I popped over to my dad and mom's yesterday to walk Sammy and say Happy New Years Eve. Dad and I usually quickly engage in a discussion that involves his business, my business, or our business. Occasionally, mom has her way and we descend into the political topic of the day. But, yesterday Dad and I renewed the effectiveness vs. efficiency discussion that was the forte of management writer Peter Drucker, and quite a few who followed in his footsteps.
Drucker and his disciples maintained that efficiency meant doing things right and effectiveness meant doing the right things. This was a huge distinction during Drucker's hey day in the 1960's and 1970's. Much of the world was still tumbling out of management strategies of the industrial revolution and trying to find it's way into strategies better suited for the knowledge economy, and the coming information and creative economies.
In the Industrial Economy much emphasis was placed on efficiency or doing things right. Frederick Taylor was arguably one of the first to involve himself in the then new profession of management consulting. He took our nation and much of the world down a path time-motion efficiency studies with conclusions there existed a "One Best Way" to do everything. For example, his study concluded that the optimal shovel load was a consistent 21.5 pounds. Companies that drank his cool aid modified their issued shovels to accommodate this finding. This made some sense for factory work that involved repetitive tasks.
Efficiency = Task Optimization.
As knowledge work increased, life got a little more complicated with the necessary introduction of discretionary time. Sales, Management, Leadership, Service, and Professional Roles often required workers to choose between many seemingly good options. Many workers were no longer on the factory floor placing the same rivet in the same spot every day. They were faced with the daily decision of should I make this sales call or that sales call. From an efficiency standpoint, you would optimize your sales calls by grouping them geographically making as many calls as you could per day. But many sales people discovered that all accounts and therefore all calls were not equal. They could often make more actual sales by making calls on
the right "5" accounts instead of on just any geographical grouping of 20 or even 50 calls or more while canvasing. Other professional made similar discoveries.
Effectiveness = Target/Task Choice.
Efficiency was about the refining the right process and Effectiveness was about the right selecting the best goals and activities likely to reach those goals. For the last 30 or more years Effectiveness stepped into the spot light and Efficiency was sent back stage.
In reality both are important and have their place in most work roles. Each way of thinking can help any worker optimize their performance and pay.
...And an intelligent introduction of talents that are then developed into strengths, can leverage both efficiency and effectiveness to their fullest.
Efficiency, again is about the best process. But once you fully understand the truth of innate talent and potential strengths, you must always ask the question, "best process for who?" Taylorism took us down a road steeped in now outdated and widely discredited theories emphasizing equality of potential. Maybe a 21.5 pound shovel load was optimal for many or most. But what about the individual who could easily take on a 25 pound load. What about the individual who was better suited to an 18 pound load but naturally moved so quick that they out shoveled the individual with the larger load.
Any baseball player who made it to the high school level gets this idea immediately. From a very early level of play, baseball players choose from a wide array of baseball bat choices with unique ends knobs, grip sizes, lengths, and weights. I had smallish hands and did far better with thinner grip. I loved the 32 oz bat in at 32 inch length. And I might lighten up an ounce or heavy down an ounce depending on how hard the pitcher was throwing on any given day. Add to that preferences with pine tar, hollowing out barrels... customization goes on forever.
Further, I have done plenty of shoveling growing up in a family construction business. Had I been as excited about the task of shoveling as I was swinging a baseball bat, I would have customized my shovel. A quick look at the framing hammer section at any Lowe's will suggest that today's framing carpenters have the same variety of hammer options as baseball players. If you golf, you already know the choices available.
Of course this is talk about efficiency with regard to tool selection. Taylor's theories had just as much to say about techniques and sequence etc. His contribution was again "the one best way". But today, we have to ask, "one best way for who." Is there really any task with a universally optimized method or technique working equally well for everyone? It's understandable in an era of mass produced goods that we would venture down that road. But we are moving into a era of customization.
I've been around and studied a lot of successful sales people, managers, leaders, preachers, baseball players, and golfers just to name a few. Almost all of the successful sales people I know sell radically different even in the same industry and even in the same company. They may get standardized training. But the good ones go on and modify the trained techniques into ones that suit their uniqueness. This is the same with managers, leaders, and preachers.
I came up in baseball at a point when hitters were encouraged to "keep their weight back" through the entire swing. This was considered the "one best way". The problem was that if you watched home run hitter Hank Aaron's swing he was a front foot hitter. His power came from his formidable forearms and wrists rather than his hips and core. With modern analysis a whole new thought about hitting a baseball emerged with the "Charley Lau" school of hitting. Today, hitters are allowed to choose the swing that fits them. This choice actually includes what management guru Jim Collins calls "the genius of both". In the Mike Schmidt book on hitting he details his theory outlining his strategy of hitting of his back foot with pitches that come across home plate from the middle in while hitting of his front foot with pitches that come across the plate from the middle out. If you didn't play baseball at a sophisticated level, the upshot is this, hit the way you can hit. Find a way that works for you.
I won't go far into golf but the principle is the same. Ben Hogan's theories on the perfect golf swing just don't work for that many golfers. Today we know that the best swing is the one that fits your body. Lee Trevino, by standards of his day, had the worst golf swing in all of golf. But all he did with it is win golf tournaments. That's not to say that there aren't a few universals here and there. If your head is moving up and down during your swing you will probably mishit a lot of golf balls. But the universals are very few.
All of that to say this: Any intelligent discussion of efficiency and task optimization must start with the unique and vey individual talents, traits and developed strengths of a specific worker. If you want to optimize your process, start by looking your innate characteristics, traits, aptitudes, abilities and so on. The "How" something should best be done must always begin with the "Who".
Now... On to effectiveness. This issue should begin with an honest analysis of strengths as well. The effectiveness question is about "which task should be attempted?" And just as important, "who should attempt it?" Given my innate talents and potential for developed strengths, "should I even be the one to do this?" "Should I do it temporarily, but find someone better suited as quickly as possible?" "Does it have to be done at all?" "Who is the most talented person for this?" "Where do I find them?"
"What am I naturally crazy good at?"
"What could I, with some development, become insanely great at?"
"Given my inherent inclinations, where am I most likely to be wildly successful?"
These are the questions few ever really spend much time with, whether in regard to ourselves or our reports or peers at work. Yet these are the real money questions!
