Priorities are set through a defined process and communicated explicitly to employees
NDI-ow2t74-v1 NDR-1.1.0 What changed2026-03-09
Promoted from Candidate to Standard following the March 2026 indicator review. Now meets the stability threshold for formal evaluation and citation.
Definition
The organisation maintains documented definitions of who holds authority to set, change, and arbitrate competing priorities at each level. When priority conflicts arise, the resolution pathway — including who decides and on what basis — is known without requiring informal navigation or relationship inference. Priorities are communicated explicitly to employees: employees should know which work takes precedence, when responses are expected, and whether a new request changes existing priorities. An important distinction applies: this indicator concerns whether the organisation has a governance mechanism for priority conflicts — not whether priorities ever change. Some priority change is expected in dynamic organisations. The absence of a mechanism for resolving conflicts predictably is the failure mode this indicator addresses.
Why this matters for neurodivergent employees
Priority conflicts that must be resolved through informal negotiation or political positioning create high cognitive and emotional load. Employees who cannot rely on reading implicit signals to navigate priority disputes are left with either paralysis or the risk of incorrect independent prioritization.
Evidence Criteria
This indicator can be assessed at up to three evidence layers. Not all layers apply to every indicator.
Inferred Observable from public sources
Employee reviews describe priority confusion — "constantly changing priorities," "unclear what matters most," or "everyone thinks their project is top priority" — in a notable proportion of platform reviews. Job postings that treat "managing competing priorities" as a core candidate competency without describing an organizational system for priority resolution.
Declared Publicly stated by the organization
Organization publicly describes a priority governance model that identifies who sets priorities at each organizational level and how conflicts are arbitrated. Published OKR, planning, or strategy documentation describes a defined process for priority conflict resolution.
Validated Independently verified
Accredited verifier confirms: (1) documented priority governance framework exists, (2) the framework names decision-makers by role for priority conflict scenarios, (3) employees can access the priority governance documentation without informal guidance.
Citations
Supporting
- Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737–770. [Documents how absence of clear priority authority creates political conflict in fast-moving organizational contexts.]
- Barkley, R. A. (2012). Executive Functions. Guilford Press. [Priority conflicts require the same executive functions — working memory, inhibition, planning — that are most impaired in ADHD; explicit authority removes the executive function burden of resolving them informally.]
Dissenting
- Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. Harper & Row. [Argues that managerial work is inherently fragmented and that responding to competing priorities is a legitimate aspect of complex roles, not purely an organizational design failure.]
Cite this indicator
When referencing this indicator in research or reporting:
"Priorities are set through a defined process and communicated explicitly to employees" (NDI-ow2t74-v1). Neurodivergent Enablement Indicators. atypical.business. https://atypical.business/nei/indicators/NDI-ow2t74/