Outsourcing Reclaims Time Through Residual Management, Not Elimination

Key Quotes

You can't check something entirely off your list, even if you hire someone else to do it. You still have to do a little management and supervision. So it's best to focus on how you are saving 90% of the time you would have spent on a task, rather than get frustrated about the 10% that likely won't go away.

Laura argues that when tasks are outsourced, a complete relinquishing of responsibility is unrealistic. She suggests that focusing on the significant time savings achieved (90%) rather than the remaining small portion of management (10%) leads to a more positive outcome. This perspective encourages a shift in mindset from frustration over incomplete delegation to appreciation for substantial efficiency gains.

Here's the thing, though: when you outsource a task that would otherwise fall to you and that actually needs to get done, you won't be able to let it go completely. You will need to have some level of involvement. It will just be way less involvement than when you are handling the task directly.

Laura explains that even with outsourcing, some level of personal involvement remains necessary for tasks that are critical. She clarifies that this required involvement is significantly less than if the task were handled entirely by oneself. This highlights the nuanced nature of delegation, where complete detachment is not the outcome, but rather a substantial reduction in personal effort.

So even if your house cleaners do almost everything, you can't check house cleaning off your list completely. You will be a lot less annoyed by the little things you have to do when you remember that fact.

Laura uses the example of house cleaning to illustrate that outsourcing does not equate to zero personal effort. She points out that even with professional cleaners, minor tasks like tidying up or communicating specific needs persist. Laura suggests that acknowledging this reality can reduce annoyance with the remaining small responsibilities.

I maintain that there aren't a whole lot of truly passive forms of income out there. I get royalty checks from books I wrote 15 years ago, but that is because I am still out here in the world talking about time management all the time.

Laura challenges the notion of completely passive income, asserting that most income streams require ongoing engagement. She uses her own experience with book royalties as an example, explaining that continued promotion of her work is essential for maintaining that income. Laura implies that even seemingly passive income requires some form of active participation or visibility.

So when a little bit is required of you and a lot is done by someone else, it's best not to resent the little you have to do. If you have made wise choices and trained people well, it probably will be just a little after a while, which is a lovely thing indeed.

Laura concludes that when a significant portion of a task is handled by others, the remaining small personal requirements should not be resented. She suggests that with effective delegation and training, this residual effort can diminish over time. Laura frames this outcome as a positive and desirable result of wise decision-making.