I've been taken to task by James McGovern, who claims that I'm doing the "community" a disservice by talking about process and not talking about practices. Of course, he then treats us to another tired, overwrought, cliche'-ridden diatribe on how people matter over process.
People over process. Who wouldn't be in favor of that? I like the concept immensely. But there's a big problem with that concept that folks like McGovern need to address (and get over): The world doesn't work that way, nor will it anytime soon.
There are a number of reasons that in the real world, process generally wins out over people, and the main reason is that processes (good, bad, or indifferent) outlast people. Usually by a wide margin. This observation isn't ideal by any means, but it's the truth. Consider the following examples:
- Labor unions represent some of the most progressive organizations known (think of, as organized labor constantly reminds us, their mantra of "representation for working families.") However, their output and worth are largely determined by the labor contracts that they negotiate and approve. These contracts dictate (or eventually cause to be dictated) work rules, which is sliced-and-diced process by any other name. The control, based on mutual distrust between labor and employers, is infinite. The only way they can solve it? Not "people over process," just swapping out the old labor agreement with a new one so companies like automakers in Detroit can stay alive. And if there is no agreement, then do just like the major airlines did post-9/11 and have bankruptcy judges dictate process to airline employees with the force of law.
- Let's pretend for a moment that McGovern goes up a few floors in his building and tries to convince his organization's compliance and regulatory people that the insurance regulators in the State of X have it all "twisted" and that the recent compliance initiatives received should be ignored because they concentrate more on process than people. Fat chance of that ever happening, even in a dream.
- The US Government is very fond of trying to "fix" things that go off kilter or attempt to be 'fair' to specific segments of society, such as corporate/executive fraud ala Enron and Tyco (Sarbanes-Oxley); runs on banking institutions (the Federal Reserve and FDIC); and social engineering via taxation (the complex and maddening US Tax Code). What did all of this spawn (and continues to do so)? Yep, that's right, more processes courtesy of two of process' best friends: compliance and regulation. Were people, in general, well-served in these and the countless other instances of process-spawning in the alleged 'interest of the people?'
- McGovern claims that most of these issues can be solved by finding the "right" people. The reality check here is that unfortunately, there aren't enough "right" people to go around, and the majority have to make do with what they have, which is a primary reason why process is so alluring to those that crave certainty.
Process isn't going away soon, if it ever does, and while our society may fervently hope that self-directed people band together and 'fix' things or make them 'better,' society can't and won't trust them to do that up front - ever. There are just too many competing agendas out there to try to figure out what 'people' as a misbegotten collective really want and can agree to. So, what we're left with here is dealing with reality.
I don't look at the issue strictly as "people over process" and vice-versa. A stand far on each side reeks of dogma, which serves nobody well in the end. Processes exist because codification and the the aura of certainty that they provide (whether or not they actually do so) gives comfort to those that possess authority, equity, and make or enforce laws.
Since process won't be departing anytime in our respective life spans, I would rather see a constructive, useful integration of process and people that directly takes what they need and think into account. Simply leaving matters up to a self-directed, random collective of people doesn't work well because there will always be significant factions present who want certainty and will fight to get it in whatever form that takes. The real issue is how to strike the proper balance between people and process, not blindly choose one over the other.
Comments