Effectiveness vs Efficiency

In 1903 Henry Ford pursued his dreams of car manufacturing with the development of the Ford Model A. That realization was followed by the development of the wildly popular Model T. The initial cars were built by teams of 2-3 men each working on a single car. Through tremendous demand, more cars had to be built.  In 1913, the Ford Motor Company instituted aspects of the assembly line and mass production techniques. Car production went from 12 and ½ hours per car to 2 ½ hours quickly. The perfection of Henry Ford’s dream of efficiency in mass production realized a reducing of production time to 1:33. Efficiency gains and improved mechanization ultimately resulted in employee concerns that led to a decrease in labor demand. They were highly efficient but poorly effective. The cars all looked alike. Henry Ford famously noted, “You can have any color [car] a long as it’s black.” 

Ford, in the early 1900’s, had become the leading manufacturer incorporating efficiency as their key indicator for success. Clearly, their track record of sales and production of utilitarian automobiles has reinforced that concept. In 1915, Edsel Ford joined his father’s car company bringing with him innovative notions and ideas. By 1919, he had become the President of Ford. His innovations became real as he brought the ideas of style and beauty into an industry dominated by cookie-cutter products. Edsel Ford realized that customers wanted something more stylish and impressive. He was not pleased and satisfied with being the largest, most successful car company in the world. He wanted to also meet customers’ needs and desires. The Lincoln-Zephyr was introduced in 1935. 

Edsel Ford’s legacy became known to take a highly-tuned (efficient) manufacturing system and blend it with the style and poise of customers’ demands (effectiveness), to enable Ford to become larger and more successful than they have ever been. 

ILLUSTRATION

Early in my administrative career, I worked for a Principal named Russ. Russ was an extremely task-oriented, energetic person. He was always moving and made for a “hard target to hit” as he would claim.  His focus was always on efficiency. He hoped others would bring effectiveness to the jobs he gave them. Russ’ laser-like focus on the immediate task at hand played into his moodiness and temperament. He knew everything about the school and school system. Experience was his friend when dealing with any issue. He had tackled problems like the ones facing him every day. His moodiness was legendary as I became the canary in the mine each day to assess his mood. Each morning, I would leave my basement office to discuss any relevant topic of the day to assess his mood. I then would share the results of my morning trek with my colleagues. 

Please know that I respect Russ tremendously and his leadership abilities. I learned many facets of leadership that were strange to me. Particularly, his strength was immediacy and working through urgent issues. In crisis he remained patient. His throttle was always in urgent mode. Even in calm times, he was acting as though the world was going to crash on each decision. Decisions were made lightning quick and without much pondering or discussion. He gave as much thought to seemingly difficult decisions as he did to insightful choices. Russ epitomized management by walking around.  He knew few people’s names and lived every moment as though it were his last. His day-long walking treks through the building made him quite a legend in the lore of the campus. Often, he claimed that moving helped him to think. However, the speed at which he valued decisions being made, walking wouldn’t help. He would need to be an Olympic runner to match that intensity. 

One day I met him in the hallway to update him on a discipline matter. His focus was on the speed of getting it resolved and moving to the next issue. The situation at hand involved a student bringing a gun onto campus. I was eager to give him the background of the student, details of the search, and peripheral information necessary to know if there were any appeals or follow up. It was resolved in our brief conversation in a matter of a few sentences. I know he trusted me to do a good job, but still I hoped for discussion and possibly some feedback. Just like that, we moved to the next topic. Even conversations were focused for efficiency. I never spoke with him for more than 5 minutes at any time. 

His focus on efficiency also translated into how the administrative team operated. We were very much a “siloed” team. Each of us had our area and never discussed nor shared our work with one another. On a number of occasions, he remarked that it was efficient to know who was doing what. I agree that it was efficient for him, but as a young leader, I wanted to learn from and with my colleagues. Our structure prevented that from occurring. 

Russ was a stellar crisis leader. When there was a school-wide issue, he was quick with a decision and steadfast in his conviction. Decisions never changed and were used as precedent at all times in the future. As my career progressed and I moved to other schools, I remember fondly the models Russ taught me. In crisis times, I can recall my time with Russ and draw upon the examples he provided. One time a few years ago, a staff member fell in the hallway before school as students were arriving. She was the victim of a heart attack. Immediately, I went into crisis mode and remained calm and steadfast, as he taught, to get aid to her and settle the school. It was the example I needed for such a time.

Russ and I were very different in our approaches and I learned a tremendous amount from him. Twenty years after serving with him, I still have fond memories of my time with him and am still loyal to him.  One of the fondest memories I have of Russ is his mantra, “…differences don’t separate us, they just give us something to talk about.”  

PRINCIPLE

Leadership can be complex and simple, isolating and universal, as well as polarizing to many. This dichotomy may appear to be contrary, however the “gray space” between the extremes is where most decisions live. As we pursue excellence, leaders need to explore the differences between these extremes and how they can affect the culture of an organization, its members, and the subsequent results of decisions. Ultimately, the concept of “effectiveness vs. efficiency” boils down to a few key tenets: Its Effect on People, Its Effect on Input (Effort), and Its Effect on Output (Results). Here, I posit that organizations and leaders should pursue effectiveness as the framework for dealing with people, planning for success, and assessing the results of actions. Please know that the tenets are in place for change efforts made to improve organizations and the people in them. Urgent and emergency situations are ready-made for leaders to act with a critical eye on the timing and speed of actions. Here, we are referring to the change process, decision-making, planning, and the culture of an organization. 

  First, the dichotomy of “effectiveness vs efficiency” effects people in a tremendous manner when pursuing excellence. Using the framework of pursuing effectiveness gives workers the feeling of being contributors to the organization. They are not merely cogs of a wheel that continues to spin. Their influence can be felt by all in the organization. They are also emotionally and personally connected to their employer and to each other. When a leader is in efficiency mode, they feel disconnected from one another as they are only there to “get things done”. Leaders who take the time to get to know one another and build long-term connections positively affect the relationships. There are relational gains among team members that result as well. Being intentional in establishing relationships is much more a feature of teams that are pursuing excellence by being effective rather than those simply trying to be quick. Colleagues  mentor one another rather than simply share a membership to these organizations. 

When feedback and intentional actions come together members can be architects of their work rather than just pieces on an assembly line. Collaboration and two-way dialogue emerges to support one another in most every circumstance. A culture of shared decision-making and leadership growth can result. As a young leader, I have felt the sting of monologue conversations from leaders as other workers and I attempt to meet the ambiguous goals and expectations placed upon us. It was confusing to follow leaderless directions, stifling as an emerging leader wanting to grow, as well as limiting as I tried to go beyond the minimal level of acceptance and do my very best work. The only thing required of me was to simply follow directions without any training. It left me without any buy-in to the organization at all.  

Next, in leading an organization to plan for successful innovation, effectiveness as a framework has crucial considerations in the planning or “input” phase. There are attributes and characteristics that leaders need to consider when beginning this phase with their team. Leaders should assess if they, personally or collectively, have the willingness to suffer the pain of growth that comes with the change process. Remaining in a status-quo position requires no change. Leaders who are efficiency focused tend to avoid the pain of change and opt for this status quo. Difficult conversations, various new implications, and unfamiliar processes occur when innovations are applied to an organization. Leaders need comfort for the uncomfortable and an ability to navigate others through these rough waters. Members of teams that I have seen navigate this process masterfully, tend to seek challenges in their work. They are willing to endure efforts as the rigor of innovation does not scare them.

Additionally, the innovative leaders focused on effectiveness tend to lead from a “macro” perspective. We’ve all heard of the typical micro-manager. Those who have worked with them know that they tend to be focused on speed, the manner in which things they want done, and the specific result they wish to see. Innovators can also be micromanagers, but the majority fall into the former group. “Macroleaders”, as I refer to them, are more concerned with the big picture and purpose, or why, behind innovations. They seek to attain effectiveness, maximize positive implications for their organizations, and look for opportunities for members to derive operational feedback to improve their performance. They also prioritize improving their effectiveness before improving their speed. Those micromanagers operate from an experience-first basis rather than being led by feedback. Again, innovators seek direction when beginning their efforts and put substantial efforts into the beginning phase of any endeavor. 

Finally, when assessing the results of innovations, leaders who are effectiveness-based bring out many positive traits from members of their teams and their organizations. They tend to see change as the result of long-term investments made in people and processes.  These leaders are patient in member’s growth as they see the benefit for the entire organization. Rather, leaders focusing on efficiency tend to value short-term gains and tend to be impatient in waiting for others to learn. They prefer to see workers “hack” new learning. They are not concerned with long-term knowledge rather immediate compliance. 

To sustain efforts for effectiveness-based leaders, they rely on each member being given feedback to be able to show perfection of fundamental actions that align with the organizational goals. For example, principals often desire for their schools to reflect caring toward their constituents but fail to show the patience of teaching customer-service strategies to their staff or putting expectations in place that are congruent with those beliefs. Again, to expect certain results to take place there needs to be a level of ownership each member takes toward the necessary expectation. Leaders more concerned with efficiency usually have the result orientation that is concerned with accountability, control, and acceptance when the time variables are met. Quality of an outcome is usually the victim to speed of task completion. 

Finally, the organizations led by effectiveness-focused leaders tend to demonstrate transformational results. The members of these efforts are transformed by the learning, thoroughness of planning and action, as well as the trust gained from their long-term efforts. Everyone in these organizations feel empowered to take part of the process and feel ownership of the results as part of their own. 

APPLICATION

For many years, I have had the pleasure of leading various administrative and school leadership teams in several high schools. Meanwhile, I embraced the concepts of distributed leadership for both the developmental growth of leaders as well as the efficacy of the members and culture of these schools. Of the many facets that I employ to assist individual and collective development, distributed leadership is one of the greatest factors in their growth. The basis for my decision-making and leadership context has been to view things with an effectiveness-first concept. Efficiency is a factor, yet effectiveness is the default to which I lead these teams. 

Prior to the school year beginning, our administrative team will take a retreat to conduct our yearly planning sessions. At that retreat, I plan for members of my teams to receive their roles and responsibilities for the next school year. I diligently plan each person’s roles and responsibilities to align with the development and growth I expect to see in each of them. There are aspects of challenge, rigor, experience, and their own aspirations that go into the assignments. Members are responsible for areas of duties, yet they do not work alone in these areas. Distributed Leadership allows most duties to be collective, collaborative efforts. These efforts are not efficient yet are highly effective. 

In the summer of 2020, we held the administrative retreat in preparation for the 2020-21 school year. At the retreat, I shared the roles and responsibilities chart with the team. As happens each year, the team was eager to receive their assignments. I discussed my expectations for the growth of the team. Individual members had feedback sessions with me prior to the retreat at which time ideas for the next year were discussed.  For example, a member of my team, Richard, received his roles. He was responsible for being the Covid contact lead, bus supervisor, administrator for the Mathematics department, and supervising the custodial crew. Distributed leadership allows for responsibilities to be shared. To this end, Richard shared with Steve, Ansley, and Kathy responsibilities related to Covid tracing, contacting, and communicating. While Richard was “lead” over the area, the others worked with him as peers to meet the expectations of the responsibility, but also served as a resource for one another to allow for their growth. Richard was a seasoned administrator with many years of experience. Steve, Ansley, and Kathy all were far less experienced and learned a tremendous amount in working daily with him on these tasks. Weekly, I was able to meet with the Covid team to discuss their plans, support, and provide feedback for them to grow. 

Additionally, Steve was primarily responsible for the areas of student discipline and the administrator for the Social Studies department. Steve was joined by Drew, Kathy, Ansley, and Richard. They worked together as a team on any discipline and student behavior issues. However, Steve was the lead. Weekly, I met with the team to discuss upcoming issues, parent meetings, discipline consequences, and procedures for teachers.  Again, distributed leadership allowed for an experienced disciplinarian, Steve, to lead the others to grow with him as they all worked together. 

Distributed leadership, as it was employed by us, was often slow, dependent on daily conversations, and relied heavily on performance feedback. It was not an efficient process. Issues took time, often days, to resolve. However, the resulting product was stellar in its quality and produced a tremendous amount of growth for all members of the team.  This style of leadership has been a hallmark of my teams for more than 20 years. In that time, I have the pleasure of having grown 21 leaders to the executive levels of leadership in the field of education. 

Efficiency has its place as a primary framework with regard to crisis management, urgent issues, and daily rote tasks. However, when planning for member growth, culture initiatives, innovation, or detailed industry-specific work; effectiveness is the proper framework for long-term success.