"Rule by Rule"

On my weekly run through the woods, I come face-to-face with a cyclist on a bike-and-walking path that’s over 3 meters wide. The cyclist is heading straight for me. Even though I’m running as far to the left as possible, he keeps coming. I barely manage to jump onto the shoulder; the man stops and starts cursing me out. He’s angry that I was running on the bike path.

Of course, I said something about his behavior—I’m afraid I might have used a few strong words—but I decided pretty quickly to just keep walking. It wasn’t worth getting worked up over.

We humans need guidelines—in all kinds of areas—and rules. Otherwise, we can’t function together. Traffic is a good example. If everyone just does whatever they want, it quickly turns into chaos. But on the other hand, if everyone strictly follows the rules, there are also victims. So how you deal with rules is very important—whether you’re rigid and follow them to the letter, or more empathetic and flexible. It’s like the dilemma faced by the average referee: follow the rule, or stay true to the spirit of the game.

Rules also come into play within organizations. Any task involving more than one person requires agreements on the division of labor and handoffs. Coordination. The larger the organization, the more complex this becomes. Here’s why: coordination burdens (coordination costs) increase with scale. The economies of scale (the larger the scale, the lower the unit price) are partially offset by this; thus, there is a scale at which the cost per product and coordination costs together are optimally low.

When it comes to work arrangements, traditional, detailed job descriptions have now largely given way to more general job descriptions. In an increasing number of organizations, teams are even assigned only a specific area of results. This management approach relies on a mature attitude, proven competencies and responsibility, and a strong commitment to the ultimate goal. Conversely, it also depends on a reliable management team that places a high priority on being a good employer.

Many employee participation bodies struggle with these non-binding frameworks because they are prone to arbitrariness and inconsistencies. That is true, and employees must be protected against this. There are examples of poor employer conduct, such as when budget cuts affecting staff are adjusted inconsistently. However, not every reorganization is suspect, nor is every executive at fault. Therefore, always putting the rules first is not in the best interest of the organization or the people who work there.

In all situations where rules, frameworks, and agreements apply—whether in traffic or within organizations—the question of conscience is: Do you have the rules, or do the rules have you? Being completely “rule-free” actually restricts the freedom of others. On the other hand, “rigid adherence to rules” may foster an obedient conscience but ultimately brings no peace either. We need wisdom in dealing with rules to navigate the balance between rigidity and freedom—a wisdom that grows with age.

The man keeps riding his bike and cursing, completely outraged by what was done to him. In the heat of the moment, I call after him that he’d be better off enforcing rules at home from now on. I don’t think that bit of advice went over well :). That kind of wisdom will come to me with age, too.