Enforcement plays an important part in our legal system and in most of our society’s working organizations. Really, what would a rule be if it weren’t attached to a penalty? Police officers stop speeders, students get academic probation for low grades; tenants are evicted if unable to pay. It all makes sense.
However, it is often my experience that enforcers lose track of why they do what they do. The purpose is simple: provide reasons not to do something. However, within our society, which has always been crazy about status, the act of enforcing comes with a dash of ego. Call it motivation. I call it lack of focus. When the writ of the law becomes less important than someone’s proficiency at supporting it, it’s the beginning of a very bad story.
In many ways, our preoccupation with authority over purpose of authority is what’s currently wrong with us. In politics, we relish the idea of inflicting degradation, but if given the chance to create options, we fall short and find ourselves the target of more eager accusers. In business, we care more about passing off accountability than fixing systemic issues. We especially like to bark at each other. Of course, this is what one has to do when someone gets “caught.” Even in our families, it is a slowly learned rule that sparing the rod is not always a sure way to spoil the child.
Being able to tell others what to do, or to be in a leadership position (acurrently overused term) is not a position of guidance in which a bigger picture is often required. The idea of a brutish bully who conceives of nothing but control is not only outmoded, but has no chance of being useful again. If a system is meant to work in any way but that of exploitation, then it should deal with the meanings and logical limits of authority.
An organization is the sum of its members or, as the case often is, its employees. The betterment of the entire group should be taken into account before developing methods of penalizing members. This can be done democratically or by use of data obtained from the group. Measures taken with little idea as to how the group operates, their idea of what is appropriate and your own expectations is bound to fail in a number of ways.
Productivity may fall due to lack of motivation without clear expectations. The organization may become depopulated due to overuse of removal or increasing disinterest due to disliked tactics. Infractions may even increase if a penalty has only limited effectiveness. Plus four hours with a particularly bad task can start to go bland quickly.
Often it works not to break down but to re-enforce your fellow members or your employees. They are people capable of making positive influences on the group and are separate from their actions that need to be addressed. Just as the person committing the infraction is separate from their action, the enforcer is separate from their actions. This isn’t about ability, ego or personal feelings. This is about the judgment of whether or not the organization is negatively effected.
It is also paramount that enforcers, or other people at the lead, understand that their position is not to guide every step of the organization’s progress. Their position is to augment and repair when there is a clear and present issue. The understanding that someone is of a certain status serves a purpose, but the constant exercise of that power is less useful.
Some would argue that the need for overt demonstrations of authority is needed with individuals who do not respect rules in and of themselves. However, punishment is no clear path to reform, as has been frequently demonstrated by repeat incarceration. Every individual requires a different approach and use of force or threat may appear to some as a challenge and others a momentary hazard. A certain degree of knowledge of the person should go hand-in-hand with standard procedures. The idea of treating everyone as if they would commit the same infractions or would respond to penalties in the same way is clumsy.
Evaluating how we deal with our peers and ourselves is important whether we are the enforcer or not. The context of human interaction is not straightforward, and often deals with an incredible amount of variables. This is not asking you to wax touchy-feely, but if a mistake is capable of being prevented, it should be. Often these can be preventative measures on the end of the person enforcing the rule. Sometimes, it has to be on the side of the group toward the enforcer so that they understand the bounds of their power.
