So last week I got this nasty upper respiratory bug. I don’t know what it was, all I know is each morning I woke up feeling like I was going to die, and then got progressively better all day long until I went to bed, and then I couldn’t sleep for the coughing, hacking and congestion. Taking some Claritin D finally helped somewhat, but this is the first morning I have woken up and felt like I could actually be trusted to drive a car. So I came into work.
Because I was so out of it last week, I did not spend nearly as much time and effort on work as I normally do. In fact I took an entire day off (except for a couple of critical meetings I still called into).
And today I am pretty much all caught up.
How did that happen? How did I lose 8 hours of productive time, plus probably another 8 in simply being less productive than usual, and still not get 16 hours behind today?
Because it turns out not everything I do at work is actually necessary.
This is something of a revelation for me.
Because I was hampered last week, I prioritized my work and only did the things that needed doing. Also I wasn’t involved in any water cooler discussions and didn’t join several meetings where I would have normally spent most of the meeting “multi-tasking” on my normal job functions.
Of course I’m back to my normal routine today, and that means chatting with co-workers, attending meetings where I spend much of the time doing other things and answering endless emails that somehow keep circling around like electronic horse flies without finding any place to settle.
I wonder how much of our time in general is spent doing things that “must be done” but don’t actually “need doing.”
I really am wondering about that.
6 users commented in " Observations on being sick… "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackOne of my favorite quotes from a famous early 20th century German general (and opponent of Hitler):
“I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.”
Personally, I try to be “clever and lazy”, shunting aside bureaucratic noise and focusing on stuff that’s actually important. It’s probably easier to do this in startups and small companies than in big companies.
“Famous for being an ardent opponent of the Nazi regime.”
hm, that URL was mangled when I posted it
Should be “Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord”
Argh!
Better?
Yes thanks
Leave A Reply