Compliance without inner conviction is merely control

When people used to travel, the preparation was straightforward:
They studied maps.
They followed established routes.
And it was best not to deviate from them.

Because deviation meant risk.
Getting lost.
In the worst case: failure, even life-threatening danger.

For a long time, our relationship with rules was similar.

Rules as maps of a supposedly stable world

In antiquity, the Middle Ages, and well into the early modern period, rules were understood as binding roadmaps. They dictated not only what was permitted, but, more importantly, what was not.

“Dura lex, sed lex,” the Romans said – the law is harsh, but it is the law.

Not because it was just.

But because it was valid.

Rules were maps of a world assumed to be stable, predictable, and completely comprehensible. Those who followed the prescribed path were on the safe side. Those who deviated from it endangered the order—and themselves.

Obedience was considered a virtue.

Deviation a threat.

Order through obedience: A historic promise of security

Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes conceived of order in precisely this way: Without external rules, without a higher power, he believed, humanity would descend into chaos. Morality did not arise from inner conviction, but from external constraints.

Rules replaced trust.

Control replaced relationships.

Obedience replaced responsibility.

From today’s perspective, this way of thinking seems alien. Yet many organizations still carry this logic within them, often unconsciously.

When the map is no longer sufficient

But every map has a crucial weakness:

It only ever depicts what was known at the time it was created.

With the increasing complexity of societies, organizations, and markets, the landscape changed faster than rules could be adapted. New technologies, new business models, new dependencies – the world became more fluid, more contradictory, more confusing.

Suddenly, simply following the route was no longer enough.

Because sometimes it led nowhere.

Or it missed the mark entirely.

Organizations are well acquainted with this phenomenon: sets of rules that are formally correct but practically ineffective. Guidelines that don’t resolve conflicts but exacerbate them. Processes that promise security but lack direction.

„Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.“

peter drucker (1909-2005, US-ameriCan economist)

The turning point: From map reading to navigation

It is precisely at this point that the metaphor shifts.

While maps prescribe specific routes, a compass fulfills a different function.

It doesn’t tell you which step to take next.

It doesn’t prescribe a route.

But it reliably points in the right direction.

The philosophical turning point toward this way of thinking can be found in Immanuel Kant. Freedom, according to Kant, does not arise from external coercion, but from the ability to set binding standards for oneself.

For him, obedience to a law one has given oneself is not a loss of freedom, but rather its expression.

The inner compass: attitude instead of rule enforcement

Applied to organizations, this means:

Rules lose their meaning if they are not embraced internally.

Compliance fails where it is understood solely as external control.

And integrity arises not from regulations, but from attitude.

The compass thus represents something fundamentally new:
self-regulation instead of external control,
orientation instead of micromanagement,
responsibility instead of mere rule enforcement.

Modern compliance as a navigational art

In a complex, dynamic world, compliance is no longer a rigid route. It’s navigation.

This doesn’t mean fewer rules, but a different relationship to them.

Rules become guardrails.

They define boundaries without prescribing every step.

They provide support without hindering movement.

What matters is no longer just the set of rules, but people’s ability to apply them effectively: to assess situations, recognize conflicting objectives, and take responsibility – even where there is no clear-cut answer.

From external order to internal alignment

Historically speaking, this is a remarkable learning process.

For centuries, we have tried to create order through increasingly detailed rules. Today, we are increasingly recognizing their limitations.

The real challenge is not drawing ever more maps.

But rather training people who can navigate.

People who know what rules are for.

Who understand the purpose behind regulations.

And who are willing to take responsibility for their path – even when the terrain becomes confusing.

Arrival? Or deliberate onward journey?

Perhaps this is precisely the journey modern organizations are on today:

The abandonment of blindly following predetermined routes.

And the move towards conscious, values-based navigation.

With clear guidelines.

With a functioning internal compass.

And with the courage not to delegate responsibility to rules – but to bear it oneself.

© Yours Julia Bach 2025

---

P.S.: If you enjoyed this post, please share it on LinkedIn or via email… or leave a comment right here.

You might also be interested in the following posts:

Establishing a Compliance Management System

• What exactly is this thing called compliance…?
• Speak up – What do I do if my gut feeling tells me that something is wrong?
• Unpleasant, but true: Without training, every guideline is worthless

Developing Compliance Officers and Responsibles

• Role Clarity: Caught between two stools? Why role clarity is more than just a feeling
• Clear Language: Clear and understandable instead of convoluted – The Feynman technique in communication
• Storytelling: Storytelling in compliance communication
• Unconscious Biases: More Pippi Longstocking in my head