Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
7 min read
Healthcare organisations may appear to function well precisely because experienced staff continually compensate for systems that do not. AIHE explores the Workaround Paradox: how successful frontline adaptation can hide organisational weakness from leaders, boards and conventional governance systems and why repeated workarounds should be treated as a source of organisational intelligence.
Healthcare organisations are full of workarounds. Most never appear on a dashboard.
A nurse finds a faster way to get something a patient urgently needs. A doctor bypasses an administrative step because following it would delay care. A manager maintains a separate spreadsheet because the official system cannot provide the information their team actually needs.
Sometimes these behaviours are inappropriate. Sometimes they are unsafe.
But sometimes they are preventing weaknesses in the organisation from becoming visible as failures.
That creates a paradox healthcare leaders should pay much more attention to.
AIHE calls it The Workaround Paradox
The more effectively a workforce compensates for system weakness, the less visible that weakness may become to leadership.
The patient receives care. The shift is completed. The target remains green. The incident never occurs.
From a distance, the system appears to have worked.
But sometimes the system did not work particularly well at all.
The people did.
And that difference matters.
New research complicates the way we think about rule-breaking
A recent integrative review by Michael J. Gill from the University of Oxford examined more than 250 studies spanning four decades of research into rule-breaking within organisations.
Its message is more nuanced than the conventional distinction between compliance and misconduct. People may break rules for personal gain. But they may also deviate because they are helping someone else, responding to environmental pressure, dealing with conflicting demands or because they genuinely believe deviation is the right course of action.
For healthcare, that distinction is significant.
A deliberate disregard for a patient-safety control is not equivalent to a clinician adapting an administrative process because following it precisely would create unnecessary delay.
The behaviour may look similar when reduced to a binary measure of Compliant vs Non-compliant.
But the organisational meaning can be entirely different.
This suggests that deviation itself is not always the most useful unit of analysis.
Leaders also need to understand:
- Why did the deviation occur?
- What problem was it solving?
- And is this one person’s behaviour or evidence of a recurring system condition?
The organisation described in policy is not always the organisation people work in
Healthcare leadership relies on formal representations of organisations, including policies, procedures, process maps, dashboards, risk registers, audit reports and committee papers.
They are essential.
But they are still just representations.
The real organisation exists under variable demand, limited resources, competing priorities, imperfect technology and patients who do not always fit neatly into pathways designed for them.
Safety science has long distinguished between work-as-imagined and work-as-done.
Work-as-imagined describes how a process is expected to operate.
Work-as-done describes what people actually have to do to make it operate in reality.
Some gap between the two is inevitable in a complex system.
The important question is not whether adaptation occurs, but when has adaptation become so routine that the organisation is now dependent on it?
That’s a very different governance problem.
The invisible risk of successful adaptation
Healthcare is generally good at noticing visible failure.
A serious incident occurs. A complaint arrives. An audit identifies non-compliance.
A KPI deteriorates. A patient experiences harm. These events create signals that move upwards through governance structures.
But consider the opposite scenario.
A process almost fails. An experienced clinician notices something. They know who to call. They bypass an unnecessary step. They stay late. They use an unofficial spreadsheet. They know which part of the policy can realistically be ignored and which cannot.
The problem is solved. The patient is cared for, and nothing is reported because nothing went wrong.
This may happen dozens of times across an organisation every day. And therein lies the problem:
A successful workaround often produces no conventional governance signal at all.
The organisation sees the outcome. It does not necessarily see the effort required to produce it.
That means the most capable employees can inadvertently make poorly designed systems look better than they are.
When resilience becomes camouflage
Healthcare rightly values resilience. We admire people who adapt under pressure. We celebrate teams that keep services running despite workforce shortages, technology failures, administrative complexity and unexpected demand.
But resilience has a limit as an organisational strategy.
There comes a point where what appears to be resilience is actually the workforce absorbing defects in organisational design. People stay late because the workflow is inefficient. Clinicians develop informal pathways because formal ones are too slow. Managers personally intervene because routine systems cannot resolve routine problems. Experienced staff rely on relationships and institutional memory because the operating model alone is insufficient.
The organisation continues functioning.
Leadership sees stability.
Yet the stability may depend on discretionary effort that was never designed, measured or resourced.
This creates a dangerous form of managerial camouflage. Not because anyone is trying to conceal the problem. But because capable people are solving it before leaders ever see it.
What happens when the people holding the system together leave?
Hidden adaptation creates another vulnerability.
Over time, temporary workarounds can become routine. Routine becomes local knowledge. Local knowledge becomes organisational dependency. Soon, part of the real operating model exists nowhere in the formal system.
It exists in experience. Relationships. Personal spreadsheets. Phone calls. Memory.
And phrases familiar to almost every healthcare organisation:
“Ask her – she knows how to get that approved.”
“Don’t follow that process. This is how we actually do it.”
“The system doesn’t show it properly, so we keep our own list.”
This may function remarkably well. Until the experienced employee leaves.
The senior nurse retires. The manager changes roles. Demand increases. Several pressures arrive simultaneously. Then what looks like a sudden failure may actually be something else: the exposure of a weakness the workforce had been compensating for all along.
Workarounds as organisational intelligence
Healthcare already collects enormous amounts of intelligence.
Clinical outcomes. Incidents. Complaints. Workforce data. Financial performance. Patient experience. Audit findings. Quality indicators.
Yet another source of organisational intelligence may be sitting almost entirely outside formal reporting systems: the things staff repeatedly have to work around to get their jobs done.
We propose calling this Workaround Intelligence
The systematic examination of recurring adaptations and deviations to identify hidden weaknesses in organisational design, workflow, incentives, resources and governance.
This is not about celebrating non-compliance. It is about understanding what recurrent non-compliance may be trying to tell us. Repeated workarounds can reveal where:
- policy and clinical reality have separated;
- administrative burden is competing with patient care;
- approval structures are generating unnecessary delay;
- technology is failing to support the work it was intended to support;
- resources assumed by a process do not exist consistently;
- competing priorities are forcing staff to choose which requirement to satisfy;
- informal systems have become more reliable than formal ones.
The distinction for leaders is important.
One person repeatedly breaking a reasonable rule may tell us something about the person.Many reasonable people repeatedly breaking the same rule should make us curious about the system.
Not every workaround is good
There is an important caution.
Healthcare cannot romanticise deviation.
Some rules exist precisely because human judgement is fallible.
Medication safeguards, infection-prevention requirements, consent processes, safeguarding obligations and critical safety controls cannot simply become optional because they create inconvenience.
Repeated deviation can itself become dangerous when unsafe practice gradually feels normal because previous shortcuts did not cause obvious harm.
The leadership challenge is therefore not to choose between compliance and flexibility.
It is to distinguish between different forms of deviation intelligently. Is the behaviour reckless? Self-serving? Adaptive? Protective? Necessary? Temporary? Or evidence of a systemic condition?
That requires more sophisticated governance than simply asking whether a procedure was followed.
Five questions leaders can ask when a workaround appears
Before eliminating a workaround, healthcare leaders might ask:
1. What problem is this workaround solving?
Its existence is evidence that someone perceived a problem worth solving.
Understand that problem first.
2. Who benefits and who carries the risk?
A workaround may help a patient while transferring risk elsewhere. Or it may make work easier while weakening an important safeguard.
Intent and consequences both matter.
3. Is this individual or systemic?
One isolated deviation and a workaround independently adopted by an entire team are different phenomena.
Patterns are particularly informative.
4. What would happen if we prohibited it tomorrow?
This may be the most revealing question.
If the work could no longer be completed safely or efficiently, the organisation may have become dependent on the workaround.
5. Should we remove the workaround or remove the reason it exists?
Stopping behaviour without addressing its cause can simply force the adaptation underground.
Good governance addresses both.
A question boards should be asking
There is also a board-level implication.
Boards increasingly receive sophisticated information about clinical quality, workforce, finance, performance and risk.
But dashboards have an inherent limitation. They principally describe what an organisation has chosen to measure.
Workarounds often sit outside those structures. They are informal. Local. Distributed.
Sometimes invisible even to senior management.
A board can therefore receive a highly accurate picture of the formal organisation while knowing surprisingly little about the adaptive organisation underneath it.
This suggests a deceptively simple governance question:
What are our people routinely having to work around to get their jobs done?
The answers might reveal issues no existing dashboard captures.
From failure intelligence to adaptation intelligence
Traditional governance tends to become most visible after something has gone wrong.
We investigate incidents. Analyse complaints. Audit non-compliance. Review adverse outcomes.
All of this remains essential.
But perhaps mature healthcare governance should also become interested in something that happens before failure:
Where are people compensating? Where are they improvising? Where has the unofficial process become more trusted than the official one? Where are experienced staff repeatedly protecting patients or colleagues from organisational friction?
Those adaptations may be early warnings. They may also contain the beginnings of better system design.
Because the people closest to the work often encounter the weakness long before the weakness reaches the dashboard.
The Workaround Paradox
The deeper issue is not really about rules. It is about organisational visibility.
A healthcare organisation can appear highly functional while depending heavily on people compensating for weaknesses its leaders cannot easily see.
And paradoxically, the more experienced, committed and adaptable those people are, the longer the weakness can remain hidden.
That is The Workaround Paradox:The more effectively people compensate for weaknesses in a system, the more functional that system can appear and the harder its weaknesses may become for leaders to see.
Healthcare needs standards. It needs rules. It needs accountability.
But mature governance requires something else as well: curiosity about the gap between how work is designed and how work actually gets done.
Because some of the most valuable information in a healthcare organisation may not be found in the processes people follow.
It may be found in the processes good people have quietly learned they cannot.
And before treating every deviation as a failure of compliance, leaders may need to ask a more difficult question:
What has the workforce learned about our organisation that our governance systems have not yet learned?
For more industry analysis and executive insights, follow AIHE on Linkedin and join the AIHE peer network.
