The Myth of “Getting Lost in Process”

Informal systems are still systems

One of the things I hear a lot when talking about organizational systems, accountability, or operations is a fear of “getting lost in process.” People worry that structure creates rigidity, documentation creates bureaucracy, and collaborative decision-making turns into endless meetings where nothing actually happens.

And yes, sometimes that does happen. I’ve absolutely seen organizations overcorrect into layers of approvals, unnecessary check-ins, and processes so bloated that simple tasks become exhausting. But in my experience, the issue is rarely process itself. More often, organizations are dealing with unclear process, reactive process, or systems disconnected from their actual purpose.

What’s interesting is that organizations without intentional systems usually aren’t avoiding process at all. They’re relying on informal systems: unspoken expectations, inconsistent decision-making, hidden power dynamics, and “figuring it out as we go.” That can feel flexible in the moment, but it often creates more confusion, inequity, and interpersonal conflict in the long run.

When “communication problems” are actually operational problems

Take a common workplace issue: two staff members are struggling to collaborate. Ownership over tasks is unclear, deadlines are getting missed, frustration and tension are building, and work starts falling through the cracks. Leadership interprets the situation as a communication problem or personality conflict.

Here’s what I see when I come into a situation like this. There’s a lack of project kickoffs or charters, so roles and expectations haven’t been clearly defined and agreed on. Communication norms also haven’t been established. Are we using Slack? Email? Where are documents and updates supposed to live? Overall, the collaborators are being expected to meet invisible expectations. That would frustrate anyone.

But without examining the structure surrounding the work, leadership may label the issue a personality conflict, which is much harder to solve.

When process replaces action

Sometimes organizations swing too far in the other direction, responding to a staff issue with so much process that it replaces action entirely. Staff raise concerns about workload inequity and burnout, and leadership responds by creating a task force, holding listening sessions, drafting values statements, and scheduling meeting after meeting.

At a certain point, repeatedly gathering feedback becomes avoidance when staff have already told you what the problem is. And honestly, I think organizations sometimes continue gathering feedback because implementation feels riskier than discussion.

The goal of process should be movement. It should help organizations identify what needs to change and create a clear pathway toward doing it. In this case, one of the most useful systems might simply be clear work plans outlining staff roles, responsibilities, projects, and tasks.

That isn’t about micromanaging people or enforcing productivity culture. It creates visibility. When workloads are visible, managers can actually understand workload distribution and work with staff to identify what can be set down, redistributed, delayed, or better supported.

Crisis is a difficult time to build systems

Things get even messier when organizations avoid building systems altogether until conflict is already happening. A staff conflict escalates, accountability concerns start surfacing publicly, or trust begins breaking down, but the organization has no accountability pathway, conflict resolution process, agreed-upon decision-making structure, or leadership alignment around how to respond.

So now the organization is trying to create a process during an active crisis.

In the moment, “figuring it out as we go” can feel like flexibility or nimbleness. But when there’s no operational structure that actively accounts for inequity, organizations tend to default to dominant culture norms and unspoken rules. Power consolidates quickly, decisions become reactive, and the people with the strongest relationships, loudest voices, or closest proximity to leadership often end up shaping the response in real time.

Organizations shouldn’t wait until active conflict to decide how accountability and decision-making work. Once emotions, fear, interpersonal dynamics, and staff pressure are already in the mix, it becomes much harder to separate intentional process from reactive decision-making.

There may not be a perfect solution once the crisis is already happening, but organizations can still slow reactive decision-making, clarify temporary authority structures, create transparency around the process, and avoid building systems solely around one incident or interpersonal conflict.

The difference between supportive and controlling systems

At the same time, worrying about getting “lost in process” is not an unfounded fear. Organizations can absolutely overcorrect. Suddenly every decision requires approval, every conversation becomes formalized, meetings and checkpoints multiply, staff lose autonomy, and simple tasks become unnecessarily difficult.

This is the version of process many people are reacting to when they resist structure. But there’s a pretty significant difference between systems designed to support people and systems designed to control.

Supportive systems tend to:

• create clarity

• reduce confusion

• support autonomy

• make labor visible

• build trust

• create predictable pathways

• adapt to human needs

Controlling systems tend to:

• increase surveillance

• micromanage behavior

• create administrative burden

• signal distrust

• restrict autonomy

• enforce compliance over collaboration
  

Structure and flexibility depend on each other

Structure isn’t the opposite of flexibility. The two depend on one another. Supportive systems create sustainable flexibility, while informal systems often advantage insiders and people already close to power. Expectations become socially enforced instead of transparent, and navigating the workplace becomes more about “reading the room” than understanding clearly shared agreements. Clarity and consistency reduce that inequity.

Systems are not inherently oppressive. In many cases, they’re what allow organizations to collaborate more effectively, distribute power more equitably, navigate accountability without immediately defaulting to punishment, and respond to conflict with more consistency and care.

I think a lot of organizations avoid structure because they’re trying to avoid control, rigidity, or bureaucracy. And to be fair, many of us have experienced systems that were punitive, inaccessible, or deeply dehumanizing. But avoiding intentional systems altogether doesn’t eliminate power dynamics or process. It just pushes them underground.

The expectations still exist. Decision-making still happens. Accountability still gets enforced somehow. The difference is that informal systems make those dynamics harder to see, harder to question, and more dependent on white supremacy cultural norms, interpersonal influence, and proximity to power.

Systems and processes do not mean endless bureaucracy or hyper-control. It’s about  building systems intentionally: clear enough to create consistency and accountability, flexible enough to adapt to human needs, and transparent enough that people don’t have to rely on social guesswork to understand how the organization actually functions.