Unintended Consequences:

Organizational Trip-Hazards.

Some time in the late ‘80s, I was introduced to a phenomenon that I’ve seen repeated a number of times since. During a trip, the family car suddenly and unexpectedly quit running. As I recall, the family friend who got it running diagnosed the problem as a failure of a sensor. The sensor’s function escapes my memory, but it was a fairly unremarkable part. The temporary fix was to simply disconnect it, which immediately allowed the car to run every bit as well as it had before the part failed. The reason this particular episode of vehicle maintenance stuck in my mind is that at the time I found it unbelievable that a component that made so little contribution to the functioning of the vehicle, as to be completely unnoticed when removed; made such a catastrophic impact when it failed. A car is very simply a mechanical conveyance. Its purpose is to be self-propelled. Why then include a part, or parts, that do little or nothing to contribute to that purpose and function when operating as designed, but bring the entire machine to a halt when it fails?

I will freely admit that things tend to be a bit more complex than this example. There are any number of barely noticeable small things that are actually quite important and useful which might at first glance appear to be unnecessary complications to an already complicated world. However, there are many things like the auto part referenced above that may have been included in a system with the best of intentions, only to cause detrimental effects without any real benefit in the real world.

On a recent deployment to a particular area of operation, I was able to see the kind of unnecessary chaos that can accompany one of those parts, this time in the form of uniform regulations. During the course of this deployment, there was an increased need for personnel in another AO, which led to personnel from ours being redeployed. Unfortunately the regulations in the other AO required the newly adopted uniform. Fair enough, it was a better uniform. The regulations were what they were and complying with them shouldn’t have been a problem. Until it was. Troops deploying from their home stations could rely on established lines of supply and stocks of uniforms and equipment maintained locally. Unfortunately, those already deployed to hastily established forward areas weren’t as lucky. This had the effect of placing undue strain on one AO’s supply system and drew time and energy away from the actual mission of those who had to come up with creative ways to meet the demands of someone else’s mission.

Keep in mind, this wasn’t an immunization that was required for safety. It wasn’t a weapon system that was critical to mission success. It was a different uniform. Keep in mind as well that prior to the adoption of the new operational uniform, troops had worn the previous one at that particular location for years. To add to the absurdity, the primary supply problem, wasn’t locating and obtaining a supply of the new uniforms, but the boots that went with them. What was the difference between the boots for the new uniform and the boots for the old uniform? The color. Not the design, not the materials, not the safety features, not the fitness for the unique environment. The color. So, in fanatical, hand wringing devotion to this particular rule, we risked failing to meet the actual operation demands of a particular mission, not because we lacked the trained personnel, but because their boots were the wrong color. Consider that the accomplishment of a key real-world mission undertaken by history’s most advanced military force, was jeopardized by a fashion choice.

Now, the great boot debacle was, in reality, far more of an inconvenience and annoyance than it was a legitimate threat to the accomplishment of the mission. Would we have made adjustments if the required uniform items simply weren’t available? Probably. But the episode is an example of the phenomenon that shows up fairly frequently in organizations large and small. We quite often see rules, procedures and directives that are created with the intention of preventing a particular situation from arising, but being either poorly crafted or implemented, they have the effect of being an impediment to the normal operation of the organization in ways that could have been foreseen but clearly never were.

Most of our organizations have these features. How do we spot them? What should we do when we run headlong into them in a situation where they weren’t intended to be a factor? I suppose the lesson here is that there may be times when violating the strict interpretation of a rule, may be the best option under the circumstances presented. Taking the initiative to do so would be easier for those with the status and position within the organization to better shield them from negative consequences and enable them to protect their people from any potential backlash as well. Unfortunately, all too often, those people tend to earn their positions through aggressive rule-following, and will attempt to fortify them in the same way. So it falls on those closer to the bottom to either fail by breaking rules, or fail by refusing to break them. And that’s a pretty tough position to be in.

The solution? Well, there certainly won’t be a perfect one. But the closest we will likely get is making sure guidance, directives and regulations are specifically targeted toward their intended purpose. We should also leave room in the planning and drafting of formal guidance for considering unintended consequences such guidance may cause in the real world. And perhaps of greatest importance is creating an environment where individual initiative and critical thinking, so long as it’s aligned with the values and directed toward the fundamental mission of the organization; is fostered to a greater degree than blind rule-following. Now, is the unbound initiative and creativity of dedicated individuals going to present its own set of unintended consequences? Absolutely. Welcome to functioning in a high-stakes operating environment.

M. T. Rush