Efficiency is a logical concept clouded by reason, that often excludes intuition or instincts. But rather than being in conflict, we should bet on reasonable intuition to optimize efficiency.

 

Efficiency: A concept clouded by reason

Efficiency is often defined as a logical concept; a concept that can be assessed reasonably (article about efficiency definition here and here). As such, we teach and experience efficiency in logical environments. Courses use .ppt with argumentative points to teach efficiency, not empiric field demonstration in nature. We measure efficiency through mathematical formula with inputs and outputs factored in reasonable units (this is even more so for financial efficiency as we saw in Humanitis). By contrast, someone using emotions and feelings to assess efficiency will not be taken seriously.

This reasonable atmosphere clouds the concept of efficiency, to the extent that analysts and decision makers often overlook unreasonable factors. By this, I mean that they seldom consider aspects not based on reason when assessing efficiency issues.

 

Instinct and intuition as natural source of efficiency

However, some of the most efficient solution are not reasonable. Example you ask? Human natural ability to secrete sweat to cool of the body, or to lower energy consumption and recharge the body are very efficient, yet they are pure instinct and intuitive.

Instinct is “a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason” (definition from Merriam Webster dictionary). So by definition, instincts cut the amount of resources needed to process an issue. Take decision making as a process, instincts accelerate this process in many situations (actions you are doing without even thinking about it, like breathing, digesting, sleeping…), making it a very efficient tool.

Intuition too has similar benefits to accelerate a process, but is based on experience. Keeping with decision making, previous experiences create a set of data that we group into patterns. These recognizable patterns help to create shortcuts, shortcuts used by intuition to accelerate the process. So if you disliked broccoli before, your intuition will tell you not to eat cauliflower.

 

Betting on reasonable intuition

The drawback of both instincts and intuitions is that they can be wrong. Instincts can be surpassed to achieve greater goal, previous experiences forming your intuition might be flawed (as we saw in ‘Ageing memory sucks‘)… in the end, you might even like cauliflower. From an efficiency standpoint, it becomes a bet: cut resources needed for a process against the odd of ending with a failed result.

Reality probably lies in between, and we can attain efficiency through reasonable intuition. This means using reason to review, assess and integrate intuition or instincts in the quest for efficiency.

In practice?

Practically, it means that I personally use intuition & analytical approaches to spot organizational inefficiencies. As time pass, intuition is becoming more and more important (sorry, I call that ‘experience’ in meeting), but I always keep an analytical audit on the side. The same goes for improvements solution and action plan. I will always use a logical framework, that include room for intuition and instincts. For example, I will always interview processing staff to get their intuitive / instinctive feedback, and based on this brainstorm, we will investigate and reasonably analyse some of the solution. Again, presentation to management or clients often includes ‘experience’…

 

What’s next?

As of now, the debate remains open. Having intuition as input makes it non-measurable (you can refer to Potentialism for non-measurable issues in measuring efficiency), and so one cannot demonstrate it is indeed more efficient than a purely reasonable approach. And now Effy is having an internal struggle, her reasonable side fighting against her instinctive one…

 

G.M.