Under perfect conditions of stability, trade-offs may not be necessary between effectiveness and efficiency. However, in reality, this trade-off is always there. Most businesses, as a rule of thumb, appear to favor efficiency over effectiveness. Some of the key reasons for this include the following:

This becomes starkly clear when examining the KPIs chosen to define success and also those based on which C-level executives are incentivized and rewarded. A CAS, however, prioritizes effectiveness over efficiency, when the trade-off has to be made. This is perhaps the best way to deal with a changing environment when survival is at stake.

Enterprises need to change their orientation to prioritize effectiveness over efficiency, when there is a necessity to make the trade-off. A business may be highly efficient by producing its products at the lowest possible cost, but, to save costs, it may not spend on learning about the customers' changing preferences. As a result, the company can achieve higher profitability in the short run, but will lose customers in the long run, thereby losing both revenue and profits. The swift downfall of Blockbuster [xviii], which was the leader in the video rental industry, is a case in point. A critical part of its revenue model was charging late fees to customers. When Netflix came up with a model which made late fees redundant, Blockbuster went bankrupt in no time.

An organization must spend, as needed, time, effort, and money on enabling a learning and knowledge-driven culture, which helps its people to effectively adapt and respond to the fast-changing environment. Knowledge workers should primarily be accountable for effectiveness, that is, getting the desired outcomes, and secondarily for efficiency, that is, doing things at the least cost.