The Power of the ‘To Not Do’ Lists

To Do Lists are a staple of productivity. Whether scrawled on sticky notes or organized in sleek digital apps, they offer structure, clarity, and momentum. But as useful as they are, to do lists alone don’t guarantee effectiveness—they simply point us toward action. What’s often missing is an intentional barrier against distraction, overcommitment, and low-value tasks. This is where the “To Not Do List” comes in, turning a good productivity habit into a strategic powerhouse.

 A to do list answers the question: *What must I accomplish?* It’s future-facing and task-driven. But it has a blind spot. It doesn’t prevent you from doing things that *shouldn’t* be done, tasks that sap time, compromise focus, or stem from guilt, not purpose. These are the time traps that sneak in between the tasks that truly matter.

 A to not do list addresses this vulnerability. It states clearly: *These are the things I will avoid, delegate, or deprioritize. It sets guardrails around your energy and attention. Think of it as an operating system update, eliminating bugs in your behavior that slow you down.

 For example, your to do list may include “Finish Wednesday presentation” or “Schedule team check-in.” But your to not do list might say “Don’t check email before 11 a.m.” or “Don't let Janet live rent-free in your head.” One drives purposeful motion, while the other blocks self-sabotage.

 Together, these lists create a feedback loop. The to do list moves you forward, while the to not do list protects your progress. You gain not only output but intention. You stop reacting to every input and start filtering your day through what matters most.

 Importantly, the to not do list isn’t about being rigid or negative, it’s about focus. It reminds you that discipline isn’t just about doing the right thing, but also about *not* doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. It allows space for rest, boundary-setting, and long-term thinking.

 So, if you’ve hit a wall with your productivity, even with lists in place, try adding their inverse. Write down what you won’t do today. What you won’t apologize for skipping. What doesn’t belong in your bandwidth.

You might find that what you don’t do has as much power as what you do.

What's up with that Janet anyway?

The Costs of the Panel Interview

Panel interviews are often viewed as an efficient way for organizations to evaluate candidates, allowing several team members to assess an applicant simultaneously. Typically, one candidate faces four to eight or sometimes even moreinterviewers at once. While this format streamlines the process for employers, it introduces a range of challenges for both sides of the interview.

The Pitfalls of Standard Questions 

Consider the classic and much overused question: “Where do you see yourself in five years?” While common, this question often fails to provide meaningful insight into a candidate’s suitability for the role. A bold response like, “I’d have your job in five years,” might be interpreted as motivated or arrogant, depending on the panel’s perspective. Alternatively, a candidate could redirect the question by asking, “What opportunities for advancement does the company offer?”-a response that shifts the conversation to more tangible career prospects. Ultimately, such generic questions rarely yield information that decisively impacts the hiring decision.

Panel Composition and Influence

Panel interviews often include individuals who will be direct reports or internal stakeholders of the new hire, rather than the actual decision-makers. In many cases, those with real hiring authority conduct separate one-on-one interviews. This can result in a panel where some members have limited influence over the final decision, which may create confusion or diminish the value of the panel’s input.

Real-World Challenges

Panel interviews can suffer from poor organization. For example, I was once interviewed by a panel of ten interviewers who lacked a clear plan: two extroverts dominated the conversation, while others struggled to contribute, sometimes repeating questions or failing to ask anything meaningful: "Debbie already asked my question". Such disorganization made the process awkward and unproductive, both for myself and the panel. It also revealed underlying issues about the company’s culture and their decision-making processes.

Advantages and Disadvantages

While panel interviews can reveal whether a candidate or interviewer is more extroverted or introverted, the disadvantages often outweigh this single benefit. The key drawbacks include:

• Increased Candidate Stress and Intimidation: Facing multiple interviewers can be overwhelming, leading to anxiety and potentially preventing candidates from performing at their best.
• Scheduling and Logistical Complexities: Coordinating the calendars of several busy panelists can delay the hiring process and create logistical headaches.
• Limited Depth of Assessment: With many interviewers, time is divided, often resulting in superficial questions and limited follow-up, which can prevent a thorough evaluation of the candidate’s skills and experience.
• Risk of Groupthink and Dominant Personalities: Stronger personalities may steer the conversation and influence the group’s opinion, sometimes at the expense of a balanced assessment.
• Poor Candidate Experience and Rapport: The formal, impersonal nature of panel interviews makes it harder to build rapport, which can negatively impact the candidate’s impression of the company.

Best Practices for Improvement

To mitigate these many disadvantages, organizations should:

• Define clear objectives and roles for each panel member.
• Prepare and coordinate questions in advance to avoid overlap and ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Foster a welcoming environment to help candidates feel at ease and encourage authentic responses.
• Use structured evaluation criteria to maintain fairness and consistency.

By addressing these challenges, companies can make panel interviews more effective, fair, and informative for both candidates and interviewers. Better yet, recognize upfront that panel interviews lack tangible value and be honest with the participants. 

What Problems Have You Stopped Seeing?

The Invisible Wrinkle: How Inattentional Blindness Lets Problems Linger

Have you ever noticed a wrinkle in your wallpaper,one that bothered you at first, but over time, faded into the background? This isn’t just about home décor. It’s a perfect metaphor for a psychological phenomenon called inattentional blindness, our tendency to overlook problems simply because we see them so often.

Inattentional blindness is our brain’s way of filtering out the familiar. When we first spot a flaw, like that wrinkle, it grabs our attention. But as days pass, our mind decides it’s not important and stops registering it. This can be helpful for ignoring harmless distractions, but it becomes a problem when we start ignoring issues that actually matter.  This may be why a hoarder can no longer recognize the hoarding as being a problem. 

Take the workplace, for example. Imagine a colleague with an abrasive demeanor. At first, their harsh tone, sarcasm, or dismissive comments stand out. But as time goes on, you-and everyone else-get used to it. The behavior becomes “just the way they are.” Before long, no one addresses the issue, even though it’s hurting team morale and productivity. 

This is inattentional blindness at work. We stop seeing the problem, not because it’s gone, but because we’ve adapted to its presence. The danger is that these “invisible wrinkles” can grow into bigger issues if left unchecked.

The solution? Make a conscious effort to regularly reassess your environment-at home, at work, and in your relationships. Get some input from others who can look at the situation with fresh eyes. Don’t let familiarity breed complacency. If you notice a problem, don’t let it fade into the background. Address it early, before it becomes part of the wallpaper.

Micromanaging Can Cause Macro-Problems

 

Micromanagement is more than just a micro-issue; it’s a catalyst for macro-level dysfunction. By understanding its roots in distrust and its broad consequences, organizations can take meaningful steps to build healthier, more productive workplaces.

Micromanagement is often dismissed as a minor annoyance-just a manager hovering too closely over daily tasks. However, this management style can lead to far-reaching, macro-level problems that cripple an organization’s growth, culture, and success. The root cause often lies in a lack of trust from managers toward their employees, which sets off a cascade of negative effects.

Why Managers Micromanage: The Trust Deficit

At its core, micromanagement stems from managers who don’t trust their teams to deliver results independently. This distrust may arise from fear of failure, insecurity about their own leadership abilities, or a desire to maintain control over every detail. Some managers feel disconnected from the work or believe their constant involvement is necessary to achieve success. Others may be inexperienced or struggle with delegating effectively. Regardless of the reason, this lack of trust manifests in excessive supervision, constant check-ins, and a fixation on minor details rather than big-picture goals68.

Macro-Level Consequences of Micromanagement

While micromanaging might seem like a way to ensure quality and control, it paradoxically causes bigger problems that affect the entire organization:

• Decreased Productivity and Innovation: Constant oversight slows down workflows and stifles creativity. Employees become hesitant to take initiative or think outside the box, fearing criticism or correction127.
• Low Morale and Motivation: When employees feel they aren’t trusted, their confidence erodes. This leads to disengagement, reduced job satisfaction, and a decline in overall motivation to perform well379.
• High Turnover Rates: The stress and frustration of being micromanaged drive talented employees to leave. Studies show that a significant percentage of employees consider quitting due to micromanagement, leading to costly turnover and loss of institutional knowledge17.
• Damaged Trust and Team Dynamics: Micromanagement breaks down trust, making collaboration and teamwork difficult. It creates a toxic environment where employees feel undervalued and disempowered79.
• Loss of Strategic Focus: Managers who obsess over minor details often miss the bigger picture, hindering long-term planning and organizational growth7.

Building Trust to Avoid Macro-Problems

The antidote to micromanagement is fostering trust. Managers should focus on empowering employees by setting clear goals, providing autonomy, and encouraging open communication. Trust builds confidence, which fuels motivation, creativity, and productivity. When managers relinquish the need to control every step, they enable their teams to thrive and contribute meaningfully to the organization’s success.

Citations:

1. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/mind-of-the-manager/202409/why-micromanagement-is-so-harmful
2. https://www.redlinegroup.com/insight-details/the-damaging-impact-of-micromanagement-and-how-to-end-it
3. https://unrubble.com/blog/the-negative-effects-of-micromanagement
4. https://www.deskbird.com/blog/psychological-effects-micromanagement
5. https://www.zoho.com/workplace/articles/micromanaging.html
6. https://collato.com/blog/micromanagement-is-a-trust-issue/
7. https://vivienroggero.com/blog/negative-effects-of-micromanagement
8. https://management30.com/blog/micromanagement/
9. https://www.hraddict.com/micromanagement
10. https://allwork.space/2023/09/how-to-stop-micromanaging-and-start-trusting-your-staff/
11. https://www.eleapsoftware.com/7-ways-micromanagement-negatively-affects-employees/
12. https://www.monitask.com/en/blog/micromanaging-your-team-the-dangers-of-micromanagement-and-how-to-avoid-them

When a Checklist Becomes a Box-Checking Exercise

Checklists are powerful tools. They help ensure consistency, improve safety, and support accountability—especially in high-stakes environments like aviation, healthcare, research, or engineering. For myself, a daily personal checklist gets me back on task as I have frequent interruptions or immediate re-prioritizations due to changes in circumstances. But there’s a critical tipping point where a checklist stops being a tool for quality and becomes a hollow routine: when it turns into a box-checking exercise.

This happens when the purpose behind the checklist is lost. Instead of guiding thought, decision-making, or thorough inspection, the checklist becomes something to complete quickly—without real engagement. The causes can vary: maybe the checklist has grown too long, includes redundant or obvious items, or is enforced in a rigid way that discourages critical thinking. In other cases, it becomes a bureaucratic formality—something done to show compliance rather than ensure quality.

At that point, users may go through the motions without reflecting on what each item truly means. Boxes get ticked not because a task was properly completed or a standard met, but because the checklist *says* it was. This undermines the tool’s purpose and can erode trust, safety, and performance.

To avoid this tipping point, checklists must be periodically reviewed with input from the people who use them. Keep them concise, relevant, and focused on actions that require real attention. Train teams on *why* each item matters, not just how to complete the list. And above all, foster a culture where quality and accountability are valued more than superficial compliance.

A checklist should be a prompt for good thinking—not a substitute for it. When used with intention, it’s a safety net. When used without reflection, it becomes just another form to file. The difference lies in how—and why—it’s used.

Boilerplate checklists often lack specificity, leading to oversights in complex or unique situations. They can promote complacency, where users follow steps mechanically without critical thinking. These checklists may fail to adapt to evolving standards or context, resulting in incomplete compliance or subpar outcomes.

Personal Checklists vs. Process Checklists:  I build my personal checklists throughout the week for the near-term coming days.  Tomorrow’s checklist is generated through the day today and reflects the executional priority based on internal customer needs or a dynamic change in circumstances. Personal checklist should include “frogs” AKA activities that one may dread, as these have a greater chance of being completed when they are on your checklist rather than living rent-free in your head.

Process checklists should not be over-engineered. A process checklist should be populated with what is required rather than a long list of “it would be nice if” items on it.

The Octagonal Peg in a Round Hole: Navigating Near-Fit Team Dynamics

In organizational life, the metaphor of the “square peg in a round hole” is often used to describe a team member who is fundamentally mismatched for their role or environment. But what about the octagonal peg in a round hole-someone who almost fits, but not quite? This subtle distinction captures a scenario where a team member’s skills, personality, or working style closely align with the group, yet some edges remain, preventing true cohesion.

Understanding the Octagonal Peg

Unlike the square peg, the octagonal peg nearly fits the round hole. With only minor misalignments, this person can perform their role, contribute meaningfully, and even thrive in certain aspects. However, these small differences-be they communication styles, values, or work habits-create friction points that can hinder full integration into the team’s culture or workflow^[1][2].

This “almost but not quite” fit is often more challenging than an obvious mismatch. The team may sense something is off but struggle to articulate or address it. The result is a lingering lack of cohesion, where collaboration feels slightly forced, and the group never quite achieves optimal synergy.

Impacts on Team Cohesion

Cohesion in teams relies on shared goals, trust, clear communication, and complementary strengths^[3]. When an octagonal peg is present, several issues can arise:

·       Subtle Miscommunication: Minor differences in interpretation or approach can lead to recurring misunderstandings.

·       Role Ambiguity: The near-fit team member may struggle with expectations, unsure of how to fully contribute or where their boundaries lie^[3].

·       Reduced Trust: Even small disconnects can erode trust, as team members may question the commitment or reliability of the outlier.

·       Stalled Collaboration: The group may hesitate to fully engage, sensing that consensus is harder to reach or that the dynamic is slightly off-kilter.

These issues rarely escalate to open conflict but can quietly undermine morale and productivity over time.

Why Near-Fits Are Tricky

The challenge with the octagonal peg is that their differences are not glaring enough to warrant immediate intervention. Managers may hesitate to address the issue, hoping it will resolve itself. The team member, meanwhile, may feel the pressure to conform, leading to frustration or disengagement^[2][4].

In larger organizations, there may be opportunities to realign roles or teams to better accommodate individual strengths. In smaller teams, however, flexibility is limited, and the near-fit dynamic can persist, slowly eroding cohesion^[2].

Strategies for Leaders

To address the octagonal peg scenario, leaders should:

·       Foster Open Communication: Encourage honest dialogue about team dynamics and individual experiences. This can surface subtle issues before they become entrenched^[3].

·       Clarify Roles and Expectations: Ensure everyone understands their responsibilities and how they contribute to team goals^[3].

·       Leverage Strengths: Identify and utilize the unique strengths of each team member, even if they don’t perfectly match the original role^[4].

·       Promote Flexibility: Where possible, adapt roles or workflows to better fit individual capabilities, rather than forcing conformity^[2][4].

·       Build Trust: Invest in team-building and trust-building activities to bridge minor gaps and reinforce a sense of belonging^[3].

Conclusion

The octagonal peg in a round hole is a nuanced metaphor for the near-fit team member-someone who almost, but not quite, integrates with the group. Recognizing and addressing this dynamic is crucial for leaders seeking to foster true cohesion. By embracing flexibility and focusing on strengths, teams can transform near-fits into valued contributors, unlocking greater collaboration and success.

1.      https://blogs.ams.org/matheducation/2020/04/14/square-peg-in-an-octagonal-hole/

2.     https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/square-peg-employee-doesnt-fit-round-hole-role-how-doug    

3.     https://proactsafety.com/blog-posts/what-destroys-team-cohesion     

    4. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/square-peg-hole-empowering-your-team-harnessing-strengths-manley

World Monkey Day

 From Understanding Biomedical Research: