Prioritisation: why do workload warnings go unspoken?
Prioritisation tools assume that actual constraints reach the person making the trade-offs. The managerial question is therefore specific: how can a team flag an unmanageable workload before a missed deadline makes the problem undeniable?
What the literature establishes
Amy Edmondson (1999, Administrative Science Quarterly) finds an association between team psychological safety and learning behaviours, including discussing errors and seeking feedback. Psychological safety here means a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. This research does not directly address schedules, but it illuminates one condition for making them realistic: being able to disclose a difficulty without fearing interpersonal repercussions.
Managerial openness beyond the invitation to speak
James R. Detert and Ethan R. Burris (2007, Academy of Management Journal) link managerial openness to employees speaking up to improve organisational functioning, with perceived psychological safety playing a mediating role. Their study invites a distinction between a formal invitation to speak and the perceived possibility of actually doing so. Applied to prioritisation, the mechanism suggests that a request to flag excessive workloads loses credibility when warnings are treated as a lack of commitment.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that encouraging everyone to say they lack time is enough. Yet a warning is neither an objective measure of capacity nor proof that a deadline should move. It is information to investigate: which task is at risk, what constraint is involved, and what trade-off is needed? (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
These studies do not test a time management method or demonstrate that greater freedom to speak automatically reduces delays. Better reporting may initially make excessive workloads more visible without changing available resources. Counting warnings is therefore insufficient: their absence may reflect either a manageable workload or cautious silence.
A practical check in Fribourg
Within SHR's “Time Management & Prioritisation” programme, an exercise applicable in Fribourg is to trial a capacity-warning register for four weeks in an agri-food team, a bilingual industrial unit or a university support service. Each warning, which can be submitted in French or German, identifies the task at risk, its deadline and the constraint; the manager then records an explicit prioritisation decision or a request for information. The main measure is the proportion of warnings receiving a documented decision before the relevant deadline, distinguishing a simple acknowledgement from a decision about workload. This proposed protocol, which has not been validated by the cited studies, checks whether speaking up produces a prioritisation decision rather than merely recognition of the problem. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Fribourg, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Fribourg
- time management & prioritisation
- Fribourg
- research
- training fribourg