Getting things done, part 2: having/keeping a plan

As I noted in my first post in this series, I noted that getting things done seems to be one of the most common things that early-career people tend to struggle with. I struggled with it myself, both in graduate school and early in my career post-graduation--and have known a lot of other early-career people who have had similar struggles. Anyway, in my first post, I discussed the importance of adaptation. In my experience, if one is having trouble getting things done--getting papers out for review, meeting deadlines, getting one's dissertation done, etc.--it is all too easy to think that you just need to do what you're already doing but just do it better. My sense is that this is usually not the case: that if one is having trouble getting things done, it may be more helpful to rethink one's entire approach to getting things done. That, at any rate, is what I ended up doing--and it worked wonders. I went from being someone (as a grad student) who never got anything done to (finally, after many years!) being able to get stuff done. My aim in this series is to share some of the things I've found helpful, and encourage you to share things you've found helpful as well. I don't suppose that my strategies will work for everyone--as we are all different. However, in some cases (including in today's post) I'll share some scientific evidence that certain things are known to work.

My topic today will be having and keeping a plan for getting things done. As it turns out, the importance of setting and keeping the right kinds of goals is known empirically to be vital for getting things done. As I've mentioned before, my spouse is a researcher in Industrial-Organizational Psychology--a discipline that scientifically studies individuals and organizations, including the science of hiring, leadership, motivation, work-life balance, productivity, and so on. One thing my spouse shared with me a while back is goal-setting theory: an empirically well-supported account of how goals figure into performance, and which kinds of goals work best. What does goal-setting theory say? Some interesting things--things that have worked well for me just as the theory holds.

I cannot give a "seminar" on goal-setting theory. I'm not that much of an expert on it. But what I do know is this. Goal-setting theory has demonstrated that having certain types of goals is conducive to greater productivity. What kinds of goals? The short answer is that vague goals--like "Getting my dissertation done" or "Writing a paper"--don't work well at all. Nor do specific goals that are too easy to meet and don't specify for any required outcome (e.g. "I am going to write for 2 hours today"). The problem with both types of goals is that they do not specify any clear way to achieve the end goal. Simply telling oneself, "I need to get my dissertation done" or "I'm going to write for 2 hours today", is not a plan--and, because they are not plans, it is all too easy to "follow them" yet hardly get anything done.

What kinds of goals does goal-setting theory indicate actually work? Here's the short answer as I understand it:

1. Short-term and medium-term goals that have a clear target.
2. Where the targets specified are achievable but demanding.
3. Such that one can hold oneself to meeting them consistently, on a day-to-day, week-to-week basis.

Allow me to explain. An interesting thing is that after many years of fumbling about and never getting anything done, I actually started doing these three things before my spouse ever told me about goal-setting theory. Here is how I go about my days.

First, I know that I have certain long-term things to get done: right now, I have a book to revise and get feedback on, an encyclopedia entry to finish, and so on. I also know I have immediate things I need to get done: prep lectures, grade assignments, and so on.

What I do next is--bearing these long-term goals and immediate tasks in mind--is set up in my mind an achievable medium-term plan for what I need to get done over the next several months. So, for example, since my revised book manuscript is due this summer, my medium term plan is to get feedback from outside reader on a couple of chapters in the next month or so, send them the next finished chapter about a month from now, the next finished chapter about a month later, and so on.

What I do next is, bearing these medium-term plans, is set for myself a clear weekly schedule with a clear specification for what I am going to accomplish. For example, my schedule this week is to prep my lectures, grade assignments, and finish revising a particular book-chapter by the end of the week. This weekly schedule also has a day-by-day format: on Monday, I plan to work on revising the introduction to the book's chapter, on Tuesday, I plan to work on revising the chapter's first section, on Wednesday its second section, and so on. Having each day of the planned out in my head before the week begins enables me to hold myself to the plan. If I know that Tuesday is for working on section 1 of a chapter, then I know I can't push off what I have scheduled for Monday (revising the introduction) to Tuesday. Since I know that Wednesday is for working on section 2, I know I can't push off the introduction and section 1. In other words, I've found that having a clear weekly schedule--with each day planned in advance--is absolutely key to avoiding procrastination. We end up procrastinating, I've found, because in the back of our minds we think to ourselves, "Oh well, if I don't get the introduction revised today, I'll revise it tomorrow!" The way to avoid that, or so I've found, is to insist to oneself from the outset, "No, Monday is for the introduction. I'm going to make myself finish revising it, because Tuesday is for section 1."

Finally, each day I have a relatively clear plan in my head for what I am going to accomplish hour-by-hour for the day at hand. For example, a typical plan for my day may be something like this: "I am going to finish revising the introduction between 9am-noon. Then from 12:30-2pm I'm going to update my lectures for classes tomorrow. Then from 2-3pm I'm going to grade daily assignments. Then from 3-4pm I'm going to revise a bit of paper X or grade daily assignments (depending on what I have time for). Then from 4-5pm I'm going to write a post for the Cocoon." Then I head to the gym at 5pm and come home, cook dinner, and hang out the rest of the night with my spouse (I'll talk about the importance of downtime in a future post!).

Anyway, this is how I approach things: I have clear long-term goals, but also detailed medium-term (monthly) and short-term goals that specify clear outcomes for each day, and by extension, each week (i.e. I'm going to finish revising section 1 today, section 2 tomorrow, section 3 on Thursday, and finish revising the chapter on Friday). Finally--and I've found this is really important--I've found it is vital to "hold oneself" to each goals. On rare occasions, I'll have a day where I don't finish a goal I set (I'll give revising section 1 my best shot, but get stuck somehow)--but, on those occasions, I make myself catch up the next day (getting back to my original plan). "But what about what if I really get stuck", you might ask, "and I just can't find my way revising a paper." Good question! I'll give my answer in an upcoming post. The relevant point for now is that goal-setting theory in psychology says that setting the kinds of goals I've discussed here are important--that it tends to help people be more productive. That certainly coheres with my experience: it has worked wonders!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? How do you find "having/keeping a plan" (or not!) works for you?

Comments

[Trevor Hedberg]

This reminds me a bit of Cal Newport's material on this subject. (He teaches computer science and runs the popular blog "Study Hacks".) Cal is also a big advocate of structured daily planning. Here's one representative post about the subject: http://calnewport.com/blog/2015/09/29/deep-habits-three-recent-daily-plans/

Personally, I've never been able to hold fast to a rigid daily plan, but I certainly endorse the first two features of goal-setting that you mention. Vague goals that are very far off in the future don't tend to be motivating. They need to be concrete (so that they have clear conditions for failure and success), and they need to be relatively short term so that you don't keep putting off progress. I will add that imposing artificial deadlines (for example, by targeting a CFP for a journal or conference) can aid in staying on task with various projects in the absence of a rigid daily schedule.

[Amanda]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. but wanted to note that my own "strategy" is quite different. I have no goals, and only vague plans (for example, write a book before tenure). Goals and plans cause me a lot of anxiety, because I then feel pressure to achieve/follow them. For me it is easier to simply just write the best that I can and as much as I can. I don't really have a schedule, but I do have a pattern of mostly doing work at the same time each day. It has worked out for me, although I am happy to admit I might be an idiosyncratic case. I suppose I could also be wrong, and perhaps I would do even better if I implemented this type of strategy. But I tend to think for people with my disposition (a lot of "natural" discipline, but a lot of goal-related anxiety) this type of path might not be the best.

[A Non-Mouse]

I'm like Amanda. I have nothing like the sort of plans discussed. In fact, when I have a paper to write, it nags at me and preoccupies my thoughts to the point at which I use all my available time to read or write until the paper is finished.

[Marcus Arvan]

Amanda and A Non-Mouse: Thanks for sharing! I definitely think different things can work. I used to do what you two do, and it didn't work for me. Since I found the planning thing works for me, I figured it might be good to share it as a possibility to try for those who struggle getting stuff done.

I also wonder whether what works depends on context. For example, I'm curious: do both of you work at R1 institutions? Here's why I ask. In my first job, which was at an R1, I did what you both do--mainly because I had more or less all day to sit around writing (though it didn't even work all that well for me then). At my current institution, though, this just isn't an option. I have *so* many different things to juggle--a heavy course load, chairing, committee work, multiple paper and book deadlines, etc.--that simply sitting down dedicating all of my available time to a single paper just isn't an effective use of time: doing that would necessitate me missing deadlines that I need to meet.

[Marcus Arvan]

Thanks for sharing, Trevor - I'll check out Newport's stuff!

[A Non-Mouse]

I'm at an R1. But I've had to juggle a heavy load of responsibilities, similar in some respects to what you describe. My non-research responsibilities almost always suffer at least a bit (and sometimes a lot). I tend not to let things get in the way of my research.

[Amanda]

I work at an R1 - but only recently started here. Before I was at a teaching school, and before that I had a heavy adjunct load while in grad school. My strategy has always been like this. When I had heavy teaching loads I almost never did research/teaching in the same day. Some days were all research and some days all teaching. Also, perhaps this is just idiosyncratic - but I have way more service work at my R1 than I had at my teaching school.

[Marcus Arvan]

Amanda (and A Non-Mouse): interesting! Yeah, I’ve heard some people say my strategies wouldn’t work for them. It’s cool to hear that different things work for the two of you. My hope is that sharing different strategies may help people who are struggling with their current strategies consider possible alternatives. So thanks to both of you for sharing!

[Amanda]

Marcus, I agree. Grad students should try out various work-habit strategies and do what works best with them. The key is to try something new if what you're doing isn't working.