In this article we describe a very common problem in large organizations, but it is also an area where many analyses stop at the symptom: ”the leadership changes all the time”. The CoS article goes a step further and asks why the priorities are constantly changing.
Unclear priorities are often a symptom, not a fundamental problem
Many employees recognize the situation. At the management meeting on Monday, an initiative is highlighted as the top priority. A week later, another activity has taken over the focus. A few days later, another initiative emerges that is described as business-critical. A natural frustration arises for the individual employee:
- What is really most important?
- What goals do I expect to contribute to?
- How should I plan my work?
- How do I know if I am doing a good job?
- How can I develop and make a career when the rules of the game seem to change every week?
At first glance, this may be perceived as poor leadership or a lack of decision-making ability. But in many cases, the constantly shifting priorities are merely a symptom of a deeper organizational problem.
The change competes with reality
Most organizations today live with a constant pressure to change. New customer demands, digitalization, regulatory changes, competition, and technological developments drive a growing number of initiatives forward. The problem is that not every new change initiative starts from scratch. It must be built on existing processes, systems, data, and technical infrastructure. Once this foundation is well maintained, change can be implemented relatively effectively. However, when this foundation is characterized by technical debt, outdated systems, and deferred maintenance, a completely different situation arises.
Suddenly it turns out that:
- the change requires unexpected adaptations,
- the systems do not support the desired working method,
- the data quality is insufficient,
- critical competence is concerned with operational disruptions,
- resources must be redistributed to solve urgent problems.
The result is that priorities that seemed logical on Monday no longer appear realistic on Wednesday.
Maintenance debt controls more than the strategy
Organizations like to talk about strategies, goals, and visions. But in practice, it is often the accumulated maintenance debt that determines how much change the organization can actually achieve. When a change encounters resistance in the underlying infrastructure, management is forced to make reallocations. New dependencies are discovered. Risks increase. Costs rise. What from the perspective of employees looks like momentum is often a sign that the organization is trying to implement more change than its foundation can bear. That does not mean the strategy is wrong. The problem is that the change capacity has been overestimated.
The future will exacerbate the problem
Historically, many organizations could live for a long time with technical and organizational debt without it being noticed too much. The pace of change in the external environment was slower and the business had time to adapt between major initiatives. That situation is changing rapidly. Digitalization, AI, automation, cybersecurity, and increased regulatory requirements are making the need for change grow faster than before. At the same time, many organizations are still relying on systems, processes, and governance models created for completely different conditions. The consequence is that the gap between the need for change and the ability to change continues to grow. The larger the gap becomes, the more priorities will compete with each other.
The consequences for the employee
The biggest risk is not that a specific project will be delayed. The biggest risk is that people lose their sense of direction. As priorities constantly change, it becomes difficult to understand:
- what the organization is trying to achieve,
- what results are valued,
- how success is measured,
- which behaviors are rewarded.
Uncertainty about these issues affects both motivation, the work environment, and performance. Many people are starting to put more energy into interpreting the organization’s signals than into creating value.
The solution does not lie in more priorities
Many organizations try to solve the problem by creating more steering groups, more projects, and more priority meetings. But if the underlying problem is a low change capacity, this rarely will help. The real solution is often to:
- reduce the number of simultaneous initiatives,
- highlight the technical and organizational culpability,
- invest in the underlying infrastructure,
- create clear criteria for prioritization,
- Communicate long-term goals that remain consistent even when activities change.
An organization that cannot maintain its foundation will sooner or later discover that it is not the strategy that drives the business. That is the fault of yesterday’s decision. And then unclear priorities do not become a management problem. They become a capacity problem.
Concluding reflection
If employees regularly ask questions ”What should I prioritize?” It can be tempting to give clearer instructions. But the more important question for management is often:
Why do the priorities have to change so often from the beginning?
The answer to that question often reveals the true limitations of an organization. Not in the strategy, but in its ability to implement it.
Summary and recommendations
The perceived problem is that the organization cannot stick to its priorities. The real problem is usually that a large historical debt generates new acute needs faster than the organization can implement its strategic initiatives. The most likely root causes are:
- Accumulated organizational maintenance debt.
- Weak prioritization discipline in management.
- Inadequate portfolio management.
- Short-term reactive culture.
- Insufficient transparency regarding debt and capacity.
The most important insight is that the organization is likely not suffering from a prioritization problem but rather a capacity and debt management problem. The prioritization instability is only the symptom. Recommended next action: Conduct a management-led analysis of the organization’s overall technical, process, and organizational debt and make it an equally visible part of portfolio management as the strategic projects. Only then can priorities become stable over time.
Read more about prioritization->
