I learned an interesting lesson about rules today.
I had an 8AM Tokyo-time Skype call back to the United States. Tokyo is notorious for its surprisingly poor WiFi, so I went to an internet cafe.
The internet cafes in Japan are interesting -- you get your own private cubicle that has a computer with a very large monitor and noise-canceling headphones, comfortable chairs, pillows, and sometimes blankets. In the rest of the cafe, there's also comic books, DVDs, and a selection of free teas, coffees, juices, and sodas. Sometimes they have other amenities for free or for sale -- often they'll sell dress shirts, do laundry, have showers, selling grooming kits, and sell other kinds of hot food and snacks.
Drinks are totally free to have as many as you like. After finishing my call, I grabbed a surprisingly good hot coffee in a paper cup, paid my bill, and went to leave.
The man at the counter said, in Japanese, "I'm sorry, but you can't take that drink into the elevator when you go to leave." I said, "Huh, okay, I'll take the stairs?" He said, "No, I'm really sorry, but can you finish your drink over there and put it on the tray before you leave please?"
And I found myself walking over to the little area next to the drinks, having a few sips of coffee, and putting it down before I walked to the elevator drink-less.
Throughout, I felt a sort of wonderment that that had happened -- I had just willingly followed a rule that seemed both pointless and unenforceable.
That's one of the first things to think about when setting rules: you want to be very, very careful not to set rules you can't enforce. If you create a bunch of arbitrary rules and policies without any enforcement mechanism, people learn they can break the rules without worrying about it. It downward spirals pretty quickly from there, regardless if the rules are set by a government, by a company for their staff, or by a company for customers of the establishment.
There's a lot of rules various leaders would like to install, but given that they can't enforce them, smart leaders don't set the rules only to watch them be broken and a culture of rule-breaking established.
Rules that everyone agree are good can be set even if they don't have a very strong enforcement mechanism. Making it a "rule" just formalizes the convention that everyone wants.
But what about when things are neither obviously enforceable, nor obviously intelligent? No drink in the elevator? I can't think of why that rule would be set. Did people spill in the past? Does the business think by setting that rule, less people will take a drink to go with them at the end, thus saving them a very small amount of money? I can't get my mind around the rationale of it.
Yet, I followed it. So I asked myself why. I identified three things --
1. Japan is a rules-based culture that everyone is following the rules and, generally speaking, things work pretty harmoniously and well.
This is by far the biggest one. If you're somewhere like Vietnam and someone tells you there's an arbitrary rule, you just assume it's some sort of corruption, a scam they're trying to run, or something else arbitrary and pointless. Vietnamese people and visitors regularly break as many rules as they feel they can. Whereas in Japan, there's some arbitrary qualities, but overall everyone is following the rules and society is running pretty well. People are more inclined to follow rules when everyone else. This is the largest, but not the only factor.
2. The employee's tone was one of complete certainty. He said, "I'm sorry, but you can't…" -- if he'd been uncertain at all, I'd have probably just left with the coffee right away. But he was completely certain and matter-of-fact about it. There was no inquisitiveness. Even though he phrased it as a question, he wasn't really asking.
3. And very importantly, he wasn't belligerent at all. Sometimes people take a morally righteous or demanding tone when enforcing the rules, and people from highly individualistic societies buckle at that. He was sympathetic, like he almost wanted to let me take the coffee with me. If it was up to him, who knows, maybe I could take the coffee. But, he's sorry, you can't take the coffee to the elevator.
That combination of being sympathetic without being belligerent goes a long way when trying to get a rule followed. Sometimes in Japan people are kind of aggressive about rules. They'll cross their arms into an X-shape and tell you that you can't do something, very strongly.
I've traveled and seen Americans and Australians encounter this, and there's very frequently a pushing back against it. Our cultures dislike being talked to like that, especially when the rule seems arbitrary and there's no enforcement mechanism.
If he'd said in a rougher tone, "Hey! You can't bring that drink with you!" I'd have probably just taken the drink with me and replied while walking, "Ah, gomenosai. Sugoko isogashii des. Shigoto, ne? Gomen, gomen." (English, roughly: "Ah, sorry about that. I'm very busy, I've got to go to work, y'know? Sorry, sorry about that.") And then I'd have just left with the coffee, and nothing would have happened.
It would have been easy to do and there would been no consequences to doing it, and I would have gotten to enjoy my coffee slowly. Yet, I didn't do it.
I think that's pretty interesting and can be learned from. Here's my recap of why I think his way worked to get the rule followed --
1. Rules based culture, where everyone is following the rules and things seem to be working well.
2. Matter-of-factness that a rule exists. Tone of informing people that there's a rule, not of requesting they follow it.
3. Sympathy and warmth when mentioning the rule, no belligerence or moral righteousness when informing about the rule and the way to follow it.
Those are points I'll look to remember on topics like training employees, setting rules for an establishment, parenting, or anywhere else that you need cooperation from people you're asking to follow the rules.
There can be all kinds of reasons for this. You don't even know if the rule is set by the company or maybe if there is a law that makes them do it. Like to prevent littering. In foreign countries you often encounter rules that seem ridiculous. 2 examples: in germany you can carry open beers on the street and also drink in your car - if you are not driving. It seems ridiculous to wrap your bottle in a bag just so noone sees it. On the other side I once had a interesting encounter in an icecream parlor were they were very adamant about us not moving the tables which were outside and very close to the sidewalk. The reason for that was that there were local laws on how much of the outside area a business could use, and if their tables were too far out, they would get a fine. In many situations businesses get punished for rule breaking of their customers. Not to get started on the days were dancing is outlawed.
Perhaps this rule is to stop people from dropping in just to grab a complimentary drinks and go? That would defeat the purpose of the complimentary drinks: to encourage use of their paid services. Even in the U.S. this is almost an unwritten rule. Unwritten because I don't think anyone tries to break it. It just seems weird to take any complimentary food or drinks with one, and I always thought that would be frowned upon, anywhere. I think this is the point of the rule.
Heh. Most people would write a snarky tweet or just forget about the whole thing. Extracting learning from everything and RECORDING that learning for posterity is a really really good meta-habit of personal development.
yep, I enjoyed the reasoning. This is my favorite type of post.
Yeah, these posts aren't hugely useful, but they make good stories and let you see into Sebastian's mindset.
that's sort of the whole point. I can get tactic advice elsewhere, but this sort of high level thinking... I only know Sebastian who does it (and Roy gets close, but he's not a prolific writer http://gamesnstrategy.blogspot.com.br/)
I would attempt to do it too, if they would give me a damn SETT blog :)
Seriously? Isaac (http://sett.com/rsi/) got his invite pretty quickly, as far as I can tell. I didn't know it was a problem.
In 2006, I quit the vast majority of intoxicants. I don't drink, I don't use recreational drugs, I don't smoke tobacco, I don't drink soda, and I am working on quitting all sweets entirely, and largely succeeding. I am not one for fine dining, and not frequently one for other forms of hedonism.
I usually do not advertise this - I might write about it for people who wish to know what I do, but I do not bring it up in conversation unless it comes up. But occasionally it does come up, and a common reaction is someone saying, half-joking, "Then why bother living?"
I think I understand. Many people do jobs they dislike for causes they feel nothing about. This must wreak havoc on a man's spirit. Most people spend more of their waking time on their work than any other thing - I can only imagine what spending the bulk of my time on something I disliked would feel like. Or worse, not even something I disliked - but something I felt very neutral about.
If a man's occupation becomes a slow crushing of his spirit, then of course he would need high energy, and high impact to free him from it. He needs to fit all of his leisure into his remaining waking time - from 6PM at night to 10PM when he is home from work, on the two days of his weekend, and his vacation time each year. Of course, not even that time is all his own - he still has to commute, run errands, do admin, do necessary little things. The reality of the situation is far worse - most people don't live bad lives, they just move slowly and quietly through things they don't particularly care for.
Of course, if a man only had 5% of his waking time to himself, he would want to maximize this time in the easiest, most surefire way of producing pleasure and relaxation. Who could blame this man? I don't. If I was suffering through a soul-killing occupation and had very little time, I would want to make sure that the time I did have was very enjoyable.
I've been wanting to write this story for a while, but I can't find the one picture I have of it. Oh well, when I find it I'll just add it on to the end.
Full from dinner, we get into the elevator as we always do. The rumor is that the more likely one is to cause trouble, the higher in the dorm you're assigned. The first year I was put on floor four. The next, floor 24. I guess you could say that we became acquainted.
As the elevator brings us closer to our dorm we notice that the hatch in the roof of the elevator appears to be unlocked. We push the hatch open and stare at the dark above us.