Again yet with today's resignation at the BBC - the cry goes up of "we need a reorganisation" or " we need new processes". It seems like corporation's cannot conceive of dealing with an issue without the cry for "Process, Process Process".... as though this the answer to all our problems.
Like methadone for the Heroin addict, plastic cigarettes for the smoker who struggles to give up or the false body parts as an antidote to personal insecurity. It seems that organisations use the process word as both a means to avoid responsibility and push the problem to tomorrow.
As a rapidly ageing coach and consultant I would offer the view that in most cases processes don't fail - people do. And until we really have the courage to stop playing the corporate mañana game then we will like that wonderful film Ground Hog Day - be doomed to repeat the mistakes of yesterday forever and forever.
I am not anti-process - just anti the adoption of pointless processes.
A case that I often use and love to explore is the one of queuing. Queuing is a wonderful topic in England. We love to form queues; we argue about queue jumping and we even employ specialist to help manage them in post officies, cinemas and doctors surgeries. In fact the one of the greatest stress points we can suffer from in entering a new situation is to understand what queuing system is being used. Is it separate lines per till; the winding snake model; the take a ticket model or the free for all.
Flying out of Southend airport yesterday one passenger was clearly too embarrassed to start the the boarding queue 90 minutes before boarding time - but he was also in a state of anxiety about losing the precious first place. So he nonchalantly stood at the sectioned entrance of the EasyJet check in - strategically blocking the space with his case. Thus sending a signal that I 'own' this space without actually triggering the queue rush that starts once the first person stands in line.
My point with all this is that it really doesn't have to be complicated. Occams Razor agues that ""when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." In the same way when you have two competing process solutions then I would argue go for the simplest one over that which is more complicated (and probably begin sold by the consultant!)
A case in mind is the one of queueing in spain. When we first moved here I walked tentatively into the bank wondering how it all worked. Everyone was standing around chatting and chilling and there seemed to be little control in place. In fact it looked chaotic. But then listening to what was being said as each new person walked into the room they asked the question "Que Ultimo". Which translates roughly to "who is the last person". Once they know who the person preceding them is they don't have to worry about anything else. The more vocal spaniards will cruise the room chatting and hugging friends, some will sit and play with their iPad and the older people will find a chair and rest their legs.
The key thing is that they just followed one principle - focusing on who precedes me. And that is it. The processes works for banks, butchers and brothels (!!). But buried within the simple process is also a deep cultural model of trust and respect. Simple systems will often be founded on a solid human base of trust. Whereas in my experience complicated processes are often needed because of an absence of trust in the organisation.
So, before arguing for yet another bright new shinny process maybe asked questions about why the currents one failed - and what human factors were present (or absent) that caused things to go wrong.
Mick Cope
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Mick, thanks for sharing your blog with me. I understand you to be talking about 'process' in terms of the organisational process, and not the individual's process etc.. I guess I understand the term process in a different way. My viewpoint for what it's worth is that the 'failure' is both individual and systemic, but the trouble is that we collectively want a 'scapegoat' for the failure such that 'heads will roll'. And then as seems implicit the organisations processes are tightened to avoid similar problems happening again. The collective 'failure' seems to be that we either deny and overlook abuses (for whatever reasons), or we overreact, wanting to punish the perpertrators immediately. In the recent situation in the BBC the Panaroma programme was completely innacurate in it's subtle identifying of a perpertrator. Abuse is in the air, and everyone is concerned and reactive around the subject. At a collective level we may all need to examine ourselves in terms of our responses around 'abuse'. Organisations and individuals may well need to change. But simply tightening up in organisational response is likely to cause recycling of the problem. I think there is presently an atmosphere of 'risk aversion' in many systems and organisations. In my own field of Mental Health work and the NHS i perceive risk aversion as one of the reasons that we don't hear the voice of the abused child. So much effort is spent on tightening and risk averting, that we forget to get involved with and to deeply understand the real human experiences we are engaging with.
ReplyDeleteI have said much more than I intended. I seem to be in considerable agreement with you Mick about not just replacing one shiny process for another. I'm also suggesting that 'rolling heads' while satisfying an immediate need for pointing the finger and dishing out punishment
... ran out of space.... satisfying an immediate need for pointing the finger and dishing out punishment, reflects the fact that we don't know ourselves as part of a collective field around the issue, that 'heads' and people are enacting roles and behaviours that are shared by us all, and for which not only those individuals need to take responsibility. More awareness is needed in the whole system, in ourselves also. That is really systemic and process change.. I live for the time when this will become more common to us all.
ReplyDelete