 May 19th 2008
 Productivity
 15 comments
The traditional approach of prioritizing, where you assign a task a high, medium or low priority (or maybe even something more meaningless than that) is outdated and largely ineffectual in today’s workplace. In fact David Allen of Getting Things Done fame actively downplays the importance of prioritizing, claiming that each task is equally important otherwise you wouldn’t be doing them in the first place. However, this implies a “need to do-don’t need to do” attitude which, as I’ve discussed before, can be a surefire way to end up burnt out as you continuously feel compelled to do something. With the focus increasingly being on working smarter a different way of prioritizing is required that takes into account time mangement.
- Need to do
This covers every task that you must do, otherwise there are serious consequences. A prime example is when you receive a final warning from your electricity company. If you don’t act on it you get cut off and that is certainly not a particularly happy outcome for your inaction. Likewise, if you don’t take an important document to a meeting at head office with the directors you risk getting sacked.
- Should do
Tasks that fit into this priority typically have no severe consequences for not acting on them, but you are obliged to do them, whether it be for something like moral and financial reasons. Using the electricity bill as an example again, you should pay it early so it doesn’t get to the stage where you are getting red letters. That way you avoid the stress and hassle that comes when you are being chased for money.
- Want to do
Tasks in this category have no consequences stemming from not acting on them. They include such things that you would like to do, whether it be for your own personal satisfaction or simply to make yourself feel good. Prime examples include playing a computer game or watching a film.
It’s worth noting that some tasks cover more than one priority. For instance, something you need to do may also happen to be something you want to do (such as buying a present for your wedding anniversary). However, the high priority obviously takes precedence. Regardless of what priorities a task fits into, it will also help you to trim junk out of your workflow. You will come across tasks that won’t fit into any of the priority levels. If that’s the case you shouldn’t be doing them. You don’t need to do them, you should not be doing them, and you certainly don’t want to do them… so why have you actually been doing them?
You might ask how this differs from the traditional high, medium, low approach. Firstly, by phrasing it as “need to do” it immediately means a lot more and emphasizes the action required. Secondly, there is the time factor. When a bill comes in it it is not necessary to pay it there and then. Leave it a week when the payment deadline gets close it starts to become something you need to act on. Because of this it’s much easier to be smart with your workflow. Overloaded now but free next week? Put the bill aside for processing till then. You can plan and spread your tasks out so you are never overwhelmed.
A good example that sums up this prioritizing approach which I think is worth mentioning, is the one regarding holidays (especially to get away from work). After one month of hard, stressful activity in your job you feel like you want a break. After two months the stress levels start to have an affect so you should really start focusing on booking an holiday. After the third month you are facing burnout so you need to take an holiday before your health (and sanity!) suffers
Reader discussion
|
|
I think that you really get the point. So easy, so true. Thanks for your posting.
|
|
|
Glad you like it Niko, wasn’t sure what people would make of it.
|
|
|
Sounds very similar to the groupings I use:
|
|
|
Usually I don’t bother to prioritize my tasks. But this article really conveys the need for it. Good one.
|
|
|
The GTD software Thinking Rock uses these similar priority values that further refine the idea:
|
|
|
I’ve been oscillating between GTD, DIT and about 94 other systems and have become a freakishly obsessed time management guru who is less productive as a result!
However your post was like a breath of fresh air. I saw it and thought it was yet another post on prioritizing, but it’s so right. GTD has had me run ragged doing all the things I can do in a particular context. Stepping back and applying your annoyingly simple yet effective approach has made me think I needn’t have done most of the tasks. As Covey would say, I was cutting down trees in the wrong forest. I don’t think I stopped at cutting; I stripped them, varnished them and turned them into coffee tables, only to realize that I wasn’t just in the wrong forest but I didn’t need the coffee tables either!
Thanks, I really benefited from your post.
|
|
|
Thanks for the comment Simon, glad you found my approach so useful. I’ve not really heard from people’s experiences of trying this approach so I’m glad to read you find it agreeable.
|
Trackbacks
Leave a comment, reply or question
| 
