Requirements that appear logical and safe from an organisational or management perspective are often incomprehensible to employees in the day-to-day reality of their work: time pressure, conflicting goals, a lack of resources or social pressure within the team make it impossible, from their point of view, to comply with the requirements.
What then looks like “non-compliance” is often the (unconscious) attempt to deal with systemic tensions – in the sense of: “That’s just how it works here.”
Human Factors Science calls this Work as Done – actual working practice – as opposed to Work as Imagined (working practice as it was designed or prescribed).
So what should be done?
The short answer: anyone who responds with control or sanctions falls short and risks not only long-term damage to the system, but also a loss of trust with lasting effects.
Which leads to the long answer:
A key concept in this context is compliance – behaviour that conforms to formal requirements. In practice, however, there is often a discrepancy here. People act against the rules in order to ensure both efficiency and safety – for instance, because a regulation is not practicable in reality. In such cases, a rigid interpretation of compliance is counterproductive and even dangerous.
The first step is therefore to assume that people have one (or more) reasons for not complying with requirements, and then to try to understand why the requirements are not being followed. This involves observation, open conversations, psychological safety – and a genuine interest in the challenges employees face.
Typical reasons for deviating from rules include, for example:
- Requirements conflict with productivity or efficiency goals, or are unknown.
- The requirement seems detached from reality / pointless and / or makes the workflow more difficult.
- Informal routines have become established – “this is how we do it here”.
- There is social pressure to conform to the group norm.
Social pressure in particular plays an underestimated role:
Anyone working in a team in which safety requirements are regarded as bureaucratic or “theoretical” risks exclusion if they comply with them nonetheless. Such group norms generally influence behaviour more strongly than written requirements.
On this basis, three strategic approaches can be derived:
- Let the system learn: if a rule is regularly violated even though it is well-intentioned or perceived as such, the system should learn from this. Perhaps the requirement is unknown, impracticable or contradicts other requirements. In that case, adaptation is needed rather than enforcement.
- Let the organisation clarify: if conflicting goals, unclear leadership messages or social group norms undermine the rule, an organisation is needed that takes a clear stance. Compliance must not apply on paper only – it has to be supported by leadership, communication and structure.
- Focus on competencies rather than rules: if the rule itself makes sense but does not always fit, employees must be equipped with the relevant decision-making competencies and the necessary trust to be able to choose their response according to the situation. This requires targeted communication, training and clear backing from leadership.
Conclusion: deviation from “logical” or “safe” requirements is rarely an expression of unwillingness. It is often silent feedback to the organisation – about contradictions, blind spots and unspoken expectations.
Human Factors Science helps us to see compliance not as a mere instrument of control, but as the expression of a system that wants to learn – from what works and from what does not. Black Elephant Advisory will, of course, be glad to help make these contradictions, blind spots and unspoken expectations visible.