Zero tolerance policy!

This post comes after watch of a brilliant German movie "The Teacher's Lounge". I am extrapolating the story in context of corporate workplace (while the movie narrative is built around every day working in a K12 education institution), after all, there is a lesson for all leaders here in context of policy making, enforcement and governance.?

Imagine following context:

Company XYZ professing a zero tolerance policy on matters of misconduct and actions that lack integrity.

There is a complaint from one team member of losing money while at work which is being investigated.

In the whole process, there are conversations with administrators and concerned members like witnesses, complainant, and possible suspects etc to get to the core and find who the culprit is.

No one is found guilty for lack of strong evidence however there are possible people involved who are counselled – which includes a person from lower economic strata.

Food for thought?

If this person was with high personal ideals and happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time – how do you suppose the person feels about the whole investigation and outcome? Moreover, what other’s feel about the same?

Further adding to the context:

Team member takes matter in their hands post fighting own ethical dilemma – of making a recording without any consent and violating privacy norms – only to confirm the culprit guilty of stealing money; not just to get back the money but also uphold the company’s policy, prevent future such occurrences and do the right thing!

There is another theft thereafter. Now it has partially been captured on camera but with no clear face of culprit however evidence enough to confront the probable person.

Food for thought?

What if the person confronted is still in denial – what options are open for this person? How does it impact others in the process given the insufficiency of facts?

There is more to the context:

Suspect’s family member (referred to as colleague) also works in the same organization and is highly respected and admired even by the complainant team member. This colleague invokes plausible deniability and also with conviction defends own family member who has been confronted for this theft. As a support the colleague instigates lot of other coworkers against all kinds of investigation process, questioning the credibility and authenticity of complaint, complainant and the overall process.

Food for thoughts?

How could such levels of escalation have been avoided?

No matter speaking on hypothetical terms, whatever frame of reference I take to think about responses to above questions – I keep going back to starting point of positioning oneself (as individual or collective entity) as advocate of “Zero Tolerance Policy” with high ideals!

In that ecosystem, people judge others to upkeep those ideals, people complain about events to sustain those ideals and people behave in ways to protect those ideals; not realizing that purpose of those ideals in the first place is to inspire people towards “Nonjudgmental”, “Noninvasive” and “Nonchalant” performance and behaviors.

Food for thought?

What if there were no such “Zero tolerance Policy or Ideals” professed?

All I could think of is that - Anyone could possibly come across a non-idealistic situation, however with power of choice to exercise own wisdom with dignity and respect, to solve for the situation, equipped with a framework of operating principles guiding "how of actions" rather than policy dictating "what of actions"!

Curious about what other possibilities come up?

?