There's this article called Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule that's been making the rounds lately. It's a good article, I like it. Go read it but come back though. :) The idea is that makers use large blocks of time to do their work; managers do lots of things and they do them within small blocks of time. This is a problem when makers and managers need to meet. His solution as a maker is to schedule "office hours" to do the manager type tasks, especially meetings with managers. Obviously that's the short version, so go ahead and read it.
My question though is what if you have a manager's schedule but want to be a maker? Do I just say oh well, it doesn't fit in my schedule. I can't do creative work because I don't have large blocks of time. I hope not.
I'm going to suggest that in the beginning, it's actually better to work in small blocks of time. Maybe it's just because I'm believer in working with what you have. Or maybe it's because that's how I got started. Whatever the reason, looking back I can see that it was a good thing for me. And I'm beginning to wonder if I shouldn't go back to a manager's schedule.
Working in small blocks of time forces you to pick a task and do it. Over time (and with practice) it teaches you to focus. You have to, there's no time for goofing off. I also find that my creative work is in the back of my mind so I know exactly what I want to do when I return to work. Overall it makes you more efficient. Add in a deadline and you have the perfect equation for getting sh*t done.
Isn't it kind of silly that we complain about not having enough time and then we turn around and use strategies like the Pomodoro technique to break up large blocks of time into smaller ones?