Rulebook needs a show-cause notice

In many of our offices, the rulebook is treated like the fire extinguisher: displayed prominently, dusted before an audit, and touched only after smoke appears. When a rule is broken, management performs its favourite ritual: find the junior person, issue a show-cause letter, form a committee, and declare governance restored. The system survives. The scapegoat updates LinkedIn.

That assumes a rulebook exists. Many companies have none. Others paid consultants to write one, then locked it in an almirah, where it enjoys greater job security. Worse, when employees watch owners or bosses siphon funds, treat bank loans as family inheritance, or conduct transactions with shadow companies, the boundary collapses. Setting ethical boundaries becomes an archaeological expedition.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

In a recent Harvard Business Review article, Calvin Sprague discusses research by Michael J. Gill of Oxford University’s Saïd Business School. Gill reviewed more than 250 studies across four decades and found that employees break rules for different reasons. Some seek personal benefit. Some try to help customers or colleagues. Others are pushed by pressure, distorted incentives, or a desire to do what they believe is right.

Imagine four employees. One directs a contract to his cousin for a reward. Another buys a spare part from an unapproved supplier to prevent a factory shutdown. A customer-service officer bypasses three signatures to refund a customer. A salesperson creates fictitious accounts because the target was designed in the same place as unicorns. All have broken rules. Only a lazy leader would call them the same.

Gill proposes two questions: Was the conduct constructive or destructive? Was it a personal choice or a response to the situation? These questions do not excuse wrongdoing; they identify what must be fixed. Our organisations often demand compliance and reward contradiction. “Never compromise the process,” says the boss at 10:00 am. “I do not care how; deliver the number,” says the same boss at 10:05. By lunch, the employee has understood the policy. Incentives write the operating constitution.

Begin with inquiry before verdict. Ask what happened, why, who benefited, what pressure existed, and whether the behaviour is repeated. A show-cause notice should seek the cause, not merely stage a show. Second, define non-negotiable boundaries. Bribery, fraud, harassment, safety violations, data abuse, deliberate regulatory breaches, and personal enrichment require firm consequences. Good intentions cannot turn a forged invoice into a leadership experiment.

Third, separate intent from impact. A well-meaning action causing damage needs correction, but coaching may be more useful than public execution. Conversely, someone producing results through deception should not become “innovator of the month.” Fourth, examine patterns. If many employees bypass the same approval, perhaps the workforce has not suddenly become criminal. The rule may be slow, unclear, outdated, or incompatible with reality. Repeated workarounds are often unpaid consultancy from the frontline.

Fifth, repair incentives. Boards should test whether targets, deadlines, collection pressure, and bonuses quietly encourage what compliance teams loudly condemn. Managers must be judged not only on what they deliver, but how. Finally, establish trusted reporting channels, protect those who speak up, and review cases across HR, legal, risk, and operations. Consistency does not mean identical punishment for unequal conduct.

The Ethics & Compliance Initiative reported that 65 percent of employees observed workplace misconduct in 2023. Misconduct will not disappear through thicker manuals or louder speeches. As Gill’s research suggests, the goal is to understand it better.

Bangladesh needs leaders who can enforce boundaries without switching off their brains. Before asking, “Whom shall we punish?” they should ask, “What is this incident teaching us?” Otherwise, every inquiry will catch a culprit, while the real offender, the system, continues receiving its bonus.

The writer is the founder of BuildCon Consultancies Ltd and BuildNation Ltd