Rules—like laws—exist to civilize chaos. In the service industry, they promise fairness and consistency—noble aims, until they ossify into dogma. When employees are reduced to rule-spouting mannequins, the result isn’t order but inertia. A workforce trained to obey rather than think will reliably deliver less than it could, while the system smugly applauds its own mediocrity.
Some rules deserve reverence. Call them red zone: safety, legality, ethics. These are nonnegotiable. But most rules aren’t red zone. They’re yellow. And yellow rules, when treated as sacred, become absurd. They’re guidelines, not commandments. They exist to be interpreted—not enforced with the zeal of a customs officer confiscating a banana.
Discretion isn’t anarchy. It demands boundaries—but also trust. Define what staff can spend, compromise, accommodate, decide, and deviate from. Give them the rationale behind the rule, not just the regulation. Teach them to think, not to flinch.
Consider the Ritz-Carlton. Every employee—from housekeeper to concierge—is authorized to spend up to $2,000 per guest, per incident, without managerial approval, to resolve a problem or elevate an experience. It sounds extravagant—and admittedly, most issues won’t come close to needing a four-figure remedy. But that’s not the point. The policy isn’t about the literal dollar amount. It’s about the psychological effect of front-loading trust. The generous limit signals deep belief in the employee’s judgment. It liberates staff to act decisively and without hesitation.
That kind of empowerment transforms service into ownership. It fuels morale, initiative, and personal investment in outcomes. For guests, it delivers not just swift resolutions—but memorable gestures. These are moments that forge lasting emotional loyalty. They’re not indulgences. Ritz sees them as smart calculations—acts of discretionary judgment with an eye toward the lifetime value of a loyal customer. Ritz-Carlton knows it can’t buy loyalty with rules, but it can earn it with discretion.
Idea for Impact: Good employees should be allowed to break good rules
Fear is the enemy of judgment. A workforce trained to avoid mistakes will never achieve excellence. The best service isn’t delivered by smiling bureaucrats. It’s delivered by people trusted to use their brains. A rule is only as good as the judgment behind its use.
It’s not pressure that breaks people—it’s pretending it isn’t there. Your job isn’t to shield your team from pressure, but to sharpen their
Some managers inspire loyalty. Others, despite good intentions, slowly drain morale. This isn’t about tyrants—it’s about the well-meaning but unaware. If your team looks tense every Monday, there’s probably a reason.
There’s an old joke about the Soviet Union’s approach to industrial planning. It’s been told so often it’s
Southwest Airlines didn’t rise to prominence through spreadsheets or sycophancy. It was built by a jolly, chain-smoking Texas lawyer named .jpg)
Organizations often face a moral dilemma when confronting high-performing individuals—those rainmakers whose charisma and drive yield tangible results (Jack Welch’s .jpg)
Another heavyweight in consumer goods, Diageo, has entered a 
Life admin—the endless personal tasks like making appointments, coordinating with kids or a spouse, switching insurance, paying bills, responding to personal emails, dealing with financial issues, and managing shopping returns. It’s the behind-the-scenes work that keeps life running smoothly.
The Stakhanov Movement capitalized on the collective desire for improvement and transformation, leading to increased productivity through better-organized workflows. However, as often happens, when metrics become the sole focus, they overshadow the true purpose of the work. In the Soviet system, the state had to ensure control over production, align workers’ efforts with central economic plans, and maximize output. Quotas played a key role in this strategy, setting mandatory production targets across various industries. Over time, these quotas became the primary measure of success, with workers judged by numbers rather than the quality or long-term impact of their efforts. Those who failed to meet the targets risked being labeled as “wreckers” and accused of sabotaging the system. Stakhanovites were celebrated as heroes, rewarded with media attention, lavish rewards, and even having their names immortalized on factories and streets.