What’s one popular belief about productivity that you’ve found to be misleading or harmful in the workplace? How did you or your team overcome it, and what’s one practical habit or strategy that’s made a real difference in daily efficiency?

One of the most problematic and harmful beliefs about productivity is the idea that in order to be responsive in the workplace, you need to have notifications on for emails, Slack, Teams, etc. and answer as quickly as possible. In fact, studies show that every time you get interrupted or distracted (and yes, that's happening even when you just glance at a message to determine if it's important), it takes, on average, 23 minutes (!) to refocus on what you were previously doing. This results in productivity losses of about a 1/3 of the workday. And all that context switching is not only killing your productivity, it's also very stressful. Here's how you can avoid falling prey to this "always on" belief; these are strategies that work well for me, for the teams I've worked with, and for my clients: 1) Turn off all the email notifications (no one uses email in an emergency) and, if you can, turn off the Slack/Teams notifications as well, or at least ensure that you're only receiving notifications for direct messages (no channel notifications). 2) Batch process your email/Slack/Teams - Instead of checking your inbox 30 times a day, process your incoming messages a few times a day. Most people can do this every couple of hours and still be very responsive, perhaps even more responsive than they were prior to moving from "checking" to "processing". Processing means handling the email (by archiving (because no response is needed), responding, and/or adding the work to your task system, as the case may be). 3) Determine with your team what the "emergency channel" is (text, phone call, etc.); this is the method of communication to be used if a message truly can't wait. 4) If it makes you feel more comfortable, update your status on Slack/Teams during periods when you're not in your inbox to be "Heads down on a few things, will be back in here at [time]; if it's urgent, contact me at [emergency channel]" 5) Relish in how much you can get done when you're not interrupted by pings and dings every 5 minutes. Most of my clients tell me that when they adopt the process above, they start immediately saving a hour a day and my experience has been similar in my life and business.

Strict scheduling doesn't work for everyone. While it makes me feel great, as managing partner, to see an organized calendar for each team member's entire week, I've learned—sometimes the hard way—that this approach can actually decrease productivity. I'm a natural scheduler. I make a plan, stick to it (barring emergencies), and get a real sense of satisfaction from knowing exactly what I'll be doing on any given day. But not everyone works like I do. Some people genuinely struggle with rigid schedules. They do their best work when they follow their instincts, tackling the task that best matches their energy, mood, or the day's circumstances. Asking them to hand me a detailed weekly plan on Monday often backfired. It locked them into commitments that didn't match how the week unfolded. Instead of leaning into their strengths, they felt stuck doing tasks they no longer felt primed to complete. So I've changed my approach. Now, I ask team members to give me a heads-up each morning about what they're planning to focus on. If something shifts, they can check in again around lunch with any updates. It's a compromise that keeps me in the loop but gives them the flexibility to do their best work, when and how it makes the most sense.

One popular belief about productivity that I've found to be harmful is the idea that "being constantly busy equals being productive." This belief not only glorifies burnout but also penalizes people—especially those from historically excluded communities—who may need flexible work arrangements, mental health accommodations, or simply a different pace to thrive. It reinforces a one-size-fits-all model of performance that is neither sustainable nor inclusive. In my work with organizations, we overcame this by shifting the focus from visibility and hours worked to outcomes, clarity of purpose, and psychological safety. One strategy that's made a real difference is creating "capacity and competency matrices"—a tool we use to align people's strengths, availability, and bandwidth with organizational priorities. This allows teams to plan smarter, reduce overload, and foster shared ownership instead of individual overextension. The real productivity gains come not from doing more, but from doing what matters—and doing it in a way that honors people's mental health, lived experiences, and need for balance.

Hard work pays off can be a harmful and misleading productivity belief, especially for people who identify as minority groups like myself. I spent over 15 years in corporate jobs in two countries, and 10 of those years were in corporate America. I thought working hard was the answer to getting a promotion or a raise. I believed my manager would see my hard work, and eventually, I would begin to climb the ladder. The reality was that I went from job to job, underpaid, undervalued, and unappreciated. All my hard work was invisible to my peers and my manager. I remember watching colleagues doing less work than me, arriving late and leaving the office early, not caring as much about their tasks. Then, during a performance review, they got raises and promotions. I felt defeated and blamed myself for not doing more, even though I was already working close to 60 hours a week and exhausted. I felt like being who I was was not enough; even though I knew I had value, I didn't feel l could sell that at work. As an introvert, I didn't feel empowered to speak up and thought only loud voices could get ahead until I learned the power of quiet confidence. I began learning about self-advocacy for introverts. I realized the issue was that my work wasn't visible. So, I began to work on a strategy to improve my relationship with my manager. I asked for feedback, shared my goals, set low-stakes boundaries with extra requests and workload, brought structure to my one-on-one meetings with my manager, and discussed my results before waiting for the performance review. The change wasn't an overnight success, but little by little, I felt more comfortable speaking up and advocating for myself. You don't need to brag about your accomplishments, but it's essential to help your manager understand that you are getting results. Your manager can't read your mind and know everything you do. The goal with self-advocacy is not necessarily to consistently achieve the result, but to be on a journey to change your mindset about how you see yourself and perceive your achievements. Our brains love to go for the negativity and seek situations to confirm that. However, the little you do to change that mindset, the more equipped you'll feel to see the positive results of self-advocacy. It's about standing up for yourself and using your voice. Hard work only pays off if it becomes visible to your manager. Working hard constantly without recognition can lead to burnout, not productivity.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute! Anu "We've been taught that multi-tasking (doing two or more things at once) is bad because it usually leads to more mistakes, takes a longer time to complete tasks, and increases our stress level. While this is true, what workplace, job, or leader allow you to only focus on one task at a time? And multi-tasking can still be found on most internal job descriptions. Because there will always be competing priorities, our team has learned to work with them, not against them. Taking a break from one task to work on something else can actually help you out. It gives your brain a chance to rest when you're feeling stuck or tired, so you come back feeling fresh. Plus, stepping away lets your subconscious keep working on the problem, which can lead to creative ideas. Also, if you focus too long on one thing, your energy and creativity can drop, so switching tasks helps keep you sharp. And in busy workplaces where you have lots going on, jumping between tasks can help you make steady progress on everything without getting overwhelmed. So the one practical strategy that we practice daily is "serial monotasking." We focus on one task for a set period (for 25-50 minutes), then intentionally switch to another when we need a break or hit a mental block. Before switching, we jot down quick notes about where we left off to make it easier to pick up later. This helps to enjoy the benefits of task switching without falling into the trap of multitasking. This isn't about semantics. It's about navigating our workload by working smarter. If you feel stuck when you're trying to get things done, give yourself permission to switch tasks intentionally, but avoid trying to do both at the same time."

Over-reliance on productivity tools. Many teams fall into the trap of thinking that adding a new productivity tool to their tech stack will fix workflow inefficiencies. In reality, layering more tools without fixing the underlying habits can lead to fragmentation, decision fatigue and duplication of work. You end up spending more time figuring out how to work instead of actually doing the work. Our team learned this lesson the hard way. At one point, we were juggling Jira for tickets, Notion for docs, Slack for stand-up meetings, Loom for async updates, Asana for project management and Linear for roadmap planning. Our workflow looked modern, but it was a big mess. Context-switching was constant, and some critical updates were lost across systems. After thorough deliberation, we decided to audit our workflows, and the result was astonishing. A single product sprint involved 7+ tool handoffs, and over 25% of dev time was spent navigating or syncing between tools. The turning point was simplifying everything. We cut back our entire workflow to three tools and standardized their use. The result was a 20% reduction in sprint cycle time over two quarters and noticeably less burnout. The real gain wasn't from adding another productivity tool but from aligning the team around fewer, clearer ways of working. That is what made the difference.

One belief about productivity that I've found pretty misleading is the idea that it has a fixed definition. Sure, there are standard ways to define it. But in reality, it looks different depending on where you work and what you do. In some companies, productivity means how many tasks you check off. In others, it's deals closed or impact created. It's not one-size-fits-all, and treating it like it is? That's where we go wrong. It's also a mistake to assume we're all productive at the same time or for the same amount of hours. I've had days where I did more in two hours than I did in a full 8-hour stretch. Quantity is not quality. And creative roles, especially, can't be measured with the same yardstick as technical ones. You can't expect a content writer to be 'productive' in the same way a software developer is. What's made a real difference for me and my team is being intentional about when we work, not just what we work on. I actively encourage everyone to block out 'focus time' on their calendars during their personal peak hours. That's when the real work gets done. Meetings, admin, the lighter stuff, we leave that for the rest of the day. In the end, productivity isn't just about how much you do. It's about when and how you do it and whether it actually matters.

Having spent over a decade in the field of employee engagement, I've gained a unique perspective on what truly drives workplace productivity. Many leaders believe that rewards alone, monetary or otherwise, are the key to boosting performance. However, my experience, especially through building Vantage Circle's employee engagement platform, has shown me that recognition, a sincere appreciation and acknowledgement of an employee's effort, is far more powerful and sustainable motivator. This insight aligns with the Motivational Crowding Theory, which explains how extrinsic rewards can sometimes 'crowd out' intrinsic motivation when not balanced carefully. To ensure this approach is fully embraced, we introduced the Flipping of R's concept, shifting the focus from rewards to recognition. Practically, embedding consistent, personalized recognition moments into daily workflows—whether through peer-to-peer shoutouts or leadership appreciation, employee recognition has transformed how our people connect with their work, driving efficiency and fulfilment far beyond what rewards alone can achieve.

Popular belief - "More meetings mean more alignment." This sounds reasonable in theory, but in practice, it often kills momentum. We've found that excessive internal check-ins, especially when not tied to immediate outcomes, tend to drain time, fragment focus, and slow execution. In fast-paced sales environments like ours, where every hour matters, this mindset can quietly erode team performance. How we fixed it? At Martal, we shifted from "meeting culture" to a decision-first culture. If something doesn't require a clear decision or unblock a team, it probably doesn't need a meeting. We tightened our weekly rhythm to focus on what moves deals forward such as pipeline blockers, campaign results, and fast-turn feedback. A practical habit that works - we moved to a lightweight, asynchronous reporting approach where each team member, whether a SDR, AE, or campaign lead, shares a quick weekly update outlining key developments, shifts in prospect behavior, and immediate next actions. It keeps everyone aligned without overloading calendars. The result? More autonomy, less friction, and more time spent on what actually drives growth.

This strange idea that if you're behind or have a lot to do, you shouldn't take breaks. We almost shame ourselves into it, or feel guilty because there's this growing list of things that need to be done. I think it's really harmful, and it almost always backfires. You're not a machine. When you don't give yourself a break, your focus drops, mistakes creep in, and you end up working longer with less quality. Even if there's a rising number of inquiries and our team has a lot to catch up with, we still take regular breaks. Even on the busiest days. It helps us recharge and come back sharper as opposed to feeling drained or not giving our best. Caring for our team means trusting them to manage their work in a way that's sustainable.

The myth? That productivity starts with a 5 a.m. wake-up call. It's a persistent narrative that equates early rising with ambition and discipline while sidelining anyone whose energy doesn't peak with the sunrise. Night owls, caregivers, and folks managing chronic health conditions are all left out of that picture of "success." I've done my best thinking at 9 p.m. and struggled through 8 a.m. meetings. Once I stopped contorting my schedule to fit someone else's idea of productivity, everything shifted—my focus, creativity, and energy. What's made the biggest difference? Protecting time for deep work and being honest about how and when I work best.

The most harmful productivity myth I've encountered—both as a Silicon Valley executive and now as a leadership coach—is that productivity equals busyness. Corporate America has sold us the lie that the ideal leader is someone who works endless hours, is constantly available, and wears their exhaustion as a badge of honor. I bought into this lie for decades. I was convinced that a kick-ass leader is always accessible, always on, always juggling multiple priorities flawlessly. I returned from maternity leave early to teach a global executive class because that's what I thought dedicated leaders did. That decision nearly broke me. This "busyness theater" isn't just personally destructive—it's terrible for business. Activity has taken on a life of its own. Whether workers contribute to actual productivity or not, those who create lots of activity, attend scores of meetings, and visibly suffer are rewarded. They don't have to accomplish anything meaningful; they just need to look perpetually busy. The breakthrough came when I realized that productivity isn't about how many hours you work but the value of what you achieve. I started asking: What's the actual outcome we need? Are we any closer to achieving our goals? Is spending all this time in the weeds actually a good use of my energy? The single most transformative practice I implemented was the 60/30/10 method: -60% of your day on necessary tasks (emails, meetings) -30% on challenging but achievable goals (projects that advance your position) -10% on moonshot innovations (ideas that could transform your team or company) We paired this with intentional work blocks. Set a timer for 90 minutes of focused work, then take 15 minutes to disconnect completely—no screens, no work talk. Throughout the day, take 5-10 minutes for what I call "microjoys"—small moments that bring happiness simply because they make you happy. The results were remarkable. My teams stopped wearing exhaustion as a status symbol and started measuring success by meaningful outcomes rather than hours spent looking busy. And when someone sent an 11pm Slack message, we called it out instead of celebrating their "dedication." Remember, the hustle and grind only gives you one thing—burnout. You don't sprint a marathon. Productive teams deliver better consistently over time than busy teams that are stressed, tired, and burnt out.

We have more time-saving tools than ever. So why does it feel like we have less time than ever? That's the time paradox. We live in a culture of "more" and "faster." Every headline screams: Do more. Go faster. Every tool promises: You'll do more, faster. But how much more is enough? And faster... to where? In my 20s, I believed it. I worked weekends. Left the office at 11pm. My to-do list had 100+ tasks. The result? A hospital bed. Diagnosed with overwork. Temporary episodes of vision loss. Chronic migraines in my 30s. What I learned the hard way: If you want to enjoy any of it — you don't need more. You need the opposite. Slow down. Focus on less. Decide what's enough. I learned to timebox effectively, and work with must-dos, not endless to-dos. And that's what I taught to my team: eliminate unnecessary work, cut the noise, focus on impact, prioritize quality, and value progress. Not everything on our to-do lists deserves our energy, focus, and time. That's the only way to finally have enough time for what's important at work, and what (and who) we love after work.

Believing stakeholders with a personal agenda should not be included in a discussion about the solution because they will dig in their heels and push their agenda. In reality, these strong-willed people are the very ones who need to be the most involved as they are the most likely to undermine the decision later and the most critical to advocate for the solution now. I teach leaders to create shared agendas, particularly when decisions are contentious. A shared agenda could be created through a brainstorm about the criteria for the soution before you jump to action. Once everyone agrees on criteria or what the solution must be able to do (the shared agenda), it is a lot harder to cling to a personal agenda that doesn't support it. Personal agendas fall when shared agendas are created. For example, let's say you need to get your key leaders together to agree on a new structure for your customer service organization and Bob wants all his people to have customer contact. If you create a shared agenda based on customer input that says there must be a single point of contact for the customer, Bob's agenda doesn't work. Bob then has a choice to be a visible part of building a viable solution (which he will likely support) or not. It is significantly more productive to involve the dissenters in the decision that it is to leave them out and have to creat buy-in or sell the idea to them later. If you're selling, you're not influencing, and frankly, you're wasting time doing business with yourself when you could be winning customers.

One of the most misleading beliefs about productivity is that being constantly time-strapped means you must be ambitious and effective. It's a trap I've fallen into myself. As a CEO, it's easy to equate full calendars and endless task lists with high performance. But over time, I've learned that this kind of surface-level productivity often leads to burnout, shallow work, and missed opportunities. We had to unlearn that mindset at my firm. I started noticing that our most successful recruiters weren't the ones making the highest number of calls; they were the ones taking the time to research, to listen, and to build real relationships. They prioritized quality over quantity, and their results proved it. So we made a cultural shift. Instead of tracking activity for activity's sake, we began measuring outcomes. We also introduced new opportunities for team members to silence notifications and dive into deep work without focusing on KPIs or other busywork. The result is a tight team that achieves more by doing less, reducing burnout and improving performance when and where it really matters.

One of the most harmful productivity beliefs we've swallowed is the idea that being constantly "on" is the same as being effective. Hustle culture loves to worship burnout like it's a badge of honor, but let's be real: exhausted, emotionally constipated people don't lead well, connect well, or create well. They just... grind. Your power doesn't come from doing more, it comes from being more. More clear. More aligned. More regulated emotionally and energetically. So instead of glorifying 16-hour days and inbox zero, we ask: are you actually present with your work, or just busy avoiding your feelings, failure, or taking an actual risk. How do we overcome this? We train leaders to pause on purpose. Daily stillness is non-negotiable. A 10-minute breathwork session or just sitting in silence before diving into the chaos can reset your nervous system better than any productivity app. It's not sexy. It's not a new hack. But it actually works. The strategy that's made the biggest difference? Sacred focus. Pick one priority for the day that moves the mission forward. Not five. Not twenty. One. The rest is noise unless it feeds the mission. That clarity and the courage to say no to distractions is where real efficiency lives. You don't need to do more. You need to be the kind of person who no longer confuses chaos with progress. And hey, maybe take a breath. It's free and a lot more effective than your 12th cup of coffee.

As a trauma-informed therapist, I've found the "multitasking equals efficiency" myth particularly harmful. The neurological reality is that our brains don't truly multitask - they rapidly switch between tasks, causing mental fatigue and reducing overall effectiveness. In my therapy practice, I've observed clients experiencing significant anxiety and diminished performance when attempting to juggle multiple priorities simultaneously. One client, a marketing executive, was making consistent errors and experiencing panic attacks until we implemented single-tasking strategies focused on presence and completion. What's worked remarkably well is teaching clients "mindful monotasking" - fully engaging with one task for focused periods (25-30 minutes), followed by intentional short breaks (5 minutes) for nervous system regulation. This approach has helped clients complete work more efficiently while experiencing less psychological distress. The practical difference appears in both quality and wellbeing. Several clients report making fewer errors in their work, experiencing greater satisfaction with completed tasks, and most importantly, feeling more regulated throughout their workday rather than emotionally depleted by constant attention-switching.

Automation abuse is often mistaken for productivity. I watched a team connect an LLM to their email engine, push out thousands of messages, and celebrate the spike in activity. 24 hours later Gmail throttled the IPs and their deliverability cratered. The hours they thought they saved vanished into blacklist appeals, list scrubbing, and missed revenue. We broke that cycle by treating automation like high-voltage equipment. It only goes live once a human signs off on three basics: clear ownership of failures, a send-volume cap, and a quick validation step that catches bad data before it hits real prospects. Our simplest habit is a "first-ten" test: ship ten messages to seed inboxes, check placement and tone, then scale gradually. It takes five minutes and has saved days of damage control. Real productivity comes from controlled speed, not blind acceleration.

One harmful produvtivity myth I've battled throughout my 20+ years in digital marketing is the belief that multitasking is efficient. Running Marketing Magnitude since 2011, I've seen this approach consistently produce lower-quality work and burnout. My team's campaigns required focused attention on complex SEO algorithms and detailed analytics. Instead, we implemented time-blocking with clear boundaries. When developing FamilyFun.Vegas alongside agency work, I dedicated specific days to each business rather than juggling both simultaneously. This focused approach increased our SEO client conversion rates by 34% and reduced project completion time by nearly a week. The practical strategy that transformed our efficiency was creating "deep work zones" - 90-minute blocks where team members silence notifications and focus exclusively on one high-value task. We balance these with collaborative periods for cross-functional input. This approach proved especially valuable when managing multiple client campaigns with competing deadlines. Data is everything in digital marketing, and our productivity metrics showed the impact. When implementing deep work zones for a major Las Vegas entertainment client, we completed their website optimization in half the originally scheduled time while increasing organic traffic 41% above projections. The freedom from constant task-switching created space for the creative problem-solving our clients actually pay us for.

The harmful productivity myth I've encountered most is "perfect training plan compliance equals success." As a professional triathlete and coach at Campfire Endurance, I've watched athletes obsess over turning all their TrainingPeaks workouts "green" (completed exactly as prescribed) while ignoring what their bodies were telling them. This approach leads to injury, burnout, and frustration. With my athletes, I actually recommend disabling the colorized workouts in TrainingPeaks. When one athlete was fixated on 100% compliance despite mounting fatigue, we shifted to a "take it seriously but hold it lightly" mindset that improved both performance and enjoyment. The practical habit that transformed my coaching approach is implementing weekly reflection sessions where athletes identify three process-based wins and three areas for improvement. This shifts focus from rigid compliance to thoughtful adaptation. One athlete using this method went from constant injury cycles to consistent improvement by writing daily: "I hydrated early, counted my cadence when fatigued, kept shoulders back." Endurance development takes years, not months. By replacing the "perfect compliance" mindset with deliberate reflection and long-term thinking, athletes make steadier progress and actually enjoy the journey. My best-performing athletes aren't the most robotically compliant - they're the ones who've learned to balance structure with self-awareness.