Sequencing
A second approach concerns a reframing of differing intentions. Rather than “argue” regarding priorities, one can “strategize” regarding the appropriate order in which both priorities can be addressed. It becomes a matter of sequencing both priorities rather than picking one over the other. For instance, the “low hanging fruit” (most easily accomplished goal) might be the initial focus. Then with its successful accomplishment, the more challenging goal (residing higher on the tree) might be easier to address. Similarly, the least controversial initiative might be given initial attention; the “good faith” that would be associated with its successful accomplishment could help to sustain efforts to achieve the more controversial initiative.
Sequencing decisions might also be based on “timeliness.” Which of the high priority intentions is of greatest immediate concern. Or which priority is best addressed right now—when “the time is ripe.” Can one of the priorities “wait a bit.” Or does one of the priorities not fit very well right now with what is going on. As noted in the Jewish Torah (and Christian Bible) “there is a time for every season.” One of the competing priorities might be best addressed when things are quiet (and perhaps even a bit stagnant), while the other priority might be best addressed when things are a bit unstable or when there are opportunistic openings (the cracks that allow for creativity).
Enablement
A third approach can be taken that closely relates to the matter of sequencing. All too often, we tend to assign highest value to a specific initiative that holds the greatest promise of itself, in isolation, yield a benefit. We set everything else aside so that this one initiative can be successful. Yet, this approach is often counterproductive. Most initiatives are engaged in a complex setting where everything is intertwined with everything else (Miller and Page, 2007). When one initiative is engaged at the expense of other operations in any system, then this system will ultimately suffer rather than benefit from the enactment of this isolated initiative.
A more systemic perspective results in recognition that some initiatives are beneficial not because they are important themselves but because they enable other initiatives to be successful. A new procurement system might not itself be very “sexy”; however, it might enable an organization to do a better job of gathering resources for launching of a new product. A new accounting system might enable an organization to do a better job with its new Return-on-Investment initiative.
We need to judge the potential value of competing priorities based not just on their isolated value, but also their enablement value. Differing views on specific priorities can often be resolved when one of the parties finds that successful achievement of the competing priority will increase the chances that their own initiative can be successfully engaged—”so bring on the other project and I will cheer for its accomplishment!”
