Define "important" explicitly as a team

Before sorting tasks, align on what "important" means — which goals, for whom, over what time horizon.

Why it works

In a team, "important" is not self-evident: it depends on which goals are prioritized, whose goals, and over what horizon. When this is left implicit, each person sorts by their own implicit definition, producing disagreements that look like prioritization disputes but are actually definition disputes. Making the definition explicit means disagreements surface as goal conflicts — the real issue — rather than appearing as personality or judgment differences.

How to do it

1. Start any team prioritization session by writing the team’s top two or three goals on a shared surface.
2. For each goal, ask: over what time horizon, and how does it trade off against the others if there’s a conflict?
3. Define "important" as: directly advances one of these goals.
4. Review the definition together before sorting any tasks — save the sort until the definition is agreed.

Evidence

Goal clarity is one of the most robust predictors of team performance in organizational research. Ambiguity in shared goals produces uncoordinated effort, while explicit goal alignment reduces coordination costs. Defining importance explicitly applies this principle to the prioritization step. (observational)

Goal clarity research is robust in general; the specific application to the Eisenhower matrix in team settings is a practitioner extension, not a separately studied intervention.

Sources

• Locke & Latham (2002), "Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting", American Psychologist

Common mistake

Assuming that the team agrees on what "important" means because everyone nods at the company mission. The mission is usually too abstract to resolve actual task-priority disputes; you need operationalized, current-quarter goals.