There is a lot of conjecture regarding this matter mainly surrounding the employees engaged in repetitive tasks, but the real pressure of the debate should be on those whose role is managing the day to day business activities of the organisation.
Perhaps looking at an analogous situation in the fitness industry where the industry thrives on the fact that 90% of people that sign up don’t fulfil their memberships.
What is the relevance?
Managers take on the role of managing the business activities of an organisation according to policies and procedures usually packaged in a glossy booklet.
People buy, or are given a subscription to a gym or fitness centre with a prescribed (by an expert) program with a predicated outcome in terms of well-being, fitness and ideal weight.
It is well known that 90% of gym memberships are not taken up or adhered to, therefore money for nothing for proprietors.
Importantly a manager has a set of rules but reserves the right to not follow some (a prerogative) so his/her outcome is the same as the hopeful gym aspirant. A program beckons but there is no will to follow it.
In the case of the fitness hopeful. The loss of money is negligible!
A manager however can cause irreparable damage to the organisation he/she represents and the financial damage is huge.
So, what is the lesson?
People may argue that managers need flexibility but experience and the statistical data speaks for itself.
The strength of a Policy management system like Procedure Rock is that the procedures are followed and acknowledged accordingly, however the collaborative nature of the system allows for discretion and/or amendment also.