Processes & practices mean more than you think

Organisational processes and shared practices may appear to just be a manual for execution, but in fact operate as a complex interplay involving shared norms.

Organisations use both processes and practices — in fact, they are essential to their function, but they are often implemented without consideration to their semiotics — that is, what they symbolise to the organisation, how they are presented, and how they are deployed in practice.

Kecheng Liu, a pioneer in organisational semiotics, describes the dynamic as follows:

An organisation [is] a system of social norms … when people conduct themselves in an organised way they do so by conforming to regularities of perception, behaviour, belief and value. People do not always conform to every organisational norm, but the encompassing, informal culture will provide the norms that govern how far it is reasonable to depart from the norms specific to the organisation and also how other people will react to those departures. Any lack of suitable cultural meta-norms will limit how far it will be possible to organise at all.

First, it is necessary to be more precise about the distinction between a process and a practice, as identified by Bob Lewis:

• A process is a structured set of repeatable steps designed to minimise variance and increase efficiency

• A practice is a free-form execution within a domain which draws upon individual and team expertise

The choice to rely upon processes or practices (or more commonly, a layered mix of both) comes with its own set of tradeoffs. In general, a process attempts to standardise outcomes regardless of the person executing it, while a practice inherently draws upon the expertise of the individual for competent execution.

Put another way, organisational processes may appear to be a rigid manual for execution, but in actuality are only a guiderail where organisational norms determine how much tolerance exists for deviation by the various agents within it.

Similarly, individual practices within an organisation can be highly divergent or mostly convergent, even where no formalised process is in place. Factors such as standardisation in diagnostics and terminology will affect perceptions and norms around the acceptable bounds of practice.

Leveraging the terminology of semiotics helps us to quantify and talk about the applicability and effectiveness of both. The semiotics of a process or practice can be evaluated in three dimensions:

• Designation — The purpose or value of a process or practice within the organization. Can be tangible, symbolic, or both.
  Example: The annual budgeting cycle supports financial discipline, planning, and accountability.

• Structure — The form, rules, and sequences that organise a process or bound a practice to make it recognisable and reusable by staff.
  Example: An engineer relies on a specific diagnostic method or checklist as part of their troubleshooting approach.

• Application — The enactment and interpretation of a process or practice in specific departmental, managerial, or environmental contexts.

  Example: A local, informal practice has evolved to skip certain fields which are designated as mandatory to fill out by head office.

A common case where this matters is where there are mismatched expectations around the semiotics of a process between a manager and their staff. For example, introducing a process when people don’t understand what it is for (ie a lack of designation), it can hardly be surprising if it fails to be implemented consistently.

Therefore, when rolling out a new process, managers should always ask questions like:

• Designation: Do staff understand why it matters?

• Structure: Are the listed steps clear, unambiguous, and widely applicable?

• Application: Is the observed take up and usage consistent with expectations?

These simple questions can avoid costly failures and delays during change efforts.