What’s wrong with having multiple signatures?

AThat’s because it contributes to a lot of issues, many of which could result in a long- term downfall, if not cyclical paralysis of an organization.

Between the private and public sectors, we can imagine that the latter is in a far, worse situation that it takes another law to strengthen the Anti- Red

or the “Ease of Doing Business

Service Delivery Act of 2018.” Signed into law on May 28, 2018, it requires simple transactions to be completed in three days, complex ones in seven days, and those that require a highly- technical assessment in 20 days.

One welcome provision of this new law is the limitation on the number of signatories to three officials, from the allowable five under ARTA.

Anyway, since this piece is intended for the private sector, let’s leave the government to take care of itself with those two pieces of legislations.

So, what’s wrong with having multiple signatories in each and every transaction and work process in the private sector that can’t be corrected and coerced by any law? In general, multiple signatories damage a corporation’s competitiveness and reputation with their workers and customers.

How’s that possible? Before we move further, let me emphasize that whenever we talk of “people,” “employees,” and “workers,” they include s u p e r v i s o r s, m a n a g e r s, directors, vice- presidents and other high- ranking corporate officials who are constrained to affix their signatures. You know what I’m talking about— good people can be beaten by a bad system, anytime.

One,

h av i n g m u l t i p l e signatories means an excessive reliance on command- andcontrol strategy that has been constantly derided by management experts. Command- and- control was effective during the wartimes, but not today and much more in the future. “It’s for dinosaurs,” says Liz Ryan in Forbes. “Old-school commandandcontrol managers keep track of employees’ missteps and infractions,” which require that they submit constant approvals in every step of the way, even for trivial things.

A good example of this is requiring two or more approvals, at times, including the CEO in the leave application of workers. In this example, why can’t we simply allow the immediate boss of the worker to approve such leave without the intervention of other officials in the chain- ofcommand, which is another obsolete approach?

Unfortunately, “commandandcontrol management is still popular with dinosaur companies whose market share dwindles every day. Autocratic managers believe that nobody they could ever hire will be as smart as they are.” That’s how and why they require their workers to send in, even insignificant matters for approval. And this is disastrous in all counts.

multiple signatories is called “extra- processing,” resulting in a lot of waiting for their workers and customers under a Lean system. Sometimes, managers drag their feet to flex their plump muscles, if not, to impress people about their mistaken belief that they’re ve r y important to the organization.

The Japanese call it as one form of or waste. It happens when a worker or customer is kept waiting

Two,

because one of the signatories is on- leave, indisposed, or nowhere to be found and there’s no officer- in- charge to handle it. The question remains the same – why is this practice being perpetuated around us?

, practicing multiple signatories is an admission that an organization has lots of unqualified and untrustworthy workers. Steve Jobs was right: “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do. We hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.” This reminded me of one pitiful person who claims to be a long- time, pioneering manager of a major company who told me he needs the approval of his bosses before he can buy my book sold at P500 per copy.

I told him: “If you can’t get an approval because of too many signatures, then I will simply give the book to you free- of- charge as long as you can promise me that you’ll immediately implement one important lesson ( out

month. The trouble is that he was too shy to accept the deal and admit his worthlessness to the organization.

, multiple signatories require a lot of paper work from people that they don’t have much time to handle more important things in the organization. Why spend so much time approving and disapproving administrative things that are better left to line supervisors and junior officials? Why not empower people and make their work challenging? Why not train them to become independent and responsible at the same time?

There are many things I can tell you why having multiple signatories could paralyze the efficient operations of an organization but I got a limited space here. So, what’s my recommendation? It is as simple as thinking of ways to decentralize. To do this, there are three things that come to mind—budget allocation, the “four- eyes” principle, and the signatories’ level of authority.

Budget allocation is important. Without a budget, the other two can’t be done. Organizations need only to adhere to the principles of “four- eyes” and establish “l e vels of authority” to decentralize the approving process and make everything effective and efficient.

“Four- eyes” means having two people, preferably of equal job rank and management experience to be physically present to assess and approve a risky situation or transaction worth a significant amount. On the other hand, the levels of authority must be established to determine who has absolute authority ( can sign almost

( restricted by

certain amount

without any authority.

Obviously, approving a oneday leave application of a worker or buying a book worth P500 are out of this coverage which could be best handled by a supervisor or manager acting alone.