I recently came across this policy in a library’s rulebook:
Motorcycles: Must not be ridden inside library facilities.
My guess is that one time (probably in the 1980s), someone rode a motorcycle inside the library.
In response, the library created a new rule “to make sure it never happens again.”
This feels reasonable. It is not.
Why?
Merely having a rule doesn’t stop anything.
I doubt there was anyone who was planning on riding a motorcycle in the library who paused to check the rulebook first.
You CANNOT add a rule for everything someone might ever do wrong.
Can I drive a car into the library? (The rules only mentioned motorcycles). Also, the rule only says motorcycles cannot be “ridden” inside. Am I allowed to push my motorcycle inside? Can I bring a bag of live cobras? (The rules make no mention whatsoever of venomous snakes).
You don’t need to have a rule about every possible situation.
Good rules do not try to protect against every dumb thing someone might do.
Good rules protect against damage, danger and disruption.
A rule against doing anything that could damage library property would prohibit motorcycles (ridden or pushed). A rule against doing anything dangerous would prohibit live cobras. A rule against disrupting other people’s use of the library would prevent tuba lessons.
It is harmful to have unnecessary rules.
Every time you add a new rule, it dilutes the other rules. People will read a few rules. They will not read a lot of rules. This is true for the staff also!
Ryan’s Rules for Rules
Rules should be:
- As simple as possible.
- As clear as possible.
- As short as possible.
- As few as possible.
- As jargon-free as possible.
How the rules are written matters.
How the rules are enforced matters even more!
This week take a peak at your rules and see if there are any that exist because of one weird incident.
Then ask what you’re trying to prevent.
Have a great week!
Ryan