It hasn’t happened yet, thank goodness, but I fear at some point I’ll receive an email promoting the virtues of “associationmaxxing.”

All the signs are there. An up-and-down economy that’s prompted many organizations to look at belt-tightening. An increased focus from boards for leaders who deliver results. And the increased habitual use of AI, used to streamline tasks and squeeze maximum efficiency out of staff and volunteers.

There’s nothing wrong with being data-driven, or with using technology to better handle an association’s challenges. Those actions, though, get a little more frustrating when they’re done in service of achieving a kind of perfection that’s impossible to attain.

Chris Lovett, an executive coach and author, recently wrote about how the dream of organizational optimization can be a source of stress and frustration—and may even be counterproductive. Writing in Fast Company, he points to research that distinguishes between “maximizers” (high-performance obsessives) and “satisficers”—those who are satisfied with “good enough” outcomes. Those maximizers, he writes, “spend a staggering amount of time, energy, and mental bandwidth trying to squeeze out that final, perfect result.” Unsurprisingly, stress and discomfort are high among that group.

I get it: No leader wants to look like they’re not taking their job seriously or failing to apply the necessary rigor to their work. To do otherwise seems like shirking. 

But the trouble with a hyperfixation on success and efficiency is that it denies the human messiness that’s essential to innovation. Committees, cross-functional teams, and leaders themselves can often apply layers of supervision to projects in the name of optimizing success. But that kind of fussing can be counterproductive. A minimum-viable-product pilot can be more valuable; even if it fails, you’re getting meaningful information about what success eventually looks like.

And the abundance of data that an association can gather can confuse organizations over where they need to focus their attention. For instance, a meetings team can parse all sorts of numbers about who attended 20-minute, 50-minute, and 90-minute sessions and arrive at some sort of conclusion about what the optimal session length might be at the next conference. But if the problem you’re trying to solve is, “how can we make sure attendees feel engaged and educated?” then session length may be less important than what kind of content is on the docket and the expertise of who’s delivering it. 

Lovett isn’t advocating for slackness, or lack of focus in what organizations do. But he does recommend that leaders ask whether the systems they’ve established (or removed) in the name of optimization and efficiency are actually limiting people’s ability to experiment. As he writes: “Does that thing you’re doing really need another layer of sign-off anymore? Can something within the system be less optimized so it gets out to stakeholders, customers or clients quicker?”

I’d add: Or so you can decide it’s not worth the effort. Associations infamously accrue programs and products that are time- and resource-consuming. The solution isn’t maxxing out; it’s letting a bit of humanity become part of the work.