In case you’re not already familiar with the story, a quick retelling of the fable of:

The Tortoise and the Hare

A hare was famous throughout the forest for how fast he could run, and he never let anyone forget it. One day, tired of his bragging, a tortoise challenged him to a race. The hare laughed so hard he nearly fell over — racing a creature that could barely lift its own feet off the ground seemed like the easiest win of his life. But the tortoise insisted, so a course was set, and all the animals gathered to watch.

At the starting signal, the hare shot off in a blur, and within moments the tortoise was nowhere in sight behind him. Confident he had the race locked up, the hare decided he had plenty of time to spare. He stretched out under a shady tree partway through the course, telling himself a short nap wouldn’t cost him anything — he could sleep for an hour and still win easily.

While the hare slept, the tortoise kept moving. Slowly. Steadily. One plodding step after another, never stopping, never speeding up, never slowing down. He passed the sleeping hare without a sound.

By the time the hare woke up, stretched, and sauntered toward the finish line certain of his victory, he saw the tortoise just ahead of him — crossing the line first.

See the live action:

The classic moral everyone remembers:

“Slow and steady wins the race.“
“Pride comes before a fall.”
“Overconfidence can lead to failure.”
“Persistence beats talent when talent doesn’t apply itself.”

That’s the story we all grew up with. And the lesson everyone takes from it is obvious: don’t be like the hare. If you want to succeed in life, be like the tortoise.

Everyone wants to be the tortoise.

Slow and steady. Consistent. The one who shows up every day, does the same reliable thing, and wins by simply never stopping. It’s the moral we were all handed as kids, and most productivity advice today is just a re-wording of it: pick a system, trust the system, stick with the system.

I’ve spent years trying to force myself to work like the tortoise. Though it has worked from time to time, it was a painful process.

I identify as the rabbit. Not because I think speed beats consistency, but because that’s just how my brain runs. It sprints, it wanders, it gets bored, it stalls out on repeatedly performing the same routine day in and day out, that’s supposed to be building momentum (unless it’s super small that I don’t notice the effort).

The traditional lesson of the fable is about arrogance — the rabbit lost because he got cocky and napped. While that’s part of it, yes, the main lesson that stands out to me is that he didn’t fail because he’s fast, he fails because he gets distracted. The task is too mundane and/or too easy for him, that he procrastinates (naps, plays tennis, etc.) and puts it off, trying to create pressure or a challenge for himself that excites him enough to make the effort.

In real life, if a task is too complex or hard, that would also create a scenario where my rabbit brain would want to put it off.

So what helps the situation?

Keep the goal in sight, but change the strategy as many times as necessary to keep making progress by maintaining a sense of novelty.

It’s become the operating principle behind basically everything I do now:

Keep the goal fixed. Let the strategy change.

What this actually looks like

Say the goal is to declutter your house (because this is the boring, mundane thing that’s my personal hell lately lol). The tortoise approach says: block off 30 minutes every single day, same time, no exceptions, forever. For some people that works beautifully. For me, it works for about a day before it becomes another thing I’m quietly failing at.

Instead, I let the method move around while the goal stays put:

Some days it’s 30 minutes. Some days it’s a full weekend blitz. I let it oscillate depending on what actually gets me moving that day.
If putting away one small item right this second helps me keep going, I do that, even if it’s wildly inefficient.
If instead I need to make a “this doesn’t belong in this room” pile and deal with it later, I do that instead.
Keeping it time independent also helped: If working during lunches motivated me, I did that. If instead, I got bored of that routine and preferred working in the evenings instead, I did that.
If one approach worked yesterday and a totally different one works today, I use whichever one is working right now.

I switch as many times as I need to. The only rule is that the switching has to be in service of reaching the same destination. Your methods can be flexible; your destination doesn’t need to be.

This isn’t just a vibe — there’s research behind it

Researchers have argued that successful adaptation depends on balancing two skills: sticking with strategies that work and switching to better ones when circumstances change. In stable situations, consistency is often best. But in changing situations—or when your current approach has stopped working—being willing to adapt may lead to better outcomes than rigid persistence.

Source: Variability and harshness shape flexible strategy-use in support of the constrained flexibility framework

Essentially:

When one decluttering method stops working because you’ve become bored or stuck, changing strategies can restore progress.

Decluttering is a variable, unpredictable task.
Different rooms, energy levels, motivation, and obstacles constantly change.
Therefore, periodically switching strategies can be adaptive, as long as the cost of experimenting is low.

The key caveat is that the paper doesn’t recommend switching just for novelty. It recommends switching because the environment has changed or because the current strategy has stopped being effective.

But for me, switching helps the task become something ‘new’ (either by having it be time independent, changing up session goals or the process adopted for a particular session, etc.). This helps keep the strategy effective. If it stops working (because I’m bored or frustrated), switching renews the spark it takes to continue making progress.

The honest counterarguments

I don’t think this idea survives if I only tell you the parts that support it, so here’s what actually argues against it & my counterarguments:

Constant switching can prevent mastery. Interweaving tasks can help attain mastery faster.

Novelty can disguise itself as productivity. Not if you’re making progress, then it’s not a disguise, you’re actually being productive.

Repetition makes habits easier. Yes, but it doesn’t have to be at the same time, same place everyday. Unless it helps. But initially, the focus should be on just doing the task, whenever, however.

Too much choice creates its own fatigue. No, you shouldn’t switch if the strategy is working. Only if it stops working should you consider another option. And the goal always remains the same. There’s no ongoing decision fatigue, it’s a one-question check that only pops up when you feel your motivation lag, not a constant menu of choices.

In summary: don’t change strategies just because you’re uncomfortable. Change strategies because your current one has genuinely stopped producing progress.

A decent gut-check: is my current strategy still moving me toward the goal? If yes, stay with it. If no, that’s the signal to try something else, not a failure to accept.

Conclusion

I’m not claiming the rabbit was secretly right all along. Just saying that if you’re a rabbit (i.e., if your mind wanders, if rigid systems make you stall instead of sprint), the answer isn’t to become a tortoise. It’s to get better at being a rabbit: have a fixed finish line, but switch up your game as many times as you need to keep making substantial progress.