When a Checklist Becomes a Box-Checking Exercise

Checklists are powerful tools. They help ensure consistency, improve safety, and support accountability—especially in high-stakes environments like aviation, healthcare, research, or engineering. For myself, a daily personal checklist gets me back on task as I have frequent interruptions or immediate re-prioritizations due to changes in circumstances. But there’s a critical tipping point where a checklist stops being a tool for quality and becomes a hollow routine: when it turns into a box-checking exercise.

This happens when the purpose behind the checklist is lost. Instead of guiding thought, decision-making, or thorough inspection, the checklist becomes something to complete quickly—without real engagement. The causes can vary: maybe the checklist has grown too long, includes redundant or obvious items, or is enforced in a rigid way that discourages critical thinking. In other cases, it becomes a bureaucratic formality—something done to show compliance rather than ensure quality.

At that point, users may go through the motions without reflecting on what each item truly means. Boxes get ticked not because a task was properly completed or a standard met, but because the checklist *says* it was. This undermines the tool’s purpose and can erode trust, safety, and performance.

To avoid this tipping point, checklists must be periodically reviewed with input from the people who use them. Keep them concise, relevant, and focused on actions that require real attention. Train teams on *why* each item matters, not just how to complete the list. And above all, foster a culture where quality and accountability are valued more than superficial compliance.

A checklist should be a prompt for good thinking—not a substitute for it. When used with intention, it’s a safety net. When used without reflection, it becomes just another form to file. The difference lies in how—and why—it’s used.

Boilerplate checklists often lack specificity, leading to oversights in complex or unique situations. They can promote complacency, where users follow steps mechanically without critical thinking. These checklists may fail to adapt to evolving standards or context, resulting in incomplete compliance or subpar outcomes.

Personal Checklists vs. Process Checklists:  I build my personal checklists throughout the week for the near-term coming days.  Tomorrow’s checklist is generated through the day today and reflects the executional priority based on internal customer needs or a dynamic change in circumstances. Personal checklist should include “frogs” AKA activities that one may dread, as these have a greater chance of being completed when they are on your checklist rather than living rent-free in your head.

Process checklists should not be over-engineered. A process checklist should be populated with what is required rather than a long list of “it would be nice if” items on it.

The Octagonal Peg in a Round Hole: Navigating Near-Fit Team Dynamics

In organizational life, the metaphor of the “square peg in a round hole” is often used to describe a team member who is fundamentally mismatched for their role or environment. But what about the octagonal peg in a round hole-someone who almost fits, but not quite? This subtle distinction captures a scenario where a team member’s skills, personality, or working style closely align with the group, yet some edges remain, preventing true cohesion.

Understanding the Octagonal Peg

Unlike the square peg, the octagonal peg nearly fits the round hole. With only minor misalignments, this person can perform their role, contribute meaningfully, and even thrive in certain aspects. However, these small differences-be they communication styles, values, or work habits-create friction points that can hinder full integration into the team’s culture or workflow^[1][2].

This “almost but not quite” fit is often more challenging than an obvious mismatch. The team may sense something is off but struggle to articulate or address it. The result is a lingering lack of cohesion, where collaboration feels slightly forced, and the group never quite achieves optimal synergy.

Impacts on Team Cohesion

Cohesion in teams relies on shared goals, trust, clear communication, and complementary strengths^[3]. When an octagonal peg is present, several issues can arise:

·       Subtle Miscommunication: Minor differences in interpretation or approach can lead to recurring misunderstandings.

·       Role Ambiguity: The near-fit team member may struggle with expectations, unsure of how to fully contribute or where their boundaries lie^[3].

·       Reduced Trust: Even small disconnects can erode trust, as team members may question the commitment or reliability of the outlier.

·       Stalled Collaboration: The group may hesitate to fully engage, sensing that consensus is harder to reach or that the dynamic is slightly off-kilter.

These issues rarely escalate to open conflict but can quietly undermine morale and productivity over time.

Why Near-Fits Are Tricky

The challenge with the octagonal peg is that their differences are not glaring enough to warrant immediate intervention. Managers may hesitate to address the issue, hoping it will resolve itself. The team member, meanwhile, may feel the pressure to conform, leading to frustration or disengagement^[2][4].

In larger organizations, there may be opportunities to realign roles or teams to better accommodate individual strengths. In smaller teams, however, flexibility is limited, and the near-fit dynamic can persist, slowly eroding cohesion^[2].

Strategies for Leaders

To address the octagonal peg scenario, leaders should:

·       Foster Open Communication: Encourage honest dialogue about team dynamics and individual experiences. This can surface subtle issues before they become entrenched^[3].

·       Clarify Roles and Expectations: Ensure everyone understands their responsibilities and how they contribute to team goals^[3].

·       Leverage Strengths: Identify and utilize the unique strengths of each team member, even if they don’t perfectly match the original role^[4].

·       Promote Flexibility: Where possible, adapt roles or workflows to better fit individual capabilities, rather than forcing conformity^[2][4].

·       Build Trust: Invest in team-building and trust-building activities to bridge minor gaps and reinforce a sense of belonging^[3].

Conclusion

The octagonal peg in a round hole is a nuanced metaphor for the near-fit team member-someone who almost, but not quite, integrates with the group. Recognizing and addressing this dynamic is crucial for leaders seeking to foster true cohesion. By embracing flexibility and focusing on strengths, teams can transform near-fits into valued contributors, unlocking greater collaboration and success.

1.      https://blogs.ams.org/matheducation/2020/04/14/square-peg-in-an-octagonal-hole/

2.     https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/square-peg-employee-doesnt-fit-round-hole-role-how-doug    

3.     https://proactsafety.com/blog-posts/what-destroys-team-cohesion     

    4. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/square-peg-hole-empowering-your-team-harnessing-strengths-manley

World Monkey Day

 From Understanding Biomedical Research:

This Week in Animal Research - May 27, 2016

Anatomy of a Bad Interview

True Story:  Three applicants for the same position.  Remarkably similar backgrounds: All three graduated from the same college; near the top of their class; Each of their cover letters were well written and their resumes were thorough.  All were approximately 20 years old. Same field of study.  All were smartly dressed.  All were the same race, which differs from mine.  All were approx. 40 years my junior.  All took public transportation to arrive at the interview.

All three applicants were interviewed by me.  I provided them with a tour of the facility and covered their job duties and expectations.  In my mind I gave them all the exact same interview.  All interviews were conducted back-to-back on the same day.  I shall refer to them as Jane, John, and Joe.

Here is what transpired:  Jane was 20 minutes early for her interview.  She listened intently and nodded throughout while I was talking.  She was clearly an introvert as she had said very little.  Was I intimidating?  I told her that she needed to ask questions in order to pass this interview.  I said “ask me 5 questions”.  Question 1: How did your business get started?  Questions 2: “What would me typical day be like?”  Those were good questions.  Unfortunately there were no questions 3, 4 or 5.

John’s interview was scheduled for 11 a.m.  At 11:20 a.m. he had not arrived.  I checked my phone and there were no calls or messages.  I then figured that he had changed his mind about the interview. I went about my routine.  35 minutes more had passed and John had finally arrived. He apologized for being late.  Clearly John was an extrovert, great smile, asked lots of questions.  EXCEPT, after he would ask a question he would fidget with his phone just below the plane of the desk.  Was he texting? Reading email? Reading notes? Making notes?  Not sure, but I did draw it to his attention that I could wait until he was done with whatever he was doing on his phone.  He did not get the hint that it was a hint to stop dicking around with his phone.

Joe’s interview was at 1 p.m.  He arrived at 12:20 p.m.  Joe wore a genuine smile during the entire interview.  He was delighted to be at the interview. He did not fully understand all of the things I had described and asked many clarifying questions.  Without prompting he told me of his interests and that he had become so very frustrated at a prior volunteer position.  “People just don’t follow rules” he said.  “It really bothers me when people do not follow the rules.”

Which of these three do you suppose is being called back for a second interview?

This Week in Animal Research 3/20/15

This week in animal research

Using Monkeys to Understand and Cure Parkinsons Disease

This article for Using Monkeys to Understand and Cure Parkinsons Disease is linked to a special report by the Hastings Center.

http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/report/using-monkeys-to-understand-and-cure-parkinson-disease/