Humanizing Rules

CHAPTER 19RULE NUMBER TWO

Zero Accidents

During a visit to Hong Kong, I spotted a sign that grabbed my attention. It read “Zero Accidents on the Road, Hong Kong's Goal”. Next to that was an appealing logo of an anthropomorphised egg, complete with eyes, arms, and legs with a road wrapped around it. The logo, I later discovered, is called “Mr Safegg”. The egg shape represents “zero” while the road wrapped around the egg is in the shape of an S which is short for “safety”.

The sign was put there by the Hong Kong Safety Council (HKSC), who are behind the noble mission it promotes. It's an excellent idea, in theory. After all, who wouldn't want to have accident‐free roads? Answer: anyone who makes money from accidents, but let's move on. While most of us would like to have entirely safe roads, we also know that it's pretty unrealistic. At least for as long as you have humans driving vehicles.

Zero Tolerance

Many organisations adopt a similar approach when it comes to compliance and ethics. How often have you heard phrases like “we have zero tolerance for X”? It's so commonplace that it's almost a cliché.

As with Mr Safegg, it's nice to have something to aspire to. But if it's actually unachievable, then does it really make sense? And might there be a downside? This is where Rule Number Two comes in:

100% compliance is neither achievable nor desirable.

If you think that sounds outrageous, let me explain. I'm not saying you should allow people to do what they want. Nor am I saying ...