In which the rope and compass are not up for debate.
The Question Nobody Wants to Answer
I have a small allergy to the word "versus" in work: speed versus quality, or growth versus profitability, or efficiency versus resilience, or x vs. y. Put two things, perfectly good on their own, on opposite sides of a slide or a two-by-two and all of a sudden they are boxers coming at each other from two different corners, with different groups cheering for one or the other. One of them is suddenly bleeding. Oh my god, someone call this off.
Even more annoying to me: sometimes the oppositional exercise is quite useful, the only way to get anywhere.
But take speed versus quality. A group of people doing some kind of work can absolutely be too slow, throw up roadblock after rational-sounding roadblock. I've been in places where another meeting, another review, another person wanting to "pressure test" the thing meant in reality no one was really doing anything, or if they were, it would show up next year or way too late or whatever. I wanted to grab the dial and turn it toward SPEED. I wanted to cut the Gordian Knot.
I reach for the right metaphor for what I know can happen, probably will happen: the medicine becomes the diet.
Too much speed? You wanted it, you have it, and now everything is breaking. Too much efficiency? You wanted it, you have it, and now one unplanned thing throws a wrench in the gears of everything.
The original problem may be gone, but now you're just somewhere else on the two-by-two, and you need the other medicine.
Unlike with a real prescription, which in a lot of cases will run out, in an organization almost nobody writes down when to stop taking it. "We need to move faster." Okay, fine and agreed, but: (1) how fast, (2) for how long, and (3) what is too far, and (4) what will tell us we are at "too far" and need to slow again? Is there any point where someone will say, "yes, the speed has done its job, all done with speed for now. Time for slow," and the organization's metaphorical feet come off the gas?
Because the words in opposition are usually good and almost impossible to disagree with. We always actually want both things. So saying only one of them should probably make us suspicious.
Let me torture the medicine thing: medicine is usually poison too, in the wrong dosage. Or another way to put it: what we're really reaching for is just a correction, a turning of some dial the other way.
But dials turn back. It's why they are dials.
Footnotes
The dose makes the poison.
Depending on your point of view, legislation and public policy are infamous poison distributors. Solutions arrive to save us all from some emergency, from taxes to only fund a "righteous" war or to implement regulations so we never have a financial meltdown again. It normally arrives in the reassuring frame of acute medicine. Here is your headache pill, please take forever.
The immediate problem is addressed somewhat, the days roll forward, and we rarely if ever force the new rule(s) to prove why they shouldn't be sunset. We have an intervention that is now the baseline reality.
Don't get me wrong; we often do need the headache medicine. But we should also be willing, as the default, to stop taking it.
I think of it like a bridge built years ago in an emergency, which was needed, but now that bridge is our permanent highway. The flooded river that caused it to be built in the first place has since dried up and moved more than a mile away.
| Published | 14 June 2023 (3 years ago) |
|---|---|
| Reading time | 4 min |
| Tags | philosophy, effectiveness |
Reply
I’d welcome your thoughts on this essay. Send me a note →

