On countless occasions we hear that we need to be more proactive. In other words, taking the initiative and anticipating problems. But being proactive almost always comes at a cost, which is paid in advance, at best a little time investment, at worst a lot of time and money. We often look at the cost of being proactive, but overlook the cost of not being proactive. Especially when we see that the cost of being proactive is high, we often dismiss it outright, without seeing the other side of the coin.
But not being proactive means being reactive or directly passive, when problems occur. Probably if the problem is relevant we will be reactive. But unlike proactivity, when we have the advantage of anticipating problems, i.e. the time component works in our favour, reactivity means acting once the problem has manifested itself and its effects are taking place. The response then aims to mitigate the effects of the problem, but some of these effects may already be irreversible. And it is in these cases, when the problem has become concrete and real, that the cost component is not analysed in such detail. In fact, the cost of being reactive often ends up being much higher than if we had been proactive from the start. There are plenty of examples here: such as the cost of preventing fires versus the cost of putting them out and “repairing” the damage, or the cost of regular medical check-ups versus the cost of treatment when symptoms are clear. As the saying goes: better safe than sorry.
In the world of business, and especially in small companies and startups, it is common to choose to be reactive by default. At first glance, this may seem logical, as resources are very limited and choices have to be made. The problem is that these companies are often reactive even in their own strategy, which is determined by the events and problems they encounter, and many of these companies end up in a constant firefighting mode. At this point, companies spend large amounts of effort and money trying to solve the problems they have created through their lack of strategy, rather than focusing on solving their customers’ problems and working on their value proposition.
A typical example is often given with talent retention policies. Often, the choice is to be reactive, waiting until the employee expresses dissatisfaction with some aspect of the work or asks for a raise, and then giving it attention and working on it. But if the employee does not complain, then nothing is done. In my experience, employees often do not express their dissatisfaction with aspects of the job to their managers, and many when they do, it is to communicate that they are leaving. This is particularly pronounced in a sector where the supply of jobs far outstrips demand, as is the case in the technology sector. People being the most important asset of a company, and being a scarce commodity in many cases, having a proactive talent retention policy is a clear example where being proactive is usually much cheaper than being reactive. It is easy to calculate the cost of staff turnover, if we want to be data-driven in order to switch to being proactive.
Another example is often given with agile processes and methodologies. It is common for companies to see the implementation of agile methodologies as a one-off transformation that takes only a short period of time, counted in days or weeks. In the case of Scrum, it is not uncommon to train someone on the team with a little Scrum Master training and then get them rolling. The problem is that such training is often helpful in getting to grips with the mechanics of the process, but not as effective in understanding the philosophy behind it. This often results in teams adopting the practices and ceremonies of Scrum, but without adopting the principles on which it is based. Two of these principles are inspection and continuous adaptation of the process to keep it proactively optimal and effective. However, it often ends up in a reactive mode, where the process is not reviewed, or if it is, it is done superficially, and with the lowest priority, as delivery is tight.
It is highly recommended to stop and analyse how the different aspects of a startup and a team are managed, and identify where we are being reactive rather than proactive. Studying the risks and costs of these decisions (or non-decisions) can serve as a first step in taking control of the situation. And this can save us a lot of time and money in the future when the effects of reactivity start to be felt.
If you recognise problems like these in managing your teams or applying agile methodologies, but you are too busy to work proactively on solving them, perhaps you could consider asking for help. A Fractional CTO with experience in different types of companies and startups, whose mission is to solve the problems that prevent you from meeting your business objectives, is a very good option that more and more companies are turning to.
If you’re interesting in exploring possible solutions, you can contact me here.