- Whether to mention a pregnancy in a job interview
- A possible meeting protocol
- What are an end-user's responsibilities?
- Another take on opening PCs, or not
- Getting some process going
- Selling a more open environment to management
- Running an effective meeting
- Licensing rules for virtual machines
- The ROI of metrics
- Legal challenges to virtual machines
April 22, 2007 | Comments: (0)
The difference between policies and guidelines
Dear Bob ...
One of the "levers" you mentioned in "How to make change happen" (Keep the Joint Running, 4/9/2007) is fixing the policy manual, a project which I am intent on seeing happen in my organization.
I think the concept of establishing guidelines, when possible, rather than a policy has a lot of merit. The issue I am struggling with is coming up with an understandable criterion or set of criteria that tells people when a guideline is appropriate and when we need a policy.
I am, admittedly, a control freak. I’ve also been through law school, which means I can make anything into a legal issue with potentially horrendous consequences if something goes wrong.
Any thoughts?
- Case Loader
Dear Loader ...
My opinion is that if you try to establish criteria for when a guideline does and does not apply, you've created a policy. I'd advise taking a different approach:
"These are guidelines. They are designed to fit a wide range of situations, but not all of them. We expect you to use good judgment in deciding whether they apply to the specific circumstances you are dealing with.
If you find yourself ignoring them most of the time, either your judgment is faulty or we need to change our guidelines. If you find yourself following them all of the time, you're treating them as policies rather than as guidelines, and need to apply your judgment to the situations you face, which is why we hired you instead of placing a robot in your chair."
Do I have any thoughts about your being a control freak who has been through law school? Yes -- don't give in to temptation!
Start by recognizing the difference between employees doing things right and not doing things wrong. They aren't the same. If you try to manage an organization through rules and consequences, you'll create a population of turtles -- employees who keep their heads inside their shells, never sticking their necks out unless they're absolutely certain it's safe.
They won't do anything wrong, because they won’t do anything.
Employees who do things right take risks, knowing they won't get their heads chopped off every time they do something in a way that's different than what you would have done.
If the difference isn't clear, recall the last time you dealt with a company that wouldn't take care of a problem you had, because the person on the other end of the phone said, "I can't help you with that sir. It's against our policy."
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on April 22, 2007 03:29 PM
RATE THIS ARTICLE:
-
- COMMENTS
"Employees who do things right take risks, knowing they won't get their heads chopped off every time they do something in a way that's different than what you would have done."
Reminds me of one of my favorite laws of engineering, that experience is directly proportional to equipment ruined.
Letting an employee take risks and deal with the consequences (either good or bad) is a key to having both great employee relations and also great employees.
Posted by: Paul at April 25, 2007 11:42 AMMy favorite guidelines are:
1. Do the right thing.
2. Your manager's job includes coaching you when you don't.
Admittedly, this reflects the worldview that most people want to do the right thing, and have the judgment (and the creativity) to do it. It also assumes that there's enough sharing of the vision and values that people can reasonably be expected to be able to figure out what the right thing is.
And there are circumstances (e.g. when we are required by law to comply with some set of rules) where good judgment may not be aligned with compliance.
But whenever I can, I apply engineering rule #1 - Keep it Simple. (And managers have to manage.)
In my experience, companies (especially large ones) are so paranoid about "following processes" that they end up snuffing out any initiative and risk-taking that the employee may be inclined to show. "Playing it safe" and "being on the right side of the process" become more valuable than taking some risks and making things happen.
Getting out of this "process" rut is, in my view, the most critical challenge facing companies looking for expanding their top-line.
Posted by: Vasu at April 26, 2007 07:18 AMThe guidelines are there so you know when you're breaking the rules. I always told my people to remember that and they then had a standard for when they were doing something 'out of the box'.
Posted by: MrsPost at April 26, 2007 07:25 PM|
Three books. Three ways to change the world, your life, or at least Bob Lewis' bank account. Leading IT: The Toughest Job in the World distills the world of IT leadership into eight learnable skills and gives you concrete, practical techniques for each one of them. Bare Bones Project Management: What you can't not do makes project management manageable, even for first-time project managers with no formal training in the discipline. ManagementSpeak: What managers say/What they mean … well, it won't help your career, and won't make you a better manager. Mostly, it will make you chuckle, guffaw, and maybe even chortle. Make friends - it's the perfect gift for anyone who has ever suffered through one of those meetings. Order your copies today! |
TOP STORIES
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- Remote Access: Maintain Security and Decrease the Burden on IT
- Beyond AntiVirus: Symantec Endpoint Protection
- What Every Enterprise Needs to Know About VDI
- Disaster Recovery in Minutes
- Protecting Microsoft(R) Applications
- Reduce Recovery Times and Tape Costs
