Misalignment waste, cost, risk and failure:

End Customer Focus

The extent to which customer-related risks, outcomes, and signals are actively recognised and integrated into how the relationship operates.

Level 3 – Baseline

Customer outcomes are considered in delivery and tracking.

Supply Chain Suffering From Waste, Cost, Risk & Failure

OLD NEWS

Unclear roles and decision-making authority

Fragmented leadership without unity or shared vision

Micro-management and centralised control

High staff turnover and inconsistent approaches

Poor communication flow from leadership

Lack of leadership ownership and accountability

Disconnection between leaders and operational realities

Blame-shifting instead of problem-solving

Culture of fear undermining effective decisions

No shared vision or stability in leadership

Widespread lack of trust in leadership

Leadership promises not followed through

Adverse impact on staff morale and well-being

Disconnect between leadership rhetoric and reality

Fear-based culture suppressing initiative and collaboration

Senior leaders seen as distant or invisible

Feedback not listened to or acted upon

Engagement varies wildly between sites

High leadership turnover disrupts relationships

Staff feel disempowered and disengaged

Communication seen as chaotic, unclear, and untimely

Over-reliance on mass emails (“blanket bombing”)

Important messages often lost or ignored

Lack of joint communication initiatives

Disconnection between corporate and operational messaging

Communication is mostly top-down and one-way

No consistent strategy for information sharing

Poor mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities

Misalignment between intentions and delivery

Fragmentation between operational and leadership levels

Meetings lack purpose, clarity, and outcomes

Too many meetings, often duplicative and unfocused

Poor planning, preparation, and follow-through

Culture of blame dominates discussions

Meetings perceived as performative, not productive

Siloed teams and lack of cross-functional collaboration

Blame and defensiveness are default modes

Low morale due to overwork and poor recognition

Toxic behaviours go unaddressed

Staff feel unsupported and isolated

Processes are inadequate, inconsistent, or outdated

Staff do not follow processes; leadership doesn’t enforce them

Culture of “doing it my way” over standardisation

Crisis management replaces structured planning

New IT systems are poorly implemented and not user-friendly

IT systems are cumbersome, slow, and confusing

Lack of training and user guidance

Systems not fit for operational needs

Poor integration across platforms

Systems contribute to inefficiencies and contract risk

Assurance processes seen as tick-box exercises

Lack of feedback or corrective actions

Inconsistent auditing and follow-up

Contractual compliance over meaningful quality

Low confidence in accuracy of assurance outcomes

KPIs viewed as manipulated or irrelevant

Disconnect between targets and actual delivery

Performance reporting lacks transparency

No learning or improvement from metrics

Staff don’t believe metrics reflect real work

Staff unaware of or disconnected from mission statements

Statements perceived as corporate lip service

No shared objectives across organisations

Disconnect between values and leadership behaviour

Objectives don’t guide day-to-day decision-making

“Cost first” mentality undermines quality and value

Short-term fixes trump long-term sustainability

No shared understanding of value between parties

Frontline needs ignored in strategic decisions

Value perceived through profit, not impact

Teams have fundamentally conflicting goals

Lack of aligned purpose or mutual commitment

Cultural differences erode trust

Centralised decisions override local needs

Adversarial relationship dominates interactions

Mutual distrust and blame are entrenched

“Them and us” culture undermines collaboration

Joint ownership of issues is rare

Leadership doesn’t model unity

Contractual policing overrides partnership

Collaboration is inconsistent and person-dependent

Power imbalance prevents fair engagement

Personality clashes hinder teamwork

Local relationships stronger than systemic ones

No shared identity or ethos

Senior leaders are remote and disconnected

Engagement happens too late or superficially

Overburdened leaders struggle to prioritise people

Site-level leadership often more effective

Need for consistent presence and clarity

Change is top-down and reactive

Perceived as “only financially motivated”

Change fatigue widespread among staff

Local teams not empowered to adapt

Poor rollout of IT systems hinders progress

Blame culture dominates problem-solving

Problems are ignored or delayed

Little cross-communication on issues

Third parties brought in after delays

Solutions pursued only after cost implications considered