Theory of broken windows

The "broken windows theory" is a theory formulated by James Quinn Wilson and George Kelling in 1982. According to this theory, if someone broke a window in a house and no one put in a new one, soon there would be no whole window left in that house, and then looting would begin. In other words, clear signs of disorder and non-observance of accepted norms of behavior by people provoke others to forget about the rules as well. Read more here

It doesn't really matter what industry we apply this theory to. If you switch on some imagination, you can find many examples from our daily life, but I would like to point out exactly those that have accompanied and, unfortunately, will continue to accompany me in my professional activities.

It is already accepted that there are two extremes of management - democratic and autocratic style of management. All other management styles are on the segment, being closer to the "center", to the autocratic or democratic style.

It just so happened that the words "instructions", "procedures", "protocols" imply a clear standardization of staff work. But even today, some managers do not use them (these tools) to organize people's work.

The main "explanations" of these managers are:
well, we don't have a "concentration camp"
I am a supporter of "free" schedule
I don't want to standardize the work of my employee, because I won't be able to ask him to do something outside of his standards.

etc. and every time it sounds like a children's fairy tale and the further it goes, the more ridiculous. 

So for such managers and for those who just want to familiarize themselves with this theory, I suggest you read the article.

And to understand why the employee's "impunity" for being 1 minute late can "kill" the business forever.

Experiment 1

On the street near the parked bicycles, all the bins are taken away. Advertising paper of a non-existent shop was hung on 77 parked bicycles. Bicycle owners had two options - to throw the piece of paper directly on the street, or to take it with them to throw it in the bin.

In the first situation, when the wall near the bicycle parking lot was not painted with graffiti, 33% of bicycle owners threw the advertisement directly on the ground. 

When the wall was painted with some silly (not a mural) graffiti - about 70% of bike owners threw the advertising material directly on the ground - they did not follow the generally accepted norms of behavior of keeping clean.

Experiment 2

The entrance to the parking lot was blocked with a turnstile, but there was still a gap. An information board was hung on the turnstile indicating the entrance to which it was necessary to walk 200 meters, as well as information about the ban on attaching bicycles to the fence. 

In the first case - bicycles were parked near the fence - about 25% of violators were able to pass through the turnstile gap. In the second case - "experimental" bicycles were strapped to the fence - and this caused a violation of the bypass rules - 86% of people.

Experiment 3 and 4

In the third and fourth experiments, people were provoked into petty theft. An envelope with a transparent window was sticking out of the mailbox, through which a 5-euro bill was clearly visible. Experimenters monitored people by counting the number of thefts. In the "order was observed" situation, the mailbox was clean and there was no garbage around. In the "out of order" situation, either the box was painted with nonsensical graffiti (Experiment 3) or there was litter around (Experiment 4).

In the "order was observed" situation, only 13% of passers-by (out of 71) appropriated the envelope. However, 27% of passers-by (out of 60) stole an envelope from a painted box, and strewn garbage provoked 25% of people (out of 72) to steal.
Soft skills
Made on