I recently spoke with someone who admitted he had tasks on his to-do list which had been there for over a year.

As a busy entrepreneur, he had many tasks to juggle for his new business. He found himself naturally drawn to the development of his product and his customers. Yet, there were other tasks which were much less exciting.

When I asked him to describe the tasks at the bottom of the list, he described them this way:

• The less-glamorous tasks
• The dull tasks
• The time-consuming tasks
• The long-payoff tasks (ones which were important but wouldn’t yield until much later)

I expect that his description matches what many of us would say about our own to-do lists.  We live in a digital river, where we’re tempted to respond to the most recent e-mail or check out what’s happening on Twitter.

We talked about the bottom of his list, and he sorted it into three categories:

• Tasks which he should delegate (because someone could do them better)
• Tasks which he can be delete (because they weren’t really important)
• Tasks which he had been avoiding and needed to do

The last category is rather interesting. We each have a set of tasks which, deep in our heart, we know that we should take time to do. These tasks are critical to our long-term success, but they’re oh-so-easy to avoid. Perhaps they’re less interesting or even more challenging for us. But, if we want to be successful, we need to actually do these tasks.

We cannot let them linger forever incomplete at the bottom of our To-Do lists.

If you wait to get to the bottom of your to-do list, that will never happen. Newer (and more urgent) tasks will be added to the top of your list. Therefore, you should take time to occasionally look at the bottom of your list. If it has been there for two weeks or more, it’s time to make one of three choices: delegate, delete, or schedule.

Yet, five years later, nothing has happened. These well-intentioned visionaries have achieved only a fraction of their dreams. Clearly, something happened along the way.

What happened? Here is a partial list of their replies of why success has been postponed.

• “I ran out of time.”

• “I just couldn’t find time to get started.”

• “I had so many other commitments.”

• “I will get to it after I complete this next project.”

• “There were forces beyond my control.”

Do any of these statements seem familiar to you? If so, you may be suffering from a serious (but treatable condition) known as an Impact Gap, where your desired impact remains much higher than your actual impact.

Side effects of an Impact Gap can include: frustration, disappointment, and feelings of powerlessness or fatigue.

If you want to change the world (or your corner of it), you need to first cross the Impact Gap.

To put it most simply, the money we use has a built-in clock—an embedded relationship to time that informs how we obtain capital, how we pay it back, how we invest, how we sell, and how we communicate. That clock has run out. It has wound down, and been replaced with something else. I call it “presentism”, or a focus on the now over the past or even the future. If we understand this shift—the most truly significant change wrought by the digital—we can thrive in the new landscape. If we can’t—if we end up paralyzed in what I’ve come to call “present shock,” then we may as well go down with the rest of the Industrial Age.”

Increasingly, we’ve tried to make our lives fit  a digital clock and online calendar, even though those tools do not fit the rhythm (or purpose) of  life. Here’s one simple example.

Both Miscosoft Outlook and Google Calendar default to 1/2 hour and hour meetings. When we send/receive out meeting requests, we typically accept this default meeting length–without question. We never pause to consider whether the meeting needs that much time to create value. If the meeting ends early, then we need to decide what to do:

• Fill the time with empty chit-chat
• Go back to our desk and kill time until our next meeting (because people don’t want to start a “real” project when they need to jump into another meeting so soon)

In either case, we lower our ability to create impact, because we’re living according to the demands of a timeclock.

Rushkoff describes how Ancient Greek culture had two very different concepts of time:

• Chronos: the kind of time that’s registered by the clock–chronology
• Kairos: the right time or the most opportune moment

Rushkoff argues that digital time forces “our minds and bodies to keep up with digital chronos” and “misappl[ies] our digital technologies to human processes.” On the other hand, kairos encourages us to experience the now and make the most of the present that’s right in front of us.

I agree with Douglas Rushkoff here. In the Industrial Age, Frederick Taylor (and other researchers) conducted time-motion analyses of factory floors. They identified ways to increase workplace productivity, and these innovations led to business tools such as continuous improvement, six-sigma, and lean. These tools remain useful for the factory floor, but they miss many aspects of knowledge work and business relations.

Too often, we asks ourselves “what’s the next thing on my calendar today?” rather than ask a much more powerful question “what’s the most impactful thing that I could do in the next hour?”

Rushkoff has also published a Change This manifesto for business leaders: “Time Ain’t Money: Stop Punching the Industrial Age Clock, and Start Embracing the Digital Now“.

Four Signs You’ve Fallen into the Mediocrity Trap

• Casting a Very Wide Net: Your resume/bio lists everything you could possibly do–instead of focusing on what you do exceptionally
• Accepting the Wrong Projects: You accept projects where you’ll achieve a “7 of 10″ or “8 of 10″ (or even, shockingly, settle for lower!)
• Getting in Your Own Way: You have the potential to excel, but you set up obstacles which prevent you from reaching success
• Tolerating Mediocre Results:  You have a long list of interesting projects which you created mediocre outcomes

What is the Mediocrity Trap?

If you’re smart, you may simply take success for granted. In school, you may have earned great grades without having to work very hard. The Mediocrity Trap occurs when you become intellectually overconfident.

When you see an interesting problem or project, you may be attracted to the challenge, even if it’s not in your expertise.

You may tell yourself “I’m smart. I’m sure that I can figure it out.” During the project, you will certainly feel challenged.

However, you feel that sensation because you’re outside your area of expertise–not because you’re doing great work. However, at the end of the project, you have achieved only limited success–perhaps resulting in a “7 of 10″ or an “8 of 10″.

Casting a Very Wide a Net

Over the years, I’ve seen many people cast a very wide net when they search for positions and projects.

Sometimes people feel financial pressure to find their next engagement, so they try to open every possible door. As a result, they struggle to open any door.

Other times, people haven’t looked inwardly to clearly define their own interests and goals.

When I meet someone who is casting a very wide net, I typically ask three questions:

• Which of these areas appeal most to you?
• Which of these areas will you be committed to?
• Where will you excel? (achieving a “9 of 10″ or a “10 of 10″)

When a person’s resume/bio shows a bit of breadth, it signals a healthy curiosity, openness to new experiences, and willingness to take calculated risks. These are all very good qualities.

However, when a resume/bio invites too many projects, it suggests that the person has fallen into the Mediocrity Trap.

When you search for your next engagement, only search for projects where you can create exceptional value.

Accepting the Wrong Projects

If you’re a smart person who loves challenges, you’ll probably find it hard to walk away from tough projects and interesting opportunities. But you if you want to develop a reputation for creating impact, you first need the wisdom to focus solely on projects where you can produce a “9 of 10″ or a “10 of 10.”

If you can’t achieve excellence, step away from the project before it begins. It’s the best thing you can do for yourself (and the person with the project).

Instead, locate someone in your network who can achieve a “9 of 10″ or better.

Getting in Your Own Way

Dr. Mark Goulston, author and psychiatrist, has written an excellent pair of books on the topic: Get Out of Your Own Way and Get Out of Your Own Way at Work. His premise is simple but profound: smart people often devote a lot of time and effort limiting their own ability to create success.

We embrace self-defeating behaviors–such as procrastination, pride, envy, anger, self-pity, or compulsion. Our outputs could have been exceptional, but instead, they become mediocre (if even a success).

If you’re choosing the right projects but still achieve mediocre results, it’s time to ask: “am I getting in my own way?”

Tolerating Mediocre Results

People who have deeply fallen into the Mediocrity will soon begin to lower their standards. They may take on projects far outside their expertise, settling for sub-par “6 of 10″ or even “5 of 10″ results. This bottom-fishing mindset quickly erodes a person’s reputation and ability to create impact.

If you recognize that you’re working on a project where you can no longer produce exceptional results, it’s time for some honest self-reflection.

• Can you reshape the project in a way which will allow you to produce excellence?
• Do you need to change your own attitudes and behaviors? (Get Out of Your Own Way)
• Do you need to step away from it entirely?

Those are your three options to end an unhealthy relationship with mediocrity. It’s better to do act soon rather than wait.

These long-term goals can often lead us astray, because we misdirect our efforts on solutions which do not really meet a need or solve a problem.

It’s true that large projects often take a lot of time to yield results. However, you can apply the concepts of micro-impact and very rapid prototyping to determine whether a large project will be worth your time.

• Micro-Impact: the ability to create observable impact in the present moment; the task must be something you can complete within an hour or less
• Very-Rapid Prototyping: create and test a hypothesis before you invest significant time into the project

It makes sense to invest a very small amount of time into a project, specifically to determine whether the potential results will be worth a greater investment of time. If the project cannot pass the Very Rapid Prototyping test.

Plan the Prototype

Whether you’re working by yourself or with a team, give yourself just one hour to plan your prototyping project.

• What might a solution look like?
• How could we build a prototype in an hour or less?
• Who would be the greatest critic of your idea?
• Who can help you evaluate the idea?
• Who can help make the prototype better?

Create the Prototype

Then, you (and your team) have another hour to create the prototype. Your solution doesn’t have to look beautiful or work perfectly.

At this point, your solution doesn’t even need to work! It just needs to be defined.

What can you create in an hour? A lot, actually:

• A wireframe sketch for a new app 
• A process map that solves a business need
• A quick sketch for a brand identity or a campaign
• An elevator pitch for a project or new business

The very rapid prototyping process creates an arbitrary constraint. Sure, you could spend a day or a month perfecting your idea. But why invest that much time until you’ve tested the idea.

Very rapid protyping challenges you to make choices and be agile. Your goal will be to move you past analysis paralysis and achieve something that you can share with others (and get their feedback).

Evaluate the Prototype

Once you have a prototype, you need to step back and look at the results critically:

• What choices seem most effective within the solution?
• Which choices limit the solution?
• Did you uncover any constraints which will make this solution difficult to implement?
• Is this idea worth more of your time? (Would others agree with your assessment)?

Remember that it’s easy to fall in love with a new idea. So, you may even test your idea’s strength by writing its premortem. You may even invite others to help you write the idea’s premortem.

If your rapid prototype passes the premortem test, then you may want to invest more time to develop it.

When we see a good idea, it’s easy to quickly fall in love. We swoon. We emphasize the idea’s best features, and we overlook its risks and faults. Soon, things begin to fall apart (quite unexpectedly), and we wonder “what happened?”

If that story sounds like similar to a romance that seemed oh-so-promising but eventually failed, you’re quite right. We can swiftly fall in love with ideas as easily as we fall in love with people.

According to Nobel-laureate psychologist Daniel Kahneman, we’re hardwired for overconfidence–which causes us to treat good ideas like they were great ideas. We spend less time examining ideas critically, and we can even fall into groupthink, because the entire group has fallen in love with an idea.

If your decision is a simple one, such as choosing a place to eat lunch, then a good idea is probably “good enough.” However, if you’re starting a business, launching a strategic initiative, or taking a major risk, then you need to look carefully at your choice.

Daniel Kahneman, in his bestselling book, Thinking Fast and Slow, offers the following activity (designed by Gary Klein)  to reduce the risk of overconfidence.  He calls it the premortem activity.

“Imagine that we are a year into the future. We implemented the plan as it now exists. The outcome was a disaster. Please take 5 minutes to write a brief history of that disaster.”

When you have a good idea, the premortem allows you to identify and prepare for risk. It helps you polish a good idea into a great idea. Otherwise, if you move forward without critical reflection, you may be conducting a painful postmortem later on.

Dr. Adam Grant’s new book, Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success, provides a masterclass on the concept of generosity. If you’re already a natural giver, you’ll be fascinated by his research on the science behind the psychology of giving. And if you’ve based your behavior around reciprocity, it will give you insights into the benefits of generous (but smart) behavior. I recommend this book as a must-read.

Give and Take is a much needed book, and I think it’ll make a big impact on two types of people:

My Experience

The New York Times Magazine featured an excellent article about Dr. Grant and his book, so I ordered the book. A few days later, I started flipping through it at about 8:30 p.m., just after dinner. I was hooked by both the concepts and the clear writing. I didn’t put the book down until after 2 a.m., when I finished it.

My grandmother (who helped raised me) instilled the otherish mindset in me, but a lot of people told me “you can’t be that generous in business.” So, at the start of my career, I was socialized to be a matcher, and that made me less happy (and less effective).

In many ways, Give and Take felt like a spiritual successor to Tim Sanders’ Love is the Killer App. Tim’s manifesto focuses on how nice guys can finish first, and it helped me reboot to my nature–towards a give-first mindset.

I have heard a recurring pattern to these questions, and I would like to share them here. Call it the first draft of an FAQ, if you will.

Q: My organization needs to ensure its messaging follows compliance regulations, and our legal department tends to be very strict on what we produce. Can we still use social learning?

Yes. However, before you launch a pilot, you will definitely want to have a conversation with your legal department to ensure that you create a set of procedures which meet their requirements.

Q: Do we have to completely cede control to our learners?

For some reason, people who are new to social learning envision a “wild west” situation. However, user-generated learning shouldn’t resemble the mash-up of content on a band’s Myspace page. That’s why I’ve proposed a model of smart learning where the organization partners to produce bi-directional communication and learning.

Q: Will formal structured learning go away?

Not for a very long time. We’ll still rely on classroom training to implement certain soft-skills as well as certain hands-on skills. Social learning serves as an ideal supplement to these ideas. Therefore, learners hear about concepts in class and receive reinforcement from a community after class.

Q: My IT Department has concerns about using open-source software or software that makes calls outside of the corporate firewall.

Some social learning solutions are purely open-source projects that have been built around plug-ins. For example, WordPress Multi-User and BuddyPress offer highly versatile solutions. However, plenty of LMS vendors have also entered the game and added social learning technologies to their product. Your choice now depends on your business strategy and your budget.

Q: This technology seems to be evolving quickly. If we buy a system from a vendor, will it be outdated in just a few years?

We’ve seen a lot of ideas towards a social learning management system, but no vendor has created the “killer app” yet. Honestly, vendors are still protoyping in an emerging market. So, embracing a software-as-a-service strategy (SaaS) may be a savvy approach.

Q: Where do we start?

The best place to start a social-learning pilot is often with a core group of users who have common learning needs, but they are highly geographically distributed. I have seen pilots work exceptionally well with salespeople as well as end-users of software within the organization. Start small and manageable with your pilot, and then let the concept evolve from there.

Q: Where can I see a model of bi-directional collaboration within learning?

In March 2010, I published an article entitled Smart Learning for Smart Grids in Powergrid International magazine. In addition to looking at next generation learning technologies, you’ll find models for SMART learning in figures 2 and 3. Together, these models indicate that learning and development departments will have to rethink how they serve their organizations.

It’s a long presentation, but it’s a piece that really encapsulates powerful trends in social networking, game design, and human behaviors.

In this presentation, he highlights some of the most unexpected trends in social media and games over the past few years: Guitar Hero, Facebook, Webkins, and Mafia Wars. More importantly, he looks at the psychological twist (or hook) embedded within each game.

In  the world of digital game design, we’re seeing a huge shift in the psychology of games from single-person experiences to massively multiplayer experiences that reward you when you blend real-life and game-world. If you’ve been on Facebook, you’ve probably seen Farmville’s “lost cows” wandering through the stream of your friend’s status updates.

Yes, you can leave a note on your friend’s facebook wall, or if you both play a Facebook game together, you can give them a gift which allows them to advance in the game. This constant gift giving makes a viral game, and it also pings on the psychological principle of reciprocity. If you give something, then you can expect that the recipient will feel a social pressure to give something in return.

These seemingly innocuous Facebook games took the videogame industry by surprise, but they also have impact far beyond gaming. I’d propose that they present a new way of generating collaborative learning within simulations.

Next generation learning solutions cannot just push content to learners and expect they will learn like passive sponges. In the old days, instructional design followed a clear linear path (“ADDIE“) from analysis through design, development, and implementation. Now, we’re in a world where we have to design massively multi-learner collaborative learning environments.

This video offers a lot of key insights for serious games (simulation training as well as social learning). In fact, if I were teaching a course on next-gen instructional design, I’d put it on the syllabus.

I’m not only a fan and follower of Tim, I count him as a friend. He mentored early on in my career, and he’s been someone who forces me to think about the world from fresh perspectives.

When I look at the world through the lens of social capital, there’s a clear reminder that digital connections can only take us so far. We cannot merely push out content to others. We cannot claim to benefit because we contributed more flotsam into the stream of communications. Really, that’s both a cruel and lonely approach to communication where we all send messages-in-a-bottle into the ocean and hope someone bothers to read them.

Too often, we use digital technologies to deliver monologues and soliloquies.  That’s true for both individuals and corporations. It doesn’t work, because you don’t build a relationship. That’s why I strive to respond to others at least as much as I write new content. I would rather engage in conversations than stand in a corner and talk to myself.

Too often, we produce content without listening and without communicating. We have to break that habit as individuals, departments, organizations, and communities. It’s not making us any more effective.