Where were the controls?

Whenever there’s an organisational scandal, that question looms large, as it has again this week.

The irony is that controls can look like red tape right up until you need them.

It reminds me of some things I've seen over the years.

For example, highly profitable organisations can take a very lean approach to rewarding people.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty. It’s a challenging time. We must be prudent. It’s a tight year. There’s no budget. If someone’s taken on significant additional work, that’s part of the job or a development opportunity they should be grateful for.”

At the same time, there can be elevated pockets where the iron rules for the many don't apply.

Find yourself working in the right team and performance that would have got you next to nothing elsewhere can lead to big salary increases and very generous bonuses.

Similar contributions. Very different outcomes. The difference is where you work and who is making the decision.

When decisions like that are questioned, the answer can amount to:

“Its my decision to make.”

Whatever else it is, that’s an assertion of power: I can do it and you can’t stop me.

The same can happen with performance ratings.

Someone who plainly isn't meeting expectations nevertheless receives a rating saying that they are.

An accurate assessment would require a conversation their boss is desperate to avoid.

Imagine being one of the many people who genuinely is meeting expectations and receiving exactly the same rating. The system relies on those people not finding out.

These moments reveal a lot about the controls around important people decisions.

Who can see whether people in comparable situations are being treated comparably?

Who can challenge an exception and make sure it is justified?

Who steps in when personal preference, self-interest or conflict avoidance starts influencing supposedly fair decisions?

And do the referees become less effective as the decision-maker becomes more senior?

Like good character, good controls are essential for trust. They make it less likely that one person's preferences, agenda or wish to avoid an awkward conversation become somebody else's unfair outcome.

That's why “It's my decision to make” should prompt another question:

"Who or what makes sure it's justified?"