Beyond GTD—Why Creatives are Revolting
Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 5:05PM Getting Things Done (GTD) is often presented as the universal path to productivity. Yet GTD is designed for one specific world—the world of the manager's. A world which is far removed from the task design and cognitive requirements of programmers, writers, analysts and others who design and generate information artefacts. Surely these creative-makers deserve tools that support practices rooted in their practices, rather than attempting to use a tool designed for very different requirements.
In a recent essay, Paul Graham outlines the difference between a manager's schedule and what he calls a maker's schedule. (For Graham, prototypical makers are programmers and writers.) Graham characterises a manager's schedule as comprising constant change in focus and attention, necessitating minimal task switching latency; whereas a maker's schedule consists of deep focus on a narrow task range in order to produce novel intellectual work product. His characterisation is consistent with observations made by Joel Spolsky, DeMarco and Lister, and Csíkszentmihályi.
Management necessitates broad thinking rather than deep, prioritisation over detail, team building rather than mental breakthroughs, reading people over intellectual creativity. The world of the manager revolves around a seemingly never-ending series of rapid-fire exchanges. The manager's nightmare is to be overwhelmed by the plethora of minimally-related information and action, and overburdened by keeping track of priorities. It is for this world that GTD was created. GTD tracks minimal information about discrete tasks that are either independent or arranged into discrete and relatively shallow hierarchies of projects. GTD tracks commitments and dependencies and information snippets that relieve from the manager's cognitive load the necessity to mentally retain this plethora of information.
When designing, makers frequently spend significant time ramping up their their mental grasp of the design space, mentally simulating a variety of approaches. Programmers reflect on holding massive detail in the mind, held together by a working ability to layer abstractions. Writers frequently work and rework concepts in the mind—employing both conscious and subconscious mental resources—until the moment is reached when the mind achieves that breakthrough we call inspiration.
Many managers find this pattern of working to be revolting:
- for much of the time, they can't see or measure progress;
- when spoken to, makers are so frequently embedded in the detail that they don't communicate on the plane desired by the manager;
- they know from experience that makers' predicted output frequently varies from prediction (while being either unaware or ill-considerate of the fact that design-mode mental focus, being inherently fragile, is frequently disabled by interruption).
Makers sometimes enter a pattern of working that I'll call "creative." The creative pattern is even more revolting to managers than the maker pattern. It is a creativity mode that generates ideas: ideas related and tangential and intertwingled and juxtaposed; breakthrough and incremental; on-task and off. Not to be confused with the managerial faux equivalent—the “brainstorming session”—it is usually generated during a state of flow. Yet the creative state often comes unbidden, frequently when a manager has scheduled the maker to fulfil some goal or other, and it ranges across the countours of mental landscape irrespective of any formal goal. It's an extemely expensive use of mental resources: yet holds massive psychological payoff, and is probably formative in the mental acuity necessary for in-depth design sessions.
In either mode, the creative-maker's mental world is alien to the manager's. The creative's mind is stimulated by related ideas; the manager's by relative priorities. The maker's mind stimulated by shape and form and fit and function and flow and connectness and wholeness; the manager's by task and commitment and priority and personality and command and demand and vision.
Why would one possibly imagine that GTD is in any way appropriate for a creative or maker? The task design and use of cognitive resources are literally worlds apart; shouldn't a maker's mental requirements be supported by an appropriately designed apparatus? GTD is designed for the world of the manager; it is a culturally hegemonic conceit to think it universal.
Creatives need tools that allow an outpouring of ideas. Tools to structure the flow, to arrange them appropriately, to retrieve them on demand, to classify and manipulate their signifiers to assist in symbolic development and in recall. Creatives need tools that are malleable and empowering for those thinking-in-depth.
Makers need tools and environments that support focused attention, shutting out distractions, enabling the design to be observable and manipulable from overarching and minutely detailed perspectives: preferably simultaneously.
Just as creatives and makers and managers need different schedules, they also need tools suited to their own style of working. It is more than time for developing tools rooted in the actual practices engaged in by creative-makers. "The average executive" is not a prototype for the bulk of knowledge workers in a modern economy. Revolting though creatives may be, we must revolt against GTD orthodoxy; let us look beyond GTD to more appropriate methods of organising our work habits. Let us design tools that support the practices that constitute our work.
Creatives, GTD, Makers, Productivity in Business Analysis, Commentary, Design, Innovation
Reader Comments (8)
I would make the case that in some ways GTD is more valuable for creatives. Any tug at the mind that erodes your focus slows your work. You can't fully concentrate on the plot line when you're distracted by thoughts of the dripping shower head, the daughter's summer camp and the knock in the car engine. For me, GTD muffles the noise and lets the imagination be heard.
You make a good point, Almo. In this article, I use the words "mode" and "pattern" to imply that I'm using the terms manager, maker and creative as role identifiers.
The example you raise is you-as-administrator, which is a "management mode of thought." GTD seems appropriate when you're adopting the management thought pattern.
My argument is that while GTD doesn't support practices when you're performing work-as-creative / work-as-maker, it does support your work-as-manager practices. So my title "Beyond GTD" should be read as calling for GTD+ . Sometime in the next few weeks, I'll propose something for the +.
The basis of GTD Software and Processes is: collecting, processing, organizing, reviewing, and doing. I think you need to show how these basic processes of GTD are not conducive to the activity of a creative. I am not so sure this morning that a creative cannot use these basic processes of GTD. What I am convinced of is that the various pieces of software based on GTD are not entirely faithful to the basic processes of the raw GTD concept. What I do see is that each of the software vendors have corrupted the raw GTD principles and have given their rendition of what they think GTD should mean.
However, as a creative instead of "collecting" as a name of the process I do I would call it "generating" because rather than collecting ideas I generate ideas seemingly out of just thinking. To write an article I would "generate" ideas of what is to be included, do some research to collect other ideas, "process" those ideas into some sort of order that would make sense as an article, "organise" these ideas into an article outline and then write a first draft - another activity in the "organising" mode, then I would "review" my article and make any adjustments and finally I would then publish my article in some way a form of "doing".
So I am not sure that GTD cannot be used by a creative if you start back at the core principles of GTD as revealed in Wikipeadia and as demonstrated in my paragraph above. BUT as a creative I cannot see any GTD-based software that could be used as each software maker has narrowed each process to incorporate those practices that they have interpreted what should be done. In other words they have corrupted the GTD processes to mean what they have interpreted it should mean.
I like the idea of GTD-plus. I'll be looking forward to the post.
For implementing GTD you can use this web-based application:
http://www.Gtdagenda.com
You can use it to manage your goals, projects and tasks, set next actions and contexts, use checklists, schedules and a calendar.
A mobile version is available too.
Loryn,
I absolutely love this post. The undercurrent here too is that creativity is often a disruptive process that defies and rebels against structure. Insofar as GTD, or any other process/methodology/system puts limits down and cramps thinking, creatives will be rebel. We're just made that way.
GTD is, at core, about keeping things off the mind. Allen's whole premise is that a relaxed mind is more productive, and a relaxed mind is a result of having nothing on it. He often says: there's no reason to have the same thought twice unless you really like that thought.
The challenge for many of us who make stuff is that we LOVE to think about it. We also, of course, HATE to think about it. The reality is that the constant flow of thoughts, ideas, images, visions and internal conversation is enriching and enlivening, and also obsessive, addicting and stress-inducing.
I have no answers. I just really enjoyed your post and found it very enlightening.
All best,
Michael
I generate ideas seemingly out of just thinking, Viagra Online makers frequently spend significant time ramping up their their mental grasp of the design space, mentally simulating a variety of approaches.
We need to GTD but the important part. it is doing those things efficient and quick. Because in a business those two things are quite important like xlpharmacy reviews does in its last post.