Addressing Tensions in Prioritising Work

Digital Issue 11, Oct 2023

The Overthinking Trap

In preparing for my year-end Appraisal and Development Plan discussion with my supervisor, I felt apprehensive as I reflected on how I had refocused my efforts away from certain workstreams that I had planned at the start of the year. My supervisor knows about these changes from our frequent check-ins and understood the need for me to reprioritise to stay productive. Yet, having to broach this topic during the discussion was unnerving. Negative thoughts ran through my head:

“Deprioritising my projects will cast doubt on my capabilities to follow through on projects.”

"Having projects that get deprioritised means that I was working on unimportant projects.”

“Shifting the focus of my efforts halfway through demonstrates a lack of perseverance and commitment.”

“If I had planned well, deprioritising any of my projects would not be necessary. Does this imply that I did not plan well at the start?”

“Stopping the project after so much effort had been invested is a waste of resources! Am I managing resources as best as I can?”

On reflection, I see that such anxieties were based on mistaken beliefs about my work. For instance, important projects might be halted for many reasons, that have nothing to do with my capabilities, due to factors well outside my control. Had these negative thoughts taken hold, they might have affected attempts to prioritise my workstreams, leading me to sustain efforts that may already be irrelevant at the cost of new, more promising initiatives, or to my overall performance and wellbeing.

Similarly, if supervisors or leaders believe that having to choose between workstreams shows poor planning or incompetence, they may push to deliver on new initiatives while striving to complete past projects. Collectively, this could cascade to hinder whole-of-government (WOG) moves to shift national priorities, as agencies continue to invest resources in outdated projects due to legacy or sunk costs.

Contending with Tension

The truth is that, given our increasingly dynamic context, it has become nearly impossible to anticipate when the best laid plans may have to be set aside. For example, a project’s scope could have grown larger than anticipated as stakeholders’ interests grew. New and more urgent tasks may have arisen, or unforeseen disruptions (such as a global pandemic) may upend our lives and work.

We must contend with the tension between knowing when we ought to remain committed and persevere on projects and realising it is time to reprioritise.

This may be easier said than done. We may have to manage the expectations of stakeholders—including ourselves and our teams—when letting go of projects that have been invested with much time and effort, and to which we have become attached.¹

To overcome such personal barriers to reprioritising our work, we might adopt these three approaches: Reflect, Review, and Reframe.

Reflect: Take a step back and consider the overall purpose of the team, and where your work fits in

We can be more intentional and systematic in thinking about how best to achieve our organisational priorities while making the most of available resources.

To support this thinking, colleagues in the Institute of Leadership and Organisation Development in the Civil Service College have developed a S.C.A.L.E. framework, based on data and insights gleaned through their work on organisational transformation with various public agencies. (Read: how to prioritise using the S.C.A.L.E. framework).

“S” in the S.C.A.L.E. framework stands for “Strategy”. Being clear about the strategic purpose of our work unit is key to resolving the tension of prioritisation. We each need to go back to what our core purpose and mandate are, and appreciate the unique value that our unit brings. We need to ask ourselves: what is it that our unit can (and should) do, that others cannot? A team might also ask itself how its work contributes to the whole: where does it fit in? Answering these questions can help a team achieve better clarity of purpose, making it easier to determine whether a given piece of work is essential to achieving its mandate.

Review each project’s relevance regularly

Most projects are reviewed at regular intervals. At each of these reviews, make it a point to consider whether the project is meeting stakeholders’ needs, and whether it is still relevant to the current context, which may be starkly different from when the project was conceived. The scope of the project could then be modified to adapt to new circumstances, or even deprioritised altogether, in a timelier manner.

Reframe negative thoughts.

One of the ways we can deal with work anxieties is to reframe them as more helpful thoughts. There are three steps to this:

Here are some examples of how negative thoughts might be reframed:

The Singapore Public Service has to stay agile and adaptable, in order to help our nation thrive in an increasingly complex and unpredictable world.

By learning how to prioritise our work nimbly and well, we can ensure our teams, departments, and organisations stay relevant to our national mission, while being good stewards of our scarce resources.