Poor Hiring → Bureaucracy

“Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism”- Mary McCarthy.

“When you work for a bureaucracy you’re mentally done by noon on Monday”- the author’s spouse.

I’ve worked as a Quality Engineer, Process Engineer, New Product Development Engineer and Organizational Development Consultant in various manufacturing industries. The organization’s I’ve worked for have varied in size from about 100 to thousands. They’ve manufactured products for the Aerospace, Semiconductor, Textile or Medical Device markets. With no exception, their level of bureaucracy is directly proportional to their size.

I define organizational bureaucracy for a manufacturer as an excess percentage of employees not directly responsible for-

1. Obtaining raw materials, equipment, floor space
2. Using only the necessary raw materials, equipment, floor space to make and package product
3. Selling the product

This is a simplistic view but adequate for this post. Change a few words and the definition can apply to health care, retail, software development, etc. An increase in bureaucracy means an increase in the percentage of workers not directly involved in A through C. Some bureaucracy is necessary for the organization to function. However, based on my experience 1) organizations have unnecessary bureaucracy, and 2) as company size increases, bureaucracy increases.

I think a major contributor to unnecessary bureaucracy is the organization’s approach to hiring.

In a LinkedIn article I elaborated on 3 concepts of why organizations do a poor job of hiring Engineers in Manufacturing industries. I believe these concepts apply to hiring in any organization:

1. Conservative Bias- The ratio of employees in a certain discipline to total employment stays consistent as the organization grows, even though the need for certain disciplines diminishes as work becomes standardized. For example:

• In Manufacturing, an Engineering team develops a process to make a product
• The team makes prototypes to evaluate
• They documents how they made the prototypes
• They ensure the prototypes work
• Finally, they use the prototype documents to write procedures for an Operator to make the product en mass.

The work of making the product has now been standardized. Engineering expertise is no longer needed to make the product, but the organization maintains the ratio of Engineers to Operators for that product.

2. The Insurance Fallacy — Translating the idea of a safety factor into hiring. For example, hiring a high skill individual to perform low skill work, thinking this will ensure the work will be done right. In practice the hire is bored and loses motivation, decreasing the probability the work will be done right.

3. Lack of Critical Thinking — Retreading/adding to job descriptions and functions as opposed to giving serious, disciplined thought to what we want employees do. Look at the long laundry list of responsibilities and/or qualifications in some job postings. This is another contributor to bored employees.

I think poor hiring is a major contributor to unnecessary bureaucracy. The entrepreneurial spirit at the organization’s inception gives way over time to boredom. The mature organization no longer has a critical mass of inspired employees who push back against the encroaching internal bureaucracy. The greatest inspiration driving employees is promotion.

A fair rebuttal to this argument is the author has never been in executive management, never run a business. I’m the first to acknowledge I don’t know the ins and outs of running a company. But in my defense, I’ve always worked “in the trenches”, in that part of the organization where the bureaucracy significantly affects day to day work. When the value of implementing new bureaucracy, or the continuation of old bureaucracy, is questioned the management response is generally akin to “you don’t have the overall perspective” or “we can’t fight it” or “we’ve always done it this way”.

There may be legitimate reasons for a growing bureaucracy (meeting the increasing requirements of an external powerful bureaucracy like the federal government, for example), but in my interactions with other human beings I’ve found we tend to act in a way to maintain or increase real and perceived personal ease.

It’s easy just to keep hiring in a certain discipline. Some people in that discipline are needed, and if the number of new hires are in the budget and we need people, why not? But serious, unbiased review of the organizations current needs in that discipline…that’s hard. Implementing a new approach that jettisons old thinking about the need for that discipline…more hard work. And doing this at a time when the organization is financially healthy and has a bright future…the mountain that has to be climbed just got a lot bigger.

It’s easy to use a safety factor in hiring, to be cautious. But finding out what workers really do in their jobs and accepting in good faith their answers even if it runs contrary to our preconceived notions…that’s hard work. Acting on this new knowledge and rethinking the skill set needed for the hire…more hard work.

It’s easy to just replicate/add over time to the requirements and expectations for a given job. But doing a deep, unbiased analysis to determine what skills/education is really needed…that’s hard work. Then changing those requirements and taking them seriously in the hiring process…more hard work.

What are the effects of this tendency to do what’s easy when hiring? I can think of five effects, though I’m sure there are many more:

1. Loss of creativity/innovation, not only in the products themselves but the workflow to make the products. Unmotivated, bored workers are not creative or innovative.
2. Non-utilization of worker skills. The organization pays for skills they rarely utilize.
3. Allaying of fears. This sounds like a positive effect, but I’m talking about the fear of responsibility, decision making, change. Bureaucracy takes away these fears through systems. As the organization grows, the systems grow, and in effect the systems run the organization¹. Systems are good at routinizing repetitive tasks, at providing consistency when it’s required, but they shouldn’t turn people into robots. If you’re hiring people, use them as people. People have capacities robots don’t have: a sense of responsibility, ability to make courageous decisions, ability to change their attitudes, behaviors and thoughts. Developing those capacities is good for the organization.
4. Wasting money and time, now and in the future. Enough said.
5. Loss of direction. What is the organization trying to accomplish? Except for a non profit or government entity it is to make money now and in the future. If that is true, why are actions being taken which have no direct or indirect bearing on that purpose? As it grows, the organization’s structure slips into focusing on satisfying bureaucratic requirements. The purpose of making money remains paramount, but organizational structure and behavior is not aligned with that purpose.

Addressing a) the Conservative Bias around hiring for certain disciplines, b) acceptance of the Insurance Fallacy, and c) the lack of Critical Thinking in hiring takes willpower and courage in addition to hard work. To enact meaningful change within an organization will exact a mental and emotional toll on the change agent(s). Only a small handful of affected employees will be enthusiastic about the change. As Machiavelli said:

“There is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order.”- The Prince, Chapter VI

But if the effort were successful, what a sense of satisfaction for the change agent(s)! And even if it weren’t, hard work and courage triumphed over ease. Respect for those who led the effort and dealt with the criticism would rise, and organizational improvement would occur just because of that increased respect.

Make no small plans; they have no magic to stir men’s souls.- Goethe

¹See John Gall, “Systemantics”, for a tongue-in-cheek yet insightful discussion of systems.