It appears that high school football has done it again. I wrote a while back about a Florida school district that had suspended a well-intentioned coach and the homeless football player that he took in off the street because they'd violated some rule that doesn't allow players to live with adminstrators, teachers or coaches. I still don't really understand the point of the rule, but it's painfully obvious that, in that case, the "rule", had the coach followed it, would have kept a football player on the street.
This past week, in support of breast cancer, game officials in 140 different high school football games in the State of Washington used pink whistles, and donated their game paycheck to breast cancer research. A great thing, right? Not according to the head of the Washington Officials Association. He was, apparently, very angry that the officials didn't ask permission, and as of last weekend, planned to suspend the officials for two games (the playoffs) as punishment for violating the league "uniform" rules. I have to say, this is absolutely mind-boggling.
I understand the league's desire to present an air of uniformity and professionalism, but it's not like the ref's dyed their hair odd colors and dressed in uniforms made of raw meat (a la Lady Gaga) in order to make some statement. They were demonstrating support for a pretty universally acknowledged good cause: obliterating breast cancer. Again, this is the problem with rules: they are created in order to ensure bad things don't happen (like referees showing up in costumes made of meat), but they end up ALSO restricting good people doing very good things--because we "have to follow the rules". Nobody stops and thinks about the implication of enforcing the rules on a case by case basis; we just decide that we are going to "follow the rules'--even if it means we quash some really great things in the process.
The real tragedy is that so many people get jaded because of experiences like this. Incredible employees get laid off because there's a rule that says more "senior" employees (even if they are mediocre), get to stay around, while junior employees (even great ones) have to leave; the register operator at the local fast-food chain has to get three different supervisors involved in order to give me a refund for an overcharge on a recent visit; an innovative idea gets caught up in a quagmire and never sees the light of day because it wasn't submitted on the correct form. I understand the reasons for the rules in each of these (real) examples; but from a practical perspective, they're the stuff that Dilbert comics are made of.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: better organizations aren't driven by rigidly oppressive rules; they're governed by principles. Sure, principles are a lot more ambiguous than rules, and there's more "gray" area for someone with ill-intent to slip through the cracks, but principles also allow a whole lot of room for good people who want the freedom and ability to do good things, to be excellent.
