The executive—in this case, my daughter's boss—told her that she was going to make a management decision based on a process or metric—or to be more specific to the academic environment, a rubric (i.e., a process for scoring what might otherwise be a subjective decision).
However, after further discussions, my daughter discovered that whatever "process" or "rubric" was to be applied was purely and evidently subjective to her boss alone. That is to say, what was set forth to reduce an otherwise purely subject and intuitive decision to a "process" – a "rubric" – was merely that, a pretense. Any decisions being made remain purely subjective and were not correlated to a "process," at all.
Now, let me be clear: I am a free-market guy. I believe that business owners and their executives should be able to hire, fire and make other managerial decisions at will. I am fully committed to the fact that they may do as they please as long as their actions do not include coercion or deceit.
In this scenario, it is not the executives' decision with which I take issue – which is why the decision itself will not be discussed here. What I wish to discuss is how many times executives and managers are themselves deceived as to the presence of a real "business process" by which they manage.
In my experience, if I spent time thinking about it, I'm certain that I could come up with a fairly large number of examples. However, to be brief, let me just toss out just a couple.
Now I know you are probably asking, "What is the similarity is between your daughter's situation and the two examples you have just provided to us?"
The similarity is this:
In each case the executive in charge called their decision-making a "process" (or, in the academic world, a "rubric"), and I think, truly believed that they were managing "a process" (e.g., "the sales process"). However, close inspection reveals that each decision was being made on a case-by-case basis, without reliance upon a process or rubric, at all.
Note that my objection is not to the case-by-case decision-making – although I offer that this is likely not a sound approach to managing a growing SMB. Rather, my objection is to the managers' beliefs that they are actually managing to a "process" or by "a process."
The key point here is to separate purely subjective, case-by-case decision-making from the act of "management."
Management implies the existence of "a process," – that is, an understood cause-and-effect relationship in a sequence of dependent events leading to a predetermined goal. There are three critical elements to this definition of "management" and "a process":
In the case of much so-called "sales management" that I have observed, one could not readily determine—at times—whether the goal of management was to maximize enterprise throughput or minimize disturbances to each salesperson's mystical mojo.
The point is, if one salesperson's mystical mojo works by wining-and-dining customer executives, and another salesperson's mystical mojo encompasses playing a lot of golf with executives and purchasing agents at customer firms, and a third salesperson achieves some measure of success by yet a third means, then there is no process and no truly effective "sales management" can be taking place. It becomes impossible to say that the firm can replicate its success—or, even, extend our success—by leveraging "a process" that has proven itself to be effective.
Whenever an executive must deal with sales operations as mystical mojo that is carried out in some seemingly inexplicable way by certain persons who were hired because they have a demonstrated facility for working this "mojo," then that executive cannot be said to be "managing" the "sales process." He or she may be managing many things related to sales, like the expenses related to sales, the number of salespeople, the sales territory assignments, and more. But he or she cannot be managing "the sales process" any more than he or she would be said to be managing a group of witch doctors in the work they do.
Let me go further to say, that even though the executive may have a "prescribed sales process" that includes a number of "steps," even if those "steps" are somehow encoded in some CRM (customer relationships management) or other software application; and even if the salespeople are required to "check-off" against these prescribed "steps"; if such "steps" are subject to frequent manipulation by the salespeople or sales managers or if a near-constant series of concessions are being made to the demands of salespeople or sales managers in accommodation to their claims of "mojo," (or something equally nebulous) then no real "sales process" exists in such an organization.
Also, if management is repeatedly finding itself caving-in to what amounts to little more than "threats" that "bad things will happen" if the salespeople's and sales managers' demands are not met in one way or another, then I would suggest that no "sales process" exists.
Now, I hear you asking: "What difference does it make if we have a "sales process" as long as we are making sales and surviving?"
To that question, too, there is a simple answer:
As an executive, if you do not have a real and manageable "sales process," then you are at the mercy of the economic winds and the fickleness of fate. In the absence of a manageable process, you cannot know what actions will lead to improvement. Despite your title as "executive," your only recourse is to try this or try that, simply because you have no fundamental understanding of the actual cause-and-effect relationships that lead to more sales or better sales.
By the way, this same principle applies to every aspect of management—supply chain, manufacturing, inventory, and more.
Is that really how you want to run what is arguably the leading edge of your business enterprise?
What do you think? We would like to hear the good, the bad or the ugly of your experiences with management of processes across your organization. To learn more about The "3 P's" Of Software Selection download the guide.