English
fricciones
frictions
fricciones
fricciones

Organizational friction: What hurts Mexican financial companies when it comes to moving forward?

For a year and a half, we had 121 conversations with more than 60 CEOs, CTOs, and heads of transformation and product in banking, insurance, and fintechs in Mexico. This is what is most frequently repeated when they talk about what really challenges them.

A collage with different images of cities, cables, and elements that suggest the idea of connection and digital transformation.
A collage with different images of cities, cables, and elements that suggest the idea of connection and digital transformation.

Written by
Aitor González / Juan Carlos Santana / Alex Talavera / Sofía Lomeli

Design
Aitor González

Aitor González
Juan Carlos Santana
Alex Talavera
Sofía Lomeli

Written by
Aitor González / Juan Carlos Santana / Alex Talavera / Sofía Lomeli

Design
Aitor González

Aitor González
Juan Carlos Santana
Alex Talavera
Sofía Lomeli
A collage with different images of cities, cables, and elements that suggest the idea of connection and digital transformation.
A collage with different images of cities, cables, and elements that suggest the idea of connection and digital transformation.

For a year and a half, we had 121 conversations with more than 60 general, technology, transformation, and product directors in banking, insurance, and fintechs in Mexico.

Written by
Aitor González / Juan Carlos Santana / Alex Talavera / Sofía Lomeli

Design
Aitor González

Aitor González
Juan Carlos Santana
Alex Talavera
Sofía Lomeli

Written by
Aitor González / Juan Carlos Santana / Alex Talavera / Sofía Lomeli

Design
Aitor González

Aitor González
Juan Carlos Santana
Alex Talavera
Sofía Lomeli
A collage with different images of cities, cables, and elements that suggest the idea of connection and digital transformation.

For a year and a half, we had 121 conversations with more than 60 CEOs, CTOs, and heads of transformation and product in banking, insurance, and fintechs in Mexico. This is what is most frequently repeated when they talk about what really challenges them.

Written by
Aitor González / Juan Carlos Santana / Alex Talavera / Sofía Lomeli

Design
Aitor González

Aitor González
Juan Carlos Santana
Alex Talavera
Sofía Lomeli

The purpose

You cannot resolve what is not named. And in most organizations, what hurts the most might not be mentioned out loud in the boardroom —it is sensed, bypassed, lived with— until the pain is impossible to ignore.

That is, at its core, the purpose of this report. It is not to expose anyone or point fingers. It is to put into concrete words —those of the people who live it day to day— what often remains in the realm of the implicit, and thus turn it into something that can be acted upon.

At bettter, we believe that naming the problem is half the job of solving it. This report is our attempt to do that first half, with the evidence of those who are already living it. Shedding light on these frictions serves, for us, three purposes:

You cannot resolve what is not named. And in most organizations, what hurts the most might not be mentioned out loud in the boardroom — it is sensed, sidestepped, lived with — until the pain is impossible to ignore.

That is, at its core, the purpose of this report. It is not to expose anyone or point fingers. It is to put into concrete words — those of the people who live it day to day — what often remains in the realm of the implicit, and thus turn it into something that can be acted upon.

01

Naming what hurts to make it manageable

It stops being an isolated feeling from their team or company, and becomes a named, shared, and, above all, approachable pattern.

02

Avoid designing solutions based on assumptions

It is common for an organization to invest in transformation initiatives based on what is believed to hurt, rather than what actually hurts. We want to reduce the risk of solving the wrong problem.

03

Avoid normalizing burnout

These are structural patterns that recur with immense regularity in the sector — which does not make them any less urgent. However, failing to resolve them does produce a continuous wear and tear that is avoidable.

How we work

We believe that it is difficult to transform, repair, or improve what is not deeply understood. It means understanding the challenges, goals, and emotions that a CEO, a CTO, or a product manager express up close. Observing when they speak as much from what excites them as from what hurts them.

Under this lens, and during the last eighteen months, we had 121 conversations—commercial, work-related, and during projects—with more than 60 executives from Mexican banking, insurance, digital credit, and fintech organizations.

These were not surveys and focus groups. They were exchanges where the main question was not "what does your company need?" but rather "what hurts you right now?".

From those 121 conversations, 87 concrete signals emerged—pains named in the very words of those who experience them—which we grouped into 10 main organizational frictions to understand what is really holding Mexican organizations back today.

This is what more than 60 different executives told us hurts them. And if this exercise confirms anything, it is an idea that we have been maintaining at bettter: technology is almost never the problem. The problem lies in how we make decisions, how we change, and how we work together.

conversations

121

We had conversations in different contexts. Commercial, operational, and strategic. Most of them were in the analysis and diagnosis phases of customer problems.

executives

64

The conversations took place primarily with C-level executives, CEOs, Managing Directors, and heads of Transformation, Technology, and Human Resources.

signals

87

To different organizational pain points, with an average of more than 4 pain points per organization.

We share everything we know and experience through our posts and reports like this one. Leave us your email and receive them in your inbox.

conversations

121

We had conversations in different contexts. Commercial, operational, and strategic. Most of them were in the analysis and diagnosis phases of customer problems.

executives

64

The conversations took place primarily with C-level executives, CEOs, Managing Directors, and heads of Transformation, Technology, and Human Resources.

signals

87

To different organizational pain points, with an average of more than 4 pain points per organization.

the

frictions

The various organization directors we spoke with shared their doubts, fears, and pain points, almost always explicitly; sometimes they know something hurts, but it is difficult to define the source. Below are the results.

List
of Frictions

List of frictions

  • 1. Adoption and change management — 16%

  • 1. Adoption and change management

  • 2. Alignment between strategy and execution — 13%

  • 2. Alignment between strategy and execution

  • 3. Lack of consistent execution — 10%

  • 3. Inconsistent lack of execution

  • 4. Gap between business and technology — 9%

  • 4. Gap between business and technology

  • 5. Governance, decisions, and bottlenecks — 9%

  • 5. Governance, decisions, and bottlenecks

  • 6. Organizational culture and silos — 8%

  • 6. Organizational culture and silos

  • 7. Stakeholder alignment — 7%

  • 7. Stakeholder alignment

  • 8. Definition, discovery, and scope — 6%

  • 8. Definition, discovery, and scope

  • 9. PMO without authority or executive backing — 6%

  • 9. PMO without authority or executive support

  • 10. Actual capacity vs. commitments made — 3%

  • 10. Real capacity vs. commitments made

  • Others — 13%

Note: This report will focus on the development of the top ten pain points, given that they are the ones we encounter most frequently across the different levels of the organization.

01

Adoption and change management

16% of mentions

01

Adoption and change management

16% of mentions

It is the friction that repeats itself the most, and by a wide margin. The technology arrives, the project is delivered, the tool works… and yet nothing changes, the same results are produced and friction even increases. Something internal prevents the expected results from being achieved.

Sometimes it is middle management, the guardians of the processes, who generate the friction. They expect the method to be executed "by-the-book" instead of leaving room for adaptation or experimentation and providing flexibility.

Other times, the lack of adequate "reskilling"—teaching people to work differently—is still treated as an add-on to the project, rather than the project itself. Preparing people for the process instead of the outcome.

The focus is placed on achieving results, on accelerating before learning to walk. Expecting results and productivity instead of preparing the system. 

Moreover, work overload or daily operations prevent operational teams from dedicating time and effort to "the new." Expecting the operation to be maintained while wanting to learn. Expecting results to improve even before knowing how to do it differently.

Finally, the fear of change. Of a new Status Quo. The threat of a new way where the person may lose part of their psychological safety.

"
— What organizations typically underestimate are two things: processes and people... Everything must be accompanied by change management, as it will be necessary to reskill people and, in some areas, upskill them —

Core banking project manager — Banking sector

"
— What organizations typically underestimate are two things: processes and people... Everything must be accompanied by change management, as it will be necessary to reskill people and, in some areas, upskill them —

Core banking project manager — Banking sector

"
— We look for the correct way to adopt without interfering with the client's current processes, making the transition by aligning both fronts and taking the best of each —

New Product Portfolio Manager — Pharmaceutical Sector

"
— We look for the correct way to adopt without interfering with the client's current processes, making the transition by aligning both fronts and taking the best of each —

New Product Portfolio Manager — Pharmaceutical Sector

02

Alignment between strategy and execution

13% of the mentions

02

Alignment between strategy and execution

13% of the mentions

Assuming that the strategy was defined in the boardroom with clarity, there is no movement in the desired direction. What happens?

The arrival of the plan at the operational level clashes with the day-to-day. The strategy did not take into account current efforts and/or does not clarify which of them should be stopped. In the absence of that prioritization, the teams address the previous intent or the day-to-day that sustains their position.

Sometimes, the lack of clarity lies in "what is to be achieved" and, above all, "what is the role of the people" to achieve it. The organization fails to show clearly what the expectation of a good result looks like.

Another cause points to long-term roadmaps, which do not synchronize with the weekly cadence of the teams. Too long a timeframe was planned or the efforts of the intermediate steps were underestimated. A gap begins to form between the expected horizon and the current pace.

Sometimes it was a matter of taking a step for which the organization was not prepared. Existing organizational pain points prevent any adoption. The strategy failed because things that hurt were not repaired and they now create friction against the desired progress.

"
— Scaling training on a massive scale was a major challenge that required changing processes before culture —

Head of Talent— Financial Services Sector

"
— Scaling training on a massive scale was a major challenge that required changing processes before culture —

Head of Talent— Financial Services Sector

"
— In core banking migrations, organizations underestimate the impact on people and processes, leaving change management (reskilling/upskilling) as an afterthought rather than a foundation —

Core banking project manager — Banking sector

"
— In core banking migrations, organizations underestimate the impact on people and processes, leaving change management (reskilling/upskilling) as an afterthought rather than a foundation —

Core banking project manager — Banking sector

"
— What really complicates it is the day-to-day; that's where strategy clashes with actual operations since we run into shifting priorities, natural resistance, lack of data, team capabilities, non-standardized processes, and pressure to deliver results while transforming —

Transformation PMO Leader — Beverage and Consumer Sector

03

Inconsistent execution

10% of mentions

03

Inconsistent execution

10% of mentions

Organizations know what to do. They have frameworks, methodologies, and documented processes.

What sometimes fails is the discipline to assimilate and sustain them over time. Teams adopt ceremonies and roles without actually changing how they think or make decisions — they follow the process, do the task, but lose sight of the reason they exist.

Others are abandoned. Teams struggle in the early stages and believe that the previous way worked better. On other occasions, the ritual or the value they generate is lost sight of. They are repeated systematically without focusing on value generation or continuous improvement.

At bettter, we witness how, even from management itself, requests are made that defocus these processes. Things are requested urgently, pressure is applied, and impatience arises, ultimately interrupting the learning and assimilation process.

"
— When a process is documented but execution remains inconsistent, the problem is usually not the process itself, but the operation surrounding it: lack of clarity in decision-making, misaligned metrics, weak middle leadership, or an adoption that was never fully consolidated —

Delivery and CX Director for LATAM — BPO and IT Services Sector

"
— When a process is documented but execution remains inconsistent, the problem is usually not the process itself, but the operation surrounding it: lack of clarity in decision-making, misaligned metrics, weak middle leadership, or an adoption that was never fully consolidated —

Delivery and CX Director for LATAM — BPO and IT Services Sector

"
— I think it lies in consistent execution: organizations know what to do (there are frameworks, processes, methodologies), but the ability to translate strategy into sustained actions over time is what fails —

Implementation Manager for LATAM — Talent Services Sector

"
— I think it lies in consistent execution: organizations know what to do (there are frameworks, processes, methodologies), but the ability to translate strategy into sustained actions over time is what fails —

Implementation Manager for LATAM — Talent Services Sector

04

Gap between business and technology

9% of mentions

04

Gap between business and technology

9% of mentions

A classic that remains relevant. Assumptions that are never made explicit, unclear requirements, and a hierarchical barrier where business doesn't fully understand the technical side, and technology doesn't translate its work into business impact. The result: the original promise of the product fails to meet operational reality and results. Rework and technical debt appear frequently, and everything seems to be stagnant and without progress.

In this section, we find the clash of two languages and mental models. Technology expects requirements in ways that the business does not understand (and should not always have to understand), and business does not understand the efforts, complexities, and times of development, which always seem excessive—partly because Technology begins to protect itself and tries to gain room for the unexpected or undefined.

Additionally, we find that both underestimate or ignore—with an alarmingly frequent rate to us—the importance and impact of design and user experience in achieving business goals, and of prototyping and testing processes to solidly clarify what features the solution must have and to resolve doubts about requirements and complete them before they are executed.

"
— The biggest breakdown is almost always between the original product promise and the reality of the operation. Scalability is not properly sized from the beginning —

Director of Customer Happiness — Fintech sector

"
— The biggest breakdown is almost always between the original product promise and the reality of the operation. Scalability is not properly sized from the beginning —

Director of Customer Happiness — Fintech sector

"
— I think in the misunderstanding between the bank or Fintech and the technical team. Things that are taken for granted and a lack of clarity in requirements —

LATAM Business Development Director — Fintech and Payments Sector

"
— I think in the misunderstanding between the bank or Fintech and the technical team. Things that are taken for granted and a lack of clarity in requirements —

LATAM Business Development Director — Fintech and Payments Sector

05

Government, decisions, and bottlenecks

9% of mentions

05

Government, decisions, and bottlenecks

9% of mentions

When asked what holds back execution, the most honest answer is usually a single word: approvals. It is not a lack of team capability. It is that no one has designed who decides, at what speed, and with what margin of accepted risk. Bottlenecks appear in the form of supervisions that produce excessive control. 

Sometimes these approvals denote a lack of trust in the team's processes or results, an excessive focus on control. In others, they originated in very early stages, at a smaller scale, and prove to be deficient with larger teams.

In organizations that operate in ultra-regulated environments (Banking, Pharmaceuticals...) control processes not only make sense but are also necessary. However, we observe how their expeditious application can leave out the customer experience, affecting the relationship and the customer's preference for our organization. Regulation and security cannot be applied in blocking ways.

Another frequent form of this friction is excessively long board meetings to debate issues. The organization's time gradually collapses in meetings whose underlying objective is to eliminate management's fears by seeking an impossible certainty in decision-making, or where these meetings also take the form of a leadership checkpoint.

The fear and dread of breaking something along the way generates friction in the form of feedback and continuous corrections and, as a consequence, a certain discouragement when it comes to adopting. Teams end up letting upper layers tell them both "what to do" and "how to do it"; proactivity disappears, and they end up becoming mere executioners.

"
— The real bottleneck is divided into two layers that almost never touch: incentives and institutional tolerance for error during the transition —

Head of Transformation and Operations — Fintech and Retail Sector

"
— The real bottleneck is divided into two layers that almost never touch: incentives and institutional tolerance for error during the transition —

Head of Transformation and Operations — Fintech and Retail Sector

"
— The important thing here is to avoid organizational friction, not to be a traditional Head, but to be that game changer who exposes bottlenecks and pushes for risky but effective decisions —

Transformation program leader — Retail sector

"
— The important thing here is to avoid organizational friction, not to be a traditional Head, but to be that game changer who exposes bottlenecks and pushes for risky but effective decisions —

Transformation program leader — Retail sector

06

Organizational culture and silos

8% of mentions

06

Organizational culture and silos

8% of mentions

One of the root causes that appears, in one way or another, behind some other pain points. Areas that defend their own system or process as their territory. Vertical or closed structures that prevent a single initiative from scaling organically. The emotions of the organization and its individuals usually prevail over reason. 

We frequently find that people do not feel the psychological safety necessary to question a definition, even when it is clearly wrong. Verticality becomes culture, and the result (and intention) is obedience.

The organization then loses the opportunity to think, reflect, and question itself in order to improve. Risks become invisible because the system prefers to avoid conflict. This self-imposed blindness is a denial of risk that makes it more vulnerable.

We find frequent conflicts and even confrontations, bottlenecks, and boycotts to the organization's value flow revealed as symptoms of this cause, which is sometimes rooted in the emotions (of security or insecurity) that occur within the organization in a context of change or threat, and sometimes by how the dominant culture rewards the strongest instead of the most deserving.

"
— Culture is the number one roadblock once the decision has been made to move forward —

Director of Digital Transformation — Consumer Goods Sector

"
— Culture is the number one roadblock once the decision has been made to move forward —

Director of Digital Transformation — Consumer Goods Sector

"
— When leadership maintains traditional practices that limit autonomy ... the structure is not yet ready to sustain the change —

Agile transformation consultant — Consulting sector

"
— When leadership maintains traditional practices that limit autonomy ... the structure is not yet ready to sustain the change —

Agile transformation consultant — Consulting sector

07

Stakeholder alignment

7% of the mentions

07

Stakeholder alignment

7% of the mentions

A point related to governance. When an organization grows quickly, the first thing usually lost is alignment and visibility. Not because the various managers ignore the objectives and metrics, but because each one starts by optimizing a small part, losing sight of the whole.

Business prioritizes commercial urgency, delivery prioritizes impact, technology prioritizes stability or security. No one is wrong, but strategic initiatives do not connect and demand the same resources at the same time and with immediacy. 

Other times, the objectives may be there, but the incentives do not necessarily push in the same direction.

Another common form of this problem occurs when the organization or its leadership is unable to sacrifice apparent opportunities. They want to achieve everything that arises. Any idea from management becomes an objective that quickly interferes with the previous ones. Energies and resources are divided and the result tends to be diluted.

The absence of a sustained focus, of patience, and, above all, the capacity or incapacity of the organization to stop or give up everything that does not push in the agreed direction, produces dispersion, wear and tear, and a result below what was expected.

"
— The challenge isn't that stakeholders don't think about metrics. It's that each one optimizes for a different goal, making it almost impossible to prioritize effectively —

Product Owner — Microfinance sector

"
— The challenge isn't that stakeholders don't think about metrics. It's that each one optimizes for a different goal, making it almost impossible to prioritize effectively —

Product Owner — Microfinance sector

"
— Even if sales and technology have different KPIs, if you manage to align them under the same macro objective, the perspective changes and we all become one single team —

Commercial Director of Insurance and Sr. Product Manager — Retail and Insurance Sector

"
— Even if sales and technology have different KPIs, if you manage to align them under the same macro objective, the perspective changes and we all become one single team —

Commercial Director of Insurance and Sr. Product Manager — Retail and Insurance Sector

"
— The complicated part is getting the right people on board from the very beginning to set expectations, priorities, and outcomes across all areas and with all stakeholders —

Project Manager — Telecommunications Sector

08

Definition, discovery and scope

6% of the mentions

08

Definition, discovery and scope

6% of the mentions

When the "what" and, above all, the "why" of a project are blurry from the start, the effect drags through the entire execution. 

The scope becomes shifting, stakeholders modify it on the fly, and often what a team asks for as "more tools or equipment" or "better requirements" is, in reality, a lack of definition that is more uncomfortable to name.

Ideas are formed and pushed forward, months of resources are invested, and results are not achieved. The lack of validation, prototyping, design processes and, above all, the absence of a strategic planning process that evaluates multiple solutions to the same challenge at an early stage, lead the organization and its teams into an endless spiral of frustration, technical debt, and mediocre results.

"
— That point is critical for the success of the project, because that is when we define what we want to do and, above all, why. If that is not clear from the beginning, it is the chronicle of a death foretold —

Head of IT and PMO — Technology Sector

"
— That point is critical for the success of the project, because that is when we define what we want to do and, above all, why. If that is not clear from the beginning, it is the chronicle of a death foretold —

Head of IT and PMO — Technology Sector

"
— The biggest challenge in digital banking is for stakeholders to stop changing the roadmap and scope, something that happens because management does not ground what they want —

Product Manager — Digital Banking Sector

"
— The biggest challenge in digital banking is for stakeholders to stop changing the roadmap and scope, something that happens because management does not ground what they want —

Product Manager — Digital Banking Sector

09

PMO without authority or executive backing

6% of the mentions

09

PMO without authority or executive backing

6% of the mentions

It is a specific, yet revealing pain. The PMO —or any project governance function— easily falls into operations and reporting instead of making strategic decisions. Without the financial language to dialogue with management and without real executive backing to enforce its decisions, governance remains only on paper.

Projects are approved, results are demanded, but the project office lacks the capacity to focus, set the pace, and allocate the necessary resources to ensure the strategy is executed.

"
— What distinguishes PMOs that actually solve this problem is integrated governance backed by real executive support to enforce it. Without that support, the process remains only on paper —

PMO and Project Leader — Cybersecurity and IT Services Sector

"
— What distinguishes PMOs that actually solve this problem is integrated governance backed by real executive support to enforce it. Without that support, the process remains only on paper —

PMO and Project Leader — Cybersecurity and IT Services Sector

"
— It is a role that can easily fall into operations and reporting instead of strategic decision-making. I believe that what holds things back the most is, on one hand, the organization and its inherent bureaucracy, but without a doubt, it is also often resistance to change —

Transformation program leader — Retail sector

"
— It is a role that can easily fall into operations and reporting instead of strategic decision-making. I believe that what holds things back the most is, on one hand, the organization and its inherent bureaucracy, but without a doubt, it is also often resistance to change —

Transformation program leader — Retail sector

10

Actual capacity vs. commitments made

3% of the mentions

10

Actual capacity vs. commitments made

3% of the mentions

Closely related to the previous pain point. Budgets, deadlines, and projects are approved assuming a team capacity that does not exist, or taking for granted that the technical foundation is already prepared. Effort is underestimated and capabilities are overestimated. Sometimes, the work already underway and day-to-day responsibilities are not taken into account.

The result: collapse, lack of progress, tension, and frustration. The lack of a clear definition and a realistic estimation based on "real capacity management" push the organization into a feeling of helplessness and stagnation.

Overburdened teams try to re-evaluate scope and define changes mid-execution as a quick fix to the situation, which consumes more time and resources. The moment of delivery becomes a horizon that continuously moves into the future.

"
— The most common mistake is approving budgets and projects assuming that teams have infinite capacity, or that the technical foundation is ready by magic —

PMO and Strategic Planning Leader — Manufacturing and Automotive Sector

"
— The most common mistake is approving budgets and projects assuming that teams have infinite capacity, or that the technical foundation is ready by magic —

PMO and Strategic Planning Leader — Manufacturing and Automotive Sector

"
— Aggressive goals and unrealistic estimates are set, overloading the technical team due to a lack of understanding of development complexity —

Change Management PMO Lead — Investment Banking Sector

"
— Aggressive goals and unrealistic estimates are set, overloading the technical team due to a lack of understanding of development complexity —

Change Management PMO Lead — Investment Banking Sector

02

Alignment between strategy and execution

13% of the mentions

Assuming that the strategy was defined in the boardroom with clarity, there is no movement in the desired direction. What happens?

The arrival of the plan at the operational level clashes with the day-to-day. The strategy did not take into account current efforts and/or does not clarify which of them should be stopped. In the absence of that prioritization, the teams address the previous intent or the day-to-day that sustains their position.

Sometimes, the lack of clarity lies in "what is to be achieved" and, above all, "what is the role of the people" to achieve it. The organization fails to show clearly what the expectation of a good result looks like.

Another cause points to long-term roadmaps, which do not synchronize with the weekly cadence of the teams. Too long a timeframe was planned or the efforts of the intermediate steps were underestimated. A gap begins to form between the expected horizon and the current pace.

Sometimes it was a matter of taking a step for which the organization was not prepared. Existing organizational pain points prevent any adoption. The strategy failed because things that hurt were not repaired and they now create friction against the desired progress.

"
— Scaling training on a massive scale was a major challenge that required changing processes before culture —

Head of Talent— Financial Services Sector

"
— In core banking migrations, organizations underestimate the impact on people and processes, leaving change management (reskilling/upskilling) as an afterthought rather than a foundation —

Core banking project manager — Banking sector

"
“What really complicates it is the day-to-day; that's where strategy clashes with actual operations since we run into shifting priorities, natural resistance, lack of data, team capabilities, non-standardized processes, and pressure to deliver results while transforming.”

Transformation PMO Leader — Beverage and Consumer Sector

the

reading

of

better

What do we focus on at bettter? Frictions, pain points, difficulties. Every organization encounters challenges along the way. These can turn into growth opportunities or permanent headaches that slow down speed or performance. However, in our view, one concept stands out when it comes to creating friction: The rush to move forward and the inability to slow down when the organization needs it.

We know what hurts, but not what to do with it

The first of the readings we make from bettter is a common denominator. Organizations see everything that hurts them, yet they do not always give themselves the space to repair and improve it. They perceive this process as a waste of time or directly deny the pain.

There seems to be a belief that if something that is not working well is repaired, it will be at the expense of being able to sell more or that the organization will stop achieving the necessary results.

Paradoxically, not repairing these pains is what holds them back and makes them go slower; it is at the core of what prevents them from being a better and more profitable version of themselves.

Those that do address it often do so through patches (Antipatterns) that address the symptom rather than the pain. Meetings to "increase" control over what is happening, automation of unoptimized processes, management methods to accelerate work delivery without first defining a clear value delivery strategy, multiple leadership figures authorizing and supervising something.

All of this camouflages a deeper pain that the organization prefers not to name. That which they do not quite know how to repair. That which was tried but not achieved, or that which makes us think we are going backward.

Whose turn is it?

Generally, what hurts is not addressed; it is left behind.

Sometimes it remains unaddressed until that pain stops the organization. If we keep moving, we may not address it. When it stops us is when it becomes important and urgent.

If the pain is organizational (systemic) and affects several areas, the resolution becomes more complicated because it is not clear who can or should resolve it.

Indecision often leads departments to not cooperate, be on the defensive, or become silos in the face of the problem. No one takes responsibility, and the problem not only remains there, but also causes new problems.

The government of decisions

Almost half of the frictions we document — governance, stakeholder alignment, PMO without authority, business-technology gap — share the same root: no one has clearly designed who decides, with what information, and with what margin of risk. 

When that is not resolved, the organization compensates with more (and longer) meetings, excessively seeking consensus, certainty, more approvals, more review layers, and less actual speed.

It is not a problem of slow or incapable people. It is, almost always, a government design problem: no one intentionally built the system with which the organization decides today.

Lack of focus: not knowing what to say no to.

It is, perhaps, the quietest friction of all and one of those that consumes the most organizational energy without anyone pointing to it as the culprit. When an organization is unable to sacrifice an apparent opportunity, different things can happen. Sometimes it divides its energies too much, tries to do too much at once, and this produces slow progress and mediocre results (when they are achieved). Projects drag on, move slowly, and eventually stall and are abandoned.

On the other hand, everything becomes a priority, and when everything is a priority, nothing truly is. Things are requested with the same urgency, without planning and without indicating what needs to be reprioritized. The team collapses along with the result.

We have seen this in management committees that approve initiative after initiative without ever asking themselves what they are willing to stop doing to achieve it. Focus is not a time management technique, it is a decision that involves directing the organization's resources, and it often has more to do with knowing what to give up than deciding which opportunities to pursue.

Run before you walk

If there is a pattern that runs through most of the 15 frictions, this is it. Adoption that is forced without reskilling, without a plan, or without patience. Projects that are committed to without mapping the team's actual capacity. Execution of new processes that are demanded without first mastering the foundations, just as happens with the adoption of new methodologies.

We have seen this repeatedly in organizations that want to reach the result by skipping the phase of mastering the basics — the one that is uncomfortable because it is slower, the one that requires repeating, iterating, and adjusting before accelerating. The pressure to show rapid progress ends up generating exactly the opposite: more friction, rework, and frustration.

Patience is lacking, pressure is produced, and finally frustration arrives. The lack of a roadmap and a scalability plan prevents clarifying what results are expected and when.

If it works poorly, it's because it was designed that way

And this is where the fifteen frictions converge into a single idea. None of them is an accident, a bad streak, or an abstract "cultural" problem. Each one is the result of a design decision —made on purpose or, more frequently, avoided— about who decides, what is measured, what is rewarded, and what is kept quiet. Organizations, like products, are designed.

When an organization frustrates those who work in it or fails to achieve what it sets out to do, it is not bad luck: it is the natural result of how it was designed, sometimes without anyone ever sitting down to design with intention.

No news from AI

During a year and a half of conversations with more than 60 executives, in the midst of the wave of investment and narratives about AI, the topic appeared only once, and in a marginal way: Aligning the pace of delivery with the new technology. Or, in other words, how we adopt AI without affecting current operations.

No one—not a single CEO, CTO, or CPO—mentioned it as their main source of friction or concern. What they did mention, time and again, was adoption, governance, alignment, culture. Deeply human and organizational problems that already existed before AI entered the conversation, and that will likely still be there afterward. 

AI makes promises, but there is still little trace of its impact on these issues in the Mexican organizations we were able to consult. A lot of noise and few success stories.

For that very reason, there are tensions between the expectation of business results by incorporating AI and the reality of the company's maturity to incorporate it. The business ignores the difficulty of adoption and, above all, the "why" behind it. This produces distractions and resource demands that technology departments cannot handle.

Data, its structure, and its cleanliness are also a starting point that not everyone has resolved. Furthermore, AI implies a shift in the mental model of its use that forces people to dedicate a time that not everyone has or wants to invest.

Written by
Aitor González / Juan Carlos Santana / Alex Talavera / Sofía Lomeli

Design
Aitor González

Aitor González
Juan Carlos Santana
Alex Talavera
Sofía Lomeli

Written by
Aitor González / Juan Carlos Santana / Alex Talavera / Sofía Lomeli

Design
Aitor González

Aitor González
Juan Carlos Santana
Alex Talavera
Sofía Lomeli
We share everything we know and experience through our blog. Leave us your email and receive our reports, news, and case studies in your inbox.
We share everything we know and experience through our blog. Leave us your email and receive our reports, news, and case studies in your inbox.

let's

(

talk

)

You can send us an email at hello@bettter.co or, if you prefer, follow us on our main networks. You can also click below to access our contact page.

let's

(

talk

)

You can send us an email to hello@bettter.co or, if you wish, follow us on our main social networks.

let's

(

talk

)

You can send us an email to hello@bettter.co or, if you wish, follow us on our main social networks.