“Strategy is choosing what not to do.”
~ Michael Porter
Prioritization isn’t just about making a list or setting goals. We prioritize to ensure everyone has the required focus and alignment needed to execute, right?
So, if prioritization is an essential key to strategic success, why do so many businesses struggle to get it right?
I’ve seen this firsthand in my own career, sitting in countless strategy sessions with leaders from different industries. And there are two very common patterns to these meetings.
Pattern 1: Robust discussion around what matters most. There is debate, but the first debate is always the criteria for determining the criteria of what defines a “priority.” In the best situations, the criteria are agreed fairly quickly. Then the rest of the dialogue is about applying those criteria to the various ideas being kicked around. What is produced is a solid list of priorities that everyone agrees to.
I wish Pattern 1 was more common…
Pattern 2: Robust discussion around what matters most, but it’s usually inspiring conversations mixed with underlying toxicity. Personal agendas clash with organizational needs, leaving “priorities” that are anything but clear. The criteria for defining a priority are incomplete at best. The debate becomes uncomfortable as volumes either rise dramatically or go completely silent as people decide to stop participating in problem-solving.
Why? Personal agendas got in the way. Leaders walk away from meetings with their own ideas of what the priorities should be – in spite of the formal agreements in the meeting. The result? Teams splintered into silos, each working toward different goals, creating dysfunction, waste, and frustration.
I’ve been guilty of this myself. But as I matured, I realized that alignment is everything. Without clear, shared priorities, execution falls apart.
This struggle isn’t unique. It’s a widespread issue that wastes resources and undermines trust.
So how do we get prioritization right? To answer that, let me take you on a journey – a journey through the jungle.
The Jungle of Business Prioritization
Imagine you’re in a thick jungle – trees, vines, and obstacles everywhere. Leading your team to safety feels impossible because you can’t see the path ahead. Then you spot a hill rising above the canopy. If you can reach the top, you’ll see the best way out.
This hill represents effective prioritization. The higher you climb, the clearer your view becomes. At the very top, you can navigate your team through the jungle with confidence. Unfortunately, most organizations don’t climb very high – and some barely leave the ground.
Let’s break down what this journey looks like.
Level 1: Prioritizing Urgency – At the bottom of the hill, teams prioritize based on noise. The loudest voices, the most urgent tasks, and the most visible problems dominate. We’ve all been there – it’s pure survival mode. But concentrating only on urgency creates chaos. You never focus beyond the loudest noises, and your team remains stuck in the weeds.
Level 2: Adding Importance – Climbing a little higher on the hill, you introduce the concept of importance. Tools like the Eisenhower Matrix help separate what’s urgent from what’s truly important. While this is a step up, it’s still limited. In complex business environments, simply labeling tasks as “important” or “urgent” doesn’t provide the clarity needed to get your team through the jungle. Everything is urgent and everything is important.
Level 3: Ranking Priorities – Higher up the hill, we see ranking systems like ABC analysis or the MoSCoW method. These tools prioritize tasks based on relative importance. You might label goals as gold, silver, or bronze, or use other categories to establish a hierarchy. You may be finally looking up at the tops of trees and see a bit of sky, but the view remains confusing because it still falls short in dynamic environments. For example, the dreaded phrase “end of quarter” can undo ranked priorities in a flash.
Level 4: Evaluating Impact and Effort – Closer to the top of the hill, models like cost/benefit analysis, the RICE method, and the Pareto Principle emerge. These tools assess whether the potential impact of an initiative justifies the effort required. Most leaders finally feel comfortable with their list of priorities because the amount of work to calculate the cost/benefit is huge. And the amount of visible blue sky is encouraging.
Sadly, this is still not enough.
The goal is not to see the sky. It is to get through the jungle. And If you only see the sky – and not what is on the other side of the trees – you are still doomed to fight the jungle. Prioritization will break down.
And it’s because leaders often fail to account for two more critical factors: time and disruption.
Going Beyond Impact and Effort
To truly reach the top of the prioritization hill and see over the backs of the tree tops, you must first consider how long an initiative will take – not just when it starts but when it will end.
This is massively important.
Many organizations over-rotate on starting projects while ignoring the amount of time it will take for the intended impact to be made. Will you be satisfied if only 50% of the organization has implemented the change? Or in other words, will you be happy if 50% of the organization is still not using (or even resisting) the strategy? What if the number shifts to 30% adoption? Or even lower?
Poor strategic adoption aside, we should also consider the ripple effects of overlapping initiatives. How many “strategic priorities” can be launched while other strategic priorities are still implementing? It does not take an MBA to see turf wars, missed deadlines, and wasted resources popping up uncontrollably.
Now, the second – but equally important – consideration beyond impact and effort is disruption. If a project causes significant disruption – especially when launched hastily – it’s almost guaranteed to fail. Teams resist change when it threatens their existing workloads or goals, creating friction that undermines progress.
The psychology of work always trumps the business math.
Or in the immortal words of former Ford Motor Company CEO, Mark Fields (who may or may not have heard Drucker say it): “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.”
When we do not account for the amount of disruption that a strategy will require, we can guarantee that our prioritization will be undone and over-written by every human involved.
So how do you account for time and disruption while prioritizing effectively? That’s where 5/67 Thinking comes in.
5/67 Thinking: The Very Top of the Hill
Developed by Len Bertain and Craig Humphries, 5/67 Thinking builds on cost/benefit analysis by factoring in time and disruption. It identifies the 5% of efforts that drive 67% of outcomes, focusing on what will actually execute – not just what looks good on paper.
This approach radically simplifies prioritization, narrowing the focus to what’s most impactful and feasible. It aligns teams around a short list of initiatives that truly matter to the greater strategic goal, ensuring resources aren’t spread too thin.
Let me share an example. I worked with a university that struggled to raise funds despite numerous initiatives, from monthly mailers to high-end dinners. Using 5/67 Thinking, we identified two key efforts and eliminated the rest. Fundraising soared, giving the university the resources to grow – even as higher education faced industry-wide challenges.
Another example involved a major retailer struggling with a stalled strategic initiative. By applying 5/67 Thinking, we stopped pursuing doing everything on the plan and focused on the critical few efforts that were guaranteed to deliver the greatest impact with the least amount of cost, time, and disruption. Within weeks, the blockage was cleared, and the strategy executed successfully.
5/67 Thinking delivers results because it prioritizes what can be done – not just what should be done.
This is the very top of the hill. Instead of focusing on what feels important, focus on what will actually execute and get the team moving through the jungle.
One Final Trap to Avoid
While 5/67 Thinking is a game-changer, its opposite – 95/33 Thinking – serves as a cautionary tale. It is the anti-thesis of 5/67 Thinking. 95/33 Thinking describes how 95% of efforts produce only 33% of outcomes.
When teams fall into this trap, they dedicate precious people, time, energy, and resources to doing things that – at best – will only deliver a third of the intended impact. Yes, some of these things are to be mandated as part of “keeping the lights on” but the vast majority of what gets called “important” falls within the bucket of 95/33 thinking. In my experience, this is the greatest source of Pattern 2 conflicts (see Pattern 1 vs Pattern 2 in the opening as refresher).
People have somehow convinced themselves of the potential impact their idea can generate, without actually factoring in time and disruption, and become adamant that their idea is “a high priority.” They focus only on the outcome and not what it will take to get there. It’s the sin of resulting raising its ugly head yet again.
Sigh.
This only leads to jungle fatigue. We end up chasing too many priorities, which leads to burnout, inefficiency, and disengagement. This cycle reinforces dysfunction, wasting resources while achieving little of value.
Practical Steps to Master Prioritization
If you’re ready to transform how your organization prioritizes, here are three steps to get you started in the right direction:
1. Reflect on Time and Disruption
- Ask, “When will this initiative be completed? What is our target percentage of adoption?”
- Assess, “What disruptions will this cause? How can they be mitigated or even accepted?”
2. Apply 5/67 Thinking
- Identify the few efforts that drive the majority of outcomes.
- Align resources around these 5/67 priorities, and either cut anything that doesn’t meet the 5/67 criteria or provide only what is essential to “keep the lights on.”
3. Manage Resulting Proactively
- Recognize how resulting impacts decision-making and enlarge the prioritization discussion to include more than the potential benefit.
- Create an environment where the team feels safe to discuss and even challenge how priorities are determined without fear of being ostracized.
The Bottom Line
Prioritization is the foundation of execution. Done poorly, it creates chaos, disengagement, and waste. Done well, it aligns teams, drives impact, and transforms strategy into action.
By climbing the prioritization hill and embracing 5/67 Thinking, you can lead your team out of the jungle and toward lasting success.
Holomua. Onward and upward.
Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/high-performance-prioritization-how-avoid-killing-your-tim-ohai-melec/
An extra thought:
“Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least.”
~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Recent Comments