Ryan McCormack's Operational Excellence Mixtape: October 23, 2026

Thanks, as always, to Ryan McCormack for this. He always shares so much good reading, listening, and viewing here! Subscribe to get these directly from Ryan via email.

News, articles, books, podcasts, and videos about how to make the workplace better.

Today's Mixtape is about slowing down long enough to see the problem clearly before jumping to a fix. Highlights include Steve DeWitt's five-question check before approving any solution, Dave Snowden on why Frederick Taylor gets blamed for sins that came decades later, and Ryan's candid story about mistaking his team's overload for resistance.

Operational Excellence, Improvement, and Innovation

Don't buy the fix before you find the problem

I recently attended a corporate workshop where a large group of leaders and teams were asked to stand on either side of a line on the floor – on one side, people who believe in “acting first”, and on the other side, people who “analyze first”. Predictably perhaps, there was a much larger group on the “act first” side of the line. An artificial debate ensued over why one view was more important than the other. Who's right? Of course, there is no real answer, only preferences and biases that have been shaped over a lifetime.

But “bias for action”, “execution”, and “get shit done” voices tend to drown out those who choose to be more deliberate. Why? Generally, action is rewarded and assumed to represent progress. Those of us who have been in the problem-solving arena for long enough know that solution bias is prevalent and also risky. Slowing down to ask good questions doesn't mean drowning in analysis, and it can save you time, money, and face. Steve DeWitt reminds us all not to buy the fix before finding the problem. He argues that teams often name a solution (training, software, a new checklist) before agreeing on what actually failed, and offers a five-minute check before approving any fix: what is failing, what evidence shows it, what is the suspected cause, why this action addresses that cause, and what result will show it worked.

Which side of the line would you have stood on, act first or analyze first?

We need to talk about Taylor

I'll admit that I've relied on “Taylorism” as shorthand for all that's wrong with legacy management practices. Frederick Taylor is the go-to villain in a lot of leadership writing, blamed for “command and control” and every horrible boss you've had. Dave Snowden argues that story gets the history wrong. The process maps, re-engineering programs, and competency frameworks that actually stripped managers of their autonomy came out of the systems era of the late 1980s, not 1911. Taylor learned the work on the shop floor and built his method on close observation of it, which Snowden says puts him closer to complexity science than to the simplistic systems thinking that followed. He admits he once made the same mistake on stage before Peter Drucker corrected him in public. His bigger point is that command, design, and distributed judgment each have their place, and the skill is knowing which one the situation calls for: “a triquetra, not a pendulum.”

How to think your way out of a mess

A bit of a counterpoint to the Snowden article's skepticism of systems thinking, Jonas Braadbaart argues that combining systems thinking, first principles, and design thinking is needed for most of today's complex problems, a need underscored by Bent Flyvbjerg's research on more than 16,000 projects, which found that only 8.5 percent were delivered on time and on budget. He walks through three high-profile failures, one for each approach. DOGE applied first principles to line items but drew the system boundary too tight, setting a savings target larger than the spending it could actually touch. Meta's metaverse bet diagnosed the system correctly but drew the boundary too loose, building a whole new platform at once. The Humane AI Pin solved a compelling user problem but ignored device physics and the value phones already provide. His fix is an order of work: use systems thinking to map the boundary, first principles to find the binding constraint, then design thinking to test the smallest thing that works, or what John Gall called “a working simple system.”

Creating a Culture of Improvement

Why great teams don't need to like each other

Want a higher-performing team? Stop trying so hard to make everyone like each other. In this HBR IdeaCast episode, Adam Grant argues that great teams need alignment, not affection, and that alignment matters more than agreement. He makes the case for rooting out “agreeable takers,” polite but self-interested leaders, and empowering “disagreeable givers.” He also suggests bringing your professional self to work rather than your whole self, and hiring for “culture add” over “culture fit,” which can breed conformity. The line that stuck with me was his test of culture: “Do people say different things behind each other's backs than they say to their faces?” Leaders build candour by showing they can take feedback, including admitting their own weaknesses. High performance doesn't require less kindness, and certainly not more politeness (hard for us Canadians). It requires more candour.

Reorganize less, reorganize better

Reorgs have long been the C-suite's go-to lever when performance slips or when a new leader initiates a “transformation” agenda. In my experience, reorgs have become more frequent, but continue to wreak chaos and deliver disappointing results.

Jamie Flinchbaugh's new white paper argues it should be pulled far less often, and handled much better when it is. He cites a McKinsey survey in which only 21 percent of executives called their redesign a success, and leader alignment made the difference: 49 percent success when leaders were fully aligned, versus 1 percent when they weren't. His core point is that the structure doesn't produce results. Decision rights, information flows, and clear roles do. Two practical ideas stood out for me: designating a “ball catcher” to pick up dropped work during the transition, and a quick test for dotted-line reporting. If a manager can't name three decisions the dotted-line boss actually controls, the line is just decoration. As Flinchbaugh puts it, it's “an admission of unfinished work.”

Coaching – Developing Self & Others

I recently asked a group of leaders to complete a simple slide as part of a workstream “closing” process. I sent out the template, provided clear instructions, the reasons behind them, and a deadline. Crickets. I was frustrated that they were “resisting” – until I reached out to one of the stream leads. “It's just another thing that I don't have time for. Every email that comes out just creates more work for me. I've started ignoring a lot of what comes in.”

I mistook overload for resistance.

“Your team isn't resisting change. They don't have room for it.” That's the premise of this Chain of Learning episode, in which Katie Anderson talks with organizational psychologist Dr. Liane Davey about her new book, Thoughtload. Davey argues that what's overwhelming us isn't just the volume of work but the invisible weight of complexity, decisions, and emotions we carry from meeting to meeting, and home again. The conversation covers why people we label “change resistors” are often simply at capacity, how a team can be busy and productive without moving toward the outcome, and why avoiding a hard conversation only adds to the load. Her advice to “metabolize” your thoughtload, by leaving some walks and commutes free of podcasts and other input, is a little ironic to hear on a podcast. The episode is still worth the listen, just maybe not on your next walk.

The hardest person to lead is often yourself

I've been studying coaching recently, and one lesson keeps coming back: every interaction changes the system you're in. Regulating yourself is the difference between the nudge you intended and the punch you delivered.

In 2014, eight months into his tenure as Microsoft's CEO, Satya Nadella gave a badly judged answer on stage about women asking for raises. Within hours he emailed staff: “I answered that question completely wrong.” Dr. Ian Hallett uses the moment to open a five-part series on his Leadership Operating System, starting with leading yourself. He draws on research showing that managers who seek out critical feedback, and leaders who show humility, are rated more effective by the people around them. His practical tool is a weekly written self-check with three questions: did I stay calm when it counted, what did I learn and what will I change, and where was I wrong and did I admit it? He also warns against replaying meetings at night and calling it reflection. If the lesson never shows up in your behaviour, your team never benefits.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rjmccormack/

Subscribe to receive these via email