Processes are, by definition, the set of rules or standards put forth for smooth operations of a business to achieve desired results. There are bulky documents in every organization containing religiously written texts dedicated to processes. But, the question every process document fails to answer is ‘Why the process should be followed?’ And if this question is coming in the mind of a person who is supposed to follow the process, then it is a sure sign of a budding scepticism that, if left unanswered, can be detrimental for the organization in future.
The standards set by the policymakers of an organization, at any level, are delicate rules of organizational ecology. Meaning, for followers, these standards are not as undeniable as the law of gravity or the laws of motion. Reason - these standards are set up by the rationale of human beings and are very prone to becoming obsolete with changing business practices and within a very short period of time. The law of gravity never changes – so there is no problem following the law, every creature is born with the instinctive acceptance. Just imagine if the gravity was 9.8 N one day and the other day it changed suddenly to 6 N, how much effort it will require for the whole creation to adapt to the new law. Thank God gravity is intact but that’s exactly what happens with business rules; they are prone to fast changes. And changes in business rules give rise to changes in processes.
Process is an essential part of everyday life – be it making chicken curry or launching missiles. For a novice cook, it doesn’t matter whether she puts onion in the hot oil first or the asafoetida. But for a seasoned chef that does make a difference in the resultant taste of the dish. That’s the effect of processes – they reflect the maturity of the profession. But sadly maturity cannot come just by labelling it to the job titles of the professionals. It has to take roots in the vision of the individual, only then can it become meaningful for the individual as well as for the organization.
In words of James McGovern:
I believe that process is intended to "raise the floor" - that is to elevate the minimum acceptable standard across all participants. The process itself is designed to create an output of a particular (acceptable) level or quality. Process is also good for consistency.
Competence is about "raising the ceiling." The upper threshold of what I can achieve is dictated by my competence. As per above, my incompetence can be offset by process (to a certain extent). People of high competence may want to resist process, because it brings their execution down to a lower level than what they are capable of delivering. This creates the tension of "do I have to follow THAT process?"
Process is an organization-wide solution. Implement once and it touches all people (or is supposed to). Competence is an individual-wide solution. It is implemented one persona at a time. This makes it much harder to manage...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment