Categories
Uncategorised

The Priority Paradox


Case Study

Throughout my three-decade career, I have been involved in a wide range of projects, process improvements, and organizational transformations. The experiences I share here are a blend of these varied engagements, anonymized and generalized to highlight common themes. Some insights may be directly applicable to your organization, while others may differ, but they are all based on real scenarios that I believe are important to consider.

The Priority Paradox

In one particular organization, I encountered a situation where multiple stakeholders had collectively and separately identified urgent, short-term priorities that needed addressing before we could even begin to consider long-term goals. Eager to understand the specifics of these issues, I asked each individual to list their most immediate priorities, pen and paper in hand. Once I had compiled these lists, I redistributed them, suggesting that each person take responsibility for the items within their area of expertise. For instance, I would assign one individual a task within their specialist domain and another person a task they seemed best suited to handle.

What became immediately clear was a striking inconsistency in the level of engagement. Many people were enthusiastic about identifying tasks for others to take on, but far less so when it came to taking responsibility for their own tasks. This, I believe, is what I term the “priority paradox”: a priority for others, but not for oneself. It reflects a wider cultural issue where people tend to value giving advice more than taking action. It’s easy to suggest ideas and delegate tasks, but the real challenge comes when one must assume accountability for delivering those tasks.

This insight was reinforced later when I read Marshall Goldsmith’s book Triggers. Goldsmith highlights a crucial distinction between two questions: “What needs doing?” and “What will you do?” The former is a passive question that often leads to a list of things others should do, while the latter demands personal accountability and action. The contrast between the two questions is striking because one encourages reflection on external factors, while the other compels individual responsibility.

This concept of accountability reminds me of a project rescue I was involved in. Every morning at 8:30 AM, the team would meet for one hour, and we would each commit to a specific task to achieve by the end of the following 24 hours. What was particularly powerful in this setup was the clarity of commitment. Each person had to state precisely what they would do in the next 24 hours, and at the next meeting, they would report back on their progress. This setup created not only a sense of urgency and personal responsibility but also peer pressure. The collective commitment meant that everyone was held accountable by their peers, fostering a sense of momentum and shared purpose.

While I wouldn’t recommend such an intense focus on daily reporting as a permanent strategy, it was an effective approach during a project crisis. The key takeaway from that experience was how clear and tangible accountability can drive results. People were committed to achieving specific tasks within a short time frame and knew that they would have to report back on their progress.

When setting goals, whether in an organizational context or personally, it’s essential to think in terms of concrete actions. Rather than vague ambitions like “I want to change the world” or “I want to achieve greatness,” break them down into actionable, time-bound objectives. A much more powerful goal-setting framework is: “In the next seven days, I will…” This approach leads to clarity, focus, and, most importantly, accountability. Setting concrete, measurable goals helps create real, tangible outcomes rather than leaving ambitions floating in the realm of aspiration.

Top Tips and Best Practice

Prioritize personal accountability: Ensure that everyone is not only identifying priorities but also taking responsibility for them. Encourage ownership and make sure that team members are held accountable for their commitments.

Be specific with goals: Move away from vague ambitions. Break down larger goals into smaller, concrete actions that can be achieved within a short time frame (e.g., “In the next week, I will…”).

Leverage peer pressure for accountability: When team members make commitments in front of their peers, they are more likely to follow through. Regularly checking in on progress creates a sense of accountability and momentum.

Use active language in goal setting: Shift from passive, abstract questions like “What needs doing?” to active, responsibility-driven questions like “What will you do?” to spark personal ownership and clarity.

Establish urgency and momentum: In situations requiring rapid action, set clear, short-term deadlines (e.g., 24-hour goals) to drive momentum and ensure that progress is made.

Revisit and refine regularly: While short-term urgency is vital, be sure to step back and reassess the longer-term goals and strategies once immediate priorities have been addressed.

By setting specific, actionable goals with clear ownership and accountability, organizations can navigate challenges more effectively and ensure sustained progress towards their long-term objectives.