When Continuous Improvement Is Misunderstood, Misused, or Weaponized
I have often said that excellence is a moving target.
But I have spent the last few days reflecting on how differently people can interpret what I meant. So I decided to write this article to explain more clearly what this principle means to me—and, equally importantly, what it does not mean.
I believe deeply that excellence is a moving target.
What was excellent yesterday may need to evolve tomorrow. Experience teaches us. Circumstances change. Expectations change. And strong leaders should never become so attached to the status quo that they stop questioning whether something can be done better.
But over the years, I have also learned something else:
A good leadership principle can become dangerous when it is taken out of context.
“Excellence is a moving target” should never become an excuse for underperformance—or an invitation for others to continuously disrupt your systems, standards, or governance.
It should not become a convenient answer when someone has failed to meet an already clearly established standard.
And equally, it should not become a license for others to continuously challenge, complicate, restructure, or interfere with systems that are already delivering excellent results, simply because improvement is theoretically always possible.
There is an important difference between continuous improvement and continuous disruption.
A Moving Target Does Not Mean There Is No Target
If excellence is a moving target, there is still a target.
There are still standards.
There are still expectations, responsibilities, timelines, governance structures, processes, and measures of performance.
A team member cannot consistently fall below an established standard and then defend that performance by saying that excellence is subjective or constantly evolving.
Evolution should move performance forward, not provide intellectual cover for falling behind.
When I speak about excellence as a moving target, I mean that once we achieve today’s standard, we should have the ambition to ask what tomorrow’s standard should become.
I do not mean that today’s standard suddenly becomes optional—or that yesterday’s excellence should suddenly be labelled inadequate simply because someone wants to change it.
Continuous improvement begins with accountability—not instead of it.
Improvement Should Not Become an Excuse to Complicate What Works
There is another misuse of this philosophy that leaders need to recognize.
Sometimes people look at a successful system, process, strategy, or organization and insist that because “nothing is perfect,” something must be changed.
More meetings.
More layers.
More approvals.
More reporting.
More people involved.
More jobs.
More interventions.
And suddenly, what was once efficient, effective, and cost-conscious becomes complicated, bureaucratic, and expensive – not even better.
Complexity is not evidence of sophistication, just as change is not automatically evidence of progress.
Before changing something that works, I believe we should ask very simple questions:
What problem are we solving?
What evidence tells us that the current system is no longer sufficient?
What measurable improvement are we expecting this change to create?
If these questions cannot be answered clearly, then perhaps what is being proposed is not improvement at all.
It may simply be interference disguised as improvement.
Change Should Have to Justify Itself
This is particularly important when the existing system is already performing well.
When a system is failing, the case for change may be obvious.
But when a system is already delivering strong results, sound governance, efficiency, accountability, and measurable impact, the question should not simply be:
“Why shouldn’t we change it?”
The better question is:
“What additional value will this change create?”
And perhaps:
“Will the value created justify the additional complexity, resources, time, approvals, or layers we are introducing?”
The stronger the existing performance, the stronger the justification for adding complexity should be.
Change should not be considered inherently progressive simply because it is change.
Change should earn its place by demonstrating value.
Success Does Not Create Automatic Entitlement to Participation
One of the more difficult leadership lessons I have learned over the years is that inclusion and collaboration must still be earned through relevance and contribution.
Not everyone who wants to participate in a successful journey automatically deserves a role in it.
A successful system is often the result of years of experience, mistakes, learning, relationships, discipline, credibility, and continuous fine-tuning that outsiders may never see.
Another lesson I have learned is that when an outcome looks effortless—and the success is significant—people sometimes underestimate everything that was required to create it.
They see the success.
They do not necessarily see the architecture behind the success.
They may not see the years of decisions, corrections, difficult choices, lessons, systems, relationships, governance, discipline, and persistence that made that success possible. And sometimes, they may even refuse to see it, no matter how willing you are to explain what lies behind that success.
And occasionally, the language of “improvement,” “oversight,” “fresh perspectives,” “tighter governance,” “more approvals” “ “ we just want to protect you “ or “ we just want to help and support you “ can be used to justify unnecessary involvement in structures that are already well governed and performing effectively.
Leadership requires openness—but it also requires boundaries.
Protecting a high-performing system from unnecessary interference is not resistance to improvement.
Sometimes, protecting what works is itself good governance.
Defending Standards Is Not Defending the Status Quo
This distinction matters enormously.
There is a difference between saying:
“We will not change because this is how we have always done it.”
and saying:
“We will change when there is evidence that the proposed change will make us better.”
The first is complacency.
The second is disciplined leadership.
I do not believe leaders should defend systems simply because they created them.
But neither should they dismantle, complicate, or dilute successful systems simply to demonstrate that they are receptive to criticism or change.
Openness does not require surrendering your judgment.
Listening does not require agreeing.
And continuous improvement does not require continuous restructuring.
Constructive Challenge Must Have a Purpose
Strong leaders should welcome constructive criticism. I certainly do.
I have spent years fine-tuning strategies, processes, partnerships, communication, governance, and even my own leadership style.
But constructive challenge should contribute something.
It should identify a genuine gap, inefficiency, missed opportunity, emerging need, or better way of achieving the objective.
Criticism without evidence—or even without understanding what is already there—is not necessarily insight.
Change without purpose is not necessarily progress.
And involvement without added value is not necessarily collaboration.
This distinction becomes particularly important when an organization or a leader has built something successful over many years.
Success naturally attracts people who genuinely want to contribute to it—and that can be extremely positive.
But success can also attract people who simply want to insert themselves into it.
There is a difference.
And with experience, I have learned to distinguish between the two.
Excellence Must Move Forward—Not Sideways
For me, the phrase “excellence is a moving target” has never meant endlessly moving things around.
It means moving forward.
Better outcomes.
Greater efficiency.
Higher quality.
More sustainable impact.
Better use of resources.
Stronger accountability.
If a proposed change does not advance any of these—or cannot clearly justify the advancement it is expected to create—we should have the confidence to ask why we are making it.
And if someone uses the philosophy of continuous improvement to excuse poor performance, the answer should be equally clear:
The fact that tomorrow’s standard may be higher does not remove your responsibility to meet today’s standard.
The Discipline of Excellence
Perhaps this is the part of excellence we discuss less often.
Excellence requires ambition, but it also requires discipline.
The discipline to improve when improvement is needed.
The discipline to admit when something can be better.
The discipline to hold people accountable when standards are not met.
The discipline to question our own systems without automatically assuming they are wrong.
And also the discipline to say no when unnecessary change threatens to create bureaucracy, dilute accountability, consume resources, or interfere with something that is already working exceptionally well.
So yes, excellence is a moving target.
But that does not mean we should keep moving the target to excuse those who miss it.
And it certainly does not mean that everyone who wants to reposition the target should automatically be given the authority—or the opportunity—to do so.
Excellence evolves. Standards remain. Accountability matters. And change should always earn its place by creating value.
That, for me, is the difference between continuously improving excellence—and continuously interfering with it.
Senator Dr. Rasha Kelej
CEO of Merck Foundation.
