In 2014, the Grand Rapids, Michigan, City Commission announced the removal of a local ordinance from their record. The city would no longer ban spitting in public. We have all read about wacky laws that walk the line between fact and fiction, like one in South Haven, Michigan, that bans throwing a hoopskirt in the street or on the sidewalk. At one time or another, it made sense to policymakers to ban spitting and trashing hoopskirts.
Resurrecting outdated policies can be similar to finding a fossil frozen in time. These policy artifacts are remnants of standards or solutions to problems long gone or problems that have been addressed with more efficient solutions.
Perhaps you found a fossil in your organization’s policies or maybe you have been tasked with revisiting an outdated company policy. Below are considerations for unpacking a fossil once you’ve uncovered it.
There are many reasons why you or others might uncover an outdated policy in your organization. Perhaps a new staff member asked about an old billing process, or a manager admits the policy section related to their work does not accurately capture best or current practice. Although the Grand Rapids City Council did have a fossil-finding mission where a dedicated team was cleaning up local ordinances, fossils can also be found by accident.
No matter how the relic was uncovered, what do you do now? Your next step likely depends on your role and ability to impact the policy itself. In general, after uncovering a fossil, it can be helpful to unpack its purpose before deciding how to act. Those with policy-changing power should, with some exceptions, resist the temptation to quickly remove the language without considering the following:
What problem was this policy attempting to solve or what role did it play?
Think through what problem this policy language was trying to solve. How was it attempting to be helpful? The ban on public spitting was likely in Grand Rapids’ ordinance code for a very long time. The code was living in a world where rates of tuberculosis (TB) were high, treatments were undeveloped, and it was commonplace for people to ditch their tobacco spit in public spittoons. Public health was a budding science, and policymakers were moving towards bans to prevent outbreaks.
Is there still a problem?
Consider if the problem still exists. In the case of spit bans, the answer is, unfortunately, yes. Tuberculosis is the second leading cause of death by infectious disease worldwide. Why remove the spit ban? Consider the context of the problem, which leads to the next question.
Is there a better solution?
As for TB and the spit ban, there is a better way. In the 1940s and 1950s antibiotic treatments for TB were improved and made treating it much easier. People infected with TB can be treated, survive, and prevent further infections due to these lifesaving medications, but they are not available everywhere1. According to the World Health Organization, in 2022 some 1.3 million people died from preventable TB infections2. Another 10.6million were infected and could have life-long effects.
Some 70 years later, spit bans likely would not save lives as effectively as access to effective treatments. In the case of your organization’s fossil, consider if a better solution has been identified. It might be as simple as replacing language with your updated finance software or as nuanced as updating your hiring practices to comply with state and federal laws.
What does change look like?
The process for changing policies varies from editing a typo in a handbook to drafting a bill in Congress. Regardless, changing or creating new policies should be done thoughtfully and collaboratively with relevant stakeholders, customers, and staff. The complexity of the process for changing policy should match the weight and impact of the policy itself. In the case of the manager who knows their current practice is not adequately captured, they could start by considering how much of a lift it would be to adjust policies to mirror current best practices. Would it require a team? Is there a schedule when policies are revised? Would edits require a full rewrite? Is there existing language in other sources, like handbooks or training, that could be used to inform new policy language instead of starting from scratch? While unpacking the fossil, think ahead to what a potential solution could be and what the process looks like to implement a solution.
What is the impact of the fossil?
The type and level of impact might inform how you move forward. If the potential for negative impact is low and the fossil is benign, similar to the spit ban, adjusting or removing the language may have minimal impact or could simplify policies. If the potential for harm to customers, patients, staff, or the organization is high with an outdated policy, this likely influences the action taken. Policies can drive quality improvements at their best or misdirect or confuse staff, at their worst.
What is possible?
Most organizations do not have the resources to fund endless policy analysis, brainstorming, and iteration. Organizations also have parameters to consider such as staff capacity and budgets. Consider what solutions and policy-changing processes are possible with your organization’s staffing capacity and budgets, while balancing compliance, industry standards, and other parameters.
If you are responsible for policy development, then you’re in charge of helping your organization move forward. The process of policy editing comes with its processes and considerations outside of the scope of this blog.
However, almost any policy development process is best done with company, especially if the impact is high and the problem is still present. Consider adding members to your team, as the most valuable feedback will likely be from those directly impacted by the policy or its changes. With an array of perspectives comes complex processes, deeper and more diverse considerations, and hopefully a solid result instead of burying a fossil for future generations.
