Are You Solving the Real Problem or the Visible One?
A few months ago, I was in Atlanta going through TSA. Long line. Really long. The checkpoint was short-staffed, and anyone could see it.
What I also noticed: they'd brought in ICE agents to manage the line. Agents who are not trained in TSA responsibilities. Not authorized to do the actual screening. And here's the part that bugged me - TSA agents weren't at home playing Fortnite. They were working second jobs because they hadn't been paid in weeks.
So the line didn't move. It couldn't. The problem wasn't the line. The problem was an upstream government bottleneck resulting in staffing and pay decisions that nobody in that airport had the authority to fix.
I walked away (slowly) thinking, "I see this everywhere."
We add bodies to a problem. We create more Slack channels. We schedule another weekly check-in. We call it a solution. Meanwhile, the actual source of the problem is sitting upstream, untouched, because addressing it is harder, slower, or politically uncomfortable.
That's the difference between optimizing what's visible and prioritizing what's real.
Optimization and Prioritization Are Not the Same Thing
Optimization is making something faster, leaner, or smoother.
Prioritization is deciding what deserves to exist at all.
I teach a lot of optimization. I love a good system. But I've watched people spend enormous energy making something more efficient that never should have been there in the first place. It's like researching which door to put between two offices when it should really be a wall. No door needed.
Work example: your team's chat channels are out of control. People are getting pinged all day. So you create more specific channels. You color-code, mute, and set up folders. That's optimization. It might help at the margins. But it doesn't touch the real problem: probably that your team has no shared understanding of what channel is for what kind of communication—or they don't have a project management system, so they're using chat for status updates that nobody should be messaging about in the first place.
If you had a project management system, a lot of those messages wouldn't exist. That's the upstream fix.
Same thing happens outside of work. You're overwhelmed by everything that goes on in the household. So you buy a planner. Download an app. Set up reminders. That's optimization. The upstream question is: who actually needs to be involved in each of these decisions, and is there anything on this list that doesn't need to happen at all? Am I cleaning baseboards weekly when quarterly would do? Am I still doing my kid's laundry when that's a life skill they should learn? Those questions are harder. They're also the ones that actually reduce the load.
The Relentless Prioritization Filter
I've been developing and refining this filter for years. It's now the framework at the center of my new book, The Right Things First: A Pocket Guide to Relentless Prioritization.
Three questions. Asked in order. The order matters.
Question One: What Is the Real Bottleneck?
Not the thing people complain about. Not the symptom. The thing causing the problem.
Think about what a bottle looks like. The neck is narrow, and it doesn't matter how much is in the bottle if the flow is restricted at the exit point. You can have incredible talent, real budget, the right intentions — and still be stuck, because nobody has named where the flow is actually breaking down.
And that's the key word: named.
If we don't name it, we can't fix it.
Here's what makes that harder than it sounds: bottleneck identification carries a social risk. Naming a bottleneck might mean naming a person. Maybe a system leadership invested a lot of money in. Maybe a decision that came from the top. So people don't say it. They build elaborate workarounds and call them solutions.
What I've built at RaderCo: for a stretch, every Friday, someone had to come to the table with a bottleneck. We eliminated so many. It's still a standing question in our processes.
The version that works in teams: make it a standing agenda item. "Has anyone found a bottleneck this week?" Ask each person to bring one to share among the group. If you're a leader, go further: ask them to share one that involves you. That's the move that actually changes the culture. When people hear their leader say, "If I’m the bottleneck here, I want to know about it," it opens the door for everyone else to do the same.
You can also use brainwriting before the discussion - people write their observations independently before anyone talks. It surfaces the real answers before anyone can self-censor.
Quarterly recognition for the team or person who finds and solves the most bottlenecks is worth considering, too. Reward what you want to see.
For a deeper look at how to build this culture, read: Celebrating Bottlenecks: Why Replacing Obstacles Can Supercharge Business Growth
Question Two: What Would Remove It Entirely - Not Just Improve It a Little?
Most people skip this question. We go straight to "how do we make this better?" We don't ask whether we could make it not exist.
Some things can't be removed entirely. I get that. But you'd be surprised how many can, once you ask directly.
If the bottleneck is decision approval, you might improve it with a faster escalation path. But you might eliminate it by creating a decision rights document — so people know which decisions they already have the authority to make without asking. Parameters like: if it costs less than $X, you can fix it. Over $X, escalate.
If the bottleneck is status meetings, you might improve them by shortening them. Or you might eliminate them by moving to a project management system, so everyone can see the current status without a meeting. Nobody needs a meeting to answer "where are we?" if the answer is already visible.
If the bottleneck is approval on routine client communications, you might improve it by batching your approvals. Or you might eliminate it by building approved language templates — so the approval step is no longer required for standard messages.
If the bottleneck is the onboarding questions a manager gets every time someone new joins, you might improve it by adding office hours. Or you might eliminate it by building a real onboarding guide with FAQs and a few short screen-capture videos, so the question doesn't need to be asked.
The question to keep asking yourself: am I still involved in this because I need to be, or because we haven't decided I don't need to be?
That distinction alone is worth a lot of hours back.
Here's the honest counterpart: there's a reason we don't ask this question enough. Sometimes the bottleneck is a conversation nobody wants to have. Sometimes it's a budget decision. Sometimes the answer requires asking someone senior to step out of a process they like being in. As one director put it in a training: "I just realized I'm inserting myself into too many meetings and people are either afraid to speak up or just waiting for me to make the decision."
Optimization is easier. You can optimize without ruffling feathers. Which is exactly why we default to it.
Question Three: Why Are We Solving Around It Instead?
This question is about honesty.
Are we optimizing because the bottleneck is the boss, and nobody's going to say that in a meeting?
Are we optimizing because we paid $50,000 for a system and don't think we can also afford the $7,000 in training to actually use it — so we're patching it with YouTube tutorials and hoping for the best?
Are we optimizing because it feels like progress even when it isn't?
I've seen all three. I've probably done all three.
The goal of this question isn't to assign blame. It's to get honest about whether the solution you're considering is real or whether it's just within your comfort zone. We tend to solve the problems that are safe to name - not the ones causing the actual damage.
Once You Have a Proposed Solution: The Three-Part Check
Before you commit to any fix, run it through this:
Does this reduce or eliminate the bottleneck or conflict? If the answer is "reduces," fine. Keep going. But if there's another path that eliminates it entirely, ask whether you're choosing "reduces" because it's genuinely the right call or because it's easier.
Does this eliminate downstream decisions? Every time you add a process, a system, or a policy, ask: Does this create fewer decisions or more? Moving to a project management system doesn't just give you visibility into status. It removes the need for status messages, status follow-ups, and the decision of whether to follow up. You've eliminated a whole category of small decisions. That's the right direction.
(Slack and Teams are not project management systems. I say this a lot. You cannot project-manage in a chat tool. Episode 41: Why Companies Will Never Get Out of Email Hell covers exactly why.)
Does this protect capacity or energy? Energy counts as a resource. Your team's attention is finite. Your focus is finite. If the solution technically works but requires your people to spend cognitive energy tracking, managing, or checking in on it, that cost matters. Account for it.
If any of the three answers isn't "yes," it may not be a solution. It might be an improvement. Improvements are worth something. But they're not the same thing, and stopping at improvement and calling it solved is how the real problem survives another quarter.
One more thing: pilot everything. Call it a pilot. Run it for 30, 60, 90 days and ask whether it worked. The word "pilot" removes the anxiety of having to succeed. It's just what you're testing right now. After the pilot period, ask the question: Did this work, and if not, why?
Not every action is progress. The pilot framing gives you permission to evaluate and adjust without it becoming a failure of character.
This Works Everywhere
The filter isn't just for work.
Health: if driving to the gym is your bottleneck, you can optimize it — find a slightly closer gym, pack your bag the night before. Or ask: what would remove this bottleneck entirely? If a 35-minute drive is the issue, a home gym eliminates the excuse. You transfer the membership cost to equipment, lose the commute, and remove the friction entirely. You roll out of bed and go.
Meal planning, sleep, recovery — same questions. Where's the real bottleneck? What removes it entirely? Are you solving around it because the real answer requires a bigger change?
You can apply this to commuting, to how you run your household, to how you manage your own calendar. The questions are the same. The order is the same. What's the real bottleneck? What removes it entirely, and why are you working around it?
The Book
The Relentless Prioritization Filter is the framework at the center of The Right Things First: A Pocket Guide to Relentless Prioritization.
"Pocket guide" is literal. It fits in your pocket. This isn't a 300-page business book you read once and shelve. It's a tool. It's meant to sit on your desk, get handed to a teammate, get included in a manager's onboarding kit. Designed to be used repeatedly, in real situations, by real teams.
It's available in packs of ten or more, priced for organizations, teams, conference attendees, and groups who want to work from the same page.
If you're planning a leadership retreat, a conference, or a team offsite this fall, this is worth ordering ahead.
Order The Right Things First at helloraderco.com/therighthingsfirst →
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Relentless Prioritization Filter? The Relentless Prioritization Filter is a three-question prioritization framework for teams to identify the root cause of what's slowing them down, rather than optimizing the visible symptoms. The three questions are: What is the real bottleneck? What would remove it entirely? Why are we solving around it instead?
What is the difference between optimization and prioritization? Optimization makes something faster, leaner, or smoother. Prioritization decides whether something deserves to exist at all. Teams that optimize without prioritizing first often spend significant effort improving processes that should be eliminated entirely.
How do you identify the real bottleneck on a team? Separate the symptom from the source. The thing people complain about is rarely the actual problem — it's usually downstream of a decision, system, or assumption that hasn't been named. A standing agenda item asking "what's the real bottleneck this week?" with each person writing their answer independently before discussion surfaces more honest answers than open group conversation.
How do I know if a proposed solution is actually a solution? Run it through the three-part solution check: Does it reduce or eliminate the bottleneck? Does it eliminate downstream decisions rather than create more? Does it protect your team's capacity and energy? If any answer is no, you have an improvement — not a solution.
What is The Right Things First? The Right Things First: A Pocket Guide to Relentless Prioritization is a pocket-sized book by Marcey Rader built around the Relentless Prioritization Filter. It's designed to be used repeatedly by real teams, not read once and shelved. Available in packs of ten or more at helloraderco.com/therighthingsfirst.
Related Resources
- Celebrating Bottlenecks: Why Replacing Obstacles Can Supercharge Business Growth
- Embrace the Bottlenecks
- Episode 123: Don't Improve the Symptom Before You Address the Source
- Episode 41: Why Companies Will Never Get Out of Email Hell
- Why Companies Will Never Get Out of Email Hell
- The Right Things First: A Pocket Guide to Relentless Prioritization — available in packs of 10 or more. Official launch September 8, 2026.
Marcey Rader is a Certified Speaking Professional®, TEDx speaker, and five-time author. She helps teams do better through relentless prioritization, attention management, and sustainable performance habits. Learn more at helloraderco.com.
