Applied Research in a World of Increasing Time Demands
I am getting ready to announce some new training programs that are built on Time Management 2.0 principles. One is entirely new, while the other is an upgrade of sorts.
Click here to read the article I wrote about these changes over at the MyTimeDesign blog.
As I mentioned in my prior post: “The Pedagogy of Time Management,” there is a need for anyone who wants to improve their skills in this field to craft specific opportunities for structured practice.
Mark Needham’s summary of Talent is Overrated describes three kinds of practice from the book:
With regards to improving skills, three models are suggested for non-work related practice:
- Music Model – Break down activity into smaller pieces; analyse each for ares of improvement; repeatedly practice each area. This is a useful approach for practicing presentations and speeches where we know beforehand what we want to do.
- Chess Model – Study real games; practice the situations from the games; compare what you did vs what happened in the real game. This approach has been applied in business for many years, disguised as the case method.
- Sports Model – re-learn the basics of the field; simulate situations that may come up in real life.
He goes on to apply these models to the improvement of software development skills in an interesting way:
I think some parts of each of these models can be applied to software development. From the sports model we can take the idea of re-learning the underlying principles of computer science and how our code is actually working behind the abstractions languages create for us; from the chess model we can take the idea of considering different options when we have a choice to allow us to select the one which will best solve our problem; and from the music model we can take the idea of identifying specific areas of improvement in our work and relentlessly working on these.
That’s cool thinking… and it makes me wonder how I can do the same with time management skills.
Ever since I created the NewHabits training programs I have wanted to include practice sessions – the equivalent of hitting shots from the driving range – but I have been unable to think of a realistic way to do this.
I’d love some help on this. Is there a way to practice the 7 fundamentals – (Capturing, Emptying, Tossing, Acting Now, Storing, Scheduling and Listing) in a classroom environment?
Also, is there a surefire way for someone who wants to improve their skill in a particular area to focus on practicing that skill in keeping with the guidelines for deliberate practice from Talent is Overrated?:
I don’t think I’m the only one with this challenge, and from prior posts you might find that I have been struggling with this question for a while, and that progress has been slow. Why?
Let’s look at some of the critical skills in Capturing:
– carrying something to capture with at all times
– capturing manually, instead of using memory
– maintaining a backup strategy
At one point, I have imagined an elaborate real-life case study in the middle of my live programs, in which a manufactured crisis results in participants having to use these three skills. One fantasy involved a fake fire-alarm, mysterious phone calls involving elaborate instructions and a rapid response requiring information that had to be successfully captured in order to be used.
What I was thinking…???
I also am not a great believer in “analogy” learning exercises… for example, showing the importance of Capturing by going out to a ropes and logs course to do physical activities that teach similar lessons. There is a certain physical motion required to Capture, and it’s this action that must be practiced… (Michael Jordan didn’t practice passing a basketball by playing soccer.)
The difficulty seems to be that it’s devilishly hard to re-create the original events that trigger manual capturing in the average day. (This is distinct from automatic capturing, which happens when someone sends you an email, for example. It requires no action on our part.)
What are these triggering events? Here are a few “cases:”
Each of these events naturally leads to the use of one of the critical skills in Capturing. Something must happen at that critical moment for the user to realize that this is an opportunity to practice a new time management skill.
As an aside — let me explain how that works in my training. Each person evaluates their current Capturing abilities using a scale ranging from White to Green Belt skills. Some decide to make an upgrade, and pick up new habits. In other words, they decide to engage in a brand new practice in response to the usual events they face each day. (Take my online Capturing Quiz to see what I mean.)
The question is, how do they know (in the heat of the moment) that this is an opportunity to Capture using a new habit (by writing down the new time demand on a pad of paper) rather than using their old habit of, for example, committing it to memory?
And, how do they remember to practice that new skill until it becomes a new habit?
At this time, all I can think of is that they can engage in a form of visualization, in which they picture the event happening and their new, preferred response. It might require a short definition such as “when I commit to a time demand in a meeting I immediately write it in my paper pad.”
Also, they could get a colleague or their boss to help them recognize and point out those moments when they say things like:
These might be indicators that an error in Capturing took place.
They could also look for themselves to see the times when they don’t capture well, and time demands fell through the cracks. I imagine something like a Crack Score to be kept by an individual who tracks the number of time demands that fall through the cracks each day, and some record of the source of the error. In some cases, it might be traced back to a fault in Capturing.
While you may read this and think to yourself, “I would never bother with all that!” you may want to take note of the message of Talent is Overrated as related by the Fundamental Soccer blog:
2) Deliberate practice can be repeated a lot. High repetition is the most important difference between deliberate practice of a task and performing the task for real, when it counts. Tiger Woods may face that buried lie in the sand only two or three times in a season, and if those were his only opportunities to work on that shot, he’d blow it just as you and I do.
Repeating a specific activity over and over is what people usually mean by practice, yet it isn’t especially effective. Two points distinguish deliberate practice from what most of us actually do. One is the choice of a properly demanding activity just beyond our current abilities. The other is the amount of repetition.
Top performers repeat their practice activities to stultifying extent. Ted Williams, baseball’s greatest hitter, would practice hitting until his hands bled. Pete Maravich, whose college basketball records still stand after more than 30 years, would go to the gym when it opened in the morning and shoot baskets until it closed at night.
Talent is Overrated is unambiguous on the point — if you want to get better, then deliberate practice is THE “secret sauce” that high achievers have been applying behind the scenes in order to accomplish the amazing goals that we so admire in ALL fields.
Time Management is no exception, and the widespread mediocrity that passes for acceptable performance around the globe, in virtually every workplace, will only be reversed with a commitment to deliberate practice.
I have just been accepted to speak at the Institute of Industrial Engineers Conference in Reno, Nevada. I’ll be presenting on May 25th.
The topic will be related to time management 2.0, of course and I’ll be echoing many of the themes that can be found on this website.
I’m excited to be able to share my ideas with others in the field, and am hoping that I can help to carve out time management as an important topic for learning and teaching.
Hopefully one or two blog subscribers can make it to the speech?
From Dictionary.com:
2. the art or science of teaching; education; instructional methods.
It’s not a commonly used word, but it is a useful one to consider when we think about the ways in which time management teaching has failed.
While time management is a practice used by every single working adult in the world, it’s strange that there is no standard training in this skill, or even a common or accepted body of knowledge. There is no text-book in the subject, and there are very few academic papers written on the topic, according to a recent literature review by Claessens et al. The discipline falls neatly between the cracks of well defined academic disciplines such as engineering, business, psychology and human resources.
Most people, as a result, end up being self-taught.
It’s not until their adult years (and usually well after they join the workforce) that a handful of professional look for some kind of formal training, which is usually delivered in a particular format that can be summarized as follows:
Here is what I do… copy my example.
In other words, the contemporary teaching method is to follow the example of a respected guru in the field who has put together a book or class that describes in some detail the particular habit pattern that works for them.
The gurus are well-intended, but their efforts fall short as evidenced by the number of people who take their programs or read their books and struggle along for a few days before reverting to what they have always done for years.
Fortunately for us, there are some recent books that highlight a new way of teaching time management that might be useful for professionals the world over.
Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, and Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin make the point that we are dead wrong when we think about high achievement. To put it simply, it’s impossible to reach world-class levels of performance without putting in thousands of hours of structured practice focused on areas of weakness. According to a review of the book at the Steve Cheeseborough blog, this practice is more than just fooling around at the driving range (in the case of golf) or playing a few tunes on the guitar that we remember:
This is the kind of practice that is desperately missing in the corporate world. According to military-veteran, now corporate employee/blogger, Brett (the author of Brett’s blog,) this is different from the military. Here is an excerpt from his review of the book:
Early on in Chapter 7 (of Talent is Overrated), Colvin highlights an issue that I’ve wrestled with in my mind for many years:
We saw earlier how hostile to the principles of well-structured deliberate practice most companies seem. That’s all the more puzzling when you consider how many high-profile organizations apart from businesses embrace these principles. We’re awed by the performance of champion sports team or great orchestras and theater companies, but when we get to the office, it occurs to practically no one that we might have something to learn by studying how some people became so accomplished. The U.S. military has made itself far more effective by studying and adopting these principles…. But at most companies – as well as most educational institutions and many nonprofit organizations – the fundamentals of great performance are mainly unrecognized or ignored.
The reference to the military really struck home with me, since over half of my professional life (so far) was spent as an officer in the Army. To simply say that the Army engages in “deliberate practice” – at both the individual and organizational levels – would be a gross understatement. In fact, in a peacetime Army the primary activity of soldiers and units is deliberate practice, with the explicit goal of continually improved performance. (More on a wartime military in a bit.)
When I left the military and joined the corporate world, what struck me most was how little practicing – and how little learning and improving – anyone did. For anything. The general impression was that if you needed to “practice”, then you obviously were the wrong person for the job. (This is the “hostility” to the principles of deliberate practice that Colvin refers to in the quote above.) Needless to say, in the areas where I had influence I did my best to change that perception.
The same problem has infected time management pedagogy. Over the years, the emphasis has been placed on the easy part… sharing the ideas and habit patterns that gurus are eager for us to adopt. What they ignore, to the detriment of all, is the fact that tough practice is needed in order to turn any new habit pattern learned in class into a set of reliable practices.
A modern pedagogy of time management would correct these errors and would:
With a new pedagogy, we might be able to introduce improved methods of teaching and learning that could be introduced much earlier in a professional’s career, and help them implement better systems at every point in their career, as soon as the need arises.
This post is a bit of a rant…
I just came across a Time Management and Productivity program that guarantees that the attendees on 4 teleclasses will save 5 hours per week of lost time. It’s a money-back guarantee that has to be exercised half-way through the course for a full refund.
Unfortunately, you can’t get the refund after the program is over, so you aren’t really testing the quality of the ideas — just how you feel about accomplishing the goal at the half-way mark.
It ticked me off — mostly because there’s no way that we know of to measure, verify or prove to oneself that 1, 5 or 10 hours have been saved by using any new habits, technology or software.
Also, I hate like the fact that you don’t have a chance to do the full program before deciding whether or not you have saved 5 hours. That kind of saving equates to some major habit changes for most people, and these don’t happen overnight.
I happen to be reading a great book: “Talent Is Overrated” by Geoff Colvin. Among the great points he makes is the fact that the average person makes the most progress when they are learning to do something for the first time… like learning to drive a car.
Over time, however, their rate of learning declines and flattens out as they stop getting any better. In fact, after a while, their skills often deteriorate.
What world class performers do in every discipline is that they keep on learning, by engaging in rigorous, structured practice in their areas of greatest weakness… and they are willing to keep practicing even as the gains to be made occur painfully slowly.
Maybe the program that I bumped into is only for those who are just starting out in their careers, or whose time management systems are so broken that a 5 hour gain is possible?
That seems to be stretching things a bit, but I hope that those who sign up for MyTimeDesign 1.0.Free before it closes today find that in this programe:
This makes the program a unique one… and here is the link to the program information page if you’d like to find out more, but remember… new registration in this free training closes down today until May in a few hours.
How many time demands are created in a day?
This critical piece of information is one that remains a mystery, it seems, and there hasn’t been any research that I can find to answer the the question.
(For a definition of the term “time demand” see this post located on the 2Time website. The rest of this article relies on your understanding the definition. Also, I’ll write this post as if time demands can be found outside the mind. The truth is more subtle than that… time demands are created by individual minds in response to some outside stimulus, but I’ll write this article as if they can be found in the stimuli themselves, so I’ll say things like “a piece of email has no new time demands” when what I really mean is “a piece of email has no stimulus for any new time demands.” I have taken the liberty to speak imprecisely in order to enable the larger point to be understood.)
The only research that I have found is simplistic – it measures the number of emails that come in each day. This is an almost useless estimate, as any given email might have absolutely no time demands whatsoever. Email spam, or one that closes out a discussion e.g. “Thanks” are both examples of email that do not include time demands. The message is read and then immediately tossed, or thrown away.
Another piece of email might include multiple time demands in just a few sentences. For example, a one-line email (e.g. “O.K.”) might affirm a prior request to receive the authorization necessary to execute a huge project involving thousands of people and millions of person-hours. Therefore, just counting the amount of email that one receives means little or nothing.
At the same time, email arriving in one’s inbox is only on source of new demands. Here are some others that fall neatly into different categories, depending on the circumstance:
– in a meeting, during a shower or while driving, you have a brainstorm and decide to take a complex series of actions. You capture these new time demands on a paper pad
– while watching television, you decide to take advantage of a weekend sale, and you make a mental note to stop by the store on Saturday morning with some cash in hand
– when you check your voice-mail, you receive a request for someone to send you additional information on a product your company is selling. You leave the message, promising yourself to come back later
– you wake up in the morning with a mysterious back-pain. You call the doctor’s office to make an appointment later that day
– you chat with your sister, a real estate agent, and decide to buy your first house
All these time demands are created in the moment the decision is made, but there doesn’t exist any easy way to measure their total number. Furthermore, all time demands are not created equally as they vary in length, and presumably have their own start and end times. Some may be complex, and are actually made up of many smaller time demands that can be scheduled into a calendar.
In the mind of the creator, the consequences of failing to complete one time demand are very different from another. This gives rise to a feeling that they might have very different priorities.
The fact that there is little research, however, doesn’t stop employees from making assumptions each day about how volumes of time demands vary in volume. Some may seem to be commonsensical, but I believe that we can make tremendous daily mistakes, based on incorrect conclusions. Consider the following hypotheses:
– managers receive more time demands each day than their subordinates, and taken together, they require more total time to complete
– employees create fewer time demands on weekends than on weekdays
– the more time demands are created in memory, the greater one’s stress level
– the amount of email in one’s Inbox is correlated with ones’ stress level
– the number of time demands that we enter our lives each day has been rising steadily
– retirees have fewer time demands than active employees
– meeting quality is correlated with the number of time demands that are created
– new channels of communication (such as BBM) generate new time demands
– Facebook generates new time demands, in keeping with the number of one’s friends
– the number of time demands that slip through the cracks and are lost or forgotten is an indicator of time management skill
– it is impossible to complete all time demands successfully
– as the number of time demands in one’s life escalates, new techniques are needed to cope
– smartphones enable the creation of an increased number of time demands
We probably each have our individual opinions on these items, and the quality of our lives is probably dependent on the way we each answer them. The fact that we don’t have solid answers reveads a gaping hole in time management research, and I’m not optimistic that it will be filled anytime soon.
One positive note is that skillful managers who don’t use memory (i.e. Green Belts in the 2Time terminology) do track each of the major time demands that enter their system faithfully, and could be studied to answer some of the questions above. Unfortunately, the tools to capture this information doesn’t exist today, but I believe it’s only a matter of time before they are invented… perhaps in our lifetime!
I had a recent conversation online with a few young professionals who complained that they need to check their smartphones in meetings because they are simply too boring.
While there’s an immediate problem of their lack of responsibility, it points to a fact of life for Gen Y and Millenial employees. They were raised on video games, remote controls and high-speed internet access, and they have been led by doting parents to believe that they have a right to switch to something more captivating whenever they want.
Not that they are the only culprits.
Employees of all ages are using their smartphones to look for, and find, better stuff in the middle of meetings, conversations and conference calls. Their eyes glaze over, and as they succumb to the “Blackberry Itch,” their mind starts to conjure up wonderful messages, websites and instant messages that will be instantly theirs in a matter of seconds… in the time it takes to grab their smartphone and fire it up. For some, this need to find instant distractions has become an addiction, as their mind convinces them that it needs additional stimulation whenever there’s a momentary lull.
It’s no insult to the other people in the conversation, meeting or call. It’s not meant to be rude or disrespectful. In fact, it’s not meant to be any more significant than changing the channel on a TV or clicking on a link to a website.
Unfortunately, it IS unproductive, and while some may think that it’s simple multi-tasking, a meeting in which half the attendees are lost on their smartphones is a meeting that will take longer than it should, wasting time and costing thousands of dollars. The cost far outweighs the potential benefit.
In passing, I read about some research that’s just beginning to explore the widening problem of reduced attention spans in the workplace, but in the meantime younger employees would do well to realize that their careers are being endangered by everyday habits.
I’m writing an article that I’m submitting to the Harvard Business Review, and in the process I asked my subscribers for feedback on the latest draft.
In the process, I received a great response that was more than just a comment on what I had written. Instead, it was a thesis of sorts, about the ways in which technology should be helping us to become more efficient. The author argued that we need to figure out our true needs before looking for new technology. This is in contrast to buying technology and then figuring out how it can help… in a haphazard kind of way.
When it comes to smartphones, I agree. For example, I’d argue that many people who bought smartphones are actually using them as “time-saving” devices, when I’m not sure that’s what they were intended to be.
For example, a small device that allows you to get email wherever you go could be either a laptop, iPad or smartphone. However, the particular advantages of smartphone design have lead to professionals using them in unlikely and unproductive ways, all in order to save time.
Obviously, the inventors at Apple, Palm and RIM did not intend to invent devices that would lead to habits such as:
– dangerous distracted driving
– rude interruptions in mid-conversation
– holidays spent working instead of relaxing
– 3:00am games of email ping-pong
– people checking messages hundreds of time per day just in case something interesting has come in that they missed
– employees who believe that their management is forcing them into overtime work that intrudes on personal space
These new widespread practices are smartphone-specific. The technology itself calls forth new and different habit patterns. It’s clear that the technology needs to be evaluated in a unique way, especially as it’s not too hard to predict a time when all employees are either expected or mandated to carry these devices at all times.
The author of the comment, however, went further than that and made the point that a proper evaluation of one’s time management system needs to be made before technology is contemplated. This made me think of the book “The Goal” by Eli Goldratt.
In this business fable which is about optimizing the ways in which factories operate, the main takeaway is that it’s best to find the single, greatest point of weakness and work to improve it. Goldratt calls this his “Theory of Constraints.”
I believe that the same idea applies to individual time management systems. As Goldratt illustrates in his book, in complex system it’s easy to improve the wrong thing, leading to no overall improvement.
In an early paper I wrote after starting this blog, I made this point. In ”The New Time Management – Toss Away the Tips, and Focus on the Fundamentals” I argued that people were barking up the wrong tree by chasing down the latest list of “Top 10 Time Management Tips!!” Instead, they should be focusing on practicing the fundamentals of time management with a view to making incremental improvements.
The comment on my article went further, and made me think that the 2Time system of 11 components can be used as a method to find “Herbie’s” – Goldratt’s name for bottlenecks, or weak points. For example, if you learn that you have a Yellow Belt in 9 disciplines and a White Belt in 2, it probably makes sense to focus on improving the 2… rather than buying an iPad because ”they are just so cool!”
As cool as new devices are, they might do nothing for your fundamentals.
In fact, they might do some damage.
If the average person who upgrades to a smartphone ends up engaging in new, unproductive habits 6 months later then we are right to ask – “what’s the point?”
The fact is, smartphones are not all bad. In a prior post, I described the process I’m undertaking to decide whether or not to upgrade from my bottom-of-the-line, monochrome cell phone.
At the moment, I’m leaning towards the upgrade, but I have developed 2 principles –
Principle #1 – Do No harm
I want to make sure that I don’t pick up any nasty habits that are obviously unproductive. For example, I have made myself a promise to never use the device while driving (or in the bathroom, movie theater, while cycling, etc.)
I am simply barring myself from these habits. (Wish me luck!)
Principle #2 – Real Upgrades
So far, I haven’t been successful in finding real ways that the device will add to my productivity in terms of the fundamentals.
There are other some gains to be made by having a convenient way to access mobile email, instant messages and web browsing but these still don’t impact any of the fundamentals in a profound way.
However, I am confident that new innovations, apps and add-ons are coming that will make impact the fundamentals, and I do want to take advantage of them as they arise… and perhaps make a suggestion or two. This means that I have to get into the game at some point… but it’s hardly an urgent need on my part.
I might have to make some adjustments, however. For example, my primary manual capture point is currently a paper pad. Migrating to capturing on a Blackberry would be a major change, and I still haven’t found a Blackberry wallet that allows a paper pad to be carried within it. I am quite wary of entrusting my capturing to a tool that requires a battery and a charger, but I am thinking that if I can find a paper solution, that I could always take a picture of what I have captured.
More to come on this…!
In a prior post I described what it’s like to upgrade one’s skills at Scheduling.
While there’s an immediate benefit to the professional who makes the jump, there is also an important benefit that comes from having an explicit schedule on paper, versus one that’s stored in one’s memory.
Imagine that, for a moment,that your boss approaches you with a new meeting or project. As she describes the work required, you start to feel a bit queasy as you aren’t sure you can deliver the results in the necessary time-frame. A negotiation starts, and it turns out that she really wants to work done, and she starts to ask you questions about your other commitments.
It turns out that White Belts have very different conversations than Orange Belts when confronted by a boss with an urgent request.
If you are a White Belt, your schedule looks like this:
Most of your time demands are stored in your memory, and if you are working with a to-do list it’s likely that her eyes would glaze over if you try show her all the items that are on it. When she presses you on changing around your schedule you get a bit lost, as it’s hard to mentally juggle all the items that you are trying to track, and that’s especially true when you are on the hot seat. In addition to the task portion of each time demand, you are also keeping in mind some idea of when tasks start and end, in terms of the time of day and, of course, the date.
It’s likely that if your boss is persistent that you’ll find yourself at a disadvantage. You may feel pressured as your objections to the additional work are met with some sharp questions, and on the spot coaching.
On the other hand, if you are an Orange Belt, then your schedule would look like the following… (for the very same week.)
Your major time demands have been laid out in your calendar, and when your boss surprises you and you start to feel queasy, you simply say: “Let us both look at my schedule.”
As your schedule flashes up on the screen, you show her exactly what time you currently have available, and why you feel queasy. She looks at the schedule, and a different kind of conversation ensues. It’s about what should be done when, and why, and which items can be moved from one day to another in order to accommodate the new project. As you try to solve the problem together, you aren’t defying logic, or arguing from a position that’s uninformed by the facts.
Something has to give, and your schedule clearly shows that every time demand you commit to has a consequence. If the project requires overtime, weekend and vacation work (God forbid!) you can have a clear conversation with your boss about what will happen to the precious time you spend with your family, and whether or not those airline tickets for your next vacation are refundable or not.
It’s a mature conversation based on facts, rather than an adversarial argument over your mental schedule, and your feelings.
Now, take your boss out of the picture, and imagine that instead of a time demand originating with your boss, it’s one that starts with a request made by your colleague, spouse or friend.
Then imagine that there’s no-one else in the picture… you are just making commitments of your own, to yourself. With only a White Belt Schedule you are likely to make mistakes, and commit to impossible deadlines in all spheres of your life, and to feel frustrated that you don’t have enough time.
With Orange Belt skills, you are much more likely to make rational decisions and to conduct reasonable discussions, and to have the peace of mind that when you commit to a future deliverable, you can truly deliver.
P.S. When your Scheduling skills are at a White Belt level, it forces you to make lots of reviews of lists, to make sure that nothing slips through the cracks. Many users have trouble conducting these reviews, as they become onerous when the number of time demands gets to be too large: I outlined this phenomena in the video: “Permanently Fixing the Weekly Review.” Orange Belt Scheduling fixes the problem by replacing lots of lists with one schedule. Click on the Videos tab at the menu on top to find the video on the page.
I just finished reading a paper that echoes a great deal of what has motivated me to develop the 2Time approach: The Making of an Expert published in the July-August 2007 edition of the Harvard Business review by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely.
I have always been struck by people who tell me that they are “bad” at time management. They suffer from the usual ills:
– being late for appointments
– feeling burdened by all they have to do, and believing that they have too much
– falling behind on critical tasks such as emptying their Inbox
– feeling haunted by stuff they think they might have forgotten
– seeing time demands fall through the cracks, due to what they think is a faulty memory
– becoming someone who cannot be trusted by others
However, they have convinced themselves that they have as much time management skill as they can develop in this lifetime. They see time management expertise as a talent, rather than a skill.
Here in 2Time, I disagree wholeheartedly. My experience tells me that time management capacity is built on habits that are picked up over time, and that for most people this happens in a haphazard way.
Apart from the lack of a systematic process and decent coaching, they are taught that time management is something that you gain once, and never need to work on again. One reason that the belt system is such an integral part of the Time Management 2.0 approach is that we all need to see that an increase in time demands brought on my most workplaces, and the evolution of technology both mean that if we stay stuck in one place for too long, we’ll quickly become stale.
I run into many people who compare their time management skills with others around them and conclude that they aren’t that bad, simply because they happen to be better. They quickly become defensive… as if the challenge to their current skill-level is an insult of sorts that doesn’t acknowledge their current expertise. Even those who have learned their skills from a book or class fall into the trap of thinking that they need not look any further — their current skills are all they need.
What “The Making of an Expert” makes clear is that experts are the ones who are willing to put a lot of time and hard effort in continually improving their skills … some 10,000 hours worth in fact… or ten years. They don’t just practice the skills they already have either. Instead, they put themselves into the zone of discomfort in order to develop new skills, and they work with teachers and coaches who help them hang out in that zone until new skills are learned.
In Time Management 2.0 terms, it means that they are able to improve their belt level by practicing the unfamiliar skills of higher belts.
Not that this is an easy path to take. To quote the article:
“The journey to truly superior performance is neither for the faint of heart nor for the impatient. The development of genuine expertise requires struggle, sacrifice, and honest, often painful self-assessment. There are no shortcuts. It will take you at least a decade to achieve expertise, and you will need to invest that time wisely, by engaging in “deliberate” practice-practice that focuses on tasks beyond your current level of competence and comfort. You will need a well-informed coach not only to guide you through deliberate practice but also to help you learn how to coach yourself. Above all, if you want to achieve top performance as a manager and a leader, you’ve got to forget the folklore about genius that makes many people think they cannot take a scientific approach to developing expertise.”
I don’t know how long on average it takes a White Belt to become a Green Belt, but my sense is that it can be done in less than 2 years. I know of one person who made a jump in 2 belts within 18 months, and a Green Belt shouldn’t be an impossible task to accomplish.
It’s the kind of improvement that experts apparently relish. What’s clear is they aren’t afraid of the hard work required. The article continues:
“(Sam) Snead, who died in 2002, held the record for winning the most PGA Tour events and was famous for having one of the most beautiful swings in the sport (of golf.) Deliberate practice was a key to his success. “Practice puts brains in your muscles,” he said.
What a brilliant way to describe what we as professionals have stopped doing in this critical area of our development.
[email_link]
əˌgoʊ
