2
The Curse of Efficiency
Righto: chapter 2. First, though, let me tell you something about one of the biggest challenges of writing a book — getting the sequence right. I want to unpack so much goodness with you, but before we get there, we need to appreciate the context that goodness serves. The concepts of this book are best shared in a certain order, so that the value of ideas may be fully appreciated.
You might have already noticed, but what we are doing here in part I is essentially ‘framing the problem'. This is an incredibly useful thing to do if you're looking to prime people to be more receptive to an idea. And the idea of this book is a big one — leaders need to systematically go against the grain of default thinking, efficiency and busyness (heresy!), and pioneer uphill, through doubt, angst and uncertainty (madness!) in order to future-proof relevance and obtain strategic advantage. This is too important a notion to not have the problem framed correctly first.
Now you're probably somewhat savvy with The Curse of Efficiency already. And you probably recognise that relentless busyness crowds out our time for good strategic development and meaningful progress. But we can't jump to the answer just yet. After all, leading quests means pursuing better questions — not easy answers. And as you'll discover in part III, staying within the angst of the challenge, resisting the urge to jump to quick fixes and conclusive solutions, is a discipline we need to foster — individually and collectively as leaders. Otherwise, we are only perpetuating the existing paradigm of convenient but shallow default thinking.
This is something I see happen in organisations all too often — someone has a brilliant idea, and begins to promote said idea to their colleagues, only to be met with stiff resistance or general indifference. Bah! What ignorant dinosaurs! Why can't they just appreciate how brilliant this idea could be?
Well, a few things are getting in the way — including the fact that ideas are cheap and often poorly framed[1] — but the main thing is that new ideas pose a real threat to people's time. Especially when everyone is so busy being efficient.
THE PROGRESS DELUSION
If I had a dollar for every time someone said they were busy, I'd probably have … a few hundred dollars.[2] Being busy has become the new badge of honour. Part of this perception is because we have allowed such a work culture to percolate, but a big part of this is because busyness is just so darn rewarding.
In my previous book, The Game Changer, I raved about the illuminating research into workplace motivation delivered by Professor Teresa Amabile and Professor Steven Kramer. This research all started with the question ‘What makes employees enthusiastic about work?' — an important question for anyone in management or leadership.
And so, more than 600 managers (from dozens of companies, and at different levels) were asked to rank five workplace factors commonly considered significant in influencing motivation: recognition for good work, incentives and rewards, interpersonal support, clear goals and targets, and a clear sense of progress.
These are all good answers, of course (indeed, the selection of these factors was the result of several meta-analyses). But ‘recognition for good work' emerged as the factor considered most powerful at positively influencing motivation.
It's definitely a great factor, but this result came only from the managers. So Amabile and Kramer also explored this concept with employees, following a bunch of people from different companies over several years, and analysing over 12 000 journal entries to see what correlated to the highest level of motivation at work. It turns out, the number one thing that was most important to the employees was actually what the managers ranked dead last — a clear sense of progress.
That's right — the more we sense that our effort is contributing to progress, the more likely we are to stay motivated to invest effort. This Progress Principle was recognised as the #1 breakthrough idea by the Harvard Business Review in 2010 — and it makes a whole lot of sense.
When it comes to leading for the future of work, providing visibility of progress is our most important opportunity.
This applies to nearly all types of work — from formulaic routine work right through to risky pioneering work. Essentially, the more we reduce the latency between effort and meaningful feedback, the more effort we get.
And so, creating visibility of progress, and using a combination of structures and rituals to recognise and celebrate small daily wins is an incredibly important calibration for leadership in the future of work.
This requirement is far less about fixating upon specific, distant targets, and much more about making work that is inherently motivating. Pay people well, and design and lead work that provides people with a rich sense of progress. This, in turn, contributes to work cultures that are much more future-proof — nimble, adaptive and responsive to change.
Think about it like this. Imagine, earlier in your career, you were given an important piece of research to do. Your boss explains that some colleagues are visiting from overseas and she needs this research completed by Monday morning. You are already very busy but, like many of us, you're terrible at saying no — so you say yes, and you go about doing this research (staying back late and even working on the weekend). The research is hard work but it's kind of exciting and interesting too. On Sunday night, you email off the research report.
Monday comes and no word arrives from your boss. You begin to think that perhaps she did not receive the email, but you check and, yes, the email was definitely sent. You figure she must be busy with her guests. Tuesday arrives and still no word. All you want to know is that she received the report okay — it's like an open loop in your mind, a cognitive dissonance that must be closed. You send an email to check.
Finally, on Wednesday morning you receive an email back from your boss, which simply says: ‘Thanks — turns out I didn't need it.'
Bah! I mean, it's nice that she acknowledged it — but you're not even sure that she read your research. And, thus, somewhat deflated you resolve that, should a similar request be made in the future, you're probably going to default to a conservative level of effort.
Which makes perfect sense — we all have a finite amount of time, energy and attention available to us each day. It's only reasonable that we invest our effort into the things that provide the richest sense of progress.
This is why progress visibility is also our biggest threat.
The things that provide the richest sense of progress are usually our defaults — those routine things we've done before, that require minimal cognitive effort to achieve. These things are easy to do, have established precedents, and often provide a rich and immediate sense of progress.
Now imagine this scenario: you are a senior leader within a large organisation. You've just been to a conference where a few of the speakers shared insights that have got you seriously thinking about the mid-term viability of your organisation's business model. You have a hunch that disruption is just around the corner for your organisation — and, unfortunately, this won't be something your organisation is proactively leading. This hunch is only further confirmed through the things you read and the conversations you have with peers in other industries.
You don't know what to do — you've never encountered this before, and you have no rulebook, gold standard or step-by-step formula to follow. You attempt to share this hunch with your colleagues — it's important, after all — but, alas, they're busy. You put it on the agenda at your next meeting, too, but when the time comes there seems to be more pressing concerns. Everyone is avoiding the angst of uncertainty by defaulting to their defaults.
And so it's just you in a sea of doubt and the angst of uncertainty. How do you make progress in this context? Where do you even begin? Particularly when you don't have the answers, or any solution to offer yet.
Well, if you're like most of us, you'll soon find yourself checking email and identifying small things to micromanage. Why? Because these things provide a rich and immediate sense of progress! Say you start your day with sixty emails in your inbox. By mid-afternoon, you've whittled your inbox down to fourteen. Ah! Progress! It feels like you're winning, and other people in the organisation know that you're putting in effort. Good work! No-one can fault you.
Soon everyone starts to do this. Before you know it, ‘reply all' is the norm.
This type of work is so very gratifying when compared to your time amid the angst of uncertainty. It really looks and feels as though you're making progress. And you are! You can look back on your ‘to-do' list at the end of the day, and feel content that you're contributing to some sort of progress.
It's just … not meaningful progress.
Hence, the progress delusion.
This state is where we find ourselves saying yes to so many little things that the bigger, more important things suffer.
It is insidious, pervasive and all too common. It afflicts all of us — myself included. And it requires a level of deliberation to lean against the flow of busyness, and say yes to the things that matter.
But choosing to say yes to meaningful progress requires three things:
- knowing what meaningful progress actually looks like
- saying no to the work that doesn't add value or contribute to progress
- creating structures, rituals and support for the meaningful work that matters.
Our activity will frequently default to the things that provide the richest sense of progress. The challenge for any pioneering leader is to shine a light on the path, and create visibility of meaningful progress as you venture through the fog of uncertainty.
Ah, but if only we had a strategy for that …
TOO BUSY FOR STRATEGY
A good part of my work involves facilitating strategic immersions and leadership development. This work is frequently profound. With the right sequence of pre-framing, pattern-disruption, assumption-busting, and thorough thinking with diverse input within a progressive context — magic happens.
Especially when compared to the default approach to strategic development. Here's the pattern I've observed.
First of all, you need to find an appropriate date for the immersion. This is usually one of the hardest things to do, because everyone is busy, and often leaders are operating in different states or countries. Pulling them all together even for a single day is a challenge.
And with this challenge comes an opportunity cost. The leader organising the strategic immersion needs to factor in the logistical expenses (venue hire, flights, accommodation, catering and so on) as well as the time cost of having senior leaders step out of their normal roles for a day. As such, there's a real imperative to make sure that they get ‘real value' out of the day.
Unfortunately, this ‘real value' is often expressed in terms of preconceived outcomes. And so a tight agenda is worked up, to ‘make best use of the time'.
The leaders arrive at their default venue, with a default room layout, default venue-branded notebooks and pens, and default individually wrapped mints.[3] After a bit of chitchat, they take their seats and then proceed to move through the agenda, which usually begins with a bit of a reflection on the progress made since the last time this group met.
Of course, the agenda quickly goes out the window. One of the more extroverted executives on the team feels compelled to go on a rant and push for something important to them (and them only). Some of the executives seem to be multitasking being present and answering emails on their devices. And some are periodically ducking out of the room to take phone calls.[4]
A few times, the team encounters the precursor to real strategic development — an important question with no clear answer or possible quick fix. Debate ensues about the best path to take. Conversation gets tense and, due to the poor setup and lack of professional facilitation, things start to get a little bit heated and personal. Little political subgroups emerge — but, ah! Look at the time! The agenda serves as a convenient structure to rally back to, allowing folks to skim past the discomfort of uncertainty. Quick decisions are made to favour the default, which minimises the immediate angst while generating short-term wins.
And so, by the end of the day, the team finds themselves staring at a bunch of goals, eerily similar to last year's list of goals. Things like increasing product sales, expanding into new regions, becoming more competitive in existing markets, enhancing operational efficiency in key areas, and updating outdated service platforms.
Boxes get ticked and people call it a day. They head to the bar fatigued, connect over a drink, and return to business as usual.
This is not strategic. Nor is it a demonstration of leadership.
We've seen this pattern enough times to know it doesn't work.
Thanks to the Curse of Efficiency, our time for thorough thinking is often crowded out by fast thinking. This means: more efficiency (maybe), but less progress. And when the Curse of Efficiency gets in the way of good strategy and leadership like this, only one thing can happen — a rainbow of growth and despair …