If you’ve ever found yourself saying, “I thought this was our top priority last week,” you’re not alone. It’s one of the most common frustrations I hear from leaders and project teams. People begin working on an initiative, only to discover that something else has suddenly become more important. Before long, the organization has several “top priorities” competing for the same people, the same budget, and the same attention.
At first glance, it appears to be nothing more than a prioritization problem. But I think it’s a clarity problem. There are certainly times when priorities should change: market shifts, customer expectation shift, regulatory shifts, competition inteference… but these are not everyday occurences. These are the exception rather than the norm. In those situations, remaining committed to a decision that no longer makes sense isn’t discipline—it’s stubbornness.
That means that priorities change under one of two circumstances:
- The business has no direction, so every issue is a new target to pursue.
- The business does have direction, but the tyranny of the urgent takes priority.
Either way, tactical decisions begin masquerading as strategic decisions. A customer request becomes a company initiative, a new technology becomes an urgent project, or a department identifies a local need that quickly becomes everyone else’s responsibility. Individually, these decisions may all be reasonable. Collectively, they begin pulling the organization in different directions.
Research consistently shows that organizations perform better when their work is aligned to a clear strategic direction. Strategic alignment improves coordination, resource allocation, decision-making, and overall organizational performance. (The Strategy Institute)
One of my favorite observations comes from Michael Porter:
“The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.”
That idea is just as relevant today as when it was first written. Every priority carries an opportunity cost. Choosing one initiative means delaying another. Choosing everything means nothing receives the attention it deserves. This is why I encourage companies to separate strategy from tactics. Strategy defines where the business is going, and establishes the guardrails for tactics. Then, tactics define how the business responds along the way. Those two ideas work together, but they shouldn’t be confused. A tactical adjustment shouldn’t require rewriting the organization’s strategic direction every month. Likewise, a clear strategy should make many tactical decisions easier because people understand the outcome they’re working toward.
When priorities seem to change constantly, I find it helpful to ask a simple question:
“Has our strategy changed, or has our situation changed?”
Those are very different conversations. If the strategy has changed, then priorities probably should change as well. If the situation has changed, perhaps only the tactics need to adapt while the destination remains exactly the same. That distinction prevents organizations from constantly resetting expectations and helps teams stay focused on meaningful progress.
A good priority isn’t simply the loudest request or the most recent idea. It is the work that contributes most directly to where the organization has decided it wants to go.
Once that destination is clearly understood, prioritization becomes much less about choosing between competing requests and much more about evaluating whether each request moves the organization in the right direction. Priorities will always evolve. They simply shouldn’t drift. If you find yourself, or your company, drifting from one strategy to another—incoherent alignment—you aren’t growing, you’re just reacting. That means it’s time for change.