Have Your Cake and Eat It Too – But Not at Once
Many apparent dilemmas are artifacts of 'snapshot' thinking; by adopting a process view over time, seemingly contradictory goals can be achieved sequentially rather than as immediate trade-offs.
THE IDEA
9. You can have your cake and eat it too—but not at once.
Sometimes, the knottiest dilemmas, when seen from the systems point of view, aren’t dilemmas at all. They are artifacts of “snapshot” rather than “process” thinking, and appear in a whole new light once you think consciously of change over time.
For years, for example, American manufacturers thought they had to choose between low cost and high quality. “Higher quality products cost more to manufacture,” they thought. “They take longer to assemble, require more expensive materials and components, and entail more extensive quality controls.” What they didn’t consider was all the ways that increasing quality and lowering costs could go hand in hand, over time. What they didn’t consider was how basic improvements in work processes could eliminate rework, eliminate quality inspectors, reduce customer complaints, lower warranty costs, increase customer loyalty, and reduce advertising and sales promotion costs. They didn’t realize that they could have both goals, if they were willing to wait for one while they focused on the other. Investing time and money to develop new skills and methods of assembly, including new methods for involving everyone responsible for improving quality, is an up-front “cost.” Quality and costs may both go up in the ensuing months; although some cost savings (like reduced rework) may be achieved fairly quickly, the full range of cost savings may take several years to harvest.
Many apparent dilemmas, such as central versus local control, and happy committed employees versus competitive labor costs, and rewarding individual achievement versus having everyone feel valued, are by-products of static thinking. They only appear as rigid “either-or” choices, because we think of what is possible at a fixed point in time. Next month, it may be true that we must choose one or the other, but the real leverage lies in seeing how both can improve over time.
When to use it
Improving manufacturing processes to simultaneously reduce costs and increase quality over a multi-year timeline.
Balancing employee satisfaction with cost control by investing in culture improvements that later reduce turnover and recruitment costs.
Deciding between centralization and decentralization in a growing organization by first building centralized infrastructure, then gradually empowering local units.
Personal goal setting: investing time and money in learning a new skill (initial cost) to later save time and earn more (long-term benefit).
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Low Cost vs. High Quality in Manufacturing
American manufacturers initially believed they had to choose between low cost and high quality. By investing in process improvements and employee involvement, they discovered that quality could increase while costs eventually decreased through reduced rework, fewer inspectors, and greater customer loyalty.
Central vs. Local Control in Organizations
Organizations often view centralization and decentralization as an either-or choice. With a process perspective, a company might gradually shift toward local autonomy after first building centralized standards and capabilities, achieving both over time.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a current dilemma where you feel forced to choose between two desirable outcomes. How could a process over time allow you to pursue both?
What are some examples in your work or life where short-term trade-offs have hidden long-term synergies?
How might you redesign a system to sequence the achievement of apparently conflicting goals?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Fifth Discipline The Art Practice of the Learning Organization (Peter M. Senge)