Many people struggle to change a process, even when they can see it will not lead to a good outcome. Instead of adjusting, they hold tightly to the process details and argue that sticking to the process is more important than the result. That raises a simple question: is a process actually good if it leads to bad results?

One reason we cling to processes is comfort. A process tells us what to do next. If something goes wrong, we can say, “At least I followed the steps.” In some organizations, this is even rewarded. You can fail as long as you did things “by the book,” and you can be criticized for breaking the process even if the outcome was better. Over time, this teaches people to defend the process instead of improving the result.

Ego and identity also play a role. The process might be “our way of doing things” or something we designed ourselves. Admitting that it doesn’t work can feel like admitting we were wrong. To avoid that, we double down: we argue that following the process is what really matters, even if the outcome is clearly poor.

This has real costs. Teams waste time and resources continuing with a process that everyone quietly knows is not working. Opportunities are missed because better ideas don’t fit the existing way of doing things. “We followed the process” becomes an excuse, not a learning moment. When the process becomes a shield, reflection and improvement stop.

If we are honest, a good process is not one that is detailed or strict. A good process is one that increases the chances of getting the results we actually care about. If a process repeatedly leads to bad outcomes, it is not a good process, no matter how official, familiar, or well-documented it is.

There are some warning signs that a process is failing. Outcomes are consistently worse than expected. People complain informally that “this is pointless, but we have to do it.” Most discussions focus on whether the steps were followed, instead of whether they made sense or helped. In moments like this, it helps to ask simple questions: what result are we trying to achieve, and is this still the best way to get there, given what we know now?

Shifting from process-first to outcome-first does not mean chaos. It means treating process as a tool, not a belief system. You can define in advance when you will review and possibly change your approach: if a certain result has not happened by a certain time, you revisit the process. You can make it normal for someone on the team to challenge the way you work and suggest changes. And you can reward people not just for following the process, but for improving it when reality shows it is not working.

In the end, the core idea is simple: a process that leads to bad results is not a good process. The goal is not to worship the process, but to reach meaningful outcomes. Next time you are tempted to defend a poor result with “but we followed the process,” stop and ask: what needs to change in our process so we don’t end up here again?