From reviews, I kind of perceived it's only about limiting work in progress and adopting a more slow and human approach to things.
I feel these insights were already brought by many industrial production methodologies, e.g. Toyota, in a more rational and less newage-y package. Am I missing something?
Some sections were so specific to a certain type of guy, but phrased as if everyone will relate to it. I still liked it overall, but it really is for "productivity porn" strivers with a certain background. I mean, I go on HN, I'm familiar with GTD and pomodoro, I'm anxious about my own achievement, I kinda thought I was that guy. But after reading 4000 weeks, I could be like, ok, wow, uh, interesting things to chew on, but these are not really my problems.
(And I am still baffled by the idea that people would look down on you for having hobbies. Is this a British thing? Do I have to ascend a social sphere to get this? Because if I am chatting with some pals, let's say could be a few other engineers, miscellaneous office workers, various retail, service and trades, well... what is going to come up? bowling, maybe model kits, horror movies, booze? Are we going to discourse seriously about public affairs? Maybe someone thinks my motor controller firmware I worked on that day is cool, but I don't really want to talk about it)
I feel lots of lean and kanban literature misses the point and it's a far cry from the real thing.
Toyota placed a lot of emphasis on producing things without alienating humans. E.g., they tried to remove muri, unreasonable burden on people.
Other lesser known engineering efforts approached the same problem from a different angle. E.g., Volvo attempted to build a plant that departed from Ford-type assemblies to improve worker satisfaction [1]. Volvo's approach was to let small groups build entire cars to give them a sense of connection. It was a success from a quality and cost perspective, but it never caught on.
[1] https://research.engr.oregonstate.edu/gwt/biblio/enriching-p...