Question - When setting recurring tasks, should you also be allocating calendar time to process them?
eg. On the networking cast, Mark mentions that he uses a 'recurring task' as a reminder to "keep in touch with..." his network. As I understand it, this means that on a given day, opening Outlook (or in my poor case, Notes... ugh!) will cause a whole bunch of "KITW"s to flash.
Although that puts the task on your radar, it doesn't mean you have time planned to process it on the given day / week etc.
One technique I currently use at work is to pre-book time in my calendar for important things which are not my primary "work", so tend otherwise to not get addressed - eg. updating CV, thinking about new initiatives, doing a monthly self-review, preparing in advance for mentor sessions.
I find that approach of blocking out time pretty useful, and it was a good advance for me when I first adopted it (before that, general chaos ruled). However if I recall rightly, calendar-blocking cuts against David Allen's advice (in Getting Things Done) which says your calendar should only reflect things which are absolutely set in stone, ie. it provides the landscape around which you then process tasks according to their priority, your location, and your energy levels.
Which leaves me a bit confused. Am I right to be making sure my calendar reflects time to process the tasks I'm creating, or should I just treat them like other work and get to them in accordance with their priority as vs. other tasks also on my list?
Nb. Appreciate any thoughts on this - especially if others are/have gone through the painful process of weaning themselves off using email as their primary record of to-do's. Necessary, but unexpectedly hard!!!