What Making Chocolate Chip Cookies Taught Me About
Organizational Drift
One of my biggest weaknesses is chocolate chip cookies. Growing up,
my mom’s cookies were legendary. When I moved out, I spent years
perfecting my own version — tweaking ingredients, temperatures, and
techniques until I landed on what I believe is the perfect recipe.
For years, I’d bring cookies to work with a warning: “If you like your
wife’s cookies, don’t try mine.” Today, I like to say my kids actually
prefer mine (though my wife and I are still in a tight 50/50 battle).
But recently, while baking a double batch, I had an “aha” moment
about Organizational Drift.
Here is what making cookies taught me about how organizations really work:
Work as Imagined vs. Work as Done
The recipe is Work as Imagined — the official process, written down
after years of refinement. It’s a great starting point. If you follow it
exactly, you’ll get decent cookies.
However, Work as Done is what actually happens in my kitchen.
I adjust the recipe based on:
– The altitude (I bake at 5,500 feet)
– The brand of butter or Crisco available
– The humidity that day
– Whether I want chewy or crispy cookies
– Whether I’m serving them warm or freezing them
These adaptations aren’t laziness — they’re necessary to produce
great results under real conditions.
The same thing happens every day in our organizations.
We write detailed procedures and expect people to follow them
perfectly. But the reality is that no two days, teams, or projects are
identical. Tools change. Materials vary. Deadlines shift. Customers
have new demands.
Frontline workers constantly adapt, improvise, and make judgment
calls just to get the job done successfully.
Here’s the dangerous trap.
When something eventually goes wrong, our first instinct is often:
“Did they follow the procedure?”
If the answer is “No,” we blame the person.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Sometimes the procedure is incomplete, outdated, or unrealistic.
The worker may have been successfully “baking great cookies” for
months by adapting.
The Real Solution:
Instead of punishing deviation, we should ask better questions:
Why did you need to deviate from the procedure?
What conditions forced you to adapt?
How can we improve the procedure to reflect reality?
Procedures are valuable. They create consistency and safety. But
they should be treated as guides, not rigid law.
The best organizations don’t just write procedures.
They actively study how work is actually being done — and
continuously improve both the process and the conditions.
So next time you’re tempted to blame someone for not following the
process, pause and ask yourself:
Are we punishing the worker… or are we ignoring the gaps in our
system?
What do you think?
Have you seen examples of positive “drift” in your organization that
actually improved results?
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
R.J. Jubber, COO, GRIT USA Inc.
rj@getthegrit.com
