4 ms·
To-do lists can work for some people, but here's why they're dangerous: 1) The urgency-importance matrix theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MerrillCovey
by mrshoe 17y ago
To-do lists can work for some people, but here's why they're dangerous:
1) The urgency-importance matrix theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MerrillCoveyMatrix.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MerrillCoveyMatrix.png). Given the 2x2 matrix of (important, unimportant) x (urgent, not urgent), the two urgent quadrants tend to get done and the other 2 don't. In the case of the (unimportant, not urgent) quadrant, that's probably fine. But for the (important, not urgent) quadrant, this is a problem. To-do lists can make it even easier to focus on the urgent, short-term tasks while starving the important, long-term ones.
2) To-do lists provide fuel for the procrastination fire by helping you find ways to occupy yourself while you put off a big task that you don't want to do. See http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/ http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/
I think that's the crux of his argument. People who achieve a lot can see the big picture; they can see the long term. They don't let the small tasks get in their way.
- microtherion 17y agoIronically, I first misread your argument (1) as an argument IN FAVOR of to-do lists, because to-do lists have at least the merit that they preserve the (important, not urgent) items for the next review opportunity. The phenomenon you describe, unimportant short term tasks crowding out important long term tasks, is not so much caused by KEEPING to do lists, but by not properly MANAGING them. I don't see how one would become better at managing priorities by NOT having a reasonably accurate overall picture of what the tasks at hand are. [Disclaimer: As is probably evident from my argument, I'm a somewhat recent convert to the "Getting Things Done" methodology]