Learning To Do
“You explained why you gave me that assignment—something that had never happened to me in my previous jobs. Understanding why you asked for that document and what you expected made the task much easier, but more than that, it was rewarding to see what lies behind what could otherwise have been just another task from a boss.”
This sentence, shared by someone on my team, perfectly illustrates what many organizations still overlook: developing people is not about giving them tasks, it’s about giving those tasks meaning.
The Value of Rationale
Asking someone to execute an assignment without explaining the rationale is simply training obedience. The result may turn out fine, or it may not—but one thing is certain: the person won’t grow. What they’ll actually learn is to wait for the next instruction.
By contrast, when you explain the what (the objective), the for whom (the real stakeholder), the why (the reasoning behind the request), and the benefits (not only the immediate deliverable but also the long-term effects), the whole dynamic changes.
It’s no longer about producing for the sake of producing. It’s about recognizing patterns that, in future situations, allow someone to anticipate, challenge, or even improve decisions without needing a new set of instructions every time.
The Risk of “Workslop”
Now more than ever, it’s essential to work on the rationale behind every task. This is not some methodological whim—it’s a defense mechanism against the avalanche of what Harvard Business Review recently defined as “workslop”: tasks executed without focus, fragmented and repetitive, work that wears the mask of productivity but in reality adds very little value.
A phenomenon that in recent months has been propelled by the (over)use of AI, capable of generating deliverables that look polished, filled with refined, business-like prose, yet completely devoid of real context. That illusion multiplies the volume of empty work and, worse still, blocks people’s ability to learn how to think.
“It’s becoming normalized that virtually any task—and I mean any—gets executed by a generative AI that delivers aesthetically flawless documents. Reading them, you get the impression there’s something solid behind them, when in fact there isn’t.”
The problem is that these deliverables lack real context and are often impossible to put into action. After all, what good is a document if it doesn’t drive reflection or action?
This creates two very clear impacts:
- Immediate: right now, the proliferation of documents that look brilliant but fail to move things forward.
- Deferred: people who systematically rely on AI miss the chance to develop the skills required to move from entry level to true seniority. And that gap eventually comes at a cost—for both individuals and organizations (which are, in the end, just collections of people and processes operating under certain structures).
From Executors to Professionals
True development doesn’t come from giving orders or delegating mechanically. It comes from sharing rationale, fostering critical thinking, and teaching people to recognize patterns.
Giving orders produces deliverables. Sharing rationale builds judgment. And the difference is substantial: an obedient team will “get work done,” but a team with judgment will help you grow.
