There is a question I like to ask managers after something goes wrong in an organization: What was your first response? Almost always, the answer is similar. They wrote a new procedure, added another layer of approval, scheduled a regular meeting or strengthened the oversight mechanism. It is a natural response. If there was a failure, then apparently a rule was missing that could prevent it next time.
But quite often, that is precisely the mistake: Weak systems tend to believe that every problem can be solved through another instruction. Mature systems understand that the real solution lies somewhere else, in people.
This is one of the most beautiful insights I encountered this week in Parashat Eikev, through the interpretation of Rabbi Isaac Arama, author of the “Akeidat Yitzhak” and one of the great Spanish sages of the 15th century.
The author of the Akeidah identifies a subtle but significant change throughout the Torah. At the beginning of the journey, when the people have only just left Egypt, the Torah contains many details, commands and instructions. As the journey progresses and the people mature, the language changes. Less detail, more principles. Fewer specific instructions, more trust that the individual already knows how to act.
To explain this idea, he offers a parable from the world of medicine. One patient needs dozens of medications to achieve a small improvement, while a healthy person can benefit greatly from even minimal treatment. The difference is not in the medicine, but in the condition of the body.
The same is true of leadership: An immature organization needs more and more procedures because every decision depends on the person at the top. By contrast, as an organization builds a culture, values and a shared language, the same short instruction produces a much broader effect.
Anyone who has served in a high-quality military unit knows this moment. The commander does not need to deliver a speech before every mission. Sometimes a short sentence, or even a single word, is enough. Not because the mission is simpler, but because the people already understand the way they are expected to think and act.
The same thing happens in sports. In great teams, the coach does not stop the game to explain every move again. He exchanges a glance with the players, and they already know what is required of them.
The difference can also be seen in the business world. Excellent organizations are not run through endless approvals. A clear strategic decision quickly filters through every level of the organization, and every manager knows how to translate it into action in their own field. This week, we saw this in a series of significant deals in the economy, from Rimon and Ackerstein to Nofar. Behind every acquisition or strategic move lies not only a board decision, but the ability of an entire system to understand the direction and carry it out.
This is where the author of the Akeidah also connects with Aristotle. Both, each in his own way, argue that character is not built through lectures, but through habits. It is not enough to tell people what the right thing to do is. You need to build an environment in which doing the right thing becomes second nature.
That may be the most precise definition of organizational culture. It is not a collection of slogans on office walls, but a system of habits, trust and personal examples that enables people to make the right decisions even when the CEO is not in the room.
Therefore, after every mistake, perhaps it is worth stopping before drafting another procedure and asking whether we truly lack a new rule, or whether we lack a process that will cause fewer people to need that rule in the first place.
According to the author of the Akeidah, the 40 years in the desert were not only a period in which more commandments were added. They were 40 years of building people. As a person matures, they need fewer instructions in order to do more good.
Perhaps organizations should be measured in the same way: not by the number of procedures they have written, but by the number of procedures that are no longer necessary. So, if we take one management tool with us from the weekly Torah portion, I suggest asking three simple questions at your next management meeting:
- On which issues do we continue writing new procedures instead of addressing the root of the problem?
- Which decisions still cannot be made without approval from above, and why?
- If the CEO is not here for a week, will the organization know how to make the same decisions without them?
Because the real test of leadership is not how many people act when they are given instructions, but how many people know how to act correctly even when those instructions are no longer needed.