To quote the editorial:
and then let them bend rules, change procedures where it counts
The question is: Who's going to decide whether it counts or not?
Scenario 1:
You're a DBA and a person with proven knowledge of SQL ask you to grant him access to one of the db's around. The DB has nothing directly to do with his job, but he knows there are data in there to be useful for his current task. He wants to lurk around and see what he can use.
There's a written rule involving the owner of the db as well as ther manager of the one who's requesting access. But well, you know him long enough and "it's urgent", as usual.
Question: Is this bending rules or crossing the line?
Scenario 2:
You're a DBA and you're asked to delete a few rows. There's a written procedure who'd need to agree since other systems might still need those data. The person asking you claims "It's the same scenario like last time. And you know how long it took us to get the form signed just to figure that noone objected." The DBA deletes the data (scripting it out before, just to be on the safe side). And this time one of the poeple usually involved immediately is in trouble because he still needs the data. Again: Is this bending rules or crossing the line?
I prefer a system where people can question a process and make suggestions how to improve it. But as long as the process has not been changed officially, the current one has to be followed. It's the responsibilty of the management to listen to such suggestions, take them seriously and to respond within a short timeframe providing an explanation either why the change has been implemented or refected. But I'm a strong opponent of bending the rules since there is no change to draw the line.