Why Does Inefficiency Accumulate Silently?

The accumulation of inefficiency in business processes usually stems not from a single large error, but from small and unnoticed deviations piling on top of one another over time. An additional approval step added to a process, a control mechanism introduced as a response to a crisis and never removed afterwards, or a procedure designed specifically for one person but continuing even after that person leaves each of these looks small on its own, but coming together over time, they seriously reduce the organisation's agility. Each of these small deviations rests on a reasonable justification at the moment it emerges; but it continues to remain in the process even after that justification has disappeared.

The fundamental reason for the silent advance of this accumulation is the power of habit. As employees inside the organisation experience the processes daily, they develop a kind of blindness to their inefficiencies. Why a step exists is not questioned, because that step is perceived as a natural part of the operation. This blindness is the strongest protector of inefficiency. The longer a process is applied, the harder it becomes to question it; because over time, that process begins to be seen as a part of the organisation's identity.

The second reason is the dispersal of responsibility. An inefficient process often involves more than one unit and person; for this reason, the responsibility for redesigning it clearly belongs to no one. Processes in which everyone is responsible for a part but no one owns the whole are the areas where inefficiency most frequently accumulates. When a process covers more than one unit, each unit focuses only on its own part, and there is no one who notices or owns the inefficiency in the whole of the process. At this point, a leadership able to look objectively at the whole process and to assume directly the responsibility for redesigning it becomes decisive. We examined in detail how this responsibility is assumed through interim management in our content on closing strategic gaps through interim management.

The third reason is the avoidance of the discomfort change brings. Redesigning a process requires changing employees' habits; this, in turn, gives rise to a natural resistance. Many organisations, as long as a current process "works," prefer to leave it as it is rather than question it; because change brings, in the short term, a discomfort and uncertainty. Yet this avoidance leads to inefficiency accumulating further over time. Rebuilding efficiency requires accepting this short-term discomfort and questioning processes courageously; this, in turn, is often more easily achieved with an objective leadership from outside.

The Steps to Rebuild Efficiency Through Interim Management

Interim management is a particularly suitable solution for rebuilding efficiency in business processes, because it offers both an objective external view and a leadership capacity to bring the redesign of the process to the field. The combination of these two features makes interim management an ideal solution for efficiency transformations; because seeing inefficiency requires an objectivity, while remedying it requires an implementation determination. The following steps summarise how interim management systematically rebuilds efficiency:

•     Process mapping and objective diagnosis: The interim manager first maps the current processes as they are and objectively evaluates the real value of each step. This diagnosis makes visible the inefficiencies that habits conceal. Process mapping often allows the organisation to look at its own processes with a holistic view for the first time and reveals overlooked inefficiencies.

•     Eliminating non-value-adding steps: After mapping, the steps that add no value to the process remaining only from habit or a past requirement are identified and consciously removed. This simplification directly increases the pace of the process. When the question "why does it exist" is honestly answered for each step, it is seen that many steps no longer have a justification.

•     Redesign and implementation: The simplified process is redesigned according to the organisation's current needs. The interim manager does not merely propose this new design; they bring it to the field and manage its implementation directly. This direct implementation prevents the redesign from remaining on paper and ensures efficiency is truly built.

•     Measurement and sustainability: The efficiency of the new processes is measured with concrete indicators. The interim manager also establishes the necessary control mechanisms and ownership structure so that the efficiency gained is lasting. Measurement ensures the efficiency gain is shown concretely; the sustainability structure, in turn, prevents inefficiency from accumulating again.

This four-step approach turns rebuilding efficiency from a one-off clean-up operation into a sustainable competence of the organisation. The organisation both remedies the existing inefficiency and internalises a discipline that will prevent similar accumulations in the future. Evaluating the relationship of this discipline with transformation processes together with our article on the role of interim management in corporate transformation offers a holistic perspective.

Another important aspect of this method is the involvement of employees in the process. Employees who experience the processes every day often know intuitively where the inefficiencies are; but they cannot find a channel to voice them or the authority to change them. An experienced interim manager brings out this intuitive knowledge and involves employees in the redesign process. This participation both produces a better design and makes it easier for the new processes to be owned by employees. A process shaped by employees' own contributions becomes far more owned and sustainable.

The Conditions for Making Efficiency Lasting

For the efficiency rebuilt through interim management to be lasting, the process must be designed correctly from the outset. The first condition of this design is treating the efficiency work not merely as a cost-reduction operation, but as a strategic investment that increases the organisation's agility. Efficiency is not only cutting an expense; it is also directing the organisation's resources towards areas that produce higher value. Seeing efficiency merely as a cost-reduction operation often creates a perception of threat among employees and gives rise to resistance to the process; whereas positioning it as an instrument of agility and development encourages employees' participation.

The second condition is ensuring the ownership of the efficiency gained. The interim manager's assignment period is defined; for this reason, it must be ensured that the processes they redesign continue to live in the organisation after their departure and do not become ownerless. This is possible by clearly defining the ownership of the new processes and preparing the internal team for this ownership. If the new processes are not brought to a clear ownership, a risk arises of returning to old habits after the interim manager departs.

The third condition is turning efficiency into a continuous culture. A one-off efficiency exercise can, over time, result in a renewed accumulation of inefficiency. For this reason, the interim manager should not merely improve the current processes; they should also instil in the organisation the habit of regularly questioning and improving processes. This culture encourages employees to continuously review their own processes and to notice inefficiencies early. When an efficiency culture settles in, the organisation reaches a capacity to prevent inefficiency from accumulating again on its own.

The fourth condition is bringing the efficiency work into alignment with the organisation's general strategy. Efficiency is not a goal in itself, but an instrument serving the organisation's strategic goals. When redesigning processes, where the organisation wants to go and which processes are critical to reaching these goals should be taken into account. An efficiency work misaligned with strategy can direct the organisation's resources to the wrong areas; whereas a work aligned with strategy turns efficiency into a lever that contributes directly to the organisation's overall success. When these four conditions are met together, efficiency ceases to be a project and becomes a lasting competence of the organisation.

Perhaps the most valuable result of making efficiency lasting is the awareness the organisation develops towards its processes. An organisation that has once been through a conscious efficiency transformation now looks at its processes with a critical eye and notices inefficiencies early. The interim manager, throughout the assignment, does not only improve the processes; they also transfer the competence to question processes to the organisation. Thus, when the interim manager leaves, the organisation reaches an awareness that allows it to preserve efficiency with its own strength. The most lasting value interim management adds to efficiency transformation is hidden in this awareness.

As E&E Group Interim, we believe that inefficiency in business processes often accumulates silently, and that rebuilding it requires an objective external view. With our network of interim managers who have successfully managed many process improvement and efficiency transformations, and our international Valtus Alliance partnership, we both diagnose efficiency in your organisation's business processes objectively and rebuild it with determination. To regain the efficiency in your processes, you can get in touch with us.