[ExpertsSay, Business
Management]Policy, What to Create? By WHOM? 20080002(20251217)2/8
[You can go back to the following paragraphs by clicking the topics]
1. Refer to the articles, please be invited to share your expertise.
2. Understanding current issues through technologies; Gemini/Google, Grok/xAI.
2.3.Policies design work roles and responsibilities issues:
2.4.The issue of the disconnect between policymakers and implementers.
2.5.The attitude of top-level managers towards written management policies.
2.6.Issues regarding the frequency of updating the written management policies.
3. Please consult the Constitution: What are those things employees need to comply with at work?!
4. Flat or multi-levels organizations, there must be a supervisor/boss; therefore…
5. The most concise management policy is the control documents👈Hence, we need to describe in words, not just in verbal communication.
6. By whom?! How many of them?! Please get the work organization from HR first, or, 5 words.
7. Managers who are good at management are able to build up written management policies; vice versa.
8. A policy
bypasses employees' idea is a command, it is possible it is not practical or
violates the laws; is there any policy allows bypassing employees’
involvement?!
2. Understanding current issues through
technologies; Gemini/Google, Grok/xAI.
When I was revising this article on 2025/12/17 , I
sought for help from AI software about this question:
In your opinion,
when building up the management policies, what problems typically are arisen
regarding the work roles and responsibilities of defining it? Thank you!
Software, Gemini and Grok, answered respectively as
below; and this blog would like to provide related explanation under those
questions: (Description below is also translated by the software themselves
from Traditional Chinese version)
Gemini/Google：
Common Issues in Defining Management System Roles and Responsibilities
Gemini1. Lack of Clarity and Multiple Authorities (權責不清與多頭馬車)
This is the most frequent problem.
Problem Description: The authority for system drafting, approval,
publication, as well as subsequent interpretation and revision, is not clearly
allocated to specific departments or positions within the governance
regulations.
Consequences:
System Overlap (制度疊床架屋): Various departments feel they have the right
to create regulations, leading to similar or even conflicting policies.
Responsibility Shirking (責任推T): When implementation
difficulties arise, no single department can take the lead for modification or
interpretation, leaving issues unresolved.
Low Decision-Making Efficiency (決策效率低): The approval process for policies is lengthy and uncertain because it
is unclear who has the final say.
Gemini2. Disconnection Between Drafting and Executing Departments (制定部門與執行部門的「兩張皮」)
The gap between the drafters and the implementers severely affects the
feasibility of the system.
Problem Description: Policies are often spearheaded by functional
departments like Human Resources, Legal, or the General Manager's Office.
However, these departments may lack sufficient understanding of the actual
operations and needs of business units (such as Sales, Production, or R&D).
Consequences:
Lack of Operability (制度不具操作性):
Policies are too theoretical or idealistic, detached from actual work
processes, making them difficult to execute on the frontline.
Resistance and Complaints (抵制與抱怨): Executing departments view the policies as "castles in the
air," leading to resistance and superficial compliance.
Frequent Revisions (制度修訂頻繁):
Policies need repeated revisions shortly after implementation due to being
"impractical," wasting resources.
Gemini3. Lack of High-Level Authorization and Involvement (缺乏高層的有效授權與參與)
The authority of a policy stems from top management support.
Problem Description: Certain crucial policies (such as compensation,
performance, or budgeting) lack formal approval or authorization from the
highest management level, such as the General Manager or the Board of
Directors, being signed off only by middle management.
Consequences:
Insufficient Authority (制度權威性不足):
Policies are difficult to enforce on senior or high-level personnel and are
often undermined by "special exceptions" during execution.
Departmental Silo Mentality (部門本位主義): Department heads may draft or interpret policies solely based on
their own interests, lacking a mechanism for coordination that serves the
company's overall interest.
Gemini4. Abuse or Vacuum of Interpretation Authority (制度解釋權的濫用或真空)
Problem Description:
Abuse: The interpretation authority is overly centralized in a single
department (e.g., only HR), which may unfairly favor itself or restrict the
rights of other departments when interpreting the system.
Vacuum: The policy does not specify where the "final interpretation
authority" resides. This means there is no authoritative arbitrator when
ambiguities in the policy occur.
Consequences: Inconsistent execution standards lead to a sense of
unfairness, which in turn impacts employee morale and internal corporate
collaboration.
Gemini5. Lack of Regular Review and Revision Mechanism (缺乏定期審查和修訂機制)
Management systems must evolve with the times.
Problem Description: Although policies are established, there is no
clear stipulation of "who" is responsible for conducting
effectiveness evaluations and "when" policies should be reviewed and
revised regularly.
Consequences: Policies fail to keep pace with company business
development, regulatory changes, or organizational adjustments, becoming
outdated "zombie policies" that ultimately lose their management
effectiveness.
✅ Recommended Solutions
To avoid the issues listed above, when establishing a policy for
drafting policies, a company should establish a separation of powers framework:
Drafting Authority (制定/起草權): Granted to the departments that best understand the business and are
closest to the source of the problem (e.g., joint drafting by business units
and functional departments).
Approval/Authorization Authority (審批/頒布權): Centralized at the top management level, such as the General Manager,
Operating Committee, or Board of Directors, to ensure the policy's authority
and a holistic perspective.
Custodian/Interpretation Authority (歸口/解釋權): Assigned to professional functional departments (e.g., HR for
personnel policies, Finance for financial policies), with the highest
management level explicitly designated as having the final interpretation
authority to act as the arbitrator for disputes.
Grok/xAI：
When companies formulate management systems, issues related
to the allocation and definition of authority and responsibility are indeed
common. If these issues are not properly addressed, they may lead to reduced
operational efficiency, frequent internal conflicts, or even labor disputes.
The following outlines common problems based on management practices and
relevant principles:
Grok1. **Mismatch between authority and responsibility**:
The most prevalent issue is when authority and responsibility are
disproportionate. For example, assigning significant responsibilities to
employees without granting corresponding decision-making authority results in
an inability to effectively perform tasks, leading to frustration and
inefficiency. Conversely, granting excessive authority without clear
responsibility constraints can lead to abuse of power or erroneous decisions.
This imbalance often violates the management principle of "equivalence of
authority and responsibility," hindering the achievement of organizational
goals.
Grok2. **Unclear definition of authority and
responsibility**: The system fails to clearly specify the scope of authority
and obligations for each position or department, resulting in overlaps or gaps.
For instance, multiple departments may claim decision-making rights over the
same matter, or certain critical tasks may lack assigned responsibility,
leading to evasion of accountability, coordination difficulties, and delays in
execution.
Grok3. **Excessive centralization or decentralization of
authority**: Excessive concentration of authority at the senior level reduces
autonomy at lower levels, diminishing employee motivation and innovation
capacity. Conversely, excessive decentralization may lead to fragmented
decision-making, making it difficult to maintain organizational consistency and
risk control.
Grok4. **Neglect of accountability mechanisms**: When
allocating authority and responsibility, a clear accountability system is not
established concurrently. This results in employees bearing responsibilities
without performance evaluation or consequence enforcement, weakening the
enforcement of the system.
Grok5. **Disconnect from legal regulations or practical
needs**: In certain regions (such as Taiwan), management systems must comply
with regulations like the Labor Standards Act. If the design of authority and
responsibility fails to consider legal requirements (e.g., filing of work rules
or protection of employee rights), disputes may arise. Additionally, if the
system formulation process does not incorporate employee participation or
practical feedback, it may result in low feasibility or significant resistance
to implementation.
To avoid the above issues, it is recommended that companies
adhere to the principle of equivalence between authority and responsibility
when formulating systems, clearly define duties in written form, conduct
regular reviews and adjustments, and incorporate employee input to enhance
acceptance. This approach can strengthen organizational governance effectiveness
and promote stable development.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you wish to discuss a
specific scenario in further detail, please feel free to provide additional
information.
This blog has summarized questions from above
software and add the explanation in below paragraph; if readers feel some
questions are not answered in the following paragraph, please inform this blog
for further revision. Thank you! To follow the number of this paragraph, 2,
those questions are numbered as below:
2.1.The issues of employees’ professional capability in
building up the management policies and the appropriateness of the authorized
management power to these employees by the company.
2.2.Management policies creators work owners are not
clearly defined, and, the rule for defining the policies creators are not
clear, either; what are those work roles and responsibilities of the written
management policies’ management?! The answers of the questions of this
paragraph needs to be approved by whom in order to be effective?! Or, what is
the approval procedures?!
2.3.Policies design work roles and responsibilities issues:
(1)Those work rights of policies definition, reviewing and
approval, publishing and the rights of explanation and revision are not clearly
defined among particular departments or work roles.
(2)Neglect the accountability mechanism. There is no work
performance assessment for policies definition and execution in the work
performance review scope.
(3)In the policies, there is no「final interpretation authority」, it results in a lack of
authoritative arbitrators when the system becomes ambiguous.
2.4.The issue of the disconnect between policymakers and
implementers.
2.5.The attitude of top-level managers towards written
management policies.
(1)In the work management environment, in fact, there are
only mid-level managers, level 3 or below, are following those policies, the
working atmosphere is the TOP level managers don’t value the written policies.
(2)To compare with (1), there is also excessive
centralized work power of those in the high level, it leads to those of lower
level lack of autonomy, it also reduces employees’ work motives and the ability
of creativity; conversely, excessive decentralization of work power can lead to
fragmented decision-making, it makes it difficult to maintain the organizational
consistency and risk control.
2.6.Issues regarding the frequency of updating the written
management policies.
(1) The content of the management policies does not comply
with legal provisions, or the law has been updated, however, the regulations
have not yet been modified.
(2) Issues regarding the appropriateness of the frequency
of updating the management policies and the necessity of timely updates.
2.1.The
issues of employees’ professional capability in building up the management
policies and the appropriateness of the authorized management power to these
employees by the company.
(1)Professional Competency: Let's get
straight to the point 👉 Management policies, as the name suggests, they are management methods written
into regulations, therefore, the responsibilities of establishing such policies
naturally fall to the most professional managers – the boss or various functional professional
managers hired by the boss, i.e., the
highest-level supervisors in each department (assuming their job title
is Vice President = VP). If professional managers have issues with their
professional competence, it will affect their ability to establish management policies. 👉 This blog
suggests that you ask the following questions in interviewing those
professional managers- candidates to understand their management capabilities
and also refer to this article: Who is the successor? Interviewers, please consider asking these questions,
and, if the candidate can provide a satisfactory answer, then this candidate
definitely knows what management priorities should be included in the
management policies content; only the issue of how to write down the policies
remains. Do you agree?!
This blog suggests you to refer to your
company's departmental organizational chart and the paragraph headings of the Group Central Procurement Policy to ask the following questions; please
try to answer these seemingly simple questions yourself-
a. 「Please let us know your idea about the work purpose of the work department
you are handling?! And please share an example.」: In this question, everyone would
shift viewpoint as the board level, do you agree?! In the situation of your
requesting for sharing examples, this blog would like to share some cases and
please you try to consider applying those cases, the work purpose, to related
department of your company, you will find out departments work purposes may
vary by companies though their work functions seem the same, their work
responsibilities may differ due to their business size and scopes are different:
Candidate 1: To minimize the company's overall operational risks.
(Manufacturing, Telecommunications)
Candidate 2: To ensure users of this product or service are aware of the
company's brand. (Machinery equipment industry, direct sales industry)
Candidate 3: Controlling customer credit risk is this department's
primary responsibility. (Finance and leasing industry, personal care retailers)
b. 「Please share examples, your department needs to cooperate
with others, or, it works independently?! Please provide examples of the work results and the division
of labor cross functionally and among those work levels in your department.」: This is an issue of work roles and responsibilities
cross functionally, at the same time, you may want to define questions to know
those candidates’ interpersonal skills and attitude in communicating with
others or other questions; you may also want to know those internal controls
checks and balances’ among work roles and responsibilities of departments,
however, those answers for these questions may not be suitable for being the
standards for your assessment the eligibility of candidates for [hire or not],
they are suitable only for knowing their idea unless you are hiring a person
for an Internal Control managerial role.
c. 「Please let us know your past experience or how our
company could specifically evaluate the work performance of you and of the
department you are managing?! Please provide examples.」: This is a KPI related question,
candidates may also want to know how your company is doing the evaluation.
In above cases,
do you feel your company has already been in the situation of management
policies development?! You just need to create a standard format for it. How
great you are! 😍
(2)Managers
who shirk responsibility and wield excessive power: It is often difficult for top
management to detect such situations in their company. This suggestion is for
employees who are under pressure from managers who shirk responsibility or those
who exert excessive authority. However, this blog suggests that your company
establish management mechanisms such as regular top-down skip-level interviews, employees’ opinion surveys,
or employees’ feedback mailboxes to understand the actual work attitudes of employees
in managerial roles and employees' expectations on the work environment.
Suggestion: In short, it is to create and keep
the evidence, this purpose is to prove that you have already complete your job
duties, if there is delay or inappropriateness, it is others causing disruption
in your work process, or, there are some people intentionally creating a false
scenario. 👈👈👈However,
it must be a fact, because, your
evidence will be verified.
People
can easily change themselves rather than changing others; you can only change
the way you interacting the work environment based on your [work objectives], the
purpose is to ensure you have fulfilled your work obligation of your work
contract, or, you can observe the environment you are working for they need your
work contribution or not👉👉👉Changing
job or not?!
a. Encountering a supervisor who avoids taking
responsibility: Please make good use of email copies (C.C.). If you
have already verbally or physically reported to this type of supervisor,
consider adjusting the entire reporting process by sending an email by work
progress: To: This supervisor, C.C.: Colleagues who need to know your work
progress, or place the supervisor in C.C when submitting to those colleagues.
You may be questioned by your supervisor about your motives of doing this,
however, even in a good work environment, this practice is to keep you and your
colleagues informed about the work progress of all of you👈👉and there's
nothing wrong with it. Once the email is sent, you have fulfilled the work obligation
of this stage. 👈👉Your
supervisor may ask you not to send similar C.C. messages again, in this
situation, please inform your
colleagues and discuss ways to maintain synchronized work progress information.
This blog would like to exchange idea with you: This blog consider
employees who confirm with their managers their managers have read their
messages are good employees, unless they cannot contact their managers due to
working in different location, therefore, good employees may proactively doing
verbal confirmation with their managers to know the progress of managers’
feedback👈It is
because good employees want to fulfill their work obligation, they must do this
kind of confirmation with managers to control their own work progress.
b. Encountering
a supervisor who appears to have excessive authority:
This situation most commonly occurs when supervisor B is a direct
subordinate of the highest-level executive A, for example, B is A’s assistant,
the secretary B, or a manager reporting directly to A; in such cases, when you
submit a report intended for A, B may review it first and express opinions on
your report, and request or imply that you need to revise it according to B’s
views before A ‘s review. 👈👈👈B’s
opinions may not necessarily be fully valid or may lack of reference value, and if you consider them unreasonable
or suspect ulterior motives, this blog suggests that you raise questions
directly with B to clarify your
thoughts, you need to ensure that B fully understands your doubts and
provides clear responses. Throughout the communication process with B, you need
to avoid any [implication or speculation], it is because it is you must take full responsibility for your own interpretation
of any perceived implications or guesses, as well as for your corresponding
actions. Do you agree? The following are examples of questions you may
ask B:
- Please let me know
do you mean you will deliver my report to A only after I have revised it based
on your suggestions?!👈👈Do you feel the power and given balance
by asking this question?! When B is
not responsible for your work performance /not your manager but wants you to
revise your report, B must explain his/her purpose of the suggestions
and what they would like to do after you’ve revised.
Reminder: Some B is A’s assistant or secretary, A had already instructed
B to first filter out reports that were inappropriate or lacked necessary
documentation, it is highly possible; if you think B’s request is not
reasonable, you can also express your idea of not willing to revise it, B only
needs to note what you’ve said👈After all, it is you responsible for your own report.
- Was this task assigned to you by A, or was A informed of it to you?! Or is this just your assumption about A's thoughts?!👈This statement has been used in two instances: it was later proven that B guessed A's thoughts incorrectly, and B admitted to their assumption and changed their approach. The characteristic of this type of B is to mislead everyone by saying things like, "A might...", making everyone listen to B's opinion. This is mainly because most people in Company A are afraid to directly ask A, as A is a very high-ranking official.👈👈Colleagues in the work environment, Cs, must bear some responsibility for this situation, because, B exists because C tends to consult B instead of directly consulting A.
Please remember you can sponsor this blog and request self-media
resources for use 👉To
comment in this article and leave your company name in it or advertise your
brand, the link of your website that allows others can easily find you; please
click and view Service At A Glance /Advertising Areas. Thank you!
Please review the professional
advertisements in the various advertising spaces
across the page before leaving!
[ExpertsSay, Business Management]Policy, What to Create? By WHOM? 20080002(20251217)3/8
