Well, mostly.
So long as the process directs the actions to be taken, the order in which they are taken, and is able to withstand external pressure when it is brought to bear, then yes, it will drive an outcome.
We can look at an outcome and grumble, unexpected, unfair, and so on, but we cannot change it, although we can change the practises that drove it,
Competitively we can also disrupt the processes of others, and have our own disrupted, both internally and externally.
I watched the All blacks demolish the Welsh in the fight for third in the Rugby world cup. Demolition was one description, the All Blacks simply executed their processes with precision, focus and excellence, and the Welsh had no answer. How could anyone beat that?
Well, the previous week England did just that, they beat the All Blacks to go to the final. They beat them by disrupting their processes, not allowing them to execute in the manner in which their processes dictated they should, which would bring the outcome desired, a win.
As a result, England played the Springboks in the final, lucky to be there by beating the Welsh in the 78th minute. While England were the deserved favourites, they were beaten by a team that did to them what they had done to the All Blacks the previous week. The English processes were disrupted, and they were forced to play the game the Springboks preferred. For an hour it was a slug fest, anyone’s game, although the Springboks had the better of the set pieces, by a good margin, and then two pieces of individual brilliance sealed the fate of England.
I cannot let this go by without reference to the Australian Wannabees. It seems they had no process, or at least not enough to make an impact when it really counted, against good opposition. How can you have a stable repeatable and yet agile process when those whose responsibility it is to execute are never the same people. The trial, mix, and match of team selection is hard to fathom, and makes building a robust, repeatable process next to impossible, no matter how great the individual players may be.
In addition, processes must be designed with the end in mind.
No good designing a process that gives you an outcome then putting in place people to deliver the outcome who are not instantly aligned to the behaviours necessary to deliver that outcome.
Designing a process, then executing on it consistently while under pressure, are different. Both are challenging, but they are not the same thing.
- How robust are your processes?
- Will they be disrupted by competitive pressures?
- Are they sufficiently agile to accommodate the unexpected?
- Does each element of the process fit comfortably into those on either side?
- Does each element of the process compound to build the impact of the whole?
- Are you measuring the performance of each element?
- How responsible are the people in ‘hands-on’ control of each element for the performance of their part?
- Is there alignment between the processes and the desired outcome?
- Has the overall objective been broken down progressively into its component parts?
Robust, repeatable processes are the foundation of performance, will yours withstand the pressure?
