Generally agree with the points but I'd like to note that this point is the most likely failure point in the method. Organizing the day by hours doesn't work for a lot of people. Most productivity books in the old days (60's) recommended it. They generally don't anymore due to the low success rate. That was one of the first things I tried as a student and it didn't work.

I find time and productivity management similar to dieting. It's not about which one is theoretically or objectively the best. It's about which method you personally can stick to. What works for one person will not for the next guy.

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

Some clarification for readers: this generally doesn't mean that a plan is scrapped entirely; it means that changes are normal and anticipated (i.e. NOT an automatic sign of failure) that as new information comes to light and circumstances shift, those executing a plan should be adaptable enough to make adjustments where prudent. In fact, decentralized command was developed in order to allow highly-functioning teams to actively exploit unforeseen advantages which develop as a battle/campaign unfolds.

Although these concepts were forged on the battlefield, they are 100% relevant to civilian 'battles' as well - in this case, time management.

"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."

Or something like that. Life and work are random and sometimes chaotic. That's never going to change. Plans __and (personal) expectations__ should be recalibrated to align with reality.

You need a plan, but have to be able to adapt to changing circumstances.

For reference, that quote was given in an interview about his upcoming fight against Evander Holyfield. Holyfield dominated the fight, Tyson bit him twice, and the fight was stopped in the 11th round with Holyfield as the winner.

(It would have been more arrogant to say, but perhaps more honestly stated as "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth by Mike Tyson". Tyson is widely considered to be the hardest hitting boxer in history. He retired with a record of 50-6, with 44 wins by knockout and 22 of those knockouts were in the first round.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Tyson#Tyson_vs._Holyfield...

+1

Unfortunately, not all us are the masters of our own universe of deadlines. Too often they're semi arbitrary, set by someone who's not aware of the intricacies, etc.

The point being, even when you have a great plan to get something done, it might not be good enough in the broader (distorted) context? Then what?

Communicate. Express your perspective. Manage your reaction. Master what you have domain over, your reactions to the world. Do not be a slave to disappointment.

It's still failure.

It's not that you disappoint yourself, since you _knew_ it was practically impossible to succeed. You dealt with your reality, you mastered your domain. People will still get angry and disappointed that the deadline was not met. Not always, but some (most) of the time, you'll end up taking the blame, or even disciplined/fired.

What you're met with is "So what, change jobs, reframe your perspective, grab life by the balls".

This kind of positive thinking does not solve anything. It's simplistic and misdirected. You'll eventually find this situation in every job you take (or make). What can you learn from the experience? No amount of "mastering your reality" will make this a positive experience. Ok, maybe the first time, you learn that you can't always win. But that is all, no lessons learned for all subsequent ocurrences.

Yes, I'm bitter. But you're saccharine.

Not your fault, but i'm sick of seeing this kind of naive responses that belong in mugs or motivational posters.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to-the-g...

http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/cognit...

I'm not saying that this response will fix the problem. But it seems that the first part: communicate your perspective; is crucial. If you don't, then you still fail, but people will believe you thought it possible.

I like to disagree and commit. Keeps me sane, and at least I can show that I knew shit would hit the fan.

For deep work, you should be able to block a chunk of your day to do important tasks without being interrupted. That's not the same as organizing the day by hours. This blocked chunk can be dynamic to accommodate emergencies, but you must be able to say nobody should interrupt me for the next few hours at some point in your day.

Otherwise how can you engage in something deep? I've been in this situation many times. I can't do any productive work in my office because there's an endless stream of interruptions, emergencies and stupid things going on. That's why I have to resort to doing all significant work at home, where nobody can annoy me.

Yeah, finding that at the moment.

But it always puzzles me why Y Combinator companies don’t organize with the built-in default of private offices, even in brand new startups, but at least for sure in YC companies that grow to tens of employees or more.

Given such an impassioned writing about the need for privacy in workspace, why don’t we see YC putting out articles or blog posts on the value of private offices, for example like Stack Overflow does.

It’s like YC wants to be viewed as progressive (for recognizing how bad open-plan offices were ahead of the curve) but then to ignore this to just grift from unwitting junior employees who may unquestioningly join a startup and not think to negotiate for protection of the privacy they need as a basic workspace tool.

And then I don't like it for a while...

Chips (or fries) though, I can't resist. Better not to buy any...

Do enough of the bad stuff to get sick of it enough to associate it with bad feedback, and that should keep you away from it in the future.

- Monastic: “This philosophy attempts to maximize deep efforts by eliminating or radically minimizing shallow obligations.” — isolate yourself for long periods of time without distractions; no shallow work allowed.

- Bimodal: “This philosophy asks that you divide your time, dedicating some clearly defined stretches to deep pursuits and leaving the rest open to everything else.” – dedicate a few consecutive days (like weekends, or a Sunday, for example) for deep work only, at least one day a week.

- Rhythmic: “This philosophy argues that the easiest way to consistently start deep work sessions is to transform them into a simple regular habit.” – create a daily habit of three to four hours every day to perform deep work on your project.

- Journalistic: “in which you fit deep work wherever you can into your schedule.” — Not recommended to try out first, since you first need to accustom yourself to deep work.

During the day I work from that list, either performing the work for the item or expanding an item into additional more detailed items. Most items will expand into multiple smaller items as they are picked up.

Completed items get a few comments and are moved below the unfinished items, so that a historical stack gets built up over time which can be fodder for monthly progress reports.

I have found this to be incredibly useful from a productivity standpoint, a morale boost, and as a historical record. It requires some discipline to sit down for 15 minutes at the end of each workday to update the list.

Except when the initial classification of a task as “shallow” is incorrect, and it actually should’ve been “deep” (although, this shouldn’t happen too often, except when it does happen).