In the modern workplace, much effort is irrelevant to the goals espoused by the organization — so much, in fact, that exploring the causes of useless work is worthwhile. In this part of our exploration, we focus on examples of deck-chair-rearranging pertaining to strategic decision-making. See for a discussion of obvious waste, and for a discussion of task duration.
- Insupportably detailed plans
- Adequate planning is critical to the success of any complex project, but planning in detail not justified by current knowledge is wasteful. It can even threaten success, because it limits flexibility and closes our minds to alternatives. (More on lock-in) By contrast, "just-in-time" planning, the essence of agile development, tends to preserve flexibility.
- Excessively detailed planning can be viewed as scope creep in the planning process; or as a manifestation of perfectionism; or as a result of hoarding of the planning budget or schedule or both. More
- Preoccupation with efficiency over effectiveness
- In manufacturing, efficiency is effectiveness, but in knowledge work, distinguishing the two is essential. About 30 years ago, management theorists came to recognize that efficiency relates to using resources wisely, given an objective, while effectiveness relates to selecting objectives wisely, given a set of resources.
- In knowledge work, emphasizing efficiency over effectiveness risks engaging in deck-chair-rearranging behavior. In meetings, for example, we sometimes debate how to discuss an issue, without considering whether that issue is worth discussing at all.
- Impulsively changing strategy
- Sometimes we must change strategy — at times, suddenly. When it's appropriate, we call this behavior flexibility. But a pattern of sudden, inappropriate changes is something else: impulsiveness. Impulsiveness can arise along with the urge to hoard, or to expand scope, or to plan in excessive detail.
- For example, In knowledge work, emphasizing
efficiency over effectiveness
risks engaging in deck-chair-
rearranging behaviorwhen a strategy "threatens" to succeed, and deck-chair-rearrangers fear the result of task completion, they can feel an urge to change strategy. Conversely, when things aren't going well, deck-chair-rearrangers can impulsively adopt a new strategy, rather than addressing and learning from the issues that have arisen.
- Rigid adherence to failing strategies
- Ironically, rigid adherence to failing strategies can also be part of the deck-chair pattern. Rigid adherence can arise when, instead of focusing on organizational goals, we focus on proving that we were right, and that the strategy we adopted can succeed.
- Unlike other examples of the deck-chair pattern, rigid adherence to failed strategies is evident even to distant observers. Unfortunately, when they intervene, they usually terminate or reassign a single individual, rather than addressing the deck-chair pattern, which is often systemic.
Although your organization might be free of strategic deck-chair behavior, individuals might still advocate for it, albeit unwittingly. Can you think of anyone you know who might be doing it now? First in this series Top Next Issue
Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!
For more about scope creep, see "Ground Level Sources of Scope Creep," Point Lookout for July 18, 2012; "The Perils of Political Praise," Point Lookout for May 19, 2010; "More Indicators of Scopemonging," Point Lookout for August 29, 2007; "Scopemonging: When Scope Creep Is Intentional," Point Lookout for August 22, 2007; "Some Causes of Scope Creep," Point Lookout for September 4, 2002; and "The Deck Chairs of the Titanic: Task Duration," Point Lookout for June 22, 2011.
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
- When Meetings Boil Over
- At any time, without warning, you can find yourself in a meeting that boils over. Sometimes tempers
rise, then voices rise, and then people yell and scream. What can a team do when meetings threaten to
boil over — and when they do?
- Food for Thought
- Most companies have employee cafeterias, with the usual not-much-better-than-high-school food service.
By upgrading — and subsidizing — food service, these companies can reduce turnover and improve
- Have a Program, Not Just an Agenda
- In the modern organization, it's common to have meetings in which some people have never met —
and some never will. For these meetings, which are often telemeetings, an agenda isn't enough. You need
- The Risks of Too Many Projects: II
- Although taking on too many projects risks defocusing the organization, the problems just begin there.
Here are three more ways over-commitment causes organizations to waste resources or lose opportunities.
- Performance Issues for Non-Supervisors
- If, in part of your job, you're a non-supervisory leader, such as a team lead or a project manager,
you face special challenges when dealing with performance issues. Here are some guidelines for non-supervisors.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.