Recent events regarding prominent political figures possibly refusing to follow the rules that they set for others (and I stress the word 'possibly' as this has not yet been proven), provokes thoughts of the age old debate...

Should there be some rules for some and some rules for others...?

The quick answer is probably not, it seems inherently unfair, but also, people are different and have different roles and responsibilities. When we turn this question towards leaders and the people that they lead, this question warrants thought…

So the big, obvious point is that everything should be fair; but does fair mean the same? In a lot of instances yes it does, fairness when sharing apples, is generally seen as everyone having the same amount of apples…

Different Roles

However, when we examine the complexities of applying rules to what people have to do, in a company, we have to look at the different roles that exist. 

To simplify, let's look at managers and the people they manage...

So on the one hand, managers should model what they ask others to do so that those people know:

• That it is the right thing to do
• To aspire to be like their leaders.
• How to carry out those tasks
• That those leaders do not feel themselves above those tasks 
• That those leaders do not feel themselves above the people that have to do the tasks

All in all, those factors inspire a sense of being 'in it together', equality and team spirit.

On the other hand, leaders have proven themselves in this company or another, to be responsible, perhaps to a greater degree than those they manage.

Wiggle Room?

They may have less time to carry out those tasks or live by those rules as a result of the demands of their roles or may have access to information that means they can break those rules or not carry out those tasks without as much risk as those people without access to that information.

There may even be room for some people to break the rules, as long as everyone does not break them without the company suffering an ill consequence, so who should get the wiggle room? 

Perhaps those leaders that have proven themselves to be so responsible?

The easy answer is to say that we should treat everyone the same, the real answer is that some people will always feel/be/act outside of the rules, the hard question is who should we allow to get away with it if anyone? 

Who do you allow to get away with rules? And is this ok?