Have you ever experienced that strange feeling of déjà vu, but in reverse? You visit one location of a favorite restaurant chain and have a fantastic experience—clean environment, friendly staff, quick service. But then, you visit another location of the exact same chain across town, perhaps operating under the same franchise agreement and systems, only to find it messy, the service slow, and the staff seemingly indifferent. This isn’t just bad luck; it’s a common business problem known as Operational Performance Variation.
Understanding and actively working to Operational Performance Variation between operating units is not just a ‘nice-to-have’ for large organizations; it’s a critical component of sustained success and achieving consistently great results across the board. Many businesses accept this variance as an unavoidable cost of doing business, perhaps blaming differing market conditions or luck. However, the reality is that much of this performance gap can often be traced back to specific, addressable factors, particularly the effectiveness of leadership. Ignoring this operational inconsistency means leaving potential revenue on the table, damaging brand reputation, and failing to leverage the full capabilities of your entire organization.
Through actionable strategies that address concepts like decision-making waste and the “Improvement Impact Iceberg,” we can gain a clear roadmap toward reducing operational variance and achieving consistent excellence. I also spoke about this on the Accelerating Operational Performance podcast; you can listen to it here or watch it here.
Let’s dig into the root causes of operating performance variation and the crucial link between leadership effectiveness and results.
Understanding Operational Performance Variation: What Does It Look Like?
Operational Performance Variation refers to the difference or range in results observed when comparing multiple operating units within the same organization. This comparison isn’t limited to just different physical locations; it can apply equally to different departments within a single facility or even different shifts performing the same functions.
Think about the tangible metrics: What does the gap look like when you compare your lowest-performing unit to your highest-performing unit in terms of key performance indicators (KPIs), specific operational metrics, or even fundamental dollars and cents? Is there a large, noticeable gap between the best and the worst, or are the results relatively tightly clustered? Answering this question honestly is the first step in diagnosing the health of your operational consistency.
The ultimate goal for any organization serious about optimization isn’t just having a few superstar units while others lag behind; it’s achieving consistently great results across the entire operation. High variance represents unpredictability—it means your outcomes are less reliable, forecasting becomes more difficult, and delivering a uniform brand experience is compromised. Customers interacting with a high-variance operation might have vastly different experiences depending on which location they visit or which team they engage with, leading to potential dissatisfaction.
Conversely, low variance signifies consistency and reliability. It suggests that your systems, processes, and leadership are effectively implemented across the board, leading to predictable outcomes and a dependable standard of performance.
Dealing with variation in operating performance is fundamentally about moving from a state of unpredictable, scattered results towards one of reliable, high-level execution everywhere. If the performance gap between your units is relatively tight, you might be in good shape, but if you recognize significant variation, there are likely substantial opportunities for improvement.
The Leadership Factor: How Management Impacts Reducing Operational Variance
When faced with inconsistent performance across different business units, a crucial question inevitably arises: What difference does leadership really make? It’s easy to point to external factors like market conditions, location advantages, or specific product mixes, but experience and observation strongly suggest that the quality of the local operating leader—the general manager, plant manager, or department head—has a profound impact on results. If you ask executives overseeing hundreds of units if they think the local manager matters, the answer is almost always a resounding “yes”. Therefore, understanding and strengthening leadership capability is fundamental to any serious effort to reduce Operational Performance Variance and achieve more uniform success. We need to isolate and examine the relationship between leadership effectiveness and the variation we see in performance.
To help visualize this relationship, we can use the Operational Performance Variation Model. This is a classic two-by-two matrix. On the vertical axis, we plot Operating Performance Variation, with high variation (which is generally undesirable) at the bottom and low variation (representing consistency, which is good) at the top. On the horizontal axis, we plot Leadership Effectiveness, ranging from low effectiveness on the left to high effectiveness on the right. This creates four distinct quadrants, each representing a different operational reality:
Quadrant 1: Low Leadership / High Variance (Luck)
This bottom-left quadrant represents a situation where leadership effectiveness is low, and operational performance variation is high. Results are generally poor and inconsistent across units. Any success stories in this quadrant are often attributable to sheer luck rather than skill—perhaps a unit benefits from a prime location with no competition or stumbles upon success occasionally, like the proverbial blind squirrel finding a nut. Relying on luck is a precarious business strategy; these operations are highly vulnerable to any changes in the market or the arrival of competent competitors. Organizations stuck here struggle significantly because the foundational leadership capability is missing.
Quadrant 2: High Leadership / High Variance (Operating Conditions/Luck)
Moving to the bottom-right, we find units with high leadership effectiveness, yet still experiencing high variation in performance. Here, you have strong leaders, but their results are inconsistent when compared across different operations. This suggests that factors beyond the leader’s direct control, often related to specific operating conditions, are significantly influencing outcomes.
Examples could include:
- Production facilities dealing with vastly different product complexities
- Setup times or raw material challenges
While having effective leaders is better than not, the high variance indicates that systems or external factors are preventing consistent success, making the task of decreasing operational variance more complex than just leadership training.
Quadrant 3: Low Leadership / Low Variance (Improvement/Challenge)
In the top-left quadrant, we see low variation, meaning performance is consistent, but paired with low leadership effectiveness. This scenario often signifies consistent mediocrity. The operations run predictably but consistently underperform relative to their potential because the leaders lack the effectiveness to drive improvement. This quadrant represents a huge improvement opportunity and a challenge for senior management: there’s low-hanging fruit everywhere, but the local leadership isn’t competent enough to identify or capture it.
Quadrant 4: High Leadership / Low Variance (Operational Excellence/World-Class)
Finally, the top-right quadrant is the target destination. Here, low operational variance meets high leadership effectiveness. This signifies Operational Excellence (OpEx): leaders are highly capable, systems are effective, and processes are managed well, resulting in consistently strong performance across all units. Many organizations associate OpEx with tools like Lean or Continuous Improvement, but true Operational Excellence occurs when these methodologies are combined with great leadership.
Within this quadrant, there’s even a higher level: World-Class. These are the best-of-the-best operations, marked by exceptionally talented leaders, superior systems, maximized profitability, a vibrant culture, and the ability to attract and retain top talent.
Hidden Costs: How Decision-Making Waste Exacerbates Operating Variances
Beyond the direct impact of leadership effectiveness, a significant hidden cost often prevents organizations from successfully reducing variance between operating units: decision-making waste. This concept refers to the inefficient use of management resources where higher-level, more expensive leaders find themselves routinely solving problems that should be handled effectively at the operational frontline. Think about a regional manager who constantly has to step in to address scheduling conflicts, inventory issues, or customer complaints because the managers lack the capability or empowerment to resolve them independently. This isn’t effective leadership; it’s a symptom of a deeper problem that actively contributes to inconsistent performance across the organization.
The impact of decision-making waste is twofold. Firstly, it distracts senior leaders from their primary strategic responsibilities—tasks like coaching their direct reports, developing new business opportunities, or improving overall systems. When higher-level managers are perpetually pulled into the operational weeds, they simply don’t have the bandwidth to focus on initiatives that could systematically improve performance across the board.
Secondly, it creates inefficiency and bottlenecks. A single manager trying to firefight issues across ten different locations can only address problems sporadically, leading to inconsistent interventions and, consequently, inconsistent results. This reactive approach makes it incredibly difficult to implement proactive strategies designed to bridge the gap between departments.
This pattern is often mistakenly reinforced by the idea of “leading by example.” While visibility and engagement from senior leaders are important, constantly stepping in to fix frontline problems sends the wrong message. It signals a lack of confidence in the team’s ability and undermines their authority and development.
Truly effective leadership involves building leaders’ capability to manage their own areas successfully. Empowering frontline leaders and ensuring they have the necessary skills and tools is, therefore, a critical step towards eliminating decision-making waste and achieving lower operational variance and greater overall efficiency.
The Improvement Impact Iceberg: Focusing Below the Surface to Reduce Variance
When organizations decide it’s time to tackle operational inconsistencies, they often reach for familiar solutions. Think about the typical initiatives:
- Implementing a new ERP system
- Bringing in consultants
- Rolling out standardized operating procedures (SOPs)
- Launching company-wide training programs
While these efforts can be valuable, they often only address the visible tip of the problem— what we call the Improvement Impact Iceberg. These common, surface-level initiatives typically account for only about 10% of the potential impact on performance improvement. Focusing solely on these easily seen activities often leads to frustration when the desired reduction in operating variance doesn’t fully materialize, because the real drivers of consistent performance lie beneath the surface.
The other 90% of the impact comes from focusing on the foundational elements hidden below the waterline. These less tangible—but far more crucial—factors directly influence how effectively the surface-level systems and processes are actually utilized. Successfully decreasing operational variance requires digging deeper into these core areas:
1: Engagement (People)
This is about fostering a workforce composed of talented, skilled, and empowered employees. Are your frontline teams genuinely engaged? Do they feel valued and possess the necessary skills and autonomy to solve problems effectively? When people love where they work, feel a sense of ownership, and are equipped to handle challenges, they become a powerful force for consistency and high performance. Building strong employee engagement is a critical, yet often underestimated, component of reducing variance between operating units.
2: Efficiency (Process)
This outcome involves having truly world-class processes and effective SOPs. While processes are important and often get significant attention (sometimes too much, overshadowing people), the key is ensuring these processes and systems support the leaders and employees, rather than hindering them. Efficiency isn’t just about having documented procedures; it’s about smooth workflows, optimized resource allocation, and minimizing waste in day-to-day activities.
3: Economics (Profit)
Ultimately, the goal of reducing variance is often tied to improving the bottom line. This outcome focuses on consistently achieving the maximum potential profit from each operating unit, rather than simply accepting the existing range of financial results. When engagement is high and efficiency is optimized, the economic outcomes naturally improve. Actively working to reduce variance between operating units directly impacts profitability by lifting the performance of lagging units closer to the top performers.
The Deepest Level: A Winning-Driven Culture
Underpinning all these outcomes is the foundational element of culture. The most consistently high-performing organizations cultivate a winning-driven culture. This isn’t just about internal competition; it’s about fostering a collective mindset focused on winning customers, outperforming competitors, achieving full potential, and celebrating success across the entire organization.
This deep-seated cultural drive provides the energy and motivation needed to sustain efforts towards minimizing variance and achieving operational excellence. Understanding the iceberg model helps shift focus from quick fixes to addressing the fundamental drivers of performance.
Actionable Strategies to Reduce Variance Between Your Operating Units
Understanding the causes and impacts of operational variance is essential, but the real value lies in implementing effective strategies to address it. Based on the concepts above—the importance of leadership, the pitfalls of decision-making waste, and the need to focus below the surface of the Improvement Impact Iceberg—here are three key actionable strategies to help you actively reduce variance between operating units and foster consistent excellence:
- Systems Audit & Standardization
Before diving into complex leadership initiatives, it’s crucial to ensure your foundational operational systems are solid and consistently applied. This involves conducting a thorough audit of your existing SOPs, support systems, quality checks, safety protocols, and any other core processes that define how work gets done.
Are these systems clear, relevant, and actually being used across all units?
Standardization of essential processes provides a necessary baseline; without it, even effective leaders will struggle to achieve consistent results. This step helps ensure that variations in performance aren’t simply due to units playing by different rulebooks, setting the stage for more targeted efforts.
- Enhance Leadership Effectiveness (The OPAL Approach)
Recognizing the critical link between leadership and performance consistency, shown in the Operating Performance Variation model, a direct focus on enhancing the skills of your frontline operating leaders is paramount. Many organizations invest heavily in operational excellence tools (like Lean Six Sigma or Continuous Improvement) but fail to bridge the gap to how leaders actually interact with their teams to implement these tools effectively.
A program like our Operational Performance and Leadership (OPAL) specifically targets important leader-team interactions like how leaders:
- plan
- assign work
- follow up
- provide feedback
- solve problems
By developing these practical, interaction-based leadership skills, you equip managers to drive performance and make reducing variance in operating units a tangible outcome of improved leadership capability, rather than just hoping tools alone will suffice.
- Implement Active Management & Empower Decision-Making
This strategy directly combats the decision-making waste we discussed earlier. Active management involves intentionally shifting decision-making authority and problem-solving responsibility to the appropriate level, closest to the work—typically the frontline operating leaders and their teams. This requires not only empowering these leaders but also ensuring they are equipped with the necessary tools, knowledge, and confidence to run their units effectively and mostly independently from their own managers.
Consider the 80/20 rule: focus on enabling your local teams to handle the vast majority (80%) of the common operational challenges they encounter daily. Providing clear guidelines, access to relevant data, problem-solving frameworks, and targeted coaching helps build this capability, freeing up senior leaders for strategic tasks and enabling faster, more consistent responses to operational issues.
By implementing these three interconnected strategies—solidifying systems, boosting leadership interaction skills, and empowering local decision-making—organizations can move beyond merely identifying operational variance and start actively reducing it.
Achieving Consistent Excellence by Reducing Operational Variance
High operational variance isn’t just a minor annoyance; it’s a significant drag on performance, profitability, and brand reputation. Allowing wide gaps in results between your different operating units means accepting inconsistency, unpredictability, and often, unrealized potential.
The causes can be complex, but frequently involve inconsistent leadership effectiveness, the hidden costs of decision-making waste, and a tendency to focus improvement efforts on surface-level initiatives while neglecting the deeper drivers of engagement, efficiency, and culture.
Simply hoping for consistency isn’t a strategy; actively working to reduce variance between operating units is essential for building a truly robust and successful organization.
Fortunately, operational variance is not an insurmountable problem. By taking deliberate, strategic action, companies can significantly narrow the performance gap and foster consistent excellence.
Making the commitment to reduce variance between operating units requires focus and effort, but the rewards are substantial. Moving towards the ‘Operational Excellence’ or even ‘World-Class’ quadrant of our model leads to greater stability, increased profitability, a stronger competitive position, and the development of a winning-driven culture that attracts and retains top talent.
If the challenge of dealing with variation in operating performance resonates with you, and you’re interested in seeing how targeted leadership development can make a real difference, this is where we can help. We encourage you to reach out to us to have a conversation about our OPAL (Operational Performance and Leadership) program and how it specifically equips your frontline managers with the skills to drive consistency and bring variation under control.
Let’s connect and explore how we can support your organization in becoming a winning-driven operation with consistently excellent results.
Did you enjoy this blog?
Here are some related topics that you may find interesting:
Essential Leadership Traits for Manufacturing Supervisors
How to Assess Your Leaders’ Level of Confidence in Their Leadership Skills
How To Choose The Right Logistics Leadership Training
The Impact of Effective Leadership on Manufacturing Performance
