In the complex landscape of organizational dynamics, the tension between creativity and structure often emerges as a profound paradox. On the one hand, processes are essential for managing complexity and growth within an organization. On the other hand, the very development of processes can sometimes stifle the creative flow that fuels an organization’s ability to adapt to its environment. How do we resolve this paradox? The key lies in having the right understanding of what a process is.
This was over twenty years ago. The client of my startup was a very large company that had launched a very ambitious breakthrough project. This project had been launched under acrobatic conditions, with no structure, a small team, and a fairly short mandate: to create and launch a highly innovative service in just a few weeks. We were subcontractors, responsible for part of the implementation. How we got the job and the conditions under which it was carried out would merit a separate article, but hey, the service was launched on time and inaugurated with great fanfare by the head of the company. Building on this success, the project’s ambition was to grow. Then came the managers. I particularly remember one of them, let’s call him Jean-François, who took over the management of our project. Well, not taken over, because there was no one there before. So Jean-François called me in one day and explained to me that the chaos of the project was over. “We need to put more processes in place,” he said. And he set about doing just that, using PowerPoint and Excel spreadsheets. For him, the initial lack of structure was a blemish. It never occurred to him that this could be the reason for success.
The problem for Jean-François, who was sincerely convinced that he would bring a lot to the project, was that he didn’t have the right mental model of what a process is. People like him think that a process is like a recipe. They see the organization as a mechanism that needs to be well designed and well oiled. They are obsessed with the idea of simplification because complexity is anathema to them. They see it as messy and wasteful. But that’s not what process is. In its original sense, a process (the French word is procès, but nobody uses it) is nothing more than a set of related phenomena that occur over time. In management, it often implies the idea of organization of these phenomena, of structure, and behind that, intention and method. But where do processes come from?
The innovation researcher Clayton Christensen observed that at the beginning of its existence, what an organization knows how to do is due to its resources, mainly its human resources (founders and first partners/employees). Problems arise and are solved directly and informally. Over time, problem solving, especially for recurring problems, is formalized into processes. This formalization allows the firm to grow: new employees no longer have to find a solution on their own; they apply the processes developed by their predecessors. The presence of the founders is no longer necessary for this solution; their “knowledge” is encapsulated in these processes. The creation of these processes is a sine qua non for the startup to move from the entrepreneurial era, where the presence of the founders is necessary for problem solving, to the growth era, where problem solving is delegated to an increasing number of individuals.
Gradually, the solution to key problems becomes unconscious, relying more and more on assumptions and principles derived from the successful resolution of past problems rather than on conscious decision making. These processes and principles constitute the organization’s mental model, a set of beliefs and values that the organization has collectively learned to take for granted.
What’s very clear here is the extent to which processes, far from being abstract, generic recipes, are expressions of the organization’s deeply rooted identity. They reflect the choices made to respond in an original way to the challenges it faces. They are expressions of its uniqueness. In other words, a process at Peugeot is not the same as a process at Tesla or Renault. The word may be the same, but what each organization puts behind it can be radically different. When Jean-François arrives with his cooking recipes, he attacks this mental model head-on, which is bound to provoke an immune reaction. Under attack, the system tries to protect itself and ejects Jean-François. At least it tries to. In the event, after a series of slides and meetings, Jean-François disappeared, less than six months after his arrival, to the great relief of everyone involved in the project, who were able to get back to work.
This doesn’t mean that an organization should remain fixed in its model, or that it shouldn’t develop a formal way of operating. What it does mean is that any effort at formalization, which is essential for growth, must respect the mental model, that is, the identity and therefore the history of the organization. It is characteristic of the Jean-Françoises of the world, however, that they have absolutely no interest in this aspect. Their contempt for the past seems to them to be a rational attitude; indeed, they often proudly assert it. They want to rebuild the project on solid foundations, and this is their biggest mistake. If the system does not expel them, they stifle creativity and endanger the organization. Their a-historical, a-social, simplistic view of the process tends to look only at what is visible and measurable. They forget that a large part of value creation takes place informally and that, whether we like it or not, an organization is a complex system. Moreover, this system is not mechanical but social: the only way to make it evolve is through a social approach, i.e. by co-creating change. In short, Jean-François denies reality in order to apply an abstract model, instead of starting from reality in order to make it evolve, and believes that a simple solution can be applied to a complex problem. It’s always fascinating to watch Jean-François, and I’ve seen a lot of them in my life: they see themselves as pragmatists first, but they systematically undermine the foundations of their actions with their dogmatic attitude.
In the evolving landscape of organizations, the delicate balance between creativity and structure remains a constant challenge. The story of Jean-François underscores the critical importance of aligning processes with an organization’s unique identity. When processes are intertwined with identity, they become more than just guidelines-they serve as a blueprint for growth while preserving the creative essence that drives innovation. The pursuit of this balance is a never-ending journey that requires constant adaptation, co-creation, and a keen awareness that organizational dynamics are as social as they are mechanical. Recognizing the intricate connection between process and identity dispels the notion that strategy and execution are separate, revealing them instead as inseparable threads woven into the fabric of organizational evolution. As we walk this path, we discover that the fusion of creativity and structure is not a static endpoint, but an ongoing dance that propels organizations forward while nurturing their authentic essence.
📬 If you enjoyed this blog post, why not subscribe?
🇫🇷French version of this article here.