Always Wear The Same Suit

President Obama always wore the same thing during his presidency. As he told Vanity Fair: “You’ll see I wear only gray or blue suits,” [Obama] said. “I’m trying to pare down decisions. I don’t want to make decisions about what I’m eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make.”

This is because, the act of making a decision erodes your ability to make later decisions. Psychologists call it decision fatigue: it’s why at the end of the day you can feel so physically, mentally and emotionally exhausted that “fries or a salad?” feels like a riddle.

The Big Deal

Processes and systems that are right-sized for the task and the organization act like a blue suit. They are there to minimize the number of low value activities (especially for large and/or matrixed companies), and maximize the time spent on high-value efforts.

When used correctly, systems, tools, and processes should standardize and simplify the necessary tasks that keep team running smoothly. Monthly Business reporting, for example, should have a process that everyone follows every time so that the leader can process the information and not spend time looking for it on the page. And that’s a good thing.

What often happens is when a business leader says we need a process for this, folks’ recoil like turtles into their shells because there is so much “bad” process out there that makes the work less efficient not more. It can also decrease morale, and limit innovation.

This is particularly true in today’s disruptive world, where being agile and innovative are critical. Rigid processes quickly become a burden not a benefit.

Case in Point

An oft-cited example of over-process is when former GE executive James McNerney took the helm of 3M in 2001. He instituted a rigorous Six Sigma program, a rigidly data-driven quality-management program originally designed to tackle manufacturing problems. However, this intense process was peanut buttered across the company, which meant slashing costs, training thousands of employees to become program experts, and requiring extensive reporting on new products in the R&D pipeline.

In the short term, especially in the eyes of investors, it seemed to work. Costs were brought under control, production speed increased, and operating margins rose from 17 percent to 23 percent by 2005.

But researchers in the labs were stifled by the demands of the new metrics. 3M had a century-long history of innovation, but now R&D had been cut and inventors weren’t given adequate time to tinker with products before having to demonstrate successful commercialization. “We were letting, I think, the process get in the way of doing the actual invention,” said Dr. Larry Wendling, staff vice president at 3M’s Corporate Research Laboratory.

Now what?

LISTEN TO YOUR PEOPLE. Don’t ignore your feedback loops (formal and informal). When a workplace has an inefficient process in place, it’s common for employees to try to find an easier solution. That’s just human. Unfortunately, that can create a new problem, which is a lack of standardization across the business. Which is like having multiple color suits in slightly different sizes.

So, ask them if they have any ideas about better ways to complete their work. It’s likely that they may have strategies for possible methods to improve their workflow and save time. This is particularly critical in the age of AI and automation. If the team can come up with a faster, automated, auto-generated way to do things then (1) it means they’re probably interested in doing more mentally challenging work (2) a choice to go that direction will likely be better received.

GET CLEAR ON DECISION MAKING. The best mental models for decision making (RACI, DARE, etc.) out there can’t overcome ambiguous decision making. Back to President Obama. All of his “decision memos” got delivered to his desk with three checkboxes at the bottom:

Agree
Disagree
Let’s discuss

This is effective because, like always wearing the same suit, the checkboxes impose simplicity. While the decisions are obviously complex–otherwise they wouldn’t end up at the desk of the president–creating three choices speeds up the feedback loop. Rather than submitting an essay test for each problem, the president can opt for multiple choice.

CONTINUE TO EVOLVE. Systems, tools and processes that began when the organization was small, likely won’t work as well as the team expands. Adapting a process to the ever-changing reality of growth, management challenges, and economic situations requires a commitment to continuous improvement and incremental investment, that will pay out in employee satisfaction and time spent on high-value efforts.

Bonus: Watch Outs

Here are five ways process can kill production:

Empowering with permission–but without action: It’s not empowering when people are given more responsibility, yet must still obtain an unreasonable number of approvals and sign-offs to get anything done. This signals a lack of trust.
Leaders focused on process instead of people: In an effort to standardize and sanitize everything we do, nothing at work is personal anymore. Leaders look to processes, not people, to solve problems–and it doesn’t work. Where’s the inspiration, the vision? This signals a lack of humanity.
Overdependence on meetings: “Collaborative” and “inclusive” are corporate buzzwords, but productive teamwork does not require meetings for every single action or decision. People become overwhelmed and ineffective when they are always stuck in meetings. This signals that politics have taken precedence over productivity.
One size fits all: What works for one team may not work for another. While the aim may to create enduring standardized platforms, empower your people to apply some level of flexibility to their unique needs. Otherwise, this signals a lack of understanding.
Management acts as judge, not jury: If the purpose of a meeting is to think, create, or build, management has to stop dogmatic approaches when team members propose new ideas or question the status quo. This signals a lack of perspective and openness.