Is it prudent for an organization to relax its rules to benefit some of its employees over others, on a regular basis?

Organizations, regardless of their size, type, or nature of operations, have a set of rules and regulations in place to ensure that they function smoothly and efficiently.

These rules are created to establish a clear structure, maintain order, and promote a healthy work environment. However, there may be situations where the administrator of an organization may consider relaxing the rules for some cases. The question then arises: Is it prudent for an organization to relax its rules to benefit some of its subjects over others, on a regular basis?

The answer to this question is not straightforward and depends on several factors. While there may be situations where relaxing the rules can be beneficial, it is important to understand the potential consequences of doing so. In this article, we will explore the pros and cons of relaxing rules in an organization and help you determine if it is advisable or not.

Slightly similar & slightly different: Both harm the growth of an organization

 Pros of Relaxing Rules

1. Increased Flexibility: One of the most significant advantages of relaxing rules in an organization is increased flexibility. When rules are rigid, employees may feel constricted and unable to perform their duties effectively. Relaxing some rules can help employees feel more empowered and productive.

2. Improved Employee Morale: When rules are relaxed in some cases, it can demonstrate that the organization values its employees and trusts them to make the right decisions. This can lead to increased employee morale, which, in turn, can lead to higher levels of job satisfaction and loyalty.

3. Enhanced Creativity: When employees are given more flexibility, they may feel more empowered to think creatively and come up with innovative solutions to problems. This can lead to improved processes and products, which can benefit the organization as a whole.

Cons of Relaxing Rules

1. Inconsistent Implementation: When rules are relaxed in some cases, it can lead to inconsistencies in their implementation. This can create confusion among employees and undermine the credibility of the rules themselves.

2. Decreased Accountability: When rules are relaxed, it can be challenging to hold employees accountable for their actions. This can lead to a lack of discipline and, in some cases, can even result in unethical behavior.

3. Increased Risk: When rules are relaxed, it can create a higher level of risk for the organization. This is especially true if the rules being relaxed relate to safety or security protocols. It only takes one mistake or oversight to cause significant damage to the organization. 
   

   

   Unreasonable relaxation of rules may lead to imbalance and chaos
   

When Should Rules Be Relaxed?

Based on the pros and cons outlined above, it is clear that relaxing rules in an organization is not a decision that should be taken lightly. However, there may be situations where it is advisable to do so. Here are some examples of when rules may need to be relaxed:

1. Emergencies: In the event of an emergency, it may be necessary to relax some rules to ensure the safety and well-being of employees and customers.

2. Unique Circumstances: There may be unique circumstances that require a degree of flexibility to ensure that the organization can continue to operate effectively. For example, if an employee needs to work from home due to a global pandemic like COVID-19, it may be necessary to relax the organization's usual telecommuting policies.

3. Creative Problem-Solving: In some cases, relaxing rules can lead to more creative problem-solving. For example, if an employee is struggling to complete a project due to rigid deadlines, relaxing the timeline may allow them to approach the project in a more innovative way.

An Example

2015 v 2017: A Case Study

Let's consider an example for better understanding.

Assume that an organization has an existing batch of employees, who have joined the organization at same designation through qualifying an entrance test in the year 2015. Then, let's assume that in the year 2017, via another entrance test, another batch qualifies for a designation higher to the designation of the existing employees who joined in 2015. As per the existing norms, the appropriate way to adopt would have been to allow the batch of 2017 to join the organization at the higher designation for which they became eligible by qualifying the entrance test, and in that way, the existing batch of 2015 would have been placed beneath the batch of 2017 in the gradation list of the organization, since the batch of 2015 was not due for promotion as per the rules & regulations of the organization.

However, to demonstrate what would happen if the way of favouritism was adopted in the above situation, let's assume that the organization, under the pretext of humanitarian or whatever outlandish grounds, decides to relax the rules & regulations regarding promotions in this particular case, and to execute the preposterous plan, withholds the issuance of appointment letter and delay the joining of the batch of 2017, for a period long enough for the batch of 2015 to get promoted, after the relaxation is granted. This causes a huge rift among the employees of both the batches, and induces a cold war among them, leading to the death of team spirit at the very beginning of the initiation of job for the batch of 2017. This is a highly perilous situation for the organization itself, as it affects the work culture and deviates the employees from working collectively for the welfare of the organization, and ensuring that their personal goals are placed in the forefront.

To further analyze the situation, let's imagine that an organization is an organism, and its employees are its different limbs and organs. For the organism to stay healthy and energized, it is vital that all its organs and limbs work in synergy and coordination with each other. Any conflict among the organs would lead to the organism becoming weak and frail, approaching to collapse.

So, to avoid this hazardous situation, it is important for an organization to look at the broader picture while taking decisions which deviate from the existing set of rules & regulations, and also refrain from giving unfair privileges to some, at the expense of others' entitlements.

Conclusion

Institutional rules and regulations serve as guidelines for administrators to operate within an organization. These guidelines help ensure that the organization functions smoothly, efficiently, and with transparency. Adhering to these rules and regulations provides a clear framework for decision-making, accountability, and overall responsibility for an organization's success. Relaxing these rules can lead to chaos and inconsistency, which can ultimately harm the organization's reputation, productivity, and financial stability. By following institutional rules and regulations, administrators can demonstrate that they are committed to the organization's values and mission, and in turn, build trust and confidence among stakeholders. Ultimately, adhering to institutional rules and regulations by its administrators is a better approach than relaxing the rules, as it promotes a culture of integrity, fairness, and accountability within the organization.

In conclusion, it is not advisable for the administrator of an organization to relax the rules for some cases on a regular basis. While there may be situations where it may seem compelling to do so, the potential consequences of relaxing rules should be carefully considered before any action is taken. It is important to balance the benefits of increased flexibility and employee morale with the potential risks of inconsistent implementation, decreased accountability, and increased risk.