The Rule You Only Enforce With New People

The new person is told about the standard on day one. The person who has been here four years has not done it that way in two years, and nobody says anything.

The new person notices within a week.

What it teaches

That the rule is about status, not the work. ⚠️ The most damaging lesson available, and it is learned without anyone saying it.

That compliance is temporary. Do it until you have been here long enough. New people watch the senior ones for what actually matters here.

That management is not watching, or is not willing. Both readings are bad, and staff cannot tell which one it is.

That you can be told off for something others do openly. ⚠️ This is where resentment starts — not in the rule, in the asymmetry.

Why it happens

Not favouritism, usually. Four ordinary reasons:

The drift went unnoticed. They changed how they do it gradually and nobody registered the day it became different.

The conversation is harder. Telling a four-year member of staff they have been doing something wrong for two years is genuinely uncomfortable.

They are good at their job. ⚠️ The strongest reason and the weakest justification — being excellent elsewhere does not make the rule optional.

Nobody is sure the rule still applies. ⚠️ A real possibility worth checking first — if it has lapsed for everyone except new starters, the rule may simply be obsolete.

Deciding first

Before correcting anyone, answer one question: is this rule still worth having?

If yes: it applies to everyone, and that is a conversation.

If no: stop teaching it to new starters. ⚠️ A rule taught to newcomers and observed by nobody is worse than no rule — it is the first thing they learn is not true.

Most of these are the second case, and the correction is deleting the rule rather than enforcing it.

Having the conversation

Where the rule stays.

Take the blame for the drift. "We stopped keeping an eye on this and that is on me" is accurate and it removes the defensiveness.

Say it to everyone at once, then individually if needed. ⚠️ A general reset is much easier to accept than being singled out for something that has been tolerated for two years.

Set a date it restarts from. Not retroactive — nobody is in trouble for what was tolerated.

Then hold it consistently. ⚠️ If it lapses again, it is finished — you get one restart, not several.

The version that matters most

Rules with a reason that has consequences. Safety, money, guest-facing standards.

⚠️ These are the ones where inconsistency is expensive, and they are frequently the ones let slide for senior people, because senior people are trusted.

Trust is a reason to explain the rule once rather than repeatedly. It is not a reason to exempt.

What it actually teaches

The stated lesson  "this is the rule"
The learned lesson  "this rule is not real"

⚠️ New people learn the second within a fortnight, and they learn it by looking around, which is faster and more convincing than anything you say. 　 ⇒ From then on they judge which rules are real by watching behaviour, 　 　 not by reading anything.

And it does not stay contained

⇒ ⚠️ One selectively enforced rule devalues all of them. If one is visibly optional, the reasonable inference is that others are too.

---

Why it happens without anyone deciding it

Saying it to someone established  expensive, relationally
Saying it to someone new     cheap

⚠️ Nobody chose this arrangement. The cost difference produced it, one easy conversation at a time.

---

Decide it properly: everyone, or nobody

Apply it to everyone  Or withdraw it

⚠️ The third state — new people only — was never chosen. It is what remains when neither of the first two is decided. 　 ⇒ Withdrawing a rule is not a defeat. Removing one that is not 　 　 followed raises the weight of the ones that are.

---

One at a time, with a date

The whole group at once  reads as an accusation
One at a time, with a date  reads as a change

⚠️ Give it a start date that is not tomorrow. "From Monday week" allows someone to change without it looking like a correction, which is most of what makes it possible.

---

The rule its author ignores

A rule the person who made it does not follow

⚠️ Nobody follows that one, and everybody knows which ones they are. 　 ⇒ New staff are watching this specifically, in their first fortnight, 　 　 and they are more accurate about it than you are.

---

---

The same problem, cut a different way

=> The Rules You Enforce Only Sometimes covers uneven enforcement in general, and the three questions that fix a rule.

---

Three to hold

Rules taught at induction that are not universally followed. ⚠️ Ask a new starter after a month — they will list them, and nobody else can.

Corrections given, by tenure. If they cluster entirely on new people, that is the finding.

Rules removed per year. If it is zero, the list only grows, and every unenforced addition weakens the rest.

Where the record has to sit

A standard that lives in an induction conversation is only as consistent as whoever gives it. Written where both a new starter and a four-year member of staff would read the same thing, the drift is at least visible.

tasteck keeps staff-facing notes on the screens people already use, so a standard has one place rather than one version per person who explains it.

Nobody decided the rule stops applying after two years. It just did, and the newest person in the building is the only one who can still see it.

---

Read next

• The Person Who Is Always Ten Minutes Late
• The Weekly Number Your Staff Never See
• The Staff Who Never Get Told
• The Uniform Nobody Wants To Wear
• The Meeting Nobody Speaks In
• The Person Who Never Asks For Anything