This sentiment is alive in the Galaraga Perfect Game thread and everywhere else in life. It irritates me whenever I hear it. My response: No you don’t.
Can’t you, as a rational human being, realize that some situations require an exception to be made while others do not? I’m not talking about the perfect game anymore, but life in general. It seems that we have made strict rules about everything so that anyone with an IQ above 43 can implement them without any regard to whether they make any sense in a particular situation.
Yes you can make an exception for me. And you can refuse that exception for the next person. Grant it to the following two people and deny it to the next three. Grow a brain instead of being a drone.
Why should I make an exception for you? What is so special about you, compared with the next person? That next person will say, “You made an exception for jtgain: I’m just as deserving as him, so make an exception for me too.”
I, personally, am not special, but my situation which demands an exception is special. As the person in charge of X, you could take the time to explain that to the next person, or tell them to bugger off as your decision has been rendered. So it is said and so shall it be.
Either way, you should listen to what is being said instead of blindly following Rule 13, paragraph 3 subsection D that was enacted in 1922.
I feel you, OP. You have no idea how many fights I’ve gotten into at work over this. Yes we are a large, regulated organization, so yes, there should be some consistency and transparency, but some people have this NEVER make any exceptions attitude, no appeals, no anything. Some of our restrictions are a matter of law, so we have to follow them, but many are CYA company policies that are well-intentioned, but not always applicable. Some people cannot see beyond what the “rules” are, and have actually responded to me with “…but the guidelines say…” Yes, I am well aware of what the guidelines say, and this [tears up the sheet of paper with the guidelines written on them for dramatics] is what I think of your guidelines.
Why do we pay you fuckers to make decisions if you won’t *decide * anything? You’re just reading off a sheet of paper; a robot can do that. Why don’t you just stop and go, “I see why that guideline exists, and it is a good one, but this situation is a bit different, and we’re still accomplishing our goal here, just with an approach that varies slightly from what we typically do.” Document why you made the exception, and move on. You don’t have to make this exception for everyone who doesn’t want to follow the rules. Make exceptions when they make sense.
I have to fight for every exception we make around here tooth and nail. I seriously have to escalate it to the gods, because most of the people I work with (save for a few exceptions who I adore) are terrified of having to use any goddamn judgment. I remember once getting something escalated, and the person I had to argue to said the objections I was receiving were “idiotic.” I loved her for that, and we eventually ended up working together to rewrite the guidelines to allow for more exceptions, since some people just didn’t get it. “Oh noez, we can’t do that! It’s not, word for word, what the guidelines allow! If we do that, we’ll have to do it for every single deal evar!!!” No you won’t! Arrgh!
The “exception for you is an exception for everyone” is just what you’re told when the adjudicator feels that you’d be needlessly butthurt by their decision. Dollars to donuts the people that hear this weren’t really deserving of the exception in the first place - it’s just a way to let you down gently and give you some extrinsic, non-personal thing to latch on to for not getting what you want.
The problem is that people then push harder and harder to have an exception made for them because you’ve done it for others; and if you don’t give it to them they view it not as you gave something to someone else as an exception, but that you’ve refused* them *for some reason, whereas you would say yes to somebody else. And then they push harder and it gets awkward. People just don’t want that hassle.
It’s not ideal, but some people just won’t take no for an answer.
Also take into consideration that you really *don’t *deserve the exception. Believe me, your situation probably isn’t as exceptional as you think
I know I’ve seen people badgering sales clerks and other low level drones with “just this once” and “but I need it”, and not even considering the fact that their convenience could get that person fired. If you’re really determined, you need to go up the ladder to someone who won’t suffer consequences for breaking rules.
I don’t deny that, very occasionally, there is an exceptional situation. But don’t get into the habit of thinking you’re more entitled than anyone else, because you really aren’t.
Why can’t people just say that the situation isn’t exceptional, instead of giving the reason as “Then we’ll have to do it for everyone.” That’s not true. No you won’t.
This ‘no exceptions’ bullcrap is what pisses me off about the popular ‘zero tolerance’ policies in effect at so many institutions (schools, in particular). Little Randy gets suspended for drawing a picture of a gun, because we have a zero tolerance policy against guns, ya know. Annabelle can’t take a Motrin for cramps because we have a zero tolerance policy against drugs.
Situations are different. Context is everything. Critical thinking and common sense are being trampled upon by those who must stick to the letter of the law, regardless of the circumstances.
The concept of “no exceptions” draws an exact line. As soon as one exception is made that line now becomes a gray line. It makes what was once a firm policy something that is now open for debate. You allow one person to debate their position then you owe it to every person to debate the policy. It becomes a waste of resources and time.
Example: Employees not allowed to have any food or drink on sales floor at any time.
Somebody wants to have water bottle. You make an exception.
Now somebody wants a bottle of grap juice. You say no since it can stain and is sticky to clean up.
Then somebody says how about white grape juice? How about ice tea?
Can I chew gum? Chewing gum is not eating. All right I guess you can chew gum. How about skittles? If you can chew gum it’s just like chewing skittles.
And get fired or sued for discrimination when someone finds a similarity, no matter how utterly remote and undetectable to the naked eye, among the people I have refused to make exceptions for?
But I wouldn’t be making an exception for you, I’d be making an exception for the situation. You are not special, get over it.
When I was a prof, I would tell the students on the first day of class “I’ve got good news and I’ve got bad news. The good news is that I will treat you all equally. The bad news is that I will threat you all equally.” Too many students try to weasel “make up work” or something out of profs. But as I explain to them, if I make an exception to them, then I have to make the same offer to all students.
This is not the same as treating all situations the same. E.g., a student has an illness or something and gets an official excuse from the Dean of Students, then I make special arrangements. I did that with all students in the same situation. It’s not the person.
A ‘no exceptions’ policy makes sense, to the extent it does, only in that people’s expectations of fairness suggest that a precedent has been set by the first exception.
But anyone with half a brain can define what makes the exceptional situation exceptional. No, you can’t take an additional unscheduled day off with pay because your husband was given a chance to go to a business convention in Vegas and wants you to go along. And yes, I did give an additional unscheduled day off with pay to Fred, but that was because his uncle and his brother both died unexpectedly within five weeks of each other. So I made an exception for two unrelated deaths of close family. Unless Wayne Newton’s a close relative of yours, that doesn’t apply to your case.
And as far as I’m concerned, any teacher, principal, or school uperintendent who institutes (not implements one laid down by someone above him/her) a zero tolerance policy should be fired for cause at his or her first mistake thereafter. No exceptions, no justifications, no reconsiderations. And immediate loss of benefits. Sauce for the goose, you know.
I often try to explain to people that the Policy is created for the idiots. I know that sounds harsh, but it is true, and I have been that idiot that needed that policy in order to do my job.
I have also been the genius that figured out that my manager wants me to handle a situation logically when I can, even if it goes against policy.
Think about when an exception is called for, then make it. Simple.
By the way, I have been wrong. There were times that I made that rare exception and it backfired on me and I ended up getting in trouble. So what. My job sometimes causes me to take ‘risks’ and get in ‘trouble’. I am quite certain that my co-workers blind adherance to policy has caused more trouble that my rare exceptions.
But in real life these ‘exceptional situations’ are never so cut & dry and it’s suprising how fast they get dragged into the grey area.
Fred’s uncle and brother died but he had never met his uncle and had been estranged from his brother for 15 years. And it was actually a step brother. I want to go to the funeral of my friend Susan. No she’s not a realtive but she’s a reaaaally close friend. She just happens to have lived in Vegas.
What do you mean NO? Fred gets the day off and I don’t? I’m going to have to go get a second opinion from HR.