玩偶姐姐

Years ago, as a VP of IT for a Fortune 500 company, I found myself in a paradox of success. I had a corner office, a talented team and a reputation as someone who could handle any crisis, but I was trapped in a relentless cycle of meetings, emails and urgent demands. My days stretched from 6 AM to midnight, constantly putting out fires and making snap decisions without time for genuine strategic thought.

The breaking point came during a particularly brutal week when I realized I had attended 37 meetings in five days. I was exhausted, my team was burned out and despite all our activity, we weren’t making meaningful progress on our strategic initiatives. That experience led me to discover the transformative power of what productivity experts call a strategic pause.

The hidden cost of hyperconnectivity

My experience wasn’t unique. Research from Harvard Business Review shows that executives now spend nearly 23 hours a week in meetings, up from less than 10 hours in the 1960s. This dramatic increase has coincided with declining productivity and rising burnout rates across organizations. In my own company, I noticed team anxiety increasing, decision-making quality deteriorating and innovation suffering as everyone struggled to keep up.

Microsoft’s 2023 Work Trend Index found that 68% of people don’t have enough uninterrupted focus time during the workday, and 57% feel too busy to think. I saw this reflected in my own team’s behavior and output.

When I started tracking my own attention patterns, I realized I was checking email every 17  minutes throughout the day (often when I was in meetings), a habit that research shows prevents deep cognitive engagement. It takes 23 minutes to refocus after an interruption, meaning I was operating in a state of perpetual semi-attention, hindering complex problem-solving and strategic thinking.

Discovering focused work and strategic interruption

My transformation began with Cal Newport’s concept of “deep work”: a distraction-free concentration on cognitively demanding tasks. Newport, a computer science professor at Georgetown, suggested that the ability to focus without distraction on cognitively demanding tasks was becoming increasingly rare, a view supported by neuroscience’s discovery that task-switching leaves “attention residue” from previous activities, reducing our cognitive capacity. Experimenting with protected blocks of time for deep work immediately improved my strategic thinking and sense of control.

Next, I discovered Juliet Funt’s work on “hallucinated urgency”: the false belief that everything requires immediate attention and response. Funt, a Fortune 500 advisor, observed how this concept kept leaders and their teams in constant reactivity, and instead advocates for “” — intentional 5-10 minute breaks between tasks or meetings to interrupt the cycle and create a mental reset. Implementing these wedges in my schedule dramatically improved my focus and interactions.

To maximize the effectiveness of wedges and protected deep work, I also began using time boxing, dedicating specific blocks of time to particular tasks. For example, I would block 90 minutes for strategic planning, 45 minutes for email and 2-hour windows for complex project work. This prevented tasks from filling all of my available time and helped me maintain focus during each activity. The combination of wedges and time boxing created a rhythm that felt both structured and sustainable.

Inspired by these personal changes, I began implementing broader systematic reforms.

1. Transforming meeting culture and communication

Three ideas you should consider introducing in your organization to make teams more effective include:

• Rolling dismissal. Funt’s concept recommends allowing team members to leave meetings once their contribution is complete, rather than requiring everyone to stay for the full duration.
• Meeting-free windows. Consider designating a department-wide moratorium on meetings to protect time for deep work and strategic thinking. Our team used meeting-free Wednesday mornings and the results were measurable: productivity increased by approximately 20% during these protected periods, and team satisfaction scores improved significantly.
• Email batching. Coined as the “yellow list” by Funt, this approach extends beyond your inbox, providing clear guidelines for managing non-urgent messages — deciding when to use email, when to schedule a meeting, and when to shift communication to other channels, such as shared documents.

2.   Confronting executive overcommitment

One of the most challenging aspects was addressing “executive gluttony” — the insatiable appetite for new ideas and projects that dilute effectiveness. Research from Harvard Business Review indicates that 64% of managers feel their companies have too many competing priorities. In our case, we were pursuing six major strategic initiatives simultaneously. Greg McKeown’s, or the “disciplined pursuit of less but better,” provided a framework. I worked with our leadership team to identify our three most critical priorities, systematically eliminating or postponing others. This required difficult conversations, but the impact on team focus and results was dramatic.

3.   Implementing strategic reduction

True simplification required more than better organization; it demanded the courage to eliminate unnecessary work. I focused on three key areas where we could make a significant impact:

• Emails. I implemented scheduled checking times — specific 30-minute blocks three times a day. Research from the University of British Columbia shows that checking email less frequently significantly reduces stress. This approach made my responses more thoughtful and comprehensive.
• Meetings. We reduced average meeting size from 12 to 6 participants and implemented clear agendas, resulting in 35% better outcomes in terms of actionable decisions.
• Reporting. A comprehensive audit revealed we were spending about 15 hours weekly on reports with little strategic value. By establishing clear criteria for frequency and scope, we reduced reporting burden by 60% while retaining all essential information.

These individual practices became organizational norms, creating a culture that valued intentional work over busy work and increasing employee engagement and satisfaction.

The ongoing leadership imperative

This transformation from reactive busyness to intentional leadership required both mindset shifts and systematic implementation. The research from Newport, Funt, McKeown and others provided a comprehensive framework, but the real work happened through daily practice and organizational culture change.

My initial approach to leadership — being constantly available — was unsustainable and counterproductive. By creating intentional space for deep work and strategic thinking, I became more effective and created conditions for my team to do their best work.

The choice is clear for modern leaders: continue operating in reactive mode, busy but ineffective, or embrace intentional space-making to transform leadership capacity and organizational culture. In my experience, the latter leads to better results, higher satisfaction and more sustainable success for both leaders and their teams.

I still use wedges between meetings, protect for deep work time through strategic time boxing (90-minute segments work best for me), and regularly assess our organizational priorities to prevent overcommitment. These practices are now integral to my leadership style. The transformation wasn’t just about productivity; it was about reclaiming the space needed to think, strategize and lead effectively amid competing demands and constant change.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?