Red Tape
The term ‘red tape’ serves as a metaphor for bureaucracy and dates back several centuries.
The practice originated in 16th century England, where government officials and lawyers began using red cloth tape to bind legal documents and official papers. Unlike string which could easily be untied, the tape provided a more secure binding that showed evidence if tampered with. Red was chosen specifically because the dye was expensive, making it difficult to counterfeit, and the colour stood out visually.
By the 17th century, Charles V, King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, introduced a system requiring all matters of state importance to be bound with red tape to ensure they received priority attention.
The metaphorical use evolved during the 19th century, particularly in Britain, as government bureaucracy expanded. Officials had to cut through actual red tape to access documents, creating a physical barrier to quick action. This literal process gradually transformed into our modern metaphor for excessive bureaucracy, rules, and formality that delay decision-making.
Of course, this is all very interesting (or not depending on whether this kind of history is your thing), yet in reality, red tape persists almost everywhere and has caused endless cultures to stagnate or turn toxic as good people battle to get work done.
Most red tape is utterly needless, yet it stems from an intransigence to change it (‘it’s too hard’) or else it serves someone to maintain it. As a senior manager in the public service, the procurement process was a particular bug bear of mine.
It was always a ‘3-month process’ regardless of whether I was hiring a person or we were buying a printer. Yet, the expectation of the leadership team was that everything needed to be done yesterday.
As a pragmatist, I always wanted to find the common ground between the two - ‘buy it now’ and ‘follow the process’. Yet, whilst I found that I could temper senior leader expectations, the 3-month process was cast in stone, despite the fact that no one could ever tell me why it was 3 months. ‘That’s just the length of time it takes, Colin. ’ ‘BUT WHY????!!!’
Researchers Hamel and Zanini estimated that red tape costs US businesses alone over $3tn every year, yet still, organisations allow it to prevail.
So, what’s the answer?
Of course, wantonly circumventing the process would run counter to the culture you are trying to build, so you just need to focus on some (not all) of the things that need to change.
Then, as a starting point, identify those areas where red tape is justified (physical safety, ethics, laws, etc.) and put them to one side. Then, look at the areas you can influence and come up with solutions as to how the red tape could be - if not done away with altogether - amended, such that each party gets a little bit of what they need.
Ensure that the changes you want to make are reinforced by the tangible value that they can add. Time/money saved are the two big ones, but also think about morale, engagement, retention of key staff too.
The first time you present your solutions you’re likely to be met with a ‘no’, because change is hard for anyone to think about, let alone undertake, but remember that a ‘no’ is just the first stage of the negotiation process.
Keep reinforcing your case, making it easier to understand and ensure that you present your solution to the people that make the decisions (not those responsible for maintaining the red tape). Be relentless in your determination to make improvements, keep selling the value of the change and remember that resilience is key.
And you will get there. We did that with that procurement process. It took about a month, but we got the changes that we were looking for, which were then implemented across the organisation and made everyone’s life easier.
Endlessly moaning about red tape will never remove it from your work, but taking action will. If you are able to prove the value that can be added by removing the red tape, then you will ensure that history will never stand in the way of progress.
