What's the big deal about efficiency?

I was walking around the campus of the school where I used to be principal, and I was struck by how drab it now looks. Sadly, this decline was already beginning when I left that position 10 years ago. During the time I was employed there, decisions were often made to increase efficiency or convenience, particularly in the most budget-lean years. A tree would die, and its spot would be cemented over. Planters filled with air-filtering plants were covered with wood and painted over because they required maintenance.

 Efficiency is usually about saving money, either to increase profit margins or fit necessary operations into a shrinking budget. Efficiency thinking is everywhere; we are encouraged to clean our homes in less time, order pre-made meals, whiten our teeth in 5 minutes a day.

 But efficiency as a goal can be misguided. What I’ve noticed is a tendency to complain and respond to an immediate financial situation, but not improve circumstances with an eye toward the future. Efficiency thinking is not imaginative, and it does not focus on long-term success. The tree example is a simple one: Planting a small native tree would cost under $100. It would not require watering after just a few months and would provide shade and aesthetic benefit for students and staff for years to come. Cement contributes to overall heat retention while adding nothing to the overall life of the campus. It is only “efficient” in the short term.

 Here’s an example that is larger-scale. In one organization, a decision was made to centralize marketing and communications services. Positions were plucked from other departments as seeds for the new department. Those affected by the loss of colleagues were very upset, and for their objections, they were labeled “resistant to change.” In a few months’ time, the new department set up an expensive ticket system for others in the organization to use to access their work. Staff in departments whose daily work depended on these services immediately experienced a lack of responsiveness from the new department—forcing them to turn to outside vendors to meet production deadlines. How is that efficient?

Centralization also meant that prioritization was established only through the new department’s eyes. Many members of the department were new to the organization, and their priority was placed on outward-facing projects rather than internal processes. Not only did they not fully understand the inner workings of the organization; they made no move to learn. Centralization, created in the name of efficiency, became a bottleneck for those in the trenches who needed to get their work done. 

Now don’t get me wrong. I believe in setting up processes that streamline our work and continuous improvement through data analysis and feedback. But once a more efficient process or methodology is implemented, it must be evaluated regularly to determine if the performance goals are met.

One of my recent reads was a book called The End of Average: How to Succeed in a World the Values Sameness, by Todd Rose. The book is filled with examples describing situations where our penchant for efficiency by using “averages” is actually harmful—even fatal, in one case covered in the book. For example, using data to derive averages to identify what is best for the average consumer, is an efficiency tool meant to cut costs and reduce time. But, as the book explains, these strategies do not lead to a better business or a better world.

How does all this lead to the formation of a leadership stone?

1.     Improving efficiency is not a goal but a tool to consider when looking at the bigger picture of what’s best.

If we make efficiency the goal, we can easily lose sight of the important work we are doing. Too many short-term solutions can deter our focus on long-term success.

2.     Looking for greater efficiency needs to parallel your organization’s mission, vision, and values.

Too often, we leave off talk of our organization’s guide stones in order to fix an immediate problem. Wouldn’t it be amazing if finding a solution to a problem were framed by the bigger picture? This kind of thinking will lead to more creative, sustainable solutions.

Efficiency has its place in any organization. Solutions that help us optimize existing skills and timelines are valuable. But if we lead with efficiency as the sole goal, we will miss opportunities for sustainable growth. Achieving balance between these opportunities will serve us best.

On Decision-Making: Beyond Black and White

When I began my position as the interim principal of a school for the blind, I expressed concern that I was not prepared to manage student discipline or behavior. My experience up to that point had primarily been as an itinerant teacher, and discipline was not within my purview. “There’s an extensive discipline policy,” I was told. Don’t worry. Just follow the policy.

I did just that, following the policy to a T. Under my leadership, police were called anytime an encounter involved a student hitting another. We frequently suspended students, requiring parents or districts to travel long distances to take them home. Much of this did not sit well with me, and I wondered if we were doing the right thing.

During my leadership journey, I did my best to follow each organization’s policies precisely, fairly, and consistently. It wasn’t until I crossed into my fourth state and began applying my knowledge of special education and human resource law there that I started to wonder if policy was an exact science. How was it, if the rules were clear and steadfast, that different agencies and schools applied the rules in different ways?

One example sticks out. In one state, I asked for the files of past Child Protective Services cases shortly after I began working there. People seemed confused by my request, but I finally got the information. I was astonished by how few CPS calls had been made and learned that if abuse was suspected, a school employee would first call the parents to get further information. There is one law whose intent is clear: taking the reporter out of the equation allows the system to investigate allegations without bias and without implicating the reporter. Black and white application of the law is important, but was not followed in this case.

At the same time I found that this school’s discipline policies allowed for consideration of what was best for the student—how the student would learn best from the school’s discipline policy. Overall I was surprised by the flexibility but also impressed by the results staff were getting with their approach.

These seemingly contradictory approaches to the application of policy illustrate just how challenging decision-making can be for a leader. I’ve learned to apply a few tests to complex issues requiring decisions that I’d like to share here. 

The first recommendation is probably the most important: What are the unintended consequences of the decision?

For example, does the presence of a police officer on campus for relatively small infractions change the behavior of the students involved or other students in the school? And my favorite: was a student’s propensity for lying best handled by a suspension or through a behavior plan that helped him find alternatives to that habit?  

Does disallowing an employee to take paid time off to be with a dying relative in another state set a bad precedent for others to abuse policy, or does it allow him or her to manage a tough situation in a healthy way? Leaders have pocketsful of stories where they are confronted with decision-making like this, and following policy without consideration of surrounding circumstances is almost never the answer.

My second recommendation might seem obvious, but is one I’ve seen few people follow. Attempt to answer this question: What have others done in similar situations and how can that inform a decision for this situation? In an earlier blog, I referenced finding a village. The leadership stone here is simple: find a group of trusted colleagues with whom you can talk to about complex issues. Those folks need to be able to reflect honestly on your issues—to help you see where your buttons are and who is pushing them. And those who have tackled similar problems can give you feedback on what worked—and what didn’t. Most importantly, your village members need to people you can trust not only to give honest and wise feedback, but also to keep the discussion to themselves.

Black and white makes a striking outfit. But remember—tuxedos are mostly for show. Black and white application of policy may look good to outsiders, but a nuanced approach will likely have a better outcome.