The Four Commandments of Priorities
Thou shalt have as few priorities as possible. Thou shalt treat priorities as commitments, not wishes. Thou shalt rank thy priorities. Thou shalt walk the talk in tricky times.
I’ve run hundreds of workshops and sessions on priorities, and it’s time to clarify a few things. At some point, saying something is a priority seems to have changed in its meaning. Instead of “the most important thing”, it now means “something good or nice I would like to do at some point, if I can.”
This is a shame. I’ve found priority-setting, particularly with groups, to be a potent tool for unearthing and channelling shared values and hidden divergence. Framed correctly, priorities are a permission slip to simultaneously focus and discard: to throw energy and attention wilfully and enthusiastically into some areas while politely excusing oneself from others without the accompanying guilt.
Priorities are great. But we’re doing them wrong.
First of all, we’re not supposed to have multiple priorities.
According to Greg McKeown (author of Essentialism), priority comes from Latin prior - singular. You weren’t meant to have more than one “first thing.”
“The word priority came into the English language in the 1400s. It was singular. It meant the very first or prior thing… Only in the 1900s did we pluralize the term and start talking about priorities. Illogically, we reasoned that by changing the word we could bend reality.”
— Greg McKeown , Essentialism
A quick fact-check supports that. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the noun priority entered the English language in the late 14th century from the Medieval Latin prioritatem, meaning “precedence in right, place, or rank.” The root prior (“former, previous, first;" figuratively: "superior, better;") can be shortened even further to the Old Latin pri - (“before, in front of, first.”) In all of these uses, prior/priority is only used in the singular form, to denote “the one thing that comes first.”
That’s right, ladies and gentlemen. At any other time in history, you get one.
This didn't change until the early 20th century. For 500 years, we could have only a single priority. But in 1936, the Oxford English Dictionary recorded the first plural sense of the word - “things regarded as more important than others.” Multiple priorities have been introduced as a sort of modern convenience.
This was perhaps a reflection of the times. There was phenomenal change between 1897, when the Century Dictionary still used priority in the singular, and 1936, when the OED pluralised it. The Industrial Revolution, mass electrification, WWI, the Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression… Shit got wild. It doesn’t seem a stretch that as we expanded our manufacturing capacity, we internalised the external acceleration and expansion to our personal capacities.
This feels like a dud move. As Jonathan Franzen notes: ‘Words create worlds.’ Language is more than a descriptive tool; it is a generative force, a clue, and a lever. It can, by way of ‘idea technology1’ become a driver of logical fallacy, where we believe it because we say it, and we say it because we believe it. When we say priorities can come in bulk, our expectations of ourselves and others shift. We assume people must be able to do multiple things justice.
But we can’t. We’re not built for it. We’re single-tasking animals. Fracture our focus, desiccate our attention and scatter our resources, and we don’t thrive - we totally, utterly underperform. Attempting to multitask at an operational level is a shocking waste of time and energy. We all think we can do it - writing reports in a Zoom meeting, checking our phones while talking to our kids, whatever - but we can’t. We do a shit job of both things.
Multitasking has poor outcomes. Because this has a potential financial impact, the research has been funded to prove it. Trying to multitask multiplies the number of mistakes you make. It tanks the quality of both tasks you’re trying to do, and it exhausts your available energy. You put more in, you get less out.
And that’s just getting through a day. What does multitasking look like across a life? How can we grow, thrive, and feel good about our lives and work when we are trying to be everything to everybody, in just the right way? This makes me feel both better and worse. As a woman. As a working mother. As a creative and an all-around modern-life dweller. It’s reassuring to realise I’m not designed to do all of this, yet extraordinarily frustrating, because I still have the ambition to do it all - is my ambition innate or conditioned? Regardless of its source, the drive and the mandate to Do All The Things marches on.
And you don’t need me to quote corporate statistics or tell cute personal anecdotes for you to get this. You know it in your bones. Who in the tiny fuck can have a spotless house, fit body, thriving career, busy social life, frugal finances, perfect eyebrows, connected family, healthy compost pile, dedicated activist presence, clear inbox, bubbling sourdough starter, clean car, lichen-free roof, organised pantry, safe password system, healthy relationship with our devices, world travel, well-rounded children, patronage of the arts, flossed teeth, lint-free dryer trap and uncracked heels, all in one life? WHO CAN POSSIBLY DO THIS?
What does this kind of pressure do to a human soul? When it comes to work, the collective We has measured it, and it isn’t flash. When our demands consistently exceed our resources, we burn out. And as our attention is pulled in evermore directions, the amount of information we process densifies and calcifies and plunders our capacity for empathy, action or hope… we (to use the technical term), burn the fuck out.
This is all to say: multiple priorities are a terrible idea, plus historically and etymologically unsound.
But if you have to juggle multiple priorities, here’s some helpful advice
Unfortunately, I can rant and rave at The Culture as much as I like. I can present an impassioned business case to the committee of 5 old white dudes who sets life expectations, showing we’re not supposed to have multiple priorities. It’s very bad for us, I will prove. They will nod.
But we aren’t returning to 14th-century life or load. (And life was tough then anyway. Most people smelled bad, died early and lived in abject poverty.) If you’re living that 21st-century hustle, here is some advice to help you make your priorities useful, whether you’re setting them for yourself, at work, or in your Dungeons and Dragons campaign.
The Four Commandments of Priorities
Commandment #1: Thou shalt have as few priorities as possible
Paradoxically, the more single-minded you are, the bigger and broader the gains you will experience. Going deep on a single, specific, ambitious goal consistently delivers better on multiple connected outcomes.
Provided your priority is specific and meaningful enough (see below), you will enjoy many rewards for sharpening your focus. Dividing your attention is costly - you lose 40% of productive time every time you switch tasks and increase your error rates. Focusing on one big goal is more effective and drives spillover effects. Choosing to be a good friend will also lead to opportunities for hobbies and self-fulfilment. Putting customer service first will increase retention and revenue across the board.
Not only will you see better results across the board, but you will be better in nearly every way. You will be less stressed, more productive, calmer, clearer, and spend more time confidently pursuing excellence.
The data suggests organisations with between 1 and 3 priorities perform better on almost every metric. You deserve to narrow your load to at least the same degree as some faceless corporate. You deserve calm and focus in your life. You will be better, your life will be better, and those are metrics worth optimising for. (vomit)
Commandment #2: Thou shalt treat priorities as commitments, not wishes
If I had $1 for the number of times a team has given me their list of priorities, and it was just 12 nice things they like/ think they should like/ want other people to think they like, I would have… probably $100. Which isn’t much money, but is a lot of times.
The point is, we bastardise the word. We suck all the meaning out of it. We say “this is a priority for us” when we mean “it would be good if someone did something about this at some point.”
You can only claim something is a priority if you believe it deserves a significant amount of your available resources, to the exclusion of other things. I’m talking about your time, money, attention, care, and emotional bandwidth. Your priority, if truly a priority, should be in your calendar, budget, to-do lists, and daydreams. It should receive explicit investment, which comes with an opportunity cost. If you are unwilling to make this commitment, it is not a priority. It is a wish.
Commandment #3: Thou shalt rank thy priorities
Not all priorities are created equal. If you insist on having more than one, you must be clear on their relative importance. Yes, you have to prioritise your priorities.
Important things have a habit of bumping into each other. If you haven’t decided what the relative importance of your priorities is, you’ll be caught short. When “health” and “career” collide, you need a predetermined tiebreaker, or you’ll be led by the priorities of others and/or your weakest short-term impulses. One decision (or non-decision) at a time, if you will walk into a future beaing no resemblance to the one you wanted.
Rank your priorities. Weight them. Do not take the easy way out. Make it obvious what matters to you, and in what order. My preferred approach is based loosely on Investment Logic Mapping. This method is popular with clients and remarkably effective. I call it ‘The $100 Game’.
The $100 Game
The premise of the $100 game is to assess the relative priority of your priorities.
The rules of the game are as follows:
You only have $100 to spend. This represents the finite amount of resources available.
You cannot divide the $100 equally - i.e., $33 across three or $25 across four.
If you award something $10 or less, consider removing it.
The resulting dollar allocation provides your weighted decision criteria.
The forcing function of the $100 will generally limit you to three or four priorities, while ranking them will often see you with a list of between five and eight. Very few people can do justice to more than two or three priorities. This is a non-negotiable step for making your priorities practical and actionable. If you don’t prioritise your priorities, you don’t have any. Or, as Greg McKeown puts it: “If everything is a priority, nothing is.”
Commandment #4: Thou shalt walk the talk in tricky times
With the discussion on ranking had, it is now worth mentioning that for the most part, your priorities will co-exist nicely - especially if there are very few. They make up the tapestry of your dynamic, interconnected life, work, or team; it makes sense that they play well together. Your priorities will, most days, pair like wine and cheese, reinforcing and complementing one another.
Most of the time, you’ll be fine. You will not take out a calculator and rigidly apply your weightings to the hours in your day, or the money in your bank account. You’ll get on with your days, bear your priorities loosely in mind, and assume things will balance out as they should. Family will come first, but you’ll still spend a lot of time at work, and that’s cool. Or your health will come first, but you’ll still enjoy a few drinks with friends, and that’s fine. Your health isn’t tanked by a few late nights on a Saturday, and your soul thanks you. You’re probably living by what matters most to you, despite some diversity or inconsistency in your daily decisions. It all comes out in the wash.
But this is not always true. Sometimes, because the world is complicated and so is your life, and because you expect many things of yourself, your priorities will directly conflict. There will not be a win/win solution available. In tricky situations like these, choosing one priority will harm another. It’s an ‘or’, not an ‘and’.
It’s easy to think of examples where this could happen. If you’re a Council, a development application might drive economic growth but incur inescapable and irreparable environmental consequences. If you’re a working parent, a once-in-a-lifetime job opportunity might require significant time away from your young children.
When harm is probable, whichever option you choose is your highest priority.
The reason is simple (though like many simple things, not easy). If you do not choose your previously determined priority in a tricky situation, it is not your priority.
If you prioritise environmental sustainability… unless it harms the economy, then the environment is not your priority; the economy is.
If you prioritise your family… unless it’s a really good job, then your family is not your priority; your career is.
In moments like these, priorities become useful and revelatory tools: criteria and guideposts to make decisions which align with your goals and values. These are the moments where you learn what kind of person, family, team, or organisation you are. The harm you are willing to accept tells you everything about your priorities, your values, and the strength of your character.
We all have at least one of these moments in our personal and professional histories - the job that could have been, the path we could have walked, or the place we could have gone, were it not for the things we considered more important. For some of those moments, if we’re lucky, we look back on our history with deep calm and personal peace. We’re sad to have missed out, but glad to have lived in alignment. For other moments, we still harbour guilt, bitterness, loss, or disappointment. We wouldn’t make the same call again. It’s the old “how-easy-is-it-to-sleep-at-night-test”, and we know quickly if we’ve passed it.
In those make-or-break moments, the price you pay isn’t just proof of your priorities - it becomes the story of who you are. This, of course, is why we bother to articulate our priorities in the first place.
TL;DR
To recap, here’s what you should know about priorities:
We shouldn’t have multiple priorities… but we probably have to.
Only pick things you can devote significant portions of your finite resources to.
Make sure you rank your priorities, so you have useful criteria for making decisions.
In moments where harm is unavoidable, the price you choose to pay will reveal your true priorities - and character.
Hope this helps,
Til next week,
AM
“Idea technologyi” is a term coined by Barry Schwartz, who argues ideology is a powerful weapon in shaping institutions and culture. See his Ted Talk, or read his paper. In his Ted Talk, he draws a compelling distinction between science and psychology: “The thing about science, natural science, is that we can spin fantastic theories about the cosmos and have complete confidence that the cosmos is completely indifferent to our theories. It’s going to work the same damn way no matter what theories we have about the cosmos. But we do have to worry about the theories we have of human nature, because human nature will be changed by the theories we have that are designed to understand and explain human beings.”
So much truth in this, both personally and for organisations. Love this, thank you.