Why Following the Rules Is Not Always Enough

Rules matter.

They create boundaries, establish expectations and help people understand what is required of them. Without rules, organisations would struggle to function and societies would struggle to maintain order.

But there is a problem.

Following the rules and doing the right thing are not always the same thing.

A process can be followed perfectly and still produce the wrong outcome. A person can satisfy every procedural requirement while completely missing the purpose those requirements were created to serve.

This is where the distinction between compliance and virtue becomes important.

Rules Are Tools

Every sensible rule exists for a reason.

A safety procedure exists to protect people.

A financial control exists to protect resources.

A professional standard exists to maintain quality.

An organisational policy exists to help an institution fulfil some wider responsibility.

The rule is therefore not the ultimate purpose.

It is a tool designed to help achieve that purpose.

Problems begin when the tool becomes more important than the reason it exists.

Instead of asking:

“Did we achieve what this rule was intended to protect?”

we begin asking:

“Did we follow the procedure?”

Those questions can produce very different answers.

When Compliance Becomes the Objective

Imagine an organisation introducing a checklist to improve quality.

Initially, the checklist forces people to consider things that were previously being missed. Quality improves.

Over time, however, completing the checklist becomes a performance measure.

People are now judged on whether the boxes have been ticked.

Eventually, the organisation can reach a strange position in which every checklist is complete while the quality it was designed to protect is deteriorating.

The organisation remains compliant with its own process.

Yet the process has ceased to fulfil its purpose.

Nothing necessarily went wrong with the rule.

What changed was the relationship between the rule and the reason it existed.

Rules Cannot Exercise Judgement

Rules work best when circumstances are predictable.

Reality rarely is.

There will always be situations that the person who wrote the procedure did not anticipate. Two principles may conflict. New information may emerge. Circumstances may change.

At that point, simply asking “What does the rule say?” may not be enough.

Someone has to understand why the rule exists.

That requires judgement.

And judgement carries responsibility.

It is often easier to hide behind procedure because procedure distributes responsibility away from the individual.

“I followed the process.”

“I complied with the policy.”

“I did what I was instructed to do.”

All three statements may be completely true.

But they do not necessarily answer the more important question:

Was the outcome right?

Virtue Begins Where the Checklist Ends

This is one reason virtue cannot simply be reduced to obedience.

Virtue requires an understanding of purpose.

In the ancient Greek idea of aretē, excellence is connected to fulfilling something's function well. The question is therefore not merely whether an action conforms to a rule, but whether it contributes towards the purpose the rule was intended to serve.

That does not mean rules should be ignored whenever someone disagrees with them.

Quite the opposite.

Good judgement requires understanding both the rule and its purpose.

The danger lies at either extreme.

Ignoring rules entirely produces arbitrariness.

Following rules without thought produces bureaucracy.

Virtue requires something more difficult: disciplined judgement within an understanding of purpose.

Institutions Face the Same Problem

This does not apply only to individuals.

Institutions accumulate procedures.

Usually for good reasons.

Something goes wrong, so a control is introduced. Another problem occurs, so another process is added. Reporting requirements grow. Governance structures develop. Measures and targets appear.

Eventually an institution can become extraordinarily good at demonstrating that it has followed its procedures.

But that still leaves one question:

Is the institution achieving what it exists to achieve?

A hospital ultimately exists to improve health, not to complete forms.

A school exists to educate, not merely to produce performance data.

A business exists to create something of value, not simply to operate its management systems.

Governance is necessary.

But governance is not purpose.

The Question Behind the Rule

Perhaps one of the simplest ways to protect against this problem is to ask one additional question whenever a rule, process or target begins determining behaviour:

“What is this for?”

It is a deceptively powerful question.

Because once the purpose is understood, the rule can be evaluated against it.

Does it still help?

Has the situation changed?

Is the intended outcome actually being achieved?

Has the measure accidentally become the objective?

None of these questions require abandoning rules.

They require remembering why we created them.

Rules provide structure.

Judgement provides adaptation.

Purpose provides direction.

And virtue lies not merely in obeying the structure, but in understanding what that structure is ultimately supposed to serve.

From the series: Reflections on Virtue

This article forms part of an ongoing exploration of purpose, institutions, relationships and human flourishing adapted from Virtue: A Unified Theory by Carl Parry.