Why To-Do Lists Often Fail

When we get stressed or overwhelmed with things to do, one of the first reactions is to create a to-do list. The thinking behind a to-do list sounds logical - lots of stuff to do, keeping it all in ones head is a task in and of itself, so write them down. Then, during periods of 'free' time, the list can be consulted, and productivity skyrockets!

A few items may get knocked off the list, but how often have you created a to-do list where items just sit, because something more pressing came up?

It's those more pressing items that are the problem. Sure, some of those are fires and legitimate things that need taking care of right away. But most of the time? Once something is on a to-do list, it becomes kind of a permission slip to get distracted by something else. "Oh, I can come back to it, because it's on my list, and I won't forget it!"

Which brings us to why to-do lists fail. That word: distraction.

Quick quiz: What is the opposite of distraction?

If you said focus, then I've got good news for you! You answered with the most common answer.

The bad news is that that answer is incorrect. The real opposite of distraction is traction, and there in lies the problem. What we commonly think is the antidote to distraction is completely incorrect. When we get distracted, it's not that we lack focus - we have focus, it's just not what we'd like to think we want to focus on.

So yes, we are going to get into a bit of etymology here, but it's actually really important, because if you want to solve the problem of distraction, you have to understand what it really is.

The root of the word traction comes from the Latin trahere, meaning 'to pull'. When we have traction, we are pulled in a direction. We say we want to be pulled in a direction of productivity, moving the needle, or making progress - but all too often, we are pulled in a different direction. Thus, distraction. So, it's not that we don't have focus; it's that we have an urge, or a sense of being pulled, in another direction. Focus actually has nothing to do with it.

Now we get into the reasons why you might be pulled in a different direction. Maybe it's the buzzers and beeps of a device sitting next to you. Maybe it's a browser tab with social media or a stock portfolio. Whatever it is, it's something you have half a mind on, and when your work-brain senses a lull in activity (such as completing an email, or finishing up working a problem), that half-a-mind on something else ends up being opportunistic for attention, and suddenly that quick break has resulted in 45 minutes disappearing from your day. And was that half-a-mind on getting back to your to-do list? (Oh, right. The to-do list. The whole reason that brought us here). Nope.

So, what can we do about it? Close browser windows, and turn off notifications on our devices? Maybe. But we've all tried that, and it doesn't completely solve the problem. The full answer lies in something you may not expect: recognizing that the problem is a pain (or at least, discomfort) management issue.

Here is an example: A lot of times, we may have a general sense of what needs to get done on a given workday, or we may say 'Today I'm going to work on this documentation'. Then you start off, and Pat asks you for something, pulling your attention away from the documentation. You figure 'OK, well, Pat needs this thing, so I'll help them. And it's not like the documentation absolutely has to be done today.' So you dump what you are working on, help Pat, and then before spooling back up, you 'take a break' - check email, check the socials, maybe take care of some other stuff. Then, before you know it, the end of the day comes along, and maybe you helped Pat (which felt good, in the moment), but you didn't finish the documentation, and its right there on your plate for the next day. You didn't get that sense of accomplishment of finishing what you set out to do. Best case, you get to it the following day - a day late, but not terrible. Worst case, that next day (or 2, or 7) was already scheduled for something else, and that documentation lingers for days, leaving you with a noticeable sense of incompletion. And that is the part that sucks. That is the part that, over time, is demoralizing and wears on your psyche.

Now it's easier to see why a to-do list, by itself, isn't the solution. In my experience, to-do lists end up being a parking lot more than anything else. And it's not that that isn't useful - sometimes we have enough stuff on our plate that we need a place to put lower priority things as a reminder. But all-too-often we delude ourselves into thinking that a to-do list is the answer, when in fact, it's just the first part of the solution. We have to have a plan to act on the to-do list. Many times, this means being proactive with a schedule and sticking to it. Telling Pat 'no' may not feel good in the moment, but Pat can't reasonably expect you to dump everything to help them, and meanwhile you've (potentially) sacrificed your own sense of accomplishment.

Take the items on the to-do list, and don't just 'get to them when you get a moment' - consciously block time off in your schedule to do them. You'll get the satisfaction of accomplishing what you set out to do, and have a shorter to-do list as a result. And that is the path of least discomfort.

This post was inspired by an interview I heard with Nir Eyal, author of the book 'Indistractable'

Breaking Out of the Victim Mindset

I'm going to start off by admitting that this post may seem a bit out there. I'll also say that what I'm about to write about is one of those things that is at once simplistic sounding, but if you bear with me and mull it over a bit, I think you'll find (as I did) that the concepts are quite profound in their application.

The concept apparently originated from Michael Beckwith, but I heard it through Jim Dethmer as the four states of consciousness, or the four states of being.

They are:

• TO me
• BY me
• THROUGH me
• AS me

TO me:

This represents the victimhood state of mind. Things happen TO me. Most everyone knows someone who has a lot of things that seemingly happen TO them. It's never their fault, and they are just a victim of the situation.

BY me:

This represents someone who has identified they have some degree of exerting control of what happens to them. The BY me state represents acknowledgement of agency over ones actions.

THROUGH me:

The THROUGH me state is essentially when someone does something that feels right at that time. If you've ever felt yourself in a flow state, that is one example of the THROUGH me state.

AS me:

This one can be a bit out there. The short version is that AS me is the oneness that a lot of spiritual practices talk about. Ego is removed, and you are part of something much bigger.

So now that we have a summary of the states, let's get a bit more practical.

First off, since these are states of being, or of consciousness, it's important to realize that we move in and out of these at all times. For example, there are sometimes one is legitimately a victim. When I got robbed at a T stop at night when I was college, I was a legitimate victim. That happened TO me. But after that, I did the predictable thing that most people would do - I switched to a BY me state, and from then on, I didn't take that particular path home, at night, in the dark. I was able to exert agency over my situation to prevent that situation from happening again.

That is an easy example, but lets take another one. Lets say you work on a team of 5 or 6 people, you've been at your company for 5 years, and your team leader moves on. The position of team leader is now up for grabs, and you are interested in that position. You put your hat in the ring, but it turns out that Bob, your teammate who has only been with the company for 1 year, gets the job.

It'd be real easy to slip into a TO me mindset - you feel that you deserved that promotion. After all, you had longer tenure, and who the hell is Bob to have gotten it instead of you?

Well, chances are, Bob did something to get noticed or to get recognized. In short, Bob, knowingly or not, was acting from a BY me mindset. Maybe he was regularly checking in with management to make sure his goals were aligned with business goals while you were doing what only you thought was moving the needle, but actually wasn't. Maybe he was attending company social events and getting to know the decision makers of the company, staying forefront in their mind. It's hard to know exactly what Bob did, but I guarantee you he was actively doing something to increase his chances.

The TO me and BY me states are, on the surface, pretty easy to grasp, as I think most people can quickly think of examples throughout the day where something happened TO them, and where they took some sort of proactive (BY me) action to prevent an undesirable outcome learned through hard knocks.

Things get a bit more tricky with the THROUGH me - but here is a situation I bet most people can identify with: ruminating on something for a while, tossing a problem around in your head, and then suddenly the solution (or path forward) becomes clear. I find this happens with writing quite often - I have something I want to write about, but not sure how to portray it in written form. Sometimes I try to force it, but upon reading it, it does indeed sound forced. Other times something just clicks, and the words flow.

One thing I've found is that these moments happen more frequently during motion (either while going for a walk, or run), or when either going to, or coming out of, sleep.

The AS me state is, at least from what I've been able to discern so far, almost more of a philosophical state. It's when you get to a point of letting go, and just being. Most people probably think of someone sitting down cross legged and meditating as an example of this state - and that may be true - but I'd also argue that there are plenty of times in normal life that people end up in an AS me state.

For example, if you are part of a large team and you have a particular area of focus that is deemed your area of contribution, that starts to be a bit of the AS me state. Your ego is not compelling you to solve problems outside of your sphere, you accept you are part of a larger team, you do solid work and take pride in what you can contribute, and you let others do their jobs so that everyone can succeed.

In a lot of ways, I'd say the Patriots way of playing when they had Tom Brady was very much a team of players in an 'AS me' state. The 1980 US Olympic hockey team in the movie Miracle, with Herb Brooks shouting from the sidelines "DO YOUR JOB!" is another example. Those players were in an AS me state.

Much like various types of bias, these states of consciousness aren't completely avoidable, and all of them are completely natural. However, I find it interesting how we tend to move from one state to another throughout the day. And like bias, simply being aware of them allows one to ask themselves the sometimes hard, but necessary question: am I really a victim, or do I actually possess some ability to control the outcome? Because I would argue that many times, the latter is true, but you have to ask yourself the question in order to move on, and avoid getting stuck in the victimhood mindset.

How to use the "Is it your intention NOT to do {X}" tactic properly

Over the past couple years, there have been a number of times where I've seen emails that deploy the same tactic, which is some variant of the following:

"Is it your intention to not do {X}?"

where {X} is usually something like move forward with a purchase or further engage with an opportunity.

I've been witness to this tactic yielding amazing results (such as bringing opportunities back from the dead). I've also seen this tactic being used laughably incorrectly.

So, what makes a situation ripe for using that tactic, vs a situation where it barely moves the needle?

To understand the difference between the two situations, it's helpful to go back to Chris Voss' explanation of why the tactic works in the first place (Chris Voss is the person from whom I first heard of this tactic, and is a former FBI hostage negotiator - he knows a thing or two about influence).

There are two main reasons why the tactic works when it does:

• It puts the other person in the drivers seat by giving them an opportunity to say 'no'. Think about this for a moment, and the situations where you've had to say 'no' to something. Would it have been a lot easier or more comfortable to just 'go along' and say yes, even though you didn't really mean it? Saying 'no' inherently puts a stick in the ground, and helps put the person saying 'no' back into a position of control. The question 'Is it your intention NOT to do...' is designed to elicit a 'no' response.
• Loss aversion. People, in general, do not like to lose something they think they have, even if they don't own it yet. To illustrate this, think about the feelings people had in March 2020 when the market tanked, vs the reality of most peoples situation when it came to the value of their investments vs the original cost basis (read: they were still doing OK - the 'losses' were on paper only). The question 'Is it your intention NOT to do...' puts the possibility of NOT having the deal go through into their psyche, which triggers the loss aversion response.

So with the explanation of why the tactic works, we can look back at situations where it is effective, and where I've seen it used completely ineffectively.

Effective

In order for the loss aversion response to get triggered, the person receiving the 'Is it your intention NOT to...' line has to feel they have something to lose by responding in any way other than 'no'. Usually, that occurs when they have already put some sort of investment in, or they feel they are just a 'yes' response away from realizing a benefit. In other words, when a proposal or quote that they have been a major part of is on the table, and has been for a period of time.

I have seen this tactic used, and garner a response back within an hour (after weeks of silence), in situations like that.

Ineffective

Promotional or unsolicited emails or other communications. I've been the person receiving a solicitation email out of the blue from some vendor. Then, a week later, a follow up with 'I reached out to you last week' blah blah blah. Then, a week later, an email asking 'Is it your intention NOT to move forward?'

In these cases - yes, it is my intention to NOT move forward. I never asked for the product and I have no interest. I have zero investment of my time in pursuing said product, so there is no loss aversion response to be triggered.

Closing Thought

The other thing this illustrates is that one can read about strategies and tactics in a book (really, about anything - from sales to parenting), but deploying them effectively is a whole other ballgame, and this scenario with this particular negotiation tactic was one where I've seen it attempted in multiple scenarios and it really illustrated how there are certain times and situations where a tactic can be used effectively, and others where it completely falls flat.

Do you want to keep your audience engaged? Stop asking loaded questions

At some point or another, everyone ends up in a situation where they are explaining something to an audience. That audience may be a bunch of anonymous people, or it may be direct reports. And during such situations, it's not uncommon to pause, and ask if there are any questions.

The problem is, the way this inquiry is posed, is loaded.

Take a moment to think about the phrase 'Are there any questions?' It sounds inquisitive, but think of yourself as being a member of the audience - is it an inviting question? It is an open question that makes you feel comfortable raising your voice?

Usually, the answer is 'no'. Raising your hand, asking a question - both those actions subtly go against the grain. The phrase 'Are there any questions?' sets the grain in such a way that it's far more comfortable, as an audience member, to stay quiet.

It takes a lot of self confidence to go against the grain. What happened with me early in my career - and what I assume happens to most people (since I am nothing special) - is that asking questions or asking for clarification, is perceived as a weakness. Maybe we have trauma from grade school when we asked questions and were made fun of for not 'getting it'. But that was grade school - by the time we get to a career, its a whole other ballgame.

I may be stating the obvious, but sometimes it's nice to hear someone else acknowledge, reiterate, and justify the obvious.

The point is - even as we get older, we still have questions, but we are often held back by previous experiences that have marred us. We have a deeply ingrained desire to appear so intelligent or strong that we resist asking a question.

On the other hand - what goes through your mind when someone else asks a question? At least in my case (and again, I assume in others' cases as well, since I am nothing special), if I hear someone else ask a question, its either 'Ah, yes - I was thinking the same thing', and I am happy someone else brought up the topic, or I think 'Wow, that person is really engaged - they are thinking on a level I didn't even consider', I take it as a learning opportunity to expand my thought process, and I am appreciative of the opportunity. In either case, it's a positive situation.

But that is the perspective of the audience member. If it takes two to tango, it takes both sides of the situation to foster as fully an educational experience as possible - meaning not only does the audience member have to muster the guts to ask a question, but the presenter can also help the situation by inviting questions.

So, for example - after presenting a chunk of material, the presenter may say:

"OK, that was a lot of information. Now is a great time to ask any questions you may have"

- OR -

"I'm sure there are a lot of questions, so lets pause a moment to address them"

There are a couple subtle messages in those.

• In the first instance, there is the acknowledgement of a lot of information. This helps the audience member feel validated that they (potentially) just absorbed a lot of information, may feel a bit overwhelmed, and needs time to process. It helps pave the way for the statement that if there are questions, this is an appropriate time.
• In the second instance, by stating that they are sure there are questions, the presenter is expecting there to be questions. When the presenter expects questions, and that is conveyed to the audience - it's a whole lot easier for the audience member to ask them.

Now, note the difference between those two potential statements, and the following:

"OK. That was a lot of information. Now is a great time to ask any questions, if there are any."

Ask yourself - doesn't that feel just a bit less inviting? The qualifier 'if there are any' at the end almost completely nullifies the opening offered by the 'Now is a great time to ask any questions'.

These are subtle wording differences, but they make a huge impact on how likely it is that an audience member will raise their voice to ask a question.

As someone who spent a large portion of my career where I was a technical instructor - I can tell you that an audience that asks questions is engaged, and an engaged audience is always preferred to a silent audience, and one way to keep the audience engaged is to be mindful of how you ask if there are any questions.

This post was inspired by Ozan Varol.