Prioritising: is postponing a task a neutral decision?
In a crowded schedule, taking action generally requires justification; leaving a task pending sometimes requires less. The managerial question is precise: do we apply the same criteria to the consequences of acting and those of postponing?
What the literature establishes
Mark Spranca, Elisa Minsk and Jonathan Baron (1991, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology) show, through experimental scenarios, that harmful outcomes can be judged less severely when they result from an omission rather than an action. Their research concerns judgment and choice, not the management of professional schedules. It nevertheless provides a reason not to treat non-intervention as an inherently neutral category.
The risk of acting is more visible than the risk of waiting
Ilana Ritov and Jonathan Baron (1990, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making) examine this asymmetry in hypothetical vaccination decisions, also investigating the role of ambiguity. The risk associated with intervention can encourage reluctance to act, even when inaction also carries a risk. Applied cautiously to prioritisation, this mechanism suggests a question: is the potential harm of intervention discussed more explicitly than that of postponement?
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that managers should intervene more often or accelerate preventive tasks. That would replace a possible bias with a general preference for action: waiting can preserve resources, avoid unnecessary intervention or allow decisive information to emerge. The reasonable requirement is a symmetrical comparison of consequences, not a presumption in favour of immediate execution. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these findings cannot settle
These studies measure neither the prevalence of this bias in Swiss organisations nor its effect on completion times. In practice, a task may remain pending because staff, authorisation or equipment are unavailable, without omission bias being involved. A postponement register can therefore support scrutiny of decision quality, but cannot by itself establish the psychological origins of those decisions.
A practical check in Sion
Within SHR's time management and prioritisation programme, one possible exercise in Sion is to examine the postponement of non-critical tasks: documentation upkeep in hydropower, administrative organisation in healthcare, non-urgent maintenance in viticulture or equipment preparation in Alpine tourism. For two weeks, record every postponement agreed during a work review, noting the expected consequences of acting, those of postponing, the person responsible for the decision and the review date, without changing any safety obligations. The measure is the proportion of recorded postponements for which all four elements are documented. It checks decision traceability, not productivity gains or whether each postponement was appropriate. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Sion in the canton of Valais, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Sion
- time management & prioritisation
- Sion
- research
- training sion