05/25/2026
Unintended Consequences
Every decision we make has consequences, which is clearly the point. A problem or opportunity is recognized, a plan is developed, resources deployed, and action is ultimately taken. In the postmortem phase, we get a chance to compare actual to expected results and another set of decisions can be framed.
Simple in theory of course. In practice, however, the unexpected consequences can be highly consequential. In a worst-case scenario, the cure can be worse than the disease. A mentor shared with me that surprise outcomes are generally bad, reflecting a failure to plan. Clearly there are surprise endings that are good (e.g., Teflon and Sticky Notes come to mind) but only after accepting that the original goal of those science projects was a failure.
I was reminded of this recently. In an effort to get ahead of the end of support for Windows 10, I retired an old computer in favor of new. Faster in most ways, the new one tripped over Wi-Fi compatibility issues with a pandemic era router. Having a new router installed, I found a mesh network device upgrade required. All of this eventually solved the problem in an expensive kind of way. Which makes it doubly humorous since Microsoft saw fit to extend the life of my Win-10 license. Undoubtedly better off for the long term, it still proved to be an expensive and time-consuming solution.
Increasingly insurance carriers are facing similar issues with far more significant implications. For example, many rushed to move workloads to cloud providers because they were perceived to be “cheaper”. They weren’t. In many cases they are better in terms of DR/BCP support and flexibility. But that wasn’t necessarily the original goal. And of course, many hard- and software companies have sharply increased prices lately, recognizing that it is relatively easy to monetize vendor lock-in. This type of “greenmail” can be avoided if optionality is built into architectural plans, but frequently that flies in the face of cost reduction efforts. In other words, Mister Goodwrench may have been prophetic with the “pay me now or pay me later” mantra.
Another example could well be the explosion of AI-related activities today. As noted in a recent NY Times article, armed with a cadre of new tools, the amount of code written can jump astronomically. However, the consequences of failing to test, integrate, and manage code can produce spectacularly bad outcomes. Unless the size of the funnel managing these downstream functions is increased to align with what is coming in at the top, a quick result can become a form of corporate swirl and paralysis. The analogy here is nautical. Dramatically increasing the number of people on one side of a carefully balanced boat will swamp it. Worst case, it sinks.
None of this is an argument for becoming a Luddite. Technology advances and operational changes can produce profoundly good outcomes. But planning never goes out of style, and managing the accelerated exposure to unintended outcomes is simply a price of admission as we race toward 2030.
To make this work to our advantage, we all need to find windows where we can critically think through major decisions. Sadly, the time available has sharply declined over the past two decades. Perhaps an unintended consequence of our always on / always connected world. For really effective executives, this is a solvable problem too. Like any 12-step program, of course, the first one is accepting that there is a problem … and that we know what it is. Game on …