Policy as Proxy Leadership

Rules Don’t Lead People. Leaders Do.

Issue 257, March 26, 2026

A vice president of operations I worked with at a client recently described a moment that stayed with me. She had been trying to approve a temporary staffing adjustment for one of her regional offices related to a short-term initiative that would increase the load on the customer service team. A decision well within her scope of responsibility. It should have taken a phone call and a signature. Instead, it required three levels of approval, two policy reviews, and a compliance check that added nearly two weeks to what should have been a same-day action.

By the time the approval came through, the adjustment was no longer needed as the initiative had ended and the increased demands in customer service had abated. The problem it was meant to solve had the impact foreseen. Customer Service experienced significant increases in customer interactions, many of which they couldn’t handle.

When she first raised the issue with the leadership team, the response was troubling. “We have to follow the process and procedures.” She told me, “The process didn’t protect anything. It just made sure nobody had to be responsible for saying yes in an efficient manner.”

That story is far more common than most organizations would like to admit. And it points to something deeper than process inefficiency. It points to a pattern I see across industries, sectors, and organizational sizes: the quiet substitution of policy for leadership and acceptance of risk and responsibility.

In many organizations, policy is treated as a marker of maturity. The thicker the handbook, the more “disciplined” the organization appears. The more procedures documented, the more “controlled” the environment feels. Leaders point to policy as evidence of rigor, alignment, and accountability. It signals to stakeholders, regulators, and boards that the organization takes governance seriously.

But spend enough time inside these systems and a different pattern emerges. One that is less about rigor and more about avoidance. Policy, in many organizations, is not a reflection of strong leadership. It is a substitute for it.

It creates an environment of control that is often so rigid and inflexible that when pivoting is needed, when a response to a market shift is necessary, or when a competitive force compels innovation, there is no path to take efficiently or effectively.

The Genesis of Over-Policy

The monster is often inspired by a moment of failure. A decision goes wrong. A risk materializes. Someone exercises poor judgment, and the consequences are visible enough to create organizational discomfort. In response, the organization does what feels responsible: it creates a rule. A new approval layer. A new checklist. A new escalation path. Something to ensure that “this never happens again.”

And for a few moments, it feels like progress. The organization has responded. A gap has been closed. But over time, these moments accumulate. Policies stack. Procedures expand. What began as a targeted response becomes a dense web of controls that quietly shapes how work gets done (or not). Not through judgment. Not through critical thinking and problem-solving. Simply through compliance. Not through engagement and discussion. Simply through enforcement.

What starts as a correction becomes an accumulation.

In Humanocracy, Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini document the scale of this phenomenon with striking clarity.

Hamel and Zanini found that post-bureaucratic organizations enjoy a 30 to 50 percent productivity advantage over their more rule-bound peers, not because they lack structure, but because they have learned to distinguish between structure that enables and structure that constrains.

That distinction matters enormously. And it is one that most organizations and their leaders fail to make.

The Shift from Judgment to Compliance

The transition is subtle as each new or refined policy, procedure, or process takes hold in isolation. Each individual initiative, in sum, becomes consequential. As policies accumulate, leaders begin to rely less on developing people’s ability to think and more on designing systems that prevent them from needing to. Decisions narrow. Discretion shrinks. Creativity and adaptation evaporate. Context disappears. Work becomes less about understanding and more about following. And in that transition, something critical is lost: ownership.

Paul Adler and Bryan Borys, in their influential 1996 study published in Administrative Science Quarterly, drew a critical distinction between what they called enabling formalization and coercive formalization.

Enabling formalization provides tools and frameworks that help people coordinate while preserving their ability to exercise discretion.

Coercive formalization constrains behavior through rigid rules and monitoring, treating employees as problems to be controlled rather than professionals to be supported.

Their research demonstrated that whether formalization improves or undermines employee commitment depends entirely on which type of formalization is in place. When rules are designed to support judgment, people engage. When rules are designed to replace judgment, people comply, and the difference between those two states is enormous.

A 2025 study in Public Management Review found results that reinforced Adler and Borys’ findings. Researchers examining public sector organizations found that excessive formalization and centralization directly frustrate employees’ psychological needs for autonomy and competence, the very needs that drive intrinsic motivation. Within routine bureaucratic structures, employees at the lower levels of the hierarchy feel the restrictions most acutely. They are disengaged because the system has removed the conditions under which engagement and exercising their skills is possible.

I wrote about a closely related dynamic in Issue 254 of this newsletter, Decision Theater, where I explored how organizations perform the rituals of decision-making without actually exercising authority. Policy as proxy leadership operates through a similar mechanism. The organization creates the appearance of governance and control while quietly removing the human judgment that makes governance needed and meaningful.

What Over-Policy Really Protects

If we are honest about what excessive policy actually accomplishes, the answer is rarely what organizations and their leaders claim. Policy is framed as protection for the organization. We will ensure compliance, we will minimize risk, and we will reduce/eliminate production or service errors.

In practice, it often functions as protection for leaders. Protection from difficult conversations about capability. Protection from investing in the slow, unglamorous work of leadership development. Protection from the discomfort of trusting people to navigate complexity, taking responsibility, assuming some level of risk, and occasionally getting it wrong.

It is easier to write a rule than to build human judgment. Easier to add a checkpoint than to coach an employee through a difficult decision. Easier to standardize behavior than to engage with the variability that comes from working with human beings in dynamic environments. And so the organization leans into what is easier. At scale.

This is where over-policy reveals itself for what it often is. Not rigor. But avoidance of things that are complicated, requiring investment of time and energy that many don’t want to expend.

The research supports this interpretation. Edward Deci and Richard Ryan’s self-determination theory, one of the most extensively validated frameworks in motivational psychology and supported by decades of empirical research, identifies autonomy as one of three core psychological needs that drive human performance and well-being, alongside competence and relatedness. Decades of research across organizational settings have demonstrated that when autonomy is supported, employees show higher levels of engagement, persistence, creativity, and psychological health.

When autonomy is undermined, whether through controlling management practices or excessive procedural constraints, the result is diminished motivation, reduced initiative, and a retreat into complete compliance behavior.

The implication is direct. When organizations layer policy upon policy, each one removing another degree of discretion, they are not just slowing operations. They are systematically dismantling the psychological conditions that allow people to do their best work.

The Paradox of Control

The irony is that the very problems policy is meant to solve begin to reappear in new forms. Decisions slow because everything requires multiple approvals. Innovation stalls because deviation feels risky and completely unsafe. Individual and group accountability diffuses because responsibility is embedded in process rather than owned by people. Leaders then find themselves in a paradox because more control results in the organization being less effective.

Research on high-reliability organizations offers a particularly instructive contrast. Karl Weick and Kathleen Sutcliffe, in their foundational work Managing the Unexpected, studied organizations that operate in environments where errors carry catastrophic consequences: nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers, and emergency medical systems. What they found challenged the conventional assumption that safety comes from rigid adherence to procedure. The most reliable organizations, the ones that consistently avoided disasters in conditions of extreme complexity, did not depend solely on rules. They cultivated what Weick and Sutcliffe call mindfulness: a collective capacity to notice subtle changes in operations, to defer to expertise rather than hierarchy, and to respond to the unexpected in real time rather than defaulting to procedure when procedure no longer fits. This speaks to what I share routinely about expertise, professional identity, and the necessity for leveraging critical thinking. Not every situation, set of variables, or events fits well with procedures that seek to control.

Weick and Sutcliffe’s five principles of high-reliability organizing are revealing in the context of our exploration today. Their principles include: Preoccupation with failure. Reluctance to simplify. Sensitivity to operations. Commitment to resilience. Deference to expertise. None of these principles calls for more rules. All of them call for more human judgment. They describe productive organizations as having learned to trust their people to think, to notice, and to act, within boundaries that are clear but not suffocating.

This is the distinction most organizations miss. The goal is not to eliminate variability. It is to guide it. Process is important, policy is often necessary and constructive. Some guardrails are required and productive.

Leadership, however one seeks to believe otherwise, lives in ambiguity, in the moments where rules do not neatly apply, where context matters more than precedent, where the right answer depends on factors that no policy manual could anticipate. When policy becomes the primary mechanism for leading an organization, for managing work, leaders quietly step away from that responsibility. They trade engagement for enforcement. Judgment for documentation. Presence for process.

What People Learn When Policy Leads

Over time, people adapt. They stop asking, “What is the right thing to do?” and start asking, “What does the policy say?” Not because they lack capability, but because the system has taught them that judgment is risky. If you follow the policy, you are safe. If you exercise discretion, you are exposed. So they comply, even when the policy no longer fits the situation, creates friction, or slows the work. Because the system has made one thing clear: adherence is valued more than thinking.

I explored a parallel dynamic in Issue 256 of this newsletter, Structural Silence, where I examined how organizations quietly train people not to speak up by making silence the safer choice. Over-policy operates through the same behavioral logic. The system does not explicitly tell people to stop using their judgment. It simply makes the consequences of following rules more comfortable than the consequences of thinking independently. Over time, the pattern becomes self-reinforcing. People comply, leaders interpret compliance as alignment and feel they are in complete control, and the organization continues to add more policies to address the problems that compliance alone could never solve.

This is the behavioral feedback loop that makes over-policy so difficult to reverse. The more rules the organization creates, the less judgment people exercise. The less judgment people exercise, the more the organization concludes it needs rules. Each cycle reinforces the one before it, and the distance between leadership and the actual work grows wider with every iteration.

The Leadership Illusion of Clarity

Leaders who rely too heavily on policy often believe they are creating clarity. What they are often creating is distance. Distance from the work. Distance from the people doing it. Distance from the decisions that actually matter.

Policy cannot interpret context. It cannot sense nuance. It cannot adapt in real time. Only people can do that. And when the system has spent years training people not to do those things, the organization loses the very capability it needs most when conditions change, when the environment becomes volatile, when the playbook no longer applies.

I referenced this idea in Episode 016 of the Human Factor Podcast, The Middle Management Trap, where I discussed how organizations set their most critical change agents up to fail by placing them in roles where they hold responsibility without genuine authority. Over-policy amplifies that trap. It gives middle managers the illusion of a framework while stripping them of the discretion they need to actually lead. They become administrators of rules rather than architects of outcomes. And the organization wonders why its change or transformation efforts stall or completely fail.

When the people responsible for operating within the system describe it as unmanageable, the system is no longer serving its intended purpose. It has become a burden that consumes attention, erodes morale, and diverts energy away from the work the organization actually needs to accomplish.

Repositioning Policy

Reversing this pattern does not mean eliminating policy. Policy serves important functions. It establishes legal and regulatory compliance. It protects people and organizations from genuine risk. It provides a shared framework that allows large groups of people to operate with some degree of consistency. Those are real contributions, and they should not be dismissed.

But repositioning policy means asking a different question about its role. The question is not whether policy is necessary. It is what role policy is playing. Is it enabling judgment? Or replacing it?

Adler and Borys’ framework, discussed previously, is useful here.

Most organizations do not consciously choose coercive formalization. They drift into it, one incident-response policy at a time, until the accumulated weight of rules has quietly reshaped the culture. Reversing that drift requires leaders to do something that feels counterintuitive: to deliberately create space for judgment in a system that has been designed to eliminate it.

That means reviewing existing policies not for compliance gaps but for judgment gaps. Where has discretion been removed unnecessarily? Where are approval layers adding time without adding value? Where are people defaulting to process because the organization has made it clear that thinking independently carries more risk than following a procedure that everyone knows is outdated?

It also means pairing policy with an explicit expectation of judgment. That expectation has to be modeled. Leaders have to step back into the work. Into the ambiguity. Into the conversations that policy was quietly designed to avoid. They have to coach, not just enforce. Engage, not just document. Decide, not just defer. I wrote about this requirement in Issue 255, The Myth of Cross-Functional Collaboration, where I observed that structure cannot substitute for leadership. The same principle applies here. Policy cannot substitute for presence.

The Leadership Responsibility

At its core, leadership is not a system of rules. It is a human capability. It requires the willingness to be present in moments of uncertainty, to make calls that carry consequences, and to trust that the people you lead are capable of more than the policy manual assumes.

The organizations I work with that navigate complexity most effectively share a common characteristic. Yes, they have policies, often a comprehensive set. But their policies exist in service of judgment, not in place of it. Their leaders are visible in the decision-making process, not hidden behind layers of approval or the complete minimization of risk. Their people feel empowered to think, not just to follow. And when things go wrong, as they inevitably do, the response is not to add another rule. The response is to invest in the people and leadership practices that will produce better judgment next time.

The question every leader should ask is not whether their organization has enough policy. It is whether their organization has enough leadership to make policy what it should be: a foundation, not a replacement.

Because when policy replaces leadership, the organization doesn’t become safer. It becomes slower, quieter, and far less capable of responding when it matters most.

And no handbook, however thick, will ever solve it.

Join the Conversation

Have you seen policy quietly replace leadership in your organization?

What strategies have you used to reintroduce judgment and discretion into over-regulated environments?

I would love to hear your perspective.

Share your thoughts with me on LinkedIn or subscribe to Ideas and Innovations for weekly insights on leadership, transformation, and the human side of organizational change.