3 ms·

I've enjoyed using and explaining this concept ever since I read the article initially, a few years ago. I think it's a powerful idea when applied in the right

I've enjoyed using and explaining this concept ever since I read the article initially, a few years ago. I think it's a powerful idea when applied in the right context. I do want to play devil's advocate though, and point out some "benefits," imo, to "the null process" that are left out from the article: - The null process does not have a formal process owner, so nobody is directly on the hook for blame when things go wrong with "the process." - The null process does not shake up or disrupt existing, implicit or explicit, political power structures in place. It's harder to make an enemy by "doing things how we've always done them" rather than fighting to change something. - The null process allows those in leadership to drastically change strategy at both small and large scales/scopes, without having to actually do formal change management. The new process is whatever randomly settles around the new goals/strategies. As opposed to having to actually tear down or carefully alter existing, formalized processes. - The null process is usually poorly understood by any one individual, it's made up of haphazard, ad-hoc communication channels and specific rituals between individuals or teams. This disperses power and disallows any one person or small group from gaining undue influence over the whole by controlling some key cog or relationship in a formalized process. - The null process can somewhat shield creatives and strategists from being overwhelmed by stick-in-the-mud, by-the-book people who may use formalized process as a cudgel to beat people over the head with in order to show dominance or gain power.

nine_k 6y ago
Can't agree on a few points. > so nobody is directly on the hook for blame when things go wrong Usually the poor guy who broke the unspoken rules is to blame, and worse yet, it looks like he's to blame out of the blue. Things went wrong, his colleagues are unhappy, and the reasons for that are vague. > The null process does not shake up or disrupt existing, implicit or explicit, political power structures in place. In part, it is those structures, the unspoken implicit expectations. Messing with them is much like messing with explicit power structures, only blindfolded. > This disperses power and disallows any one person or small group from gaining undue influence over the whole by controlling some key cog Rather, the people informally "in the know" do gain the undue influence, but do so informally. You just have to talk to them via these haphazard channels (and know to talk to them in the first place), or certain things fail to work well. This also lowers the bus factor of the organization, without formally acknowledging it. OTOH I tend to agree with the other two points: that informal "null" processes are easier to dismantle and replace with a more formal process of a very different kind, and that the lack of formal process allows some needed creativity, informal "skunk works" to sneak in where (other) formal processes do not allow for that.
- Benjammer 6y ago
  >> so nobody is directly on the hook for blame when things go wrong >Usually the poor guy who broke the unspoken rules is to blame Sure. I could have phrased my point better as, "Even if someone is blamed, nobody in leadership will be blamed for 'bad process' decisions." >the people informally "in the know" do gain the undue influence I could argue that this is a feature and not a bug. The inefficiency of the null process means that the "informally in the know" group will need to be much larger, on average, than the feasible power groups in efficient organizations. A group composed of 25% of the employees would probably be less likely to end up making radical decisions than a group of <4% of the employees. >This also lowers the bus factor of the organization By the same measure, having a larger power group and the null process would seem to me to greatly increase the bus factor. There would be more people each specifically focused on smaller areas, and/or possibly also overlapping in knowledge due to inefficiencies/redundancies in the null process.

nine_k 6y ago

Can't agree on a few points. > so nobody is directly on the hook for blame when things go wrong Usually the poor guy who broke the unspoken rules is to blame, and worse yet, it looks like he's to blame out of the blue. Things went wrong, his colleagues are unhappy, and the reasons for that are vague. > The null process does not shake up or disrupt existing, implicit or explicit, political power structures in place. In part, it is those structures, the unspoken implicit expectations. Messing with them is much like messing with explicit power structures, only blindfolded. > This disperses power and disallows any one person or small group from gaining undue influence over the whole by controlling some key cog Rather, the people informally "in the know" do gain the undue influence, but do so informally. You just have to talk to them via these haphazard channels (and know to talk to them in the first place), or certain things fail to work well. This also lowers the bus factor of the organization, without formally acknowledging it. OTOH I tend to agree with the other two points: that informal "null" processes are easier to dismantle and replace with a more formal process of a very different kind, and that the lack of formal process allows some needed creativity, informal "skunk works" to sneak in where (other) formal processes do not allow for that.

Benjammer 6y ago
>> so nobody is directly on the hook for blame when things go wrong >Usually the poor guy who broke the unspoken rules is to blame Sure. I could have phrased my point better as, "Even if someone is blamed, nobody in leadership will be blamed for 'bad process' decisions." >the people informally "in the know" do gain the undue influence I could argue that this is a feature and not a bug. The inefficiency of the null process means that the "informally in the know" group will need to be much larger, on average, than the feasible power groups in efficient organizations. A group composed of 25% of the employees would probably be less likely to end up making radical decisions than a group of <4% of the employees. >This also lowers the bus factor of the organization By the same measure, having a larger power group and the null process would seem to me to greatly increase the bus factor. There would be more people each specifically focused on smaller areas, and/or possibly also overlapping in knowledge due to inefficiencies/redundancies in the null process.