Rethinking “productivity” through a psychology lens
In an era of time trackers, meeting metrics and “always-on” workplace culture, many people have learned to treat any deviation from steady output as a personal failure. But a growing body of workplace psychology thinking suggests some behaviors commonly branded as unproductive may, in context, reflect high intelligence—especially when they support deeper analysis, creativity and better long-term decisions.
The argument resurfaced this week in a widely shared psychology essay by writer Sarah Mitchell, who described how she once criticized herself for habits like staring out a window during work hours, taking too long to refine a paragraph, or drifting into tangents. After interviewing an organizational psychologist for a workplace culture story, Mitchell said she reconsidered those patterns after hearing a line that reframed her assumptions: “The behaviors we label as unproductive are often the ones generating the most valuable thinking.”
Mitchell’s piece does not claim that distraction or delay is always beneficial. Instead, it challenges the idea that productivity is synonymous with constant visible activity, arguing that certain “messy” work styles can be consistent with advanced cognitive processing—particularly in roles that rely on synthesis, judgment and original ideas.
Nine behaviors that can look like time-wasting
Below are the nine behaviors highlighted in the essay, along with the rationale offered for why they may correlate with stronger cognitive performance in some settings.
1) Taking a long time to make seemingly simple decisions
Mitchell points to the colleague who researches a small purchase like a major investment or takes unusually long to choose a meal. What reads as indecision may be thorough processing: considering more variables, imagining second-order consequences and running “mental simulations” before committing.
In her example from early newsroom work, she recalled being slower than an editor to settle on story angles—only later recognizing she was weighing audience interpretation and downstream follow-ups. In knowledge work, that kind of deliberation can reduce rework and reputational risk.
2) Getting distracted easily
Modern productivity culture often treats distraction as the enemy. Mitchell argues that for some people, “distraction” is actually the mind making fast connections—spotting patterns, drawing parallels or solving a problem in the background. She described keeping a running notes file of observations and links between unrelated readings, saying those side trails often become publishable ideas.
In cognitive terms, this resembles associative thinking, which is frequently implicated in creativity and insight-driven work.
3) Asking “too many” questions
Mitchell cites a quote attributed to Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz about wisdom being revealed through questions. In meetings, persistent questions can be interpreted as obstruction. But the essay frames them as critical thinking: stress-testing proposals, exposing hidden assumptions and clarifying definitions before action is taken.
Mitchell also notes a reporting pattern: in her interviews, the “smartest” sources often interrogate the premise of a question, request context and challenge framing—behaviors that can improve accuracy and decision quality.
4) Working in bursts rather than steady flows
The traditional model of consistent eight-hour output may not match how many people do their best thinking. Mitchell describes a rhythm of intense morning productivity followed by diminished creative capacity later in the day. Rather than forcing uniform output, she argues that aligning work with natural peaks can improve results.
She references research commonly cited in workplace discussions that productivity declines sharply with excessive hours—an argument used to support the idea that work rhythm and recovery matter as much as raw time spent.
5) Needing deep understanding before moving forward
Speed is often rewarded in corporate settings, but Mitchell argues that some people resist progress until they understand “why” something works, what assumptions it relies on and what implications follow. That can appear slow in the moment but may prevent costly mistakes later.
Drawing on her experience covering tech companies, she contrasts founders who rushed to scale without understanding market dynamics with those who moved methodically early on and built more sustainable operations.
6) Procrastinating on straightforward tasks
One of the more counterintuitive claims is that “easy” tasks can be harder for intelligent people to start. The explanation offered is cognitive understimulation: when a task does not engage the mind, attention becomes slippery and avoidance increases.
Mitchell describes being able to spend hours on complex research, yet delaying short emails. In this view, procrastination is not always laziness; it can be a mismatch between task demands and mental engagement.
7) Getting lost in tangents and rabbit holes
Professional environments often reward staying on topic. Mitchell argues, however, that tangents can be where original connections are made—linking seemingly unrelated ideas into a new framework. While the excerpted text cuts off mid-point, the broader theme is that “rabbit holes” may sometimes be the path to novel insight, particularly in strategy, writing and research roles.
8) Daydreaming or staring into space
Mitchell’s opening examples include staring out a window during work hours. The essay frames this as potential incubation: the brain stepping away from direct effort to allow ideas to organize, which can support problem-solving and creativity. In practice, this is often mislabeled as disengagement.
9) Spending excessive time refining small details
Taking 20 minutes on a single paragraph is presented as another “unproductive” behavior that may be misread. In writing, design and analysis, iterating on details can reflect high standards, precision and the ability to hold multiple constraints in mind at once—tone, logic, audience interpretation and accuracy.
The takeaway: context matters more than optics
Mitchell’s central claim is not that every delay or distraction is a sign of brilliance. Rather, she argues that workplaces often overvalue visible busyness and undervalue the less observable parts of cognition: reflection, synthesis, exploration and careful judgment.
For managers, the implication is to evaluate output and decision quality—not just activity. For employees, the message is to distinguish between harmful avoidance and productive cognitive patterns, and to build systems that channel those patterns into results.
In short, what looks like “unproductive” behavior can sometimes be the surface-level symptom of deeper thinking—especially in work where the value lies not in speed alone, but in insight.
Related
