Living a principled life cannot be faulted. Strict adherence to principles ensures consistency, predictability, and dependency, that there can never be real enjoyment of a peaceful life with haphazard living. Principles are meant to be permanent and not fluid by changing all the time and conveniently depending on prevailing situations. However, some “principles” can stifle progress, encourage the total opposite behaviour and outcome to the original intent. Poorly defined principles can result in duplicity, prejudice and a superiority complex, with the conduct of some deemed above the application of principles and some “unfairly” and strictly subjected to their enforcement.

The issue then is not about the principles, because principles are meant to represent unchangeable truth, aspirations, rallying point of focus, motivation and drive to envisioned good outcome or state. The issue then is about the definition of those principles and the premise of their definition in that they may not have been objectively defined, but done so from a narrow and possibly “self-interest” perspective. Hence their failure to stand the truth test over time. By Nimroth Gwetsa, 29 April 2023.

Given a choice, I would rather live in an environment where principles are enforced despite the shortcomings of their definition, than live in an environment with no principles at all. If indeed, there is a strict enforcement of and adherence to principles, it should not be difficult then, by the same principle, to amend the definition of those found to have been poorly defined and a “new norm” established afterwards. That, any day, is better than living without principles, because then, anything goes. Chaos reigns in an environment without principles or their enforcement. It can thus be said that principles at least attempt to bring about “law and order” and their absence, the total opposite.

Companies should also watch against their principles becoming the albatross perpetuating instability, indecisions, runaway costs and bullying in the environment. Companies are not immune to societal and political ills of “factionalism” or partisanship. Corporate politics is also factional. Companies too have diverse people with different traits, behaviours and interests. Having the ability to overcome such ills in creating “objective” principles is a science, a blessing and a rare gift to be highly treasured. By this saying, the aim is not to cast aspersions on the character of anyone because sometimes decisions are made, not from an ill intent perspective but genuine unconscious lack of knowledge in the products or operations or intricacies of the workings of the business.

Very rarely do companies have individuals with knowledge in all or diverse aspects of the business. Thus, it is not easy to make central universal decisions binding on all and in the “supposed” interests of all. Making such decisions should not be trivialised either. Confirmation bias is often prevalent and remains unchecked especially when the making of such decisions is led and facilitated by people with strong personalities and strong opinions on the subject concerned. Truth is truth and is unchangeable. It remains true all the time and is without age. The only thing opposed to truth being lies. Thus, principles are meant to represent unchanging truth, at least for a season or foreseeable long time. By this definition, care should be taken in defining principles for a company because they are meant to advance and not hamper progress. Their definition should not be subject to perspectives but surpass them.

Before the definition of principles in a company is finalised, they should be tested against their impact on the company’s customers, operations, environment, capabilities and strength, products, and financials among others to ensure that all related risks, concerns, benefits and consequences or implications are well understood and acceptable. Because, it would be pointless finalising such decisions without resolving issues or risks raised. Such finalisation amidst glaring differences of opinions can only result in factionalism, hypocrisy and bullying, among others. The good old Book boldly tells us a “…house divided against itself shall not stand.” Note the strong assertive verb used there, “shall” and not “will” as though a prediction is made, or “can” as though some permission is required, but “shall”. Shall is emphatic as though it is commanded despite one’s will.

Thus, poorly defined principles are a sure and fast way of destroying a well-built “house” and such should be checked and amended whenever they impede progress. It follows that companies should “beware egos” of strong personalities from preventing the amendment of such stifling principles. Likewise, amendments to principles should not result in a witch-hunt exercise of “hounding out” proponents of such principles. Sound mind and temperament should be exercised.

Life is too precious and sometimes too short to be wasted on frivolous activities and agendas. Adopt sound principles and let them give you the peace that only comes from the adherence to those principles.