Why efficiency can be a deficiency in successful change

This is the second of three articles looking at some of the lesser understood or appreciated reasons that change fails in many organisations, with the focus on the psychological as well as the systemic factors. Last week I explored the role of shadow networks in making or breaking change (click here for that article).

Today, I am going to look at the impact on organisations and teams of the mot du jour – efficiency. Otherwise described as fast-track, lean, agile, or smarter-paced processes but more often as not resulting in ‘good is good enough’ solutions.

After 20 years agency-side in the advertising and marketing sector, I’m more than familiar with the client demand for the miracle of 'faster, cheaper, better'. I’m also sadly accustomed to the standard organisational response to take what currently works and cut time and people to get to cheaper – often hidden behind the dehumanising language of conducting an ‘efficiency audit’, as if the outcome doesn't affect people and lives.

I don’t want to get caught up in the arguments for and against agile working (outside of software development projects where it is proven) but instead to focus on the psychological challenges in changing the way a team delivers a consistently quality output but in a new, more time- and resource-effective way.

Let’s start by considering what is being asked of an organisation or a team when the request is for efficiency. I’m a strong believer in group purpose – not the commercial KPIs or other measurement framework for success that organisations obsess with – but what gets individuals to participate and commit to a group task, to putting the group before their own individual needs. This is an absolute necessity when organisations are expecting their people to deliver ever-longer working hours, to manage increasing complexity and to buy into the proposition of accountability without recompense.

For a group to truly come together to deliver on a task, they need to have a shared acceptance and belief in what I term the task triangle:

1.  the roles each of them fulfill

2.  the process by which they will work

3.  and personal accountability for the quality of output

These three elements combine to create a single-minded group or, what is known in group dynamics theory as, the Work Group. This is a team in the truest and original sense of the word – all pulling in the same direction to complete a task only achievable if each fulfills their potential within the construct of their roles.

As a leader (or a client), when you demand a change that impacts on any element of the task triangle, you are fundamentally changing the group purpose – and dysfunction can quickly follow.

As a side note, there is strong evidence that new generations entering the workplace are increasingly psychologically contracting with employers at a project or group level rather than at an organisational purpose level. Their loyalty is to the group not the company, meaning that as a leader you risk dramatically increasing staff churn if you make changes which affect the group working process without gaining their ‘permission’.

But none of this denies the need to change - ever more so today. And when the marketplace demands change, it is often met by new organisations not beholden to existing group purposes. But it is possible to change your own organisation or a team within it, if you are willing to engage with the psychological factors.

Start by parking the company values and hierarchies, roll up your sleeves and engage with the people and teams delivering the work. Find out what psychological contracts they have made to their team and wider organisation – what are the immovables that dictate their willingness to be held accountable. There is no simple catch-all for this - you will find complexity and especially difference, and will need to accept flexibility as part of your solution.

Secondly, explain why things need to change in the first place and how they can be better. This is a critical element often missing in Management communication with the usually misplaced belief that you can spin change as Win, Win, Win. The message that the status quo is not perfect, it is just familiar, needs to be clearly communicated before attempting to sell the opportunities for better that change can bring. Open your people up to the business realities and treat them as they adults they are.

Thirdly, listen – really listen – to their ideas and concerns. Allow for the time in your change management process for innovation and creativity of solutions. Give your people the space to explore what 'better' means for them and for the output. And critically don’t rush it in the hope of some quick win that will likely fail in the mid-term.

In addition, from a personal perspective, spend some time on reflecting whether you are actually willing to delegate your own leadership and authority in the first place by accepting the premise of faster, cheaper, better. Is it really the only option? There are plenty of examples of great businesses who sell a quality product for a premium and won’t budge from that group purpose.

So, as a leader be wary of the rushed demand for ‘efficiency’ and other changes that negatively impact on your organisation or team’s task triangle. Instead really engage with your peoples’ group purposes and try to understand the nature of their psychological contracts (including your own) and you may just find a way of delivering quality quicker without destroying the very organisation you are responsible for