# An Improvement Paradox By:: [[Ross Jackson]] 2023-08-28 It seems that it is more difficult to improve performance in one’s department than to identify improvements in somebody else’s department. At first, this might seem odd. After all, one might assume that one knows one’s department better than one knows the department of another. This is probably accurate. So why would it be easier to identify improvements in another person’s department? There are at least two reasons. First, one is more objective when examining the department of another. It is easier to maintain distance and, therefore, to see things more clearly. Second, one isn’t encumbered with the actual operation of performance within that organization. Simply doing the work is the overwhelming point of focus. When one’s head is down executing, one doesn’t typically have time to think about improving things. These two things combine to produce the improvement paradox – improving performance in a department other than one’s own is easier. What should one do with this paradox? At its core, this paradox suggests that organizations might benefit from a peer-review system in which one examines the operation and performance of another department. Ideally, the data would be available, and if one were inclined, one would examine those data and assess how things might be improved. This isn’t an attempt to call another out or to make oneself look better. The point is to make things better. Organizations find many ways to prevent this from happening. There is a tendency to deny access to data rather than promote it. A better way is to allow access and welcome any idea that could improve things. An outside perspective often finds insights those on the inside would never see. #### Related Items [[Paradox]] [[Progress]] [[Organization]] [[Focus]] [[Data]]