Team Efficiency and Cognitive Dissonance in the Workplace

In today’s data-driven world, metrics and targets are the bedrock of organisational performance. But what happens when these measures don’t tell the full story? More importantly, what happens when adjusting them makes your staff feel like they’re underperforming, even when nothing has actually changed?

This feeling, known as cognitive dissonance in the workplace, can be unsettling. At Made to Measure KPIs, we’ve seen firsthand how re-evaluating performance metrics can cause discomfort. But, as counterintuitive as it may sound, this discomfort is often the trigger for real improvement, especially in team efficiency and as our example will show, overall production efficiency improvement.

The Illusion of Perfection

Many businesses fall into the trap of setting targets that seem achievable or even exceedable, sometimes leading workers to hit 100% or higher on performance measures. It feels good, right? But is it real?

In one case Bernie worked on, a paper manufacturer’s efficiency metric, OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness), consistently showed 95-105%. This is a figure that, on the surface, suggested stellar performance.

Production efficiency improvement

Why is OEE important? OEE is important because it gives you a clear picture of how efficiently your production line is running by measuring availability, performance, and quality all in one. It’s essential for spotting inefficiencies, setting realistic goals, and maximising productivity, so you get the most out of your equipment and resources. Here’s a plain English guide to OEE if you want to know more.

However, it’s important to remember that anything above 100% OEE is unrealistic, as 100% represents the theoretical maximum that isn’t sustainable over time. So what was going on at the paper manufacturer? Simply a flawed calculation of OEE.

Cognitive dissonance in the workplace

Upon closer inspection and a recalibration of their flawed metric, the true efficiency was closer to 65-70%.  The reaction from the team? Discomfort, resistance, and even a sense of failure, classic symptoms of cognitive dissonance in the workplace. These workers had to rationalise the conflict between their perceived and actual performance, which led to the discomfort they felt.

Why Discomfort is a Sign of Growth

Now, nothing had fundamentally changed: they were still making roughly the same number of reels of paper per week. But by fixing this metric, we had just showed that theoretically, there was an “opportunity” to increase output from 65% to 100%. Of course, you are only ever likely to see a portion of that theoretical opportunity achieved in the real-world.

What upset the foremen in particular was that they were used to seeing 100% on the performance metrics, which made them feel like they were hitting the mark perfectly. The measure and the target had become blurred in their minds—100% became the benchmark for success. However, this 100% was based on flawed calculations, giving a false sense of achievement.

Increase team efficiency

What we did was to separate the measure (OEE, with a maximum achievable of 100%) from the target itself. We set a new, more realistic target at 65%, which simply reflected their true performance at that time. By clarifying the distinction between what was being measured and the goals being set, we helped the manufacturing crew understand that their previous “100%” wasn’t the real goal but rather an inflated number that didn’t encourage further progress.

The initial resistance to more accurate but lower performance metrics isn’t surprising. People don’t like feeling like they’re doing worse than before. However, this discomfort—rooted in cognitive dissonance in the workplace—is often the push workers need to drive real improvement. Rather than resting on the laurels of an inflated 100% efficiency, staff begin to see where there’s room for real growth. This process is crucial for increasing team efficiency and in the case of our example, achieving meaningful production efficiency improvement.

Communication is Key

Of course, it’s not enough to simply change a metric and expect everyone to get on board. When staff experience cognitive dissonance, it’s important to address and resolve it effectively. Building KPI engagement with your employees is one of the first steps to focus on.

Transparent communication about why the change is happening and what it means for future growth is crucial. By communicating well with your workers, you help them deal with cognitive dissonance and use it as a stepping stone towards greater efficiency and performance.

By aligning everyone around a clear, realistic set of expectations, you create a shared understanding that the goal is not to make people feel bad, but to give them a true picture of where they stand and where they can improve. This approach not only helps reduce cognitive dissonance in the workplace but also fosters a culture of continuous improvement, ultimately driving team efficiency.

Avoiding the Trap of Vanity Metrics

It’s easy to fall in love with vanity metrics—those numbers that look good on a report but don’t drive meaningful outcomes. By stripping these away and focusing on what truly matters, organisations can set targets that align with their strategic goals, rather than chasing impressive but hollow statistics. Our Ultimate KPI Guide will help you identify the KPIs that are truly aligned with your strategic goals.

Equally important, when it comes to managing and reviewing KPIs, figuring out how often to check them is just as crucial as the measures themselves. Not all KPIs are created equal, and effectively answering the question of how often should KPIs be reviewed can make a big difference to your decision-making and overall business health.

Why Being Bad Can Be Good

This production efficiency improvement example showcases perfectly how being “bad” is actually the first step toward being great. By embracing the discomfort that comes with recalibrating performance metrics, organisations can move beyond the illusion of perfection and towards sustainable, real-world improvement.

With our foremen in the paper mill, it drove the behaviour that ultimately lifted their efficiency from 65% to 80% – that’s a 23% increase in output. Do you think they would have driven that if they thought they were already running at 100%?

If you’re ready to take a hard look at your metrics and make sure they’re truly driving the outcomes you need, reach out to us by sending an email to [email protected] or booking a free introductory call with Bernie. Bernie is always happy to have a chat about how to move your business forward.