If I asked you where thinking appears in your working week, what would you point to? Your calendar probably contains meetings, deadlines and conversations that other people have requested. There may be considerably less room to consider a difficult decision, prepare properly for a sensitive discussion or work out why the same problem keeps returning.
I find that imbalance worth examining because we expect a great deal from leaders’ judgment. We want them to understand competing perspectives, anticipate consequences and recognise when circumstances call for a different approach. Yet a diary filled from morning to evening can squeeze those responsibilities into the few minutes between appointments, or carry them home to consider after everyone else has gone to bed.
As AI makes it easier to generate proposals, summaries and recommendations, I think this deserves more attention. Producing something quickly does not establish how quickly another person can assess it properly. A team may be able to put more information in front of its manager, while the manager still needs time to understand what matters and decide what to do.
The expectation of being constantly available
I used to coach a manager who responded immediately to almost every message. He took pride in being available to his team, and it was easy to understand why. Colleagues could count on a quick answer, decisions kept moving and problems rarely sat in his inbox for long. As we explored how he organised his day, however, we began to look at what that constant availability was costing him.
Whenever he set aside time to prepare for a difficult conversation or work through a decision, another message would arrive and he would interrupt himself to respond. By the end of the day, he had helped everyone else move forward, but much of the work requiring his own sustained attention remained unfinished. He would return to it in the evening, when the messages had finally slowed down.
Part of our work together was examining the expectation he had helped create. His colleagues had become accustomed to immediate replies, while he had come to associate being a supportive manager with always being reachable. We explored how he could remain dependable while agreeing on clearer response times, helping his team make more decisions independently and protecting time for the responsibilities that needed his full attention.
There are roles where immediate availability is essential, and genuine emergencies need a clear response. My concern is with allowing every request to acquire that status by default. When a team has not agreed on what requires an immediate answer, the person sending a message and the person receiving it may be working with very different assumptions.
Making space for the work behind a decision
Imagine receiving a proposal shortly before your next meeting. An AI-generated summary presents the main points clearly, and the recommendation appears sensible. You could approve it immediately and move on, but the decision may deserve a closer look at whose workload will change or whether another commitment makes the proposed deadline unrealistic.
That consideration is part of the job, even when it produces nothing immediately visible. The difficulty is that an approval can be counted and a reply can be seen, while the value of examining an assumption is harder to demonstrate. I would be wary of a working culture in which the most visible activity consistently takes precedence over careful preparation.
Time to think also needs a purpose. An hour labelled “strategic thinking” can easily disappear into email if there is no clear question to address. A more useful starting point might be to identify what is causing repeated delays on a project, consider the trade-offs in a staffing decision or prepare for a conversation that has been postponed. There should be enough direction to make progress, without demanding that every complicated issue be resolved in one sitting.
For leaders using AI, this can include deciding which parts of the work require their own attention. A tool may help organise the information or suggest questions, but the responsibility for reaching a defensible decision remains with the person making it. That responsibility deserves space in the calendar.
A break should not become another assignment
Protected thinking time and recovery serve different purposes, and we need room for both. Examining a complicated problem is still work. If every gap between meetings becomes an opportunity to reflect, plan or catch up, there may be no genuine pause in the day at all.
A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis published in PLOS ONE, drawing on 22 independent study samples involving 2,335 participants, found small improvements in vigour and reductions in fatigue from breaks of ten minutes or less. The overall improvement in performance was not statistically significant, which is a useful reminder to avoid promising that every short break will make someone more productive.
For me, the wellbeing finding is sufficient reason to take breaks seriously. People should be able to step away briefly without having to demonstrate a measurable increase in output afterwards. A few minutes away from a task can be worthwhile even when the benefit is simply feeling less fatigued.
Short breaks also cannot compensate for an unmanageable workload. If someone repeatedly works through lunch or finishes essential tasks late at night, the discussion needs to include priorities, resources and expectations. Advising them to take a pause while leaving all those demands untouched is unlikely to address the difficulty they face.
Three changes to try this week
Protect one period for a specific question. Choose a decision or recurring problem that has not received enough attention and reserve twenty minutes to examine it. Decide which interruptions genuinely need to reach you, then use the time to clarify the issue and identify a useful next step. Treat this as an experiment in how you organise your work, rather than another commitment to fit into an already full evening.
Clarify one expectation about availability. Ask your team whether they believe messages require an immediate response, including those sent outside normal working hours. Explain what you actually expect and agree how urgent matters will be communicated. If your own behaviour has created confusion, acknowledge it and make the change visible in how you work.
Remove something to create breathing room. Look at one recurring meeting, update or approval that could be shortened, combined or handled differently. Use some of the recovered time for preparation and leave some available for a genuine break. Giving people permission to pause is more credible when the organisation of work makes that pause possible.
I would like us to become more comfortable recognising thoughtful preparation as a legitimate use of a leader’s time. A person considering a difficult issue may be less immediately available, but that does not mean they have stopped contributing. Their colleagues may benefit considerably from the care taken before a decision is made.
The same consideration should extend across the team. If good work requires attention, we need to examine whether the working day allows people to give it. Before adding another meeting or asking for another immediate response, consider what that request will displace and whether it really needs to happen now.