I was eleven years old. I went up to my room on a Sunday evening and remembered I had a big paper due Monday! I barely had enough time to write it.

But there was one problem in the way of anything getting done. (Aside from my amazing procrastination skills, of course.)

All meaningful work on my project was impossible, thanks to my messy desk!

I had piled so much junk on my desk that I could no longer see any part of its surface. There was just no place available to work! Sheesh. And there was no time to organize everything and put it all away, either. The assignment took priority.

Mom gave me a cardboard box, and I carefully slid the giant pile of toys, papers, and electronics off of the desk and into the box.

At that point, with an empty desk in front of me, the paper was easy to write!

Though I should have learned the lesson then, I’ve since fought the same battle many times in a different arena — my email inbox. I’ve avoided giving short answers to simple questions. I’ve kept urgent but unimportant emails in my way for weeks at a time. I’ve been distracted by issues already solved, yet never moved out of my inbox.

But the other day, after weeks of failing to do so, I finally emptied my inbox. I Deleted, Delegated, Defered, or Did every email, as described in the 4D Method of Email Management in this article.

There were a few emails that I wasn’t sure about, but I still moved them into a folder and reminded myself I can always search for them later. (Yeah, right!) Out of sight, out of mind.

It took some time, but I was finally able to clear my desk, in a digital way.

And that is Inbox Zero.

And now, it feels amazing every time I look at all of the zero emails in my inbox. They’re beautiful! It felt so good that I enforced a “zero inbox” on my personal email, too.

Now that I think of it, this breakthrough has definitely been a catalyst for my recent streak of productivity — both at work and at home!

Whoa.

Note to self: Inbox Zero is for keeps.

I feel indecisive often. I get frustrated because I can’t seem to make decisions quickly. I debate options in my head and am blinded by the pros and cons of everything.

Though I definitely need to work on the time I spend making decisions, there is more going on here. I recently came across a concept I found very interesting, which explains much of why we are indecisive.

I found it while listening to one of the extras included with the book Decisive by the Heath Brothers. Chip Heath shares that while researching for the book, they found two root causes of indecision:

1) You don’t have the right information about your options
2) You don’t have the right options

The first cause is fairly intuitive. You think you have enough information to decide, but you are missing important advantages and disadvantages. Not having enough information about your options slows you down, because you are either blocked entirely or forced to research options while trying to decide among them. You could easily choose a bad option just because it looked the best compared to your incomplete data.

The second cause is pretty sneaky. “Hey you have something in your blind spot,” you say to me. I respond, “What? I don’t see anything!”

How can we remedy not having the right options? Decisive gives great techniques which force you to consider new options.

I’m not sure why this resounded in me, but it did. It made me feel a little better about my indecision. Not that I’m a victim — not saying that. But if I’m just indecisive, that’s a hard thing to work on! This way there is something tangible I can improve. I can be more aware of the information I have on each option, and I can force myself to consider new options.

And by working on those two root causes, I have a plan of action to increase my ability to decide.

I’ve been reading about “The Broken Windows Theory” recently and I’m fascinated with the concept. (Read the full article here.)

The theory explains that a broken window, if left unfixed for a period of time, symbolizes disorder and leads to more broken windows, triggering increased criminal activity.

In the original 1982 article, the Broken Windows Theory was supported by the damage done to an intentionally-planted abandoned car in two completely different cultures. In the one neighborhood, theft and vandalism occurred within minutes of abandonment. Even in the “control group” neighborhood, once the person behind the test hit it with a sledgehammer, that vehicle was soon destroyed thoroughly.

Doesn’t it make you wonder how else this theory can be applied?

The theory implies one bit of chaos leads to another.

One ounce of chaos will breed significantly if left unchecked, just as one broken window leads to increased crime if left unfixed.

Wife and I have seen it displayed in subtle yet significant ways recently. Tell me if these seem a bit familiar:

• One dirty dish left on the counter leads to a stack of dirty dishes.
• One woman sharing her husband’s recent goof leads to a husband bashing session.
• One “cheat” on a diet with a brownie leads to a binge on doughnuts and cookies.

Disturbing, isn’t it? The article hints at other ripple effects from broken windows: fear, disrespect for authority, and mob psychology. This reminds me that everything affects everything else, as The Butterfly Effect implies.

One solid defense against this decay is ownership. Proactivity. Seeing a problem and taking care of it, whether it is your job or not.

Ignoring problems is dangerous. Deal with chaos as soon as you see it brewing, or it may result in a storm which overshadows any sense of calm. Fix the broken windows as soon as possible to prevent mob psychology, rebellion, and disorder from setting in, even in your own mind.

One of my professors told his students a story illustrating the power of leading by example.

He was eating breadsticks with his two-year-old daughter at a pizza restaurant. He placed the cup of dipping sauce on her plate to catch any spills. Then he told her to carefully dip her breadstick in the sauce.

She tried it, much too quickly, and the sauce shot out of the cup in every direction — including the professor’s shirt!

He gathered himself and tried again. The teacher must be smarter than the student, right?

He instructed her to dip her breadstick slowly so she didn’t make a mess. She tried. Still, attempt number two ended in another splash of sauce on his shirt.

The professor tried one more time to explain how to do it without making a mess. Guess what? She plunged the breadstick down into the sauce cup. More sauce everywhere.

This time, he at least had a napkin blocking his shirt.

And at this point, he realized how silly he was being. It was fine for him to try explaining the first time, but he was a fool for not realizing the solution sooner. How could his two-year-old daughter ever have the coordination to be delicate?

This time — without a word, mind you — he took his cup of dipping sauce and poured it out onto his plate.

After a moment of soaking in her father’s example, the daughter poured her own sauce onto her plate, just as he had.

And now, despite her lack of graceful coordination, it was easy for her not to make a mess! By following his example of dipping the breadstick into the sauce on the plate, the sauce was spread out and could no longer splash everywhere.

When we try to teach others with words alone, our efforts are great and the return is minimal.

That day, my professor learned the power of leading by example, and the limitation of leading by words.

Appropriate discipline is extremely beneficial to one’s development. But now I’m realizing something else — the timing of corrections is critical and directly affects one’s trajectory.

Two boys each steal something. One is caught immediately. The other gets away. Which one is better off?

Corrections prevent us from doing whatever we feel like. They shape our perspective of what is right and wrong.

Yet how important is the timing? Is it better to be disciplined and learn hard lessons as an adult, or as a child? The more I research the topic and examine the experience of others, it seems that timing of corrections is crucial to a person’s trajectory.

Back to the two boys who stole. You might say the one who got away is better off, because he can change his ways without harsh consequences for his actions.

And I strongly disagree.

The boy who got away with stealing is not likely to change without correction. Since he was successful, it is likely he will steal again and again, until one day as an adult, he gets caught for robbing a bank. Suddenly, the consequences of years of reinforcing a destructive habit will catch up with him in prison.

The boy who is caught the first time he steals will benefit greatly from discipline and correction. He has the best opportunity to learn the loathsome consequences of stealing, and can change the trajectory of his life by learning from a single negative experience. If the lesson takes root fully, he will never steal again.

Truett Cathy, founder of Chick-Fil-A, has this to say about young men:

I enjoy teaching Sunday school to thirteen-year-old boys because I can spend an entire year building relationships with them. We often talk about morals as well as common sense as they grow into the age where they will make decisions — good or bad — that will have lasting consequences. At age thirteen boys are quickly becoming men. They’re physically able to handle a horse and a small motorbike, and they’re mature enough to take more responsibility. In fact, in recent years I have considered dropping back and teaching eleven-year-old boys, because these days by the time they’re thirteen, some children have already set their lives on a course for trouble, and they can be hard to reach. It’s an important time to reinforce the lessons they have learned before they step into adulthood.
— S. Truett Cathy, It’s Better to Build Boys than Mend Men

Both boys learned the same lesson. Yet the boy who learned it sooner required a much smaller correction to get the point.

Smaller corrections, sooner, are much more effective than drastic corrections, later.