Federal employees shouldn't be slaves to rules

Managers need to counteract employee perceptions that their job consists only of following the rules

Steve Kelman is professor of public management at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

I teach an executive education class in which we discuss the pros and cons of designing organizations that rely heavily on rules, as opposed to those in which frontline employees are empowered to make decisions about the best course of action. Rules do have virtues, particularly for wielding control and easing coordination across organizational units. They can also represent a useful codification of knowledge so people don’t need to reinvent the wheel. However, they can create problems because people often become psychologically dependent on them — a disease that organizational theorists call “rule worship.”

During a recent discussion of those issues, one class participant said he often heard employees claim that the rules required them to behave in certain ways. But when they were pressed to cite the rules in question, the employees were unable to point to any rule with the alleged requirements. I then asked the class, made up of GS-15 federal managers and their military equivalents, how many of them had experienced the same situation. Nearly every one of the 70-odd participants raised his or her hand. I was taken aback by just how prevalent it was.

That perception is a problem. Organizational scholar Henry Mintzberg has written that rules are intended to specify a minimum standard of acceptable performance. But in organizations with many rules, employees can easily get the signal that following the rules is their entire job. After they’ve followed the rules, they don’t need to do anything more.

I saw that attitude in action when I first started working on procurement issues in the government in 1993. Agencies were still mostly buying commercial software in shrink-wrapped individual packages when large companies were saving money by buying enterprise licenses. Why was the government doing that? Because nobody wanted to break the rules. The software was bid openly and competitively, and the government got the lowest price anybody paid for shrink-wrapped software. But that wasn’t an intelligent business practice, and no one seemed to see it as part of their job to go beyond the rules and ask if that buying strategy made sense.

Supervisors and managers who work for organizations that are very rule-bound — which describes many agencies — need to take steps to counteract employee perceptions that their jobs consist only of following the rules.

When employees claim that the rules require something and it turns out there is no such rule, managers should raise such examples at staff meetings — of course, without embarrassing the employee who made the claim — and use the stories to point out how easy it is to assume there are more rules than there are. Managers should ask employees why certain rules exist. If the only answer is that “we’ve always done it this way,” there’s a problem. And managers should specifically discuss and reward situations in which employees treat the rules as a floor, not a ceiling, for their behavior.

Agencies should also review their rulebooks to make a distinction between rules that have a control purpose — often, though not always, expressed as “thou shalt not” — and those that try to provide useful information for employees about how to do their jobs better. The former must be mandatory, but whenever possible, the latter should be moved from binding rules to suggestions or advice.


About the Author

Kelman is professor of public management at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. Connect with him on Twitter: @kelmansteve

Cyber. Covered.

Government Cyber Insider tracks the technologies, policies, threats and emerging solutions that shape the cybersecurity landscape.


Reader comments

Wed, Jun 23, 2010 Beel VA

Buckeyeguy stated the case well, but didn't give the root cause for those risk-adverse managers: many of them were "pushed upstairs." If someone is marginally competent at best, they become rule-bound which is the easier path for them. Seen it time + again, the past 30 years...

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 buckeyeguy Ohio

As a retired federal employee, I would have to say that the reason for this "must follow the rules" philosophy is caused by most federal supervisors and managers being extremely risk averse and unwilling to "take chances" and/or "show any initiative" and especially their discouraging those under them from doing either of those actions. Most supervisors/managers are also too quantity of production oriented (because a completed action/unit of production is easy to count). Since quality of work is hard to measure, most supervisors/managers try to design performance management systems that either avoid measuring it or give much greater importance to the quantity of production measures.

Mon, Jun 7, 2010

Here is an example of why rules need to be clearly defined and understood: In the 1990s, AF changed its "Regulations" governing required and prohibited actions in its operations and administrative offices to "Instructions" and "Manuals". Almost immediately, offices took the changes as a sign that the information and requirements in the new publications were merely suggestions and options. In order to emphasize that these documents were enforceable, AF had to add a label to every publication stating "Compliance with this publication is mandatory". Without "rules" (and quite often with rules), every office in the AF would be trying to do things their own way. After more than 15 years, AF still prints the compliance requirement on all their pubs - and still has members trying to ignore them! Without enforceable rules and an environment that know what they mean, chaos and mayhem are the likely result. I wonder whether it's the rules we should be concerned with or the managers and supervisors who should understand and implement them that are the problem....

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 John

My long observation is that large organizations consist of 3 groups of employees. 80% of employees will follow the rules for a wide variety of reasons and more or less work to the best of their abilities. This group ranges from outstanding to needs to be fired. How much improvement an organization makes depends upon the balance between the other 2 groups. At one end are the "walls" whose major interests are rules, regulations, analysis, reports, security, meetings, approvals, studies, etc. At the other end are the "pushers" whose interests are progress, improvements, results, problem solving, and flexibility. Its a huge challenge to get the middle 80% to change their ways. You are more likely to get results if you can tip the balance of power from the "walls" to the "pushers" so the 80% get the guidelines, flexibility, tools, and empowerment they can use.

Fri, Jun 4, 2010

Look at the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Need I say more????

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group