The problem with the Eisenhower matrix.
The grid assumes everyone knows what "urgent" means. They don't. Put one list in front of ten people and you'll get ten versions of urgent. Here's why that matters, and how to fix it.
In short: the Eisenhower matrix is a good thinking aid with three weak spots. Urgency is subjective. People are drawn to urgent work even when it pays less. And the four boxes hide how strongly people feel. Define your terms, vote privately, and look at the spread of votes, not just the average.
1. Urgency is in the eye of the beholder
Importance has an anchor, if you name your goals. Urgency often doesn't. Ask a team what makes something urgent and you'll hear several answers:
- It has a deadline soon.
- Someone senior is asking about it.
- A client is waiting.
- It will cost more if we leave it.
- It's stressing me out.
All of those are reasonable. They lead to very different scores. When one person scores an item 9 for urgency and another scores it 2, they are often using different definitions of the word.
On a shared whiteboard, you can't see this. One sticky note goes up and everyone works around it. Average the scores in a spreadsheet and you hide it again. Two items can have the same average, one because everyone agrees and one because the room is split down the middle.
2. We chase urgency even when it pays less
In 2018, Meng Zhu, Yang Yang and Christopher Hsee published a set of experiments in the Journal of Consumer Research. They called the result the mere urgency effect. People chose tasks with short deadlines over tasks with bigger rewards, even when the urgent task's deadline made no practical difference. The effect was stronger in people who felt busy. It weakened when people were prompted to think about the payoff at the moment of choosing.
That's the problem the matrix was meant to solve. But it also means the scoring itself is biased. An item that feels pressing pulls its importance score up with it. The two axes leak into each other.
3. Four boxes hide how strongly people feel
An item just inside "Do it first" and one deep in the corner get the same label. A task scored 5.1 for urgency and one scored 9.8 are treated alike. Boxes are easy to act on. They also throw away information. A scored grid, with each item placed on a scale, keeps the detail.
Other common criticisms
- "Delegate" assumes someone to delegate to. In a small team or for a solo worker, quadrant 3 often has nowhere to go.
- It ignores effort. Two important tasks can differ tenfold in the work they take. Impact and effort covers that. Compare the methods.
- It's a snapshot. Urgency changes daily. A grid from last quarter misleads.
- Importance needs a goal. Without stated goals, "important" becomes "what I care about".
Five fixes that make it work
- Define both axes before anyone scoresUrgent: must start within a set time, such as four weeks. Important: supports one of the goals you name. Put the definitions on screen.
- Score on a scale, not into boxesPlace each item from 0 to 10 on each axis. You keep the detail and can still read off the quadrant.
- Vote privately, reveal togetherNobody sees a score until everyone has voted. This removes the anchor.
- Look at the spread, not just the averageFlag items where votes are far apart. Talk about those first.
- Vote again after the discussionIf people converge, the disagreement was about meaning. If they don't, you've found a real decision to make.
That's how the Eisenhower matrix for teams on this site works. Each item shows its average and a cloud for the spread. Split items go to the top of the list. If you set groups, you can see whether leaders and team see an item differently.
So is the Eisenhower matrix worth using?
Yes, with care. It's a quick way to surface what's being neglected, and it gives a team a shared language for time. Treat it as the start of a conversation. The value comes from finding out where people disagree, and why.
Questions
What are the disadvantages of the Eisenhower matrix?
Urgency is subjective, so people score the same item very differently. Urgent tasks pull attention even when they pay less. The four boxes hide how strongly people feel. It ignores effort. And "delegate" assumes someone to delegate to.
Is the Eisenhower matrix effective?
For noticing neglected work, yes. As a precise ranking tool, less so. It works best with agreed definitions, private scoring and a look at where people disagree.
What are good alternatives to the Eisenhower matrix?
Impact and effort for choosing between projects, MoSCoW for fixed scope, and a 100-point budget for forcing trade-offs. A side-by-side comparison.
Source: Zhu, M., Yang, Y. and Hsee, C. K. (2018). The mere urgency effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(3), 673. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucy008