In a talk I gave a couple of weeks ago, I highlighted that in order to scale, leaders need to realize the importance of creating and replicating processes, and embrace the potential of disseminating autonomy. A sharp-minded member of the audience (whose name I didn’t catch!) asked this: how can you resolve the contradiction between following a process and having autonomy?
My initial answer to the group was: “use 300gm flour, 3 eggs, 200gm butter, 300gm sugar, whisk, and bake” and “use flour, eggs, butter, sugar” are both examples of a process to make cake. The earlier allows little autonomy but high repeatability/predictability, the latter more autonomy but higher variability/unpredictability. In the corporate world, deciding on the specificity of actions and variability of outcomes is a balancing act; critical processes must be rigid and fluid ones need to be flexible. While I still stand by that, I did have a further personal insight that I shared with the gentleman 1:1, and sharing below.
I am personally not a good rule follower. I want to understand the why before I follow any rule/process. This has caused untold misery to my parents, teachers, bosses, and my wife. But it’s also allowed me to reach a desired outcome by doing things my way – the process is not the point, it’s the repeatable outcome that’s the point. The additional layer of nuance that I want add to my answer is this: even in most restrictive process, asking why allows you to understand the desired outcome, and combining a clear understanding of the process and the why behind it gives you the autonomy to reach the outcome your way.
Just don’t mess with legal along the way 😊
