Temporary workarounds are not commonly devised by organizations that are struggling or underperforming.
Instead, they are typically the result of organizations that are actively growing and adapting to new challenges in their environment.
As enterprises scale across functions, entities, and markets, especially in the GCC and Middle East teams often introduce short term fixes to maintain momentum. A manual step replaces a missing workflow. An approval moves outside the system. A spreadsheet fills a visibility gap “for now.”
At first, these workarounds feel harmless. Execution continues, results are delivered, and leadership sees progress. But over time, temporary solutions quietly reshape how the organization actually operates. Control shifts from design to effort, decisions depend on individuals rather than processes, and execution becomes fragile under pressure.
This is the hidden cost of temporary workarounds: they solve today’s problems while quietly creating tomorrow’s structural risks.
Why Temporary Workarounds Appear in Growing Organizations?
Workarounds do not arise from a team's resistance to structure; rather, they emerge when existing structures fail to evolve in tandem with organizational growth.
As complexity escalates, operating models that were effective in earlier stages begin to show signs of strain. Processes become misaligned with the current operational reality, ownership responsibilities overlap, and systems struggle to accurately represent the flow of work across the enterprise. In response, teams take pragmatic measures to address these gaps and maintain operational continuity.
While this adaptability may appear to enhance efficiency in the short term, it ultimately leads to a reliance on improvised coordination rather than a strategically designed execution framework an approach that lacks the scalability necessary for sustained success.
When Execution Depends on People, Not Design
The most critical concern regarding workarounds is not their inefficiency, but rather the dependency they foster.
Over time, organizations increasingly rely on specific individuals who possess an understanding of the informal processes. Approvals are pursued through unofficial channels. Data is manually manipulated. Exceptions are managed based on individual expertise rather than established protocols.
While operations continue, they are sustained by individuals rather than robust systems or intentional design. When these key personnel are unavailable or when operational demands escalate the organization experiences slowdowns, risks become apparent, and leadership is compelled to engage in reactive management.
At an enterprise level, this dependency evolves into a significant constraint.
Data Reliability and the Illusion of Control
Many executive teams operate under the assumption that control issues will manifest through inaccurate reporting. In reality, the opposite is frequently the case.
Reports may present a façade of accuracy while the underlying workflows remain disjointed. Metrics related to exposure, compliance, or even critical indicators such as gold prices may appear correct often because teams are engaged in manual reconciliations, adjustments, or last minute interventions.
The primary concern is not the presence of incorrect data.
The primary concern is data that is only accurate under optimal conditions.
This creates a misleading sense of control, obscuring fundamental weaknesses until external pressures increase, timelines shift, or growth accelerates.
The Compounding Effect Across the Enterprise
As organizations grow, the prevalence of workarounds increases across various departments, entities, and geographical locations. Each workaround serves as a localized solution that undermines overall coherence.
- Execution pathways become more complex.
- Decision making processes are prolonged.
- Accountability becomes ambiguous.
Leadership finds itself dedicating more time to address interdepartmental conflicts, not due to team inefficiencies, but because the operational framework is no longer aligned with the organization’s expanded scale.
This is the juncture where what was intended as “temporary” evolves into a permanent and costly issue.
Why Automation Often Makes the Problem Worse
As organizations encounter increasing friction, the inclination often shifts towards automation. New technologies are implemented, dashboards are developed, and workflows are transitioned to digital formats.
However, automation alone does not rectify deficiencies in execution design.
In fact, it can exacerbate them.
When automation is applied to processes characterized by unclear ownership, disjointed workflows, or informal controls, it solidifies inefficiencies into rigid systems. Rather than reinstating control, technology can magnify misalignment and heighten reliance on exceptions.
This underscores the importance for leading enterprises to first refine their execution processes before pursuing automation.
Execution Design as a Strategic Lever
Organizations that achieve scalability view execution as an integrated system rather than a mere assortment of tasks.
They purposefully establish:
- The pathways for decision-making throughout the organization
- The integration of controls within operational workflows
- The mechanisms through which data is organically produced during execution
In such organizations, exceptions are proactively anticipated rather than dealt with on the fly. Control mechanisms are built into the structure rather than imposed externally. Visibility into processes is ongoing, rather than reconstructed at the end of the month.
Consequently, the need for workarounds diminishes, allowing scalability to be effectively managed once more.
Looking Ahead: From Coping to Commanding Scale
Temporary solutions should not be seen as failures; they are vital signals of deeper issues.
Organizations that swiftly recognize and address these signals can proactively adjust their operations, preventing minor issues from escalating into major problems. Conversely, those that ignore these signs may incur significant long term costs, such as slow decision making and increased pressure on leadership, ultimately stifling growth.
To achieve sustainable scalability, it is crucial to understand that merely increasing effort within the current system is insufficient. A thorough reengineering of processes and strategies is necessary to foster a more efficient and adaptable organization.
This transformation is essential for building lasting success and ensuring readiness for future challenges and opportunities.