In partnership with
Three Additions, Nothing Removed
I added three things to my workload last quarter without removing a single one. A new reporting rhythm, a standing check-in, a working group I joined because the invite felt important.
None of them were bad ideas individually. By December, none of the work I actually cared about was getting done, and I couldn’t explain why to myself or anyone else.
The honest answer, when I finally looked at it, was that I’d been treating my calendar like a container to fill rather than a constraint to defend.
Every yes had felt like progress. Every no had felt like abdication. That framing, I’ve since realised, is almost perfectly backwards.
The Visibility Trap
Why Addition Always Wins
There’s a structural reason this happens, and it has nothing to do with poor discipline or unclear priorities.
Addition is visible. When you join a working group, people see you show up. When you add a meeting, there’s a record. Subtraction disappears.
Nobody notices the status update you stopped writing, the review you handed off, or the project you quietly stepped back from.
The work you removed leaves no trace-it earns no credit, even when it was the most consequential decision you made that week.
The incentive structure rewards presence, and presence is additive. That single dynamic explains most overcrowded calendars-and why they tend to stay that way regardless of how clearly you think you understand your priorities.
A comprehensive guide for addressing the tax talent crisis
A labor shortage in tax is driving the need for a new skill set: one that blends technical tax knowledge with digital fluency.
Automation, AI and data-driven insights now define the role of tax professionals.
This new era of tax is not simply about adopting new tools, it’s about reshaping the skill set and mindset required to thrive in this field. Check out this guide for actionable insights into how to cultivate these skills with your team. See how advanced technologies can help bridge the tax tech gap to increase efficiency, ensure compliance, and drive better decision-making.
What the Trap Looks Like
Visible effort is the work other people can see, track, and attribute to you: meetings attended, outputs delivered, responses sent.
Invisible impact is the outcome of what you protected by saying no-the strategy you finished because you had an uninterrupted afternoon, the decision you made well because you weren’t spread across seven other things.
One feels like working. The other looks like nothing. That asymmetry is the trap.
One Question Before Every Addition
The Removal Test
The question I now ask before adding anything to my week-not as a rule, just as a habit-is: what would I need to remove to do this well?
Not to punish the new commitment, but to take it seriously. In highly collaborative environments, this trade-off is real and worth naming explicitly with your manager or team before you accept.
This works because it forces a trade-off to be named rather than deferred. Most overcrowded schedules aren’t the result of bad choices; they’re the result of good choices that were never weighed against each other.
The Removal Test doesn’t require you to say no. It just requires you to be honest about what yes costs.
Here's how I use Attio to run my day.
Attio's AI handles my morning prep — surfacing insights from calls, updating records without manual entry, and answering pipeline questions in seconds. No searching, no switching tabs, no manual updates.
The Work That Disappears
Your best thinking rarely shows up on a meeting log or a task tracker. It happens in the time you protected-which means the most valuable thing you did this week might be completely invisible to anyone reviewing your output.
That’s not a problem to solve. It’s a feature of the work that actually matters.
What’s one thing currently on your calendar that you added but haven’t evaluated since? Not to remove it-just to look at it honestly. That small act of review is usually enough.
“The most productive thing you did this week might be completely invisible.”
References
[1] McKeown, G. Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less. Crown Business, 2014. ISBN 9780804137386. penguinrandomhouse.com/books/228364/essentialism-by-greg-mckeown
[2] Leonardi, P.M. and Treem, J.W. “Behavioral Visibility: A New Paradigm for Organization Studies.” Organization Science, vol. 31, no. 6, 2020, pp. 1467–1484. DOI: 10.1177/0170840620970728. journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0170840620970728
[3] Parkinson, C.N. Parkinson’s Law: The Pursuit of Progress. John Murray, 1958. Original essay: The Economist, 19 November 1955. doc.cat-v.org/economics/parkinsons-law