Blog

Why the best productivity system for ADHD is the one you don't have to maintain

Why the best productivity system for ADHD is the one you don't have to maintain

There's a running joke in productivity circles about the person who has the most elaborate system imaginable and gets nothing done. Five apps, everything colour-coded and cross-referenced, a Notion database with forty properties per entry, and their actual output is zero. They complete a hundred tasks a day and every single one is "reorganise my bookshelf" or "update my tag taxonomy."

Fernando Borretti calls this person "the master of drudgery." It's funny, but it's also a trap that ADHD brains are uniquely susceptible to, because building systems feels productive. It scratches the same itch. You get the dopamine hit of organising things without ever having to do the hard, ambiguous, emotionally loaded work that the system was supposed to help you do.

But here's the thing. ADHD people genuinely need systems. That's not optional. Without external scaffolding, tasks get forgotten, projects die, inboxes overflow, and life slowly descends into chaos. The research is clear on this: ADHD involves measurable deficits in working memory and organisational skills, and external systems are the primary way to compensate.

So you're caught in a paradox. You need a system because your brain can't self-organise. But building and maintaining a system is itself an executive function task, which is exactly what your brain is bad at. The system that's supposed to help you requires the very thing you don't have enough of.

The maintenance tax

This paradox kills more productivity setups than any other single factor, and it's worth understanding exactly how.

You discover a new app. Obsidian, Notion, Roam, whatever it is. You're excited. You spend a weekend setting it up, building templates, organising folders, maybe watching a few YouTube tutorials about optimal workflows. It feels great. For about two weeks you use it religiously, and things genuinely improve.

Then the maintenance starts to slip. You save a note but don't tag it properly because you're in a rush. You create a task but put it in the wrong project. Your carefully designed folder structure starts to accumulate orphaned files that don't fit anywhere. The system gets messy, and a messy system is worse than no system because now you don't trust it. You can't find things, you're not sure if the information is up to date, and the effort required to clean it up feels overwhelming. So you stop using it.

Three months later you discover another app and the cycle repeats.

There's an Obsidian forum post from someone with ADHD that captures this perfectly. They write that the whole "second brain" concept seems like exactly what they need, but everything they've tried has either been too complex to maintain long-term or too hard to retrieve information from. They want a system that works. They keep building systems that don't.

The problem isn't the person. The problem is that most productivity tools are designed with an implicit assumption: that the user will do the organising. You create the folders. You assign the tags. You decide where things go. You maintain the structure over time. For neurotypical brains with functioning executive systems, this is a reasonable ask. For ADHD brains, it's a tax that eventually bankrupts the whole operation.

The "just use a simpler system" trap

The standard advice for this problem is to simplify. Use fewer apps. Reduce the number of categories. Make the system so basic that maintenance is trivial.

This sounds right but often fails in practice, because simple systems don't capture enough. If your system is just a single list of tasks with no structure, it works for a week and then becomes an undifferentiated wall of text where nothing is findable and everything feels equally urgent. You need some structure. You need ideas separated from tasks, recurring habits tracked differently from one-off chores, active projects visible so they don't disappear. Borretti's own setup has multiple lists, sections within lists, and a deliberate hierarchy. It's not simple. It works because he's found the right balance between structure and maintenance cost, but that balance took years of iteration to find, and it requires ongoing effort to sustain.

The real question isn't "how do I make the system simpler?" It's "how do I get the benefits of structure without paying the maintenance cost?"

Dump first, organise never

What if the answer is: you don't organise at all?

Not as a lifestyle choice or a philosophical stance, but as a design principle for the tools you use. What if instead of you deciding where things go, the tool figured it out? You dump everything in, notes and PDFs and bookmarks and screenshots and voice memos, and the system tags and connects and categorises it automatically. You don't file things into folders. You don't maintain a taxonomy. You just capture, and when you need to find something later, you search by meaning rather than by location.

This flips the entire model. Traditional tools ask you to organise on the way in and retrieve by browsing to the right folder. An AI-native workspace asks nothing of you on the way in and lets you retrieve by describing what you're looking for. "That article about voltage and ADHD energy." "The notes from the meeting with Sarah last Tuesday." "The PDF with the pricing breakdown."

The executive function cost drops dramatically because the most effortful part of any system, the ongoing maintenance and filing, is handled for you. The capture step stays low-friction: see something interesting, clip it, save it, record a voice note, whatever. And the retrieval step works even if you were completely disorganised during capture, because the search understands content, not just filenames and folder paths.

Doing it on your own terms

There's another Borretti idea that connects here, which he calls "do it on your own terms." His example is about government forms: if filling out the form gives you dread, take the fields and put them in your own spreadsheet. Fill it out there, in your space, with your fonts and your colours. Then copy the values across.

The underlying principle is that aversion often comes from the environment rather than the task itself. The government form is hostile territory. Your spreadsheet is home turf. The same data entry, done in a different context, carries a completely different emotional charge.

This applies to productivity systems too. A lot of people bounce off tools because the tool's way of working doesn't match their brain's way of working. Notion wants you to think in databases. Obsidian wants you to think in links. A traditional filing system wants you to think in hierarchies. And if your brain doesn't naturally think that way, using the tool feels like speaking a second language. It works, technically, but it's exhausting and it never feels right.

The alternative is a tool that adapts to how you already think rather than requiring you to adapt to it. You capture things the way you naturally would, in whatever format makes sense in the moment, and the system handles the rest. That's not laziness. That's designing around a constraint, which is exactly what good engineering looks like.

Visual field management

One more concept from Borretti that ties everything together: out of sight, out of mind.

He keeps his todo list visible on the left third of his screen at all times. Not minimised, not in another tab, not in another app. Visible. Because for ADHD brains, if something isn't in your visual field, it might as well not exist.

This principle should extend to your whole productivity system. Your active projects, your current tasks, your recent captures, all of it should be surfaced without you having to go looking for it. If you have to click through three menus to see what you're working on, you won't click through three menus. You'll forget you had active projects at all.

The best tool is the one that shows you what matters without being asked. The worst tool is the one that hides everything behind a perfectly organised folder structure that you have to navigate manually.

What actually matters

Here's what I've come to believe about productivity systems and ADHD: the system that works is the one that survives contact with your worst executive function days.

Not your best days. On your best days, any system works. You could organise things in plain text files and be fine. The test is whether the system still functions when you're exhausted, distracted, overwhelmed, and barely able to get out of bed. Does it still capture things? Can you still find what you need? Does it remind you what you're supposed to be doing?

If the system requires you to be organised to use it, it will fail exactly when you need it most. The whole point is that you need it precisely because you can't be organised on your own. A tool that only works when you're already functioning well is not a tool. It's a fair-weather friend.

Build less. Capture more. Let the system carry the weight your brain can't.

Inspired by Fernando Borretti's Notes on Managing ADHD.