Priority
I often think there is more than one version of me.
Not in the multiple personality disorder way, but in the sense that there is a present me and there will be a future me.
Most decisions we make are tradeoffs between these two selves. When you help your present self, your future self often suffers. And when you invest in your future self, your present self can get left behind.
When you decide to open a bag of chips, your present self is winning. And when you go to the gym after work, your future self comes out ahead.
You can frame this tradeoff by asking:
“If I do this, what will my future self think?”
The Latin root for priority, prioritatem, was singular. For hundreds of years, the word priority meant the very first or prior thing.
In the original definition, there would be no way to prioritize things since there could only be one priority. And this is how I’ve tried to live my life since learning this: With a singular priority.
When I wake up, I have one thing to do. I like to pick something significant that takes between 2 and 4 hours to complete, which leaves the rest of my day open (because things will invariably come up that have to be managed).
A singular priority is strange to people for at least three reasons. First, we are conditioned to think that being busy is good. (News flash: It’s not.)
Second, we live in an era where it’s normal to multitask. From checking emails in meetings to texting and driving, we all fall victim to multitasking. We lie to ourselves and say we do it to stay productive — but, in reality, we multitask because we like the constant dopamine rush.
And third, perhaps most importantly, we do not give ourselves the time to reflect on whether what we’re doing makes any sense. If you had more time to think, you would find plenty of waste that could be removed from your day.
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. — Peter Drucker
So how do you balance the tension between your present self and future self?
Gary Keller, founder of Keller Williams, proposes a great solution. Keller says that you should link together your daily, weekly, monthly, and annual plans. He’s even an advocate for going longer than a year: linking the things you do every day to a 5-year plan or lifelong ambition.
Let’s say your dream is to compete in the Olympics. This is an audacious goal, but you can make it seem tangible by setting a daily goal of going to the gym for 2 hours a day. Going to the gym 2 hours a day is not sufficient to compete in the Olympics, but it sets you off on the right path.
From there, you can set an annual goal of competing in a local event, getting your first sponsor, or being recognized by a famous coach. All the while, you’re chipping away at this 5-year goal of competing in the Olympics.
In this way, you feel an immediate sense of progress (e.g., you can feel good about yourself after your workout) but you’re also knocking down the dominoes that lead to your overarching goal.
We often fail when we set large, poorly-defined goals. Not because we don’t have what it takes to succeed, but because the path is long and arduous.
We tell ourselves we want to learn a new language, but what defines mastery? Why are we learning this language? To whom do we want to converse with?
The ambiguity kills any motivation we once had.
Keller’s approach of aligning short-term goals with our long-term vision is the best framework I’ve come across to combat this problem.
Ultimately, we should define success as not having to give up near-term happiness in order to reach our longer term goals.
