By John Grubbs

We have all heard the horror stories regarding zero tolerance policies in the past.  Stories about a teenager being expelled for having a Tylenol in her purse or a five year old removed from the classroom for bringing a toy gun to school are recent examples that have generated buzz in the press.  Most of us laugh at the ridiculousness of such examples and consider them to be the exception rather than the rule for today’s society.  Why do such policies exist and what purpose do these extreme measures provide the organization?  Do such extreme positions provide any benefit?  How does such a policy reflect on the leadership within these organizations?  And finally, what might be the cost for an organization that must act upon the violation of such a policy?

Zero tolerance can be commonly defined as the policy of applying laws or penalties to even minor infringements of a code in order to reinforce its overall importance and enhance deterrence.  This can seem to be an optimal approach to controlling behavior at first glance.  However, when we look at the implications of such a policy, the actual end-result often leaves much to be desired from a leadership point of view. 

The attempt to prevent negative behavior in some team members by the threat of sever punishment is similar to “making an example of one person” in order to scare others into compliance.  This threat and fear methodology does not require leadership and in most cases actually hinders the leader by creating feelings of mistrust on the team.  Potential followers tend to base actions on minimizing the threat of failure rather than creating an opportunity to be successful. 

Yet, many organizations actually see value in this myopic and leaderless methodology for managing human behavior.  The argument that might be made to defend a zero tolerance policy is that we are treating everyone exactly the same no matter what the circumstance.  And indeed this would be true.  However, the problem with this logic is that as human beings our motivation and rationalization of events are as unique as our fingerprints.  We simply cannot objectively prescribe behavior and its implications ahead of time.  These archaic methods for management never promote leadership and are actually a very poor attempt at disguising the literal absence of leadership.  Too many organizations would rather punish the innocent rather than deal with an individual situation its accompanying risk.

Most rational people actually laugh at the ridiculous outcomes of a zero tolerance policy that is put to the test.  The idea of such policies and the perspective in application are often opposite.  In other words, it may look good on paper and satisfy some legalistic need while looking completely absurd in actual application.  The managers of these “tested” organizations often look like complete “idiots” when public scrutiny applies the rational consideration test to a zero tolerance policy. 

The truth however is much more fascinating.  Many readers will acknowledge that the current organization they belong to does have and will continue to have (possibly many) these policies that actually undermine true leadership.  The momentum of the past cannot easily be stopped and change is truly difficult without key people assuming leadership positions within the organization.  A Harvard study discovered the amazing fact that seventy percent of all change efforts fail.  Another study revealed that mismanaging change is the primary reason why executives get fired.   This fear of failure is what separates managers from leaders.  Eliminating a policy that protects those afraid to lead takes great courage.  This rare courage exists in leaders that are willing to break from organizational paradigms and traditions and actually lead change.  Even if positive, change is a psychological shock to our emotional systems.  We may even seem content with a generally agreed poor status quo rather than endure the emotional investment required to change.

Organizations that adopt and maintain zero tolerance policies tend to be very bureaucratic in nature.  School districts, government agencies and other similar organizations struggle greatly with true leadership.  Success is based less on performance and more on tenure and entitlement.  When someone is more concerned for the organization than the people the organization serves, purpose becomes inverted.  Leadership is less appealing and the concept of security becomes priority.  Leadership becomes perverted when the idea that any organization and its existence serves a greater purpose (greater good) than any one individual.  Great organizations and leaders must be willing to risk everything to protect the smallest among them!