If I am conscious of saying anything more times than enough over the course of the last ten months it is that I have struggled to focus. So clearly a book promising 'hyper focus' was going to attract my attention. Bailey's contention is that it is not our time that we have to manage, but our attention. He contends that we have two mental modes: hyperfocus (deep concentration) and scatterfocus (creative, reflective mode).
If you understand the difference between the two types of focus and then learn how to manage your personal shifts between them, you can increase your productivity. You will learn how to drink coffee strategically, get more done by making your work harder not easier, and do your best creative work when you are most tired.
Managing what you pay attention to, is the most powerful resource you have. Bailey tells us that if you manage it right, you will become more creative, get stuff done and live a more meaningful life. I think that oversells it somewhat.
It is probably right on the second claim, that it might help you get stuff done. And after all, that is what Bailey is really all about: productivity is his thing.
Does any of it work? To be honest I don't know, because I read it, underlined lots of things, turned down the corners of pages for things that I thought were significant or useful or at least worth a try, and then the book sat at the bottom of my stairs for several weeks, slowly being buried by other stuff that sooner or later I intended to take up to the office and do stuff with.
That suggests that however much sense there is in this book, it did not immediately inspire me to go out and put it all to the test in the real world. To be fair that might not be Bailey's fault. It might simply be that my life is now unfolding in a way that has me thinking that upping my productivity is not such an attractive goal.
So, bearing in mind that I may have personally decided that I don’t really want to put any of this into practice, let's look at what I did – on a first reading – decide might be helpful, or insightful. What were the ideas that resonated on the intellectual level?
He starts with 7 ways to focus on the book. They're all very simple:
- Put the phone away - he says out of sight, but actually it needs to be out of hearing as well as out of sight);
- Mind your environment- get rid of anything else likely to distract you, or take yourself somewhere else;
- Make a distractions list – while reading, whenever you do get distracted, just write whatever it is down, now, so you can forget it & come back to it later
- Question whether the book is worth consuming at all – I'm intrigued that he puts this one half way down his list, surely it's question number one? Is this thing (whatever it is) even worth my time?
- Drink coffee first – unless it's too late in the day to be doing so.
- Grab a highlighter – mark the bits that speak to you, so you can find them quickly later. Obviously only do this if it is your personal copy of the book.I scribble in my books – I'd be really mad at you if you scribbled in my books.
- When you find your focus wandering…let it.
And to be honest…that's probably about it. The rest is explaining these key tools and giving you the research that backs them up.
Despite putting it at number 4, he addresses the 'is it worth it?' question first. In doing so, he needs a four-quadrant model. There is a rule. All management techniques need a four quadrant model. I assume that once upon a time some research determined that at the learning stage humans are not capable of holding more than four ideas in our heads at any one time. For all I know that may even be true. On the other hand, I have just made up that assertion.
Bailey's four quadrant model, which might remind you of some more famous ones, states that work tasks are either attractive or unattractive and either productive or unproductive. Combining those elements we end up with:
- Unproductive and unattractive – this he calls unnecessary work, stuff that keeps us busy to no good purpose.Trying to find a new description, he calls it an active form of laziness – but that's such a clear oxymoron.There is nothing lazy about unnecessary work.He's closer to the mark when he says it's a disguise for procrastination.It's the stuff you pretend you have to do, so you can put off doing what you already know you really should be doing.
- Productive but unattractive – he calls this necessary work; it's all the boring stuff we can't get out of doing (the budget meeting, the tax return).We might not enjoy it, but we understand why we need to just get it done.
- Unproductive but attractive – call this distracting work. It's entertaining but has a low rate of return on the time investment.Interestingly, he doesn't say that this kind of work has no return at all – even the watercooler chats can be useful.
- Attractive and productive – this is the purposeful work. This is the quadrant where you want to be spending most of your attention.
Attention, note, not time. This book is not about managing your time. Keep reminding yourself of that as you read it. The thing is – and I'm not sure he makes this clear enough – that none of the tasks that fall into any of these quadrants can actually be left undone. Even the so-called 'unnecessary' work – like tidying the store cupboard – will become necessary if it's left long enough. The only question is whether it warrants your time, right now.
So in my case, I guess the answer to whether the tools in this book fall into that quadrant, is no. But that's just me.
Before I leave it though, I do want to highlight some of the research used to back up why we need to sort out our focus – not necessarily because it's useful, but just because I personally find it astonishing. Consider these quoted findings from published research (see the book for the details):
- On average people* interrupt their own work tasks every 40 seconds
- "We switch between computer applications 566 times during the average work day**
- We check Facebook 21 times a day.***
*Bailey uses the term 'we' – I can't help excluding myself from this. I don't know what my averages are, but I know that although there are days where I (mentally) wander off to do something different – check an unrelated email, notice what's happening outside the window – every few minutes, I also know there are days where I stay utterly focused for hours, being astonished at how much time has passed when I do look up.
** That seems unfeasible, until you work out that for an 8-hour day that is 70 times an hour – or just over once a minute. Still sound like a lot? What if you're culling data from, say, a spreadsheet and a published data source, in order to write an article. You could easily be flipping backwards and forwards several times a minute (each flip will count, each double-check if you're using more than one data source). This isn't necessarily non-productive. If we want to interpret the data we have to put ourselves between its input and output.
*** I don't. I don't have a Facebook account and I try to stay away from everyone else's. As for other SM feeds, do I go in on average once an hour? Nowhere near.
The real stunning stat though, and I have heard this one quoted in several places, is that it takes us an average of 25 minutes to resume working on our original task following each interruption.
Is it just me, or does the math not quite add up. An interruption every 40 seconds and then 25 minutes to get back to the job in hand? How does anything ever get done at all?
This is the kind of thing that left me sceptical.
On the more useful side of the equation there was much that we've heard before under different guises: batch like tasks together, only check your emails two or three times a day, switch off all auto-notifications, take control of your environment, keep your workspace clutter free. All good stuff. Not necessarily stuff that everyone actually has the authority to control.
Although the book is called Hyperfocus and is primarily aimed at getting you to do just that, the the second half of it is dedicated to Scatterfocus. This is what where you are allowed not to be hyperfocused. You are allowed to let your mind wander. This is where creativity lies. In the walks in the park, the reading for fun, the housework, the things that occupy the body but not the mind, or occupy the mind only in a fun way. Spoiler alert: we need this as much as we need hyperfocus if we are going to function as sane human beings.
Unfortunately, Bailey cannot let go of his need to be productive. He combs all of this down-time, this semi-boredom, this relaxation for every last crumb of additional productivity that can be dragged out of it. I don't dispute the research or the potential…but I do think that sometimes we should just allow our focus to diffuse. Bailey states that scatterfocus is restorative…in its pure form yes it is, but once we start 'making it a habit', start wondering if we've scattered enough this week, we're making it a chore, which really defeats the object.
On balance…it's a nice easy read. The ideas are very accessible. The research is interesting.
But I won't be picking it up again. I realise that it has sat on the stairs for weeks, because where I am in my life right now, hyperfocus is not what I need at all… and scattering comes quite naturally.
