[adamisom]

>it's imperative to spend time only on tasks that require critical decisions to be made, and to delegate the rest.

Nobody ever points out the privilege in this statement. Someone has to be the unfortunate grunt getting delegated to, instead of delegating. If a delegator depends on the grunt, can we really attribute super high productivity to the delegator but not to the grunt? That certainly seems to be implicit when CEOs receive 100x more than the average worker. Perhaps they would be equally competent as delegators given the same opportunities some x years back.

[fwip]

I feel like it's really self-serving, too.

"The important work is the work that I, specifically, am good at. Other work that I do not find compelling is unimportant, and should therefore be delegated to less important people."

The routine work done by "grunts" is critical to keep any organization running, whether it's a Fortune 500 company or a family of four. Lots of jobs (customer support, widget assembly, laundry, dishes) are unglamorous but vitally important.

[graeme]

You don’t have to rise that high to delegate. If you’re working on your own, you can hire good contractors who charge $10-$15 an hour. Barring that, systems work can also be a form of delegation: building a system to automate low value tasks is a way of not doing them.

Alao no one ever completes all the tasks they have. So deciding which are the most necessary to do is crucial.

The people who delegate and eliminate well at these low stages are more likely to progress to more delegation. Yes, some people still have no ability to do any of that, but I doubt it applies to most people on this forum.

[loco5niner]

Honestly though, you have to climb the ranks somehow. For someone, that delegation is their "break" into the work they want to do.