There are some people branded for being a stickler to policy. I will not deny that I am a stickler especially when I have a clear conscience abiding by it (meaning not using it as a means of escape).
I wouldn't mind being branded as such when I know that it will be for the benefit of many. I would not mind it if it is the way that we could set direction and account for our actions. I would not mind it if it will be the way of setting control and discipline to some misguided heads. I would not mind it if it would set straight and drive home points especially to the young on how to behave, how to respect themselves and others, how to have the right attitude, how to be just and fair. I would not mind it if it is the way that I can show my respect to life and God's creatures.
So too is: Policy is respect for superiors. Policy is obedience. The boss has the "last say", the boss is always right, the boss must be followed. Following that thought would it then be a sin of omission to disregard the implementation of a policy when asked for the sake of convenience, accommodation, saving face or avoidance of conflict?
Is it bad then to be a stickler of rules? When is it right to say to better ignore or disobey it than create trouble?
I believe that when a policy is deemed obsolete then all efforts should be done to review, amend or scrap it all together to avoid commotion, misunderstanding, and chaos. But when the implementation is selective, it just can't be... it is unfair!
No comments:
Post a Comment