In complex environments, failure rarely comes from a lack of rules.
- Rules serve a purpose.
Procedures create stability.
Standards build consistency.
They help people coordinate action, reduce variation and preserve what has already been learned. But they work best when the situation remains close to the conditions for which they were designed. The difficulty begins when reality changes.
Markets shift. Customers behave differently. Technology moves. Supply chains strain. Regulations evolve. Weak signals appear. The workarounds increase. The old procedure is still being followed, but the situation it was designed for no longer fully exists.
This is where judgement matters. When organisations become over-reliant on rules, procedures and standards in a complex and constantly changing environment, people may continue to comply while the system quietly drifts away from reality.
People stop asking:
- Is this right?
and start asking: - Is this allowed?
This is the quiet transition:
- thinking → following
- responsibility → adherence
- learning → compliance
And eventually: compliance → complacency
Chris Argyris demonstrated that there’s a difference between what organisations claim to do and what they actually do. (Argyris, 1977).
When compliance dominates:
- espoused values remain intact,
- but behaviour becomes constrained by rules.
Judgement is no longer exercised. It is deferred.
In complex systems, this is dangerous.
Rules are built on:
- past experience,
- partial understanding,
- and conditions that may no longer exist.
They cannot anticipate:
- novelty,
- interaction effects,
- or unintended consequences.
Only judgement can do that.
As Dave Snowden has consistently warned, applying rule-based approaches in complex contexts fosters the illusion of control while diminishing the system’s capacity to adapt. (Snowden, 2003).
The risk is not obvious at first. Compliance creates:
- consistency,
- auditability,
- and a sense of order.
But beneath that surface:
- questioning declines,
- responsibility diffuses,
- and learning slows down.
Until eventually, the system can no longer respond when it needs to.
This is where ethics becomes critical.
- Not as a value statement.
- But as a constraint on action.
Because when judgement is replaced by compliance:
- no one owns the outcome,
- decisions are justified after the fact,
- and consequences are absorbed by the system.
Ethics is what restores judgement.
It forces the question:
Should we do this?
—not just—
Can we?
A compliant organisation may appear well run.
A judgement-based organisation is resilient.
If people are no longer required to think, the system is already at risk.
Explore further
This article connects to the broader framework:
- Ethical Domain — how constraints shape decisions
- Sensemaking Domain — how organisations interpret reality
- Relational Domain — how trust and coordination emerge
- Learning Domain — how knowledge is created and tested
- Action Domain — how intent becomes capability
To understand more on Purpose detailed Subject Areas, visit the Deep Dive section.
📖See the Books
Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard business review, 55(5), 115–125.
Snowden, D. J. (2003). The knowledge you need, right when you need it. Knowledge Management Review, 5, 24–27.