The Hidden Cost of Everyone Doing Things Differently

The difference between creating consistency and making the right things repeatable.

What if the problem isn't that everyone is doing things differently? What if the bigger risk is getting everyone to do the same thing, without first understanding whether it's the right thing?

I've been thinking a lot lately about our obsession with consistency.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big believer in creating structure, establishing clear expectations, and making the things that work repeatable. But I've spent enough time inside organizations to know that just because two people do something differently doesn't mean one of them is doing it wrong.

And just because someone is doing something well doesn't necessarily mean we understand why it works, or whether it will work for everyone else.

Yet when organizations embark on transformation, one of the first instincts is often to standardize. Find the best practice, build the framework, and get everyone aligned.

I think there's a pretty important step we're skipping.

Consistency doesn't mean everyone doing the same thing.

I've spent much of my career working with organizations navigating change. Different industries, different challenges, different levels of complexity. And one thing I see over and over is organizations becoming far more dependent on individual ways of working than they realize.

The question I've grappled with, though, is whether that's necessarily a bad thing.

People develop approaches that work for them. They build relationships, solve problems, navigate complexity, and figure out how to get things done. Over time, those approaches become part of how teams operate, often without anyone stopping to ask whether they're consistent, repeatable, or even understood outside of the people doing the work.

The challenge comes when an organization needs to operate differently.

Maybe it's growing. Maybe teams are coming together after a merger. Maybe leadership is trying to improve performance, introduce new technology, or create a more consistent customer experience.

Suddenly, those differences become magnified and can create real friction during change.

But before introducing a new process, playbook, or set of expectations, I think we need to ask:

Do we actually understand why people are doing things differently? And perhaps more importantly, have we validated that what we're calling "good" produces the outcomes we're trying to achieve?

Some variation exists for good reason. Different customers have different needs. Teams operate in different environments. Certain approaches work because they're adapted to the nuances of the business.

Other differences are less intentional. They exist because people were trained differently, inherited different practices, or simply figured things out on their own. Sometimes those approaches are brilliant. Sometimes they're problematic.

Treating all variation as something to eliminate risks losing what makes people effective. And standardizing practices we haven't validated risks making the wrong things repeatable.

The work before the work.

One of the most valuable parts of organizational transformation, in my experience, happens before anyone starts designing the solution.

It's the discovery.

Not simply interviewing a few leaders, reviewing documentation, and confirming what everyone already believes the problem to be.

I mean getting underneath how the organization actually operates. Hands on keyboards, feet on the street, who's who in the zoo.

Getting curious. Talking to the people doing the work. Understanding how decisions get made, where teams get stuck, what successful people do differently, and where stated expectations don't quite match reality.

And importantly, looking for patterns rather than treating every observation as a universal truth.

Sometimes what emerges validates the original problem statement I was given. Sometimes it changes the problem statement entirely.

And sometimes you discover that the organization already has much of what it needs. The challenge is making those strengths more visible, accessible, and consistent.

The goal shouldn't be to replace what's working. It should be to understand it, validate that it supports where the organization is trying to go, and determine how to make it work at scale.

A framework isn't a transformation.

Of course, understanding the problem is only part of it.

You can develop a thoughtful strategy, create a beautifully structured framework, and get everyone aligned on what the future should look like.

But none of that guarantees anything will actually change.

I think this is another place where organizations underestimate the work involved.

A new way of working needs to make sense to the people expected to use it. Leaders need to understand what they're reinforcing. Teams need practical guidance, not just principles. And the organization needs to be realistic about what it has the capacity to implement.

Then there's the balance between ambition and practicality.

I don't believe in designing everything around today's limitations. If we only account for what an organization can comfortably do right now, we risk reinforcing the very behaviors we're trying to change.

But I also don't believe in handing people an ideal future state without a credible path to get there.

Good transformation requires both. A clear understanding of where you're trying to go, and an equally clear understanding of what it will take to get there.

Making the right things repeatable.

For me, the real opportunity in creating consistency isn't about control or compliance. It's about building organizational capability. And that starts with being intentional about what we choose to make repeatable.

It's making sure success isn't entirely dependent on who happens to be in the room, which leader someone reports to, or how long they've been with the company.

It's creating shared understanding around the decisions, behaviors, and practices that matter, while leaving room for the judgment and flexibility that make people effective.

And it's recognizing that meaningful change doesn't happen simply because we've documented a better way of working. Though I do love a good PowerPoint slide. 😊

It happens when people understand it, see themselves in it, and have the support to put it into practice.

The goal isn't to make everyone work the same way. It's to make the right things work better, together.