Introducing the Structure-Oriented Culture (Part 2): The Four Types of "Rules"
An Introduction to the Proper Use of Social Adhesives
NOTE: This article is part 2 of an introduction into my theory of the “structure-oriented culture,” which I admit, has to be one of the top ten worst names for something. So, while I’m eager to share what I’ve discovered, it’s possible this somewhat academic topic may not be your cup of tea. If not, you can just skip this article.
We are social animals, but while our individual bodies give us obviously separate physical boundaries, group boundaries are much more subtle, but no less important.
Most of us flow into and out of numerous different groups every day, with our roles changing subtly or dramatically depending on the circumstances, with roles like “parent,” “employee,” or “customer” being some of the most obvious ones.
And each of these contexts is governed by rules which we, and those we interact with, are expected to follow. While these rules are often implicit, sometimes we need to make them explicit. And usually, that need emerges when the implicit expectation needs to be clarified or updated.
You could argue that a group, any group, is defined by whatever rules or expectations hold it together. However, those bonds may be loose or tight.
But just as a chair can be held together with glue, or tape, or nails, different social adhesives work in different ways. The criminal law against murder is very different from a rule in a doctor’s waiting room requiring, “No cell phones.”
And both of those rules are very different from a corporate requirement to “first get approval for holiday time off,” or one’s own personal mantra like “always try to see the best in people.”
Having different types of rules is good because they define and operationalize social expectations in slightly different and necessary ways. Still, there is a problem: we often use the wrong tool for the job.
Just as hammering a bottle of glue into a wall is less effective than hammering a nail, we need to understand the different rule types and the different ways they should be used. Because while some rules are meant to be broken, others aren’t. And we need a good way of knowing the difference.
For example, a manager wants the right to expect something will happen every time, but the instruction they gave was, “People should fill out their timesheets before Friday.” “Should,” doesn’t convey the expectation that it must always be done. “Should” makes this expectation sound more like a recommendation than a strict rule. The word “must” would probably be a better fit for the intended purpose.
But of course, so much depends on context. Different cultures, assumptions, and communication patterns make it difficult to identify even a semi-stable typology of expectations. Yet I believe these challenges strengthen the case for trying—because while we differ in countless ways, we are the same in at least some ways.
These are some of the many examples I’ve come across. In my professional experience as a coach working with leaders and organizations, I think there are only four different categories of “rule.” Understanding the distinctions between them is important because any tool that is misidentified tends to be misused. Those categories are: 1) Values, 2) Guidelines, 3) Rules, and 4) Laws.
1. “Value”
Definition
Values, as I define them, communicate some meaningful aspect of identity as a frame of reference, but are not binding on their own (i.e. or should not be binding). They are particularly good for identifying bias or preferences and conveying important context to relevant stakeholders.
Examples
“Simplicity: Avoid unnecessary complexities that could confuse users or detract from the product's core functionality.”
“We value diversity.”
How Should it Be Operationalized?
Ideally, Values should not be binding or officially enforced. They should be used descriptively, not prescriptively. This is because there are better tools available for defining binding requirements (e.g., Guideline, Rule, or Law). However, having defined values or principles may be useful for getting alignment, but only in the sense of having a loosely shared understanding (i.e., it’s an informational connection).
I’ve encountered three use-cases for Values: 1) For self-Awareness, which helps individuals or organizations identify intrinsic traits or biases, and can serve as a foundation for creating more actionable Rules, Guidelines, or Laws; 2) For marketing, where values act as signals to attract like-minded people, or signal affiliation; and 3) For adding context, where the Values are used to explain the rationale or intent behind expectations that are binding (without imposing binding expectations themselves).
Value: Full Example
A significant portion of my work with clients is helping them define and codify their expectations. Here is an example of how one client contextualized their shared values:
As defined by the current Membership, certain foundational values have been stipulated as meaningful descriptive elements of interpersonal culture among the individuals engaged in the Enterprise’s work. These values are:
Integrity
Curiosity
Accountability
Boldness
Empathy
These values are intended to serve as a frame of reference for interpreting other explicit agreements (e.g., the Organization’s governance records, the Association’s “Internal Working Agreements”) related to the Enterprise, but are not themselves considered to be binding on their own. At most, Members are expected to generally agree to embody or manifest these values according to their own interpretations and at their own discretion.
We take this stance because Members are not required to believe the same things, but are instead only required to align their behavior with any agreements they have made while staying true to their own diversity of thought and opinion.
Any binding agreements (i.e. authorities, restrictions, or expectations) that are needed, by anyone in the Enterprise with the standing to propose them, must be processed through the proper pathway.
2. “Guideline”
Definition
A requirement to consciously consider something. The person still gets to make the final determination of what, if anything, to do. Useful for directing attention without reducing the agent’s sense of ownership. In practice, this is usually the main type of obligation in most organizations, though they aren’t aware of it and tend to operationalize them poorly.
Examples
A pilot is required to check (i.e., consider) the plane’s fuel level before take-off.
“Prioritize a fast response even over a complete response.” (a Holacracy-style Strategy)
How Should it Be Operationalized?
A Guideline must be consciously considered; i.e., the person does not have the discretion to just ignore it, but at the same time, they retain the right to use their best judgment. In a way, defining something as a “requirement to consider” seems strange because it’s not the way we normally think about Guidelines. But if you really look at the logistical realities inside most groups and organizations, you’ll see that they often need to balance alignment and autonomy.
For example, I would say that Holacracy is mostly a management-by-Guideline system. This is because most of its core constructs are expectations that a partner is required to consider (e.g., Purpose, Role, Accountability, Strategy, Priority, etc.) and it’s operational processes and duties are largely oriented around directing attention (e.g. checklist, metric, project reviews, etc.), which the partner must report on (though not necessarily do).
Guideline: Full Example
In Holacracy’s constitution, a partner must consider any priorities they have been given by a Circle Lead, but that does not necessarily mean that the partner is restricted to only working on those priorities. This means that in that system, priorities function as a Guideline.
For example, it may be that the partner is waiting on something from the client, or they may be on an airplane and can’t work on the priority project, or they may have another urgent issue crop up they need to deal with. All of these are good reasons to work on something else. So, while the partner agrees to prioritize certain projects, they are not completely restricted in applying their judgment to their immediate situation.
At the same time, the partner is not allowed to simply ignore their given priorities either. Because the rule also states that if they are asked about their reasoning for working on a non-priority project, they must share it. This helps ensure that due consideration is made while reducing the likelihood of alienation.
3. “Rule”
Definition
A Rule is a binding constraint or command that must be followed. However, exceptions may be granted. Usually, the Rule only applies within a specific context, though it’s usually implied. Since one may request an exception or pursue alternative pathways, one should never consciously violate a Rule, though the cost for violating it may not be defined. Particularly good for dealing with safety concerns or hard-to-reverse decisions, but generally tend to be overused since the distinction between Guidelines and Rules is rarely (if ever) made.
Examples
“No running in the hallways.”
“You may not use a company car without authorization.” (a Holacracy-style policy)
How Should it Be Operationalized?
The essential elements of a good requirement are clarity, consistency, and optionality. To make Rules work well, sharing any of the following are helpful: 1) the expectation itself, 2) its justification, 3) its applicable context, 4) the process for getting an exception (if any), and 5) the consequences of violating it. All aren’t necessary in every case, but the more you have, the stronger the Rule.
In addition, all of that information should be easily accessible with a clear process for updating them as necessary. In fact, the lack of access to a clear path for updating the Rule (or at least proposing a change) is one of the biggest factors that leads to their misuse. Even in situations where Rule is unilaterally imposed upon someone, the resistance and alienation that usually occur can be mitigated through clarity, consistency, and optionality.
Rule: Full Example
On school nights, a parent sets a clear rule for their teenager: no video games after 8pm. The parent explains that as the teenager develops more responsibility, it’s still the parents job to set some clear boundaries and in this case, to help the teen’s ability to wind down before bed and get consistent, high-quality sleep.
The rule applies Sunday through Thursday during the school year (i.e., school nights), but if the teenager wants an exception—say, for a special in-game event or a particularly stressful day—they just need to ask for one, and the parent usually grants it.
If the teen plays past the cutoff without permission, the parent then asks if it was intentional or accidental. If done intentionally (i.e., they are caught), then they lose game time for the next day and the consequences scale up; and if accidental, the teen must share a realistic plan to get back into alignment. The parent also lets them know that they are open to revisiting or reconsidering any of the terms upon request.
As a result of the clarity, consistency, and optionality, the teen sees little point in resisting or rebelling against this Rule.
4. “Law”
Definition
Laws are essentially deal-breakers. They define clear and rigid boundaries that can never be broken or the relationship itself may be severed; i.e. it determines the minimum acceptable definitional or existential boundary of the group (or relationship). When new Laws are introduced into an existing relationship (or group), we call them ultimatums.
Example
“No sleeping with other people.” (for an intimate monogamous relationship)
“Employee agrees not to disclose any company information labeled ‘confidential’ to external parties without prior written consent.”
How Should it Be Operationalized?
On one hand, Laws are fairly easy to understand since we can all relate to the fact that there often needs to be lines in the sand. But on the other hand, in the real world, operationalizing them effectively is fairly complex. So, first, to the degree that they can be defined, define them. This may require some serious inquiry, but it’s worth it. A clear Law provides a safe space within which the people in the group can feel that they may safely operate and make mistakes.
But having them defined only goes so far, because in many instances, the person (or group) doesn’t identify the Law or get the person’s agreement to the Law until after it has already been violated (“I guess I never explicitly told you that I didn’t want you to sleep with THAT friend”). So, it doesn’t make sense to assume that the only way for a Law to be legitimate is that it be defined in advance. By their very nature, they are often implicit or assumed, but we can use that knowledge to, for example, define a process for navigating through potentially sticky, deal-breaking issues.
Law: Full Example
A socially conscious collective built its community around values like radical inclusion and Trust, defined as honesty, reliability, and mutual accountability. Things thrived—until a new person arrived. Though initially welcomed, this person began using shared resources without contributing and was suspected of theft. Some defended them on the basis of inclusion; others felt the spirit of Trust had been violated, even if no explicit rule had been broken.
Without a clear process for addressing such situations, the group formed an ad hoc committee, which eventually recommended removal. The individual pushed back, arguing that no rule had been violated and that standards were being invented retroactively. The collective later recognized that explicit values weren’t enough—they needed clear structures to address unspoken deal-breakers to avoid confusion and conflict.
Conclusion
Of course, I don’t expect universal agreement with my definitions or labels of these different social adhesives, and that’s fine. The point isn’t to lock these categories in stone, but to offer a mental model that helps us better understand how our expectations of each work, when they do.
When we confuse Values with Laws, or enforce Guidelines like Rules, we all tend to end up frustrated, ineffective, and disconnected. It hardly seems worth exploring or sharing our expectations with each other because we know we’ll just be disappointed.
But when we can name the type of rule we’re making—and we know how best to operationalize it—we not only improve the effectiveness of the expectations we share, but we also have fuller and freer relationships.
I’m currently working on building out my model I called, “structure-oriented collaboration (SOC),” and I’ve launched a small community platform for anyone who wants to discuss the theory and its applications in more detail. For those interested, you can watch a 40 min. video explanation of this theory that I posted on the platform here:
The platform is mostly a place for me to organize and share information, while also enabling threaded conversation to happen. It’s very new and very basic, and there is no subscription or joining necessary. So, if you’d like to make some contributions to a radical new way of thinking about collaboration that is both more effective and more humane, then please join me over there!
A useful hierarchy, but I think it worth noting that your definition of the term "Value" differs somewhat from its conventional meaning. Here you are defining it as something like a preference, whereas conventionally values are more fundamental and may even be used as a justification for breaking actual laws - e.g. people being arrested for participating in non-violent direct action to protest about something that conflicts with their "values" such as pacifism, or the importance of care for the natural world.