At one job, in a three hour project meeting, the presenter listed no less then 8 different components that were essential/critical/vital/urgent. Since this presentation was supposedly to map out a timeline, the staff had been expecting a critical path presentation, but none was shown. So, at the end, one of the engineers asked what the critical path was.
The presenter's response was simple. "Everything's critical".
At another job, in my introductory team meeting, the group leader summarized the priorities of the department. There were 9 engineers and 7 projects being developed concurrently for 7 different customers. So, it was important that we "focus on everything". After giving me my "number one priority" on one project, he listed a second task, then a third, then a fourth. Turning to the next project, he looked at me and said "your other number one priority is to..."
Yes, the famous "other number one". Well, I guess if you believe that people can "focus on everything", that sort of requires you to be believe in multiple instances of a singleton.
In a previous role, our team was frequently hit with urgent requests from multiple leaders—each claiming their issue was the top priority. One would demand immediate action, only for another to arrive an hour later with a different “highest priority” task.
Eventually, we focused on resolving what we could realistically tackle first, since everything was treated as critical.
I once was working on four projects concurrently. Every one of them had a different project manager, and on three of the projects, I was the only person working on it. That was okay, because my manager said that those three managers said they were "just in maintenance support" and no real work was needed.
That would be news to their PMs, of course.
One day, due to an infrastructure problem in the architecture common to all of the projects, there were field issues at the same time on every project.
This led to the very amusing (to me) situatation where all three of the PMs for the projects I was the sole developer on were at my desk, in a line, asking me when I would have the fix.
The first one said it couldn't wait until the end of day, it was needed urgently now, and since you're 100% dedicated to my project, you should be able to do it. The second PM in line then told the first "what do you mean he's 100% on your project? He's on mine!". The second was in turn told the same thing by the third. Every one of them had been told, by my management, that I was dedicated 100% to their project and no other.
Which one should I work on? I said I'd work on the one my manager, who had made herself scarce, told me to. It was most amusing to see three PMs all hunting through the building for my manager while she hid from them. I got to work all day uninterrupted.
If you're 100% on three projects, does that make you 300% productive? 🤯🤣 I've also tried being "half-time" on three different projects. Spoiler alert: it's never half the stress—it's triple the chaos!
Honestly, the math of resource allocation in corporate land deserves its own fantasy genre. 🦄
It really does. Every single data point I raised showing it was unworkable was rejected by management as "being negative", including my point that the PMs wouldn't agree to it. The fact that their answer to that was "don't tell the PMs", just proved they knew it was going to fail, regardless of what they said.
And a friend got it worse than me. I just only working with PMs in the same building. He was on site, "100% allocated" to the customer. That was, until they discovered that while he was there, he was using his laptop, and the customer's network, to work on a second (and third) customer's issues.
Nothing will build customer satisfaction more than having them see the support person they're paying to have on site, hard at work and using their resources to... work on their competitor's product.
Naturally, the company said he wasn't supposed to do that, they didn't approve at all, etc. That was, until the customers saw the email chain of three levels of his management explicitly ordering him to do just that, over his objections.
Wow... that’s not just bad management — that’s a masterclass in how to lose trust with both employees and customers. 😬
It’s incredibly disrespectful to the client who’s paying for dedicated support, and just as unfair to the consultant who’s being pulled in multiple directions without transparency or backup. That’s seriously poor leadership — both strategically and in terms of basic human decency.
Being put in that kind of situation feels like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. You’re expected to deliver, but without honest communication, realistic expectations, or support from leadership, it turns into a game of stress and blame. And when developers or consultants are left to deal with the fallout from someone else’s bad decisions, it’s not just inefficient — it’s demoralizing.
Honestly, if leadership thinks “don’t tell the PMs” is a viable strategy, they’re not leading — they’re just playing corporate hide-and-seek. 🙈
I was a contractor for 20 years. Pretty much by definition, most companies I worked for were poorly managed.
I remember being amazed early on in my career that the company I was working for at the time was still in business. Another contactror, much more senior than I was, told me that as a contractor, I should expect to see that any place I worked at. "Companies that are on time and within their budgets don't need to hire contractors and pay them three times the hourly rate of their full time employees".
"If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority"
I was gonna post this... You stole it : )
And I just realised that's basically the comic's title 😅
At one job, in a three hour project meeting, the presenter listed no less then 8 different components that were essential/critical/vital/urgent. Since this presentation was supposedly to map out a timeline, the staff had been expecting a critical path presentation, but none was shown. So, at the end, one of the engineers asked what the critical path was.
The presenter's response was simple. "Everything's critical".
At another job, in my introductory team meeting, the group leader summarized the priorities of the department. There were 9 engineers and 7 projects being developed concurrently for 7 different customers. So, it was important that we "focus on everything". After giving me my "number one priority" on one project, he listed a second task, then a third, then a fourth. Turning to the next project, he looked at me and said "your other number one priority is to..."
Yes, the famous "other number one". Well, I guess if you believe that people can "focus on everything", that sort of requires you to be believe in multiple instances of a singleton.
this reminds me of the text me and my colleague had on our office wall :
the urgent things will be done today
the impossible will be deliverd tomorrow
for miracles : order 1 week in advance
Okay Bob, you really need to stop following me to work!
He is at my work place, too 😆
The use of a plural for priority is blasphemy.
In a previous role, our team was frequently hit with urgent requests from multiple leaders—each claiming their issue was the top priority. One would demand immediate action, only for another to arrive an hour later with a different “highest priority” task.
Eventually, we focused on resolving what we could realistically tackle first, since everything was treated as critical.
I once was working on four projects concurrently. Every one of them had a different project manager, and on three of the projects, I was the only person working on it. That was okay, because my manager said that those three managers said they were "just in maintenance support" and no real work was needed.
That would be news to their PMs, of course.
One day, due to an infrastructure problem in the architecture common to all of the projects, there were field issues at the same time on every project.
This led to the very amusing (to me) situatation where all three of the PMs for the projects I was the sole developer on were at my desk, in a line, asking me when I would have the fix.
The first one said it couldn't wait until the end of day, it was needed urgently now, and since you're 100% dedicated to my project, you should be able to do it. The second PM in line then told the first "what do you mean he's 100% on your project? He's on mine!". The second was in turn told the same thing by the third. Every one of them had been told, by my management, that I was dedicated 100% to their project and no other.
Which one should I work on? I said I'd work on the one my manager, who had made herself scarce, told me to. It was most amusing to see three PMs all hunting through the building for my manager while she hid from them. I got to work all day uninterrupted.
Oh my god!
If you're 100% on three projects, does that make you 300% productive? 🤯🤣 I've also tried being "half-time" on three different projects. Spoiler alert: it's never half the stress—it's triple the chaos!
Honestly, the math of resource allocation in corporate land deserves its own fantasy genre. 🦄
It really does. Every single data point I raised showing it was unworkable was rejected by management as "being negative", including my point that the PMs wouldn't agree to it. The fact that their answer to that was "don't tell the PMs", just proved they knew it was going to fail, regardless of what they said.
And a friend got it worse than me. I just only working with PMs in the same building. He was on site, "100% allocated" to the customer. That was, until they discovered that while he was there, he was using his laptop, and the customer's network, to work on a second (and third) customer's issues.
Nothing will build customer satisfaction more than having them see the support person they're paying to have on site, hard at work and using their resources to... work on their competitor's product.
Naturally, the company said he wasn't supposed to do that, they didn't approve at all, etc. That was, until the customers saw the email chain of three levels of his management explicitly ordering him to do just that, over his objections.
Wow... that’s not just bad management — that’s a masterclass in how to lose trust with both employees and customers. 😬
It’s incredibly disrespectful to the client who’s paying for dedicated support, and just as unfair to the consultant who’s being pulled in multiple directions without transparency or backup. That’s seriously poor leadership — both strategically and in terms of basic human decency.
Being put in that kind of situation feels like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. You’re expected to deliver, but without honest communication, realistic expectations, or support from leadership, it turns into a game of stress and blame. And when developers or consultants are left to deal with the fallout from someone else’s bad decisions, it’s not just inefficient — it’s demoralizing.
Honestly, if leadership thinks “don’t tell the PMs” is a viable strategy, they’re not leading — they’re just playing corporate hide-and-seek. 🙈
I was a contractor for 20 years. Pretty much by definition, most companies I worked for were poorly managed.
I remember being amazed early on in my career that the company I was working for at the time was still in business. Another contactror, much more senior than I was, told me that as a contractor, I should expect to see that any place I worked at. "Companies that are on time and within their budgets don't need to hire contractors and pay them three times the hourly rate of their full time employees".
It helps to build a very mercenary attitude.
Are those stickies? oh boy