| 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 | |
| |
| | 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
around them and their own
self interest.
Behavioural economist
Dan Ariely has done many | |
|
|
Previous Page 
