PDF Summary:The Friction Project, by Robert I. Sutton and Huggy Rao

All organizations face friction—areas of reduced productivity and efficiency that frustrate people and potentially harm the organization. However, Robert I. Sutton and Huggy Rao argue that friction isn’t always bad. Sometimes, slowing things down can be vital for ensuring safety, quality, and good decisions. In The Friction Project, the authors explain that the key to ensuring that friction is productive is for everyone to become “friction fixers”—people who take accountability for problems, address issues within their control, and adopt principles that encourage beneficial friction.

This guide will discuss the authors’ advice on becoming a friction fixer. First, we’ll explain what friction is, its costs, and its benefits. Then, we’ll discuss how to diagnose friction and how employees can reduce harmful friction within their sphere of influence. Finally, we’ll identify systemic causes of harmful friction and how leaders can address them. In our commentary, we’ll provide advice from other sources on leadership like The Effective Executive by Peter Drucker and Teaming by Amy Edmondson.

(continued)...

Lower level leaders might not be able to make structural changes that resolve friction, but they can absorb some of the fallout so their teams don’t have to. For example, the authors explain that this might mean asking upper management clarifying questions or turning complex instructions from higher up into simple and straightforward guidelines that make it easier for your direct reports to do their job.

Leaders who have the ability to make local changes should do what’s in their power to resolve friction issues, the authors contend. For example, team leaders can do things like making their email communication direct and concise, shortening meeting times, and simplifying team processes.

(Shortform note: In Leaders Eat Last, Simon Sinek explains why it’s so important for leaders to put subordinates before themselves—for example, by doing things like shielding them from friction or making things easier for them whenever possible. This is because prioritizing subordinates creates an environment where employees feel safe and supported. This makes for an overall more successful team and organization as it increases collaboration and innovation. It also encourages empathy and positive feelings among employees.)

Troubleshooting Friction From the Top

While high-level leaders should encourage and support others in the same way as lower-level employees, their authority grants them the power to resolve systemic friction problems from the top. In particular, the authors identify five causes of systemic friction that top-level leaders like CEOs should address because these issues create problems for the whole organization: disconnected leaders, overzealous leaders, coordination failures, ineffective communication, and rushed decisions.

Factor 1: Disconnected Leaders

According to Sutton and Rao, friction problems often stem from disconnected leaders with so much power, authority, and privilege that they lose touch with their organization’s reality and the normal experiences of employees and customers. Disconnection usually happens for three main reasons: Privilege grants immunity from normal people’s struggles; some leaders’ high position gives them a false sense of expertise while isolating them from the reality of organizational operations; and power makes some leaders selfish, focusing on their own needs rather than subordinates’.

(Shortform note: In Leadership and Self-Deception, the Arbinger Institute explains that these types of disconnected leaders are “in the box” of distorted thinking. They view themselves as overly important, and despite knowing what’s right, they act selfishly and make excuses to justify their actions. They blame others for problems they create and often cause organizational issues—like friction. On top of all that, the Arbinger Institute adds that these leaders are particularly destructive because their in-the-box thinking draws other employees into the box as well, creating a toxic and unproductive company culture.)

Sutton and Rao offer four principles that leaders can follow to avoid disconnection and the friction it causes:

1. Speak Carefully: Leaders’ words carry disproportionate weight—even casual comments can prompt employees to launch unnecessary initiatives that divert focus from priorities. Leaders should speak less and listen more, asking thoughtful questions to gain perspective rather than making offhand suggestions that employees may over-interpret.

(Shortform note: While the authors say leaders should solve these types of miscommunications, other leadership experts say the solution should be two-sided. While leaders should speak carefully, subordinates should be encouraged to ask clarifying questions and engage in dialogue rather than jumping on the leader’s every word.)

2. Shadow Employees: The authors advise that rather than assuming they know everything about their organizations, leaders should shadow lower-level employees to gain first-hand understanding of their roles and experiences. This helps leaders see how their actions and decisions impact those working under them and create organizational friction.

(Shortform note: Gemba walks can ensure leaders regularly stay up-to-date with the roles and first-hand experiences of their employees. As opposed to one-on-one shadowing, Gemba walks are recurring walks leaders take through lower levels of the organization to observe how things function. They can help break down departmental divisions, reduce waste, increase employee satisfaction, and improve efficiency.)

3. Rely on Others’ Expertise: Leaders who fail to leverage others’ expertise often make poor decisions and take on tasks beyond their ability or bandwidth, causing delays, wasting resources, and decreasing employee morale. Instead, the authors say leaders should seek input from experts before making decisions and delegate tasks to trusted employees rather than attempting to do everything themselves.

(Shortform note: In No Rules Rules, Reed Hastings advocates taking the authors’ advice a step further—rather than just leveraging others’ expertise to make decisions, Hastings says leaders should let the experts make the decisions themselves. Not only can this arguably decrease friction by minimizing bureaucracy, but Hastings argues that it boosts innovation.)

4. Know When to Use Authority: While it’s important for leaders to rely on others, the authors recommend that they also recognize when it’s necessary to use their authority and make executive decisions without getting others involved. This is often necessary when conflict needs to be resolved or decisions need to be made quickly.

(Shortform note: In The Effective Executive, Peter Drucker offers a few tips on how to make effective executive decisions when the situation demands it. For example, when choosing a course of action, act on what’s right rather than what others think is acceptable. Leaders often face situations where they’re forced to make a compromise, and not everyone will get what they want. Focusing on what’s right will help you avoid being pressured into bad compromises and let you make the best choice possible.)

Factor 2: Addition Addiction

The authors explain that the second common cause of bad friction is when leaders go overboard by adding elements to the organization—meetings, rules, processes, and employees—but don’t remove anything to make room. While the new additions might seem logical and helpful to the boss, they often complicate things for employees and cause more organizational problems in the long run. Sutton and Rao argue that instead of adding things when you face a problem, you should consider how you could simplify or remove things first—a technique called subtraction.

(Shortform note: While subtraction—streamlining elements of the organization to improve efficiency—is effective, business experts warn to fully consider the consequences of subtraction and your ideal outcome before acting. Subtraction often impacts three areas of an organization: efficiency, resilience, and visibility. While subtraction can boost all three elements with proper planning, poor execution can cause you to increase efficiency at the expense of resilience and visibility—for instance, if you subtract a business process that turns out to have been an essential stopgap against unforeseen circumstances.)

To start subtracting, identify areas of friction in the organization that are caused by over-addition:

1. Survey Others: Ask employees and customers about aspects of the organization that frustrate or slow them down due to complicated rules, processes, or systems. Where are things getting bottlenecked? Are there coordination failures that contribute to this tension?

(Shortform note: To help get to the root of an issue when surveying employees, use the “Five Whys” method. In The Lean Startup, Eric Ries explains that asking “why” five times sequentially helps you get to the true root of an issue. For example: 1) Why did a problem occur? Because of “Reason A.” 2) Why did A occur? Because of “Reason B.” 3) Why did B occur? Because of “C” and so on, until you reach “Reason E.” This will then be the true root of the issue, and employees who work directly with the problem will likely be the ones with the best solutions.)

2. Weigh the Values and Costs of Tasks: Do your employees spend a lot of time on meetings, emails, or employee evaluations? Are these things valuable and productive, or do they waste time that’s better spent elsewhere? Can you simplify these tasks to save time?

(Shortform note: In Tools of Titans, Tim Ferriss adds context that can help you boil down to what’s valuable and productive, and what you can simplify or get rid of. Imagine you only had two hours a week to get work done—what would you spend that time on? This will indicate the most valuable parts of your organization where time should be spent—the rest can be subtracted.)

To get these subtractions rolling, the authors suggest you start by collaborating with employees on how to implement subtraction strategies and create organizational processes that help people stick to minimization methods. For example, cap slideshow presentations at 10 slides to encourage clarity and brevity. You can even hire specialists to identify clutter and ways to improve efficiency if you need extra help.

(Shortform note: Establishing clear organizational goals and strategies can help you do as the authors recommend. In The Advantage, Patrick Lencioni explains that such goals provide simplicity and guidance across the organization—clarifying what’s important (and not), what decisions to make, what to spend time on, what roles people should have, and who to hire or fire. Clear goals also facilitate Sutton and Rao’s advice by uniting employees around a common vision and shared understanding of priorities, which boosts collaboration and ensures that organizational processes gain lasting traction.)

Factor 3: Failure to Coordinate

The third cause of bad friction is coordination failure—breakdowns in communication and collaboration between departments, roles, and teams. These failures create burdensome systems that hinder rather than help employees. For instance, requiring a social media manager to get approval from four different executives before making a post online may be intended to improve content quality, but it actually reduces posting frequency. The result is ineffective social media content and a harder job for the social media manager.

According to Sutton and Rao, coordination failure in organizations is often caused by two issues. The first is when people hyperfocus on their own work while ignoring how it might impact or be impacted by what others are doing. The second issue occurs when leaders focus too much on strengthening individual parts of the organization and not enough on ensuring those parts can work together smoothly.

(Shortform note: In Teaming, Amy Edmondson argues that these coordination failures arise from the nature of traditional workplace teams. These teams—like marketing or accounting departments—remain stable for years. People grow comfortable working with the same colleagues on the same projects, but this hinders their ability to collaborate across groups or tackle different tasks. Edmondson’s solution is “teaming”—an active process where people from different groups and backgrounds regularly collaborate on projects. Unlike traditional teams, these are temporary, they focus on the collaborative process rather than relying on established relationships, and they cross departmental, disciplinary, and hierarchical boundaries.)

The authors say that to overcome coordination failures, leaders must emphasize the importance of collaboration and unite employees under shared goals and values. To do this:

1. Help employees understand how their roles connect to others’ and the organization as a whole. Ensure they understand others’ roles as well to improve coordination abilities when unexpected situations arise.

2. Tell an influential company story that emphasizes the importance of coordination and cooperation, and tell the story repeatedly so every employee knows it. For example, describe a time an employee upheld company values and made a meaningful impact on someone’s life. These meaningful stories will become a representation of the company and will help establish values and cultural norms.

3. Establish roles and teams dedicated to improving collaboration and connecting different parts of the organization, especially ones that have grown out of touch.

4. Improve information handoffs—create communication protocols so that when one team or team member hands off a task or piece of information to another, everybody understands the current situation and what needs to happen next.

Overcome Coordination Failures by “Teaming”

Edmondson’s emphasis on teaming aims to accomplish similar outcomes to Sutton and Rao’s—a company of unified and collaborative employees. Let’s consider how some of Edmondson’s advice compares to that of the authors:

First, Edmondson makes a connection between the concepts discussed in the authors’ first and fourth points. She explains that understanding others’ roles and how yours connects to theirs is a crucial component of improving information flow and handoff. This is because working in diverse groups requires you to know who’s the expert in what, and who might be able to offer a valuable perspective or expertise.

Edmondson also recommends teaching employees about the value of open communication—an important concept to focus influential company stories on. Promoting open communication creates an environment where employees feel safe to speak their minds, boosting innovation and collaboration. Using a company story to emphasize this value will establish it as a company norm and produce lasting results.

Finally, both Edmondson and the authors recommend bridging parts of the organization that have grown out of touch, but their advice for doing so differs. While Sutton and Rao recommend having a collaboration expert bridge these gaps, Edmondson recommends doing so by 1) aligning everyone through shared goals, 2) actively inviting input from every member of a diverse team regardless of their title or status, 3) using technology to enable information sharing across different locations and departments, and 4) helping everyone understand the unique value that everyone else brings to the table.

Factor 4: Ineffective Communication

The fourth cause of bad friction is ineffective communication from leaders. The authors explain that communication issues happen when leaders use complex language and jargon, communicate to impress rather than inform, and overuse buzzwords until they become meaningless. This confuses people, causes misunderstandings, wastes time, and decreases productivity. For example, if a leader sends a directive full of jargon and overly complex guidelines, employees will struggle to understand their objective, let alone how to accomplish it.

(Shortform note: In The Advantage, Patrick Lencioni argues that to improve organizational efficiency, communication must not only be clear, but also consistent. Clear communication helps employees understand what’s important, but consistent communication—regularly expressing the same things in the same way—helps employees remember what that goal is.)

To avoid ineffective communication, Sutton and Rao make a few recommendations.

First, they say to simplify language. Eliminate unnecessary organizational jargon, and use everyday language instead of complex words and lengthy sentences. Encourage this by rewarding clear, simple communication and creating a company communication editor to reduce confusing messages.

Next, the authors say to focus on clarifying language using a few simple guidelines: Use concrete rather than vague language, speak in the present tense, frame actions as choices rather than something forced upon people, use metaphors that connect to the senses, and describe work as an ongoing journey rather than something to be finished.

The Process of Creating a Clear Message

In The Art of Explanation, Ros Atkins provides a step-by-step guide to ensure simple and clear communication that can help you apply the authors’ advice.

First, articulate what you want to accomplish through your message—are you answering a question or giving instructions? Next, gather the information you want to share, and narrow it down to its key points by removing anything that’s not crucial to understanding the purpose identified in step one. Then, structure your message in a logical format—create explanations and transitions between pieces of information so your reader understands how things are connected. This is where you’ll focus on what the authors refer to as clarifying language—speaking in the right tense, using effective metaphors, and so on.

Once you’ve drafted your message, Atkins says you should scan it for clarity—this is where you’ll simplify language, as the authors recommend, by eliminating any long or convoluted sentences, complex language, and jargon.

Finally, the authors recommend adopting procedures to ease communication between groups with different specialized terminology. For example, content and marketing teams may struggle to understand each other due to their specialized jargon. Address this by creating a dictionary of specialized terms and their translations, or training generalists who can translate between different specialists’ terminology.

(Shortform note: Atkins also offers advice that may assist you in easing communication between different groups. For example, when determining what language to use, consider who your audience is—their backgrounds, experiences, roles, and relationships to you. Further, consider what they already know about your topic. These tips can be used by individuals communicating with others in different departments or by generalists when translating terminology.)

Factor 5: Moving Too Fast

Sutton and Rao’s fifth cause of friction is when leaders move too fast. This happens when they prioritize urgency over thoughtful consideration of actions and decisions, creating a culture where employees feel constantly rushed. This leads to employee burnout and turnover, poor and unethical decision-making, negative workplace attitudes including bullying and selfishness, and reduced creativity. Fast-moving organizations tend to leave destruction in their wake.

(Shortform note: While the authors caution against a fast-paced environment that rushes employees, some business experts, like Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, claim that this is the path to success. In The Thinking Machine, Stephen Witt explains that Huang cultivates a life-or-death mindset in employees, leading them to believe the company could fail at any moment. This mindset pressures employees, but it also encourages them to take risks and make quick decisions they might not otherwise take—under circumstances where failure looms, people are more likely to take risks that have higher rewards. This often benefits the organization in the long run.)

Instead of adopting a fast and furious culture, the authors recommend that leaders apply positive friction—slow processes down to ensure actions and decisions are in the organization’s best interest. There are a few ways they recommend doing so:

1. Pause to imagine the future. Before taking action, consider what both failure and success would look like. This will help your team develop a shared understanding of the path ahead, anticipating potential problems and recognizing success factors.

2. Ask questions that prompt reflection. Leaders should ask questions that force them and their employees to think critically before making decisions: Why is this a good idea? Is it safe? Is it smart?

3. Be sure you can master something on a small scale before attempting large-scale success. For example, before offering a service to the public, make sure your specialists can do the job perfectly within the organization. Before offering the same services within the organization, make sure your specialists can do the job perfectly in trials.

4. Take time to reassess. Organizations are constantly evolving, which means that goals, values, or processes that worked before might not work now. This is especially true after major changes in the world, the market, or the organization. As such, leaders should periodically take time to evaluate these elements and make sure they’re still effective.

Slow Down With Adaptive Practices

In The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Ronald A. Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky make a few recommendations on fostering an adaptive culture that may also help you follow the author’s advice on slowing down to ensure actions and decisions are effective.

First, they recommend fostering an adaptive culture where everyone—from entry-level employees to CEOs—acknowledges problems and cares about the organization. In this culture, anyone can raise concerns or question decisions, even if that means a store-front employee challenges a regional manager’s choice. Everyone should stay informed about the organization through informal conversations, cross-departmental updates, and shadowing coworkers. Doing this in conjunction with Sutton and Rao’s first two recommendations—imagining potential problems and asking reflective questions—enables the entire organization to work toward a shared goal and therefore achieve better results.

Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky also make a few recommendations to help you effectively experiment before pursuing an idea on a larger scale. For example, they suggest having the employees working on the tests clear their to-do lists so they can put their full focus on the experiment—understanding what’s going right, what’s going wrong, and what resources might be necessary to achieve success.

Lastly, Heifetz and his coauthors offer some questions to help you reflect and reassess. For example, consider the ways that external conditions are changing, what internal challenges these changing conditions may cause, and what metrics you can use to measure success.