When “Priority” Was Singular — and Why That Still Matters

This idea was sparked by a comment from my pastor that stopped me cold: The word “priority” used to be singular. 😳

Historically, priority meant first — from the Latin prior. For centuries, you had one priority. Not many. Not ranked. Just the first thing.

Somewhere in the 20th century, as work and life grew more complex, we pluralized it. We started talking about priorities— as if multiple things could all be first at the same time.

That small linguistic shift had a big consequence.

By calling everything a priority, we avoided hard choices. We replaced trade-offs with lists. The result is familiar in modern business: motion without traction, activity without progress.

As Greg McKeown notes in Essentialism, when everything is a priority, nothing truly is.

A singular priority doesn’t mean doing less forever. It means deciding what comes first now — and letting that decision shape everything else.

So here’s the real question:

If priority were still singular, what would have to change about how you’re working right now?

That’s not a productivity question. It's a leadership one.

As I'm thinking of my going FOR NO, I need to know what I'm going FOR NO for 😬

4 comments