Musings at Altitude

After two days of monitoring the number of people involved to get a “yes”, I’ve come to the conclusion that bureaucracy (bad bureaucracy that is) is buoyed by the simple statement, “let me run that up the chain and I’ll get back to you”.  If bad bureaucracy was a 3-legged stool, one of those legs would certainly be coordinating up the chain, even when no such coordination is required and full authority to make a decision exists.  The other two legs could very well be ego and broad coordination.  All 3 legs are designed to slow the process down and pass the “blame card” on to someone else in the organization.

But I’ve found quite a difference in getting a “no”.  “No” is the banner of bureaucracy, because in saying “no”, the onus is back on the one wanting a “yes” to reframe or repackage the submission to potentially change that answer.  In fact, in many companies, “no” becomes the 4th leg of that bad bureaucracy stool.  “No” minimizes work on the bureaucrat.  “No” prevents blame being assigned to the bureaucrat.  “No” reinforces the authority of the bureaucrat.

So where it takes 6 or more people to weigh in for a “yes”, “no” can come quite quickly…with zest…with authority…with pride.

“Yes” takes courage.  “Yes” creates accountability.  “Yes” springs from passion, vision, and strategy.

“No” creates comfort.  “No” bolsters authority.  “No” springs from process over progress.

[Now some of you are smart enough to know that my comments above are aimed squarely at those that use “no” to deny and defeat progress and not to those who use “no” as a vectoring tool for the path of the organization.  Great organizations should and do say “no” quite often, because their success creates great options  and great excitement and those options create more opportunities that need to be assessed and responded to.  But those great organizations have ways to acknowledge, track and create accountability for “no” decisions.  For them, “no” and “yes” reside at a commensurate authority level, and both decisions are anchored on the strategic priorities of the organization; because of that anchoring, “no” can be as equally liberating and accelerating as “yes”.]