Prioritization is the single most challenging responsibility of an organization. Sustaining a competitive advantage requires a continuous series of intentional choices; a lack of intentionality in these moments inevitably weakens an organization's long-term durable advantage.
In complex organizations, we try to make the path of prioritization look clean, predictable, and symmetrical. We treat “prioritization” as a suitcase word. We pack everything into it—strategy, resource allocation, politics, and scheduling—and then wonder why the zipper bursts. When an organization tries to optimize for everything, it fails to prioritize anything.
As Michael Porter argued in Competitive Strategy, true strategy is not about doing more; it is about choosing what not to do. It is about divergence.
The fundamental truth is—prioritization is hard. Determining priorities is challenging, as the optimal approach is typically contingent upon the specific nature of the organizational complexity encountered.
However, the fundamental truth remains: prioritization is hard. It is a constant negotiation between competing tensions—autonomy vs efficiency, high-leverage work vs constant optimization, and stakeholder buy-in vs execution speed. To navigate this complexity, we must look at the architecture of our decisions.
Organizations typically navigate decisions using two variables: the amount of friction allowed (Discord) and the constraints on time (Deadline). The combination of these variables creates three distinct environments:
- The Mandate (No Discord + Deadline): This is a critical, top-down directive with no room for negotiation. While sometimes necessary for survival, it often fails because it lacks crucial input from the teams doing the work.
- The Result: Unintended consequences. I once witnessed a business stall completely, unable to expand its offerings, because the top-down pressure blinded leadership to market realities. The “all hands on deck” approach crushed their strategic vision. However, the team delivered a project in 6 months that could’ve taken several quarters.
- The Swamp (Discord without Deadline): This is the most dangerous environment. Without a firm deadline, “exploration” becomes procrastination. Expanding teams introduce complexity, and moderate projects balloon into multi-year endeavors.
- The Result: Mediocrity. This is the worst environment to be in. Consensus-building invariably leads to regression toward the mean, and by the time the product ships, the market has moved on.
- The Sweet Spot (Discord + Deadline): This combination invites active debate but bounds it with a hard stop. There is a clear decision-maker who mines the team for disagreement and insight, but the clock is ticking. When the deadline hits, the team shifts immediately to a “disagree and commit” mindset.
- The Result: High-velocity quality. Deep context is gathered to avoid blind spots, but the decision-maker retains ownership of the outcome.
We often look for a formula to solve our resource allocation issues. But prioritization is not a math problem. It is a design problem. It is a continuous exercise.