“Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work.” - Albert Einstein
It feels in the day that Amazon can get a product to your home with 1-click in 1 day that all things should be easy, we certainly have the technology. Then we face reality. Decision-making in governments and corporations feels so cumbersome and always seem to die in a 'process'. I think that a lot of process is designed to avoid risk and mask a lack of commitment, and some was foisted on people by 'experts' who will never need to feel the pain of a badly designed system.
Why process gets a bad rep
Why is it so rare to find things work easily? Council paperwork, return policies or cancelling subscriptions fill people with dread as they know they might find a cumbersome process. Good process is intended to streamline our lives, ensuring consistency, safety, and fairness. Yet, all too often, we see bad process. Cumbersome obstacles that use our time and patience, delay outcomes, and leave us feeling frustrated by "the blob".
Real world impact
Bad process does not just waste time. It prevents important action to manage risks or respond to opportunities:
The Grenfell Tower fire might have been avoided had the required works been completed rather caught up in bureacracy. The human costs was enormous.
During the Hurricane Katrina response, overly complicated processes delayed critical aid reaching residents including the very basics of food and water.
The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, was made many times worse as rigid emergency protocols slowed down the response time.
We also see these every day:
Corporate world: Jamie Dimon recently was told that he was the 14th person required to approve a fairly inconsequential decision in JPMorgan's Wealth Management division. How much time was wasted?
Buying a home: Many home purchases fall through due to arbitrary timelines to get mortgage approvals and local searches
Consumer: Trying to cancel a subscription
The birth of bad process?
Detached Designers
Too often, processes are created by people who never have to experience them firsthand. These "detached designers" watch safely from the sidelines, treating processes as abstract tasks to complete rather than practical tools to achieve goals. Layers of unnecessary approvals, impractical steps, and endless box-ticking multiply rapidly, making sense only on paper. Because those involved don't personally encounter the frustrations or delays, timelines rarely match real-world urgency. No one feels empowered or motivated to improve things because nobody truly owns the outcome.
Process as a Substitute for Commitment
Processes can become convenient masks to disguise a lack of genuine commitment and accountability. Governments, for instance, regularly commission lengthy inquiries after disasters but often fail to implement meaningful changes due to political hesitation or unwillingness to allocate necessary funds. The process becomes an elaborate distraction, allowing leaders to avoid making hard choices. Similarly, in corporations, processes often drag on endlessly—not because more analysis is needed, but because senior leaders lack the commitment to act. Teams repeatedly revisit decisions, avoiding the uncomfortable truth that no one is willing to move forward decisively. Processes become a refuge for those who are worried about being blamed, and have no upside for any risks taken.
Process Intentionally Made Difficult
Sometimes, cumbersome processes are intentionally created as barriers. For example, filing health insurance claims in the U.S. often feels deliberately complicated, with the hidden goal of discouraging people from completing them, thus saving insurers money. Similarly, cancelling subscriptions or services can be deliberately challenging, designed specifically to frustrate consumers enough to reconsider or give up altogether.
How do we know whether a process is achieving its aims or not?
Identifying Effective Processes
How can we question our processes? Perhaps these 5 questions might be a good start:
Are the outcomes good? How defined? Are things effective and efficient?
How long does it take? Do people have enough time to contribute at a high enough level? Is the timeline aligned with the commercial needs?
Do people know at each stage, who is responsible and what the full path is?
Are people incentivised to approve things? Or are they incentivised to cover their proverbial backside?
Does the process flex to meet the needs of the situation?
In practice, rightly incentivised people, with a simple, transparent and flexible process will come up with sensible processes otherwise, it can turn into a mess.
The bottom line
Processes exist to serve people, not the other way around. If your process isn’t making life easier or delivering better outcomes efficiently, it’s failing.
So What?
Process itself isn't the enemy—but blind adherence to ineffective processes is. We must:
Challenge: If process feels unnecessarily complicated, it probably is.
Clarify: Every process step should have a clearly responsible person.
Align: Reward effective decisions, not just safe or procedural ones.
Simplify: Good processes are easy to understand, transparent, and practical.
Next week I will be discussing "Luxury beliefs". Until then, please sign up to receive the blog directly to your email at Blog | Deciders.
Comments