Prioritising is clearly not always necessary, for it makes very little difference in what particular order we eat the food on our plate or clean up the house. However, when a person is faced with a logistic problem such as the successful timely completion of a more complex task or an economic problem such as the allocation of a limited budget, order and emphasis can suddenly become very important. The escalating pressures in the workplace and society are leading to an ever-increasing need to not only speed up and stretch resources further, but to make decisions regarding how to organize commitments, and what to neglect more or possibly even sacrifice altogether.

Types of Prioritising

Time Sequence Prioritising is controlled by:

• Logical prerequisites. E.g. One must open the door before going through.


• Effectiveness or efficiency. E.g. It is possible to get dressed before getting out of bed, but it is much easier to do it the other way.


• Window of opportunity. E.g. Watching the news on television might be less important than cooking dinner, but the news is only on at a set time and dinner can be done a little later.

Resource Allocation Prioritising becomes necessary where resources are scarce in relation to the range of objectives being pursued. It is controlled by:

• The benefit per unit resource allocated. E.g. Doing the easiest questions first for earning the maximum marks before time runs out in an examination. The ‘80/20 rule’ often used in management, suggests that very often a disproportionately larger benefit (80%) results from a very moderate input (about 20% of the effort that would be required for perfection), and beyond that, little extra is gained at rapidly increasing cost.


• The expected consequences of not doing the task at all or not doing the task to a particular standard.

When anything is prioritised in the face of scarce resources, it is always at the expense of something else that is done to a lower standard or not done at all.

Prioritising and Decisions

Prioritising always involves decisions and choices about when to do things, in what order and how much of each of the available resources to devote to it. Like all decisions, it is concerned with things we wish to achieve, preserve or avoid. Prioritising decisions will therefore be influenced by the decision-maker’s values, and his scope of awareness and concern in terms of time, people and depth.

Relativity

Prioritising is essentially the specification of order in time, resource allocation or expendability. Prioritisation of tasks can only be done in relation to some objective. Objectives are prioritised on the chosen hierarchy of values and associated criteria. These levels of prioritisation run parallel to the operational, tactical, strategic and moral levels of decision-making of which the moral is the highest that controls and pervades all others.

• Typical values include health, material comfort and security, profitability, safety, appearance, ethics, relationships and learning. Each of them is likely to have a minimum acceptable standard above which compromise might be acceptable for gains on other values. It follows that -


• Values can be prioritised in relation to one another only in regard to any extra gains beyond the minimum tolerable standards. Any value will automatically take higher priority when it approaches or falls below the minimum acceptable level. It further follows that if our tolerable standards on several values are set too high in relation to our means, then prioritisation can become increasingly difficult and unstable.


• The order that might optimise one set of values and criteria will not necessarily satisfy another.


• Some orders of priority depend on the situation. Changes in the person’s internal or external circumstances may force him to question and rearrange his priorities.
  

Basic Principles

• Absolute criteria (minimum necessary requirements) must always be placed ahead of negotiable criteria
.

• Prerequisites must come before focal objectives in order of time.


• The supporter (the ‘means’) is usually more important than the supported (the ‘end’) in need of attention.


• The supported is usually more important than the supporter in order of values.


• The necessary should take priority over the optional or desirable in the issue of expendability.


• The purpose or reason for any method or rule is more important than the method or the rule. (No law is above its purpose.)


• Minimum necessary standards on all criteria must be placed ahead of higher standards on any particular criterion. (You cannot sacrifice one of the car’s wheels for a more comfortable seat.)

A set of necessary requirements can be prioritised only in sequence, and only if sufficient resources are available for all of them. Attempting to prioritise them in the absence of adequate resources is pointless when they are already reduced to minimum standards.

To Prioritise Effectively

• The whole picture must be developed, otherwise the effectiveness of the imposed order will be undermined by an important intrusion we were not thinking of at the time.


• Investigation may need to take place before effective prioritisation can be done. We can only prioritise among possibilities that we know exist.


• The consequences of each possible order must be explored.

Factors that need to be considered in setting priorities:

• he benefits of doing a task - to any given standard or at all.


• The cost of not meeting a standard on relevant criteria and the risk of incurring the cost.

Conflict of Priorities

Between people tends to occur due to

• Disagreement regarding values or criteria. Whose values and which criteria should apply?


• Contradictory purposes. What objective should be pursued?


• Differences of opinion as to the best order to achieve a common purpose.


• Differences in preference when more than one order is effective but only one can be implemented.

Within a person can occur when

• He wants to have both of a pair of mutually exclusive objectives,


• His values are not clear,


• There is a tendency towards perfectionism,


• The potential risks and consequences of actions are unknown.

Some Causes of Unsound Prioritising

• Ignorance and inexperience regarding the consequences of actions


• Faulty reasoning


• Confusing the urgent and the important


• Over-sensitivity to some signals


• Inappropriate dominance of particular character traits (virtues as well as vices)


• Placing the narrow, superficial or short-term considerations ahead of those that are broader, deeper and longer-term.

Setting aside any religious connotations, ‘temptations’ are essentially sources of pressure to put some circumstantial opportunity into a position of inappropriately high priority. They assume a disproportionate importance largely because of our own acute sensitivities.

Some Natural Ways of Prioritising

In their daily lives, people tend to use a variety of instinctive, but not necessarily optimal or even appropriate, methods of arriving at the order in which they tackle a list of things that should or could be done. Often they are subconscious. Some typical ways include

• Greatest attraction, Personal preference, Interest.


• Threat, Urgency, Greatest discomfort


• Awareness (distraction)


• Logical prerequisite


• Ease of task completion


• Habit


• Maximum benefit /cost efficiency (for whom?)


• The contribution to security


• The needs of short-term survival

Prioritising by Employees

Where the hired person has both professional integrity and a generous degree of discretion, the overall principles of prioritizing, as discussed here, tend to apply. However, in the absence of any of these conditions, either the burden of prioritizing falls back on the supervisor or it will be set implicitly by the performance appraisal system. Most people who depend on others for earning their livelihood will devote their greatest attention to the visible criteria on which their performance is measured regardless of all other considerations. This has major implications for personnel management, particularly as workload increases towards and often beyond capacity. The consequences of excessive emphasis on burdensome accountability processes or unsound evaluation methods can become literally counter-productive as the priority shifts from real performance to complying and appearing to perform.

Some Rational Approaches to Prioritising

• First the minimum requirements in logical sequence and necessary resource allocation, followed by maximising some weighted combination of other criteria with the remaining resources.


• Absolute order with leftover resources allocated to the next in line. This is the reverse of the order of expendability, and is reasonable only where there is no more than one minimum requirement.


• ‘Minimizing the potential regret’ is an order of priority set by a very cautious person. The first task attended to or allocated the greatest share of resources is the one where the consequences of neglect are most feared.


• Expected net benefit. This is an order of priority set by a person who wants to maximise his long-term net gains balancing the risks and the expected rewards. It may be called a ‘neutral strategy’.


• Other rational orders such as
  
  1. First: Things that must be done to a given standard at or by a set time otherwise there will be an unaffordable penalty.
  
  
  2. Next: Things that may incur an affordable penalty if not done.
  
  
  3. Last: Things that need never be done.

This is a more severe version of ‘minimising the potential regret’.

Some Sources of Prescribed Prioritising: “First, First, First!”

Religion, law, management, family tradition and accepted occupational ethics may prescribe a special order of priorities to govern behaviour. The following are some examples:

• Safety first (natural caution).


• First do no harm (medical ethics).


• Family first (political slogan).


• The children come first (family law).


• Put yourself first (self centeredness).


• Love God first, then your neighbour as yourself (religion).


• “Seek first the kingdom of God and all other things will be yours without the asking” (religion).


• The ship comes first (maritime tradition).


• The mission comes first (military).

Prioritising in a Crisis

Work out your values and general order of priorities before you are confronted with any crisis. When it is upon you, it is too late to start developing a philosophy. Keep your own affairs permanently in order.

1. Concentrate and act methodically to minimize accidents and mistakes.


2. Prevent the situation getting worse: Control the dangers.


3. Attend to the means of sustaining life in the short term.


4. Escape with irreplaceable documents, essential clothing, money or access to it.


5. Gather support from a point of relative safety.

A Recommended System of General ‘Importance’

• People have priority over animals and material things.


• The longer term, broader and deeper considerations take priority over short term, narrower or more superficial elements except where neglecting the latter jeopardizes the former.


• Common humanity takes precedence over personal or group identity.


• Considerations based on love are greater than considerations based on fear.


• Duty, commitments and promises take precedence over pleasure and opportunities.


• Moral factors and conscience take precedence over legal considerations. Love and responsibility over-ride rules and customs.


• Health and safety take precedence over legality.


• Personal moral integrity is more important than ones own survival.


• Survival and well-being are higher than comfort. Basic necessities are more important than conveniences.


• Comfort and convenience are more important than aesthetics.


• Personal development is more important than comfort or security.


• Effectiveness is greater than efficiency. The real is more important than the apparent.


• The original mission or intention takes priority over distractions and incidental opportunities unless the latter are clearly shown to be of greater importance.


• The irreplaceable is more important to preserve than the replaceable.

These principles are neither exhaustive nor will there be universal agreement in all situations. They are based on the assumption of ‘other things being equal’. When more than one principle could apply, the principles themselves may need to be prioritised. Furthermore, they are general, and it is likely that most experienced professionals will have evolved some specific system appropriate to their own roles and special circumstances.

The Ultimate Question

‘To do or not to do’, that is the question! Until this point we have assumed that everything that is allocated some priority is worth doing, but the most fundamental decision to be made is whether a given task is worth doing at all. Often the task of prioritising can be greatly simplified by addressing this issue first.

It starts with being honest with ourselves as to whether the action is taken in pursuit of a goal or avoidance of a fear.

• If it is towards a goal, is the gain worth the input? Are there more efficient approaches? Is the goal itself worth pursuing as against alternative directions?


• If it is in response to a fear, does the real risk justify the cost of avoiding it, particularly in view of the possible gains if the resources were directed elsewhere?

In attempting to resolve these, some of the following questions may be helpful:

• What do I have to lose if it is not done?


• What am I giving up in doing it?


• Who or what else will be affected if it is done or not? In what way does it matter at all?


• Did I promise to do it?


• Am I doing it out of habit, superstition, guilt feelings or obsession?


• What more information do I need to decide?

Conclusion

Prioritisation is ultimately a personal or community issue that is logically pragmatic in practice, but with dogmatic elements having a strong influence. Priorities are essentially set by people, and they must bear the consequences of whatever order they choose. Altogether, effective prioritising is really an application of wisdom.

"Viewpoints"
©Carl Jacob

Web design by Ieva Bergman