Well usually those kinds of things would be not just how you worked but discussions had with the team about how work got done. More or less all of the environments I have been in how work was done was an open discussion with the team and management, not just something dictated to us.
I suppose I'm not speaking clearly here. Generally yes, my tasks come from a combination of my team pushing priorities up from below (ideas for improvements, paying down tech debt) and the business pushing requirements down from above (strategic/financial objectives, promises to customers). Prioritization and assignment is usually a group discussion with everyone relevant.
The fact that priorities and schedules are decided with input and consensus from lots of people who aren't me is the crux of my point. The article is about personal task management. It, like any number of similar articles I've read, offers a system that presumes I can pick and choose what I work on today based on metrics of my own choosing, instead of being bound by a decision made with other people. The article expects I'm in an environment where nobody cares if I push tasks back 2, 3, 4+ days for reasons that have nothing to do with the project or team or business, but because of arbitrary restrictions on when I allow myself to do certain things. Unless I can make a business case that "theme days" or similar systems benefit the business, the business just sees needless, disruptive delays it didn't authorize.
