When Getting Things Done Becomes Part of the Problem

Some leaders are extraordinarily good at getting things done, regardless of the obstacles in their way.

Give them inadequate resources, inefficient systems, competing priorities or an impossible deadline, and they'll figure something out. They'll find a workaround, call in a favour, repurpose something that wasn't intended for the job or somehow persuade the right people to help.

They'll MacGyver it.

For those who remember the old television series, MacGyver could assemble an ingenious solution to just about any problem using a paper clip, a Bic pen, some duct tape and whatever else happened to be lying around.

It's a wonderful capability to have in an organization. Until it isn't.

When resourcefulness becomes compensation

There's an important distinction between finding a creative solution to an unexpected problem and continually compensating for organizational deficiencies.

When a leader encounters an unusual obstacle, brings people together and finds a way forward, that's resourcefulness at its best. Organizations benefit enormously from leaders who can adapt, think creatively and deliver results when things don't go according to plan.

But what happens when the obstacles aren't unusual? When the same inadequate systems, insufficient resources or dysfunctional processes are being worked around again and again?

At that point, the leader may no longer be solving problems. They may be making it possible for the organization to avoid confronting them.

And because the results keep coming, the underlying problems remain largely invisible.

Are we rewarding the wrong behaviour?

Organizational psychologist Liane Davey wrote an excellent article called Stop Rewarding Arsonists for Putting Out Fires, challenging organizations to examine whether the people being celebrated for saving the day might have contributed to the problems in the first place.

But what about the leaders who didn't create the problem? The ones who are simply so resourceful, so determined to deliver, that they continually compensate for deficiencies elsewhere in the organization?

Consider the leader who consistently delivers results despite inadequate staffing. Perhaps they're personally resolving issues that should be handled several levels below them. Perhaps they're relying on informal relationships to circumvent broken processes. Perhaps their team is working unsustainable hours.

From above, the results look terrific.

But is the organization actually becoming more effective?

The real job of leadership

I've long believed that one of the most important responsibilities of leadership is to build capacity and capability. Not simply to get things done, but to create the conditions in which people and organizations become increasingly capable of getting things done well.

That means developing people, strengthening systems, improving decision-making and building an organization that can perform without depending on the extraordinary efforts of a few individuals.

And it means recognizing that delivering today's results and building tomorrow's capability are not always the same thing.

For highly results-oriented leaders, this can be a difficult distinction. Their ability to deliver is often central to their professional identity. They're the person who finds a way, who doesn't make excuses, who can always be counted on.

But as leadership responsibilities increase, so does the obligation to look beyond personal effectiveness to organizational effectiveness.

Sometimes the most valuable thing a leader can do is stop compensating for a broken system long enough to make the problem visible. Not by abandoning their responsibilities, but by recognizing that another ingenious workaround may actually be postponing a necessary organizational decision.

Senior management has a responsibility here too. If we consistently celebrate heroic effort without examining why it was necessary, we may be reinforcing the very conditions we should be addressing.

Knowing when not to MacGyver it

The question isn't whether a leader can find a way to get things done when the proper resources and systems aren't available.

It's whether they can recognize when finding another way is no longer the right thing to do.

Because ultimately, the measure of effective leadership isn't just what gets accomplished while the leader is there.

It's what the organization becomes capable of accomplishing because they were.