On time and priorities

[chanaleh]

I have developed a new metric: If you have to depend on guilt-tripping to pressure me into what should otherwise be a mutually beneficial transaction (join your group, attend your event, buy your product), then your system has bigger problems than my involvement will fix

Comments

[lillibet]

Amen! It can get hard when priorities are not shared--I frequently advise people replying to wedding invitations not to disclose what's more important to them than this wedding, because being told what's more important than you is not something people want to hear, ever, but even less so on their big day

[dpolicar]

Actually, I learned this lesson at work. People would ask me to do something and I would reply "Sure... what is this more important than?"

[chanaleh]

Boy, would I find this metric beneficial. Except for the part where I have no actual manager nor one single person assigning me tasks OR priorities, so in the end the generally-recognized-as-most-IMPORTANT project is never the most URGENT, and it's left up to me to figure out how to chew away at/carve out time for it in the face of infinite competing requests. Sigh.

[dpolicar]

Ah, yes.

I've worked in this sort of matrixed environment, also. I sort of enjoy it, but it requires a certain willingness to play politics.

What I do in practice is play politics enough to figure out the generally accepted chain of people's importance within the company, then tell boss2 "Well, I'm currently doing something for boss1, so why don't you talk to them and figure out which project has priority." It works OK.

Sometimes I have to start forwarding emails from boss 2 to boss 1 with a note saying "I'm putting project 1 aside temporarily to work on project 2, at boss 2's request" or otherwise throw chum in the water to get it to work.

That aside: important-but-not-urgent is a killer pretty much anywhere you go. When there's an important-but-not-urgent project that is hanging fire, I generally identify the one of my bosses who maximizes the product of important and sensible and try to convince them that they want to assign me to that project. It doesn't always work.

[houseboatonstyx]

"Important and/or urgent" is a good test in non-professional matters also.

For example, we've had to make a rule of turning down new animals because in our age and health situation we're not up to dealing with urgency, and animals often have needs that are both important (to them and to us) AND urgent.

[awfief]

Actually, at work, you CAN say "It's not on my priority list now, does it need to be?" or talk with your boss about your priorities.

And actually the one place this kinda hurts is when you're looking at folks you're trying to be friends with, but they're not reciprocating. Fact is, you're just not a priority to them. It hurts, but it's the truth. something I learned LONG ago (especially in a Suspects crowd, where at a party everyone is friendly but few call you after).

[moria923]

Yes, this does hurt, but you're right. It's also hard when my sweetie doesn't want to come to an event in which I'm performing. But I'm learning.

[mneme]

Yes, this is exactly the case for work. Actively and transparently managing my priority list is a key part of setting appropriate expectations and thus keeping everyone satisfied.

And re transparency...it hurts when you're not a priority to someone you thought you'd connected to -- but when it's handled transparently, it at least is a lot clearer than when it's all murky. In some ways, the Internet age makes it easier to see what's going on; if someone is actively chatting with you throughout the day (or actively responding to email) it may be worth considering prioritizing them back; if they tend to give you very little back online, it's not unlikely they do the same in general (unless they're someone you know doesn't prioritize online interactions at all).

[76trombones]

Oof. Yes, it does hurt, and yes, it can be complicated when it's murky. (Is it just because they have specific commitments and life-intrusions going on right now? Yeah, it may be. The pool of available time/energy may really be that small, for now. I suppose in that case, you can't really know until "for now" passes. And if it never does, well, there you have it.)

[dcltdw]

Yeah, if pushing back on your task list would get you fired, that's a sign that you need a new job. Not that everyone has that luxury, of course.

[76trombones]

Yes. I've recently found myself applying this rule in one context, and wow, it's great. I don't feel bad, and other people understand. "I can't do that, it's not part of my main focus/priority right now. I think it's a good idea and I'd be happy if other people make it happen, but I can't give energy to it." That kind of thing.

Now if only I could gain and apply that kind of clarity in the rest of my life! (You do have to know your priorities first.)

[chanaleh]

I, too, am a fan of "Thanks, but I just can't commit to taking that on [right now]." :-) It's nice to have an *internal* backbone frame of reference of "I have more important priorities on which to invest my time" -- including sleep and self-care and cooking and spending time with my partner! And J. Random Requester doesn't get to evaluate those choices -- I do.

It's not just time and energy, of course, either. I got a cold-call phone solicitation from an arts organization yesterday afternoon, saying "Wouldn't you please consider becoming a member for $50 (or whatever it was) a year? We do all this great stuff, you'd get discounts on tickets, and it'd really help us, bolstering our membership numbers helps us qualify for grants," etc. etc. All I had to say was, "It sounds great, I support you in principle and all, but it's not the right thing for me right now."

[76trombones]

Yeah.

In the one context I had in mind above, I can even (often) say that some requested thing is not a priority, because my priority within the context of the group/activity is foo. (And people know it's my priority and that I do spend time and effort on it.)

In other contexts, as others have mentioned, yeah, I might not explicitly say that something is not a priority. Which fits with what you say about other people not getting to evaluate your choices of priorities.