ProdPod, a Productivity Podcast

How does minimalism affect your personal productivity? And, is there such a thing as a minimalist approach to productivity? I believe ardently that our physical and digital worlds are a manifestation of our mental-emotional world, so I sought out some answers about these thorny questions. After about 30 hours of research and uncounted hours of pondering, here are my thoughts on these two questions. Read more.

In the last episode, I defined resilience, or emotional elasticity, as I like to call it. Here, I’d like to detail tactics for bending back into shape faster for more productive output. Read more.

A few episodes ago I covered several challenges that people face in their productive lives, including overcoming overwhelm, distractions, indecision, procrastination, and burnout. And, in this episode, I am detailing an important emotional skill that one hears in many contexts but is one consistent source of productive strength for those willing to build it: resilience.

—

Quick announcement: I have launched my new podcast, ProductivityCast, the weekly show about all things personal productivity. It’s a longer podcast show format. If you have productivity questions, please head over to the podcast website and ask it; maybe we’ll answer your question on the show! Check it out in your favorite podcast directory, or by visiting productivitycast.net. Thanks for listening, and I hope you enjoy it!

In the last episode we learned that the scientific research that told everyone to think outside the box to overcome challenges and to be creative in life and work, was summarily misguided. We can be primed that a box exists, and we’ll still see a box as a limitation, unless we are guided to work within it.

So often I hear the cliché that you need to be an “out of the box” thinker. Creativity and problem-solving (which I feel frequently are synonymous in many circumstances) are, after all, great tools in any productive person’s toolbelt. But, is thinking outside the box really possible? (Hint: no.) And, if not, how can we effectively use thinking inside the box?