A principle is a starting point, a point from which something proceeds.
A priority is a principle upon which something else depends for existence or action. 3
Human beings simultaneously practice three types of priorities in each decision we make:
Day-to-Day or Tactical Priorities order the urgent tasks of the day. We practice these priorities in relation to our immediate circumstances, which force us to make quick decisions in the present. Usually external forces impose their will on us to affect the priority.
Strategic Priorities order those activities or initiatives that take more time to develop and require focus over an extended period of time. We practice these priorities daily in relation to some life or business plan, or overarching vision of our personal and professional purpose. Strategic priorities tend to be self-defined according to opportunities we seek in our personal life, the broader market, and the competition we face.
Core Priorities order the fundamental elements of our lives individually and as members of organizations. We practice these priorities in relation to those activities embedded in our individual hard-wiring and touch our very nature as human beings or organizations. These priorities chiefly relate to ends, not purposes; they flow from personal or organizational necessity, not from deliberate choice or individual hopes and dreams. Just as a triangle cannot exist without the priority of point and line, we cannot exist and function correctly as persons or organizations without acknowledging and aligning ourselves to core priorities. For organizations, core priorities are foundational to creating unity within and amongst diverse cultures, particularly for multi-national firms.
Teamwork is our capacity to cooperate toward a common purpose or end or goal. Character and competence are also required to get things done the right way. When working in teams, tension can be created with respect to the conflict between getting along and getting things done right.
“Getting along” is a priority essentially connected to “teamwork.” Teamwork is an integral part of the nature of business and leadership education.
When everyone pulls their weight and makes a good effort, the priority of getting along is easier to accept and so too are the business benefits of practicing it. Tough times, crisis situations, reveal the character of each team member. Some team members can become freeloaders (reaping good grades that do not reflect their true level of understanding) and others can suffer worse grades than they should have. Getting along is tougher when we are not getting it right. Codes of Conduct naturally force us to come to terms with both priorities of “getting it right” and “getting along.”
A failure to understand the primacy of priorities can increase the risk of trivializing them or using “getting it right” as an excuse for not “getting along”. In business, when we put “getting along” over “getting it right,” we end up with a country club environment that economists see as evidence of a “free cash flow” problem.
Sometimes we trust too much when we should also verify. Our sense of loyalty clouds our willingness to engage the complexity of the situation. It becomes easier to “go with the flow” and to accept the “party line” when our experience tells us that the data is not sufficient or the facts do not feel right. When an organization, and a business especially, fails to get these priorities straight, it reaps severe consequences over the long haul. Bets with or against reality have practical implications for the daily decisions that we make.
Real leaders want people who will tell them the truth. Yet they can find themselves surrounded by “yes men.” “Getting it right” means finding the right way to communicate the essence of things without creating so much emotional friction that the message is drowned out by the noise. Both priorities are important.
“Getting it right” at the exclusion of “getting along” has significant consequences, too. We human beings are hardwired for friendship and community. Getting along requires us to have respectful and difficult discussions that lead to a deeper understanding of another person’s view or experience. These discussions require a capacity for empathy, courage, flexibility, and self control.
Absolutists walk away from these discussions because they lay claim to the “whole truth” without considering that their lack of open-mindedness restricts their capacity rationally to understand. In ethics, this absolutist view is found in a “divine command” view of right and wrong.
Curtis Hancock, Ph. D., a scholar on our team, writes in his book How Should I Live?10 that the divine command view accepts that what is ethical is set forth in a holy book, and thatproclamation lays to rest any dialogue or willingness to reason. He argues that, in fact, these holy books really only state what is already known to be true by those who have carefully reasoned about the nature of human beings.Because the absolutists make no effort to “get along” through rational dialogue, they also fail to “get it right” because they limit themselves to a stagnant pool of unreflective ethical thought.
Alternatively, “getting along” at the exclusion of “getting it right” leads to indifference and non-judgmentalism. Tolerance is an important value in most cultures, and we are reluctant to pass judgment on others. Paradoxically, business leaders are expected to function in their capacity by exercising judgment and holding themselves and their employees accountable to rightly ordered behavior and performance. At the same time, most leaders who cannot get along with others and build up relationships end up not being effective. “Getting along” is a very important priority for the success of organizations as they collaborate toward a common end or shared purpose.
“Getting it right” and “getting along” are two critical priorities to one’s success in a professional career. These two priorities can act as a good theme we explore other core priorities at work in our business lives.
Excerpted from: “Getting it Right and Getting Along”- by Peter Charles DeMarco
3. This thinking is an application of the work of Peter Redpath, Ph.D., Research Fellow at the Institute 4 Priority Thinking, and Full Professor of Philosophy at St. John’s University (NY).
10. Feezell, Randolph M. and Curtis L. Hancock. How Should I Live?: Philosophical Conversations about Moral Life. Paragon House: 1991.