Post hoc, propter hoc

Compliance means compliance.  If there is an applicable rule, comply with it.  If you don’t like it, change it.  But to complain about the rules after the fact, rather than before the fact, is just bad form.

What does it say when, instead of complying or moving to change the rules in time to have an impact, you either don’t obey or just complain about the unfairness of the rule that was previously adopted?

“Fight Over Delegate Rules Escalates for Both Parties,” The Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2016, A1. Continuing kerfuffle over the rules applicable to election primary process in various states.

How will the successful candidate deals with rules when he or she is elected?  Is the failure to read or understand the rules a reasonable defense?  Is it a defense for John Q. Public?

What does it say when the leaders in an organization either don’t know the applicable rules, or don’t follow them?

Leave a comment

Filed under Compliance, Controls, Culture, Governance, Legal, Requirements, Third parties

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s