.svg){kind=small}
Discover Your Organization's Lifecycle Stage - TAKE THE TEST NOW!!
The United States is undergoing a process dubbed “to DOGE” (Department of Government Efficiency)—a novel move in government, but a familiar challenge within organizations.
This three-part article explores two distinct approaches to reducing bureaucracy and improving efficiency: the scalpel and the chainsaw.
• Part 1 introduces both approaches and how they work.
• Part 2 examines the trade-offs—comparing their costs and benefits.
• Part 3 tackles the big question: What is the right way to DOGE? In other words, what’s the most effective way to cut through bureaucracy, reduce bloat, and drive meaningful organizational change?
If you find yourself at the helm of a business or other type of organization that is bogged down by inefficiency—
Where personal differences dominate the agenda.
Where outdated policies and overly complex processes cause siloed departments to bloat just to keep up with the bureaucracy.
Then how do you properly reduce that bureaucracy? How do you properly DOGE?
One can use the chainsaw approach. This approach, as presented by Elon Musk, suggests that you:
1. Reduce your offering. Simplify the requirements you ask of your organization.
2. Start cutting. Reduce headcount. Delete functions. Cut big with the understanding that the only way you know you have cut enough is by identifying when you have cut too much.
3. Reconstitute the organization in a simplified form.
4. Acknowledging that mistakes will be made. Quickly identify those mistakes. Take corrective action by adding back needed functions, resources, and tools.
5. Increase the pace of execution, repeating the process iteratively.
The chainsaw approach views a bureaucracy as a fast-growing, bougainvillea plant that often grows out of control and needs to be cut back. Even if you cut too much the lost branches can be quickly grown back.
The fundamental flaw of the chainsaw approach is that it overlooks the human side of the organization. It disregards people, politics, emotions, morale, institutional memory, and the web of mutual interests and commitments that hold teams together. It treats individuals as if they are easily replaceable parts—an assumption that might work in the world of machines, where components can be swapped without consequence. But organizations are not machines.
An alternative approach is the scalpel approach. This approach views bureaucracies as unhealthy, obese people in need of liposuction and precise surgery. This approach requires precision as it must deal with the complexity of the human body.
I work at the Adizes Institute, where for the last 50 years, we have studied management and developed tools to help organizations reach higher levels of success. We have helped transform many bureaucracies. Our approach, like the scalpel approach, requires a similar level of precision as it must navigate the complexity of collaboration. This is how we would approach such an organization.
Before you can cut you have to prepare the patient for surgery. This is done with the following steps.
1. Bring the key stakeholders to the table. Create a safe environment that reinforces common interests while still acknowledging and legitimizing differences of opinion.
2. Together, Face reality. Come to terms with the problem. The organization is in trouble, and the current path is not sustainable.
3. Together, do an inventory of all the problems affecting the organization.
4. Start working on the operational problems in smaller teams, getting more and more stakeholders involved in the process. Remove red tape. Simplify processes. Learn how to work together to solve problems. Demonstrate the ability to make changes. Get some easy wins. Improve morale.
5. Once momentum is created, work together to re-align on the purpose of the organization. What should it achieve and what should it NOT achieve? What is the mission for the organization for the next X years? Generate excitement about the future. Identify new opportunities for the organization to leverage its resources. See if some of the fat can be converted to muscle by giving that fat a purpose.
Only once the key stakeholders have gone through the above steps, is the patient ready for surgery. This is done through the following steps:
6. Starting with a blank sheet, co-create an organizational structure with the mission in mind. Redundant and outdated departments are eliminated or merged in this step.
7. To avoid political bias, it is only once the structure is completed that it is populated with names. Managers not placed in the structure are placed in a talent pool.
8. Define responsibilities for each function in the organizational structure and then budget according to those responsibilities. Allow each unit head to hire, with their budgets, from the talent pool as they see fit. Managers within the talent pool who are not hired are let go.
9. Monitor budget spend and performance. Address any deviations.
10. Stretch the organization by leveraging the power of cooperation to identify places where expenses can be reduced, and revenues or services increased.
11. Recover from the surgery by cascading steps 1-5 throughout the organization.
12. Repeat steps 1 – 11, assuring the organization stays lean and the structure evolves with the mission.
The chainsaw approach and the scalpel approach each have their own costs and benefits.
Benefit #1 of the Chainsaw Approach: Simplicity
The chainsaw method is relatively easy to execute. Any manager with authority can make swift, unilateral decisions to cut costs or eliminate inefficiencies. It does not require stakeholder alignment or collaboration.
In contrast, the scalpel approach does require the cooperation and alignment of the stakeholders. Gaining that alignment without undermining the authority structure of the organization is very complicated and requires a special skill set. A skill set that takes our associates at the Adizes Institute years to master.
Benefit #2 of the Chainsaw Approach: Faster to Implement
The chainsaw approach can be implemented quickly as compared to the scalpel approach. The chainsaw approach has fewer steps and since each step is implemented unilaterally (without the need for cooperation) each step can be implemented faster.
Cost #1 of the Chainsaw Approach: Loss of Memory, Identity, and Engagement
The downside of the chainsaw is significant. It often leaves organizations demoralized and uncertain. Institutional memory can be wiped out, shared purpose is weakened, and employee engagement can collapse. Resentment toward leadership may linger long after the immediate cuts are made.
By contrast, when executed properly, the scalpel approach strengthens organizational culture. It fosters trust, deepens alignment, and builds a stronger sense of shared purpose and ownership. It also lays the foundation for future adaptability—creating an organization that is not just reactive but proactively equipped to evolve. With greater clarity of mission, alignment of structure, and transparent information systems, the organization becomes capable of achieving more with less—both now and in the long term.
Cost #2 of the Chainsaw Approach. Cutting Muscle Along with the Fat.
Perhaps the most dangerous risk of the chainsaw approach is its tendency to eliminate critical resources without realizing it. In their haste, organizations often cut departments or functions that seem unprofitable—only to see them thrive once acquired by competitors. Why? Because in the rush to reduce, they severed muscle instead of fat.
On the other hand, by building a fully transparent organizational structure the scalpel approach can be more precise and only cut the fat.
Cost #3 of the Chainsaw Approach: Loss of Political Capital
There are three primary ways to move people to action: through authority (“I’m the boss—do it”), power (“If you don’t, I won’t cooperate”), and influence (“This is the right thing to do, so let’s do it together”).
While authority and power can produce immediate results, their effectiveness diminishes with overuse. Every leader has a finite reserve of political capital—a kind of trust and credibility bank account. Using influence wisely and getting it right earns deposits. But every time you rely on authority or power, you make a withdrawal.
The chainsaw approach demands a heavy use of authority and power. While it may drive quick action, it often drains a leader’s political capital rapidly. As a result, leaders who rely too heavily on this method frequently find themselves replaced once the dust settles. The cost isn’t just organizational—it’s personal. They lose credibility, trust, and ultimately, their ability to lead.
In contrast, the scalpel approach—collaborative by design—relies heavily on influence. It encourages participation, builds consensus, and strengthens relationships. Managers who use this approach wisely often see their political capital grow, enhancing their ability to lead, not just through position, but through trust and respect.
As with most complex decisions, the answer is: it depends.
It depends on multiple factors that you should consider.
Factors to Consider – How Urgent is Your Situation?
If your situation is urgent, the scalpel approach may no longer be an option—it simply takes time. In crisis mode, you may be forced to reach for the chainsaw. That’s why it’s critical to proactively identify and address issues early. Waiting until problems escalate into a full-blown crisis can leave you with fewer—and harsher—choices.
Factors to Consider – How Mechanistic is Your Organization?
If your organization functions more like a mechanistic system—such as a highly structured production line—then a chainsaw approach may be appropriate.
But if your organization is driven more by people than processes—if creativity, collaboration, and institutional knowledge are vital to your success—then a scalpel is the better tool. It may take more time and skill, but it preserves what matters most: the heart, mind, and soul of your organization.
Factors to Consider – How Mission Critical is Your Organization?
Another key factor to consider is how mission-critical your organization is. If you’re the sole provider of a life-saving medicine or service where mistakes are unacceptable, the precision of the scalpel approach becomes essential. There is little room for error. However, if your organization offers a commodified product or service—where customers can easily find alternatives—the speed and decisiveness of the chainsaw approach may be more appropriate.
Factors to Consider – How Close is the Nearest Hospital?
And perhaps most importantly: how close are you to the nearest “hospital”? In other words, do you have access to someone with the experience, tools, and credentials to guide your organization through the complexity of the scalpel approach? Precision change requires more than good intentions—it demands expertise. Without it, even a scalpel can do harm.
At the Adizes Institute we say that it takes an organization to change an organization and for our clients, we have been that organization. With over 50 years of experience across 72 countries and thousands of unique client engagements, we know that choosing between a chainsaw and a scalpel is rarely straightforward. Each approach carries its costs and benefits. Ultimately, it’s a matter of judgment—and that judgment rests with the one who holds the authority.
So if you find yourself at the helm of an organization bogged down by inefficiency and bureaucracy – Choose wisely.
