Hi [@mention:491073019777409299] , Einstein once said: ""No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it" , and I think this applies very well to the problem you are referring to. A policy to fix adherence to policies runs the risk to go ignored as the others and spread an even stronger hate for policies which would fire back on your whole practice...On the other hand even as it is spelled (regardlessly of its validity) it's basically simply channelling advices to actions which one could simply expect from any good role filler. Anybody can talk to the LeadLink or to the policy breaker, they can even propose that the accountability role assignment/removal is removed from the Lead Link accountabilities if that's needed and put somewhere else with more precise rules.
Did you try to dig deeper on the reason why people don't adhere to policies?
Could it be a problem with the number of them? Or with the way they are structured? Has the organization tried to use policies as a mean to have some old power scheme sneak into the practice, because using role accountabilities felt too "light" and "not controlling enough"?
In my experience policies that create problems are those that
1) Are badly named (policy requires you to read the whole thing before you can even understand if it would ever apply to you)
2) Don't start with a clear condition of applicability and/or try to generate chains of corrective actions for those to whom the condition doesn't even apply....