• Replies 16 replies
  • Subscribers 9 subscribers
  • Views 18328 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Best reason(s) for having policies?

Anka

I wondered if any of the forumites had encountered aversion/resistance to introducing policies and procedures and, if so, what arguments you used to overcome this resistance?  What were the killer arguments in favour that won people over?    

  • Hi Anka

    There seems to be a predisposition / assumption here that policies and procedures are always 'a good thing' - IMHO they are not necessarily anything like a good thing: of course they're necessary for such as disciplinary or grievance or capability or absence but personally abhor the approach that procedures are necessary for just about every HR event - IMHO they can be totally inappropriate and unhelpful.
  • in reply to David

    (Perhaps what is needed is a policy for writing policies, David?) :-)

    Joking aside, I agree.

    Policies are a statement of what you intend to happen: e.g. "We will maintain a healthy and safe workplace", or "The Company will not tolerate discrimination"

    Procedures are a statement how you will make that happen, compliant with law and in context with the specific workplace.

    A confused conglomeration of the two is a disaster waiting for someone to perpetrate it.

    If you don't need to state either, and have enough disasters to cope with, you don't need a policy.

  • ...and since neither of us have really answered the question:

    No. I have not had resistance to any policy I've formatted, because by definition, the policy is what the employer intends to happen and that is entirely their choice; so debate is not an issue.

    "The company will maintain good discipline" may be against the wishes of some employees, but is not open to debate!

    Procedure, on the other hand, should be open for discussion: Since the procedure has to be workable, to a reasonable degree acceptable, and in all cases lawful.

    It is also sometimes overlooked, that a reasonable and fair procedure (for any policy) can be a motivating factor for people to use it.

    For example, if an absence procedure is draconian and unfair people will resist it, even though some employees are taking armfuls of unreasonable absence!  A fair procedure, however, will be recognised as ensuring that reliable employees are not being forced to cover the short-fall of those taking unauthorised time off, and so is to the advantage of the reliable. From being a management imposition and threat, the procedure becomes a fair and acceptable condition of employment!


    P

  • There have been two key arguments in favour of policies when seeking upper-level support for their implementation:

    1. Legal compliance. Some policies are required by the law and the consequences for not having them can be grave.

    2. Industry compliance. Other policies can either be required by the industry or can be a pre-condition for having a place at the table. For example, we have suppliers who will not provide us with products unless we can demonstrate the competence of our engineers to fit their products in a way that guarantees that their good name won't be sullied by shoddy fitting. Their requisite evidence includes having certain policies in place with respect to training and management. Similarly, we have customers whose sites won't allow us to access our customer's location without evidence that we conduct business in a certain way: evidential to this are relevant policies.

    Of course, *having* a policy and *abiding by* a policy aren't mutually guaranteed.
  • in reply to Robey
    Hi Robey

    I think it’s most important to distinguish between policies and procedures, as Peter outlined above.

    And to distinguish between the need for operating * procedures* that constitute a quality assurance system for provision of goods or services and those that aren't necessary in this regard - and indeed may in the hands of exponents of ‘procedures for everything’ become positively unhelpful and grossly inefficient.

    Effective quality assurance is essential in most if not all scenarios. At least some operating procedures usually are, but the trick IMHO is to ensure that these are kept proportionate to the quality assurance needs. And it’s far less common that organisations manage to get this right.
  • in reply to David

    The best examples of many things have a Rolls-Royce badge. One of the most complex, multi-faceted international companies in the world and one with  book-fulls of (for instance) Safety policies, to meet the requirements of suppliers, customers, aerospace legislatures, etc. etc. etc. .....Yes?

    How intricate, detailed, complex and verbose need policy be for such a massive organisation?

    Take a look..... https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/sustainability/policy-statement-uk-tcm92-56979.pdf

    Of course, you will need a truck to then move the volumes of authorised and authorising procedures that follow from that statement :-)

  • I think resistance I've noticed in other organisations I've worked in is often where the introduction of policies and procedures is done rather than deal with one individual who has pushed a commonly agreed boundary. It can result from a manager not feeling confident enough to deal with a situation directly, so preferring an indirect route - and probably indicates a need for management training rather than a new company document.
  • Uniform treatment for all staff has been my argument always. And has worked
  • in reply to Geetika Kaushal
    Thank you, Geetika. Can I ask what industry you work in?
  • in reply to Nina Waters
    Thank you, Nina. That's been my experience also.