F*** the rules!

Well, I stole the title. It is precisely to the point and too appealing. Kathy talks about internal rules a company erected as dogma that bind creativity,  brake talents from doing challenging things, alienate customers, and eventually destroy the business. She urges to put every rule in doubt and not to threat every assumption ("how exactly do we KNOW this") as gospel. Another interesting blog talking about managerial rules and the danger of becoming their slaves is here. The essentials  from it: "That said, I have seen many situations in which an overreliance on rules made management look plain dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb." Both blogs explain how destructive rules may and they're worth reading. I  rather wanted to write here about areas where some rules or policy we do need.

Usually when authority establishes rules it's motivated by desire to prevent anarchy and/or to create directions so to not handle every situation manually (on personal basis). My point is it's not enough to cancel all the rules in such cases but to create rules that clear, simple, obvious, logical, and drive to mutual satisfaction. Few examples of bad rules and options to fix them:

1. Travel policy. In a big organization it's impractical to allow every employee to order itineraries. It's hardly controllable and may be expensive. But what's a stupid rule to say that the company can acquire tickets only from one travel agency! Driven by desire to cut expenses it sometime has the opposite effect. If you find a deal in the Internet that is cheaper by $1k than the agency can offer but neither you (you can't buy anything) nor the agency (can't buy from the Internet) can buy it what is the idea of the rule? A win-win rule could be: you can still buy from the agency only but if you find a cheaper deal you can get 50% of the difference as a one time bonus (and the company should start thinking about changing the agency).
2. Travel policy 2. The rule says: you're allowed to take international flights in business after you've already taken one such a flight in a year in economy. Great rule but what it's worth if it's published in January and in July it's frozen to cut the company costs. The result - people stop flying to some boring distant destinations. The cost is cut but the business is hindered. A win-win rule could be: if you're allowed to take business but take nevertheless economy you get 50% of the difference as a one time bonus. Or you can take your spouse with you in economy (two economy tickets are still cheaper than one business).
3. Working from home. Why an isolated group of programmers/designers/consultants/analysts must work in the office if the rest of the company works in the office? For the sake of stupid rules people are compelled doing things making no sense. A win-win rule could be: allow to work from home anybody as soon as her boss approves it and takes responsibility on such a working mode. If the team performance is not affected than why somebody has to come to the office?
4. Yearly bonus. If an employee leaves the company until February, 28 then she doesn't get the annual bonus even she was told she would get it this year as the best performer. Why the company wants to earn on this poor employee her bonus without thinking what the negative effect such behavior will make on the staying employees? If she knew the rule she wouldn't have left the company until February, 28 but what performance can the company expect from her then? I don't think I have to propose a win-win rule here: if the company pays the bonus everybody has to get it regardlell the date they leave the company.
5. Home Internet. The Internet is given for free. But it's either Internet or nothing. So if both husband and wife work in one company then one misses this attraction. A win-win rule: give a budget for utilities and gadgets for home office (free Internet, phone, printers/cartridges, home computer...) and everybody can pick up what she needs.

The idea here is not to create rules that barely confine the employees but rules that a) make sense, b) adjustable and adoptable, c) cultivate feeling that the company cares about the employees and not merely does things the HR read in an article "how to make your employee happy". By "adjustable and adoptable" I mean that the rules are created to serve and not to be overcome. If the rules change in the middle of the game the changes must be to the better (for the employees!)  or at least understandable (by the employees!) and fair (towards the employees!).

Technorati tags: rules, office, employee, company

Comments

[Andrew Schetinin]

Hi Roman,

Oleg told me where to look for your blog.
Nice to hear from you.
And the postings are neat! :-)

Best Regards,

Andrew