Long before developing formal documentation became a major part of my work, I was already doing it. In nearly every position I held, I found myself creating some form of written guidance, not because someone always asked me to, but because the work needed it.
It started simply. I wrote down how to operate a computer, use a cash register, complete a routine task, or follow a process I was still learning. At first, the notes were for me. Later, I used them to train others.
Writing down the steps forced me to examine the work more closely. I had to consider why each step mattered, whether the sequence made sense, and whether someone unfamiliar with the task could complete it successfully. What began as a practical way to organize my own work gradually became part of how I communicated and led.
As my responsibilities grew, the documents became more complex. Basic instructions developed into departmental procedures and eventually into policies, plans, guidelines, and manuals addressing legal compliance, ethics, professional standards, safety, accountability, and institutional responsibility.
When I directed a library and archives, the documentation had to describe more than individual tasks. It explained how the operation functioned as a whole, from cataloging and digitization to the evaluation of donations, collection development, and the removal of materials. The work had to be documented well enough to be taught, followed, reviewed, and continued by others.
Later, when I assumed responsibility for multiple departments and locations, the need for shared guidance became even more apparent. During the first year or two, much of our staff meeting time was devoted to developing and refining guidelines, procedures, policies, and plans that could be used across the team. The goal was not to create rules for their own sake, but to bring together people with different responsibilities, work environments, and established habits under a consistent approach.
Those conversations were essential. Staff could explain how the work was actually being done, identify differences between departments and locations, and point out procedures that might appear reasonable on paper but would not work in practice. Over time, the documents helped unify the team, clarify responsibilities, and create a shared understanding of how routine work and more difficult decisions would be handled.
Not everyone has appreciated that approach.
Structure Is Not the Same as Bureaucracy
Over the years, I have heard comments about there being too many rules or too much documentation. I have also been described as a watchdog, particularly when I insisted that established procedures be followed or questioned a decision that did not align with written guidance.
I understand why formal documents can frustrate people. They become burdensome when they are created without a clear purpose, applied without judgment, or allowed to expand beyond what the work requires. Rules and procedures that exist only to make an organization appear thorough do little to improve its decisions.
My concern has always been more practical. When roles are loosely defined and important processes remain informal, people develop their own ways of handling them. Practices begin to vary across employees and departments, while new staff inherit partial or conflicting versions of how the work is supposed to be done.
At times, the effects may be limited to duplicated effort, delays, or confusion. In other cases, inconsistent practices can create problems involving legal compliance, ethics, safety, finances, professional obligations, or the organization’s reputation. The more people a leader manages, the greater the need for clear written guidance. Verbal instructions and informal understandings become less reliable as work is divided across a larger team.
Good written guidance should also be forward-looking. It requires an organization to think beyond the issue immediately in front of it and consider what could happen next. That means identifying areas of risk, anticipating difficult decisions, and establishing authority before circumstances become urgent.
Once an issue has escalated, choices are often made under pressure, with limited time and incomplete information. A well-developed plan, procedure, or policy cannot prevent every problem, but it can reduce the need to improvise when the stakes are high. It gives staff and leadership a framework to follow before the organization is forced into a reactive position.
A written document alone, however, does not solve the problem. Without leadership support, even carefully developed guidance can become nearly pointless.
Leadership Determines Whether Written Guidance Matters
Staff notice when leaders endorse written standards in principle but disregard them when they interfere with a preferred decision. They also notice when some employees are expected to follow established procedures while others are permitted to work around them. That selective support creates uncertainty about which expectations are genuine and who will actually be held accountable.
Once that happens, employees begin choosing which source of authority to follow. Some rely on the written guidance, some wait for verbal direction, and others make their own exceptions because they have watched exceptions being made above them. The organization may still have policies, procedures, and manuals, but it no longer has a dependable system.
Leadership buy-in requires more than approving a document. Leaders must reinforce the standard, apply it across levels of authority, and address situations in which practice no longer matches what has been established. When a requirement has become impractical or outdated, it should be reviewed and revised openly rather than ignored whenever it becomes inconvenient.
This is why I have valued feedback from the people who worked directly with me. Team members have told me they knew what I expected, understood the standards I would apply, and could generally anticipate how I would respond. They may not have agreed with every rule, procedure, or decision, but they were not left guessing where they stood.
That kind of predictability matters. It does not require rigidity or a refusal to consider unusual circumstances. It means decisions are not determined by mood, pressure, personal relationships, or the influence of the person making the request. When an exception is necessary, there should be a reason that can be explained and defended.
Fairness depends on that consistency. A standard that applies only to certain people or only when convenient is not a meaningful standard. Written guidance cannot anticipate every situation, but it can clarify authority, establish decision-making boundaries, and define the expectations needed to keep difficult choices from becoming arbitrary.
This is why I have always been drawn to writing these documents. I do not see them as paperwork added after the real work is complete. They are part of the work because they define how an organization carries out its obligations, prepares for foreseeable issues, and responds when circumstances become complicated.
Good Guidance Is Built with the People Who Use It
Good documentation should reflect actual practice, use language people can understand, identify who has authority to make decisions, and leave room for professional judgment where it is needed. A document that is vague, unrealistic, outdated, or disconnected from daily operations can create as many problems as having no guidance at all.
Developing these documents should not happen in isolation. The people responsible for carrying out the work often see details, risks, and practical complications that may not be obvious from a leadership or administrative perspective. Their input can identify gaps, expose unintended consequences, and show where a proposed requirement would create problems in daily practice.
Seeking input does not mean every preference becomes part of the final document or that responsibility for the final decision becomes unclear. Leadership still has to weigh legal requirements, ethics, professional standards, institutional priorities, available resources, and risk. Consultation helps ensure that those decisions are made with a fuller understanding of how the guidance will affect the people expected to follow it.
This becomes even more important as organizations increasingly look outside their own staff for help developing policies, procedures, plans, and manuals. These documents can be time-consuming, and an experienced consultant may bring valuable expertise, an outside perspective, or familiarity with professional standards. However, an outside writer cannot fully understand an organization without meaningful participation from the people who know its history, operations, obligations, and areas of risk.
Artificial intelligence has added another concern, one I have addressed in other articles about expertise, governance, and institutional trust. AI can quickly produce language that appears complete and authoritative, making it tempting for both internal and outside writers to generate documents without the experience needed to evaluate them. A policy, procedure, plan, or manual may be well organized and professionally worded while still containing assumptions, requirements, or instructions that do not fit the organization. The more convincing the document appears, the easier it may be to overlook those weaknesses.
AI can assist with research, organization, comparison, and drafting, but it cannot determine what an institution should do or whether a proposed standard is legally, ethically, and operationally sound. That requires subject-matter knowledge, institutional context, input from the people involved, and leadership willing to take responsibility for the final document.
The purpose of written guidance is not to reduce every situation to a rigid rule. Experience still matters, as does the ability to recognize when circumstances require a different response. Strong policies, procedures, plans, and guidelines provide enough structure to protect the institution and the people it serves while allowing thoughtful decisions within clearly understood boundaries.
Documentation Preserves More Than Process
Documentation also protects institutional knowledge and reduces the time required to train others. This becomes especially important when staffing levels are reduced and fewer employees are carrying broader workloads. When procedures are clearly recorded, new or reassigned staff have a reliable place to begin instead of depending on repeated explanations or trying to reconstruct a process through trial and error.
Written guidance does not eliminate the need for training, but it makes training more focused and efficient. Less time is spent reviewing routine steps, allowing more attention to be given to context, judgment, and situations that require experience. Without that foundation, every staff transition places additional demands on employees who may already be managing heavier workloads.
The risk becomes greater when essential knowledge is concentrated in one person. An informal system may appear to function well for years because that employee understands the history, exceptions, and practical details behind the work. When the person retires, changes positions, leaves unexpectedly, or is unavailable when a decision must be made, the organization may discover that much of the process was never fully recorded.
I have never believed that good leadership means keeping everything in your own head. It includes creating systems that allow others to work confidently, understand their roles, and see how their work connects to the larger organization. It also means leaving behind more than completed projects. The organization should retain stronger processes and clearer guidance after an experienced employee moves on.
That is probably why I remain so interested in this work. I like taking something unclear and making it usable. I like identifying gaps before they become larger problems and turning individual experience into knowledge that can be shared, tested, and retained.
Policies, procedures, guidelines, plans, and manuals may not be the most visible part of an institution, but they influence nearly everything it does. Good organizations do not run on memory alone. They depend on documented expectations, informed participation, consistent practice, forward planning, and leaders willing to uphold the standards they expect others to follow.
#Leadership #OrganizationalDevelopment #OrganizationalCulture #Governance #InstitutionalKnowledge
Originally published on LinkedIn on July 12, 2026. Read the original article on LinkedIn.
Related insights: Records Management Is Museum Stewardship · The Systems Beneath the Work
