August 20, 2025 • 31 mins
Why does everything feel urgent all the time — and what does it cost us? In this episode, Indra and Amanda unpack the toll of poor prioritization on teams, leaders, and organizations.
From the illusion of decision-making to the chaos of shifting priorities, they explore the mental and operational burnout that comes when no one says no. They offer practical tools for creating clarity, setting boundaries, and making prioritization a leadership discipline, not just a labeling exercise.
Whether you're the one setting the priorities or trying to survive them, this episode offers validation and strategies for pushing back on the pressure.
Useful Links:
- The Messy Middle Matters Merch: shop.themessymiddlematters.com
- The Messy Middle Matters Glossary: messymiddlematters.com/glossary
- Feedback for The Messy Middle Matters: messymiddlematters.com/feedback
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Indra Klavins (00:06):
Indra. I'm Indra,
Amanda Jane Lee (00:08):
and I'm Amanda,
Indra Klavins (00:10):
and we'd like to welcome you to the messy middle
matters. Hey, Amanda, how areyou today? I'm
Amanda Jane Lee (00:18):
good. How are you Indra? I'm good.
Indra Klavins (00:20):
We'vegot a spicy one today, so I'll ask you a
question, have you ever workedin an organization that was
really good at prioritizingtheir initiatives and then
sticking with those priorities?
Amanda Jane Lee (00:36):
It's the sticking to them that's usually
the issue. But I've worked atplaces that weren't very good at
priorities. Prioritizing either,but it's usually the stickiness.
I would say.
Indra Klavins (00:46):
I've worked in a combo of both. I've worked in a
combo of both. And, you know,it's, it's really, I don't think
the reason we're talking abouttoday is this can take such a
toll on your organization whenyou don't, when you can't
prioritize, or if you doprioritize, you can't stick with
those priorities and help thatteam focus and concentrate. It's
(01:11):
such a churn. It's such a churn,yeah, I
Amanda Jane Lee (01:15):
mean, I've worked at places that have had,
you know, roadmaps, sure, right?But sometimes they would get
reshuffled every other week, orwe'd mark, you know, we'd
suddenly Mark 10 things as Pzero, priority zero, which
means, like, Stop the presses.This must be Yeah, and then act
(01:36):
surprised when, you know, halfof them fell apart because not
enough resourcing. I think, youknow, every company has their
own unique flavors of challengeswhen it comes to prioritization.
Indra Klavins (01:52):
Yeah, it's, it's and let's be clear, it's not
easy. It's not easy if we thinkabout our own lives and
prioritizing what we do in ourown lives, it's really not easy
at all. So I don't want tounderstand how the challenge
that this can be, but we're hereto talk about the value of the
prioritization and and what thewhat the downside of it is, and
(02:14):
what solutions you canimplement, whether you're a
leader or a member of the teamor whatever it might be to try
and drive towards thosepriorities, get people to stick
to those priorities. So let'stalk a little bit about, why
don't we go through that exampleof, like, the P zeros, P ones, P
twos. Like, that's that's more,I think that's more in the tech
(02:36):
realm that I hear the P zeros, Pones, p2 is probably an offshoot
from what's that JIRA? I bet youthe JIRA has helped proliferate
that kind of standardization.But maybe, yeah, yeah,
Amanda Jane Lee (02:49):
I think you're right. I think JIRA does have an
out of the box, like P zero,like priority field, right? So
the P stands for priority. Everycompany has their own rubric and
guidelines around what thedifferent priority numbers mean.
But I would say usually P Zerois, like, something's on fire.
(03:10):
This needs to be done. Like, noquestions asked. Like, super,
super top priority p1 is a notchbelow that. It's like, it's
still very important, but it'snot an emergency. P2 that's when
you start getting fuzzy. Of justlike, yeah, that this is, this
has, you know, business impact,but it might be a more nice to
(03:32):
have, depending on your scale,right? I've seen P 3p, 4p, x,
Indra Klavins (03:39):
right? And assuming, assuming that these
things are well defined, andpeople who look at them
understand what they mean,that's a whole nother
conversation. But let's assumethat we understand what the
words align with all the Pzeros, let's say, mean, I just
went with the challenge could beis there's often too many things
in that top priority. Or even ifan organization decides that P
(04:04):
zeros are there's an objectivelyclear criteria, and there's only
one in there at a time, andeveryone agrees to it, then it
just bumps things down to thenext level with the P ones, P
twos, p3 is whatever P you'redown to start getting the it's a
lot of diminishing returns asyou move, move, start, start
shoving things down sometimes,but, or maybe it's not
diminishing anyway, but it doesby but I said it was a p1 like,
(04:28):
that's, that's great, but that'snice. I've got 30 of them, and I
have five engineers. What gives,right? And
Amanda Jane Lee (04:35):
I think it's human nature, right? I think
it's, you know, once youunderstand that this is how the
system works. You're like, oh,well, I'm going to mark all of
mine as p1 so that I get mystuff done. And then you and
then you get into the case of,there's 30 P ones, and, yeah,
Indra Klavins (04:55):
yeah, I think that it's the, it's the, it's
the over. It's the overcorrection, because, you know,
you're going to lose some groundin the negotiation. That's going
to come down like, Oh, I'm goingto look at, like, one to two
notches higher than what Ireally think it is, so that it
looks like I gave some ground asthey knocked me down. Or if I
never, if I'm, if I'm reallyhonest about it, you know,
(05:15):
colleague, colleague, be overthere. You know, they always,
they always take everything,because they always put their
stuff in in p1 and nobodyquestions whether or not they're
really P ones. I'm never goingto get my stuff done if I don't
put them into a p1 category.
Amanda Jane Lee (05:31):
Yeah, and I've worked at organizations,
organizations, plural, where,where? If it wasn't
Indra Klavins (05:40):
p1 It wasn't getting done. It wasn't getting
done. It wasn't getting
Amanda Jane Lee (05:44):
done. Like, why even have p2 p3 p4 like, really,
we have p4 when we can't evenget all the P ones done? Like,
can we just delete all of them?But you know, there are people
who are like, Nope, we must holdon to them forever, because we
need to continue to prioritize.Okay, let's be honest here.
Indra Klavins (06:03):
Oh my gosh, it's making me think of how I use a
parking lot in meetings. I'mlike, that's good. There are all
these parking lots of thingswe're never going to discuss and
never going to talk about. But,like, it makes people feel good
that they're acknowledged. But Ithink they should be
acknowledged. I think that, youknow, because we don't know
where the ideas come from, wedon't know what's going to have
the greatest value, but, but weneed to have some sort of method
(06:25):
for identifying in some sort ofrigor. You know, I know that
people want to be nimble andagile and adaptable, and that's
all well and good, but if you'renot clear on where you're going,
you're just chaotic. You're notgoing anywhere. Your team is
really, really lost, right? Whathave you used to help teams
prioritize? Have you usedanything in particular? Or what
purchase have you used there?There are a lot of
Amanda Jane Lee (06:51):
prioritization frameworks. I'll call them,
right? I think you and I havehave worked at an organization
that's used wiz GIF, which iswork shortest jobs first. I
believe that's what it's calledas. I think that's what was,
yeah, I've used rice, which isreach, impact, confidence,
(07:13):
forget what the E stands for.There's, you know, the simple
two by two, like impact versuseffort matrix. There's
Indra Klavins (07:27):
what's your favorite or your least favorite?
I
Amanda Jane Lee (07:35):
I think my favorite is the impact and
effort one, because it's simple.There's no There's no acronym to
remember what the letters standfor, and it's visual, right?
It's just a two by like,
Indra Klavins (07:50):
four squares, right? I have wiz GIF PTSD, so I
totally understand that. Like,Yeah, same. And it wasn't. It
was, it was to be clear, I'vegot my own prioritization matrix
that I've developed and workingwith complex organizations,
which we can talk about in alittle bit, right? Because I do
love a good methodology that'scommonly known and spoken about
(08:11):
across the board, because thenit comes to some sort of
gravitas. But the way that thiswiz GIF was being used in this
particular example, it was so Ifelt like we were forgive the
very like, direct. I felt likewe were praying at the altar of
wizchi. And if wiz GIF said so,then whiz GIF it would be done.
It was just so like, insanelyblack and white that it just it
(08:38):
took away all the humanity fromthe conversation a little bit,
and that I found frustrating,that I found really, really
frustrating. And yeah, that wasjust my experience with it.
Amanda Jane Lee (08:48):
Yeah, I think you hit a good point, and one
that I was hoping we'd meanderto during this episode. All of
these frameworks, they come withcaveats, right? They come with,
like, the big asterisk, the thefine print, the like you said
praying at the altar, but like,it's not, it's not a Bible,
(09:12):
right? It is just a framework tohelp you think about and
organize what is important toyou. And I think the danger of
these frameworks is, well, oneyou can hide behind them because
you're just like, well, if wizjust says, so, like, okay,
that's what we're getting anysystem right, correct, yeah. And
(09:33):
like, I think what, I think whathappens is that a lot of
organizations take one of theseframeworks, or many of these
frameworks in an attempt toapply objectivity to something
that is subjective, ooh andlike, it doesn't work that way.
(09:54):
Yes, there are objective factorssuch as, like, how much is this
going to cost? How many people.Hours is this going to take,
right? But there's also, like,sometimes there's the CEO factor
of just like, the CEO wants it
Indra Klavins (10:10):
100% I think that it and it doesn't invite, it
doesn't invite dialog. Now, youdon't want to get into
conversation, analysisparalysis. Like, that's not what
I'm encouraging. But I find thatyou can rally a team behind
initiatives much more so whenyou invite the conversation
(10:31):
clarify for everything, why thisis important, as opposed to, I
just said so, and they canunderstand and wrap their heads
around it, then they can churn,like, in a good way, not the
churn, as in, like, thrashingthrough things and just like
looping constantly, they canactually churn out work versus
getting stuck in a churn.
Amanda Jane Lee (10:52):
Yeah. And I think because what seems to be
the goal is an objective, like,usually the output of this is a
number, right? It's a number,and then you rank it, because
you know what one comes before,too. I think the real goal
shouldn't be objectivity. Itshould be like you said, clarity
(11:16):
and transparency, about likewhat is important and why and
inviting that conversation.Another thing that came to mind
was the framework is good forconsistency, right? Like, if we,
if we sit down as a group anddefine what the what the rules
are, yeah, of the framework,like, what is more important,
(11:39):
what's weighted more than what?What's more important than what?
Which of these factors matter?Does the CEO like Trump all
like? Is that like? Let's talkabout that, and then let's be
consistent about
Indra Klavins (11:52):
it. Yeah. And I think that one of the other
words I would add to it isalignment, right? One of the
things that frustrates me aboutthese very simple and, well,
I'll pick on wiz Jeff, like,it's a fine framework. I know a
lot of organizations use it.It's really great and scaled
agile. Like I'm not if you useit great and it's working for
you, great. But there's onlyfour fields, right? How do I get
(12:17):
to, how do I get to myunderstanding of, like, how big
is this thing really? Because Imight get my engineering team to
figure out how big it is. Buthow big is how complex and big
is it for my design team or mymarketing team or my go to
market team or my customersupport team or my
infrastructure team? Like, itboils everything down to one
(12:37):
number. And I think that whenpeople are using something, I
imagine that when people areusing something like Wiz diff
really well, they will do allthat analysis, getting into that
first number, saying, like, thisis how much effort it takes, and
this is how big it is. But oftenthe rest of it just gets, like,
brushed to the side. And, youknow, technology can get through
it first, but if, if the teamisn't there to support the
(13:00):
launch of it and mark it inwhatever else who cares? Who
cares that engineering finishedbecause no one can support it.
So great.
Amanda Jane Lee (13:10):
Yeah, something about that story triggered
another thought that we don'thave to go too far down, but
it's finding the right balancebetween the prioritization
exercise and the actually doingthe thing. Because you said a
(13:31):
lot of things there where, like,you have to get engineering
input, you have to get designsinput. You have to get, like,
the input of every organizationin within your organization. How
much time does that take?
Indra Klavins (13:43):
It does? It does, and you need to be really smart
about it. You need to be reallysmart about it, because
sometimes it doesn't matter. Butyou need to at least gut check
stuff. At the very least, youneed to get see. You need to gut
check stuff and say, because,like when I worked at TD,
AmeriTrade as an example, likewe would always make sure that
(14:03):
frontline support was ready tosupport it. Like, how many
launches do you have coming fromdifferent places, and can we fit
this on this day? Because weknew that with every launch,
there was an influx of callsfrom customers every single
time. Like, that's just the costof doing business, and just at
the very least having that gutcheck. Maybe we don't. So sorry,
folks. So for some reason mybuzzer is going off on my door,
(14:25):
so we'll ignore that sound. But,but you need to, you need to,
you need to at least check tosee if they can do it. Maybe you
don't ask them for a sizing.Maybe you get a t shirt that
say, like, How worried are youabout us going out live on this
day? You don't need to do aboutcompletely exhaustive. They've
done this before. So, yeah, yousaid t shirt sizing. I can't
(14:45):
believe I forgot.
Amanda Jane Lee (14:47):
I forgot t shirt sizing. That actually
might be my favorite one, justlike
Indra Klavins (14:51):
so let's talk about T shirt sizing. I think
most people who are listening tothis probably know it. But t
shirt sizing, you know, yougenerally agree on, you know,
what's a small, medium, low.Large, extra large. And then if
you can't even scope it as anextra large, you're like, that's
done like, so small might belike one to three days of work,
you know. Medium might be likeone to two weeks of work, you
(15:13):
know. And then you figure itout. From there, you create your
own, you know, criteria for whateach size represents,
Amanda Jane Lee (15:19):
right? And it doesn't have to be time bound,
either it can be. It can belike, No, this is by default, at
least a medium, because itinvolves more than two teams,
Indra Klavins (15:30):
and that can be the case too. Complexity has to
play into it. But I also likesomething that you said. So I
have a I picked, I picked upthis practice like many, many,
many, many moons ago, when I wasat Razorfish, like we had
clients, I was on the agencyside, working with lots of
really high power clients. Wewere a relatively expensive
agency, so our clients tended tobe on the larger size, with all
(15:54):
the trappings that come fromthat and getting multiple
departments to align multiplestakeholders within not your
organization, to align on whatyou agency are doing is not
easy. And so what we, what Ilearned there from from Dominic,
which is wonderful, Don andvenuto, was the creation, like,
(16:15):
I had a spreadsheet, spreadsheetwhere, like, each stakeholder
gets to have, he didn't. He hada really fancy system that he
had, but I just created aspreadsheet. Like, each
stakeholder gets a column, like,what's the high value for it,
what's the low value for it, andlike, or like, there might be
one or two columns. Everyonefills it out. They can't see
anyone else's column, they can'ttouch anyone else's column. And
(16:37):
this way everyone could have asay in what they were doing. You
know, if you're familiar withthe organization, you know
you've worked there for a while,you can pre fill say, Hey, I
filled these things out for youin this way. And I had the
column for executive mandatebecause we knew that executive
mandate trumped all right?Because that'll happen. Yeah,
high value client trumps allExactly,
Amanda Jane Lee (17:01):
right. And as you were telling that story, I
thought, I thought eachdepartment had to come to the
table with, like, what's mostimportant for their department,
because I've been in thatsituation
Indra Klavins (17:16):
too. There's that too. That's a different one than
I was thinking of, yeah,
Amanda Jane Lee (17:19):
I've been in that situation too, where, like,
during quarterly planning orwhatever planning cycle, right?
The executive team gets togetherand they're like, Well, this is
the most important formarketing, this is the most
important for sales, this ismost important for tech. And
then all of a sudden you have 8pzeros or P ones, right?
Indra Klavins (17:41):
Each person chose only 1p zero, but now you need
to rationalize those 8p zeros.
Amanda Jane Lee (17:47):
Yeah, right. And in a lot of cases, that
second step doesn't happen,
Indra Klavins (17:55):
and it puts such a stress on the shared
resources, or the people who aresupporting multiple
stakeholders, like it could bethe two teams I've worked in the
most are design and engineering,which tend to serve the entire
entirety of the organization inone way or another. And that's
that's really tough, that'sreally, really tough to get
(18:16):
through. And you know, itdoesn't, yeah, that usually I
don't. I often have not seenthat reconciled like I was in
one organization that had anentire team that was focused on
prioritization, like that wastheir role was to break all
those ties across a massiveportfolio of projects. And there
(18:37):
it was. This goes back to yourthing about the thing that you
said at the top of the episode,they would we would prioritize,
I think that the goal was toprioritize once a week. We
usually wound up prioritizingtwice a week the entire
portfolio of projects and whenthings were running. Well, that
call was really Swift. It wasjust a gut check, and we would
(18:58):
only talk about the ones thatlike, came up because there was
something that broke some, somevery important piece of the
system that our customersdepended on, right? But it's but
that in itself, like you can'tthey can't stick to priorities,
even in the best organizations,like reprioritizing every
quarter is crazy, like with eachearnings call is crazy, like
(19:23):
it's you can't get very muchdone in three months. Yeah,
agreed,
Amanda Jane Lee (19:29):
yes. And the reprioritization every quarter
does not mean stick to thepriorities that you decided with
this set of information, youknow earlier in the year for the
entire year, there can, there'ssome wiggle room, right?
Indra Klavins (19:47):
You can adapt, sure, right, yeah, um, but yeah
to to prioritize your list ofhow many projects every two
weeks it was every Yeah, it was,or, sorry, twice. A week is what
you say it was twice a week.But, like, I've been in
organizations that do aquarterly, and the one, some of
them that have done itquarterly, they'll introduce a
whole, they do a wholebrainstorming for each quarter,
(20:09):
like each team, like, why?
Amanda Jane Lee (20:10):
Right, you're starting every quarter. No, you
didn't even finish.
Indra Klavins (20:15):
You didn't
Amanda Jane Lee (20:16):
finish the last quarter.
Indra Klavins (20:19):
And that's where, yeah, I mean, I've got all
these, all these cliches goingin my brain, but, but, yeah, no,
there's, there's a lot of,there's a lot of challenges, and
there's a lot of, there's a lotof, you know, there's a lot of
challenges. So, okay, tools andtechniques, tools and techniques
for navigating this. Because Ithink that you know, as this can
apply to any level of theorganization, almost any level
(20:42):
of the organization, let's say,from mid career or on upwards.
Remind people all the time,like, the last time we had this
discussion, this was the list.Tell me what changed make put
that list up on a screen. Printit out in handouts. I don't care
what it is you make sureeveryone sees like, this is
where things stood. The lasttime we had this conversation,
(21:05):
what changed and why, and whyand why. Like, that's make them
use their words. Make them usetheir words and explain that
there can be really goodreasons, but it can't be
additive. Like, and as you'relooking at that list of the
priorities, like, these are thethis is the one thing we
finished. There's 10 things onthe list. We finished one, and
you introduced five. Somethinghas to give. Like, everyone can
(21:29):
understand that, like, budgetsdidn't explode. And even if
budgets did explode, it takes atleast, and this is, like, the
fastest I've ever seen it. Ittakes at least two months to
onboard a person, to findsomebody, and onboard them at
least. And that's them in thedoor, not understanding your
systems, like, so, so it's notlike, I'll just throw money
Amanda Jane Lee (21:47):
at you, right? Yeah, I've been in those
organizations too, where it'sjust like, oh, well, we need
more people to work on this, andthen we can get hire them, and
then we can get all of it done.Okay, hire like crazy,
Indra Klavins (21:57):
or we'll hire an agency. It'll be fine. Like, no,
it doesn't. It doesn't.
Amanda Jane Lee (22:01):
We don't show up. Yeah, you don't show up on
day one, immediately, having allthe context and all the
knowledge and all the all thesystems access,
Indra Klavins (22:11):
right? So, like, so, so have a list, have a list,
keep a running log of wherethings are and what change like,
that's, that's the basic form ofchange management. Yes, that is
part of the program management,project management craft. But
anyone can do that, anyone fromany craft, can do like, these
are the things we were workingon. This is how people were
aligned. This is the stuff theylike, and this is the stuff
(22:33):
you're introducing. What givesand like, great. Nothing gives,
fantastic. How do I make thesethings smaller, right? And just,
but keep on, keep on putting itlike, not in a I told you so,
like, there's the list. Like,that's not going to grant that's
not going to get you any sort ofstreet credit roll. Like, here's
a list. I need to understandwhat gives and what shifts, you
(22:54):
know, like, and I'm just goingto keep track of this over the
course of time to see how muchwe stay, how consistent we are
on stuff and how consistentwe're not, and maybe we'll learn
something. Maybe not. I don'tknow. Yeah.
Amanda Jane Lee (23:06):
I Yeah. I think the documentation is a great
place to start. Of like, here'sthe list and here's what
changed. Like it or like, here'sthe list, here's the new list,
and here's what changed and why,
Indra Klavins (23:19):
right? And sometimes you're gonna have to
be bold as a leader and say no,the answer is no, escalate, my
friend. Have fun escalatingthis. I have I'm ready to and
maybe after the escalation, myme and my team, my team and I
are going to have to do thatfine, but escalate. My answer
right now is a firm no, becauseI'm protecting my team, and I
(23:43):
don't understand how this isgoing to displace everything
else that we've got going on.
Amanda Jane Lee (23:49):
Yeah, I think that's a great point. The the
the art of saying no, right? Ithink leaders, leaders are have
an easier time. I won't say havean easy time, which have an
easier time saying no downwardlike to their direct reports,
because they have authority,right? But it's not always easy
(24:11):
to say no to your boss or yourboss's boss, or your boss's
boss's boss,
Indra Klavins (24:16):
or your peers or the people that you know you've
come to see as friends like orsaying no to yourself, like,
saying no to your own project,being like, hey, you know,
person Person C introduced a newproject, and I really see the
value of it. And y'all knowthat, you know, project 123, is
(24:36):
my, you know, is something I'vebeen championing for. I really
think it's going to change ourorganization, and it's going to
really add to the bottom bottomline. But for this moment, my
team's not going to like it, butI will put project 123, on hold,
let project see go through. Soit's a version of saying no to
yourself, right? But you know,say, hey, once we're done with
(24:58):
that, I want everyone'sassurance. And I'm gonna put it
in writing that will pick up123, again, right? Like, there's
ways of saying no and gettingout of it and say and killing
your darlings, you know, like,that's one of the, you know,
Amanda Jane Lee (25:11):
for the greater good. Or, like, the to move to
advance the goals of thecompany, to
Indra Klavins (25:19):
advance the goals of the company. But like, stay
consistent with it too. Like, asas you're doing this
negotiation, you know, whetherit's a formal documentation
process or not, try and documentout. Like, what are the like,
what's, what's, how are wemeasuring value as an
organization, right? Is it NPSscores? Is it, you know,
revenue? Is it like? Is itstability of our system? Because
(25:41):
if it's down all the time, noone's gonna pay for it, even if
it's got all the bells andwhistles, you know, like, figure
out what are the things that youyour organization holds true?
Yeah, yeah. I think
Amanda Jane Lee (25:55):
there were a few common themes during our
conversation, and like, one isstay consistent. Two is just
documentation, right? Just likehave it all in writing, so that
everyone can react and align andagree, right? Three, I think,
(26:15):
is, and I lost it, but I thinkit's the the prioritization. Oh,
it's the, explain why, the thereasoning behind the decision, I
think, is really important.Because, if you like, if I, if I
(26:36):
put myself in the shoes of, youknow, an individual contributor
who doesn't, who isn't privy toany of these prioritization
decisions, right? And you know,my priorities, my personal like
on my desk, priorities changetwice a week, every week. How
does that make me feel? And likeI don't get an explanation as to
(26:59):
why, and I'm, I'm on the I'm onthe brink of burnout.
Indra Klavins (27:03):
Yeah, it's, you know, just in case anybody needs
a resource on that, because Icould talk about it. But there
are much more skilled folks outthere. Simon Sinek, his books
start with why he's got leaderseat last. He's got a whole bunch
of different books that are outthere, but I'd say start with
why and leaders eat last. Andeven if you just watch the TED
talk, I don't remember whichbook was he was doing. Which
(27:25):
book was supporting the TED Talkthat he's done. He's probably
done more than one for all I canremember. But he's actually
lives not too far from me, Ibelieve. But anyway, I'm
digressing. Check out thosebooks, check out those videos,
and it really goes through why,the why matters. It's really how
you get your team aligned and onboard and get them behind those
priorities. Because, you know,if you explain the why, if you
(27:48):
stay consistent and youcommunicate with your with
everyone across yourorganization, that's how you
that's how you stick to thepriorities, or explain why. It's
why you're really choosing tochurn right, like, and it's a
deliberate choice, like, Hey,we're taking a hard left right
now. Because, you know, covidhit, a lot of people took a hard
(28:08):
left when covid hit, as far astheir strategies, because there
was a lot of pivoting that wasnecessary when, when the world
literally changed, seeminglyovernight. Was almost overnight,
but not quite, but yeah, it waswild. That can happen, that can
happen.
Amanda Jane Lee (28:25):
I found my train of thought again. So it
was the explaining why, and ifyou have to use a prioritization
framework as a tool, not acrutch, not something to hide
behind, but a tool to help youexplain the why. Like we as an
(28:46):
organization have decided thatyou know customer like NPS score
is what you said, right? Likecustomer happiness is top
priority. This is the mostimportant thing to us. So
Indra Klavins (28:59):
how do the thing? How do
Amanda Jane Lee (29:01):
the projects in our portfolio support that goal?
And like, how, how was thatweighted in the decision to
prioritize project a overproject B?
Indra Klavins (29:10):
Yeah, I would say you should always have some sort
of prioritization methodology.It doesn't have to be like a
formal one, but there should besomething or grounds it in right
impact and effort. There has tobe some aligned to core values,
aligned to the then, yeah.Anyway, I could go on. I'm going
to digress into the into variousdifferent things. Like I I've
got, oh gosh, OK, our OKRs,cascading OKRs. We can talk
(29:38):
about those one day too, andwhat has worked and what hasn't
worked, but anyway, strategicgoals of organizations. But
anyway,
Amanda Jane Lee (29:44):
you know, OKRs was floating in my brain too,
and I was like, nope, not goingto say it.
Indra Klavins (29:49):
So I think prioritization matters. Be
consistent in how youprioritize. That probably does
use some sort of framework ofsorts, whether it's homegrown or
like something. That's superfamiliar everywhere else.
Communicate things out, beconsistent and resist trying to
(30:09):
respond to every shiny objectand reprioritizing and sending
your team into a tailspin. Ithink that some of your say no,
gotta learn how to say no. Yougotta say no. Amanda, yet
another rich conversation. Thankyou so much, and thank you to
everyone who's listening.Hopefully you got something good
(30:29):
out of this, and I hope thatyou'll all join us next time
when we discuss another topicfor the messy middle, bye,
everyone bye. Thanks for takingtime with us in the messy
middle. Word of mouth remainsmost powerful way for people to
find us. If this episode sparkedsomething for you, we'd love it.
(30:50):
If you'd subscribe to thepodcast on your favorite app,
download a few episodes andshare it with someone else who's
navigating the in between. Doyou have ideas for future
episodes or topics you'd like usto explore. You can find our
feedback form at the messymiddlematters.com, or in the show
notes. Thank you for joining uson this journey. This work is
better when we do it together,until next time.
Indra. I'm Indra,
Amanda Jane Lee (00:08):
and I'm Amanda,
Indra Klavins (00:10):
and we'd like to welcome you to the messy middle
matters. Hey, Amanda, how areyou today? I'm
Amanda Jane Lee (00:18):
good. How are you Indra? I'm good.
Indra Klavins (00:20):
We'vegot a spicy one today, so I'll ask you a
question, have you ever workedin an organization that was
really good at prioritizingtheir initiatives and then
sticking with those priorities?
Amanda Jane Lee (00:36):
It's the sticking to them that's usually
the issue. But I've worked atplaces that weren't very good at
priorities. Prioritizing either,but it's usually the stickiness.
I would say.
Indra Klavins (00:46):
I've worked in a combo of both. I've worked in a
combo of both. And, you know,it's, it's really, I don't think
the reason we're talking abouttoday is this can take such a
toll on your organization whenyou don't, when you can't
prioritize, or if you doprioritize, you can't stick with
those priorities and help thatteam focus and concentrate. It's
(01:11):
such a churn. It's such a churn,yeah, I
Amanda Jane Lee (01:15):
mean, I've worked at places that have had,
you know, roadmaps, sure, right?But sometimes they would get
reshuffled every other week, orwe'd mark, you know, we'd
suddenly Mark 10 things as Pzero, priority zero, which
means, like, Stop the presses.This must be Yeah, and then act
(01:36):
surprised when, you know, halfof them fell apart because not
enough resourcing. I think, youknow, every company has their
own unique flavors of challengeswhen it comes to prioritization.
Indra Klavins (01:52):
Yeah, it's, it's and let's be clear, it's not
easy. It's not easy if we thinkabout our own lives and
prioritizing what we do in ourown lives, it's really not easy
at all. So I don't want tounderstand how the challenge
that this can be, but we're hereto talk about the value of the
prioritization and and what thewhat the downside of it is, and
(02:14):
what solutions you canimplement, whether you're a
leader or a member of the teamor whatever it might be to try
and drive towards thosepriorities, get people to stick
to those priorities. So let'stalk a little bit about, why
don't we go through that exampleof, like, the P zeros, P ones, P
twos. Like, that's that's more,I think that's more in the tech
(02:36):
realm that I hear the P zeros, Pones, p2 is probably an offshoot
from what's that JIRA? I bet youthe JIRA has helped proliferate
that kind of standardization.But maybe, yeah, yeah,
Amanda Jane Lee (02:49):
I think you're right. I think JIRA does have an
out of the box, like P zero,like priority field, right? So
the P stands for priority. Everycompany has their own rubric and
guidelines around what thedifferent priority numbers mean.
But I would say usually P Zerois, like, something's on fire.
(03:10):
This needs to be done. Like, noquestions asked. Like, super,
super top priority p1 is a notchbelow that. It's like, it's
still very important, but it'snot an emergency. P2 that's when
you start getting fuzzy. Of justlike, yeah, that this is, this
has, you know, business impact,but it might be a more nice to
(03:32):
have, depending on your scale,right? I've seen P 3p, 4p, x,
Indra Klavins (03:39):
right? And assuming, assuming that these
things are well defined, andpeople who look at them
understand what they mean,that's a whole nother
conversation. But let's assumethat we understand what the
words align with all the Pzeros, let's say, mean, I just
went with the challenge could beis there's often too many things
in that top priority. Or even ifan organization decides that P
(04:04):
zeros are there's an objectivelyclear criteria, and there's only
one in there at a time, andeveryone agrees to it, then it
just bumps things down to thenext level with the P ones, P
twos, p3 is whatever P you'redown to start getting the it's a
lot of diminishing returns asyou move, move, start, start
shoving things down sometimes,but, or maybe it's not
diminishing anyway, but it doesby but I said it was a p1 like,
(04:28):
that's, that's great, but that'snice. I've got 30 of them, and I
have five engineers. What gives,right? And
Amanda Jane Lee (04:35):
I think it's human nature, right? I think
it's, you know, once youunderstand that this is how the
system works. You're like, oh,well, I'm going to mark all of
mine as p1 so that I get mystuff done. And then you and
then you get into the case of,there's 30 P ones, and, yeah,
Indra Klavins (04:55):
yeah, I think that it's the, it's the, it's
the over. It's the overcorrection, because, you know,
you're going to lose some groundin the negotiation. That's going
to come down like, Oh, I'm goingto look at, like, one to two
notches higher than what Ireally think it is, so that it
looks like I gave some ground asthey knocked me down. Or if I
never, if I'm, if I'm reallyhonest about it, you know,
(05:15):
colleague, colleague, be overthere. You know, they always,
they always take everything,because they always put their
stuff in in p1 and nobodyquestions whether or not they're
really P ones. I'm never goingto get my stuff done if I don't
put them into a p1 category.
Amanda Jane Lee (05:31):
Yeah, and I've worked at organizations,
organizations, plural, where,where? If it wasn't
Indra Klavins (05:40):
p1 It wasn't getting done. It wasn't getting
done. It wasn't getting
Amanda Jane Lee (05:44):
done. Like, why even have p2 p3 p4 like, really,
we have p4 when we can't evenget all the P ones done? Like,
can we just delete all of them?But you know, there are people
who are like, Nope, we must holdon to them forever, because we
need to continue to prioritize.Okay, let's be honest here.
Indra Klavins (06:03):
Oh my gosh, it's making me think of how I use a
parking lot in meetings. I'mlike, that's good. There are all
these parking lots of thingswe're never going to discuss and
never going to talk about. But,like, it makes people feel good
that they're acknowledged. But Ithink they should be
acknowledged. I think that, youknow, because we don't know
where the ideas come from, wedon't know what's going to have
the greatest value, but, but weneed to have some sort of method
(06:25):
for identifying in some sort ofrigor. You know, I know that
people want to be nimble andagile and adaptable, and that's
all well and good, but if you'renot clear on where you're going,
you're just chaotic. You're notgoing anywhere. Your team is
really, really lost, right? Whathave you used to help teams
prioritize? Have you usedanything in particular? Or what
purchase have you used there?There are a lot of
Amanda Jane Lee (06:51):
prioritization frameworks. I'll call them,
right? I think you and I havehave worked at an organization
that's used wiz GIF, which iswork shortest jobs first. I
believe that's what it's calledas. I think that's what was,
yeah, I've used rice, which isreach, impact, confidence,
(07:13):
forget what the E stands for.There's, you know, the simple
two by two, like impact versuseffort matrix. There's
Indra Klavins (07:27):
what's your favorite or your least favorite?
I
Amanda Jane Lee (07:35):
I think my favorite is the impact and
effort one, because it's simple.There's no There's no acronym to
remember what the letters standfor, and it's visual, right?
It's just a two by like,
Indra Klavins (07:50):
four squares, right? I have wiz GIF PTSD, so I
totally understand that. Like,Yeah, same. And it wasn't. It
was, it was to be clear, I'vegot my own prioritization matrix
that I've developed and workingwith complex organizations,
which we can talk about in alittle bit, right? Because I do
love a good methodology that'scommonly known and spoken about
(08:11):
across the board, because thenit comes to some sort of
gravitas. But the way that thiswiz GIF was being used in this
particular example, it was so Ifelt like we were forgive the
very like, direct. I felt likewe were praying at the altar of
wizchi. And if wiz GIF said so,then whiz GIF it would be done.
It was just so like, insanelyblack and white that it just it
(08:38):
took away all the humanity fromthe conversation a little bit,
and that I found frustrating,that I found really, really
frustrating. And yeah, that wasjust my experience with it.
Amanda Jane Lee (08:48):
Yeah, I think you hit a good point, and one
that I was hoping we'd meanderto during this episode. All of
these frameworks, they come withcaveats, right? They come with,
like, the big asterisk, the thefine print, the like you said
praying at the altar, but like,it's not, it's not a Bible,
(09:12):
right? It is just a framework tohelp you think about and
organize what is important toyou. And I think the danger of
these frameworks is, well, oneyou can hide behind them because
you're just like, well, if wizjust says, so, like, okay,
that's what we're getting anysystem right, correct, yeah. And
(09:33):
like, I think what, I think whathappens is that a lot of
organizations take one of theseframeworks, or many of these
frameworks in an attempt toapply objectivity to something
that is subjective, ooh andlike, it doesn't work that way.
(09:54):
Yes, there are objective factorssuch as, like, how much is this
going to cost? How many people.Hours is this going to take,
right? But there's also, like,sometimes there's the CEO factor
of just like, the CEO wants it
Indra Klavins (10:10):
100% I think that it and it doesn't invite, it
doesn't invite dialog. Now, youdon't want to get into
conversation, analysisparalysis. Like, that's not what
I'm encouraging. But I find thatyou can rally a team behind
initiatives much more so whenyou invite the conversation
(10:31):
clarify for everything, why thisis important, as opposed to, I
just said so, and they canunderstand and wrap their heads
around it, then they can churn,like, in a good way, not the
churn, as in, like, thrashingthrough things and just like
looping constantly, they canactually churn out work versus
getting stuck in a churn.
Amanda Jane Lee (10:52):
Yeah. And I think because what seems to be
the goal is an objective, like,usually the output of this is a
number, right? It's a number,and then you rank it, because
you know what one comes before,too. I think the real goal
shouldn't be objectivity. Itshould be like you said, clarity
(11:16):
and transparency, about likewhat is important and why and
inviting that conversation.Another thing that came to mind
was the framework is good forconsistency, right? Like, if we,
if we sit down as a group anddefine what the what the rules
are, yeah, of the framework,like, what is more important,
(11:39):
what's weighted more than what?What's more important than what?
Which of these factors matter?Does the CEO like Trump all
like? Is that like? Let's talkabout that, and then let's be
consistent about
Indra Klavins (11:52):
it. Yeah. And I think that one of the other
words I would add to it isalignment, right? One of the
things that frustrates me aboutthese very simple and, well,
I'll pick on wiz Jeff, like,it's a fine framework. I know a
lot of organizations use it.It's really great and scaled
agile. Like I'm not if you useit great and it's working for
you, great. But there's onlyfour fields, right? How do I get
(12:17):
to, how do I get to myunderstanding of, like, how big
is this thing really? Because Imight get my engineering team to
figure out how big it is. Buthow big is how complex and big
is it for my design team or mymarketing team or my go to
market team or my customersupport team or my
infrastructure team? Like, itboils everything down to one
(12:37):
number. And I think that whenpeople are using something, I
imagine that when people areusing something like Wiz diff
really well, they will do allthat analysis, getting into that
first number, saying, like, thisis how much effort it takes, and
this is how big it is. But oftenthe rest of it just gets, like,
brushed to the side. And, youknow, technology can get through
it first, but if, if the teamisn't there to support the
(13:00):
launch of it and mark it inwhatever else who cares? Who
cares that engineering finishedbecause no one can support it.
So great.
Amanda Jane Lee (13:10):
Yeah, something about that story triggered
another thought that we don'thave to go too far down, but
it's finding the right balancebetween the prioritization
exercise and the actually doingthe thing. Because you said a
(13:31):
lot of things there where, like,you have to get engineering
input, you have to get designsinput. You have to get, like,
the input of every organizationin within your organization. How
much time does that take?
Indra Klavins (13:43):
It does? It does, and you need to be really smart
about it. You need to be reallysmart about it, because
sometimes it doesn't matter. Butyou need to at least gut check
stuff. At the very least, youneed to get see. You need to gut
check stuff and say, because,like when I worked at TD,
AmeriTrade as an example, likewe would always make sure that
(14:03):
frontline support was ready tosupport it. Like, how many
launches do you have coming fromdifferent places, and can we fit
this on this day? Because weknew that with every launch,
there was an influx of callsfrom customers every single
time. Like, that's just the costof doing business, and just at
the very least having that gutcheck. Maybe we don't. So sorry,
folks. So for some reason mybuzzer is going off on my door,
(14:25):
so we'll ignore that sound. But,but you need to, you need to,
you need to at least check tosee if they can do it. Maybe you
don't ask them for a sizing.Maybe you get a t shirt that
say, like, How worried are youabout us going out live on this
day? You don't need to do aboutcompletely exhaustive. They've
done this before. So, yeah, yousaid t shirt sizing. I can't
(14:45):
believe I forgot.
Amanda Jane Lee (14:47):
I forgot t shirt sizing. That actually
might be my favorite one, justlike
Indra Klavins (14:51):
so let's talk about T shirt sizing. I think
most people who are listening tothis probably know it. But t
shirt sizing, you know, yougenerally agree on, you know,
what's a small, medium, low.Large, extra large. And then if
you can't even scope it as anextra large, you're like, that's
done like, so small might belike one to three days of work,
you know. Medium might be likeone to two weeks of work, you
(15:13):
know. And then you figure itout. From there, you create your
own, you know, criteria for whateach size represents,
Amanda Jane Lee (15:19):
right? And it doesn't have to be time bound,
either it can be. It can belike, No, this is by default, at
least a medium, because itinvolves more than two teams,
Indra Klavins (15:30):
and that can be the case too. Complexity has to
play into it. But I also likesomething that you said. So I
have a I picked, I picked upthis practice like many, many,
many, many moons ago, when I wasat Razorfish, like we had
clients, I was on the agencyside, working with lots of
really high power clients. Wewere a relatively expensive
agency, so our clients tended tobe on the larger size, with all
(15:54):
the trappings that come fromthat and getting multiple
departments to align multiplestakeholders within not your
organization, to align on whatyou agency are doing is not
easy. And so what we, what Ilearned there from from Dominic,
which is wonderful, Don andvenuto, was the creation, like,
(16:15):
I had a spreadsheet, spreadsheetwhere, like, each stakeholder
gets to have, he didn't. He hada really fancy system that he
had, but I just created aspreadsheet. Like, each
stakeholder gets a column, like,what's the high value for it,
what's the low value for it, andlike, or like, there might be
one or two columns. Everyonefills it out. They can't see
anyone else's column, they can'ttouch anyone else's column. And
(16:37):
this way everyone could have asay in what they were doing. You
know, if you're familiar withthe organization, you know
you've worked there for a while,you can pre fill say, Hey, I
filled these things out for youin this way. And I had the
column for executive mandatebecause we knew that executive
mandate trumped all right?Because that'll happen. Yeah,
high value client trumps allExactly,
Amanda Jane Lee (17:01):
right. And as you were telling that story, I
thought, I thought eachdepartment had to come to the
table with, like, what's mostimportant for their department,
because I've been in thatsituation
Indra Klavins (17:16):
too. There's that too. That's a different one than
I was thinking of, yeah,
Amanda Jane Lee (17:19):
I've been in that situation too, where, like,
during quarterly planning orwhatever planning cycle, right?
The executive team gets togetherand they're like, Well, this is
the most important formarketing, this is the most
important for sales, this ismost important for tech. And
then all of a sudden you have 8pzeros or P ones, right?
Indra Klavins (17:41):
Each person chose only 1p zero, but now you need
to rationalize those 8p zeros.
Amanda Jane Lee (17:47):
Yeah, right. And in a lot of cases, that
second step doesn't happen,
Indra Klavins (17:55):
and it puts such a stress on the shared
resources, or the people who aresupporting multiple
stakeholders, like it could bethe two teams I've worked in the
most are design and engineering,which tend to serve the entire
entirety of the organization inone way or another. And that's
that's really tough, that'sreally, really tough to get
(18:16):
through. And you know, itdoesn't, yeah, that usually I
don't. I often have not seenthat reconciled like I was in
one organization that had anentire team that was focused on
prioritization, like that wastheir role was to break all
those ties across a massiveportfolio of projects. And there
(18:37):
it was. This goes back to yourthing about the thing that you
said at the top of the episode,they would we would prioritize,
I think that the goal was toprioritize once a week. We
usually wound up prioritizingtwice a week the entire
portfolio of projects and whenthings were running. Well, that
call was really Swift. It wasjust a gut check, and we would
(18:58):
only talk about the ones thatlike, came up because there was
something that broke some, somevery important piece of the
system that our customersdepended on, right? But it's but
that in itself, like you can'tthey can't stick to priorities,
even in the best organizations,like reprioritizing every
quarter is crazy, like with eachearnings call is crazy, like
(19:23):
it's you can't get very muchdone in three months. Yeah,
agreed,
Amanda Jane Lee (19:29):
yes. And the reprioritization every quarter
does not mean stick to thepriorities that you decided with
this set of information, youknow earlier in the year for the
entire year, there can, there'ssome wiggle room, right?
Indra Klavins (19:47):
You can adapt, sure, right, yeah, um, but yeah
to to prioritize your list ofhow many projects every two
weeks it was every Yeah, it was,or, sorry, twice. A week is what
you say it was twice a week.But, like, I've been in
organizations that do aquarterly, and the one, some of
them that have done itquarterly, they'll introduce a
whole, they do a wholebrainstorming for each quarter,
(20:09):
like each team, like, why?
Amanda Jane Lee (20:10):
Right, you're starting every quarter. No, you
didn't even finish.
Indra Klavins (20:15):
You didn't
Amanda Jane Lee (20:16):
finish the last quarter.
Indra Klavins (20:19):
And that's where, yeah, I mean, I've got all
these, all these cliches goingin my brain, but, but, yeah, no,
there's, there's a lot of,there's a lot of challenges, and
there's a lot of, there's a lotof, you know, there's a lot of
challenges. So, okay, tools andtechniques, tools and techniques
for navigating this. Because Ithink that you know, as this can
apply to any level of theorganization, almost any level
(20:42):
of the organization, let's say,from mid career or on upwards.
Remind people all the time,like, the last time we had this
discussion, this was the list.Tell me what changed make put
that list up on a screen. Printit out in handouts. I don't care
what it is you make sureeveryone sees like, this is
where things stood. The lasttime we had this conversation,
(21:05):
what changed and why, and whyand why. Like, that's make them
use their words. Make them usetheir words and explain that
there can be really goodreasons, but it can't be
additive. Like, and as you'relooking at that list of the
priorities, like, these are thethis is the one thing we
finished. There's 10 things onthe list. We finished one, and
you introduced five. Somethinghas to give. Like, everyone can
(21:29):
understand that, like, budgetsdidn't explode. And even if
budgets did explode, it takes atleast, and this is, like, the
fastest I've ever seen it. Ittakes at least two months to
onboard a person, to findsomebody, and onboard them at
least. And that's them in thedoor, not understanding your
systems, like, so, so it's notlike, I'll just throw money
Amanda Jane Lee (21:47):
at you, right? Yeah, I've been in those
organizations too, where it'sjust like, oh, well, we need
more people to work on this, andthen we can get hire them, and
then we can get all of it done.Okay, hire like crazy,
Indra Klavins (21:57):
or we'll hire an agency. It'll be fine. Like, no,
it doesn't. It doesn't.
Amanda Jane Lee (22:01):
We don't show up. Yeah, you don't show up on
day one, immediately, having allthe context and all the
knowledge and all the all thesystems access,
Indra Klavins (22:11):
right? So, like, so, so have a list, have a list,
keep a running log of wherethings are and what change like,
that's, that's the basic form ofchange management. Yes, that is
part of the program management,project management craft. But
anyone can do that, anyone fromany craft, can do like, these
are the things we were workingon. This is how people were
aligned. This is the stuff theylike, and this is the stuff
(22:33):
you're introducing. What givesand like, great. Nothing gives,
fantastic. How do I make thesethings smaller, right? And just,
but keep on, keep on putting itlike, not in a I told you so,
like, there's the list. Like,that's not going to grant that's
not going to get you any sort ofstreet credit roll. Like, here's
a list. I need to understandwhat gives and what shifts, you
(22:54):
know, like, and I'm just goingto keep track of this over the
course of time to see how muchwe stay, how consistent we are
on stuff and how consistentwe're not, and maybe we'll learn
something. Maybe not. I don'tknow. Yeah.
Amanda Jane Lee (23:06):
I Yeah. I think the documentation is a great
place to start. Of like, here'sthe list and here's what
changed. Like it or like, here'sthe list, here's the new list,
and here's what changed and why,
Indra Klavins (23:19):
right? And sometimes you're gonna have to
be bold as a leader and say no,the answer is no, escalate, my
friend. Have fun escalatingthis. I have I'm ready to and
maybe after the escalation, myme and my team, my team and I
are going to have to do thatfine, but escalate. My answer
right now is a firm no, becauseI'm protecting my team, and I
(23:43):
don't understand how this isgoing to displace everything
else that we've got going on.
Amanda Jane Lee (23:49):
Yeah, I think that's a great point. The the
the art of saying no, right? Ithink leaders, leaders are have
an easier time. I won't say havean easy time, which have an
easier time saying no downwardlike to their direct reports,
because they have authority,right? But it's not always easy
(24:11):
to say no to your boss or yourboss's boss, or your boss's
boss's boss,
Indra Klavins (24:16):
or your peers or the people that you know you've
come to see as friends like orsaying no to yourself, like,
saying no to your own project,being like, hey, you know,
person Person C introduced a newproject, and I really see the
value of it. And y'all knowthat, you know, project 123, is
(24:36):
my, you know, is something I'vebeen championing for. I really
think it's going to change ourorganization, and it's going to
really add to the bottom bottomline. But for this moment, my
team's not going to like it, butI will put project 123, on hold,
let project see go through. Soit's a version of saying no to
yourself, right? But you know,say, hey, once we're done with
(24:58):
that, I want everyone'sassurance. And I'm gonna put it
in writing that will pick up123, again, right? Like, there's
ways of saying no and gettingout of it and say and killing
your darlings, you know, like,that's one of the, you know,
Amanda Jane Lee (25:11):
for the greater good. Or, like, the to move to
advance the goals of thecompany, to
Indra Klavins (25:19):
advance the goals of the company. But like, stay
consistent with it too. Like, asas you're doing this
negotiation, you know, whetherit's a formal documentation
process or not, try and documentout. Like, what are the like,
what's, what's, how are wemeasuring value as an
organization, right? Is it NPSscores? Is it, you know,
revenue? Is it like? Is itstability of our system? Because
(25:41):
if it's down all the time, noone's gonna pay for it, even if
it's got all the bells andwhistles, you know, like, figure
out what are the things that youyour organization holds true?
Yeah, yeah. I think
Amanda Jane Lee (25:55):
there were a few common themes during our
conversation, and like, one isstay consistent. Two is just
documentation, right? Just likehave it all in writing, so that
everyone can react and align andagree, right? Three, I think,
(26:15):
is, and I lost it, but I thinkit's the the prioritization. Oh,
it's the, explain why, the thereasoning behind the decision, I
think, is really important.Because, if you like, if I, if I
(26:36):
put myself in the shoes of, youknow, an individual contributor
who doesn't, who isn't privy toany of these prioritization
decisions, right? And you know,my priorities, my personal like
on my desk, priorities changetwice a week, every week. How
does that make me feel? And likeI don't get an explanation as to
(26:59):
why, and I'm, I'm on the I'm onthe brink of burnout.
Indra Klavins (27:03):
Yeah, it's, you know, just in case anybody needs
a resource on that, because Icould talk about it. But there
are much more skilled folks outthere. Simon Sinek, his books
start with why he's got leaderseat last. He's got a whole bunch
of different books that are outthere, but I'd say start with
why and leaders eat last. Andeven if you just watch the TED
talk, I don't remember whichbook was he was doing. Which
(27:25):
book was supporting the TED Talkthat he's done. He's probably
done more than one for all I canremember. But he's actually
lives not too far from me, Ibelieve. But anyway, I'm
digressing. Check out thosebooks, check out those videos,
and it really goes through why,the why matters. It's really how
you get your team aligned and onboard and get them behind those
priorities. Because, you know,if you explain the why, if you
(27:48):
stay consistent and youcommunicate with your with
everyone across yourorganization, that's how you
that's how you stick to thepriorities, or explain why. It's
why you're really choosing tochurn right, like, and it's a
deliberate choice, like, Hey,we're taking a hard left right
now. Because, you know, covidhit, a lot of people took a hard
(28:08):
left when covid hit, as far astheir strategies, because there
was a lot of pivoting that wasnecessary when, when the world
literally changed, seeminglyovernight. Was almost overnight,
but not quite, but yeah, it waswild. That can happen, that can
happen.
Amanda Jane Lee (28:25):
I found my train of thought again. So it
was the explaining why, and ifyou have to use a prioritization
framework as a tool, not acrutch, not something to hide
behind, but a tool to help youexplain the why. Like we as an
(28:46):
organization have decided thatyou know customer like NPS score
is what you said, right? Likecustomer happiness is top
priority. This is the mostimportant thing to us. So
Indra Klavins (28:59):
how do the thing? How do
Amanda Jane Lee (29:01):
the projects in our portfolio support that goal?
And like, how, how was thatweighted in the decision to
prioritize project a overproject B?
Indra Klavins (29:10):
Yeah, I would say you should always have some sort
of prioritization methodology.It doesn't have to be like a
formal one, but there should besomething or grounds it in right
impact and effort. There has tobe some aligned to core values,
aligned to the then, yeah.Anyway, I could go on. I'm going
to digress into the into variousdifferent things. Like I I've
got, oh gosh, OK, our OKRs,cascading OKRs. We can talk
(29:38):
about those one day too, andwhat has worked and what hasn't
worked, but anyway, strategicgoals of organizations. But
anyway,
Amanda Jane Lee (29:44):
you know, OKRs was floating in my brain too,
and I was like, nope, not goingto say it.
Indra Klavins (29:49):
So I think prioritization matters. Be
consistent in how youprioritize. That probably does
use some sort of framework ofsorts, whether it's homegrown or
like something. That's superfamiliar everywhere else.
Communicate things out, beconsistent and resist trying to
(30:09):
respond to every shiny objectand reprioritizing and sending
your team into a tailspin. Ithink that some of your say no,
gotta learn how to say no. Yougotta say no. Amanda, yet
another rich conversation. Thankyou so much, and thank you to
everyone who's listening.Hopefully you got something good
(30:29):
out of this, and I hope thatyou'll all join us next time
when we discuss another topicfor the messy middle, bye,
everyone bye. Thanks for takingtime with us in the messy
middle. Word of mouth remainsmost powerful way for people to
find us. If this episode sparkedsomething for you, we'd love it.
(30:50):
If you'd subscribe to thepodcast on your favorite app,
download a few episodes andshare it with someone else who's
navigating the in between. Doyou have ideas for future
episodes or topics you'd like usto explore. You can find our
feedback form at the messymiddlematters.com, or in the show
notes. Thank you for joining uson this journey. This work is
better when we do it together,until next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!