Bias for Action vs. Bias for Process: How Over-Processing Kills Innovation

We've all heard about and even proclaimed the benefits of having a bias for action (particularly in high-growth environments). Conversely, you can discuss why not having a bias for action can impede progress. But there's a third mode—a more insidious one that also affects organizations. It's what I call a bias for process. What makes a bias for process so dangerous is that it can look like bias for action to the uninitiated. Here's how it might be rotting away your organization's innovative core.

Understanding Bias for Action vs. Bias for Process

A bias for action describes a culture where the default next step is to make impactful progress or, metaphorically, "move the ball down the field." The key here is that you are measurably closer to completing the goal, whatever it may be, by taking the next steps. A bias for process looks like a bias for action, but it isn't. To extend our analogy further, instead of "moving the ball down the field," we "pick up the ball and set it back down in the same spot." In practice, those "next steps" create the illusion of productivity but do little more than keep people busy.

Common Signs of Process Bias

Here are some examples of bias for process next steps:

• Schedule another meeting to discuss the same topic but with a new party in the room. Why wasn't this person in the room (or on the call) this time? Is this person the decision-maker? If so, meeting with them is the actual meeting that should have happened. You've just had a meeting to prep for the meeting. It could take another week or more to get on their calendar. Can you write the conclusion and send it to that person to review asynchronously?
• Form a committee or working group. Why not appoint a single decision-maker and charge them with consulting with whom they must decide? How does the committee make decisions? Now you have to get on everyone's calendar to meet; how long will that take? What's the output of the group? Is it a decision or a recommendation? Who approves the recommendation? What's the actual authority of the committee? If they make a decision, who is executing? Does that person or persons know a committee is deciding what they'll do? Are they okay with that?
• Create a new approval workflow or governance process. Often introduced as a way to "ensure quality" or "manage risk," these processes can quickly become bureaucratic bottlenecks. Does every decision really need five layers of approval? What's the cost of delay versus the benefit of additional oversight? Are we treating every decision as equally risky, requiring the same level of scrutiny? Sometimes, what starts as a sensible safeguard evolves into a creativity-killing constraint that adds days or weeks to simple decisions. Ask yourself: is this new process solving a real problem, or are we just adding layers of complexity to avoid taking responsibility for decisions?

The Hidden Costs of Process Bias

There are good reasons to do any of the above things occasionally—they're tools. The question is, are these your culture's default actions? If so, you might have a bias for process. These behaviors (however well-intentioned) often become habitual, overshadowing the necessity for decisive action. Teams can find themselves locked into cycles of discussions and consultative meetings, which, while designed to foster collaboration (or sometimes consensus), inadvertently lead to decision paralysis.

The danger lies in normalizing these behaviors to the extent that any meaningful progress is stymied. Employees may start to feel disillusioned, sensing that their time and talents are not being fully leveraged toward tangible outcomes. Instead of innovation and agility, what emerges is a rigid adherence to bureaucracy that stifles creativity and responsiveness.

Breaking Free from Process Paralysis

To combat a bias for process, organizations should consider implementing these strategies:

1. Empower decision-makers: Clearly identify who has the authority to make decisions and support them in doing so.
2. Set time limits: For any process-oriented activity, establish a clear timeline and stick to it.
3. Measure outcomes, not activity: Focus on results rather than the number of meetings held or documents produced.
4. Challenge the status quo: Regularly question whether existing processes are serving their intended purpose or have become bureaucratic bloat.
5. Celebrate action: Recognize and reward teams and individuals who demonstrate effective decision-making and execution.

The Path Forward

It's imperative for organizations to consciously cultivate a bias for action rather than succumb to the pitfalls of a bias for process. By effectively identifying and addressing tendencies towards a bias for process, companies can unlock their full potential, ensuring that time is spent on meaningful work that advances strategic and customer goals.

Remember: Process should serve progress, not hinder it. By emphasizing outcomes and accountability while empowering teams, organizations can not only energize employees but also reinvigorate their innovative spirit, ultimately leading to sustained success and growth.

Have you worked at organizations that have a bias for process? Share your experiences and thoughts in the comments below. ??

If you've made it this far, you might be interested in more intimate updates from me, such as personal developments and specific things I'm working on or more niche topics I'm considering. If that sounds cool, subscribe here. No more than four updates a year ????