When it comes to “rules,” which of the following statements do you most agree with?
a. Rules are rules…period.
b. Rules are meant to be broken.
c. It depends.
d. All of the above.
e. None of the above.
While there is no one “right” answer to the above question, the way you respond says a lot about you. The way you think and feel about rules in general will influence the decisions you make and the actions you take in different situations…as well as how you manage and how you lead.
Let me tell you about two contentious, thought-provoking, and emotional real-life incidents that happened to me, both of which involved “following the rules,” and let’s see what you think:
Incident #1
While playing softball in Central Park one night, our manager noticed that one of the players on the other team was wearing baseball cleats with metal spikes which, according to league rules, are not allowed (as someone could potentially get hurt). The player claimed that he didn’t know about this rule, immediately apologized, and went back to the bench to change into his sneakers.
But not so fast! In the opinion of my team’s manager, this opposing player’s blatant and flagrant violation of league rules was too egregious to overlook or forgive. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And what if he had spiked somebody and they got hurt? As far as our manager was concerned, there was no option but to go strictly by the book and demand that the umpire immediately throw this player out of the game.
The fact that it was a minor and inadvertent oversight, that the player apologized for his mistake, that no one got hurt, that a number of the guys on our own team pleaded, “Forget about it, just let him change his shoes and play,” and that we were already losing 10–2 in the fourth inning, all didn’t seem to matter. From our manager’s perspective, “Rules are rules.” No discussion. No debate. No warning. No second chances. One strike and you’re out.
Following the letter of the law, the umpire (hesitantly, sympathetically, and apologetically) proceeded to inform the violator that he was sorry but, based on our manager’s demand and the letter of the law, he had no choice but to ban him from the rest of the game.
Oh. And in case you were wondering, we went on to lose 20-2 as the angry opposing team, in the spirit of retribution, retaliation, and revenge, proceeded to pour it on and make us pay dearly.
Incident #2
Someone posted the following question on a LinkedIn HR discussion group: “One of my employees is an excellent worker, but he often does not report to the office on time. When I talk to him, he promises to be on time from now on, but that does not last more than two or three days. Any suggestions?”
The responses came pouring in: “Write him up!”; “Dock his pay”; “Demote him!”; “Put it on his permanent record!”; “Give him a final warning!”; “Show him who’s boss!”; “Don’t give him any more chances—I would fire him immediately!”; “This kind of insubordinate behavior simply cannot be tolerated! He’s got to be made an example of and taught to obey the rules!”
Yup, rules are rules. Or are they?
Let me start by saying that, yes, rules are important. Whether we call them policies, operating procedures, guiding principles, or ground rules, every organization needs to have processes and structures in place or else there would be chaos. Rules enable organizations to be…well…organized. And they let the people within an organization (or a community or a society) know what is allowed, and what is expected.
However, when reflecting on the two incidents described above, my question is this: Might there be times when “the Rules” should be overruled?
Now, just for clarification, and before instigating any kind of legal backlash, I’m talking about “rules,” not “laws,” which are a more specific (though related) issue.
And I’m not talking about safety violations, integrity issues, or ethical lapses. I’m talking about situations in which mindlessly and unquestioningly following certain edicts and strictly following “the book” may not necessarily be the best or the right decision to make.
For example, in the softball incident, did the player on the other team “break the rules?” Yes, officially, he definitely did. But two key questions that should probably be asked are: (1) Was the rule violation intentional or accidental—and does that matter?; and (2) How serious of a rule violation was it; that is, was any advantage received or any damage done as a result?
Keeping things in perspective, we’re not talking about a major league player caught taking steroids, corking his bat, or throwing a spitball; we’re talking about a guy playing a fun, casual league game in the park who was discovered to be wearing the wrong kind of shoes. It was clear and obvious to everyone—including my manager, and the umpire—that this transgression was an accidental oversight. There was no intent to deceive, to defraud, or to reap any competitive advantage, and no harm of any kind was done. So, if that was the case, did the punishment, banishment from the game, fit the crime of wearing unsanctioned footwear? Or might this player’s removal from the game have been a tad excessive under the circumstances? Was my manager “wrong?” No…he was not. But was he “right”? I’ll let you play umpire and make that call.
In the second case of the online HR mob and the tardy employee, there are again two questions that come to mind: (1) What is the context?; and (2) What are the specific details?
What jumped out at me, and really pushed me over the edge, was that almost everyone—again, the respondents were all HR professionals—was calling for this guy’s head with very limited information and pretty much no backstory!
Has this employee broken the rule that “everyone needs to get to work ‘on time’”? Apparently so. But do we know anything else? No, absolutely nothing!
What type of job are we talking about? Is he a salaried or hourly worker? What exactly does “on time” mean anyway? How “late” is he…and how often? Is he expected to get there at 9 a.m. and is showing up at 9:05 a.m…or 10:05 a.m.? Is he “late” once a week or every single day? How long has this been going on? Two weeks, two months, two years? And what is the reason for, and the impact of, his lateness?
Most importantly, before reporting him to HR and putting him on a disciplinary plan (remember, he has been described as an “excellent worker”), has the employee’s manager actually sat down and spoken to him one-on-one and heart-to-heart to find out what is going on with him—asking and listening, discussing expectations, making him aware of the business impact of the lateness (that is, on customers, team members, the organization, and on the manager himself), and exploring or offering possible solutions?
Years ago when I worked for CBS out in L.A., I was a high performer who had always gotten to work on time—until I hit a week of major car problems that resulted in my being about thirty to forty-five minutes late three days in a row. How did my tyrannical boss address this issue? By saying (and I quote): “I don’t know what the hell is going on with you lately, but I’m sick of your marching in here late. If you can’t start getting here on time, you better start looking for another job.” Wow. So, you can see why I may be a little sensitive and overly empathetic when it comes to this particular situation.
But the bottom line is that I was really amazed, and incredibly disappointed, to see how many of the LinkedIn discussion responses were about “policy, policy, policy.” Sad to say, but that’s one of the problems with the HR mentality in many companies, and it’s also why so many people, per the title of the classic Fast Company article, “hate HR.”
As an honorary HR person who works in the learning and development field, I have seen too many human resources professionals who have lost sight of the fact that what we do is supposed to be all about engaging people and helping them maximize their performance, productivity, and potential. It’s not simply about setting and enforcing the rules, or a written set of policies and procedures. The first initial of “HR” stands for “Human,” and my belief is that we need to strive to treat our people more humanely.
The root of the word “policy” is the same as that of “police”—via Oxford, both words stem from the Old French word policie, or “civil administration.” If HR representatives want to be viewed as something more than just the company police, perhaps companies need to rethink how we view, deal with, and find a gentle balance between the Rules and our People. Sometimes we need to go by the book; other times we need to go by “common sense.” But, unfortunately, as the saying goes, common sense is not always common practice.
And from a leadership perspective, this classic saying from the legendary Peter Drucker comes to mind once again: “Management is about doing things right; leadership is about doing the right thing.” As such, perhaps “by the book” is not always “the right thing” to do.
So, the question to ask yourself is, as you look to balance “the spirit of the rule” with “the letter of the law”: Do “the Rules” rule, or do you?
In Review
The Big Lesson: Rules, policies, guidelines, and principles are important. Without them, there’d be chaos. However, as the saying goes, sometimes “rules are meant to be broken.” And a part of leadership is often to challenge “the rules” and disrupt the status quo.
The Big Question: What is your perspective on “rules”? Personality-wise, do you consider yourself more of a “rule follower,” “a rule breaker,” or a “change maker”? What are some memorable times when you and “the rules” came head-to-head, and what was the outcome? And might considering these questions impact your decisions and actions in the future?
Your Insight:
Your Action: