The value of processes
One common characteristic of structured companies is their reliance on strict processes. This creates the need to establish procedures for every operation within the organization. Rules are designed to ensure that tasks are carried out smoothly, without the need to involve others in answering obvious questions or dealing with routine issues. This way of working aims to reduce downtime and maximize efficiency. It is also a fundamental requirement for developing a vertical structure of responsibility within a company.
Everyone should know their boundaries and be able to handle tasks independently, without constantly relying on other people’s knowledge or expertise. Once a task is completed, it should be passed on to the next person in the hierarchy. This approach can significantly speed up processes.
However, problems arise when this rigidity starts to hinder efficiency. When procedures must be followed strictly, people tend to become equally rigid in their approach. If someone becomes too narrowly focused on their role and is unable to look beyond it, they risk working in a bubble, unaware of what is happening elsewhere in the organization. As a result, they may lose sight of the broader purpose of their work and fail to understand how their responsibilities fit into the bigger picture.
Rigidity vs flexibility
Companies that work with suppliers often struggle when their partners operate under excessively rigid processes. The problem is not the existence of procedures, but the inability to adapt them when circumstances require it. What works well within a highly structured, hierarchical organization can become a serious obstacle when interacting with companies that rely on horizontal collaboration, flexibility, and direct communication.
In these environments, the contrast between the two working cultures becomes particularly evident. While one company may prioritize finding the most effective way to solve a problem, the other may be constrained by predefined procedures, clearly separated responsibilities, and rigid chains of command. Simple tasks can turn into long exchanges, straightforward decisions require unnecessary escalation, and people who have the knowledge and authority to solve a problem may be unable to act because the process does not allow them to.
The irony is that systems designed to maximize efficiency can end up producing the opposite result. When following procedures becomes more important than achieving the intended outcome, processes stop being tools that support the work and become obstacles that slow it down. An organization’s efficiency should not be measured by how consistently its rules are followed, but by how effectively it can respond to real situations and deliver results.