Learning how things are supposed to work is useful. It helps people integrate quickly and reduces friction. The map becomes more familiar than the ground. So when reality diverges from the diagram, progress slows, even though everyone is doing exactly what they were taught.
An Observation From Technical Work
Consider two approaches to the same recurring issue.
-
One approach resolves it exactly as documented. The steps are followed, the incident closes, and everything returns to normal.
-
Another approach notices that the issue keeps returning. A small adjustment is made. The problem quietly disappears.
I belive, compliance is more about impact. Compliance answers question like "Did you follow the SOP?", "Did you use the standard tool?". Competence answers different question like "Did the problem get solved?", "Did the system improve?". It's all about the approach.
Same with interview allusion. Most interviews don't measure competence. Instead they measure alignment with expectation. But efficiency comes with the cost. There are frameworks for decision-making, templates for communication, and checklists for execution. When something goes wrong, there’s usually a process that explains what should have happened.
Once the thought-process is aligned with competence, it attracts the right people. Structure plays an important role. It creates stability, reduces chaos, and allows systems to scale. Problems begin when structure becomes the destination rather than the support. Activity continues, effort is expended, but movement becomes difficult to measure. Everything functions, yet nothing evolves.
There is a quiet difference between doing what is expected and understanding what is required. On paper, the distinction is subtle. In practice, it defines whether work merely maintains the present or quietly reshapes the future.