A procedure is useful when it helps people do the work and understand who is responsible for what. Trouble starts when a case arrives that the rule did not anticipate, and nobody knows who has the authority to decide.
The matter can then travel from one person to another. Everyone checks their part, but the work stands still. The employee does not want to exceed their authority. The manager expects someone to show initiative. The customer waits, and the company has no agreed next step.
In an imagined urgent delivery, approving a different sequence of work might be enough. In another case, a change could compromise quality or breach an obligation we must respect. The same appeal to courage cannot resolve both situations.
Alongside the rule, define a route for exceptions. Who should be contacted? What information is needed? How quickly should they respond? What can change, and what remains a firm boundary even when we are in a hurry?
The decision should leave a record: why the exception was approved, who approved it, and what will be checked afterwards. A different approach then remains visible instead of becoming an unspoken habit.
If the same exception keeps recurring, the procedure may need to change. If it happens once, it need not become a rule for everyone. Both conclusions require a review of the actual case.
Responsibility does not develop when we tell people to decide and later ask why they failed to follow the procedure. It develops when they have a clear space in which to make a decision and know where that space ends.
Comments