Leaders live in the tension between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Policies and procedures exist for good reasons. So does judgment. Recently I faced a choice where a technicality could have blocked the outcome that best served the mission. It reminded me: rules are tools, not the goal.
The principle
Honor the rule and the reason the rule exists. If they conflict, slow down, make the intent explicit, and choose the path that best serves the mission within ethical and legal boundaries. Then document the decision so the organization gets smarter.
A simple test I use
Before I commit, I run five quick checks:
- Purpose — What outcome was this rule designed to protect, and does our action advance that purpose?
- People — Who is helped or harmed by a strict reading vs a principled exception?
- Principle — Which core values are at stake (equity, transparency, stewardship, safety)?
- Precedent — If we do this once, what happens the tenth time, and can we explain the line?
- Process — If an exception is right, who approves it, and how will we record it?
If I cannot answer these clearly, we hold the line until we can.
Guardrails for exceptions
Exceptions should be rare and reasoned, transparent to those affected, and documented with context, options, and rationale. They should be equitable (same treatment for the same facts) and revisited later with a brief outcomes check. If the exception becomes common, fix the rule.
How I communicate it
Holding the line: “ The rule exists to protect ___. In this case a strict read serves that purpose, so we will follow the policy and log improvements for later.”
Granting an exception: “ Our purpose here is ___. A strict read would work against that purpose. With approval from ___, we will make a one-time exception, document it, and return with language to clarify how similar cases will be handled.”
When to follow the letter
- The action would create unfair advantage or undermine safety/compliance.
- Speed or convenience is driving the decision more than mission.
- We could not defend the reasoning in writing or in daylight.
A lighter-weight process
Three steps keep us out of the weeds:
- Name the intent — one sentence on what the rule protects.
- Map the options — strict apply, principled exception, or propose a revision.
- Decide and document — confirm the decider/approver, record the why, and set a review date.
Why this matters
Organizations drift into two ditches: rule worship (no judgment) or rule breaking (no consistency). The middle path — principled judgment, applied transparently — builds trust and gets better outcomes for the people we serve.
Leadership move
This month, pick one friction-heavy policy. Write its purpose in one sentence, add a simple exception path using the five checks above, and schedule a 90-day review. You will reduce noise and increase fairness.
