82,890
edits
Policy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{a|devil|}}:''“Many policies are organizational scar tissue — codified overreactions to situations that are unlikely to happen again”''. <br> | ||
::- {{author|Jason Fried}} | ::- {{author|Jason Fried}} | ||
:“''A typical reaction to failure is prefectural overspecification—patching observed holes in an operation with increasingly detailed or tightly targeted rules, that respond specifically to just the latest incident.''” | |||
::—{{author|Sidney Dekker}}, {{br|The Field Guide to Human Error Investigations}} | |||
Policy is the sheep they’ll hang you for. It is the dominant ideology of modern management theory. Policy, and process, is seen as practically inviolate, or immovable. | |||
Management orthodoxy is predicated on policy and process being | Management orthodoxy is predicated on policy and process being the fundamental layer of organisational competence. So, for example, a [[root cause analysis]] using the 5 why's method is intended to reveal as the root cause the policy which had not been complied with. | ||
Policy is the mountain; the workers are Mohammed. So calling out substandard performance in the workforce is orthodox business management practice. But calling out substandard process or, heaven forfend, [[policy]], is a kind of sedition. | Policy is the mountain; the workers are Mohammed. So calling out substandard performance in the workforce is orthodox business management practice. But calling out substandard process or, heaven forfend, [[policy]] — to allege [[executive failure]], that is — is a kind of sedition. Yet history tells us catastrophic failures are far more likely a result of [[executive failure|executive]] than [[operational failure]].<ref>Let me cite some examples from {{author|Charles Perrow}}’s magnificent monograph {{br|Normal Accidents}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Erebus_disaster Air New Zealand’s Erebus disaster] in 1978. [[Enron]]. The Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. The S&L scandal. Theranos. Madoff. List continued on page 94.</ref> | ||
===Policy and subversion=== | ===Policy and subversion=== | ||
But policy is a [[proxy]]. It is a second-order derivative of the intractably complex life of a modern organisation. Compliance with policy is a quantifiable thing that [[internal audit]] can glom onto. It requires no qualitative assessment, no [[subject matter expert]]ise and no judgement. There is a simple enquiry with a simple answer. | But policy is a [[proxy]]. It is a second-order derivative of the intractably complex life of a modern organisation. Compliance with policy is a quantifiable thing that [[internal audit]] can glom onto. It requires no qualitative assessment, no [[subject matter expert]]ise and no judgement. There is a simple enquiry with a simple answer. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 18: | ||
Ignoring policy threatens an organisation’s integrity. It subverts its governance. To break its rules. It invites censure by [[internal audit]]. A thoughtful employee faced with a situation to which a policy applies will not be prepared to override it. | Ignoring policy threatens an organisation’s integrity. It subverts its governance. To break its rules. It invites censure by [[internal audit]]. A thoughtful employee faced with a situation to which a policy applies will not be prepared to override it. | ||
“[[no-one got fired for hiring IBM|No-one got fired for complying with policy]]”: that’s a truism. “No-one died because someone complied with policy” — ''not'' such a truism. | |||
===We don’t rigorously follow policy=== | |||
{{work to rule capsule}} | |||
===Policy and the production line=== | ===Policy and the production line=== | ||
All this assumes that the commercial landscape your policy is meant to cover is a fully-scoped production line where all inputs, all outputs and all contingencies are mapped. No frontiers, no [[known unknowns]] are in sight. | All this assumes that the commercial landscape your policy is meant to cover is a fully-scoped production line where all inputs, all outputs and all contingencies are mapped. No frontiers, no [[known unknowns]] are in sight. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 45: | ||
{{draft}} | {{draft}} | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[Beware of shorthand]] | *[[Beware of shorthand]] | ||
*[[doctrine of precedent]] | *[[doctrine of precedent]] | ||
*[[elephants and turtles]] | *[[elephants and turtles]] | ||