The whole point of knowledge work is that you are doing things that have not been done before. If they had, they would already be scaled or automated. In a chef analogy, you should be inventing new dishes, not running a meal service.
A chef running a meal service is supposed to cook a meal for every order that comes back to the kitchen. A knowledge worker is not supposed to handle every little request that comes their way. As a knowledge worker, if you’re not disappointing some people, you are probably not doing your best.
If you are overwhelmed with tasks as a knowledge worker, the solution is not to seek greater efficiency in handling them. The solution is to do incredible work on the ones that actually matter, and half-ass or ignore the rest. If you’re not sure which is which, finding out is job #1.
People who efficiently do everything they are asked are rewarded with more asks. People who do great high-impact work are not held back because they dropped some emails along the way.
I’m not saying it’s bad to be efficient at processing email and tracking requests, I’m just saying it probably matters less than many people think, and almost certainly less than this article implies.
> The whole point of knowledge work is that you are doing things that have not been done before.
I don't think this is true, and treating this kind of work as a sort of magic does the profession a disservice. The details change, but the process of organizing and performing exploratory work can be standardized and improved.
In the chef analogy, even inventing new dishes can benefit from structure. I'll use painting as a different analogy. Painting a brand new scene is creative work, and you're doing things that haven't been done before. But most painters will start a major work by first creating a few lesser works to explore the theme. They might collect some references. They'll often sketch a guide on their canvas. They'll build the composition in multiple layers. They'll lay out their tools before they start. They benefit greatly from having routine and formula to fall back on, so all their cognitive load can go to the creative parts.
> If you are overwhelmed with tasks as a knowledge worker, the solution is not to seek greater efficiency in handling them. The solution is to do incredible work on the ones that actually matter, and half-ass or ignore the rest. If you’re not sure which is which, finding out is job #1.
> People who efficiently do everything they are asked are rewarded with more asks. People who do great high-impact work are not held back because they dropped some emails along the way.
I agree with you, but that's a different issue. Yes, I'd love to see a companion piece on work-life balance and managing and pushing back on expectations. Yes, "efficiency" often just means upper management is trying to squeeze more blood out of a stone.
No, that doesn't mean a professional shouldn't be thinking about improving their workflow. These improvements help you achieve your point:
> The solution is to do incredible work on the ones that actually matter, and half-ass or ignore the rest. If you’re not sure which is which, finding out is job #1.
The take home from the analogy is to follow a process where delegation and hierarchy is key for efficiency. This benefits all kinds of work. Delegation or setting the right roles in a team (where possible, or making it happen) is better than half-assing or trying to do everything. I don't think there's anything admirable in being unavailable or losing opportunities to complete work due to inefficiencies that can be avoided with a bit more trust distributed throughout a team.
For the vast majority of engineers, even writing high impact code means repeating the same request/db query/response dance, code pasting or ebuggin activity, and to be actually good and efficient at any of these means having done them plenty of times.
Even understanding novel problem domains requires a certain structured approach to research, talking with users, writing out thoughts, etc. All this certainly matches the analogy laid forward.
The whole point of knowledge work is that you are doing things that have not been done before. If they had, they would already be scaled or automated. In a chef analogy, you should be inventing new dishes, not running a meal service.
A chef running a meal service is supposed to cook a meal for every order that comes back to the kitchen. A knowledge worker is not supposed to handle every little request that comes their way. As a knowledge worker, if you’re not disappointing some people, you are probably not doing your best.
If you are overwhelmed with tasks as a knowledge worker, the solution is not to seek greater efficiency in handling them. The solution is to do incredible work on the ones that actually matter, and half-ass or ignore the rest. If you’re not sure which is which, finding out is job #1.
People who efficiently do everything they are asked are rewarded with more asks. People who do great high-impact work are not held back because they dropped some emails along the way.
I’m not saying it’s bad to be efficient at processing email and tracking requests, I’m just saying it probably matters less than many people think, and almost certainly less than this article implies.