|
Reducing Conflict By Setting Priorities
<br />
<br />By Aden Hogan,Jr.
<br />
<br />roject completion, or the lack of
<br />it, is a common source of conflict
<br />between elected officials and staff.
<br />Elected officials often have differ-
<br />ent perspectives and motivations
<br />than those of staJT members. While
<br />councilmembers may strive to
<br />respond to their constituents
<br />
<br />quickly, staff often is focused on main-
<br />taining daily operations and ongoing
<br />major projects. People will have their
<br />own expectations based on their own
<br />perspectives. Add to this fact the inevi-
<br />table special projects that arise, and you
<br />have a recipe for frustration.
<br /> One tried and tree way to set priori-
<br />ties has been to distribute a list of
<br />proposed projects and ask everyone to
<br />rate them from 1 to 5, with 1 being the
<br />most important. In light of the demands
<br />felt in most localities today, this approach
<br />might yield a list with all l's and 2's,
<br />and an occasional 3. Nearly everything
<br />is rated as "important." In an environ-
<br />ment of limited resources--money, staff,
<br />equipment, time, and so on--if all tasks
<br />are a priority, all are equal, and nothing
<br />is a true priority.
<br /> "Perception is reality." Nowhere is
<br />this statement more important to under-
<br />stand than in setting organizational
<br />priorities. Consider the old 1-through-
<br />5 rating system. Each member of a
<br />goals-setting team may have a different
<br />perception of what a 2 is. Without
<br />common definitions, the seeds of frus-
<br />tration are planted before you begin.
<br /> So the first order of business should
<br />be to write a set of definitions for the
<br />rating scale that everyone can agree upon.
<br />Once this task is completed, an impor-
<br />tant component of the priority-setting
<br />process still is missing: evaluative criteria.
<br /> Why has something been rated a 1,
<br />2, 3, 4 or 5? What has made one item
<br />more or less important than another?
<br />This is the role evaluative criteria play
<br />in the priority-setting process. A set of
<br />relevant criteria used as a filter to assign
<br />
<br />a priority rating to a project, task or
<br />goal will make the result more effective.
<br />Of course, these cntem will differ with
<br />the political, economic, and cultur,xl
<br />makeup of the community,.
<br /> Determining the criteria to use is
<br />difficult, but these standards are critical
<br />to successful prioritization. Without
<br />them, there will be less discussion and
<br />evaluation and, in the end, a less stable
<br />set of priorities. If good criteria aren't
<br />used to set the priorities, there will be
<br />inevitable pressure to change the poor
<br />ones being used, thus destroying the
<br />prioritization effort and wasting the
<br />resources used in this process.
<br />
<br /> To maximize a system's effectiveness,
<br />use at least three and no more than five
<br />priority ratings and no more than five
<br />or six criteria. Using more of either
<br />tool tends to dilute the value of each
<br />rating or criterion. The criteria can be
<br />weighted if desired. It is essential that
<br />the group setting the priorities agrees
<br />on the criteria, the ratings, and their
<br />definitions.
<br /> With these tools in hand, setting
<br />priorities becomes tkirly simple. To
<br />develop a set of priorities for a specific
<br />timeframe, each team member considers
<br />each proposed project, task or goal on
<br />its own merit. Individually, each group
<br />member evaluates each item against the
<br />
<br />criteria established by the group and
<br />assigns it a priority rating according to
<br />the criterion. The criteria ratings for
<br />each item are then averaged to arrive at
<br />a composite rating for this item. Finally,
<br />all the ratings from each group member
<br />are averaged together for each item,
<br />coming up with an overall, prioritized
<br />list of projects.
<br /> The decision-making group should
<br />come back together one more time to
<br />go over the results of the process and to
<br />reach an agreement on the final list of
<br />prioritized projects. From here, it be-
<br />comes an issue of matching resources to
<br />the top priorities.
<br /> Outside of a true emergency, it is
<br />critical to operational success to stick to
<br />this list of priorities. Making changes
<br />during the term of the priorities list will
<br />raise the chance that one or more pti-
<br />orities won't be met. An organization
<br />is more effective if it keeps the list of
<br />major projects for any given year to no
<br />more than 10, if possible. A number
<br />between five and eight is even better.
<br /> Remember, the more projects you
<br />give a high priority, the less important
<br />each item in the list becomes. The
<br />objective is to finish major projects. If
<br />you get some task done early, you can
<br />always move up the next project in the
<br />queue.
<br /> Using this type of quantitative
<br />approach is more easily defended against
<br />claims of favoritism or pet projects.
<br />Importantly, it generates a priority list
<br />that is a project of the entire elected
<br />body. It also helps remove some of the
<br />emotion from the mix, making it easier
<br />for us all to get along. ~r
<br />
<br />Aden Hogan, Jr., is town administrator of
<br />Parker, Colorado. This article is reprinted
<br />by permission from the December 2000
<br />issue of Colorado Municipalities magazine,
<br />a publication of the Colorado Municipal
<br />League.
<br />
<br />SEPTEMBER 2001 MINNESOTA CITIES 13
<br />
<br />
<br />
|