The standard you ignore becomes the standard you accept

What people learn when leaders look the other way

Police supervisor walking past a messy break-room counter while two officers watch.

One of the easiest ways to lower a standard is to do nothing. I don’t have to change a policy or announce a new rule. I can just see the same problem enough times and keep walking past it. Eventually, everybody figures out that whatever the written rule says, this is what we actually accept.

That can start with something small. A bad report gets through. Somebody is always late. Equipment gets left a mess. Most problems don’t need to start with discipline, and the first time may not need anything more than a conversation.

But if I see it again, and again, and I’m still treating every occurrence like the first time I’ve heard about it, I’m not maintaining the standard anymore. I’m teaching a new one.

That’s why accountability starts with clear expectations for me. I want the person to know what the problem is and have a fair chance to correct it. Once we’ve done that, though, the same problem isn’t still just a misunderstanding because dealing with it is inconvenient.

Subscribe to Field Notes

The stories and ideas I don’t want you to miss.

And sometimes it is inconvenient. The person may be good at the job. We may already be short-staffed. They may be popular, difficult to replace, or such a pain in the ass to deal with that ignoring the problem seems easier. I’ve worked in places where losing one person can create a very real operational problem.

None of that changes what everybody else is watching.

The employees doing it right usually know before anybody else when a standard has become optional. They’re writing the report correctly, showing up when they’re supposed to, keeping their equipment straight, or doing whatever else we’ve told them is expected while watching somebody else get a pass.

That doesn’t mean everybody gets the same response. An officer with a good history who screws something up once isn’t necessarily in the same place as somebody who’s been corrected five times. That’s fair treatment, not favoritism.

But I should be able to explain the difference without the explanation coming down to who I like, who I don’t want to lose, or who I don’t feel like confronting.

A policy can’t maintain a standard for me. If everybody knows what the rule says but also knows nothing usually happens when somebody ignores it, the rule isn’t really the standard anymore.

What I’ve been willing to accept is.

SHARE
|

Subscribe to Field Notes

The stories and ideas I don’t want you to miss.

You Also Might Like

  • Humanoid robot pointing to paperwork as a supervisor reviews and signs documents across from an employee.

    When human review becomes a rubber stamp

  • Police officer sitting beside a packed box in a locker room, considering leaving the job.

    Sometimes quitting is the responsible career decision

  • Two patrol officers talking beside a marked police car after a routine call, representing police partnership and trust built during ordinary shifts.

    What End of Watch understands about partnership

  • A police officer talks with four people beside a black Chevrolet Tahoe at a crowded outdoor field party at night.

    Twenty years of experience or one year repeated twenty times?

  • Police employee reviews license plate search records while a supervisor examines an audit log.

    If one employee can abuse a police system 2,700 times, that’s not just an employee problem

  • A white humanoid robot sits on a throne flanked by robot guards while a group of people gathers below.

    They put the AI in charge before it was ready