What The Evolution Of Processes Tells Us Of Management

Processes are everywhere

Today managers spend literally most of their time, complying (and complaining;) to processes. They even, from times to times, conceive a few of them. From the very beginning of organized commerce to the present day, business processes have been designed primarily to achieve economic goals. Companies have consistently structured their operations to maximize efficiency, reduce costs, and meet performance targets such as speed, quality, productivity in predictibility. Processes are very good indicators of how C-suite teams manage, that is, how they perceive their employees. What processes tell us of management evolution: that's what this paper is about.

In the Pre-industrial era, most work was done in small workshops or by craftsmen, where tasks were loosely organized. There were no standardized ways of working, and quality depended largely on individual skills. Human is key. Then, the division of labor, as advocated by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations" (1776), became a foundational concept, promoting the idea that breaking down tasks into smaller, repeatable steps increased productivity, which then required increasing control of workers administered by a growing class of professional managers. Combined with technical innovation like steam engines, it laid ground for the Industrial Revolution (late 18th - early 19th century): an advent of factories led to a need for more structured ways to organize work, driven by the rise of mass production.

"Do as you're told to ; the most important thing is the process"

It is worth noting, though, that Frederick Winslow Taylor himself didn't consider workers as cogs … rather than as rationnal economic beings (both were equally wrong). He relied then, on their economic rationality: the more you produce (providing that you respect a certain quality level), the more you get paid. He was one of the first to introduce time-and-motion studies, emphasizing the standardization of tasks to improve efficiency. His ideas paved the way for systematic approaches to organizing work, focusing on finding the "one best way" to perform tasks. In 1913, Henry Ford applied process thinking to manufacturing with the assembly line, significantly increasing the efficiency of car production. On the other side of the Atlantic ocean, Henri Fayol wrote his influential essay on management in 1916, Administration Industrielle et Générale (General and Industrial Management). Fayol introduced 5 key management functions: planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling. These early approaches to setting up company processes were largely driven by engineers and management scientists focusing on efficiency, standardization, and optimization. The primary goal was to optimize workflows and processes, often with less consideration for the human element within the workforce. Managers' role was to make people comply to processes.

"Hey, process improves efficiency but so does the human factor! You're not a cog after all"

Very soon (in the 1920ies), came the Human Relations Movement (1), which recognized the importance of social relations and employee well-being in the workplace. It suggested that employee productivity is not just a function of physical conditions or financial incentives but also of social dynamics and job satisfaction. Managers have to rely on human and social sciences (however imperfect they may be). At this time, processes had already demonstrated their added value. Post-World War II (mid-20th century) with economic expansion, companies sought new methods to improve quality and efficiency. Some approaches emphasize the interrelatedness of social and technical aspects of an organization. It advocates for designing work systems that optimize both the social needs of employees and the technical requirements of the job. Japan, influenced by W. Edwards Deming's ideas, developed Total Quality Management (TQM), emphasizing continuous improvement (Kaizen) and quality control processes. In a kind of parallel, theorist Douglas McGregor introduced his concept of Theory X and Theory Y (1960). It suggests that managers should involve employees in decision-making processes, hence fostering a sense of ownership and motivation. It gained ground steadily.

"OK, you are not a cog but you're not that smart either ; that's why process are here"

Organizational structures were further explored by considering the roles, relationships, and dynamics among people within organizations, moving beyond processes. Henry Mintzberg (2) recognized the complexity, diversity, and fluidity of organizational life, challenging the oversimplified, one-size-fits-all approaches to management. His configurations showed that the effectiveness of organizational structures depends on contextual factors, suggesting that flexibility, adaptability, and the integration of both formal and informal structures are crucial for achieving strategic goals. From this view, processes are not just designed for efficiency but are also continuously adjusted to cope with new information, changing goals, and evolving environments, opposed to processes as rigid and static. This adaptive nature also aligns with the idea of bounded rationality: individuals in organizations cannot process all available information or consider every possible option. To cope with this limitation, companies implement standardized processes that guide decision-making and streamline activities. Processes serve as frameworks that reduce cognitive load by providing structured steps, which help employees make consistent and effective decisions despite limited information and time constraints. Knowing that Humans go for a satisficing solution rather always seeking an absolute perfection, firms often settle for solutions that meet acceptable performance levels rather than optimizing. Processes become a tool for achieving this "satisficing" behavior.

"You are not a cog: you're a cost. And costs must be minimized"

In the 1960s - 1980s: Lean Manufacturing emerges. Process thinking expanded into logistics, operations research, and manufacturing. Techniques like Just-In-Time (JIT) and Lean Manufacturing, pioneered by Toyota, focused on eliminating waste and optimizing processes across the entire value chain. Business Process Reengineering (BPR), popularized in the 1990s, took a more radical approach by advocating for the redesign of processes to achieve dramatic improvements in performance metrics like cost, quality, service, and speed (3). The rise of automation suggests a preference for systems and technologies that replace human tasks. This reflects a belief (not false in itsel) that repetitive, manual tasks are prone to inefficiency and error, making them prime candidates for elimination or automation. By removing mundane tasks, the C-suite might justify such decisions as enabling employees to focus on higher-value, strategic work. However, whether this shift actually happens depends on organizational priorities and how displaced employees are reassigned or upskilled. The redesign implies that roles and responsibilities can be restructured or eliminated entirely without considering the broader implications for employee morale, engagement, or institutional knowledge. This transactional view underscores a focus on organizational outcomes over individual contributions. BPR initiatives like this one are often driven by the C-suite with a high degree of centralization and authority. Employees are rarely involved in the decision-making process, signaling a view that decisions about processes and roles are better handled at the executive level. While the redesign led to significant operational gains, it also revealed a prioritization of metrics like cost and speed over potentially softer metrics like job satisfaction, employee well-being, or corporate culture. This approach aligns with a utilitarian perspective, where the end justifies the means.

"No matter what we say, you're an executor, not a designer"

1990 - 2010. Everybody who has used ERP knows that evidence: the reliance on ERP systems that require employees to adapt to standardized processes underscores a top-down approach. Employees are often seen as executors of predefined workflows rather than co-creators or innovators in designing processes that fit their specific needs or realities. Business Process Management (BPM) emerged as a discipline, emphasizing the analysis, modeling, and optimization of organizational processes (4). BPM and ERP implementations prioritize uniformity and compliance across the organization. This indicates that the C-suite values employees who can follow standardized procedures consistently. Creativity and flexibility may be less emphasized in favor of predictability and adherence to system-driven rules. This approach may also signal a lack of consideration for the complexities of employees' day-to-day work and how rigid systems can create friction. BPM and ERP systems reduce reliance on human judgment by embedding decision-making into automated workflows. While this minimizes errors, it also diminishes employees' autonomy and decision-making capacity. ERP systems provide the C-suite with a centralized view of operations, enabling greater oversight and control. This centralization may reflect a belief that top-level management should have full visibility into processes, often at the expense of decentralization or empowering employees with process ownership.

"Sorry, it's the other way around: you're designer not executor"

Then came digital transformation and automation (2010s - present): AI and Robotic Process Automation aim to automate repetitive, rules-based tasks, reflecting a view that employees are best utilized in roles requiring creativity, critical thinking, and interpersonal skills. However, this also signals a willingness to replace roles that are perceived as "low-value," potentially framing employees as assets that can be augmented—or substituted—depending on the task. By offloading routine tasks to automation, the C-suite may demonstrate a recognition of human potential in areas like innovation, problem-solving, and emotional intelligence, which machines struggle to replicate. The rise of Agile methodologies confirms though that the C-suite increasingly values employees who can adapt to changing circumstances, collaborate cross-functionally, and thrive in dynamic, iterative environments. This marks a shift toward viewing employees as co-creators of value rather than passive executors of predefined tasks. It's a move away from rigid hierarchies to a more fluid, team-oriented perspective.

In contemporary organizational development, there's a growing recognition that integrating people-centric considerations from the outset leads to more sustainable and effective processes. This is evident in the emphasis on employee engagement strategies, and the adoption of servant leadership models. Design Thinking and User-Centered Design have been applied to organizational process design, starting with the needs and experiences of people (both employees and customers) to create processes that are more intuitive, engaging, and effective. Companies have shifted towards processes that are more customer-focused and cross-functional, addressing the entire customer journey rather than isolated tasks (5). Paradoxically, digital tools create vast amounts of real-time data, enabling the C-suite to measure and analyze employee performance more granularly. The danger could be double: 1. It reflects a desire for greater transparency and accountability. This could imply a trust gap, where technology is seen as a way to ensure compliance and productivity. 2. It shifts toward seeing employees as data points within a broader optimization framework, emphasizing measurable outcomes over subjective contributions.

The future from the 2020s to the 2030s is likely to be characterized by three main trends: hyper-adaptability, human-centered technology integration, and purpose-driven and sustainable management. These ideas reflect a shift in organizational focus, aiming to balance technological advancements with human needs. One can only hope that the balance can be maintained...

(1) Elton Mayo's idealized vision of experience remains one of the most enduring managerial tales. See in this regard "A New History Of Management" Stephen Cummings, Todd Bridgman, John Hassard, Micheal Rowlinson, 2017. It remains, however, that it marks an awakening to the importance of the human factor in industrial mass production.

(2) Henry Mintzberg. If you don't know Mintzberg's bibliography, start with The Nature of Managerial Work,1973.

(3)  A classic example is Ford Motor Company’s accounts payable process in the 1990s. The problem was that Ford’s accounts payable department was inefficient, employing over 500 people to process purchase orders, receipts, and invoices. The company sought to improve efficiency and reduce costs. This three-way matching process was time-consuming, error-prone, and required extensive manual work. Ford’s team decided to eliminate the invoice from the process, relying instead on a streamlined two-way match: when the receiving department confirmed receipt of goods, payment was automatically authorized, based on the purchase order information. This redesign cut out the need for invoice processing altogether, reducing manual work and error rates.

(4) An example of this can be seen in a retail company's order-to-cash process using ERP systems. A large retail company faced inefficiencies in its order-to-cash (O2C) process, which involved multiple stages—order entry, order fulfillment, invoicing, and payment collection. Delays and errors in data entry, inventory management, and billing led to slow cash flow, impacting customer satisfaction and operational efficiency. The retail company implemented an ERP system, such as SAP or Oracle, which allowed seamless data integration across departments and automated key parts of the O2C process. This BPM-driven ERP implementation enabled the retail company to align processes across departments, reduce manual tasks, and optimize overall efficiency. The order-to-cash process became faster, more accurate, and more customer-friendly, demonstrating the value of BPM in transforming traditional business processes.

(5) A good example of customer-centric and end-to-end processes can be seen in Amazon’s order fulfillment process. Amazon has transformed its operations to prioritize the entire customer journey from browsing to post-delivery support, rather than treating each stage—such as order processing, packaging, and shipping—as separate, isolated tasks.

Photo: Christina Morillo