> At large, I also think that this means some things can't be codified. Such that some activities are highly dependent on expected duties of the employee.
I'm pretty sure you mean "some things shouldn't be codified". I'm not trying simply to nitpick; I think using the word "should" signals very clearly that you are making a value judgment, not a judgment of what is possible.
Here's how I'm interpreting your words: "There are many employee behaviors that employers want to promote that are too nuanced or complex to codify". I have a lot of concerns with such a statement:
1. I've seen a lot of people make such a statement because they are unwilling and/or unable to design policies. Some people want perfection, and the messiness and complexity of the real world bothers them. Instead of embracing and managing this uncertainty, they retreat to the false dichotomy of "if we can't do it perfectly, we shouldn't try it at all".
2. I find the statement implies the wrong goal. The goal isn't perfection; rather, the goal is to make policies that *improve* relative to *the next best alternative*.
To design policies and assess performance toward such goals, I like to use a combination of systems thinking, probabilistic reasoning, and realistic models of human behavior.
This also depends on your role. If you have a leadership role, you will likely see that not designing and advocating for policies is an abdication of your responsibilities. In short, no matter how imperfect, you have to make a decision. To quote a movie title, you can't be neutral on a moving train.
Ah, completely agreed on my word choice being wrong there.
Agreed on doing things to try to move the needle in a better direction. I will disagree the minute things land in a "zero tolerance" bucket. Yes, there are easy straw men that can and should be burned down. Nuance and discretion abound, though.
So, I probably do not disagree with the method for making policies you are describing. I'm also probably more comfortable with the idea that many policies are ultimately to be questioned, as well.
I'm pretty sure you mean "some things shouldn't be codified". I'm not trying simply to nitpick; I think using the word "should" signals very clearly that you are making a value judgment, not a judgment of what is possible.
Here's how I'm interpreting your words: "There are many employee behaviors that employers want to promote that are too nuanced or complex to codify". I have a lot of concerns with such a statement:
1. I've seen a lot of people make such a statement because they are unwilling and/or unable to design policies. Some people want perfection, and the messiness and complexity of the real world bothers them. Instead of embracing and managing this uncertainty, they retreat to the false dichotomy of "if we can't do it perfectly, we shouldn't try it at all".
2. I find the statement implies the wrong goal. The goal isn't perfection; rather, the goal is to make policies that *improve* relative to *the next best alternative*.
To design policies and assess performance toward such goals, I like to use a combination of systems thinking, probabilistic reasoning, and realistic models of human behavior.
This also depends on your role. If you have a leadership role, you will likely see that not designing and advocating for policies is an abdication of your responsibilities. In short, no matter how imperfect, you have to make a decision. To quote a movie title, you can't be neutral on a moving train.