Isn’t this a bit tautological? After all by definition ‘top priority’ implies a singular ‘top’...
I do think there’s a bit more lurking here, and the basic implication of Dan Luu’s tweets is that you can have only priority at all, 2 already is a mess and nothing gets done, and it gets worse with the number of priorities you have.
If the implication is that people can’t have secondary priorities of lower importance, then that seems just false?
Have you read the post? It specifically says this is for big organizations, and not relevant to small ones (or by extension individuals).
The post lays out a decent argument for why organizations can’t maintain two priorities of roughly the same importance.
But I don’t see why that bars the possibility of secondary priorities that are clearly stated to be much less important?
I see what you’re saying—I thought you were referring to individual people. I’m pretty sure we all agree here and this is just a semantics thing.
Isn’t this a bit tautological? After all by definition ‘top priority’ implies a singular ‘top’...
I do think there’s a bit more lurking here, and the basic implication of Dan Luu’s tweets is that you can have only priority at all, 2 already is a mess and nothing gets done, and it gets worse with the number of priorities you have.
If the implication is that people can’t have secondary priorities of lower importance, then that seems just false?
Have you read the post? It specifically says this is for big organizations, and not relevant to small ones (or by extension individuals).
The post lays out a decent argument for why organizations can’t maintain two priorities of roughly the same importance.
But I don’t see why that bars the possibility of secondary priorities that are clearly stated to be much less important?
I see what you’re saying—I thought you were referring to individual people. I’m pretty sure we all agree here and this is just a semantics thing.