Double Standards Mean There’s No Standard
Engr. Elaine Macatangay Morales, MPA | 29 October 2025
A strong candidate was once purposely made to rank low by re-evaluating scores, not for lack of merit, but because someone simply “didn’t like her.” The re-evaluation itself was not wrong; adjustments can be valid if done within an agreed time frame and supported by documented justification. But when the time frame is undefined or inconsistently applied, the door opens for manipulation. A less qualified yet more agreeable candidate eventually got the job. Months later, performance issues surfaced, complaints followed, and the organization quietly hoped the employee would resign.
The process, it turned out, wasn’t the problem. The people, those who bent it, were.
That’s the danger of double standards: when systems exist but their application depends on preference. The ISO 9001 (Standards for Quality Management System) framework, which I’ve taught and audited across sectors, reminds us that fairness and consistency are not abstract ideals, they are management principles. ISO 9001:2015 Clause 4 speaks of context; Clause 5 of leadership and commitment; Clause 9 of evaluation. Together, they remind us that a system only works if it applies equally, predictably, and transparently to everyone.
When the System Serves People, Not the Other Way Around
I’ve seen the selective use of rules or policies across public, private, and nonprofit institutions.
In the public sector, recent debates on the national budget show what happens when systems of accountability are weakened by politics. We hear of “budget insertions”- allocations suddenly appearing in the appropriations process without clear linkage to projects, approved plans, or performance indicators. The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), for instance, has been scrutinized over flood control projects that appear disproportionately in some districts, serving as convenient “program fronts” for discretionary spending. The process looks legitimate- projects may have names, codes, and line items- but the underlying standards are vague, inconsistent, or adjustable depending on who proposes them.
When accountability becomes selective, mechanisms meant to ensure fairness become tools for inequity.
In the private sector, audits often reveal another version of this inconsistency- compliance performed for appearance, not real improvement. Companies may claim ISO 9001 alignment, but when senior executives bypass supplier evaluations or purchasing protocols, the so-called “quality manual” turns into “on paper only”. Nonconformities are recorded but rarely for the powerful. The system becomes hierarchical: rigid for some, flexible for others.
In the nonprofit sector, where moral purpose and advocacy are presumed, governance lapses can hide behind the comfort of good intentions. Consider an NGO’s recognition or award program: a working team may carefully craft criteria and evaluate nominees based on merit, impact, and documentation, only for top management to later override the results and handpick awardees based on historical ties, because “They helped us before,” “They deserve it for loyalty,” “It’s good PR.” What starts as appreciation becomes tokenism. The standard shifts from excellence to familiarity.
These are not isolated acts of favoritism. They are symptoms of systems without standards or standards selectively applied.
Objectivity, by Design
Whether in hiring, auditing, or project evaluation, subjectivity can never be eliminated but it can be contained. A fair process is not the absence of judgment; it is the presence of structure.
That’s why well-designed systems such as ISO-aligned hiring or performance evaluation frameworks rely on documented criteria, weighted scoring, and traceable decisions. Even if a final choice involves chemistry, gut-feel or trust, it should still be defensible. Every decision must leave an audit trail of logic, not a trail of whispers.
Many institutions fail here. They draft policies but not mechanisms for consistency. They define qualifications or requirements that can flex depending on who’s being considered.
For example, in recruiting a leader for a ministry of science, technology, and innovation, “STEM background” may be listed as a preferred qualification. But when a favored candidate lacks it, it’s treated as optional; when the favored one has it, it becomes essential. The text doesn’t change, but the interpretation does. The rule serves the preference.
That’s not flexibility. That’s opportunism disguised as discretion.
The Audit Mirror
Auditing, one of my professional callings, is essentially an exercise in truth-telling. It asks: Do your actions match your documented intent? When done right, audits reveal whether systems are functioning or merely performed.
In one audit, a government office displayed its quality policy on every wall: “Committed to customer satisfaction and continual improvement.” Yet when we followed the trail of public complaints, there were inconsistent logs, incomplete root cause analyses, and no evidence of corrective actions. The policy existed but only as wallpaper.
The audit lesson is simple: what’s not applied universally is not a standard; it’s an exception with paperwork.
The Systemic Cost of Double Standards
Double standards don’t just distort fairness; they drain trust- one of the essentials of any system.
When project allocations depend on political favor, public confidence deteriorates. When budget insertions bypass due process, every legitimate program is tainted by suspicion. When procurement rules are bent for convenience, even genuine innovation looks questionable.
This is why systems thinking matters: it forces us to see how inconsistencies in one area- say, hiring or budgeting- create ripple effects across the whole. A single manipulation can distort an entire network of relationships, incentives, and results. A compromised hiring process leads to unfit leadership. Unfit leadership compromises program quality. And compromised programs, in turn, waste money and public trust.
Systems collapse not because they lack policies, but because they lack consistency.
Restoring Trust in the System
The antidote to double standards is not more control, it’s discipline. Fairness is not a moral bonus; it’s a structural requirement. A system without fairness will eventually collapse under its own contradictions.
When people lose trust in the rules, compliance becomes hollow. When decisions seem prearranged, documentation becomes a formality. That’s when organizations decay quietly, bureaucratically, and completely.
Standards, whether ISO, governance codes, or internal policies, exist to make processes predictable, not personal. They are the invisible architecture of integrity. Institutions thrive when they treat these standards not as hurdles but as commitments to truth, to trust, and to transparency.
So the next time a rule is bent “just this once,” pause. Every exception sets a precedent. And every precedent, unchecked, becomes a double standard.
Because when there’s no true standard, double standards will always take its place.
And that’s when systems, no matter how well written, stop mattering.
And perhaps that’s what every audit, in its truest sense, seeks- not perfection, but integrity.