Making And Breaking The Rules
February 6th, 2009
Email this article to a friend
Photo by duncan
Are rules just arbitrary hoops to jump through, meant only to demonstrate power and mete out punishment? Or are they necessary to prevent everything from slipping into anarchy and chaos?
Here’s one more post on this line of thought from Darkworker Supervisors Want Doctor’s Notes.
When rules are necessary
I’m really not “anti-rule” per se. I think that sometimes it’s essential to have very strict rules with no exceptions. A great example is anything about security.
Back when they were putting the post-9/11 security measures in place, a lot of objects that used to be perfectly fine on a plane were no longer allowed. There was even a pilot–not a passenger, but a pilot–who was stopped from bringing a fairly harmless item on board.
I don’t remember what the forbidden item was, but let’s say nail clippers. The pilot thought it was crazy that nail clippers were considered too dangerous, when there was an axe in the cockpit. Let’s just use some common sense. Shouldn’t they have let the pilot on board with the nail clippers?
Actually, no, they shouldn’t. In this particular case, the rule seemed pointless. But the problem is that once you start allowing people to bend the rules according to their judgment, you’re opening the floodgates for security breaches.
I worked at a company where we had to pick a password that contained a mix of uppercase letters, lowercase letters, and numbers. It couldn’t be based on a dictionary word, it couldn’t be one we’d used before, and we had to change it very frequently. They wanted our passwords to be almost impossible to crack.
But do you know what the biggest cause of compromised passwords was? People were simply revealing their passwords when a stranger called them and asked nicely.
“Hey, this is Bob from tech support. We’re working on the network and trying to fix a problem that’s making everything run slower than normal – maybe you’ve noticed that. Can we take a look at your account real quick? What’s your password?”
And people were giving their passwords away like this. Yeah, it sounds like an obvious scam when you think about it, but many people would fall for it. It’s called the rule of authority: if someone seems like an authority, people won’t question them. That link points to Dean Rieck’s post about a TV reporter who staged a bank scam as an experiment, fooling 10 out of 10 customers, just by looking authoritative.
So if you’re a security guard, and a pilot wants to bring his nail clippers on board, you have to stop them. What if they’re not really the pilot? Maybe they just stole an ID card and managed to get someplace they’re not supposed to be. Maybe they’re going to leave the nail clippers for their friend to pick up, while they go for the axe. You need to do your job by serving as an additional safeguard. Besides, if you make one exception, it’s easier to make the next one. You only have to be wrong once for disaster to strike.
Photo by zzellers
When rules get in the way
On the other hand, many rules aren’t so necessary. In Darkworker Supervisors Want Doctor’s Notes, I talked about a supervisor who made up a pointless rule to enforce. They wanted an employee with ongoing health problems to provide two doctor’s notes per visit: one confirming that the appointment was made, and one confirming that the appointment was attended.
This wasn’t the company’s rule, but something the supervisor made up because they thought it was a good idea. It wasn’t. Even human resources didn’t understand the need.
Was it a doable request? Sure. Getting doctor’s notes isn’t hard. The problem is that it’s creating a needless hoop to jump through, while conveying a lack of trust.
But wait–without this rule, wouldn’t people abuse the system? Yes, some people might. Some people just want to coast through their job, doing the bare minimum not to get fired. Maybe they’d get a kick out of scheduling doctor’s appointments and not showing up, just to get out of work.
But why not address the problem directly? Why not fire the useless employees, instead of trying to control everyone with excessive rules?
I used to work at a company that had a clearly stated internet policy. Brief personal use of the internet was allowed, but you should make it quick and then get back to work. Fine. That’s how it should be, right?
Then one day they decided that some people were spending too much time on the internet, so they were thinking about disabling internet access for everyone. I thought that was a terrible idea.
First, it would have repercussions. People who used to spend five minutes a day scanning the news would instead be spending four hours a day bitching about how they had no internet access.
Second, it wouldn’t fix the problem. People who used to waste time on the internet would simply find a different way to waste time.
Instead of imposing this rule on everyone, why not tackle the problem directly? If someone’s spending a lot of time on the internet, why is that? If they don’t have enough work to do, then find out where they can help out. If they just don’t want to work, then fire them. This is not complicated.
Just today I spoke to someone who joined a company as VP a few months ago. He said one of the first things he did was get rid of the obvious underperforming employees. OK, that’s a good thing, but why were they there in the first place?
I worked at a company where I wasn’t allowed to remap my keyboard to the Dvorak layout (a more efficient alternative to QWERTY that greatly reduces hand strain). I had to actually get a doctor’s note saying it was medically necessary before they let me do it. So I eventually got around it, but it was a pointless hoop to jump through. Why would they make up a rule just to slow me down and give me carpal tunnel syndrome?
I worked at a company where someone got in trouble for installing Firefox, which was not the company’s “official browser.” Why did they care what browser he used? But anyway, if it was that important to them, they could have just asked him to uninstall it. Instead, they removed his adminstrative rights. That kept him from installing Firefox, but it also kept him from installing the applications his job specifically required. He couldn’t even set his clock to the right time.
And then there’s the whole ROWE vs. TOWE thing.
Of course, everyone needs to put up with some rules. But some rules are helpful, and some aren’t. Companies need to stop valuing compliance with pointless rules over performance. They also need to stop paying people who do nothing but slow their employees down. Companies make money by getting stuff done, not by following rules.
When rules appear to be pointless, but aren’t
I worked at a company where people weren’t allowed to install anything on their computer without getting it cleared by network support first. Some people thought this rule wasn’t important, and they decided to go ahead and install whatever they wanted.
But the rule was there for a good reason. A lot of the programs people were installing were introducing viruses into the network. And then network support had to waste a lot of time cleaning up this problem that shouldn’t have been there in the first place, if people had just followed the rules.
So what did the company do? They sent out periodic emails to everyone. These emails reminded people about the rule, but more importantly, explained why the rule was necessary.
Instead of treating people like children and saying “You’re going to do this because I said so,” it came off more like “This causes a lot of extra work for us, so we’re counting on you to help us out by simply asking before you install anything.”
If you need to start a rule, (1) make sure it does more good than harm, and (2) explain to people why it’s necessary, and get them on board with it. I see a lot of people in power failing at both of these.
February 6th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
My old law firm had the same policy: ask before installing anything. It turned out that in the two years I worked there, I was almost the only person who ever asked before installing stuff. (Like the FireFox browser.)
You wouldn’t believe how often the downloads screwed up the system. (Especially since the system consisted of disparate pieces cobbled together…mostly to accommodate the attorney’s love of the latest Blackberry apps. But I digress.)
Great article, Hunter.
Hayden Tompkins´s last blog post..What’s Your Vision for 2009?
February 6th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“Instead of treating people like children and saying “You’re going to do this because I said so” – good parents treat their kids like intelligent human being and do exactly what you said: they make sure their rules do more good than harm, and explain to the kids why they are necessary.
Loved this article.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:59 am
@ Hayden, sometimes I’ve followed a rule, only to later find out that I was the only one doing it, and that it didn’t really matter. I wish I had known that up front!
@ Vered, I didn’t know I was dispensing parenting advice! But that makes sense – kids would probably like to hear a better reason than “because I said so.”
February 8th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Hunter – I too LOVED this post and I’m with Vered on the whole view from the mom’s side as well. I got in the habit of explaining the “why” behind the rules when my kids were little and it’s a GREAT practice now that they’re all in their teens.
It’s been my experience that dids and co-workers all appreciate knowing the “why” behind any rule you decide to enforce. Sometimes, when I worked for others – the only reason “why” I could give was “because the boss wants it this way”. Those were the hardest pills to to get ANYONE to swallow.
I love how you point out that many of these “useless” rules are merely ways for employers to avoid doing what they need to do – directly manage their employee’s performance.
Kathy | Virtual Impax´s last blog post..Cash4Gold and the Ensuing Social Media Firestorm
February 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
@ Kathy, while I wasn’t thinking about this from the perspective of parents, I can see how it’s a good idea to tell kids “why.” Make the pills easier to swallow!