𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸?

Recently, I've kept having repeat versions of the same conversation. 

When someone hears what I do, they proudly tell me their solution to the problem I help solve.

'My team is very compliant; we get the training done as soon as it’s sent out.'

Or, 'My assistant sends everyone daily reminders until they do the training.'

It sounds good, and I understand the logic; complete the exercise and you’re off the naughty step.

But there’s something odd — dishonest, even — about giving people 30 days to complete training, and then treating those who complete it earlier as somehow 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘵 than those who do it at the 11pm on the final day. 

Hounding people until they do something is not the hallmark of a high-trust environment. And does rushing something actually encourage people to pay attention? Probably not. When compliance has a qualitative component, what message does JFDI — “just f*cking do it” — send?

Usually, the reply is that most compliance training is useless, repetitive or irrelevant. And usually, they’re completely right; that is a problem. One I also, incidentally, help to solve. 

But if your approach to compliance is simply to satisfy an internal requirement, you risk creating 𝗖𝗜𝗡𝗢: 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗜𝗻 𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗢𝗻𝗹𝘆. You’ve complied with the terms of the task, but you actually risk undermining the bigger picture.

Because the real aim of compliance shouldn’t be to prove that people completed a test in as short a time as possible.

It should be to help them recognise risk, make better decisions, and speak up when something feels off.

So that gold star you've got for early completion, might actually put you at the bottom of the class when it really matters.