Why One-Size-Fits-All HR Policies Don't Work
"We treat everybody different. We don't have protocols, we don't have policies. If something
comes up, the employee creates the policy together with us."
That's how one of our clients recently described their way of working. No thick HR
handbook, no endless rules. Just trust, dialogue, and the belief that people are unique.
It's also how we once started our own company. The foundation was simple: treat people
differently, based on their situation and contribution. No fixed rules, no heavy policies - just
agreements made together.
But here's the hard truth: over time, things change. People look at each other. They compare.
They get jealous or frustrated. "Why does she get to leave early? Why does he get more
flexibility than I do?" Slowly, exceptions become tensions. And to manage those tensions,
companies introduce policies. Not because they want to, but because they feel they have to.
That's how many organizations drift from flexibility to uniformity: not by choice, but by
pressure.
Why Uniform HR Rules Fail
Employees are not the same and their personal circumstances shape how they can perform at
work:
Parents may need flexible hours for school pick-up.
A caregiver may need to leave early once a week.
Someone dealing with stress or burnout may require adjusted workloads.
High performers may deliver results in four days instead of five.
When HR policies ignore these realities, they don't create fairness. They create frustration,
disengagement, and turnover.
HR as the Hidden Catch Basin
HR departments often act as the catch basin for employee concerns. They hear the private
stories employees cannot tell their managers: struggles at home, scheduling conflicts, mental
health challenges.
HR wants to help, but because of privacy constraints and resistance from leadership, their
ability to act is limited. This leads to awkward compromises that employees can feel are
"almost right" but not truly supportive.
The result: HR becomes both the confidant and the bottleneck, holding stories they cannot
use to drive change.
The Missing Piece: Employee Input
Solving workplace challenges shouldn't be a one-way street. Too often, employees fall into a
"the company must solve my problem" mindset. That rarely works.
A healthier approach is co-creation. Employees who bring solutions instead of only problems
build shared ownership. For example:
"I struggle with childcare on Wednesdays. What if I start earlier and leave earlier that
day?"
"I deliver my best work remotely. Could we set KPIs so output matters more than
presence?"
"Our roles overlap; what if I take A and my colleague takes B to avoid friction?"
When employees suggest solutions, HR and managers can adapt rules more easily, and trust
grows on both sides.
Top Performers vs. Weak Performers
Another layer of complexity: not all employees deliver the same results.
Top performers are often granted more freedom - remote work, flexible schedules,
exceptions to policy.
Weaker performers usually see the rules applied more rigidly.
Leaders know this happens, but they often struggle to explain it. Policies promise equality, yet
in practice flexibility is tied to performance. Instead of being transparent, organizations hide
behind rigid rules to avoid accusations of favoritism.
Law vs. Leadership
Yes, labor law requires equal treatment. But equal treatment does not mean identical
treatment. The law protects against discrimination and ensures fairness. It does not forbid
nuance.
The real barrier isn't legal! It's cultural. Many leaders lack the courage to openly say, "We
adapt rules to people's circumstances and contributions, and that may look different for each
person."
Beyond Work: Customer or Supplier?
In today's society, everyone is both a customer and a supplier. At work, we're quick to act
like customers: "The company should solve this for me." But every employee is also a
supplier: of effort, ideas, performance, and value.
So the real question is: in this situation, am I showing up as a customer (focused on what I
get), or as a supplier (focused on what I contribute)?
When employees balance those roles - and act according to what is really needed in the
moment, collaboration improves, resentment decreases, and the need for rigid policies
shrinks.
Six Recommendations for Employers
- Adopt the "different jackets" mindset
Fairness means tailoring, not uniformity. Employees respect differences when
explained with transparency and consistency. - Acknowledge the jealousy factor
If flexibility is given, people will compare. Don't ignore it - address it openly.
Explain why exceptions exist, or design transparent principles for flexibility. - Shift from rule-driven to people-driven HR
Policies should serve employees and the business, not just administration. If a rule
doesn't help, adapt it. - Empower HR to act
HR should not be a powerless vault of confidential stories. Give them the mandate to
co-create solutions with employees and leadership. - Ask employees, "How would you solve this?"
Expect employees to bring constructive solutions, not just problems. This creates
shared responsibility for flexibility. - Encourage the customer-supplier mindset
Help employees reflect, "Am I acting as a customer, or as a supplier right now?" The
best workplaces thrive when both roles are in balance.
Conclusion: Beyond One-Size-Fits-All
The best organizations don't hide behind rigid policies. They start from trust, adapt when
needed, and co-create solutions with their people.
But they also know the reality: as soon as people compare themselves to others, jealousy and
frustration can push organizations toward uniform rules. The real challenge is holding on to
flexibility while addressing fairness transparently, and encouraging people to take
ownership, not just as customers, but also as suppliers.
Because one-size-fits-all may sound efficient, but it's the companies with a wardrobe of
options - and the courage to explain why not everyone wears the same jacket - that truly
win loyalty and performance.