Flowcharts say a lot about how the business processes are imagined: The forward and backward steps of a set of functions linked by only two variables (Yes/No) leave no room for flexibility. Where does the human factor take place in these drawings (and, of course, in the relationship network of these drawings represent) that were invented, possibly inspired by schematics of multi-part electrical circuits and, are still very popular for some reason?
The moment we comprehend that each of the conductors, switches, and resistances enabling flows, fulfilling tasks and, connecting functions, are actually people filled with emotions such as joy, sorrow, comfort, tension, desire and ambition, the pathetic inadequacy of these charts is exposed. Maybe it is even possible to include these emotions in the charts as if each was a function. However, it would be naive to expect them to be represented properly in this chart leaving no space and to offer a perfect prediction about the process.
The “Leave your emotions at the door” principle must also be an expression of flexibility, indefinability and fear created by unpredictability. However, what distinguishes two very similar workflows and makes one superior to the other, humane and successful is not the prediction of the functions in as much detail as possible. It is the acceptance of unpredictability. What transforms the workflow into a real process, a story, and what makes a difference should be looked for in the gaps that emotions will fill.
It is a tough dilemma when someone who is expected to form strong bonds with the people they work with is prevented from expressing their feelings. Emotion expression can only take place in a workflow that will make it possible to remember and relearn a language we have forgotten a long time ago. A management approach denying this can not go beyond a process in which functions clash with each other; can not achieve a genuine flow.
Why do you think brands that no one can forget and give up on are called “love brands” ?
Comments