A Word Worth Remembering (But Hard to Say and Spell)
You might recall when I first learned about the German word “verschlimmbesserung“–that wonderfully precise term for “an attempted improvement that only makes things worse”–and blogged about it.
The concept still comes to mind whenever I see a fix that backfires. We work hard to avoid it, but it happens–because we're human.
I was reminded of this on a recent trip that included a stop in Mallorca. Most people picture the island as a sun-and-sand getaway, not a wine destination. I went onshore for a hiking excursion–though I'll admit the promise of a wine tasting at the end of the trail helped motivate me. The two-hour walk took us through rugged hills, with glimpses of the Mediterranean in the distance. Our reward at the finish was a tasting of some local wines, served steps from the vineyard where it was grown.
Here's one view from the trail and one of the wines we enjoyed at the finish:
It was there, among the vines, that I learned Mallorca's wine industry nearly vanished in the late 19th century. A blight called phylloxera swept across Europe, reaching even this island and forcing farmers to abandon vineyards. Only in the past few decades has serious replanting begun, making today's wines a comeback story more than a centuries-old tradition.
An Enormous Economic Impact
The phylloxera epidemic devastated vineyards across Europe. By the late 1800s, between 40% and two-thirds of all European vineyards were destroyed. In France, production plummeted from 84.5 million hectoliters in 1875 to 23.4 million in 1889.
The economic shock was staggering: agricultural incomes in wine-producing regions fell by 16% to 22%, translating into an estimated 10% to 15% drop in regional GDP. Entire local economies–vineyards, cooperage, transport, hospitality–were gutted. In Mallorca, many farmers switched to other crops, leaving wine production dormant for decades.
How did this happen? And why is that European wine tragedy an example of verschlimmbesserung?
Powdery Mildew and a Catastrophic Countermeasure
The chain of events began with a different problem: powdery mildew, a fungal disease introduced from North America in the mid-1800s. By the 1850s, it was damaging grapevines across Europe, cutting yields and threatening livelihoods.
The proposed fix seemed clever and well-intentioned–import American grapevines, naturally resistant to mildew. These came in small batches from botanists, horticulturists, and vintners eager to study and strengthen European vineyards.
No single person made the decision. No one was intentionally reckless. But those vines carried a hidden stowaway.
The Bigger Problem: Phylloxera
The American vines brought with them phylloxera, a microscopic, aphid-like insect that attacks grapevine roots. European grape varieties (Vitis vinifera) had no resistance.
Once phylloxera took hold, it proved far more destructive than mildew. It spread underground through root contact, in soil on tools and boots, by water, and even by wind-blown debris. It didn't remain in the areas where the American vines were planted–it marched steadily across the continent, eventually reaching islands like Mallorca.
Why a Small Test Wouldn't Have Worked
In Lean and continuous improvement, we stress the value of small tests of change before scaling–using the Plan-Do-Study-Adjust cycle to see what works and avoid large-scale failures.
But here's the nuance: in this case, even a single small test would have been enough to trigger disaster.
In the 19th century, there was no way to contain phylloxera. No treatment, no natural predator, no resistant local rootstock. Any amount–no matter how small–was the start of a chain reaction.
Building upon what I wrote in The Mistakes That Make Us: Cultivating a Culture of Learning and Innovation, it's hard to iterate your way to success when an early mistake is catastrophic and irreversible. Experimentation works when you can recover from setbacks. When the downside risk is permanent, you need a different playbook–one based on rigorous risk assessment and prevention before testing.
Leadership reminders:
- Most of the time, testing small is the best way to learn before committing to a big change.
- Sometimes, the priority is risk assessment before testing–especially when the risk is irreversible.
- If the worst-case scenario is systemic collapse, the safest path may be not to test at all.
The Road to Recovery
Eventually, scientists and vintners identified the cause. French botanist Jules-Émile Planchon confirmed phylloxera as the culprit. American viticulturists like T.V. Munson and Hermann Jaeger provided resistant rootstock from species such as Vitis rupestris and Vitis riparia.
The solution–ironically–was to graft European grape varieties onto American rootstock. That gave vintners the Vitis vinifera fruit quality they wanted with the underground resilience of American species. It worked, and it's still how vineyards are planted today.
In Mallorca, many vineyards were never replanted at the time. The industry lay dormant for nearly a century. Today, the island's wines are once again gaining recognition–proof that recovery is possible, but sometimes painfully slow.
The Lean Lesson in All This
The phylloxera story is a textbook case of verschlimmbesserung. A fix for one problem introduced a far bigger one.
For Lean leaders, two lessons stand out:
- Test small whenever possible – A contained trial can reveal unintended consequences before you commit.
- Assess for irreversible risks before testing – Some changes can't be rolled back. Biological introductions, certain chemical exposures, and data breaches fall into this category.
Bringing It Back to Today's Workplaces
You and I aren't deciding which grapevines to import. But we do make choices about process changes, technology rollouts, and policies with far-reaching effects.
- In a hospital, implementing a new EHR workflow without testing could delay care–or worse, harm patients.
- In manufacturing, switching a critical supplier without verifying quality could compromise safety.
- In service industries, launching a new policy without gauging customer reaction could damage trust.
Good intentions aren't enough. We need the discipline to solve today's problem without creating tomorrow's crisis.
An Example from Starbucks
As a frequent and loyal Starbucks customer, I can't help but think of a few examples of verschlimmbesserung (if you can excuse the transition from wine to coffee) — by the way, listen to “Lean Coffee Talk” whereever you find podcasts.
In an effort to drive sales and keep the menu fresh, Starbucks has introduced an ever-expanding range of seasonal drinks, customizations, and food items. While these additions may attract new customers and generate buzz, they've also made drink preparation more complex. Lines grow longer, service slows, and baristas feel increased stress. Customers who prize speed get frustrated, and those who once enjoyed lingering in a relaxed “third place” atmosphere find the experience rushed and transactional. Starbucks, under a new CEO, is working to bring that feel back.
Additionally, as Starbucks has worked to improve efficiency through mobile ordering, store reconfigurations, and workflow changes. These steps help increase order throughput, but they also risk changing the very nature of the store experience. Many locations now feel more like quick-service pickup counters than community gathering spots. In both cases, well-intentioned changes–whether expanding offerings or streamlining service–can undermine the core customer promise if not balanced with what people value most about the brand.
Final Reflection
Mallorca might seem an unlikely place to learn this lesson. But the fact that phylloxera reached this island shows how unstoppable some risks can be once unleashed. And the century-long gap in wine production shows just how lasting a “temporary” loss can become.
If you missed my original post about verschlimmbesserung, you can read it here. This vineyard story is one more reminder: in Lean and continuous improvement, our goal isn't to avoid all mistakes–it's to think carefully, test wisely, and assess risk before acting. The best improvements stand the test of time–and the pests.
I've shared one historical verschlimmbesserung here, along with a few modern examples. Now I'd love to hear yours:
What companies you know, frequent, or follow have made a well-intentioned change that ended up making things worse?
What can the rest of us learn from those moments?
Share your thoughts in the comments–I'll be reading and replying.
Please scroll down (or click) to post a comment. Connect with me on LinkedIn.
Let’s build a culture of continuous improvement and psychological safety—together. If you're a leader aiming for lasting change (not just more projects), I help organizations:
- Engage people at all levels in sustainable improvement
- Shift from fear of mistakes to learning from them
- Apply Lean thinking in practical, people-centered ways
Interested in coaching or a keynote talk? Let’s talk.
Join me for a Lean Healthcare Accelerator Trip to Japan! Learn More
