The Perpetual Motion Machine of Rules

Why do we have rules?

Whenever a process does not run as desired—yielding inconsistent results, being unsafe, labor-intensive, or too costly—the first instinct is to issue new rules. The greater the desired correction, the stricter the measures become. This phenomenon is known as the risk–rule reflex [1]. The logic is simple: more and better rules will create more control over processes and thus increase the likelihood of achieving the intended result. This assumption is only partly correct. Rules do indeed provide guidance on what to do, but those who create them rarely consider their impact on the system as a whole.

Is a rule the best answer?

A question we rarely ask concerns the desirability of the rule itself. Is this the best way to solve the problem? There are usually alternatives—such as strengthening executors with knowledge and resources, creating feedback mechanisms, or investing in leadership. Rules are often favored because issuing them is among the laziest forms of leadership. As a manager or executive, you set the rule, and others must execute it. The burden of execution does not fall on the person who created the rule.

The hidden price of rules

Rules are never neutral. What often remains underexposed are the compliance costs—the additional time, attention, energy, and resources required to comply with new rules. As regulation grows, these costs rise, as does the confusion created by a dense forest of rules. While the assumed increase in control may exist within the process, the balance between Costs and Returns can become distorted. Scholars such as Ira Helsloot [2] and Wim Voermans[3] have warned about this imbalance for years.

A telling example is asbestos policy: even removing small partition walls required professionals to wear full protective suits, while private individuals were exempt. The result—widespread disbelief, high costs, and long lead times—yet the regulation remained intact. Knowing this, the question arises: why is it so difficult to roll back an overextended measure?

Two brain systems: fear and reason

The explanation lies partly in how our brain handles risk. The limbic system, which warns us of danger, activates our internal Alarm bell. This emotional response—fear and unease—is fast and demands immediate action. Safety First. By contrast, the cognitive brain regions calculate compliance costs: what is the most efficient way to mitigate risk? That calculation is the result of a rational, longer-term process.

The urge to act

Emotion also plays a role at the governance level. A new rule creates the feeling that something has been done. It signals decisiveness. For many managers and regulators, issuing rules is proof of good governance—it shows the problem is being handled carefully. In this phase, questions of effectiveness receive less attention.

The accumulation of compliance costs

Our brain naturally seeks the path of least energy. Under threat, we temporarily set efficiency aside. Rules that solve something may cost something. But as more rules are added, those costs accumulate. Processes slow down, bureaucracy grows, and the system loses agility. Job satisfaction visibly suffers. Nowhere is this clearer than in healthcare: out of fear that funds are misused, caregivers must account for their time down to the minute. On top of every hour worked, another half hour is spent on reporting. The original problem—ensuring money is spent properly—is addressed, but the solution is far more expensive. This example costs society billions each year, even as calls for budget cuts continue to rise.

Why abolishing rules is so difficult

It seems logical to abolish such administrative burdens—but that rarely happens. On the contrary, expansion is far more acceptable than reduction. Individually, each rule is defensible. Weaknesses are “fixed” by adding more rules. Removing a single element can have negative side effects, prompting the limbic system to shout “be careful.” Moreover, the additional cost of one rule is hard to measure; costs become visible only in interaction. As a result, an effective feedback mechanism to optimize the tangle of rules is missing.

Resistance

Rule systems gradually become resistant to change. They form ecosystems with mutual dependencies—whether quality systems, safety regimes, or tax legislation. Such systems sustain themselves and display all the characteristics of a perpetual motion machine [4]. Physicists believe this is theoretically impossible; in practice, it clearly exists. It is therefore naïve to think that tweaking rules alone can contain or change such a system.

Innovate rather than repair

If we want to tackle such an ecosystem, starting from scratch is the most realistic solution. Let go mentally of what exists. Clear the table and create space to reconsider the problem anew. In that mindset, original and creative thinking becomes possible. Form a working group to redefine the classic 5 W’s (Why, What, Who, When, Where). Only after a new approach and way of working have been created should you look back to assess whether serious gaps remain compared to the old approach.

Want to read more about the brain, behavior, and organizations?

Juni Daalmans
October 2025

[1] WRR stands for the Scientific Council for Government Policy.

[2] Professor of the Governance of Safety and Security at Radboud University Nijmegen; Head of Crisislab.

[3] Professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law at Leiden University.

[4] A perpetual motion machine (perpetuum mobile) is a Latin term meaning “continuous motion.” It refers to a long-standing concept in physics describing a theoretical device that, once set in motion, would continue to operate indefinitely without any external energy input.