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.
