The goal of the Making Rules Matter framework is more effective and humane collaboration. A “rule” in this sense means any intentional, ongoing, explicit, and binding expectation. For example, “No running in the hall.” “You don’t have the right to get upset for not getting what you never asked for.” -Terry Real Teamwork is an individual skill. The individual’s attention is always directed to what they can control. Ultimately, rules are not important. What’s important is what they enable and protect. Everyone should be allowed to have their own experience. The formula for conscious collaboration is: 1) share your tension, 2) make a request, 3) hold the other person accountable. When it doubt, use time as a structure. Unless someone lacks the capacity to ask for help, don’t assume they need it. A person is not obligated to follow a rule they never agreed to. Internalization of a rule or expectation should never be the goal. Norms are more powerful than rules, but if properly legitimated, rules allows us to shape norms. Strategic non-enforcement serves important group functions, but better versions of those functions are available. How someone treats me is a reflection on them and is never a sufficient justification for my response. “Directing attention is the primal task of leadership.” -Daniel Goleman Do not keep beating your head against a wall expecting the wall to change. Our words do not just represent reality, they can also create reality (e.g. like making a promise to someone). Responsibility tracks with capacity. Others are not accountable to your level of maturity. Governance should be based on the consent of the governed—and if it can’t be then it should at least be humane. Good collaboration is the proper management of polarities like alignment vs autonomy and stability vs flexibility. Unless it is necessary to change, it is necessary not to change (keep things tension-driven). Deal-breakers can never be sufficiently defined in advance, therefore the group needs a pre-defined resolution process. There is no such as perfect clarity, but thankfully we should never need it. At least occasionally, people must act as structures. There is nothing inherently wrong with “hierarchy,” “power,” or “centralization.” Do not use a rule for something that can be done through shaping the environment. Whenever possible, speak “inarguably.” (i.e. own your experience). Initiating structure is an act of attempted leadership. You cannot expect favors. The drift toward needing explicit rules is necessarily awkward and therefore people understandably resist it. The Making Rules Matter framework applies equally to any form of collaboration, whether it is hierarchical, peer-to-peer, or loose affiliation. If people are not following a rule, the fault is with the rule (or how it’s administered) not the people. The goal is to never have more rules than necessary—having too many rules is often worse than having too few. Diverse groups, i.e. those with low shared context, tend to drift towards needing more explicitness of their assumptions and expectations. Regardless of the labels used (“rules,” “agreements,” “policies”), the most important distinction is: 1) binding vs 2) non-binding expectations. Unfortunately, the most important aspect of any rule is in its enforcement. Explicit rules become increasingly more important with peer-to-peer collaboration that is less based on status. Rule-based (or structure-based) solutions must account for human imperfection—more willpower is never the answer. Rules are never a substitute for maturity or good judgment. There’s no point in fighting reality—it has already won. Ride the wave, don’t punch it.
