ILNews

Start Page: Fighting interruption addiction, continued

Kim Brand
May 22, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Kim BrandIn my last column, I confessed I was addicted to interruptions: email, voice mail, texts, phone calls, Twitter feeds, etc. Studies have shown multitasking lowers IQ.

This article continues where I left off. If you want the whole thing, send a note to info@ComputerExpertsIndy.com or check the March 27, 2013, issue of Indiana Lawyer. Search “Brand” at TheIndianaLawyer.com, and you’ll find it there, too.

Attention management strategies

Along the path to recovering my lost ability to focus and reserving more time to think, I’ve employed these strategies that have really helped:

• Make appointments with yourself. Respect those appointments the way you would if you were spending the time with a client.

• Dedicate blocks of time to a task and refuse interruptions during those blocks. The “Pomodoro Technique” is a popular system that has you set aside 25-minute blocks to focus on a particular task. But you can start with any size block and graduate to 25 minutes if that seems too hard. Aficionados actually use cute tomato timers to track their time. (Visit www.PomodoroTechnique.com for more.)

• Use guilt to reform your multitasking behavior. Think of multitasking the way you do of other unhealthy habits like eating fattening foods – it is! When you catch yourself multitasking, shame yourself into single tasking. Auditing your multitasking behavior and simply noticing the number of interruptions you are subjected to is a good first step on the path to a more productive lifestyle. Set attention goals and work toward them.

Use Outlook rules to ration attention

We all receive too much email. A 2011 report by The Radicati Group indicates the average email user exchanges over 100 messages a day. The main problem with email is that all incoming messages generally arrive in one place: your inbox. So the first step to reclaiming a big portion of the attention you pay to your inbox is to automate the redirection of some of those messages to folders you can check less frequently. Basically, that involves classifying messages and moving them by using Outlook rules.

Many people use folders to organize messages. I recommend adding at least five folders named for the source or target of the message. I call these folders “Attention Zones.”

Folder name/ Rule

Copied to me: All mail in which my email address appears in the cc: field

Internal :All mail sent to me from within my company

Lists: All mail sent from list servers

Read later: Interesting; but read later

Unsubscribe: Not interesting – get them to stop ASAP!

Mail which is copied to me does not usually require urgent attention. It was, after all, copied to me. I review the contents of this folder a couple times a day. I may want to do something based on the message, but it is not as high a priority as mail directed to me.

Internal email includes messages that were sent from my colleagues – in other words, from email addresses inside my company. These messages can safely be reviewed less frequently based on the assumption that if someone in my company needed to reach me urgently they could stop by my office or call me.

Lists are obviously less important. They only need to be reviewed on a “time available” basis. In my world that is synonymous with never. You can automate the redirection of Listserv email in a variety of ways, but the simplest is to use an alias when you subscribe. That way a simple rule can be used to direct all email sent to that address to the “Lists” folder.

“Read later” actual means try to read later. These are messages that may be very interesting or refer to subject matters you are researching and will want to have later. Some messages are moved into this folder manually – but using Outlook’s Quick Step feature makes it, well, quicker.

“Unsubscribe” is for email you never wanted. The trick here is to process them in batches rather than individually. Better yet, delegate this folder to a staff member who can do it for you. It’s easy to do with Outlook and an Exchange server.

Using this system, I have been able to save about an hour a week. Nobody has complained that I didn’t respond promptly, and I get to spend more of my attention on high-priority messages.

Rich or poor, we all have the same 24 hours in a day to pay attention to what is most important to us. Learning to demand a higher return on the attention we pay for is a 21st century necessity.•

__________

Kim Brand is a technology expert and president of Computer Experts, Inc. in Indianapolis. He is the inventor of FileSafe, the only on-premises file server priced like a cloud service. He speaks and writes frequently on technology subjects – making them interesting and understandable. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT