Leadership Pitfalls: Confusing Process and Productivity
This is the first in a series of posts on common leadership pitfalls. When I think about the best leaders I’ve known and seen and when I think about occasions my time – whether in a primary leadership role or not – has been best used or wasted, several themes come into focus. In this first post, I will take up one of the most common leadership pitfalls: confusing good process with actual productivity.
I intentionally modify “process” with the adjective “good” because I want to be clear that a) I think attention to process is very important and b) this isn’t a complaint about busyness for busyness sake. Attending with care to the processes by which we make decisions, for instance, can keep us focused on the primary issue at hand, keep expectations clear, maintain good communication, elicit a diversity of opinions, share authority appropriately and wisely, and in all these ways yield a better decision.
Ultimately, however, as important as process is, leaders sometimes forget that good process is a means to get somewhere – presumably, to make some decision or enact some change – it is not an end in itself.
I have witnessed many good leaders – and have made the mistake myself – confuse constructing a good process with actually attaining the desired end. And so meeting and after meeting and hour after hour can be spent on attending to processes, policies, and procedures, perhaps even resulting in “guiding documents,” a “statement of principles,” or “position papers.” While such documents have value, like process itself, they don’t change anything; they only set the stage for change. They don’t achieve anything; they only prepare the way for actual work that leads to achievement.
How do you know if you’ve confused process with productivity? At the end of your meeting, ask what has been accomplished. Or, better, ask what is different. Because while you might be able to answer the first question by saying, “We crafted an excellent position paper,” you would have to answer the second question by admitting, “Nothing has changed…yet.”
Which is the key. Procedures and policies enable you to make better decisions. But they are not themselves decisions. So keep your eyes focused on the change you hope to see, and allow good process to serve that, not substitute for it.
Yes, indeed, process may lead to a plan, but it is the implementation of the plan that will yield the desired change.
Agreed. It seems like there are two processes in play — one that leads to a good decision and a shared vision of a desired future state — and another process (of implementation) that (ideally) leads us through the required changes to reach the desired state. Most often it’s during the second process when we run into trouble because we trigger our “Immunity to Change” (Kegan and Lahey, 2009). There is a gap between what we say we want, and what we actually do. So, for instance, a vision of radical Christian welcome translates to a capital campaign and remodeling project to become a more welcoming place without actually requiring us to become more welcoming people.
Thank you for the reminder about productivity – it is amazing how often being busy can be confused with being productive. I have recently been listening to a podcast series which talks about this and has helped me think about this again. I hope others will find it useful as well:
“The Productive Pastor” – revchadbrooks.com