Is it me or do posts about GTD like these come off as masturbatory.

IMHO, GTD is the 'paint shedding' of project management. It's a good 'filler' for management that lacks creativity and/or the courage to take risks.

-----

In a sort of pseudo Maslow's hierarchy of team effectiveness here's how I'd order needs from foundational to self-actualization.

1. Trust

A team that lacks trust is one where everybody switches from an 'us' to a 'me' mindset.

Employees that are terrified of making mistakes won't take risks and may fail to perform at times when taking action is critical.

People working in an environment of distrust will inevitably silo knowledge out of the interest of self-preservation.

Self-serving management can be especially destructive to the cohesiveness of a team due to their wider reach.

2. Responsibility

Related to trust but there are some cases where a person is well intentioned but may be incapable of doing the work on their own. It's the employees responsibility to seek help and the managers responsibility to identify and assist those who are struggling.

3. Resources

A more difficult problem for management due to financial constraints and bureaucratic barriers. A team won't be able to realize it's full potential without the support of good leadership to fight for the tools/resources necessary to do the job right.

4. Mentorship

Not always possible if time constraints are an issue. If 1-3 aren't suffuciently covered the team may be stuck in a cycle of perpetual death marches. Either way, if room can be made to foster mentorship it should. Not only does it bring up the struggling employees. It may even act a catalyst that transforms a very skilled 2x engineer who works well on their own into a 10x engineer capable of making organization-wide improvements that benefit everybody. This is the environment where leaders are born.

5. Professional Development

The best of organizations don't have to fight to keep employees because their culture can't be found elsewhere.

Information sharing, widespread experimentation, community engagement, etc... Can be positive signals that a company is harnessing its full potential.

Not only is working for such an organization a great experience but it literally levels up the skills of its employees and the organization as a whole.

-----

Notice how I never mention process? That's because it doesn't matter nearly as much as the so-called 'process experts' are willing to admit.

No matter the workflow chosen. If you compare cohesive team with strong leadership and persistent culture against a team built on foundations of mistrust... The former will outperform the latter, attract better talent, improve faster over time, and produce better results.

The changes with the potential for the greatest impact come from shifts in priority. The first shift is from identifying the 'what' to an actionable 'how'. The second comes from a transition of 'how' to building a persistent culture based on 'why' the organization works the way it does.

Leadership that constantly cycles through various iterations of 'how' are holding their organization back from realizing its full potential.

Standardizing on a process like agile has a few benefits. It looks good on a resume, is easy to measure, and lowers the barrier to onboarding new employees. What it explicitly does not address is a lack of strong leadership and/or purpose that organizations require to be successful.

I'm no expert in this domain but I have had the privilege of working alongside some truly exceptional leadership, as well as experience working with some extremely dysfunctional organizations.

Aside: If you really need a solution to fix the issue of unnecessary interruptions. Disable all notifications on a predefined schedule and stick a red sticky note to the side of your monitor that reads "not now chief, I'm in the zone".