“Gatekeepers” as enablers? With a well-executed governance model, they certainly can be.

Webster defines a gatekeeper as “a person who controls access” (www.m-w.com, n.d.) while dictionary.com says, “a person in charge of a gate, usually to identify, count, supervise, etc., the traffic or flow through it” (www.dictionary.com).  From a business perspective, one could say a gatekeeper is a “junior officer (such as a secretary) who has the authority or ability to control access to a decision maker or to certain information” (www.BusinessDictionary.com).  Colloquially, however the gatekeeper has taken on the role of “a member of a decision-making unit or social group who acts to prevent or discourage by controlling the flow of information and/or access as would a secretary who does not put calls through to the decision maker” (www.AllBusiness.com).

So, how does the idea of “gatekeeper” transform itself from being a controller of access, which is a good thing, to a preventer or discourager of access, which is a bad thing?  It is no wonder why we demonize the term “gatekeeper” and staff would naturally deny they are “gatekeepers” when they really are.  In a non-collaborative culture, a “gatekeeper” is viewed as an inhibitor to progress – the perception of being watched which may lead to a fear of failure and then ultimately extreme risk aversion.  This is the death of innovation.  Why do anything if it’s only going to be blocked anyway?  To quote Office Space, “That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.” 

 

In a collaborative culture, a “gatekeeper” is really good governance.  So, let’s change the conversation and change the culture.

 

From a literal perspective, we know who the gatekeepers are; and many are performing necessary and productive roles in governance.  According to ITIL Service Strategy and other models, Governance is basically three things:

• Evaluate - This refers to the ongoing evaluation of the organization’s performance and its environment. This evaluation will include an intimate knowledge of the industry, its trends, regulatory environment and the markets the organization serves.
• Direct - This activity relates to communicating the strategy, policies and plans to, and through, management. It also ensures that management is given the appropriate guidelines to be able to comply with governance.
• Monitor - The governors of the organization are able to determine whether governance is being fulfilled effectively, and whether there are any exceptions. This enables them to take action to rectify the situation, and also provides input to further evaluate the effectiveness of current governance measures.

 

Clearly, good governance is part of any well-run organization because it promotes continuity, consistency, and integrity.  We must guard against turning governance into “bad” gatekeeping by running it as inhibitors and preventers.  That is a two-way communication: first governors must prove they are not “bad” gatekeepers by doing their jobs of evaluate, direct, monitor with consistency and integrity.  Second, once management and staff see the consistency of decision-making they must view this “gatekeeper” as good for the continuity, and ultimately the resiliency, of the organization.  The management and staff will begin to take risks and work hard enough to innovate without fear of failure or being blocked from success. The culture will move from merely seeking terminal value, which are desired goals or outcomes, to also seeking the instrumental value of desired modes behavior.

 

          In a collaborative culture the gatekeepers are “good.”  So, “Gatekeepers” as enablers?  With a well-executed governance model, they certainly can be.