How do we relate to rules?
Rules and procedures are part of every organisation. They create structure, clarify expectations and help people coordinate their work. At the same time, people do not always have the same expectations about how rules should be applied when circumstances become more complex.
Some people feel more comfortable when rules are applied consistently. For them, applying the same rule in the same way can provide fairness, predictability and clarity. Others see rules as an important framework while also allowing room for context, exceptions or professional judgement. In their view, applying a rule appropriately may sometimes mean considering the specific circumstances.
Neither approach is inherently better. The important question is what people expect rules to provide and how they believe rules should be applied when circumstances differ.
Two different preferences
A more strict approach places greater emphasis on consistency and predictability. Rules and procedures may be seen as an important framework for ensuring that similar situations are treated in similar ways, which can make expectations clearer and decisions easier to explain. Exceptions may therefore be expected to remain limited.
A more flexible approach still recognises the importance of rules, but allows more room to consider the circumstances in which they are applied. When a situation differs significantly from the circumstances the rule was designed for, an exception or adjustment may be considered appropriate.
These are not two fixed types of people. Someone may prefer to follow a rule very strictly in one situation while seeing more room for flexibility in another. The dimension helps make visible how we tend to understand the role of rules and what expectations may follow from that preference.
What might this look like at work?
The difference can become particularly visible when a procedure does not seem to fit a situation perfectly. One person may expect an established process to be followed step by step because consistency is important. Another may look for a way to adapt the process to the specific circumstances, particularly when following it literally could create an undesirable outcome.
A similar difference can arise when an exception is considered. One colleague may be concerned that treating one situation differently could be unfair to others who are expected to follow the same rule. Another may believe that the circumstances are sufficiently different to justify another response. Both may see their position as the fairest one.
The same pattern can appear when dealing with customers or colleagues, as well as in approval processes, organisational policies, compliance requirements and everyday team agreements. What matters is not simply whether people follow rules, but what they believe makes applying a rule appropriate and fair.
When preferences meet
Different expectations can easily lead to misinterpretation. Someone with a more strict preference may experience a flexible colleague as inconsistent or too willing to make exceptions. The flexible colleague may experience the same person as rigid or insufficiently willing to consider the context, particularly when following the rule appears to get in the way of achieving its intended outcome.
Both may believe they are acting responsibly. The difference lies partly in how they interpret the purpose of the rule and what they consider a fair way to apply it. One person may see consistency as an important foundation of fairness, while another may believe that fairness requires taking relevant differences in circumstances into account.
From awareness to intercultural skills
The Strictly ↔ Flexibly dimension helps make visible that people may have different perspectives on the relationship between rules, context and professional judgement. Recognising these differences is a first step; the real intercultural skill develops when we can use that awareness in everyday situations such as applying procedures, considering exceptions or deciding how much room a particular situation allows for interpretation.
Recognising these differences is a first step. The real intercultural skill develops when we can use that awareness in our everyday work: when meeting new colleagues, developing professional relationships, working with clients and partners or maintaining contact over time.
The goal is not to become more strict or more flexible. It is to recognise what the situation requires, understand how others may interpret the role of rules differently and choose how to respond.
Helpful generalisations — not labels
The Strictly ↔ Flexibly dimension describes possible preferences in how people approach rules and procedures. It does not determine how someone will behave in every situation, nor does it tell us whether someone is more or less compliant or responsible.
Every professional works within different organisational, legal and social contexts. The value of this dimension therefore lies not in placing people on one side of a scale, but in opening a conversation about what rules mean to us, how others may approach them differently and what we need from one another when rules meet real-world situations.
How does this work within your team?
The Mazzi-Inc. Cultural Profiler makes visible cultural preferences that may influence how people interpret rules, procedures, fairness and professional judgement.