Lore

'OR Organization' vs. 'AND Organization' (Trade-Off Avoidance Framing)

A framing Martin Eriksson quotes from a CEO's objection to being pushed toward prioritization: 'the problem with you guys is that you're an OR organization and we're an AND organization.' An AND organization resists forced trade-offs by declaring competing priorities 'equally important' and pursuing all of them; an OR organization accepts that resources are finite and forces an explicit choice.

The framing is offered as naming the actual mechanism by which executive teams dodge strategic trade-offs — 'equally important' is a way of avoiding the discomfort of ranking. It's countered concretely with Physical Prioritization via Post-it Wall Ranking (no ties allowed on the wall) and This-or-That Trade-Off Game (forcing a reaction to a binary pair), both of which make the AND-organization move structurally unavailable.

Naming What You Will Not Do

Naming What You Will Not Do (Golubovski)

Real prioritization requires explicitly naming what you will NOT do and what you're choosing to delay — not ranking every initiative "high priority." Leaders who avoid naming these trade-offs out loud are usually protecting relationships (avoiding an uncomfortable "no" to a stakeholder), not protecting the business. See Product Democracy: Consensus Decision-Making as Anti-Pattern for the decision-avoidance pattern this feeds into.