Time management: should priorities be made public?
Making priorities visible on a shared board seems a straightforward way to make better use of collective time. The managerial question is more specific: does asking everyone to announce their priorities improve trade-offs, or mainly how those trade-offs are presented?
What the literature establishes
Edwin Locke and Gary Latham (2002, American Psychologist) synthesise research showing that specific, challenging goals can support performance, notably by directing attention and effort. This effect nevertheless depends on conditions such as commitment, feedback and the knowledge required for the task. Their review does not demonstrate that making a priority list public improves time allocation in itself.
Justifying choices changes how decisions are made
Jennifer Lerner and Philip Tetlock (1999, Psychological Bulletin) show in their review that the effects of accountability depend on its form, its timing and the audience receiving the explanation. Anticipating the need to justify a decision can encourage more careful consideration of options, but knowing the audience's preferences in advance can also encourage alignment with them. A shared board is therefore not merely a planning aid: it introduces an audience to whom choices must appear acceptable.
The premature conclusion
One might infer that publishing everyone's priorities is enough to strengthen collective discipline. These studies do not warrant that conclusion: goal specificity and the social visibility of a commitment are distinct mechanisms. A cautious application is to ask why one task takes precedence over another, without treating every revision as a sign of unreliability. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot settle
These two reviews do not directly evaluate the priority boards used in Zurich companies. They cannot establish an optimal publication frequency or show that maximum transparency would be preferable. Monitoring only adherence to initial commitments could even penalise a revision justified by new information.
A practical check in Zurich
As part of SHR's “Time Management & Prioritisation” programme, a Zurich team in financial services, insurance, tech or a European headquarters could test a shared register for four weeks, restricted to team priorities and excluding confidential data. For each priority change, the team would record the reason for the change and the work explicitly postponed. The measure would be the proportion of changes containing both elements, compared between the first and last weeks. This check would document the traceability of trade-offs without claiming to demonstrate a productivity gain. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Zurich, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Zurich
- time management & prioritisation
- Zurich
- research
- training zurich