Modern companies are engaged in both operational and project-based activities—whether they realize it or not. Internal projects focused on streamlining and regulating business processes are essential for sustainable growth. Without them, organizations face a high risk of ad hoc, manual interventions to keep flawed systems running.
Managing both stable workflows and dynamic projects gives business leadership a biathlon-like character—where executives must balance the endurance of ongoing operations with the precision of project execution. This duality requires a specific skill set and organizational awareness at the executive level.
Understanding Two Types of Processes
All business processes can be grouped by how clearly the path to success is defined:
- Well-defined (regulated) processes: These are documented, stable, and respond predictably to internal or external factors. The sequence of actions is known, participants are identified, and expected outcomes are clear.
- Poorly defined (unregulated) processes: These lack structure or have outdated or overly vague rules. Participants often operate based on assumptions or personal interpretations, which leads to inefficiencies and internal conflict.
Poorly defined processes often require manual control—direct intervention from top executives when things stall or go off track. This kind of firefighting consumes leadership time and increases organizational fragility.
The Hidden Danger of Manual Control
Manual control is sometimes necessary but inherently risky:
- Executives may inadvertently worsen the problem due to incomplete information.
- Some team members may exploit this mode of management, manufacturing “crisis” situations to gain attention or resources.
- It can lead to a superficial sense of success while the root problem remains unsolved.
Even without manipulation, a high number of unregulated processes drains organizational energy, especially if they are mission-critical.
Why Do Unregulated Processes Persist?
Despite their risks, unregulated processes remain common. Why?
- Psychological bias: Humans instinctively resist rigid rules. They prefer flexibility and autonomy—especially in leadership.
- Time constraints: Executives are busy. They often delegate process design to department heads who may lack the right tools or mindset.
- Cultural blind spots: Some leaders believe strong teamwork will “fix” everything organically—underestimating the need for structure.
- Misunderstanding of project work: Projects are seen as something for engineering or construction—not for internal improvements.
The Executive’s Project Blind Spot
Many executives overlook the project nature of internal change initiatives (e.g., implementing new tools, reorganizing teams, or automating workflows). These are often treated casually, leading to:
- Compromised results
- Missed deadlines
- Wasted resources
This happens because no formal project management framework is applied. The reality is that most internal improvement initiatives are simple projects—not requiring external consultants or certification, but needing structure, ownership, and proper execution.
From Chaos to Control: Practical Recommendations
- Acknowledge unregulated processes. Don’t ignore them—track and prioritize those that affect key business functions.
- Focus on regulating critical operations:
- Interfaces with external parties (compliance, licensing, marketing)
- Internal production/service delivery processes
- Choose the right optimization strategy:
- Pre-launch optimization for new processes
- Interactive refinement for improving live processes
- Treat process optimization as project work:
- Assign project managers (from IT, methodology, or process teams)
- Involve department leaders as domain experts—not project leads
- Use internal standards for managing small projects:
- Avoid overcomplicated methodologies (e.g., full PMBOK)
- Maintain basic project structure: goals, tasks, timeline, owners
Why Biathlon Is the Right Analogy
Just like a biathlete switches between skiing and precision shooting, top managers must balance two competing disciplines:
- Vertical & horizontal leadership: Line and matrix management
- Routine & one-time execution: Repeated operations vs unique projects
Ignoring this duality leads to chaos. A company cannot thrive on intuition alone—it needs clarity in both domains.
Conclusion: Process Maturity as a Management Metric
Unregulated processes can bring spontaneity and human flexibility—but only within limits. If left unchecked, they become threats to stability, quality, and profitability.
Regulating business processes doesn’t kill creativity. On the contrary, it frees up energy and attention for strategic work. By investing in simple internal project practices and regulating key operations, executives equip their companies for resilience, efficiency, and growth.
The takeaway?
The proportion of well-regulated processes is one of the most accurate indicators of management quality. Monitoring and improving this ratio should be a key concern for every executive leader.
