Rules are part of life in any organization. They can concern the way work gets done, the use of tools, how customers are handled, how activities are planned or how people collaborate with one another.
Every time a rule is introduced, the goal is to steer behavior in a direction considered better.
And yet, one of the most frequent problems is precisely that, even when they are communicated clearly, rules end up not being followed.
The most immediate reaction when you run into this problem is often to tighten controls or increase the consequences for those who don't comply. If, despite these actions, the problem still isn't solved, it's worth asking whether this is the right way to deal with the situation…
Before looking for a solution, in fact, you need to understand how a problem really works: only through a sound analysis can you identify the causes that keep it alive and act effectively.
The problem: when a rule that has been communicated is still not followed
A rule can take very different forms. It can be a request to fill out a report at the end of the day, the introduction of new software to be used starting next week, setting aside a day for a specific activity, or an instruction aimed at customers, team members or your own family.
In all these cases there is a common element: a behavior is established that, from that moment on, should be followed.
The problem arises when, even though the rule has been communicated, it is still not followed.
When you face a situation you don't like (a problem), the first step is to decide whether you believe you can do something about it or not. Any problem can, in fact, be dealt with either by choosing to act or by accepting it, starting to consider it normal and simply putting up with its effects.
For example, if a team member complains all the time, you can treat this situation as a problem to act on, working to understand the reasons and find solutions, or you can start complaining that this person complains, without doing anything. The two choices inevitably lead to different results.
A belief to start from when tackling the problem of rule compliance concerns the role of whoever creates the rules and its impact on how the rule works: whoever introduces a rule bears a great deal of responsibility for whether it is followed or not.
That responsibility concerns not only the content of the rule, but also the way it is designed, communicated and enforced.
Once you have defined the problem, the responsibility that comes with the role of rule-maker and the need to act to solve it, you then have to commit to a process of deeply understanding the problem if you intend to find a solution that solves it for good.
In fact, without a process of analysis, the mind tends to propose a solution immediately, suggesting interventions that seem logical but are very often influenced by cognitive biases. These mental shortcuts lead you to put in place solutions that look effective but, in reality, end up keeping the problem alive.
This is why analysis is the first real working tool in solving problems effectively. In most cases, problems continue to exist because people don't know how they work. Understanding a problem, instead, allows you to identify its real causes before looking for a solution superficially.
Clarity therefore comes from analysis, not from the immediate search for an answer that fixes things.
Even before analyzing why a rule is not followed, to understand the true nature of the problem you need to clarify what a rule really is.
What a rule is and what function it serves within a system
The word rule comes from the Latin regula, a term that referred to a wooden stick or a ruler, in turn derived from the verb regere, meaning "to guide straight."
A rule therefore starts out as a tool for straightening.
From an organizational point of view, it can be defined as a behavioral constraint that clearly distinguishes a correct way of acting from an incorrect one. This distinction is its essential element.
Rules are a tool with a clear function, and they have always been used in systems to indicate the behaviors accepted and shared as appropriate and right, in every area of human life.
The presence of rules in society has changed continuously, in content but also in quantity, consequences and the constraints that come with them.
Research shows interesting statistics on the presence of rules today.
What science says about the presence of rules in today's society
Are rules in the world increasing or decreasing? And, if they are increasing, what does that mean?
On the question that naturally comes next — whether people, in general, tend to follow rules more or less than before — the available surveys don't allow an answer: there is no measure, comparable over time, of how well rules are followed as a whole, and what you can find concerns individual areas, with definitions and methods that can't be compared with one another.
What can be measured, on the other hand, is how many rules there are.
The available research shows a clear trend: over the past few decades, the number of rules has grown in many areas of society.
More and more often, when a rule doesn't produce the expected result, the response is to introduce another one. So, instead of eliminating or replacing existing ones, new obligations, new prohibitions, new exceptions and new controls are added.
This is also what emerges from OECD reports. The organization points out that the overall number of regulations keeps increasing and that new rules, in most cases, are added on top of those that already exist. [1]
The report published in 2026 speaks of a genuine expansion of regulation, that is, a continuous growth in the number of rules. [2]
The European Commission's legislative proposals, for example, went from 374 in the 1999-2004 period to 431 in the 2019-2024 period, while their average length nearly doubled.
In the United States, the body of federal regulations has also been growing for decades and, at the same time, there are more and more words expressing obligations and prohibitions, such as "must," "is required," "may not" or "is prohibited." [2]
The same phenomenon can be seen in Italy's Highway Code. The current text of Legislative Decree 285/1992, as published by Normattiva, is updated with acts published up to 2026 and contains dozens of articles inserted after 1992 with bis and ter numbering — new obligations, new penalties and new technical requirements added to the original framework without replacing it. [3]
Think, for example, of the rules on smartphone use while driving, electric scooters, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), child car seat anti-abandonment devices, black boxes, limits for newly licensed drivers and automated enforcement systems.
On top of these come all the requirements introduced over the past few decades to improve vehicle safety, reduce emissions and make inspections stricter.
The same trend emerges in schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the share of US public schools equipped with security cameras went from 61% in 2009-2010 to 93% in 2021-2022. [4]
Over the years, control and monitoring tools have also increased, such as electronic gradebooks, which make it possible to continuously record and check attendance, late arrivals, grades, disciplinary notes, homework and communications with families.
Similar growth also affects Italian legislation. The study by La Cava, Greco and Tagarelli (2021) [5] shows that over the past thirty years the Italian Civil Code has changed significantly: the number of provisions, their length and their complexity have all increased.
Overall, research describes a common trend: when faced with a problem, the response is often to add a new rule.
If a person doesn't comply with an obligation, a new requirement is introduced; if that isn't enough, penalties, controls or further exceptions are added. In this way the system tends to become more and more complex, because each new rule tries to fill a gap but ends up being added to all the ones that already exist.
How to identify the effects of rules not being followed
Once the problem has been defined, you need to check whether it is actually present in your own organization.
The first question to ask is whether rules not being followed is an occasional episode or a recurring problem in your systems.
It can involve team members, customers, suppliers or the person themselves, when they struggle to follow the rules they have set for themselves.
It's important to recognize whether you are facing a chronic problem.
When a rule is disregarded only once, it may simply be a coincidence. If, instead, the same situation keeps coming back over time and involves different people, the problem becomes chronic.
The recurrence of the problem doesn't only prove that it continues to exist. It also proves that previous attempts at improvement were not enough to solve it.
Over time, many chronic problems turn into compromises: unable to manage them, people end up living with them. The brain gradually stops considering them an anomaly, normalizes them and accepts them as part of everyday operations. The problem, however, is still there.
To detect the problem correctly, it helps to ask the three questions that accompany any analysis:
- What signals and evidence show that the problem exists?
- Who experiences the problem?
- Where does it show up?
These questions allow you to gather concrete evidence and also help quantify the impact of the problem in your own organization.
When a rule is not followed, the effects that show up are generally four.
Disobedience
Disobedience doesn't simply consist of not carrying out a rule.
The word obedience comes from the Latin ob-audire, meaning "to listen from below." To obey therefore means to truly listen.
Disobedience, by contrast, is the choice not to listen.
Those who disobey interrupt the process of listening to the rule and decide to follow a different path. They don't try to understand its meaning or the reason it exists, but react by choosing an alternative behavior. Even when this choice has its reasons, they simply move in the opposite direction from the one the rule indicates (on principle, you might say).
The consequence is that the channels of listening close down.
Inability to influence the system
Rules serve to steer how an organization works toward the desired result.
When they are not followed, the ability to influence the system through people's behavior gradually decreases. The rule loses its guiding function and becomes unable to produce the effects it was introduced for.
Loss of leadership and authority
Setting a rule and not stepping in when it is systematically ignored is one of the main ways to lose authority.
Every rule left without any action to restore it implicitly communicates that it can be disregarded without consequences, and it stops being a reference point for the group.
No room for growth
Rules have the function of maintaining a common direction.
If they can no longer steer people's behavior, the system gradually loses coherence. Everyone ends up following different criteria, and it becomes harder and harder to lead the organization toward lasting improvement.
Growth, in fact, requires the ability to influence the system through rules that are actually adopted and used.
What should happen in a system where rules work
Whenever you analyze a problem, it's important to ask what the desired situation would be without the symptom. In other words, how you would want things to go if that problem didn't exist.
Defining the ideal condition imprecisely or wrongly will lead you to pursue ineffective solutions: it is therefore essential to distinguish between a wrong and a correct ideal condition.
With rules, too, you need to ask what ideal condition you want to reach before looking for a solution.
The most immediate and logical answer seems to be: "Everyone must follow the rules."
But this conclusion is only apparently correct.
If all rules were always followed, absolutely, autonomy, growth and the capacity to improve would disappear. People would merely carry out what has been established, without developing critical thinking or contributing to the evolution of the system.
The ideal condition is therefore different: "Everyone must make use of the rules."
The goal is not for people to follow rules out of obligation, but for them to learn to make use of them.
Making use of a rule means understanding its value and using it to gain a benefit. The rule becomes a tool that helps achieve a better result, not just a constraint to be endured.
Following a rule, on the other hand, can simply mean going along with it to avoid negative consequences.
The difference is substantial.
In the first case, the behavior comes from understanding the benefit the rule produces.
In the second, it comes from fear of the consequences.
It is this distinction that completely changes the way a rule is designed, communicated and brought to life within an organization.
The beliefs that shape how rules are created and enforced
Behind the choice of a solution there is always a belief: an idea that has the power to steer action in the right direction to solve the problem for good, or to divert it in the wrong direction which, instead of solving it, helps keep the problem alive and makes it chronic.
The most common idea underlying the problem of rules not being followed is this: "a rule must be imposed."
When you start from this belief, you consider it enough to establish a behavior and communicate it. If people don't follow it, the response becomes increasing the pressure or toughening the consequences.
In reality, the right idea on which the creation of a rule should rest is different: "A rule must be sold."
This means it must be explained, understood and "bought" by those who will have to apply it.
The person asked to follow it should come to recognize its usefulness, understand its reason and internalize it. The rule shouldn't simply be decided by whoever introduces it, but become a shared choice of those who use it.
When this process doesn't happen, what is perceived is no longer a rule: it becomes an imposition.
A rule and an imposition are both constraints on behavior, but they work in completely different ways.
In an imposition there is a strong imbalance between what happens if you comply and what happens if you don't.
The negative consequences of not complying are so severe that they eliminate any real possibility of choice. The person doesn't follow the instruction because they find it useful, but because they fear the consequences.
A rule, on the other hand, maintains a balance.
It can be rejected without producing disproportionate immediate consequences.
What makes it effective is not the threat, but the benefit it produces.
This distinction is fundamental.
That is why every rule should have a reason why, meaning a motivation built in favor of those who will have to apply it.
Whoever follows the rule must understand what advantages they will gain and how they can make use of it to improve their work or achieve better results.
When this motivation is missing, the rule is easily perceived as an imposition.
Confusing a rule with an imposition is therefore the first big misunderstanding.
Many of the things called rules are, in reality, impositions.
When faced with an imposition, there are generally two possible reactions.
The first is submission, in which the person gives up their critical thinking and simply carries out orders.
The second is opposition, which leads to disobedience and rejection of the request.
When you introduce a new rule, you should therefore always check two aspects.
The first concerns consequences.
It's important to ask whether the person can choose not to follow it without incurring disproportionate consequences. If this isn't possible, you are probably no longer dealing with a rule but with an imposition.
The second concerns motivation.
You need to ask whether there is a reason why genuinely built in favor of those who will have to apply the rule. If the benefit isn't clear, it will be very hard for the rule to be internalized and put to use.
The causes that lead to a rule not being followed
When trying to explain why a rule isn't followed, it's easy to attribute the problem to causes that are only apparent.
The most common are two.
The first is believing that people lack discipline. This belief gives rise to the tendency to increase the consequences of not following the rule, gradually turning it into an imposition.
The second is believing that the rules are too rigid. In this case, you try to introduce more and more exceptions and compromises, until the rule becomes a mere piece of advice.
Imposition and advice are therefore the two extremes a rule can be turned into when the problem is misread.
The causes that really keep the problem alive, however, are different.
1. Misalignment on the function of the rule
Every rule is born because someone sees a problem they want to solve.
Very often, however, that problem is obvious only to whoever introduces the rule.
The people asked to apply it don't share the same perception of the problem and, as a result, don't understand why that rule was created.
So there is no alignment on the function of the rule.
2. The rule is confused with an imposition or with advice
When a rule has no clear motivation or produces disproportionate consequences, it is perceived as an imposition.
When, instead, it leaves room for constant exceptions and compromises, it is interpreted as mere advice.
In both cases it loses its nature and stops serving the function it was introduced for.
3. Monitoring and correction are missing or inadequate
A rule can't be considered effective simply because it has been communicated.
A monitoring period needs to be planned.
You need to check whether people have really understood it, whether they are making use of it as intended and whether adjustments are needed.
The rule must therefore be accompanied by monitoring and correction until it has been internalized and is being used correctly.
Only in this way can it become part of the organization's normal operations.
Actions that help people understand, internalize and make use of a rule
Once the causes that keep the problem alive have been identified, you can intervene with coherent actions that work to fill the gaps and therefore act on the real causes of the problem.
The solutions, then, won't lead to more control over people, but to creating the conditions for the rule to be understood, internalized and put to use.
1. Share the problem that led to the rule
Every rule is born because someone observes a situation they consider inadequate relative to the desired result.
Very often, however, this problem is obvious only to whoever introduces the rule.
Before even explaining what behavior will have to be followed, you therefore need to share the problem that made the rule necessary.
Only when people recognize that the same problem exists can they understand the function of the rule and give it meaning.
Without this shared understanding, the rule risks being perceived as an arbitrary decision imposed from above.
2. Define the rule's motivation clearly with the reason why
An effective rule doesn't just say what to do.
It also explains why it pays to do it.
That is why it's important to define a reason why built from the point of view of those who will have to apply the rule. The benefits must be concrete, understandable and directly linked to the behavior required.
Communicating the rule should therefore focus not only on operational instructions, but also on the best way to make use of it and benefit from it.
At the same time, it's advisable to avoid disproportionate consequences when the rule is not followed. Excessive consequences risk turning it into an imposition, stripping the rule of its original meaning.
3. Plan monitoring and correction
A rule can't be considered effective at the moment it is simply communicated.
You need to plan a monitoring period during which you check whether it has really been understood, whether it is being used correctly and whether it is producing the expected effects.
Monitoring is not control for its own sake: it is a learning tool.
By talking with the people involved, you can understand whether the rule has been internalized, spot any difficulties and make the necessary adjustments.
The correction phase should continue until the rule is being used spontaneously and becomes part of the organization's normal operations.
It is extremely important for rules to be written down, a habit that always holds if a company is to behave as a system that leaves no room for chance and confusion.
Even when rules are formalized in a set of policies, however, the document alone isn't enough to guarantee their effectiveness. The policies are a reference tool, but the result depends on the ability to share the problem the rule stems from, communicate its value, support its application and check over time that it is being used correctly.
In conclusion, rules not being followed is often interpreted as a problem of discipline or poor cooperation.
This reading generally leads to more controls and tougher consequences or, at the opposite extreme, to multiplying exceptions until the rules are emptied of their meaning.
Analysis shows, instead, that the problem starts much earlier: from failing to share the reason the rule exists, from confusing a rule with an imposition and from the absence of monitoring that supports people as they apply it.
A rule becomes truly effective when it stops being perceived as an obligation and is recognized as a useful tool for achieving a better result.
Only at that point is it not simply followed but put to use, becoming an element capable of steadily guiding people's behavior and fostering the growth of the whole system.
Sources and references
[1] OECD. (2020). Reviewing the Stock of Regulation: OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy. OECD Publishing, Paris, December 4, 2020 — https://doi.org/10.1787/1a8f33bc-en
[2] OECD. (2026). Smart Regulations, Strong Business: Enabling Growth and Societal Protection in a Fast-Changing World. OECD Publishing, Paris, June 3, 2026. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/smart-regulations-strong-business_93d38770-en.html
[3] Normattiva — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri. Decreto legislativo 30 aprile 1992, n. 285 — Nuovo codice della strada (Legislative Decree No. 285 of April 30, 1992 — New Highway Code), current text (note: «Entrata in vigore del decreto: 1-1-1993; ultimo aggiornamento all'atto pubblicato il 24/04/2026») — https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:1992-04-30;285!vig=
[4] National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS): Safety and Security Practices at Public Schools. U.S. Department of Education.
[5] La Cava, L., Greco, S., & Tagarelli, A. (2021). The Italian Civil Code Network Analysis. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Assistance for Legal Professionals in the Digital Workplace.