She does it to force her family to eat slowly. To be utterly focused on the current moment. As they carefully chew each bite, all their attention is in their mouths. They don’t rush through their meals, thinking of what next thing they want to do, living in the future. They don’t read, or watch tv, or do anything at the table other than experience the food in their mouths.

Of course, putting dangerous objects in food is a horrible thing to do, and you mustn’t do it, but this fictional, extreme behavior draws attention to an intriguing question. Namely: how present are we? When we eat, are we really eating? When we walk are we really walking? When we listen to music, are we really listening? Listening with our full attention, aware of every step, chewing as if a thumbtack were hidden somewhere in our meal?

I know I strive to be present, and I know the benefits I will reap, and yet I also know how far I commonly stray from clear awareness. I know I let my attention wander to the future. The next thing. And worse: multiple next things. Whole strings of them, stretching out into the future, further and further away from this, here, now.

I may not crack a tooth on a booby trap in my apple pie, but I miss the sound of the wind in the leaves above me, the flash of affection in my companion’s eye, and the awareness–the centeredness–that dissolves the worry that plagues and torments my future-dwelling self.

What’s to be done? It’s fairly simple. Come back. Be here now. Meditation helps. Being creative helps. Doing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy exercises helps. And even GTD helps. How? Because you don’t need to store and hold the various things you must do in your mind if you know that they’re already captured in a trusted system. There is indeed a next action, but for now–chew that bite of food with all your attention, just as if Rant’s nutty mother made it.

In the past, I’ve tried to alleviate this problem by being aggressive about moving non-critical stuff to my “someday/maybe” list. This helps because it keeps my list of stuff that really, truly needs to be done down to a minimum. However, for a variety of reasons, being aggressive about moving stuff to someday/maybe isn’t alleviating the problem well enough lately.

For the next week or so, I’m going to try attacking the problem from the other end. Specifically, I’m going to be more aggressive about limiting my inputs. Toward this end, I’m following the GTD flowchart with the “Is It a Want?” decision box (as opposed to the simpler version without the “Is It a Want?” decision box.

Wish me luck!

All my adult life, I’ve kept a messy desk. There were always piles of papers spilling over one another, books, pens, and other random clutter. Ever since getting serious about GTD though, I’ve become a “neat desk” person without even meaning to. That is, I didn’t have to try to develop this new habit of keeping a neat, uncluttered desk; it just happened naturally. Take a look at the picture above. That’s a picture of my desk last night. I was walking by it, and ultra-tidiness of it struck me, so I snapped a picture of it. And, actually, the double laptop thing is unusual for me. Ordinarily, I only have three objects on the desk: one laptop, one lamp, and the little Buddha statue at the base of the lamp.

How did GTD lead to this bizarre but welcome neatness, you ask? Well, one of the great things about GTD is you only work on one thing at a time. And when you’re working on that one thing, you’re fully focused on it. That’s a great way to work, and it dovetails nicely with other philosophies about life and productivity I hold, so it works out nicely on several different planes. As Shunryu Suzuki said: “When you do something, you should burn yourself completely, like a good bonfire, leaving no trace of yourself.” Multi-tasking is incompatible with such a goal.

So, while I’m working, instead of having dozens and dozens of things cluttering my desk, I have only the things that concern that one task on my desk. For example, if I’m paying my bills, I extract one bill from my inbox, and place that bill and only that bill on my desk. If I’m working on a programming project and need a reference book, that one book is on my desk. If what I’m working on requires no physical objects other than my laptop, then there’s nothing else on my desk. The side effect? One very neat desk!

Now, I’m not an absolutist about it. Sometimes there’s an extra thing or two on the desk. Right now there’s a pad of paper and an orange I’ll snack on soon. A stray item or two that doesn’t stay long doesn’t bother me. But generally speaking, the desk is in a permanent state of neatness. My desk was just the way you see it in the picture last night. I didn’t hide things to make the picture more dramatic.

The neatness of my desk has had a nice effect on my mind and stress level that I wouldn’t have guessed would happen back in my messy desk days. Since I don’t see a bunch of “to-be-done” things — “open loops” in GTD-speak — right in front of me all the time, my mind isn’t always glomming on to them at the wrong time and creating low-level stress: “Oh, man. There are those unpaid bills. I should pay those, but I can’t right now. I’ll do them later. I wonder if any are past due. Ack.” Nope. I trust my system, so I know that when I sweep my inboxes today, any unpaid bills will get paid immediately (since they’re: a) actionable and b) take less than 2 minutes to do), so they’re safely “out of sight and out of mind.”

As a long-time messy desk person, I’m not saying that a neat desk is the only way to go. I was certainly productive with a messy desk; but I strongly suspect I’m more productive with a neat one. Either way, I thought I’d share the picture and the thoughts it inspired.

Working with me is as simple as sending me email. There’s nothing to download, install, or configure. I live in your address book alongside everyone else you know and email.

Examples of commands you might send Sandy’s way are:

• Remind me to move my car in 10 minutes
• Remind me about my meeting with Bob on 12/10/07
• Remind me about my Yoga class on Tuesday, 8-9am @weekly

You can receive your email reminders via SMS and Sandy can add items to your calendar too (if you so choose).

Though I think this is a clever and appealing idea, I’m not sure it will work with my productivity flow since I maintain an empty inbox and very intentionally avoid managing tasks with email. (Tasks originating from emails go to my GTD list.)

However, though it may not be a perfect fit for me, I can see where it would work great for other folks. It would be especially handy, I think, paired with an iPhone. You could shoot Sandy a command anytime, anywhere, and receive her reminders via SMS, all in one handy, highly mobile place.

Link: Sandy

I have a fever and a sore throat so I’ll keep this post short. However, that (mildly) bad new aside, I have excellent news: Leo Babauta’s E-Book, Zen to Done: The Ultimate Simple Productivity System is now available! Woo!

Zen To Done takes some of the best aspects of a few popular productivity systems (GTD, Stephen Covey and others) and combines them with the mandate of simplicity. It makes things as simple as possible, and no more.

(Zen to Done: The Ultimate Simple Productivity System)

I’ve tried tackling just one project at a time and pouring all my energy into that one focused goal, but — though that sounds logical and efficient — it has never worked out very well. On the other extreme, having too many projects doesn’t work out either. A few projects get done, but there’s a lingering unpleasantness around all the projects that are laying fallow. So, somewhere between the two extremes is the best number of projects. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know what that magic number (or more likely, the magic range of numbers), but I do know that I’m on the high side, and it’s not working well.

Today, on his blog Zen Habits, Leo has an excellent article on striking that elusive balance between too many and too few projects, based on his Haiku Productivity principles.

This application of Haiku Productivity may be one of the most useful and powerful (along with the two I mentioned above), transforming your ability to get projects done from one of juggling to one of focused completion.

How about you? Do you have too many projects? Too few? Or perhaps you’ve found the magic number of projects that works best for you. Feel free to leave a comment, and, as always, thanks for reading!

Roger Federer, as you may recall, is the number one male tennis player in the world — the Michael Jordan of tennis. In the article, I talked about how his economy of motion, equanimity in the face of difficulty, and deep consistency are inspirational and instructive in ways that transcend tennis and have relevancy in various aspects of life.

Ever since then, I’ve been giving thought to how one can “Federerize” one’s productivity, and I’ve coined a phrase for it: The Federer Swing.

What is the Federer Swing? It’s bringing the three qualities I mentioned above — economy of motion, equanimity in the face of difficulty, and deep consistency — to one’s productivity. Let’s concentrate on economy of motion.

The more I thought about economy of motion, the more I noticed how much wasted energy I expend while working. Now, as someone who follows the principles of GTD pretty closely, I thought I had a fairly streamlined workflow (eg. not keeping my file cabinet in a different room than my desk — what had I been thinking), but upon closer inspection, and with the economy of motion of Federer’s swing in mind, this turned out to be an area I can refactor significantly.

For example, while writing this post I notice I waste time and precious energy (even if just a bit — it all adds up) by checking the Preview habitually. I write blog posts in TextMate using Markdown syntax (which increases my economy of motion and efficiency), but then I reflexively hit ctrl-option-command-p every so often for no apparent reason — just a behavioral tic. True, sometimes I really do need to see the post-Markdown preview. For instance, when I’ve used a Markdown syntax I’m not used to, and I want to see if it worked. But, most of the previewing I’m doing is just pointless. An equivilant action on the tennis court might be twitching the racket in some habitual way just before swinging. If the twitch serves no purpose in the context at hand — hitting the ball — then the twitch isn’t economical motion and must go. Likewise, seeing a post preview a dozen times isn’t economical and must go.

For another example, let’s say I’m programming. And, let’s further say I need to look something up about a method I’m trying to use. I switch to my trusty browser to find information, but suddenly it dawns on me that I could take a minute to pop on over to Google Reader and see what’s new in my feeds. Just “a minute.” Now, obviously, stopping to check news feeds is counter-productive, since the goal at hand is programming, not feed surfing. But, let’s look at it in terms of the swing metaphor. When Federer dashes across the court to hit the ball, does he stop along the way to check his cell phone voicemail? Preposterous! Un-economical? Yes. In the extreme. And yet, I know for a fact I’ve stopped to check feeds in the middle of another task. Perhaps you have too.

All that said, I think there’s a danger to being too draconian or rigid about economy of motion. There are times where being a little loose, a little scattered, is advantageous. Sometimes wandering off the path for a bit leads to serendipitous discovery. But, generally speaking, when bearing down on a specific task, refining economy of motion is useful and desirable.

Swiss tennis super-star Roger Federer is the Michael Jordan of tennis. He’s just amazingly good. Many say he’s the best tennis player of all time.

He’s ranked number one in the world — a rank he has held for more consecutive weeks than any other player in history — and is currently kicking ass once again at the US Open. His career history is jaw-dropping; just take a look at his achievements as detailed on the Roger Federer Wikipedia page.

Watching him play the other night, I began to wonder how the things that drive his success on the tennis court might be applied to our own lives even if the only time we touch a tennis ball might be to throw it for our pooch to fetch.

Calm and Focused Efficiency

When he plays, one of the most striking things is how little energy he seems to expend compared to his (usually doomed) opponent who sweats and breathes hard as he runs around the court, smashing the ball in an attempt to stop the juggernaut across the net. Federer is always calm, efficient, and focused in comparison.

Economy of Motion

Federer has amazing economy of motion. Everything he does on the court is precise and efficient — there’s no wasted energy or motion. Because all his actions are so perfect, and the economy of motion is so profound, he makes it all look easy, effortless.

Equanimity in the Face of Difficulty

Tennis is a deeply psychological game. To win, a player must be solidly “in the zone” — centered and determined. Once the mind goes off course because of self-doubt or negative emotions, it’s over — the critical edge needed to win is lost and defeat looms on the near horizon. Whereas many player’s psychological foundations shake and crumble when the match is going poorly for them, Federer is always in the zone, no matter what’s going on in the match.

Deep Consistency

Perhaps above all else, Federer is deeply consistent. No matter what the score is, no matter what’s going on with his opponent, no matter if the tide of the match is in his favor or not — he is always precisely consistent: how he swings the racket, how he runs, how he positions himself on the court and makes ready for the next shot.

I would love to have this kind of bring all these qualities to many aspects of my life, be they physical, mental, or in the realm of my productivity. Calm and focused efficiency, economy of motion, equanimity in the face of difficulty, and deep consistency.

What are some of the ways you bring these qualities to your life?