Policy non-compliance is often a symptom of unclear rules, not unwilling people.
Policy makers want to influence specific behaviours, but too often word their rules in ways are can only be interpreted retrospectively rather than proactively.
Take a simple example.
Traffic laws require drivers to signal before turning. That’s a black-and-white, line-in-the-sand requirement: you either signalled, or you didn’t. Compliance is easy to confirm, both by the driver and by an objective observer.
The laws also require drivers to operate their vehicles with due care and attention. But that’s a totally different type of rule: compliance is assessed in retrospect. When you get into an accident we might infer a breach of the rule, but not getting into an accident doesn’t prove that you were always duly careful and attentive.
Many organizational policies fall into this second category:
— Not experiencing a privacy breach doesn’t prove you’ve followed the privacy policy.
— Not receiving a harassment complaint doesn’t confirm respectful conduct.
— Not causing a fire doesn’t prove that safety procedures were followed.
Evaluative rules like these are important, because at times we want to prevent undesirable outcomes without having to list every possible cause. But they’re not well suited to managing specific behaviours in the moment.
If you’re concerned about policy non-compliance, ask yourself this: can I point to specific line-in-the-sand rules that are being broken, or am I making an evaluative interpretation of the situation based on real or projected outcomes?
When there’s a problem that people aren’t driving with due care and attention and you want to improve the situation, you need to make some black-and-white rules that draw lines in the sand.