The Problem is not Information Overload

The Problem is not Information Overload

Posted using ShareThis

February 11th, 2010 GTD Times Team - Staff Contributors
Categories Best Practices of GTD David Allen Features Getting Things Done Implementation Psychology of GTD

The problem is not information overload, by David Allen

E-mail overload has gotten a lot of press lately – the quantity, the distraction it creates, and our inability to do much about it. There was even a recent debate in a global newspaper between readers voting for keeping e-mail at zero vs. those who use the digital in-basket as a giant library keeping useful information at hand with no concern for the volume. The issue is tied closely with the popular concern about our always-on culture – that we seem to never unhook from the incessant demands of being in touch, put upon us by our clients, our bosses and ourselves.

What’s the problem? There is one, but not the one that’s been popularized. “Information overload” has been the commonly identified culprit, coupled with universal access. That gives the picture of a mounting pile of stuff under which we are constantly and increasingly buried. And if incessant information bombardment is what we are trying to deal with, then help shows up as attempts to filter, sort and organize it faster and faster so we can feel in control of it.

But information overload isn’t the problem. If it was, you’d walk into a library and die. The first time you connected to the Web, you’d blow up, and merely browsing a newspaper would make you a nervous wreck. Actually, a plethora of information is relaxing. One reason a stroll in the woods can be so calming is because of the quantity and variety of visual and auditory input. In an environment of too little information, we get really uncomfortable. Sensory deprivation is unsettling.

And speaking of “always on,” what’s new and problematic about that? Someone estimated that we have fifty thousand thoughts a day. What are three hundred e-mails, compared to the assault of our own self-talk machine-gun brain?

So, why isn’t lots of e-mail experienced as a soothing event, like a walk in nature? Why hasn’t it been accepted as part of our ordinary reality, like thinking all the time, as we do? One simple reason: each one of those e-mails might mean something. The operant word in this problem is “might.” If the meaning of an e-mail were already clear, we would still have a lot to deal with, but it would be much easier. E-mail is not just news – it’s potentially relevant news. It’s not just communication – it’s communication that I might possibly need or want, about which I might need or want to do something. It is potentially important, potentially relevant. And it’s the necessity to determine that relevance that creates the sense of overwhelm.

When we walk through the woods we’re bombarded with information. But only so much has latent importance. What we notice tends to be either of a non-essential and soothing variety, or something very discrete that we’re clearly attuned to. Few people avoid the woods because they feel overwhelmed with the information. Sure, there can be surprises. But when the woods were our life, processing our stuff was easier. Snake rattles, berries to eat, animal tracks, thunder, and poison oak constituted the extent of meaningful input on any workaday Thursday. And when we came back out of the woods, we could get closure on all of that with little additional effort. Psychic RAM probably stayed pretty clear. We had the luxury of communing with ourselves and the subtler signs and signals of our universe, from a clearer space.

Now we’re overloaded – not with information, but with meaning to be mined. So the solution is not about slicing and dicing and reorganizing data – it’s about how quickly and discretely we can decide its specific meaning to us. Is it actionable? If not, is it trash, is it to be stored for later action, or is it reference? If it is actionable, what’s the next action? And what outcome, if any, should I now be committed to? And how does all of that fit within the total inventory of those things that I have collected to date, and which are still potentially meaningful?

The issues about e-mail are not whether I should keep them in my in-basket or file them. That’s just rearranging incomplete piles of unclear stuff. It’s what does each of them mean to me? Do I still need to read it and respond? And by when, exactly, against all the others I still need to deal with? Or just file it as reference? Or dump it? As common-sense as those distinctions might be, they implicitly require us to know what we’re doing and where we’re going. And that’s as easy as, well, knowing who we are and our purpose in the universe (or some derivative version of those eternal questions). Too many things in our in-baskets mean too many things that mean something about which we need to decide the meaning.

The e-mail beast is out of the barn, and it’s going to be nearly impossible to shove it back in. The natural selection of information our minds would do in the woods kept the decisions about meaningfulness to manageable levels, but e-mail invades through to a more intimate room in our psyche. Every one of them might contain a rattle, a berry, a deer track, or thunder.

The good news about the e-mail phenomenon, aside from all the marvels of virtual communication and connectivity with a global community, is that it’s forcing the average professional to grapple with the essential challenge of knowledge work: defining what that work is. That answer is elusive, and morphs frequently. And most of us weren’t taught how to get fast and comfortable with clarifying meaning and priority triage. It can be learned and practiced, as we have discovered in synthesizing the best practices of work flow. And it takes time and energy that many people still don’t acknowledge and accept into their lifestyle logistics. But we have to mature the conversation about e-mail from simple volume-of-stuff thinking, which views the problem as quantifiable, to the more sophisticated issue about how to learn to make rapid front-end decisions about what bright baubles NOT to follow, though they’re in our face.

An old maxim: if you don’t know where you’re going, any road will do. What they should have added is “…and everything coming at you will seem unclear, overwhelming, and a pain in the ass.”

This article originally appeared in a 2006 edition David Allen’s newsletter, Productive Living (formerly known as Productivity Principles.) Click here to subscribe–it’s free. Unsubscribe at any time

Beat performance (review) anxiety

New managers need to thoroughly prepare and show respect for employees

BY CAITLIN CRAWSHAW, FREELANCESEPTEMBER 24, 2009

It's that time of year again -- but this time, you won't be the nervous employee sweating bullets and chewing his nails in the boss's office.

Nope, it's even worse. As a new manager, you'll be on the other side of the table, assessing each and every one of the employees you oversee. It's a new responsibility that may be keeping you up nights, anticipating hostile reactions from defensive staffers who, in some cases, may once have been your peers.

There's a simple reason that new managers dread this process, says Angela Merriott, human resources leader at Edmonton firm Shaw Pipe Protection.

"People struggle with taking constructive criticism, which is where I think the root (of this anxiety) comes from," she says. "When you struggle with taking it, it's really hard to give it to someone else."

This discomfort causes many new managers to skip the tough conversation in favour of a watered-down, friendlier version, says Merriott. "It's easier for people to say, 'Hey, you did a great job!' whether it's based in reality or not."

But even the best worker has something they need to improve on and that's the entire point of a performance review -- to address weak spots and create a plan for professional growth. It's good for the team, the company and even the employee, who need to know what's expected of them and how they can succeed.

A successful performance review starts with good preparation. You, as the manager, need to thoughtfully assess the employee's strengths and weaknesses. Many companies have employees fill out their performance appraisals ahead of time and present them to the manager a week before their meeting.

It's a good practice that allows the manager to identify gaps in communication and involves the employee in the process, she says.

Andreas Hesse, an HR consultant based in Vancouver, says it's crucial that performance reviews be treated as a two-sided conversation.

PAGEBREAK

"There shouldn't be a drastic change in tone from how you've been interacting with your employee to now," says Hesse, adding that this will only create stress on both sides.

At the meeting, managers should allow employees to talk about their own performance, set goals for the year and help decide professional development plans.

It's also a great opportunity to get an insider's view on what the company could be doing better. "Often managers only ask at an exit interview, when the employee already has one foot out of the door. But, if you're having these conversations regularly, the employees and manager can make improvements."

Treating this conversation as a "two-way street" makes employees feel respected and can help a new manager earn respect, in turn.

"That really improves the working relationship between a manager and staff," he says.

While these strategies can help the conversation go smoothly, there's always a chance an employee will become emotional if they hear something they don't like. When this happens, the best course of action isn't to ignore the reaction, but to talk about it, says Hesse.

"It's important to understand the reason for the emotional outburst, to deal with it and acknowledge it ... and bring it back to the manager's agenda," he says.

If this doesn't work, plan to finish the meeting after the employee has had a chance to cool down. Make sure that you follow up with the employee the next day to see how they're doing. If you don't deal with it, they may start gossiping with their colleagues about the experience, which can create anxiety among those who haven't had their performance review yet, says Merriott.

Both experts agree that conducting a performance review is easier when the manager has given feedback throughout the year -- both informally and formally. In fact, many companies now provide more than one performance appraisal during the year, Merriott says. "Companies are going towards a formal twice-a-year process and having informal discussions on a monthly basis."

She adds that this is a great way to retain "A-people" who may leave a company if they aren't getting consistent feedback. It also makes performance evaluations less stressful for both employees and managers.

"If you're consistently providing feedback, correcting behaviours when you see them and providing positive feedback when there's change, there shouldn't be nerves going into (a performance appraisal)."

Souce: http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Beat+performance+review+anxiety/1356773/story.html