At work, we use a priority classification with the following values:
- Priority 0 (most urgent)
- Priority 1 (less urgent than previous p0)
- Priority 2 (less urgent than previous p1)
- Priority 3 (least urgent)
I've listed them in this order as I see them in order of descending or lesser importance, as you go down the list.
My boss recently sent me an email with of prioritised tasks. She stated that "These are in in descending priority", and they were listed as
- P3 —- butter task
- P3 —- cake task
- P3 —- apple task
- etc.
- P2 —- chocolate task
- P1 —- cookie task
However she expects that above defined importance is applied to the list
I wonder if either of our understandings of descending when applied to priority is flawed with respect to a common sense understanding.
FYI : We're English speaking New Zealanders to give you a cultural context.
Best Answer
I would imagine she is referring to the number system assigned to the priorities. For her Priority 0, despite arguably being the "highest" along the conceptual scale of priority, is the lowest, as zero is obviously the lowest of the assigned numbers. Since you both are immediately familiar with the numbering, it wouldn't be unreasonable for her to expect you to understand.
I don't have any solid sourcing to back up this claim, save one anecdote. While doing a project on social policy, a friend asked me to give her the "smallest" bill first. I assumed, since we had hard copies, that she meant the shortest one in length, but in reality she meant the one with the lowest assigned number (and hence earliest). Maybe some people think more in terms of labels than properties?
If this was only in one email, have you ruled out it being a typo? I know I mess up terms for orderings all the time.