there are a number of great case studies along with 50 principles of motivation that can help anyone get a better understanding of what really drives our motivations. Achieving a goal often requires you repeat certain actions, like going to the gym. A common problem is “The Planning Fallacy,” which is a psychological bias where we tend to overestimate what we can accomplish or underestimate the resources we will require for success. The 2-4 rule is one way to deal with this bias, by establishing an artificial trigger you can use to help monitor and adjust, establishing what frequency and intensity works best for you. The key is finding a good balance. The way the 2-4 rule works is simple. After establishing your actions, if you fail to hit any of your targets two weeks in a row then you might be over extending yourself. This should trigger a reevaluation of your targets, reducing what you believe you can accomplish in a given week. On the other hand, if you hit all of your targets four weeks in a row you may not be challenging yourself enough. This should also trigger a reevaluation, increasing your targets. For example, in an effort to get in better shape you may set a target of going to the gym four times a week for a 30 minute session. If after two weeks you only made it to the gym three times, instead of your targeted eight times, then using the 2-4 rule you would lower your target for the next two weeks. If you have hit all eight sessions, then you may want to consider increasing the frequency, duration, or intensity of your workouts. While I have personally adopted the 2-4 rule as it works for me, there is nothing that stops you from adopting a 3-6 or 2-5 rule. It all depends on the nature of the goal and what works for you. I recommend trying a few different combinations. You can even try different rules for each goal, but I like simplicity so it is rare for me to deviate from using the 2-4 combination. Using the 2-4 rule within a period of a few months you should have a good idea of what you really can accomplish in a given week. Certainly things will change slightly as you improve, the holiday season hits or a life event happens, but using the 2-4 rule gives you a concrete way to deal with our hard-wired tendency to over plan and underperform. Thanks for reading: For a FREE 30-minute course on setting and achieving goals, visit https://www.udemy.com/goal-setting/
Benjamin Franklin called them virtues; I call them values. In the business world you will commonly see them labeled as guiding principles or core values. By living your values it allows many of your decisions to be made faster, with a higher degree of confidence and with less cognitive effort. The challenge is that all values are not equally embraced. For example, Franklin recognized both industry and chastity as virtues, yet historical records suggest he was much better at embracing the former than the latter. In an effort to deal with the virtues he found most difficult, Franklin developed the following method: Thirteen VirtuesThe first step was Franklin writing down a list of all the virtues he felt would help him better achieve moral perfection. According to Franklin his initial list was of 12 virtues, but then a Quaker friend pointed out that he might want to consider adding ‘humility.' Conveniently this 13th virtue allowed for the second step, where Franklin concentrated on one virtue per week. Given 52 weeks, this meant that four (4) times a year each virtue became the center of attention.
To track his performance Franklin kept a small notebook. Each day he would mark in the book whether or not he felt that he had successfully embraced the virtue. It was Franklin’s version of the quantified self, using pulp or woven-mold paper and a quill pen to create the excel spreadsheet of the 1700’s. Tips for Using the Franklin MethodI’m curious whether or not Franklin really felt the need to work on 13 virtues. I think it possible he just wanted to get to a number that split nicely into the 4 quarters of the year. With this in mind here are a few tips to consider when working on your own virtues, values, or principles.
Using Benjamin Franklin’s Thirteen Virtues as well as the tips provided, I hope this short article has given you a few ideas to help increase your productivity and achieve more success. While Benjamin Franklin was not a saint, it is hard to argue with the influence and accomplishments he achieved throughout his life. Please share this page with friends, family and colleagues. “Better decisions, better lives, better communities.” Academia is crumbling. The venerable business model of Ivy League education is struggling to adjust to the changing face of global education. The same as Steve Jobs revolutionized the music industry with iTunes, where customers no longer needed to purchase an entire album, a similar model is disrupting education. The established model relies on exclusive access to elite professors. In a brick and mortar classroom you can seat a finite number of students. At Harvard the average class size is below 40 with half the courses offered hosting less than 10 students. It was this exclusive access that made the $250,000 price tag for a four-year, packaged degree so valuable.
The new model is destroying this value. Online universities and learning platforms are slowly breaking down the walls, using technology to provide the same information, delivered by the same professors to tens of thousands of students around the globe instead of only a few hundred. The fundamental laws of supply and demand are quickly degrading the value of that $250,000 investment. As the new model takes over, employers are quickly moving from degree based hiring decisions to competency based. Instead of a packaged degree, those looking for a job are more than ever able to compete by demonstrating that they have customized knowledge that is a better fit for the employer. And they are able to acquire this education at a much cheaper price. Imagine in a job interview an applicant that has learned all they know from a single institution in comparison to the applicant that discusses learning psychology from Dan Gilbert and linguistics from Noam Chomsky. Which is more impressive? I realize this future is still a decade or more down the road, yet the $250,000 investment is already rapidly losing value. Online learning is exploding and the gap between those that have access to education and those that do not is quickly shrinking. Globally, from Colombia to India online platforms are being used to build resumes, seek out opportunities and compete. As more people have access, this is drastically impacting supply and demand equations, driving down the cost of education. There is a direct connection between homicide and learning how to make better decisions. While initially this may seem odd, if you are willing to take a quick journey back in time, I will explain… The English words homicide, genocide, and suicide all trace back to French and then further back to Latin, with the suffix -cide meaning “to kill” or “to cut”. Homicide is to kill a person, genocide to kill a specific group, and suicide to kill oneself. Think of any number of words with the suffix –cide and you will discover plenty of death. The word “decide” is no different. The prefix de- is derived from Latin, meaning “away from” or “off”. Today in Spanish the word “de” means from, of, or off. So decide literally means to “cut off” or “cut away from”. Understanding the etymology of the word “decide” can help transform the way you make decisions.
As you determine which path to try, instead of keeping all of your options on the table, focus on which options you should kill or cut away. Like homicide or any other –cide, when you kill something it is dead, you cannot bring it back to life and this has three significant implications for decision-making:
Better decisions result in more success. Better decisions help with better solutions to problems, improvements in performance, and the ability to achieve the goals you set.
A common goal is to become wealthy, to be a millionaire or to earn $200,000 a year. I want to tell you why you should avoid this trap based on two reasons:
Driven by Performance Money is an outcome measure, not a performance measure. If you love to bake, then some performance measures are the number and quality of the loaves of bread you produce. By focusing on performance you are motivated to tweak your process, improve your ingredients and find ways to supply your delicious bread to hungry consumers. Performance measures are action-oriented. If you charge money for your delicious bread, then one outcome of your performance will be the money you receive. This outcome measure can be helpful, it can be used to benchmark if your bread is more or less delicious than the bakery next door. Regardless, the outcome does not drive performance but rather is a lagging indicator of relative success. I say relative, because it is only a comparison to other bakers. Static vs. Dynamic Measurements When you set a goal to lose 20 lbs. that outcome is static. There will never be a time when a pound of oranges ceases to be a pound of oranges. If you bake bread, a 20 lb. bag of flour will forever remain a fixed measure. On the other hand, money is not fixed but dynamic. If you set a goal to earn $1,000,000 this outcome is constantly fluctuating. Each day the value of currencies rise and fall. Sometimes currencies crash or are devalued. If you are baking bread and the price of grain skyrockets it is a factor out of your control, yet it impacts your goal, right? While an admittedly extreme example, in 1922 a loaf of bread in Germany cost 163 marks. By November of 1923 that same loaf cost 200 billion marks! Just think about anyone living in Germany who set a goal in 1921 to earn 200 million marks within two years. How would it feel to achieve your goal and not be able to afford a loaf of bread? The Bottom Line I recommend you never set money as a goal. Instead, focus on your performance and results will come. Try to use fixed outcomes, not outcomes that will fluctuate. I’m not saying that money as an outcome measure has no value, just be careful not to fall into the money trap. Courtesy of author Dr. Bobby Hoffman: Motivation for Learning and Performance.
Self-beliefs. Each of us hold a number of different beliefs about the world in which we live. Some are minor beliefs, but others can have a profound influence on success. For instance, to what degree do you believe in destiny, fate, or luck? People that hold a strong belief that control is external will have less personal success than people that believe they are in charge of their own destiny. Beliefs influence our motivation which then shapes our behaviors. One reason behavioral analysis has struggled is the difficulty in tracing an observed behavior to a single root cause. Two people may commit a similar crime (theft), but hold radically different self-beliefs that led to different motivations for the commission of the theft. As the number one enemy of success, there is some good and bad news. The good news is that self-beliefs are adaptive, your beliefs can evolve over time. The bad news is self-beliefs are stubborn and modifying one's beliefs is not a clearly defined linear process. The stubborn nature of our beliefs results in behaviors that are highly adaptive in one environment, but maladaptive in another. Consider a child raised in a large family, developing a strong collectivist belief verses a belief in individualism. As the child leaves the family environment to enter the workforce he or she will most likely find it more difficult to find success in certain industries where a collectivist belief is often maladaptive, e.g. a stock trader or car sales. The bottom line, the beliefs we hold are a powerful key that can drive or inhibit success. The main challenge is that we most often do not even realize how our beliefs and environment interact to influence our motivations and corresponding behaviors. If you want to know how you can combat this enemy there are various techniques that revolve around the larger concept of "self-regulation". It is through self-regulation that both the symptoms and causes of maladaptive behaviors can be addressed. I have included a link to a 1991 article published by Dr. Albert Bandura, arguably the leading expert on self-regulation, and a link to Dr. Hoffman's work which is more current, published in 2015.
Note: This article was initially a response to the question, "What is the Biggest Enemy of Success?" on Quora.com.
|
|







