The Case for Measuring Efficiency
Efficiency asks how much output a given input produces — how little is wasted in converting resources into results. It has the practical advantage of being relatively easy to define and measure: cost per unit, time per task, resource consumed per outcome delivered. Because it is measurable, it is actionable in a very direct sense — a team can usually tell, from an efficiency metric, whether this week was better or worse than last week.
This measurability is also efficiency’s documented weakness. V. F. Ridgway, writing in Administrative Science Quarterly on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, examined single, multiple, and composite performance measures and found that all three can produce undesirable consequences for overall organisational performance, even when — especially when — they are pursued diligently and in good faith. Ridgway documented, among other examples, public employment interviewers who, evaluated on the number of interviews conducted, learned to conduct fast interviews and placed fewer applicants as a result. The measure improved. The underlying purpose it was meant to serve did not. As Ridgway put it, quantitative performance measures are useful tools, but “indiscriminate use and undue confidence and reliance in them result from insufficient knowledge of the full effects and consequences” — and in some cases, “the cure is sometimes worse than the disease.” An efficiency-first case has to reckon directly with this finding: optimising a measurable input-output ratio can, and demonstrably does, come at the expense of the outcome the measure was meant to represent.
The Case for Measuring Effectiveness
Effectiveness asks a different question: whether the work is actually producing the outcome that matters, regardless of how economically it got there. An operation can be highly efficient — low cost, high throughput — while being only weakly effective, if what it is efficiently producing is not, in fact, what the organisation needs.
The case for prioritising effectiveness draws directly on the same organisational-design logic that explains why efficiency measures distort behaviour in the first place. If, as Jay Galbraith’s information-processing view of organisation design argues, structure exists to serve the organisation’s actual coordination and outcome needs under conditions of genuine uncertainty, then a measure of efficiency detached from that context is measuring the wrong thing by construction — it is optimising the operation’s internal ratio without reference to whether the operation, as currently designed, is even the right operation for the situation the organisation is actually in. Effectiveness, on this view, is the more fundamental question; efficiency is only meaningful once effectiveness is established, because an efficient version of the wrong activity is still the wrong activity, merely produced with less waste.
The practical difficulty with prioritising effectiveness is that it is considerably harder to measure. Whether an outcome is genuinely “right” often cannot be reduced to a single number the way efficiency can, and effectiveness judgements are more exposed to disagreement, delay, and post-hoc rationalisation than a cost-per-unit figure is.
Why the Disagreement Persists
Both positions are defensible, and the disagreement between them persists because each identifies a genuine cost the other side underweights. The efficiency case is right that effectiveness is hard to measure, and that what cannot be measured is easy to neglect in practice, however important it is in principle. The effectiveness case is right that an efficiency measure, pursued in isolation, reliably distorts behaviour in exactly the ways Ridgway documented — because people and teams respond to what is actually measured, not to what a measure was originally intended to represent.
Neither position resolves the other’s weakness. A purely efficiency-driven operation risks becoming, in Ridgway’s framing, very good at doing the wrong thing. A purely effectiveness-driven operation risks becoming directionally right but difficult to manage, evaluate, or hold accountable day to day, because there is no crisp, comparable number to manage against.
There is a further complication that neither position resolves on its own: efficiency and effectiveness are not simply two independent dimensions that can be measured and balanced separately. They interact. A highly efficient process can, over time, become harder to redirect toward a different, more effective purpose, because the organisation’s investment in efficiency — specialised roles, tuned workflows, optimised systems — creates its own inertia. Conversely, a highly effective but inefficient operation may simply be starved of the resources needed to sustain its effectiveness, because its costs look poor by comparison to more efficient parts of the same organisation, even when its actual outcomes are stronger. The tension is not static; it compounds over time in whichever direction an organisation leans.
What It Means for a Leader
The tension does not resolve into a formula, and this article does not offer one. What the disagreement does suggest is a genuine trade-off worth holding consciously rather than resolving by default. An organisation that measures only efficiency should expect, on the weight of the evidence, some degree of behavioural distortion toward the measure and away from the underlying purpose. An organisation that speaks mainly in terms of effectiveness should expect some difficulty translating that language into the day-to-day accountability that efficiency metrics provide relatively easily. Recognising which of the two an organisation’s current metrics actually reward — and whether that matches what leadership believes it is prioritising — is itself a useful, and often overlooked, exercise.
A final point worth making plainly: the two terms are frequently used interchangeably in everyday organisational language, in a way that obscures rather than clarifies which trade-off is actually being made in a given decision. A leader who says an operation needs to be “better” without specifying whether that means more efficient or more effective is, in practice, deferring a real and consequential choice — one that this article’s evidence suggests will be made anyway, implicitly, by whichever metric the organisation happens to be watching most closely at the time.
This has a further, practical implication worth naming. Because efficiency is easier to measure, it is also easier to defend in a budget conversation or a performance review — a number that improved is a straightforward story to tell. An improvement in effectiveness, by contrast, often has to be argued for qualitatively, which puts it at a persistent rhetorical disadvantage inside organisations that reward legible, quantified progress. This is not a reason to distrust efficiency metrics; it is a reason to notice that the ease of making a case for something and the actual importance of that something are two different qualities, easily conflated in practice.
The same pattern appears across many kinds of organisation; see Other Sectors for how it is read elsewhere.
Questions worth considering
- Where efficiency and effectiveness pull in different directions, which does the organisation default to — and was that ever a deliberate choice?
- Which outcomes that matter are hard to measure, and so quietly receive less attention than those that are easy to count?
- Where one part of the operation looks costly beside the rest, is it producing weaker results or stronger ones?
This perspective is part of Operations.
Your team is facing similar challenges?
Subscribe to The Riddle Ledger
Perspectives are sent as they are published, with no promotional email, and you can unsubscribe at any time.