AMERICAN PERISCOPE. Sorry status

I knew of one old British-era organisation in Chennai where tea delivery was finely graded. At the entry level you walked up to the pantry for your cuppa, while slightly senior staff had the tea delivered at their desk in paper cups. Executives had the tea served in fine ceramic cups and managers got it in a tray and all. Directors got to choose their tea set (usually silver).

This changed after the company ownership moved into Indian hands, and a new set of criteria erupted — how close you were to the ownership group! Indeed, hierarchy and power distance in organisations, and society in general, is revealed in interesting ways.

Even in so-called professional and advanced societies (as against feudal), status is demonstrated in various subtle ways (size of the office, do you sign-in or not, type of carpet, and so on). But when the rank is used to determine whether processes are followed, that can ruin the functioning of the organisation and affect efficiency.

Take the airport. In most major ones, there is a waiting area outside arrival and immigration where hosts can hold up a sign with the name of the guest. I have been to some places where you see a few hosts manage to get inside the terminal. At Indian airports, I see them even in front of immigration counters, and also at the head of the ramp just after you get out of the plane!

Clearly, this reflects the importance of the guest and you can wonder at what level the host is exercising power to achieve this. But if you follow the path of the guest and host, the violation is often not only in the established process of where to meet passengers, but also in circumventing the procedure of immigration, baggage collection and so on.

The ability to waive a procedure shows a different exercise of power and status. Intriguingly, violating a process need not only be at high levels. Police officers at traffic lights routinely do this in the interests of efficiency and in the process send a wrong message. As you wait, the officer looks in the other direction, perceives no vehicle in sight, and starts to wave you off even before your light changes to green. The officer has exercised judgment in an area where he or she should not, due to the learning consequences of the act.

The act of the officer violating a well-designed system and process has undermined the very objective it was meant to achieve.

The police officer’s perspective is that her rank and status gives her the right to intervene and bypass the process to hasten traffic movement. The same officer would surely ticket a motorist who does this without permission. Now, a crisis (an accident) would call for sudden intervention. But a regular intervention or violation (gives a very different context under which the process is being violated and requires a change of process (temporarily suspending the operation of the light) rather than an intervention.

This situation applies to office processes also. Payments may be made on schedule but an occasional vendor who has requested special treatment would be hanging around the hallways requesting early release of his cheque.

However, in organisations where the process is bypassed because of a ‘powerful’ and idiosyncratic accountant, there would be a crowd outside his door for word quickly gets out that you need to be in the good books of the accountant if you hope to see your payment in time. Violating systems and processes carries a price in terms of productivity.

The writer is a professor at the Jindal Global Business School, Delhi NCR, and Suffolk University, Boston