As noted previously, one theme of the book is how the design of the organization dictates its capabilities. There is perhaps no more obvious place to think about than HR, which is essentially responsible for organizing, evaluating, and executing the policies that govern company operations. Based on the approach they took throughout the work, it didn't surprise me that the authors tended to favor easily executed policies, such as using a transparent wage structure that paid people equally by position, which leaves no room for time-consuming salary negotiations. They also applied this straightforward manner to the way they defined things like benefits (anything that directly helps the employee during off-hours) or vacation (multiple consecutive days off). To the latter, they suggested that employees who need discretionary time during the week should just work it out within their teams rather than rely on a company policy.
What these kinds of insights demonstrate is that there is plenty of room for common sense to serve as a guiding principle within organizations for creating policy and defining its exceptions. I think the challenge is that the way we do things are always on the verge of becoming habits, and it's often easier to stick with a habit rather than make a meaningful change. There is also the temptation to lean on a policy when the alternative is to expend energy while demonstrating flexibility for the people involved, particularly as applying a policy is much faster than granting an exception. But there are times when a little extra work in the moment can prevent larger issues from emerging further down the line. The authors point out one example - how to handle major organizational changes. As far as I know, departing employees are never encouraged (and if I had to guess, discouraged) from communicating with the organization. I am sure this standard practice is grounded in strong thinking. However, if there is any mystery or confusion surrounding a major change, the remaining team members are certain to invent a story based on their limited information unless someone explains the reasons. If it were up to me, I'd prefer an organization publicly encourage clear communication, even if the results are somewhat unorthodox, because the potential short-term harm of allowing a departing member to communicate with the organization outweigh the possible long-term effect of a blurry line between rumor and reality.
