The limits of some corporate policies and rules are that they do not always rely on discussion, common sense, and some negotiation. Find out why it's easy to lose by winning, and how people can be profoundly affected in negative ways by following corporate rules and policies to the letter. Find out why the door should always be left open for discussion, common sense, and maybe some negotiation.

This Issue
==========
Free distributable article: "The Limits of Corporate Policy And Rules". You may distribute copies to colleagues, etc but you cannot post this to the Internet without additional permission.

For more articles by this author visit http://www.work911.com . Or visit our article directory (where you will find articles by many authors at: http://www.articles911.com

Feature
=======
The Limits of Corporate Rules & Policy

We all have corporate polices and rules in our workplaces. Whether you are a CEO, or the person who cleans up the offices, you work within those contexts. Unfortunately, reliance on policy and rules in organizations, while not necessarily a bad thing, can cause problems if the reliance is too strong. That's because the enforcement of those policies and rules means that the best way of managing problems has been ignored or has failed. And that best way is through communication, building relationships and trying to solve difficulties together, not in adversarial ways.

The reality is that when organizations enter into adversarial application of policies, rules and the use of power, often the greater good of the company suffers.

Learning From The U.S. Election

One thing about politics, its process becomes bigger than life, and because of the scrutiny given the process, it's often easier to see the good, the bad, and the ugly. As of this writing, the US has yet to name a President, after weeks of working with different laws, different authorities, and what has to be millions of dollars. We can learn from this.

What we have here is a process which, while it would seem pretty clear cut (choosing a presidential winner) through the application of policy, rules and laws, is not quite clear cut in certain circumstances. We have those circumstances. Two sides, trying desperately to "win" the election (and who can blame them?), by using the policies, rules and laws to argue that each side's candidate is the legal winner. What is lost (recognized but still lost) is the damage the legalistic arguments cause for the country and how they will affect the perceptions of the people of that country, and the perceptions of those in the international arena.

In other words the greater good of the country is tied in, not so much with WHO wins the election (finally), but the process of how it was won. And that's often the case in companies. The perceptions of employees, customers and stock holders are often based not on the outcome of an event or a disagreement, but how that disagreement was handled.

Before we bridge over to the work environment, let's look at the election rules, and the process currently underway.

The current process:

is a long term adversarial confrontation

is governed by laws that are not absolute but are interpreted by human beings

is in no way a positive influence on those watching

focuses on WHO wins, and not on the good of the country

Above all, the legalistic process disallows any creative solutions. That's because the rules don't permit the two candidates to sit down and try to determine whether there are OTHER non-legalistic ways to solve the problem. Perhaps one might be VP, and the other President. Perhaps cabinet appointments might be shared. Or some other non-confrontational solution. But the laws don't provide for such things, and because the process is fundamentally legalistic, concerns for the country, and the application of visionary leadership CANNOT take precedence. In essence the rules and laws have closed off cooperation and forbidden action that could be taken in the interests of the country.

Back To The Workplace

Let's take this back to the workplace. And the best way to examine the parallels is through an example.

Sandy is a young single mother of three children working at a job which doesn't pay very well. She's grateful for it, does a good job, and wants to take courses to upgrade herself. One day, Sandy, while in a fit of concern for her children and worried about putting food on the table, "borrows" 100 dollars from the petty cash drawer, intending to pay it back when she has a chance. While her intent is not theft, by all legal definitions, including company policy it IS theft. Three days later, when questioned by security, she breaks down crying and confesses. What does the company do? And how will its actions affect the perceptions of people inside the company and outside?

There's two options. By all rights the company is fully justified in firing the person on the spot AND prosecuting the theft in court. That would be reliance on laws, policies and rules, which have clearly been broken. What are the consequences from such actions? Good? Bad? How will other employees perceive those actions, of those of an understanding employer, or a hard-nosed, no sympathy employer? Does it matter?

The reality is that by following the rules to the letter of the law, it's a no win situation. If the rules are ignored and Sandy is not somehow punished, that sends a message that such behavior is condoned. If Sandy is fired and prosecuted that puts the company in the position of appearing to be cold-hearted and hating children (at least that's how some would view it). And what about the company's customers and partners? Surely, prosecution may end up as a press issue.

There's a second option, though. That is for the resolution of this issue to rely on discussion, common sense, and some negotiation. The second option allows resolutions that are NOT so restrictive as would be available under the strict application of the laws. And, it allows for the establishing of some middle ground that seems fair and appropriate to all concerned, provided the company HAS the ability to work with Sandy in a non-confrontational way, and that it is WILLING to do so.

Perhaps Sandy would be disciplined in some way. Certainly she would be required to pay back the amount taken. Or tender an apology...or for that matter any combination of remedies that would be negotiated in good faith (if that's possible).

The larger outcome of the second option is that the point is not to punish one party, but to find a solution which is fair, and which will not cause damage to the company, it's employees and partners.

Conclusion

Whether you are in charge of company, or your are an employee in that company, be aware that using rules and policies to solve disputes and problems is likely going to damage everyone in the process, even yourself. Just like in the presidential race, it is possible to lose by winning, and in the process, cause long term effects that are damaging.

While there is no question that rules, policies and laws are important and needed, it's also important to realize that the application of them; sanctions, and legal actions should be a last recourse. The first step when faced with a difficulty, is to work directly with other parties, in good faith, and to only move to rule-based solutions as a last resort. Other options such as mediation (which is a joint cooperatively based process) should always be pursued first, before the move to rule based enforcement.

It's a practical issue. Whether you are the CEO or the person cleaning, always remember that it's easy to lose by winning, and to profoundly affect people in negative ways by the WAY workplace problems are handled.

You can search the ezine archive to find just what you want