Every Time You Write a Policy, Ask Yourself One Question
I work with a lot of law firms that have a policy for everything.
PTO.
Remote work.
Office hours.
Email response times.
Dress codes.
Technology use.
Approval processes.
And then a policy explaining the exception to the policy.
Sometimes those policies are absolutely necessary.
But sometimes, when I dig into why a particular policy exists, I hear something like this:
"Well, we had an employee who..."
And there it is.
One person.
One situation.
One problem.
And an entire organization-wide policy was created in response.
So every time a firm tells me it needs a new policy, I think leadership should ask one question first:
Am I solving a system problem—or avoiding a management conversation?
The answer matters more than you might think.
Good Policies Create Clarity
Let me be clear.
I'm not anti-policy.
Law firms need policies.
They create consistency.
They establish expectations.
They provide guidance for managers.
They help employees understand how the organization operates.
Certain policies are also necessary for legal, compliance, and risk-management reasons.
The goal isn't to eliminate policies.
It's to be intentional about why they exist.
A good policy solves an organizational need.
A bad policy often solves one uncomfortable situation by creating unnecessary rules for everyone else.
One Employee Shouldn't Dictate How Everyone Else Is Managed
I've seen this pattern repeatedly.
One employee abuses PTO.
Leadership tightens PTO rules.
One person is consistently unavailable while working remotely.
Everyone is required to return to the office.
One employee takes advantage of a flexible schedule.
The firm implements rigid working hours.
The original problem involved one person.
The solution affects fifty.
That's rarely the best answer.
Every Policy Has a Cost
Policies may not appear on your financial statements.
But they absolutely have a cost.
Every new policy creates some amount of:
administrative work
management oversight
approval time
employee friction
organizational complexity
Sometimes those costs are worth it.
But sometimes firms accumulate so many rules that employees spend more time navigating the system than exercising good judgment.
That's when policies stop supporting the organization and start slowing it down.
Every Policy Is a Tax on Your Best Employees
Your highest performers are usually the people who need the fewest rules.
They show up.
They deliver.
They take care of clients.
They communicate.
They exercise good judgment.
Then someone else abuses a privilege.
And suddenly the high performer has:
another approval to request
another form to complete
another restriction to follow
They didn't create the problem.
But they're paying the price for it.
That's why I often say:
Every unnecessary policy is a tax on your best employees.
The more rules you create to manage your lowest performers, the more friction you create for your highest performers.
Sometimes You Don't Need a Policy. You Need a Conversation.
This is where leadership comes in.
If one employee is abusing PTO, have the conversation.
If someone isn't productive while working remotely, address their performance.
If an attorney is consistently missing deadlines, hold them accountable.
If a team member is taking advantage of flexibility, clarify expectations.
Not every uncomfortable situation needs to become organizational infrastructure.
Sometimes it needs to become a management conversation.
Ask Whether the Problem Is Individual or Systemic
Before writing a new policy, ask:
How many people are actually experiencing this problem?
If the answer is:
"Almost everyone,"
you may have a system problem.
You probably need:
clearer expectations
a better process
additional training
stronger infrastructure
or, yes, potentially a policy
But if the answer is:
"One person,"
you probably don't have a policy problem.
You have an individual performance problem.
Treating those two situations the same way creates unnecessary bureaucracy.
Policies Can Become a Substitute for Management
One of the reasons firms create policies is because policies feel objective.
They're easier to enforce.
Leadership doesn't have to tell someone:
"You're not meeting expectations."
Instead, they can say:
"This is our policy."
That's more comfortable.
But comfort isn't always good leadership.
Managers need to be capable of:
giving feedback
setting expectations
coaching performance
documenting problems
having difficult conversations
A policy can't replace those skills.
The Goal Is Consistency, Not Rigidity
One argument I hear in favor of detailed policies is:
"We need to treat everyone consistently."
I agree.
But consistency doesn't always mean treating every situation identically.
It means applying expectations fairly.
There is a difference.
Two employees can have the same flexible work arrangement.
One consistently delivers excellent results.
The other is unavailable, misses deadlines, and fails to communicate.
Those employees don't have a policy difference.
They have a performance difference.
Leadership should be able to address that distinction.
Professionals Should Be Allowed to Exercise Judgment
Law firms employ professionals.
That matters.
Attorneys, paralegals, administrators, and experienced staff make judgment calls every day.
They manage:
complex client matters
confidential information
deadlines
significant financial decisions
Yet some organizations create workplace policies so detailed that employees have almost no room to exercise basic professional judgment.
I think that's backwards.
Hire people you trust.
Set clear expectations.
Give them appropriate autonomy.
Then hold them accountable for the results.
If Someone Can't Exercise Judgment, Ask a Harder Question
At some point, firms need to be willing to ask:
"Do we have the right person?"
If an employee requires a policy covering every possible scenario to behave appropriately, the problem may not be the absence of a policy.
It may be the employee.
That's a harder issue to address.
But creating another rule doesn't solve it.
It simply delays the conversation.
Policies Should Protect Culture, Not Replace It
The healthiest cultures I've worked with don't rely on hundreds of rules to function.
They rely on:
clear expectations
strong leadership
trust
accountability
professional judgment
Policies support that foundation.
They don't create it.
A 150-page employee handbook can't compensate for weak management.
And a perfectly written PTO policy can't solve a performance problem leadership refuses to address.
The Real Question
The next time someone proposes a new policy, pause.
Before writing anything, ask:
Am I solving a system problem—or avoiding a management conversation?
If the problem is systemic, solve the system.
If the expectations are unclear, clarify them.
If the organization genuinely needs consistency, create the policy.
But if one person is the problem?
Manage the person.
Great Leadership Requires Judgment, Too
We talk a lot about expecting employees to exercise professional judgment.
Leadership has to do the same.
Not every situation needs a rule.
Not every exception needs a policy.
Not every problem needs to affect the entire organization.
Sometimes the best leadership decision is recognizing that the system isn't broken.
One person simply isn't meeting expectations.
And addressing that directly is often better for everyone.
If your law firm is accumulating more policies, approvals, and procedures but still struggling with accountability, the answer may not be another rule.
I help law firms build operational structures that create clarity without unnecessary bureaucracy—balancing trust, professional autonomy, and meaningful accountability so leaders can manage effectively and high performers can thrive.