Every time I hear of an initiative created to address some distasteful corporate issue (costs are too high, quality is low, too many employees, the process takes too long), I think of my 2003 Ford F-350 dually diesel flatbed truck and its rather dismal fuel efficiency. I bought this now-rusty workhorse many years ago to haul multiple horses to shows or drive to Colorado pulling a 36’ rig for vacations. It gets a whopping 13 mpg when I am not hauling three horses and drops to around 10 when I am. Yep. Incredibly inefficient. If you challenged me to “improve efficiencies” when operating this vehicle, I could take actions such as removing the flatbed and maybe the back seats as well. I could even try limiting my travel to flat regions, avoiding mountains at all costs. Those weight- and power-reducing actions would surely give my mpg a positive nudge, but there comes a point when picking away at the symptoms begins to degrade essential functions—in my case, hauling horses. If I have my eyes on 20 mpg, I’ve got to consider redesigning the system—buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle or a less massive trailer. And the rusting rate is surely dropping some weight. But as it stands, my system—the truck—is designed to get 9 to 13 miles per gallon. Leaping into Symptom-Solving So, when I hear about a company reorganizing because its headcount is too high, or an organization seeking to improve efficiencies, I wonder: Are they leaping into symptom-solving, or did they begin by taking a systems view? The former pathway, while providing the gratification of the quick fix, can often be the more costly and often ends in failure. Multiple studies report on the reappearance of symptoms (increasing spending levels, head count, or quality issues) if the cost-cutting initiatives lacked meticulous strategic thinking and system redesign. As noted by the esteemed management thinker, Ian Mitroff, noted, “Unless a proposed solution to a problem is examined in the context of the total system in which it functions, it may lead to a worse problem or crisis.” Symptoms return, sometimes with greater vengeance as the organization goes into overdrive (pun intended) trying to maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of a system that no longer has the resources to run as designed. Think about how effectively (yet briefly) antihistamines stop a cold-sufferer from sneezing and sniffling. But that sneezing will return and only goes away for good once your body vanquishes the virus.  Thinking in Systems As Peter Senge, father of the learning organization and author of the laws of systems thinking states, “Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants. To understand the most challenging managerial issues requires seeing the whole system that generates the issues.” His lessons has been learned by some. Authors of a 1996 Academy of Management article reporting on study of major firms engaged in downsizing efforts noted “while successful downsizers do pursue efficiency gains, they do so by refocusing the firm on its core areas of competency.” But most ignore these laws, lured by the accolades of brilliance that come with the quick fix. Systemically Improving Efficiencies So, how can you ensure lasting solutions? 1.  View the symptom—the offending line item—as simply a trigger event. It is something that might initiate action, but is not, by itself, an area of focus. The definition of symptom is a “physical or mental feature which is regarded as indicating a condition of disease.” Note the symptom; now go check out the disease. 2.     Map your system. Surround yourself with white boards, grab the markers and start asking, “What is the wider system this trigger event operates in? What does the current system look like that is producing the symptom? How does it function and thrive? What are the unintended consequences? What drives the system’s behaviors? What are the underlying assumptions of this system?” Above all, DO NOT ask, “Why did this symptom happen?” You will be off to the casual races. 3.     Ask the Perfect Sense questions such as “Why does it make perfect sense that this system is operating or organized the way it is? What does it achieve? What does it preserve? Protect? Produce? How does it capture value? What game is it designed to play?” 4.     (Re)Design a system that delivers on your strategic goals and meets the associated operational targets. My 2003 truck is for sale if anyone would like to buy it. I’m in the market for a more fuel efficient F150.