Bad Processes Produce Bad Outcomes
- David Creelman
- 10月6日
- 読了時間: 3分
I recall talking to a data quality specialist and asking how they assessed the quality of data in HR systems. They said they didn’t need to look at the data; all they needed to do was look at the processes for producing the data, and they could predict where the problems would be. That insight reflects a broader principle: processes shape outcomes. Bad processes reliably produce bad outcomes. To improve outcomes, we need to be imaginative in rethinking processes.
Clean ATS Data
Let’s unpack what the data quality specialist was talking about. We know recruiters are generally rushed and eager to get on with the task of filling a position; they are not keen on entering data into the applicant tracking system. If the process for gathering data does not include training so that recruiters know what to do and occasional audits, which incentivise recruiters to do it well, then you will get poor data quality.
There are other factors that lead to errors, such as requiring recruiters to type in data, such as a city name, rather than select it from a drop-down, or allowing them to skip fields that should be mandatory. You can see how a data quality specialist will be able to predict where data will be bad just by looking at the process.
The takeaway: if the data isn’t clean, look to the process, don’t just accept dirty data as inevitable or blame the recruiters for not doing their job correctly.
Writing Coherent Reports
An investment analyst once told me the hardest report he ever wrote was one where he used the process of crafting a detailed outline and then attempting to fill in the content. Why did that process make the work hard? It’s because once he got into the detailed content, he found it didn’t fit the rigid outline.
The lesson here is that it’s hard to do the detailed content without an outline, and it’s hard to write an appropriate outline without the detailed content. The most effective process involves an organic back and forth where a rough outline gets the writer started, but the outline gets revised in response to what is discovered while doing the writing.
The takeaway: processes may look linear on paper, but in practice, they often require back-and-forth iteration.
It’s worth noting that if the process is that the manager creates the outline and then expects a junior to fill in the detailed content, there may be no opportunity to revise the outline, leading to more effort and a poorer report.
As an aside, architect Christopher Alexander, whose writing inspired this post, says the problem with modern architecture is that the architect designs a structure, then hands it off to a builder to implement it. Alexander argued that separating design from implementation prevents the organic back-and-forth needed for quality. Here, where design and implementation are split between two different roles (and also roles that differ in status), there is no opportunity to follow an effective process.
Adaptable Project Plans
Much has been written about the waterfall process in software development, where everything is planned in advance, versus the agile process that proceeds in small steps. IT specialists have told me that agile doesn’t work for everything, so it’s not a matter of waterfall being bad and agile being good. It’s about matching the process to the challenge at hand.
The takeaway is to be aware that you almost always have a choice of processes, and it’s worth assessing whether the process you are using is the best for the situation.
Improving Production Methods
If production needs to be improved, management’s first thought might be to bring in experts to redesign the process. There is an alternative: ask the employees to gradually improve the process over time. This approach, known as ‘kaizen,’ has been shown in Japanese companies to deliver massive gains.
HR professionals will recognize that, in addition to productivity improvements, a bottom-up process can lead to much higher engagement, which has a long string of benefits on its own, including improved labour relations, lower turnover, and more discretionary effort.
The takeaway is to avoid defaulting to a top-down process, consider whether a bottom-up process will work.
Summing up
We can draw a few general lessons from these thoughts about process. First, don’t blame the people, blame the process. Secondly, don’t force linear steps when iteration is needed. Next, recognize that there is usually a choice in which process to follow, and take a moment to match it to the situation at hand. Finally, don’t assume top-down is best—bottom-up often works better.
So yes, bad processes lead to bad results; let’s spend more time thinking imaginatively about how we design HR processes. If we want better results in HR, we need to treat process design as a creative act, not an afterthought.