So, I spent some time trying out that Cody Crawley approach folks were talking about. Heard it mentioned a few times, figured I’d give it a proper go myself instead of just reading about it.
My own way of handling projects felt a bit… messy. Things were getting done, but it felt like I was constantly juggling and switching gears, you know? Lots of starting something, getting pulled away, then coming back to it later. I wanted something maybe a bit more structured, just to see if it helped.
Getting Started with Crawley’s Ideas
Okay, so the first step was understanding what this whole Cody Crawley thing was supposed to be. From what I gathered, it was less about fancy tools and more about a mindset, focusing intensely on one thing at a time and really breaking down the steps beforehand. Sounded reasonable enough.
I picked a small internal project that needed doing. Nothing too critical, so if I messed up with this new method, it wouldn’t be the end of the world. I sat down Monday morning, coffee in hand, and tried to apply the Crawley steps as I understood them:
- Really Define the End Goal: Like, crystal clear. Not just “finish the report,” but “finish the report with sections A, B, C, including finalized data charts, ready for review.” I spent more time on this than usual.
- Break It Down Ridiculously Small: This was key, apparently. Took the goal and chopped it into tiny, tiny tasks. Stuff like “Open spreadsheet,” “Find data source X,” “Create pivot table for Y.” Felt a bit silly at first, making tasks so small.
- Single Task Focus: The idea was to pick one tiny task and just do that. No checking email, no grabbing another coffee, no quick peeks at notifications. Just head down until that one tiny thing was done. Then pick the next tiny thing.
How It Actually Went
Well, the first day was… interesting. Defining the goal clearly? That part was actually pretty useful. It made me think harder upfront.
Breaking it down into tiny tasks felt tedious. I spent maybe 30 minutes just listing out micro-steps. But, gotta say, when I started working, picking up a task like “Rename column D to ‘Final Value’” felt… easy? Almost zero mental effort to start it because it was so small.
The single-task focus was the hard part. My brain kept wanting to jump ahead or check something else. I had to consciously pull myself back. It felt slow. Like, painfully slow sometimes. I kept thinking, “I could be doing three things at once right now.” But I stuck with it for the experiment.
Hitting Some Snags
By Wednesday, I noticed a few things. While the focus was good for deep work parts (like writing a specific piece of code or analyzing data), it felt clunky for tasks that needed quick back-and-forth or involved waiting for something. If a tiny task was “Send email asking for clarification,” I’d do that, but then what? The Crawley thing didn’t seem to handle waiting periods very elegantly, or maybe I misunderstood that part.
Also, the sheer number of tiny tasks felt overwhelming to look at, even if each one was simple. My usual to-do list might have 5 big items; this Crawley-style list had like 50 tiny ones for the same amount of work.
Wrapping Up the Experiment
I pushed through for the whole week, using it on that project. Did the project get done? Yes, it did. Was it faster or better than my usual messy way? Hard to say, honestly.
My takeaway? The super-detailed breakdown upfront was helpful for clarity. The intense focus on one micro-task at a time did reduce that feeling of being scattered during that task. But it also felt rigid and sometimes slow. Maybe it’s great for very specific types of work, tasks that you can just plow through without interruption.
I wouldn’t say I’m a full convert to the Cody Crawley method. It’s not some magic fix. But I did steal some ideas. I’m definitely trying to define my goals clearer now, and I might break down some complex tasks more granularly. But the super-strict single-tasking and the massive list of tiny steps? Probably not for me day-to-day. It was an interesting experiment though, good to try things firsthand.
