Why Your Workplace Policies Are Probably Overdue for a Review
There is a reason workplace policies feel like they never quite get done. They are easy to defer when things seem to be running smoothly, and they tend to surface urgently only when something has already gone wrong. A complaint is filed. A manager makes a decision that nobody can justify in writing. An employee does exactly what the policy says and produces an outcome nobody intended.
Organizations build policies to create predictability. But policies only do that job when they are current, clearly written, and genuinely connected to how people are expected to behave in practice.
Why people follow rules even when those rules no longer make sense
Organizational theorist James March spent decades studying how decisions actually get made inside organizations, and one of his most durable findings is that people rarely stop and calculate consequences before acting. Most of the time, they follow rules, habits, and professional norms. They ask themselves, implicitly: what does someone in my role do here? What has always been done in this situation?
This is not a character flaw. It is how organizations function. Rules reduce complexity. They allow people to act consistently without rebuilding every decision from the ground up. But they also create a specific kind of risk: people will continue following rules that are outdated, legally insufficient, or culturally misaligned, simply because the rules are there and no one has replaced them.
For employers, this has direct consequences. When a manager handles a harassment complaint the way it was handled five years ago, following a process that made sense under an older policy, the organization's legal exposure is not reduced by the manager's good intentions. What matters is what the policy said, whether it met current legal standards, and whether it was followed correctly.
The gap between what the policy says and what actually happens
March also identified what he called "loose coupling" — the gap between what leaders decide and what frontline employees actually do. In the context of workplace policy, this is familiar territory for any HR professional. A policy exists. It has been approved. It is somewhere on the intranet. And then a manager handles a situation in a way that has no connection to it, because they did not know it existed, because it was written in a way nobody could interpret in the moment, or because the culture of the organization has always operated differently than the policy suggests.
This gap is not just an HR problem. It is a legal and liability problem. In a workplace investigation, a human rights complaint, or an employment dispute, the question of whether the organization's policies were clear, accessible, communicated, and followed consistently is often central to the outcome.
What current law requires — and where most policies fall short
Employment law in Atlantic Canada, like elsewhere, continues to evolve. Several areas where policies commonly fall behind include:
Harassment and violence prevention. Occupational health and safety legislation across New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador imposes specific obligations on employers regarding workplace harassment and violence. Policies that predate recent legislative amendments may not meet current procedural requirements.
Accommodation. Human rights obligations around disability, family status, and other protected grounds have continued to develop through tribunal and court decisions. Policies written five or ten years ago may reflect an understanding of accommodation that no longer reflects the legal standard.
Remote and hybrid work. Many organizations updated their practices during and after the pandemic without updating their policies to match. The result is a gap between informal expectations and documented rules that creates confusion and risk.
Discipline and termination. Progressive discipline policies that do not accurately reflect how discipline is actually applied in the organization can be used against the employer in wrongful dismissal claims.
The identity piece: policies as a signal of who you are
March's research on rule-following highlights something that HR practitioners know intuitively: people do not just follow rules because they are told to. They follow rules that feel consistent with who they are and who the organization is. A policy that conflicts with the organization's stated values, or that asks people to behave in ways that feel inconsistent with the organization's culture, will be ignored or worked around.
This means that policy review is not purely a compliance exercise. It is also a culture exercise. The policies your organization maintains tell employees, managers, and external parties what you actually value, not just what you say you value. Policies that are vague, punitive, or disconnected from the organization's real operating environment undermine trust and create the conditions for inconsistent, legally risky decision-making.
What a policy review should actually cover
A thorough policy review for an Atlantic Canada employer should address:
Whether current policies meet the legislative requirements of the relevant jurisdiction or jurisdictions
Whether policies accurately reflect how the organization actually operates, including any changes since the policies were last updated
Whether managers have been trained on the policies and understand how to apply them
Whether policies are written in plain language that employees can actually understand and use
Whether the discipline and termination provisions are consistent with how the organization has historically applied them
Whether accommodation and harassment procedures meet current legal standards
Whether policies are consistently applied across departments, locations, and levels of seniority
Inconsistency in policy application is one of the most common and most preventable sources of legal risk for employers. A policy that exists but is applied differently depending on the manager or the department is often worse than no policy at all, because it creates a record of differential treatment.
The cost of deferring this work
The most common reason organizations defer policy reviews is time. The most common reason they regret that decision is a complaint, an investigation, or a legal proceeding that turns, in part, on what the policy said and whether it was followed. At that point, the policy review that could have been a proactive exercise becomes a reactive problem.
For Atlantic Canada employers operating in a regulatory environment that continues to evolve, staying current is not optional. It is the baseline.
Ready to protect your organization?
Resonance HR Law provides trusted HR and employment law advice to employers across Atlantic Canada. Whether you are navigating a complex workplace issue or looking to get ahead of risk, we are here to help.
–
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Employment law is jurisdiction-specific and changes frequently. Contact Resonance HR Law for advice tailored to your circumstances.