If you prefer to listen to this post, an audio version is available here…

---

Recently, my business partner and I worked on an organizational culture project that took us to a couple of accounting firms in different parts of the globe. Unsurprisingly, since financial services, along with healthcare, aviation, and many other industries that depend on the public’s trust, are highly regulated, we heard a lot of talk about compliance.

At one firm, a value widely expressed by employees – though certainly never put on the wall or in the company’s marketing materials – was “comply or die.” While it was meant humorously, of course, it got me thinking about the underlying fear and worry suggested by that mantra.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for rules that protect me as an investor, a patient, an airline passenger, etc. How organizations help employees adhere to those rules is where I think there is a potential for unhealthy, and perhaps even detrimental, impacts to occur – for the organizations, the employees, and the public whose trust compliance is meant to build.

For example, when a failure to comply with a rule or standard is viewed as a punishable offense rather than an opportunity to learn, fear sets in. Worry shows up when employees try, without adequate support, to balance tensions like compliance expectations of documenting decisions and avoiding risk with operational pressures of reducing administrative burdens and innovating.

When compliance becomes more about checking boxes than ensuring the purposes are met, it can be seen as primarily protective of the organization rather than as helping employees succeed for themselves and the benefits of those they serve. Prioritizing measurement and reporting can generate performative behaviors or lead employees to create informal workarounds or present overly favorable information to look as good as possible on paper. While I don’t condone such behaviors, I think the fixes lie more with the systems than the individual employees.

How are risks evaluated? What behaviors are being rewarded? How is learning encouraged? What messages are communicated about the “why” behind the rules?

For example, could language around rules be less detached and directive and more relational and participatory? The rules will still exist. They will still need to be followed.

The invitation for organizations is to embed into their cultures compliance as a valued responsibility to the public’s (and other stakeholders’) trust, guided by professional integrity, rather than an obligatory administrative requirement.