Mastering the Art of Prioritization
There are two approaches to “prioritizing” the tasks in your to-do list that I see fairly often. By prioritization, I’m not talking so much about assigning importance to tasks, but deciding which will take chronological priority in your day—figuring out which tasks you’ll do first, and which you’ll leave to last
Approach number one involves tackling the biggest tasks first and getting them out of the way. The idea is that by tackling them first you deal with the pressure and anxiety that builds up and prevents you from getting anything done—whether we’re talking about big or small tasks. Leo Babauta is a proponent of this method.
Approach number two involves tackling the tasks you can get done quickly and easily, with minimal effort. Proponents of this method believe that by tackling the small fries first, you’ll have less noise distracting you from the periphery of your consciousness.
If you believe in getting your email read and responded to, making phone calls and getting Google Reader zeroed before you dive into the high-yield work, you’re a proponent of this method. I suppose you could say GTD encourages this sort of method, since the methodology advises followers to tackle tasks that can be completed within two minutes, right there and then.
My own approach is perhaps a mixture of the two. I’ll write out my daily task list and draw little priority stars next to the three items I need to get done that day. They don’t need to be big tasks, but nine times out of ten, they are. Smaller tasks are rarely important enough to warrant a star in the first place; I can always get away without even checking my inbox until the next day if I’m swamped, and the people who need to get in touch with me super quickly know how.
But I’m not recommending my system of prioritization to you. I’m also not saying that mine is better than Leo’s Big Rocks method, and I’m not saying it’s better than the “if it can be done quickly, do it first” method either.
The thing with prioritization is that knowing when to do what relies very much on you and the way you work. Some people need to get some small work done to find a sense of accomplishment and clarity that allows them to focus on and tackle bigger items. Others need to deal with the big tasks or they’ll get caught up in the busywork of the day and never move on, especially when that Google Reader count just refuses to get zeroed (personally, I recommend the Mark All As Read button—I use it most days!).
I’m in between, because my own patterns can be all over the place. Some days I will be ready to rip into massive projects at 7AM. Other times I’ll feel the need to zero every inbox I have and clean up the papers on my desk before I can focus on anything serious. I also know that my peak, efficient working time doesn’t come at 11AM or 3PM or some specific time like it does for many people, but I have several peaks divided by a few troughs. I can feel what’s coming on when and try to keep my schedule liquid enough that I can adapt.
That’s why I use a starred task list system rather than a scheduled task list; it allows me to trust myself (something that I suppose takes a certain amount of discipline) and achieve peak efficiency by blowing with the winds. If I fight the peaks and troughs, I’ll get less done, but if I do certain kinds of work in each period of the day as they come, I’ll get more done than most others in a similar line of work.
You may not be able to trust yourself to that extent without falling into the busywork trap. You may not be able to tackle big tasks first thing in the morning without feeling like you’re pushing against an invisible brick wall that won’t budge. You might not be able to deal with small tasks before the big tasks without feeling pangs of guilt and urgency.
My point is: the prioritization systems themselves don’t matter. They’re all pretty good for a group of people, not least of all to the people who espouse them because they use them and find them effective.
What matters is that you don’t fall for one set of dogma (and I’m not saying Leo Babauta or David Allen preach these things as dogma, but sometimes their proponents do) until you’ve tried the systems extensively, and found which method of chronological prioritization works for you. And if the system you already use works great, then there’s no need to bother trying others—in the world of personal productivity it’s too easy to mess with something that works and find yourself unable to get back into your former groove. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
In truth, this principle applies to all sorts of personal productivity issues, though it’s important to know which issues it applies to. If you thought multitasking worked well for you each day and I’d have to contend that you are wrong—multitasking is a universal myth in my books! But if you find yourself prioritizing tasks that never get done, you might need to reconsider which of the above approaches you’re using and change to a system that is more personally effective.
WRITER'S BIOGRAPHY
Joel Falconer
Offering a unique perspective and insight on productivity based on his experience as a writer, musician, family man and manager, Joel Falconer has been published online and off, and brings to Lifehack's readers practical advice you can use to be more efficient and effective.
ARTICLES BY THIS WRITER »


Comments
Paul says on October 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 am
I think the most effective prioritization is Covey’s 4 quadrants.
I do the most important, most time sensitive thing first, then move to the most important, less time sensitive, then to the less important time sensitive.
Jeff Korentayer says on October 22nd, 2008 at 8:08 am
One small correction to this article – you cite that GTD teaches to do the small less than 2 minute items first which would mean doing them before the “big rock” items. When GTD actually teaches this rule (its famous “2-minute rule”), is for when you are ‘defining your work’ (’processing’ in GTD terms). When you are actually doing your work, GTD recognizes that setting priorities has many factors to it, which may lead you directly the big tasks first. In other words, depending on your work load, work style, etc., it may be a good idea to work a couple of hourse on a big project first thing in the day BEFORE triaging all the new email that’s shwon up. This is approach would be perfectly consistent with GTD.
GTD often gets wrongly labelled as a system that only works “from the bottom up”, and that doesn’t look at the big picture. This is quite untrue. It just happens that the initial emphasis in GTD teachings is on the ‘lower’ levels, because that’s where most people are backed up and out of control, and where the bulk of their attention is stuck on. As one begins to get more and more control of this low-level stuff, one can’t help but seek more clarity at higher and higher levels of their life, in order to add ‘perspective’ to ‘control’. GTD also teaches 4 quadrants based on these 2 axes.
wondimu says on October 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 am
It is excellent webste!…
Miguel de Luis says on October 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Hi Joel,
I think that you have a great article, here. (You see? I’m not after you ;) ). One of your best ideas it’s one I can’t stress enough:
“What matters is that you don’t fall for one set of dogma (and I’m not saying Leo Babauta or David Allen preach these things as dogma, but sometimes their proponents do) until you’ve tried the systems extensively, and found which method”
I have read both GTD and Leo, and I know as you do that both authors encourage you to tweak with the system as long as you keep the fundamentals. I Say no to GTD Fanatics but yest to David and Leo. They both rock.
(And you too, sometimes :) )
axel g says on October 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Hey Joel!
Without having given it much thought, I tend to combine the two approaches you mention in your post…
Works great for me +_+
Vincent says on October 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I agree with Paul. I think that Covey’s method of the 4Q is a very powerful system when you apply it in your life. You can notice the effec in the long term.
Vincent
Personal Development Blogger
Kacper says on October 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 am
Good article. There is how I prioritize to have maximum number of tasks finished:
http://www.kacperwrzesniewski......ned-tasks/
Juliet says on October 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
Hi
I like that fact that you say that different methods work best for different people. So often one is “forced” into using one technique or another through a work course or the like.
People are diverse and need diverse solutions. I often see this fact ignored and it makes some people’s lives much more difficult.
Juliet
Lebat says on October 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I’m gonna try some of these techniques for sure, thanks for this enlightening article.
Johnny Coates says on October 26th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Well, when I was a student, I listed my activities per hour. and , of course!, I would not be able to follow them strictly. and I would know later on that I’ve adjusted the schedule so it would seem that I sticked to it. I may not seem to be that religious in prioritizing, but i do know that knowing what to do really helps. I did get to be in the Dean’s List though. lol
DanGTD says on October 27th, 2008 at 2:20 am
I use #1 (hardest things first), but that is because I am not locked in an office and after 2 or 3 hours I go out to a cup of coffee. And I found that if before going out I complete smaller tasks, when I return it will be harder to tackle the biggest ones.
Maybe in an office environment both approaches work equally fine, especially if you have colleagues to collaborate with.
Matthew Cornell says on November 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Slicing and dicing GTD actions: How to decide What To Do
Mastering the Art of Prioritization – Stepcase Lifehack
http://www.lifehack.org/articl.....ation.html
Great post, Joel. I’d expand the ways to chose what to do in the moment from your two (biggest first and easist first) to a wider range based on attributes (GTD action “slice-and-dice,” if you will). Here are a few:
o Difficulty
o Resistance
o Importance/Value
o Fun/Joy/Pleasure/Uplift
o Urgency/Timeliness
o Age
o …
Extra credit: Combine any two, tag each action with a 1/0 measure, and decide in that 2D space. Taking Fun and Importance, for example, we get four types of combinations in the “four square” (2×2) matrix. Here they are, with names:
* Important + Fun: Joy! (J) — your purpose?
* Important + Not Fun: Work (W) — not too much; minimize, negotiate, delegate, eliminate (80-20)
* Not Important + Fun: Leisure (L) — manage/limit/discipline
* Not Important + Not Fun: Punishment (P) — delete
FYI More in my response here:
A Daily Planning Experiment: Two Weeks Of Accountable Rigorous Action
http://matthewcornell.org/2008.....mment-1661