The title is deliberately appealing, but it hides two subjects that seem to be increasingly recurrent and even divisive in the professional world: the narrowing of minds and skills.
There was a time when the margin of tolerance in business was very - too - wide and a form of generalized laxity existed in the professional landscape. Oral rules were rife, the application of principles was somewhat haphazard, while trust and a ‘clannish’ spirit were the rule.
It is not a question of denigrating those times or wanting to go back in time, but rather of knowing how these practices have evolved. Is it for the better or for the worse? Both, in fact…
It seems unthinkable today to leave certain ‘financial competences’ or ‘business executive largesse’ to anyone in the company, but hasn’t the pendulum swung too far in the other direction?
This is where the so-called ‘funnel principle’ comes in. As an old project manager, I had learnt to start a project or an action with generalities and to arrive at the particular by going through stages; to start with the big picture and end with the details. In other words, there was a structure for conducting and approaching projects that seemed immutable. This was also practised at the level of decision-making skills.
This seems to be a thing of the past, at least in service sector companies: we move blithely from vision to execution, from a tactical approach to a technical detail of no interest, from a unilateral decision to a participatory decision under the pretext of being ‘mobile and flexible’. In other words, let’s contribute to modernity! But is this more effective and efficient? The few examples I can think of seem to show a form of “chaos” or “artistic vagueness”, the results of which are not all convincing…
Structuring a project, going from the essential to the detailed, having clear and precise governance are not quibbles but often precious aids, even for the younger generations who need models, even if they must question them.
Let’s move on to the “width of the corridor”. The governance that comes from and/or is supported by increasingly strict and rigid rules makes us lose the notion of the whole: we ‘split up’ in order to distribute competences, we delegate in order to push the risk to others, we divide up the flows to ensure that no one can effectively carry out an action from start to finish in the name of ‘risk management’ and ‘compliance’. Instead, the “corridor” should be kept proportionate so that one can move within it without having to change the rules every time there is a small change of course.
Once again, it is not a question of taking incalculable risks or not complying with the law or the rules: it is simply a question of offering a ‘corridor of activities’ that is wide enough to be efficient at company level and, above all, of having a positive approach to work by practising what the Anglo-Saxons call ‘job enlargement’.
In conclusion, it is not a question of decrying the current way of working but of denouncing the extremes towards which we are increasingly moving in the world of work.
The “80/20” principle advocated in most management schools is less and less applied in practice. While everyone talks about a “fluid” world, dogmas are taking over in the professional world with a very “binary” approach
Is this really what we want to leave to future generations? We are convinced that it is not and that companies will find the right corridor width and the right funnel system…
Have a nice week, good thoughts, and good reading.