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.
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.