With tongue firmly in cheek, my brother argued half-convincingly this weekend that UK football teams could increase their success by improving their efficiency. Take, for instance, the goal keeper who is active - and thereby productive - for only around 15% of the average game. Similarly, other players are only in contact with the ball or the opposing team for relatively short periods of time. ‘It would be far more efficient to reduce team sizes from, say, 11 to 6 players – or to engage the players in additional activities whilst on the pitch to fill their non-productive time.’ Now there’s an idea.
It reminded me of a conversation I had with an ex-Director of a large international bank. The bank had been successful for a time but then unexpectedly slid into crisis. I asked him what, on reflection, had led to its demise. He answered without hesitation: ‘Efficiency’. When I inquired further, he responded: ‘We reduced staff levels to reduce costs and increase profit. As consequence, Directors could delegate less and became busier. The busier they became, the less time they had to step back, view landscapes and horizons, spot emerging opportunities and risks...and the rest is history.’ There are, of course, some very compelling reasons to improve our efficiency. Take, for instance, developments in aerodynamic and engine design that make cars and aeroplanes more economical and less polluting. The problems arise when we unquestioningly associate more-efficient with more-effective. What can appear to be a great solution when viewed through an efficiency lens can prove detrimental (if not catastrophic) when viewed through a whole system, effectiveness lens. So, as leader, coach or OD, how do you address this challenge with people, teams and organisations?
24 Comments
Lani Refiti
24/7/2017 12:18:32 pm
Thanks Nick, thought provoking as always.
Reply
Nick Wright
24/7/2017 12:19:03 pm
Thanks for your affirming feedback, Lani.
Reply
Malcolm Wright
24/7/2017 12:20:04 pm
Never thought I'd see the day when you used a football analogy to address a point! Nice one bro (but not the bro that started it).
Reply
Nick Wright
24/7/2017 12:38:01 pm
Me neither, Malc. I had to Google to find out how many people there are in a football team. (...that was a joke...)
Reply
Lucy Sarson
24/7/2017 12:22:48 pm
You always provoke thought, Nick. Hope you are well.
Reply
Nick Wright
24/7/2017 12:23:16 pm
Thanks Lucy. You too.
Reply
Yathiraj Agarwal
24/7/2017 08:31:14 pm
Great lesson.
Reply
Nick Wright
24/7/2017 08:31:40 pm
Thank you, Yathiraj.
Reply
Nick Ralph
24/7/2017 08:33:36 pm
Interesting point, Nick. Over the water in the UK, us Brits have been playing Six a Side Football (or 5 a side if you can't muster enough players), often played indoors, for over 9 years! Does this mean that our football is more efficient than US football? I hear you guys have to wear a sort of armour to play football in the States!
Reply
Nick Wright
24/7/2017 08:34:39 pm
Hi Nick. I'm in the UK too. It hadn't occurred to me that 5-a-side could have been created through an efficiency drive..! ;)
Reply
Richard Simpson
25/7/2017 09:13:35 am
Great post Nick. I am reading The Systems View of Life by Capra and Luisi at the moment, which chimes well with your post. Understanding when the appropriate model is mechanistic or organic is crucial to the outcome, although I don't think many would shed a tear over a bank getting it wrong.
Reply
Nick Wright
26/7/2017 10:35:24 am
Thanks Richard. I haven't read that book yet but you have prompted me to take a glance. I saw a great quotation from it in a book review: A living system is 'an integrated whole whose … properties cannot be reduced to its parts'. You may find this related short piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/leadership-as-a-relational-dynamic.html
Reply
Will Goad
26/7/2017 10:28:18 am
In training folks on process adoption, I try to remind them that we are not working on an assembly line. When adopting efficiency, don't overcomplicate it. Get better incrementally, and if you need that high-level view...then budget that into your time.
Reply
Nick Wright
26/7/2017 10:44:54 am
Hi Will. Those sound like interesting insights. Do you have an example from experience that you could share?
Reply
Rupnarayan Bose
27/7/2017 01:30:14 pm
What parameters do you use to define, and measure, efficiency? Is the standard for defining efficiency the same for different assignments?
Reply
Nick Wright
27/7/2017 01:32:35 pm
Hi Rupnarayan. I'm intrigued by your comment that, 'once you start defining the efficiency parameters for a job, assignment, or the people you apply the parameters to, the measure of effectiveness will automatically emerge.' Do you have an example to illustrate what, say, defining the efficiency parameters of a job could look like in practice?
Reply
Carl Flynn, MSc, BSc (Hons), Cert. Ed., MBPsS
27/7/2017 02:37:28 pm
I suppose the ultimate efficiency would be devoid of any emotional intelligence and humanity!!
Reply
Nick Wright
27/7/2017 02:38:52 pm
Hi Carl. That's quite a statement! Are you saying that efficiency is completely incompatible with EI and humanity? Say more..?!
Reply
Carl Flynn, MSc, BSc (Hons), Cert. Ed., MBPsS
30/7/2017 11:46:14 am
Hi Nick, I'm thinking if you take efficiency to its extreme, that's probably what we end up with: machines!
Nick Wright
30/7/2017 11:46:46 am
Hi Carl. You could be right. And where would be the fun in that?! :)
Barry Cross
31/7/2017 08:45:34 am
To quote a former colleague of mine -
Reply
Nick Wright
31/7/2017 08:51:26 am
Hi Barry. Yes, I think that comes from Covey's '7 Habits'? I think I would want to add a 3rd 'E' - Ethics, especially in the current climate when so many business (and political) practices and behaviours are viewed with skepticism and cynicism.
Reply
Jennifer Tabary
14/8/2017 12:06:33 pm
Think through tasks and situations with the customer or end user in sight: Gemba Kaizen. And you get a lot at both efficiency and effectiveness. The bonus is all hands on deck to observe, learn, share and adjust with system wise impact. And then to start all over again. It never ends ....
Reply
Nick Wright
14/8/2017 12:08:20 pm
Hi Jennifer. Yes, definitely keep the customer, beneficiary, end user in sight. Also keep the organisation and wider stakeholder in sight, e.g. shareholder, supporters, donors etc. to ensure a wider systemic view.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|