In the early nineties, there was a famous case in the United States where a woman sued McDonald’s because their coffee was too hot. Late night talk shows had a field day with this story, and the jokes linger to this day. The details of the case have been lost in the punchlines, and the legacy of the story extends beyond these jokes. Today, coffee cups from McDonald’s, Dunkin, Starbucks, and every other major coffee shop include a warning label, letting customers know that the coffee is in fact hot.
These warnings may seem silly or unnecessary, but coffee is hardly the only commodity whose warning label may appear obvious. Hair dryers come with warning labels about not using them in the shower, and electric drills come with warnings about not using them for dentistry.
Who in the world would do such a thing?
The answer is someone.
These labels come about because somewhere someone did something that companies now need to warn others about not doing. These warning labels, as obvious as they may seem, came about because someone somewhere did the thing we are now being warned not to do. And companies have responded accordingly. Not just big corporate entities either. In many workplaces, employee handbooks contain policies that seem obvious, unnecessary, or downright silly, and in many cases, these are the result of one person.
One-person policies are common in schools, workplaces, and other institutions that find it easier to ban something for everyone rather than address the small minority (often one person) who has committed the act now being banned. Sometimes, it is a safety regulation that most people would inherently know to follow. In many other cases, it is the prohibition of something staff could benefit from but are now forbidden from doing so, because of that one person.
I worked in a small office where (in the before times) the executive director was absolutely unmovable when it came to staff working from home. Because one time, one employee abused it. Rather than addressing the issue directly with that employee, she decided to ban everyone from working from home instead. New infraction, new policy.
Many people would rather do most anything than confront someone else, and unfortunately, this includes a lot of people in leadership positions. Rather than address the issue with the person who is committing the infraction, they prefer to punish everyone else instead. Why make one person be mad, when you can make everyone mad? That’s equity, right?
Often, conflict-avoidant leaders will address issues with a group rather than the individual with said issue. In an attempt to avoid the confrontation, the leader will instead undermine themselves by showing their entire team that they are scared of confrontation. At the same time, they will have shone a spotlight on the perpetrator somehow believing no one else will know who they are really talking about.
Before you implement, change, or address a policy because of one infraction, ask yourself:
- Is this a one-off incident by one employee that is unlikely to happen again?
- Have I addressed this situation with the employee first?
- Is there something I did or did not do that contributed to this happening that I can now do differently?
- Does this require me to create, revise, or eliminate a policy?
- Will my actions punish everyone for one person’s mistake?
You cannot policy your way out of everything despite how much you try. And some organizations sure do try. No matter how specific you think you are being, there will always be a loophole. Always. Attempting to close every loophole is a fool’s errand. There are simply too many variables. Different positions, different salaries, different individuals, cannot equally thrive under the same conditions. At the same time leaving everything up to a case-by-base approach is equally untenable.
So where does that leave you?
As always.
Sometimes you will need a policy that applies equally to all staff. Other times, you will need a policy that leaves some room for flexibility. Other times still, you will need to operate without a policy and address the issue on a case-by-case basis. How do you know when to do which?
It depends.
Maddening, right?
A good starting place is your non-negotiables, beginning with the federal, state, and local laws that dictate what you must and cannot do in a workplace. This includes items such as minimum wage laws, employee / contractor designations, protected classes, and safety conditions.
Next, you want to consider your organization’s non-negotiables, those items that need to be codified and applied to everyone equally. This may include things such as PTO, use of company equipment, and conduct policies.
After that, tread lightly. You want to be really intentional about what you make into policy, and there is most certainly such a thing as having too many policies. Make sure the ones you have are clear, purposeful, and enforceable.
Not every expectation needs to be a policy. In fact, most should not be. Expectations around communication, deadlines, and email management (to name a few) may necessarily vary from department to department or even individual to individual. In many cases, capturing the nuance of something in a policy may send you chasing the next revision because someone found a way around it. Policies should be reserved for the already vetted, ain’t no changing, applies to everyone equally stuff.
Further, creating a policy that no one can work from home, or jeans are forever banned because one person abused it may be the easiest course of action but it is rarely the best one. Creating a policy because one person acted in a way you did not like is just, well, bad policy.
For starters, it does not hold the right people accountable. If the person willfully tried to get around something or did something knowing it was not the right thing to do, then that person should be confronted directly. If a person did something unknowingly that had a negative impact, they need to be confronted as well. Do not address the entire team in an attempt to avoid addressing that one individual. Hold those accountable who should be held accountable and do not punish everyone else in the meantime.
Avoiding those difficult conversations and punishing everyone for the sins of the few (or the one) undermines your credibility as a leader. No one takes kindly to being punished for someone else’s mistake. And no one respects a leader who clearly cannot handle what needs to be handled. Show your staff that you are the leader they deserve and lead through these tricky situations with courage and integrity.
The paradox of being a team leader is that you are uniquely leading each team member while collectively leading your team. This is a challenging and important balance. Over-policying does little to help inspire, grow, and lead your team. In fact, it often does the opposite. Instead of turning to policies every time one of your staff does something you do not like, focus on addressing the issue directly with the person involved. It may not be the easier option, but it is most certainly the most effective one.
