Policy can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand policy is useful to standardise organisation behaviours in support of the desired positioning of the given organisation in the market; yet on the other hand policy can also get in the way of the “right” (i.e. most sensible/ practical) decision/ course of action prevailing.
The most effective policies that I’ve either been involved in formulating or applying/ reinforcing have been those which include provisions that recognise unique situations or “extenuating circumstances“. Policies that are devoid of such provisions seldom enable decision-makers to make the “right” decision, all relevant factors considered.
Be careful of organisations that operate with rigid policies that seldom are either challenged by the policy-makers (e.g. as/ when market proven best practices evolve generally, when new technology to enable improvements in certain areas are introduced, etc). Such organisations tend to take comfort in trying to keep things the same, and find challenging their status quo difficult – and even somewhat painful.
Such organisations also tend to suffer from hosting poor/ negatively-charged cultures; generated largely by the decision-makers’ desire to “control” the actions/ behaviours of subordinate stakeholders. For as you will know, and as I have commented on in earlier blogs, whilst the majority of people will at least tolerate being managed in a constructive way, most people despise attempts by others to “control” them. “Management” is a very different set of behaviours versus “control”.
Throughout my life to date I have tended to live my life according to what I deem to be doing the right thing/ making the right decisions. Yes, I adhere to the laws of the land, yet fundamentally I live day-to-day based on doing what I think the “right” thing to do is.
My suggestion to particularly large organisations is that by all means establish a policy framework to help guide governance/ management decision-making; yet:
a) Don’t close your mind to challenging the relevancy/ legitimacy of your policies at least annually, and
b) Ensure that your policies enable flexibility in respect of extenuating circumstances, and
c) Where a “left-of-field” (innovative/ previously unconsidered) solution presents itself when addressing an issue that falls within the bounds of a particular policy, and that solution proves to be effective, don’t be afraid to adjust the given policy to then incorporate that solution in the policy for future applications. Such a process is reflective of a “continuous improvement” operating environment.
The most potentially damaging course of action you could take in light of a set of extenuating circumstances presenting themselves – which current policy clearly is a poor fit to address if applied verbatim, is to insist that the given policy be applied nonetheless as is. This is the kind of reaction that is commonly invoked by decision-makers who are afraid that any deviation from existing policy will amount to “setting a precedent” for all future cases involving a similar set of variables.
My parting words on this subject are as follows. Policies are useful, if formulated and applied with a good amount of “realism” and “practicality” and with high regard given to each case/ set of circumstances at the time of applying the provisions of the given policy to the given case. Yet policies can also strangle the development/ evolution of an organisation if not permitted to evolve in response to changes in internal operating practices and/ or market conditions; and/ or when a solution/ course of action previously not considered is identified, tested and proven to deliver desirable results/ outcomes…yet then not incorporated in policy.