Revisiting procrascipline
I wrote about “procrascipline” (disciplined procrastination) a while ago, and then I mentioned it as one of the guiding principles of the Slacker@Work.
I’ve got to say, as a manager I sometimes use procrascipline to my advantage. And sometimes I just totally blow it and forget stuff. From the outside, it kinda looks the same. Only I know the difference. When I’m engaging in procrascipline, I’ve usually got an idea that a stall will make the question go away, or that a stall will help illuminate needed answers. The tricky thing with this method is that if the stall goes on too long, you must communicate what’s going on. Either a plea for more time, or a re-examination of the necessity of the answer. The “more time” thing is mostly up to the culture at your organization. Some organizational cultures won’t tolerate much delay. Others seem to thrive on delay. YMMV.
It’s important to be clear about when and why you engage in disciplined procrastination. To my mind, this is fundamentally different from regular procrastination primarily by virtue of the element of consciousness. Procrascipline demands that you’ve acknowledged the outstanding problem/question/work at hand and that you’ve got a plan for it. Regular procrastination is simple avoidance, without the element of being conscious about why you’re stalling or what the plan for resolution might be.
Also, procrascipline isn’t simple scheduling. Scheduling a task means that the task will be done at the scheduled time. Procrascipline allows for revisiting the task/problem/question, but the actual scheduling of work (if done at all) isn’t approached until you’ve determined that the task/problem/question does need to be addressed and won’t simply go away with the passage of time and the answering of other questions.
Seems to me that most folks engage in some form of disciplined procrastination, but are loathe to acknowledge their procrastination proclivity. Procrastination has become a bad word, and rightfully so I guess. I guess I don’t think every facet of procrastination is necessarily bad.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: communication, leadership, management, principles, productivity
3 opinions for Revisiting procrascipline
danieltoh
Jan 16, 2007 at 3:04 am
Sometimes we have to consciously procrastinate to make more time. I believe that if you procrastinate doing something in favor of another higher priority task, that’s procrascipline.
However, when one procrastinates due to lack of commitment, lack of courage, fear and lazyness, then it is the real form of procrastination.
That said, I still feel that the word procrastination brings about a negative connotation, hence I’m using it a lot less now.
Interesting post, Brendon.
Regards,
Daniel
Chris
Jan 16, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I too have found that sometimes problems will solve themselves. Ever read an email chain after a vacation that started with an emergency, only to work itself out before you got back? What a waste of time it would have been to have gotten involved in the first place!
This may be the sort of thing you are referring to. It sounds to me like a candidate for the “Waiting For” gtd context. In other words, if stalling an action may lead to its solution, further progress, or to some new piece of information, then tag the task as “waiting for” and file a reminder in a tickler file. Then, follow up. If things don’t change, simply go to the next action, which may be to “fess up” or whatever.
The “watiting for” context is perfect for procrastinating in general, because the system insures you will see it again at a specified date. Until then, you confidently can let it go from your mind.
Wally Bock
Jan 16, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I’ve heard that Napoleon used to leave his mail unopened for two weeks on the theory that most of what was there would have been handled by then without need for his intervention. And the truly urgent? Those would have been brought to his attention by other means.