176 Leading with NLP
From fourth position, this was an interesting systemic
problem for the whole organization and it could not be
solved by the personnel department or by me. A situation
had evolved over the years whereby all the major political
groups in the organization wanted to have some control over
the hiring of outside consultants. The paper work had to pass
over 12 desks and some of the occupants of those desks were
bound to be away or on holiday, and this created a long and
tedious process. Why did they tolerate the situation? Ever y-
one knew there was too much bureaucracy, but no
department or political group was willing to sacrifice their
control, symbolized by their signature on the contract, in
order to bring about an easier and quicker procedure. There
had clearly been some historical power struggle here that had
been resolved by giving everyone a say in the contract. Their
beliefs about the importance of outside consultants and what
might happen if they were not informed had spawned an
elaborate procedure that nobody wanted.
I think this example tells us a lot about what can go wrong
in business systems. First there is what I call the ‘appendix ef-
fect’. The appendix is a small protrusion we all have at birth,
near the end of the large intestine in the groin area. It has
no function that we know of, but it can be life-threatening if
it becomes infected. Presumably at one time in our evolu-
tionary history it had a use, but we have outgrown it. Other
parts of our digestive system have taken over its function.
Most business systems have the equivalent of an appendix
and some have several – procedures that were instituted in
the past, perhaps for a good reason, but now the organiza-
tion has moved on and the procedure has not. It remains as
a possible source of trouble and resentment, but the busi-
ness is loath to have it out because it is deeply embedded in
other procedures. This 12-signature nonsense looked to me
like a typical business appendix.
Another interesting point was that no one person was to
blame for the delay. The 12 individuals may well have re-
sented the extra work involved in looking over the contract.
The personnel department was as inconvenienced by the