Recognising organisational friction before it becomes a problem
Organisational friction rarely announces itself. It accumulates gradually, in the form of small delays, repeated misunderstandings, and decisions that take longer than they should. By the time it is visible enough to be named as a problem, it has usually been present for a year or more. The organisations that manage it well are the ones that learn to recognise the early signals.
Three early signals worth paying attention to
The first is when the same conversation happens more than twice. If a question about process, authority, or priority keeps coming up in different meetings with different people, that is a signal that the answer is not written down anywhere accessible, or that the written answer does not match what people actually do.
The second signal is when a decision that should take a day takes a week. Not because the information is unavailable, but because it is unclear who has the authority to make it, or because the person who does have the authority is waiting for someone else to move first.
The third signal is when new team members take significantly longer to become effective than expected. Onboarding difficulty is often a symptom of undocumented processes and unclear decision structures, not a reflection of the individuals involved.
What to do when you notice a signal
The most useful first step is to write down a specific example of the friction, not a general description of it. Not 'decisions are slow' but 'the approval for the new supplier took three weeks and involved six people, two of whom were not sure why they were included'. Specific examples are actionable. General descriptions are not.
Once you have a specific example, ask two questions: what would need to be true for this to happen faster or more clearly, and who would need to agree to that change? The answers usually point to a small number of structural adjustments rather than a large reorganisation.
When to get outside help
Most early-stage friction can be addressed internally, with the right method and a willingness to be honest about what is not working. The point at which outside help becomes useful is when the people inside the organisation are too close to the problem to see it clearly, or when the friction involves authority relationships that are difficult to discuss internally.
An outside perspective is not a substitute for internal honesty. It is a way of creating the conditions in which that honesty is easier to express and act on.
If you are noticing one or more of these signals in your organisation, common questions about how we work is a reasonable next place to look before deciding whether a formal engagement makes sense.