I am a post-doc in the physical sciences and I am finding that people have very different expectations of what a post-doc's priorities should be. Typically people are somewhere between two camps. I call these two extreme views "Laundry list" vs. "Research trumps all".
The "Laundry list" view is that everything matters, and that next to research skills developing soft skills is also very important. Examples of such advice philosophy are the Times Higher Education guide (see here) and the The New Scientist guide (here). Apart from research, there is great emphasis on teaching and mentoring students, practising talks, going to many seminars and networking.
The "Research trumps all" view is that at the post-doc stage, the importance of papers far outweighs everything else. For example, this interesting guest post on The Professor Is In advises to be very cautious about getting involved in mid-author papers and optional teaching commitments. In the Scientific American blog post "The Awesomest 7-Year Postdoc " (here), the author directly attacks laundry list advice of the above kind and emphasises selectivity in activities, putting research and teaching first. Cal Newport's canon of advice (e.g. this and this post) is generally all about selective focus on research projects and minimizing dissipation (e.g. little email communication, drop bad projects).
I am most interested in career advice for post-docs in the physics, mathematics, computer science, life sciences on a path towards a research oriented academic career. I think it would be very interesting to see what you think and where you place your post-doc priorities on the continuum between "Laundry list" and "Research trumps all".