Lessons Learned from the Theory of Regulatory Compliance: Maybe Perfect is not Perfection

I have done some recent thinking about the practical implications of the theory of regulatory compliance and started to think that maybe perfection is not what it is cracked up to be. Let’s review for a moment the theory of regulatory compliance which states that there is a non-linear relationship between regulatory compliance and quality. In simple terms, it means that as we compare quality to regulatory compliance at the lower levels there is a one-to-one correspondence – as regulatory compliance increases so does quality. Low regulatory compliance translates to poor performance on a quality level. At a substantial regulatory compliance level translates to a high level of quality. And lastly, at a full regulatory compliant level the level of quality either plateaus at the substantial compliant level or actually decreases which is disconcerting.

So what does this mean for us at a practical level in every day life, especially those of us who consider ourselves perfectionists. Well maybe we are wasting our time becoming perfectionists and being really good at something is as good as being a perfectionist!! There appears to be some support if you believe the theory of regulatory compliance and its results. So crossing every “t” and doting every “i” is not always necessary in every single case as long as there are no systemic issues which indicate real carelessness. If you miss one or two by accident, it’s ok, as long as you don’t lose sight of the big picture related to overall quality. And of course what you are missing is low risk and not high risk.

I know that for most people this might be difficult to accept. We assume that we live in a linear world where more regulatory compliance brings on higher levels of quality. That was the prevailing paradigm for decades but it was based upon anecdotal evidence and not empirical evidence. And then in the 1970’s – 1980’s this assumption was put to the empirical test and as they say “It just ain’t so” or “the devil is in the details” was the result. I am sure this is not going to change many people’s perceptions, I know I am having difficulty with it, and I am the person who came up with the theory of regulatory compliance results. But I hope that people take a step back and look at the results and contemplate that maybe it is more non-linear than linear when it comes to our efforts to improve our position. What is the “sweet spot” to borrow a term from the baseball vernacular? Possibly when it comes to regulatory compliance and beyond to the social sciences that we need to find these “sweet spots” that really make a difference in peoples’ lives then thinking in terms of “more is better” or if you are a minimalist “less is better”. Possibly it is somewhere in-between = “the sweet spot”, what are the key indicators to quality? Just a thought?!