| Mick James wonders whether we should look to follow rules or rather the 'spirit' of rules. |
| Rules again |
| |
|
| | By Mick James
A few weeks ago I
wrote about the
importance of rules in
business life. How was I
to know that a few weeks
later the row over MPs
expenses would mean that
“I was following the
rules” would join “I was
only following orders”
as a completely
worthless excuse.
You have to feel
sorry for those MPs who
only played by the rules
of an admittedly deeply
flawed system. As the
admirable Desmond
Swayne, MP for North
Kensington pointed out
(while making details of
his own claims public
long before this storm
broke), the rules were
so “elastic” as to cover
“virtually any household
expense”. Bear in mind
we’re not strictly
talking expenses as such
– but an “allowance”
with a fixed ceiling of
£23,000, which MPs were
until recently
encouraged to take as
much advantage of
possible under the “use
it or lose it”
principle. Hence the
chucking in of
everything including the
kitchen sink. The
question is, at what
point does following the
rules become exploiting
them – and is there even | |
|
| | a difference?
MPs are now being
told they should have
obeyed not the letter
but the “spirit” of the
rules, and this kind of
attitude to rules is
becoming more and more
common. The Inland
Revenue is constantly
trying to get us stop
avoiding tax by
following the rules as
written but pay what we
“ought to”. Similarly TV
chef Gordon Ramsay was
recently censured for
swearing at a time that
he should have known was
“too soon” after the
broadcasting watershed
of 9pm.
In fact some
politicians have only
themselves to blame.
When Home Secretary
Jacqui Smith made her
sinister remarks about
the "court of public
opinion" being the final
arbiter of TSB chief Sir
Fred Goodwin’s pension
arrangements, did she
hear the grinding of the
iron (and in this case
highly ironic) wheel of
karma as it turned
behind her?
The problem is,
people can’t live like
this. If swearing just
after the watershed is
not allowed, the
watershed is not the | |
| |
| | around them and their
own self interest.
Behavioural economist
Dan Ariely has done many
elegant experiments into
the psychology of
cheating (many of which
are summed up in his
excellent book,
Predictably Irrational).
He has found that
cheating occurs more
often the more abstract
the rewards is – someone
who would never
physically steal cash
might well find
themselves using a token
or a voucher they
weren’t entitled to. We
are crucially drawn
towards cheating when we
see our peers “at it”
(we are also apparently
deterred from cheating
when we see people who
are “not like us” at
it).
Borderline bad
behaviour is everywhere
– and the evidence is
that in these tough
times companies are
taking advantage of it.
The drugs charity
Release recently
published figures that
suggested companies were
ramping up drug testing
in search of cheap, no
redundancy dismissals.
Technically they may be
within their rights, but
was there such keenness
to test their top | |
|
| | performers when they
were raking in the cash,
even if they did seem a
little hyper after
lunch?
Arbitrarily invoking
rules can be as bad as
attempting to transcend
them by appeal to a
superior morality and
this could paradoxically
lead to far worse
behaviour in the future
as all rules are held in
contempt. “They either
make the rules up as
they go along or only
invoke them as it suits
them – so why should we
follow any rules?”
Our political leaders
can now gain many
brownie points by acting
tough, and are probably
all itching for a bit of
a purge anyway. Showing
a bit of restraint and
maybe even trying to
defend the apparently
indefensible is in fact
the far tougher option.
But we lose a lot if we
destroy respect for
rules by failing to
protect those who have
followed them – however
self-servingly. The
ultimate irony is that
at the moment our
political life is
staggeringly uncorrupt.
In future we may look
back at these innocent
times and wonder what
all the fuss was about. | |
|
| | watershed. If the
“spirit of the rules”
can’t be written down
then I’m left with my
own personal
interpretation. Even if
it can it just becomes
another rule – and what
“spirit” governs that?
If the rules as
written down are
unclear, incomplete,
missing or have fallen
into abeyance, then
people will construe
their own rules.
Strangely, these will
not tally very well with
what others might see as
“spirit of the rules”
invoked after the fact.
In fact these construed
rules will be based
almost entirely on what
they see happening | |
|
|
Previous Page 
