Hammering Hammer
A Critical Analysis of Dr. Michael Hammer’s Process
Dr. Michael Hammer is a highly regarded management guru, perhaps best known for coining the word “reengineering” in the early 90’s. His latest focus is on process – specifically, on helping organizations become “process enterprises.” This approach has gained a significant degree of acceptance in industry and government, and several big name companies like IBM are touted as being onboard the process bandwagon.
In addition to being rather influential, Dr. Hammer is a nice guy. We corresponded via email as I wrote this piece, and he was both thoughtful and generous. I’ve invited him to write a reply, which we will gladly post here at RPL if he accepts the invitation.
Of course, liking a person and agreeing with him are two different things, and there is a lot of stuff in Dr. Hammer’s process enterprise theory that I find problematic, unfortunate, and just plain wrong. That’s what this article is about. But as I said, he is really a nice guy, and this friendly skirmish is intended to explore contrasting ideas in a collegial, albeit pointed, fashion. It would be a disservice to both RPL’s readers and Dr. Hammer if this article pulled any punches, downplayed concerns or glossed over significant issues. Our readers deserve honest opinions and clear-eyed assessments – and so does Dr. Hammer.
For simplicity’s sake, this article focuses on a whitepaper titled The Process Organization: An Executive Perspective . Naturally, this is a small sample of a much larger body of work, but it is a representative sample and I believe it captures the basic process enterprise ideas quite adequately.
Since the referenced whitepaper is an overview of a much wider body of work, it necessarily glosses over the finer nuances of process enterprise theory. However, the objections raised here are not a matter of nuance and shading and are not likely to be resolved simply by reading more of Dr. Hammer’s writings. The issue is with the core beliefs, values and assumptions upon which his theory rests, and these foundational elements are expressed quite clearly and sufficiently in the whitepaper.
I want to make it clear I don't disagree with Dr. Hammer’s every point. In fact, I agree whole-heartedly with his diagnosis of what is wrong with many modern organizations. It is his prescription for how to make things better that rings false.
Circular Misdirection
The basic issue is with the fundamental assumption of a process enterprise, which is clearly stated on page 3. Dr. Hammer writes "process work is... predictable." It would be generous to describe the "process is predictable" statement as circular reasoning, and more accurate to call it misleading. The problem is, the assumption asserts something where there is nothing. Specifically, it proposes the existence of predictability in an inherently chaotic system.
Process work, by its nature, is of course predictable and repeatable. That is what process means, so to say a process is predictable is essentially redundant. What is not clear is the unexplained, unproven and unjustified assumption that work itself is always predictable or should always be so. We must ask how a framework based on predictability, populated entirely with careful plans which specify "exactly what work is to be done by whom, when and where" (pg 1), could possibly cope with the unexpected. It is a good thing process enterprises never encounter anything surprising!
The Reality Of Chaos
Hammer goes on to explain that "process is the opposite of chaos" (pg 3), and once again I agree. However, reality is chaotic and is composed of many elements beyond anyone’s control. Yes, I just called process the opposite of reality. This big world we live in is full of changing affairs and unexpected events, so while a process enterprise may create an isolated island of order within a chaotic sea, you can’t stay on the island forever. At some point, each organization must deal with and confront the wider world which is often unpredictable and over which we have precious little control.
Dr. Hammer's insistence on the predictable nature of work reveals a serious limitation in the applicability and relevance of his theory. Basically, it only applies to predictable environments, and much of the business environment in 2005 is far from predictable. The late Col John Boyd's OODA loop offers a useful, practical approach to dealing with chaotic reality, and does not depend on formulaic predictability.
Healthy Disputation
Continuing on the topic of reality, Dr. Hammer actually claims “checking and rework becomes unnecessary” in a process enterprise, as if process renders mistakes impossible. More startlingly, he goes on to say “disputes do not arise when everyone is aligned around a common goal” (pg 3). Granting the possibility of the utopian notion that a large number of people can stay completely united around a common goal for the long term, it is somewhat incredible to think disputes will therefore not arise among such a united group.
Further, it is profoundly revealing that he believes a lack of disputes is healthy. To be sure, disputes can be wasteful and unproductive. They can distract people from the organization’s goals, and are often a symptom of competing individual objectives. However, disputes can also be a fertile testing ground (to mix metaphors) for new and innovative concepts. Apparently, the chaotic, unpredictable nature of disputes puts them beyond the realm of goodness from a process perspective, and that is a problem.
The truth is, an absence of disputes is often symptomatic of an absence of courage and honesty, as people bury their own observations and opinions in submission to the status quo. In reality, we can not drive out disputes any more than we can drive out chaos. All we can do is deny or ignore them, and that is neither healthy nor productive.
The People Problem
This leads to the other significant problem with Dr. Hammer's approach – his perspective on the value and treatment of people. On the one hand, he writes "the performance of a process enterprise is highly dependent on the capabilities of its people; they are truly its most valuable asset." (pg 8). On the very next page, he describes personal performance as something "which people can control but which is of little consequence."
I have to wonder which concept he really believes and to which he is merely paying lip-service. Perhaps an earlier statement can shed some light on his actual position, as when he writes "individual efforts can only be successful when integrated with those of their teammates." (pg 7). I agree with the importance of teams, but Dr. Hammer seems to be devaluing the individual contributor rather than simply affirming teamwork.
Further evidence of his dim view of individual workers (aside from calling them "assets" rather than people) is the importance he places on "the most senior managers" (which, for some strange reason, he does not call "senior management assets"). He claims a process enterprise "can not possibly succeed unless it is the top personal priority of the most senior managers in the organization." (pg 10). He goes on to unflinchingly and unapologetically assert the necessity of brow-beating upper-middle managers into compliance (on page 10 he calls it using “clout” to “compel participation” – toMAto/toMAHto).
His comments about upper-middle managers is a cheap shot at a popular whipping boy. Further, it completely fails to consider the question of why these upper-middle managers tend to have "the greatest vested interest in seeing it [process enterprise] fail." One might ask who directs and evaluates these people if not the senior executives? Who vests their interests? If upper-middle managers can not be trusted with leading this sort of change, if they can not be empowered and if they genuinely are 180 degrees out of synch with the senior executive's vision, what does that say about the “most senior” leader's ability to lead?
I'm not saying it is easy to get these upper-middle managers moving in the direction you want them to move. I'm just saying that's what leadership is all about.
Dictation & Autonomy
If the key to successfully becoming a process enterprise is for senior leaders to use their considerable clout to "compel the participation of all constituencies" (pg 10), then something is terribly wrong. This dictatorial "theory X" approach has long been discredited, in theory as well as in practice, and yet Dr. Hammer continues to assert the belief that people in upper-middle management positions can not be reasoned with, trusted or empowered. They must be compelled to comply. I don't buy it, and that’s coming from someone in lower-middle management who has often been a critic of those in the upper-middle levels.
Interesting, one page earlier we find the statement "People in process enterprises must be managed like high-contributing autonomous professionals." Does Hammer really think treating people like autonomous professionals involves compelling their participation, “specifying exactly what work is to be done, by whom, when and where” (pg 1) and appointing process owners to "create and maintain the design of a process" (pg 6), rather than letting the people who actually have to implement the process participate in creation of said process? That is neither autonomous nor professional.
While the process enterprise approach surely has value for certain industries, the recommended approach to dealing with people (excuse me – assets) is a nearly fatal flaw and not to be skipped over lightly.
The Joy Of Stat’s
What about the “spectacular benefits” and contemporary illustrations he offers as evidence of a process approach’s value? Surely they are worth a closer look.
Mark Twain is widely credited with the observation about “three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.” Far be it from me to accuse the eminent Dr. Hammer of using numbers to deceive, but perhaps these spectacular benefits are not quite as impressive as they appear.
In his first example, we learn “Duke Power increased the percentage of situations in which it hooked up electrical service by the date promised to over 98%.” (pg 4). At first blush, that sounds pretty good. Presumably that figure is the current company average, but for reasons unknown, we are never told what the previous company average was. For all we know, it could have been 97%, although we can reasonably assume it was lower.
We are told that in some territories “that figure had been as low as 30%.” Unfortunately, Dr. Hammer does not tell us the current figure for those previously low-performing territories. Are they perhaps still doing poorly? If they are now at 60%, to pick a hypothetical number, would that mean the process enterprise succeeded or failed? He simply does not say.
The bottom line is this snapshot only tells half the story... or maybe less. This apples-to-oranges comparison is not very impressive or convincing, particularly since telling the entire story would have been a matter of adding a few data points.
When Timing Isn’t Everything
An annecdote about IBM gets a mealy-mouthed “as much as” in front of the 75% time reduction, but given the scarcity of other details, there is not much to say about that example. Well, maybe there is one more thing to say.
Reducing time to deliver new products is generally good, as long as the market actually wants those products. Perhaps the market for those products is indeed robust, or perhaps IBM simply figured out a way to rapidly deliver stuff nobody wants. Who knows? Again, the example does not tell enough of the story for us to judge.
But Does It Transfer?
Illustrations based on Allmerica Financial and Air Products have more impressive sounding results. It is entirely possible the senior executive leadership assets at these organizations successfully dictated “exactly what work is to be done by whom, when, and where” (pg 1), compelled the participation of all the relevant constituencies (pg 10) and achieved the ‘sustained high level of business performance, that can only be accomplished in a process enterprise” (pg 11). Maybe all this stuff worked for them. One might ask how to establish cause and effect in these cases, but I trust someone researched these results with all due diligence.
The real question in these cases is “So what?” Are their results relevant for other organizations? Presumably an insurance company and a manufacturing company would stand to benefit greatly by establishing repeatable processes, since much of their daily work is repeatable. It is not clear to what degree this approach applies to the experimental, innovative environment of a research laboratory, for example.
The Mother Of All Endings
Apple computer’s famous commercial during the 1984 Superbowl featured a Big Brother character on an enormous television screen. Based on George Orwell’s book 1984, the commercial aimed to challenge conventional thinking about computers, predictability and uniformity. Just before the 30-second spot ended, the man on the screen said:
“We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths… We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!”
Clearly, this is a process-oriented leader who seeks to drive out chaos and “confusing truths.” There are no disputes in this Big Brother’s garden, where everyone is united around one cause, with one will. And there is certainly no question of who owns the future. Had Apple waited a few years, they could have easily borrowed the closing comments from Dr. Hammer's white paper:
But neither these concerns, nor the challenges of the transition to the process enterprise, should deter corporate leaders from this path. The direction they must follow is clear. The future belongs to the process enterprise.” (pg 12)
Such a tastelessly triumphant tone can perhaps be excused as overzealous marketing or poor writing, but it may also indicate an out-of-balance perspective that is skewed away from the direction of reality. As the saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Similarly, if you believe all work is predictable, then the Process Hammer is the only tool you’ll ever need. All it takes is a willingness to ignore or deny the reality of chaos, the value of disputes, the power of human ingenuity, the dignity of workers, the impact of creative autonomy and the existence of disruptive competitors and innovators. Sadly, history is seldom kind to those who says “The future belongs to X.”
Yes, But Does It Work?
As I said at the beginning, I agree with Dr. Hammer’s diagnosis. His statement about the importance of creating "a result customers value" is dead on, as is his insistence on being "goal directed and outcome-focused." What is not clear or convincing is his assertion that a process enterprise helps establish an externally-focused, outcome-oriented organization.
On the contrary, much of his focus seems to be on internal activities rather than external needs, on using clout to compel rather than using leadership to shepherd, and on dictating rather than empowering. Dr. Hammer does a great service by highlighting the danger of focusing on “task work” without a wider context. Thus it is all the more strange that he settled on “process work” as the solution.
In fact, the whole process approach seems to be simply a task focus writ large, despite the critique of “task work” on page 3. He hasn't really moved out of the proverbial box - he just made it a bit larger. Sadly, these boxes have a way of shrinking on us when we're not looking.
Of course, a process perspective is clearly what some organizations need. Some work has the potential to be repeatable, predictable and orderly, and in that case becoming a process enterprise is a reasonable thing to pursue (although I do have questions about the long-term viability of this approach, as well as the aforementioned concerns about the way he recommends treating people).
But perhaps there is also some work that ought not be subject to the process treatment. Perhaps there is another way to deal with chaos that involves accepting it and responding to it creatively, rather than trying to drive it all out.
Chaordic Leadership
Dee Hock wrote a fascinating and relevant article titled “ The Art of Chaordic Leadership .” He coined the word “chaord” to signify a harmonious blend of both chaos and order. The full article is definitely worth reading, and we offer this brief excerpt as a starting point:
Leader presumes follower. Follower presumes choice. One who is coerced to the purposes, objectives, or preferences of another is not a follower in any true sense of the word, but an object of manipulation. Nor is the relationship materially altered if both parties voluntarily accept the dominance of one by the other... If the behavior of either is compelled, whether by force, economic necessity, or contractual arrangement, the relationship is altered to one of superior/subordinate, manager/employee, master/servant, or owner/slave. All such relationships are materially different from leader/follower.
Induced behavior is the essence of leader/follower. Compelled behavior is the essence of all the other relational concepts. Where behavior is compelled, there you will find tyranny, however benign. Where behavior is induced, there you will find leadership, however powerful.
Every choreographer, conductor, and coach -- or for that matter, corporation president -- has tried to distill the essence of such performance. Countless others have tried to explain and produce a mechanistic, measurably controlled process that will cause the phenomenon. It has never been done and it never will be...
To be precise, one cannot speak of leaders who cause organizations to achieve superlative performance, for no one can cause it to happen. Leaders can only recognize and modify conditions which prevent it; perceive and articulate a sense of community, a vision of the future, a body of principle to which people can become passionately committed, then encourage and enable them to discover and bring forth the extraordinary capabilities that lie trapped in everyone struggling to get out.
Inducing behavior as Mr. Hock suggests is far more effective than compelling it as Dr. Hammer recommends. Dr. Hammer’s Theory X approach to management ought to be wholeheartedly rejected, particularly when the people in question are experienced managers and highly-skilled technology professionals. Further, as Mr. Hock asserts, chaos does exist and always will, so we had better have a plan for dealing with it, learning from it, and using it to our advantage (ala Col Boyd’s OODA loop).
Innovation is not easy and it is not automatic. With all due respect to Dr. Hammer, there is no process, formula or Golden Path that will ensure successful, relevant and timely innovation. Ultimately, innovation comes from people, not process… autonomous, skilled people who have the requisite combination of knowledge, imagination and articulation, and the freedom to explore parts unknown.
For Further
There are many alternates to the Process Enterprise. My personal preference is Tom Peters and his Professional Service Firm (PSF) model, as outlined in his latest book Re-Imagine! The late Gordon MacKenzie’s amazing book Orbiting The Giant Hairball offers a comprehensive assessment of what it takes to be genuinely innovative and at the same time remain connected to a large organization. Clayton Christensen of the
The desire for order, control and predictability is completely understandable. It is a comforting illusion (or as MacKenzie puts it, “a lie”). It is also a wholly inappropriate goal, particularly for an enterprise that expects to be innovative, flexible and responsive to an environment marked by chaos and rapid change. I suggest we listen closely to Dr. Hammer’s diagnosis while avoiding his prescription – he is quite right about what is wrong, but he is quite wrong about what is right.
Postscript
Everyone has their defenders, and naturally a few have risen to support Dr. Hammer. One such supporter explained that Dr. Hammer is simply “a very bad writer,” and in person his ideas are presented quite differently than in print. He explained that Hammer’s true meaning comes through clearly when he speaks, not when he writes, and perhaps this article was taking Hammer’s written words too literally. Gee, with supporters like that, who needs critics?
Maybe I am indeed too literal and thickheaded to grasp Dr. Hammer’s genius, but nonetheless this supporter’s explanation does not seem to hold much water. My issue with Dr. Hammer’s whitepaper was with his ideas more than his words. I’m not saying his writing is bad – I’m challenging the principles he espouses. I criticized his substance much more than his style.
And yet, there might be something to the "bad writer" explanation. Perhaps Dr. Hammer meant reliable when he said predictable, in which case I would be more inclined to agree with him. Perhaps he isn't really trying to drive out chaos per se, but rather is looking to avoid pandemonium. And his negative view of conflict might actually be about unnecessary, unproductive friction. So yes, if we re-write the paper, replacing several of the key words, certain difficulties are diminished... but others remain.
The core concepts of Dr. Hammer's process enterprise theory may have been awkwardly or incompletely stated, and there surely is more to this whole process thing than an executive overview can contain. But the plain, clear, well stated principles of predictability, uniformity, tight control, dictated procedures and universal application seem quite counter to the flexibility, creativity and autonomy needed in the technology development community of 2005...