A large proportion of companies want to control their processes and the end-to-end supply and service chain. However, there are limits to this virtuous circle that far too many companies blithely cross.
With all due respect to top management, believing that they are capable of mastering and managing everything is either delusional or, at worst, reckless.
First, you need to know how to delegate operations and services that are not part of the company’s core business: external specialists can provide real added value in these areas, provided they are managed professionally.
What’s more, when you delegate a service, you need to know how to do it from start to finish and not intervene in the middle of the process for obscure reasons linked to the pseudo “mastery of the situation”. In fact, the exact opposite is true: sharing responsibility very often leads to chaos.
Unfortunately, the cases observed reveal a distressing constant: failure to observe the well-known “military” rule of “one field, one leader” always leads to inefficiency, inaccurate results and, ultimately, poor quality of execution.
It’s true that company senior management are often impatient and want to always know the ins and outs of operations. While this may be understandable in the case of in-house operations, it is totally unjustified in the case of services provided by external suppliers.
So, all too often, company management wants to take on the role of boss, executor, controller, plenipotentiary, when in fact they have no control whatsoever: they are the linchpins, whether internal or external, who make the machine “run”.
Expressed differently, this means:
• Setting the objectives to be achieved by the internal and/or external teams.
• Defining the general framework of what is admissible and what is not, the conditions, etc.
• Agreeing the time, quality, and financial arrangements for achieving the objectives or performing the services.
• Define the elements and conditions of controls and their consequences in the event of deviation from the objective.
Beyond that, you must “let it happen” and check progress as agreed beforehand.
The biggest “failures” we’ve seen have one thing in common: there were too many “cooks to prepare the dishes” and too few people to take responsibility. It goes without saying that complex issues require the collaboration of various bodies, but the areas of action need to be clearly identified.
This old principle, which everyone seems to understand, is not practised enough in large companies. Quite apart from the risks and shortcomings that are observed, relationships of trust can never be established on a lasting basis in these complex situations where governance is not clearly defined.
Ultimately, everyone has something to lose with these complex approaches: customers, staff, and external service providers. This reminds me of a piece of advice given by one of my mentors over 40 years ago, and which I have (unfortunately) been able to verify very often: if you don’t understand an organisation, an operational set-up, or a file in two minutes: don’t touch it, don’t do it!
Good luck with your business, happy reading and see you soon.