Context Is a Resource

Instead of job interviews asking “How do you manage competing priorities?” maybe they should ask your opinion on unexpected Teams calls.

"you free?"

That depends. Nobody is actually free.

What do you need?

How urgent is it?

How long will it take?

Am I the right person?

Do I need information before we talk?

Can this be handled asynchronously?

It takes 2 seconds to say "Are you free? I need feedback on XYZ." And that tiny adjustment provides essential context.

The second version allows people to quickly evaluate whether they’re the right person, whether they need to prepare, whether they need to bring someone else in, whether this can be handled asynchronously, whether it needs to be done now, and where it fits among the seventeen other things currently competing for their attention.

A surprising amount of workplace inefficiency comes from treating context as optional.

The same thing happens with meetings. No agenda. No background. No goal. No indication of what decision needs to be made.

Then everyone spends the first half of the meeting trying to figure out why they're there.

If it’s worth real-time communication, it’s worth preparation. And if it’s worth pulling people from the 9046589346834 other things they’re trying to do, it’s worth giving them enough information to contribute effectively.

It takes very little effort to provide enough context for people to contribute effectively. Something as simple as a goal sentence, a few bullet points, a problem statement, or a desired outcome can immediately change the tone (and effectiveness) of the entire interaction.

But it should be the exception, not the default mechanism for moving things forward.

Most good outcomes don’t happen because people figured everything out on the fly and without context.

They happen because people have enough context to make good decisions before the conversation, and get what they need if they don't.