Prioritising: should you narrow the options before deciding?
Planning tools make many possible tasks visible without always helping people choose which one deserves the next available slot. The management question is specific: does presenting a shortlist rather than the full list enable faster decisions without excluding an essential priority?
What the literature establishes
Sheena S. Iyengar and Mark R. Lepper (2000, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) show, in experiments involving consumer choices and an academic assignment, among other settings, that a larger assortment can attract more interest without encouraging action. Under some of the conditions studied, a smaller selection makes people more likely to engage with the choice offered. These findings suggest a possible cost of abundance, but do not demonstrate that a long task list systematically slows prioritisation at work.
A second study that changes the scope of the finding
Benjamin Scheibehenne, Rainer Greifeneder and Peter M. Todd (2010, Journal of Consumer Research) re-examined choice overload in a meta-analysis. The average effect was virtually zero, with substantial variation between studies. Difficulty therefore cannot be attributed to the number of options alone: a general rule to reduce them would lack sufficient support.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that managers should always present their teams with a shortlist. That would confuse a simpler display with better judgement: a selection can speed up a decision while concealing a regulatory obligation or a critical dependency. The issue proposed here is not limiting work already started, but checking how filtering options affects the choice of the next task. (our executive and employee training programmes)
The limits of the evidence and of conventional lists
These studies do not directly compare prioritisation methods in Geneva businesses. Professional choices involve responsibilities, deadlines and consequences for others that experimental settings reproduce only partially. Conversely, a supposedly exhaustive list does not guarantee an informed decision if its tasks are presented without comparable criteria.
A practical check in Genève
One possible exercise within SHR's “Time Management & Prioritisation” programme is to compare, using anonymised cases, a full list with a shortlist built around explicit criteria, while keeping the full list accessible. In Geneva, cases could involve a private banking file, a briefing for an international organisation, a luxury watch order or a commodity trading transaction, with mandatory obligations defined before the exercise. Alternate the formats between participants and measure the time from presentation of the case to a reasoned choice, then have omitted obligations reviewed by an assessor unaware of the format used. A faster decision is a favourable outcome only if omissions do not increase; this trial remains a local check, not evidence of universal superiority. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Geneva, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Geneva
- time management & prioritisation
- Geneva
- research
- training geneva