How Process Impacts Your Culture
To process or not to process, that is the question.
I previously discussed how communication determines your organisation’s culture. I’m now going to explore another element. One that is intertwined with communication yet distinct from it, and which also determines your organisation’s culture - process.
Process is by definition a series of actions that you take in order to achieve a result. In the workplace, processes are explicit. They encompass workflows, decision-making approaches, meeting formats, communication norms amongst others. Processes outline the expectation of how people are supposed to work. In theory. Anyone who has ever had a job will know adherence to processes can be patchy at best. Often for good reason. Process can be beneficial or not. Below dives into:
Personal relationships with process
Where process is applied in organisations
The purpose of process
How process impacts organisational culture
Personal relationships with process
For some, process is a dirty word, a killer of creativity and efficiency. For others, process is the only way, fostered by the belief that clear expectations lead to clear outcomes. Most people’s views on the process lay somewhere in between. They are informed by our early year conditioning, prior work experiences, current incentive structures, comfort with ambiguity, levels of trust with others and the system we’re operating in, and even our personal values (ask someone why they designed a process a certain way and it often reflects their view of how the world should be or individualised fears they are mitigating against).
I think of our personal relationships with processes as a scale. Where we sit on the scale can be situational, reflective of our competence levels, linked to how much our identity is tied to a process/framework (e.g. agile, OKRs), our levels of care about a particular outcome and responsibility towards ensuring it. Where we sit on the scale, and where we expect others to sit can differ. This can cause significant issues in the workplace. More on this later.
Our personal relationship with process can impact how we conduct our work, and how we interact with others. Both factors contribute to, and are illustrative of, the culture we operate in.
In the scale above identify where you would place yourself, your team and your wider organisation. If these differ, what impact does this have on how work gets done? What do you think is driving these differences? Are you basing these on assumptions or objective truths? If the answers are unknown, avoid jumping to conclusions. Similarities and differences can highlight the strengths and cracks in an organisation’s culture.
Process in organisations
Broadly speaking there are 4 areas in which processes are applied within organisations:
People processes: Interview formats, performance reviews, compensation decisions, holiday requests etc. are all processes that are applied to people in the workplace.
Team-level processes: Agreed approaches by which teams/orgs conduct their work e.g. product roadmap planning, engineering stand-ups, support escalation workflows, marketing copy sign-off, team meetings structures.
Company-level processes: Agreed approaches by which the company comes together to inform, plan and make decisions. Each team is expected to adhere to/participate in company-level processes e.g. quarterly business reviews, monthly all-hands, decision-making frameworks (e.g RAPID, RACI), goal planning, management meeting formats, cross-company communication norms (e.g. share memos, communicate via Slack/email).
Customer processes: These are typically a combination of team and company-level processes which impact the customer experience e.g. SLAs based on segmentation, pricing exceptions, access to beta programmes, onboarding due diligence etc.
Some processes are legally required e.g. right to work checks pre-hiring or KYC/KYB checks before onboarding customers. Most processes however are a deliberate choice. The quantity, structure and adherence to process is a reflection of those designing the processes and the organisational culture. Considering the four areas above, where in your org do workflows feel too chaotic, too restrictive or just right?
Purpose of process
Process at its core is about how things get done. So it’s ironic that the process has become synonymous with bureaucracy, which at its core is an endless stream of roadblocks that prevent work from being done.
The aim of process in its purest form is to:
Facilitate ease of doing work: Design methods for teams to effectively work together, make decisions, and achieve their goals
Reduce risk: Ensure company doesn’t fall foul of legal & compliance obligations or go bankrupt
Ensure consistency and fairness: Aim for all customers and employees to have a similar experience in their interactions with an organisation
Few things in this world exist in their purest forms. Process can be used to exert control like in the case of a manager who toys with approving holiday leave. It can be used to create a false sense of control in ambiguous environments like startups. It can be used to tackle a perceived/secondary problems rather than addressing the root issue e.g. “My employees are idiots so I must ensure they follow a step-by-step process” is usually more an indication of poor hiring practices, inadequate training or bad management than mass stupidity. Process can also be the result of a culture which rewards getting anything done rather than getting the right thing done, as people are more often rewarded for creating processes than removing them.
Another byproduct of processes, is that by design they reduce the need for thinking. This can facilitate speed and enable consistency in approach, but taken too far it can reward zombie-like doing at the expense of any creative thinking or common sense. Eventually this negatively impacts organisational performance.
Considering the aims above, do processes in your org align with the principles or do they perhaps have less positive intentions?
While processes can be harmful to organisations, a lack of processes can be too.
Process and organisational culture
The quantity of process within an organisation is generally linked to its stage and maturity. Early stage endeavours with small teams often don’t require many/any processes (although some embrace it zealously to their detriment). Larger companies due to their complexity and scale do require some agreed processes but how they’re applied can be the difference between a nimble org or a bureaucratic nightmare.
Process is a symptom of culture. Process also impacts culture. This manifests in a myriad of ways but for now I will focus on what I consider to be the big 3: speed, agency and exemptions.
Organisational Speed
Using the 2x2 above, where would you plot team and overall execution performance in your org? Focus on areas that are within your control.
Speedy + Thoughtful: This is the ideal state, where products, decisions and other deliverables are executed in a thoughtful manner and within a relatively quick timeframe given the nature of the task. Process enables pace and diligence.
Stagnant + Thoughtful: A well considered approach, executed well but far too slowly. Can be caused by processes being too cumbersome.
Speedy + Haphazard: Shipping fast, shipping low-quality/ill-considered outputs. Can be fine if some circumstances e.g. iterating on an MVP with beta customers but is not acceptable in others e.g. rolling out new product to Enterprise clients. Organisation may benefit from the introduction of light processes to ensure baseline quality.
Stagnant + Haphazard: Slow and sh*t. Sign of severe organisational issues that process alone can’t solve. Often a sign of interpersonal/inter-organisational issues that need to first be resolved at a people level.
If too little or too much process is hampering speed and quality of execution within your org, it may be time to review workflows that should be changed.
Appropriate Agency
Again, using the 2x2 above, where would you plot employee/team agency within your org? Does it differ by team or is it largely consistent?
Acts on individual agency for low risk/expenditure initiatives: A sign of a healthy culture. Any process that exists enables doers.
Seeks organisational approval for high risk/expenditure: Generally a positive approach. Process enables considered decision-making where stakes are high.
Acts on individual agency for high risk/expenditure: Can be a good thing where there is a need to act quickly and decisively. However, if recurring frequently, may be an area where org may benefit from additional process to prevent significant risks or losses caused by rogue decisions.
Seeks organisational approval for low risk/expenditure: Never a good sign. Often an indication of an overly bureaucratic organisation. More problematically it can be a sign of an overly permission-seeking operating approach caused by a culture of fear, general organisational dysfunction or apathy. In this instance, the organisation likely needs wide-sweeping cultural reforms.
How people do their work, and how processes enable or impede them to do so is a reflection of culture. If you are unhappy with the level of doing in your organisation, review if this is a symptom of too much process.
Allowing Exemptions
Using the 2x2 above, how would you rate each team, and each leader’s adherence to existing policies and processes? Are teams and leaders engaged in optimising existing processes?
Teams adhere to processes and provide feedback: A sign of a healthy culture. Processes work for teams and the org. Regular feedback allows for changes to processes which no longer serve their purpose.
Teams don’t adhere to processes and provide feedback: A sign of a productive culture when used in instances where teams are fighting back against nonsensical or excessive processes. However, can also be a sign of a cultural issues if certain teams or leaders continuously exempt themselves from processes which enable the wider org to work more effectively.
Teams adhere to processes and don’t provide feedback: No process remains perfect forever as organisations evolve. A lack of feedback from teams can indicate low engagement. Can also be a sign that teams have outsourced thinking to process. Likely a cultural issue.
Teams don’t adhere to processes and don’t provide feedback: A rogue state within in the org. If teams are disengaged from collective processes and unreasonably dissenting from expected norms, this is likely a sign of severe cultural issues and organisational dysfunction.
As companies scale some process is needed. Where exemptions are made, either intentionally, or where certain behaviours are ignored, is a reflection of your culture.
There is no exact playbook on the right amount of process for an org. It depends on scale, industry and market conditions. However, I’m generally of the view that less is more. The processes you introduce in a team or organisation are a reflection of your culture. They will shape your future culture as it evolves. This makes your organisational approach to process a great lever for cultural change.