Every industry has two rulebooks.
The first is easy to find. It contains the laws, regulations, professional standards, contracts, safety requirements and formal procedures that determine what businesses are legally or practically required to do.
The second rulebook is much harder to see, because nobody actually wrote it.
It tells you what customers will supposedly pay, what a professional business is supposed to look like, how products should be priced, where they should be sold, what qualifications somebody needs before they can be taken seriously, which ideas are considered realistic and which ones will earn you a polite smile followed by an explanation of why “That just isn’t how this industry works.”
Spend enough time inside any industry and these assumptions begin to disappear from view. You stop noticing them for the same reason you eventually stop noticing the furniture in a room you walk through every day.
They simply become ‘the way things are done.’ And that is precisely why they are worth examining.
Some of the biggest opportunities in business don’t begin with inventing something the world has never seen. They begin when somebody notices something everybody else has stopped seeing.
Imagine arriving in an industry knowing absolutely nothing about it.
You might ask why products are packaged in a particular way, why customers have to sign annual contracts, why salespeople are paid by commission, why prices aren’t displayed publicly, why everything is sold through distributors, why appointments are only available during business hours, why customers have to buy an entire package when they only want one part of it, or why a qualification that takes three years is considered essential for work that appears to require a much narrower set of skills.
The experienced people around you would probably have answers for most of those questions.
What becomes interesting is the quality of those answers.
Sometimes there will be an excellent reason. A regulation requires it. A safety issue makes the alternative dangerous. Customers have repeatedly rejected another approach. The economics genuinely don’t work. Something that appears inefficient to an outsider may solve a problem that only becomes obvious after years inside the industry.
But occasionally the explanation will eventually reduce to something much less convincing:
‘That’s just how this industry works.’
That sentence should make you curious. Not because it proves the rule is wrong, but because it may be the first sign that you’ve discovered a rule nobody has examined for a very long time.
The goal isn't to find unwritten rules so you can break them. It's to find them so you can decide which ones still deserve to be followed.
Most unwritten rules didn’t begin as foolish ideas. They usually began as solutions.
A distribution system developed because transporting goods directly to thousands of customers was once expensive. Offices operated from nine to five because customers, employees and information all needed to be in roughly the same place at roughly the same time. Products were bundled because manufacturing or distribution made individual components uneconomic. Professional credentials developed partly because customers needed some reliable way to distinguish expertise from incompetence.
The mistake is not that industries create conventions.
They have to.
The mistake occurs when circumstances change but the convention doesn’t.
Technology becomes cheaper. Distribution becomes easier. Customers become more informed. Communication becomes instantaneous. New competitors appear. Artificial intelligence makes tasks possible in minutes that once required days of specialist labor. Yet the old rule survives because an entire industry has learned to operate around it.
Eventually people forget that it was ever a choice.
This gives us a useful way to think about unwritten rules, because they generally fall into three broad groups.
There are rules that still solve a real problem, and challenging them may simply teach you why they existed.
There are rules that once solved a real problem but the world around them has changed, which is where some of the most interesting opportunities can appear.
And then there are rules nobody can explain anymore, except by pointing out that everybody else follows them.
These deserve particular attention.
One of the easiest ways to discover the unwritten rules of an industry is simply to listen carefully to the way experienced people talk about what can and cannot be done, because assumptions that have existed for long enough often stop sounding like opinions and begin sounding like facts.
Spend time inside almost any established industry and you will eventually hear variations of the same phrases: customers won’t pay for that, you can’t sell it that way, people expect things to be done this way, you need more experience before anyone will take you seriously, the market isn’t ready, that wouldn’t look professional, or perhaps the most powerful of all, we tried something like that before and it didn’t work.
There may be considerable wisdom hidden inside those statements, which is why the NoRuleBook response should never be to assume that the experienced people are wrong simply because they sound conventional. If somebody who has spent twenty years in an industry tells you customers won’t pay $500 for something, they may know exactly what they’re talking about. The useful response is not to congratulate yourself for being more adventurous and immediately charge $500; it is to become curious about how that conclusion was reached and whether the evidence supporting it still applies.
Perhaps the price was tested twenty years ago, when the product, customer and market were very different. Perhaps it was tested recently and failed spectacularly. Perhaps customers rejected the price but would have accepted it if the offer had been structured differently, or perhaps the economics genuinely make the idea impossible. What matters is that you separate what the industry knows from what the industry has simply learned to repeat.
That distinction becomes increasingly important as technology, customer behaviour and business models change, because yesterday’s perfectly sensible conclusion can survive long after the circumstances that produced it have disappeared. An assumption does not become a fact merely because enough people have repeated it for enough years.
The question that keeps the investigation moving is wonderfully simple : How do we know?
Businesses devote enormous amounts of time and money to asking customers what they want, yet some of the most useful information about an industry can be found by watching what customers do when the industry fails to give them what they want.
A customer who complains about an inconvenient process is giving you information, but a customer who spends an hour creating a spreadsheet because your software cannot produce the information they need is giving you something potentially more valuable. The same is true when people combine several products because nobody sells the solution they actually want, share resources in ways the provider never intended, modify equipment, create unofficial online communities, purchase through grey markets or invent elaborate shortcuts simply to avoid an irritating part of the established process.
From inside an industry, these behaviours can look like annoyances that need to be controlled. From another perspective, they can be evidence that customers are trying to solve a problem the official system is not solving particularly well.
That doesn’t mean every workaround contains the seed of a great business. Customers sometimes create workarounds for things that cannot economically or legally be provided another way. What makes the behaviour interesting is the amount of effort people are prepared to expend. A complaint tells you that somebody dislikes something; a repeated workaround tells you that the problem matters enough for somebody to invest time, money or inconvenience in avoiding it.
When enough customers begin solving the same problem for themselves, the useful question may no longer be “How do we stop them doing this?” but “What are they trying to accomplish that our industry is making unnecessarily difficult?”
Another useful place to search for unwritten rules is in the space between the customer and whatever they are ultimately trying to obtain, because industries often accumulate wholesalers, agents, brokers, retailers, distributors, platforms and professional intermediaries whose presence eventually comes to feel inevitable.
Many of those intermediaries perform genuinely valuable functions. They aggregate supply, establish trust, manage logistics, provide expertise, reduce risk or make transactions possible that would otherwise be difficult. Questioning their role should therefore begin with understanding the problem they solve rather than assuming that removing the middleman is automatically progress.
The more interesting question is whether the function remains necessary even if the traditional structure performing that function does not.
Airbnb provides a useful example because it didn’t invent travellers looking for accommodation, nor did it invent people with spare rooms or unused properties. What it helped challenge was the assumption that a large proportion of useful accommodation inventory had to be created and controlled by traditional hospitality businesses. Technology made it possible to connect previously fragmented supply with demand in a way that had once been impractical at enormous scale.
Dollar Shave Club questioned a different collection of assumptions surrounding how razors reached customers, while Netflix provides perhaps an even more revealing example because it eventually had to question a model it had helped create. Having challenged the traditional video store with DVDs delivered through the mail, Netflix could have treated its successful mail-order model as something to defend when streaming technology became viable. Instead, it faced the much more difficult task of challenging an assumption that was no longer somebody else’s convention but part of its own success.
That is worth remembering because unwritten rules aren’t always imposed on businesses by established competitors. Sometimes the most difficult ones to recognise are the rules created by our own previous achievements.
A business model can begin as a rebellion against convention and eventually become the convention its own people are afraid to question.
Whenever you encounter a process that seems unusually expensive, complicated or inconvenient, it can be useful to ask who benefits from keeping it that way, although this question needs to be approached with considerably more care than the cynical version of it sometimes found in business books.
The fact that somebody benefits from a rule does not prove the rule is unnecessary. Doctors benefit from medical licensing, for example, but society would hardly be improved by allowing anyone with sufficient confidence to declare themselves a surgeon tomorrow morning. Regulations, qualifications and intermediaries can simultaneously benefit the people operating within a system and protect the people who depend upon it.
What you are trying to understand is whether the current arrangement still represents the best way of solving the underlying problem. Does it protect customers, maintain safety, reduce risk or provide expertise that would otherwise be difficult to verify? Does it make the system function more efficiently, or has a structure that once performed an important role gradually become more useful to the organisations inside it than to the people it was originally designed to serve?
Often the answer will contain elements of both, which is why this exercise is about understanding incentives rather than manufacturing suspicion. Once you can distinguish the genuine problem being solved from the particular structure currently solving it, you can begin asking whether changes in technology, information or customer behaviour have created another way of achieving the same outcome.
Professionalism is another area where useful standards and inherited conventions can become difficult to separate, because every industry gradually develops an image of what a credible participant is supposed to look and sound like.
Much of what we call professional behaviour deserves to survive: competence, reliability, ethical conduct, appropriate communication and respect for customers are valuable regardless of the industry. The problem arises when those qualities become bundled together with expectations that have little to do with competence itself, until professionalism quietly comes to mean using the same language as everybody else, dressing in a familiar way, operating from a particular type of office, presenting information in the accepted format or communicating with customers in a tone nobody can quite remember choosing.
Once that happens, an unfamiliar approach can begin to feel unprofessional even when there is nothing inherently unprofessional about it.
That gives us another useful diagnostic question whenever a new idea attracts that particular criticism :
Is this actually unprofessional—or is it merely unfamiliar?
The distinction doesn’t excuse poor standards simply because somebody is trying something different. It does, however, prevent familiarity from becoming a substitute for evidence.
There is a romantic story told about innovation in which the visionary proposes an extraordinary idea, everybody laughs, the visionary perseveres and history eventually proves the doubters wrong. The problem with using that story as a guide to decision-making is that history remembers the people who were mocked and eventually succeeded far more readily than it remembers the enormous number of people who were mocked because their ideas genuinely weren’t very good.
Being ridiculed is therefore not evidence that you have discovered an overlooked opportunity.
What matters is the reason the idea is being rejected.
If somebody explains that a proposed business model is unlikely to work because the cost of acquiring a customer would exceed the profit that customer could generate, they have given you an argument that can be investigated. If a company tested the idea with thousands of customers and almost nobody was willing to pay for it, they have given you evidence that deserves serious attention.
But when an idea is dismissed simply because nobody in this industry does that, something different has happened. Nobody has demonstrated that the idea is wrong; they have demonstrated that the idea violates an expectation.
That still doesn’t make the idea right. It simply makes the expectation worth examining.
Experience is enormously valuable because it gives people technical understanding, pattern recognition and knowledge of mistakes that newcomers haven’t yet had the opportunity to make. Yet experience also creates an interesting paradox: the better somebody understands how an existing system works, the easier it can become to stop imagining that the system might work differently.
A newcomer has the opposite problem. They may ask questions that sound naive because they genuinely don’t understand the complexity underneath what they are questioning, but occasionally that lack of familiarity allows them to notice something experienced people stopped noticing years ago. They haven’t yet learned which questions are supposedly stupid, which processes are considered untouchable or which assumptions everybody agreed to stop discussing.
Neither perspective is sufficient by itself. The outsider can see possibilities while dramatically underestimating complexity, whereas the insider can understand complexity so well that they begin mistaking it for permanence. The more useful combination is the outsider’s willingness to ask apparently naive questions alongside the insider’s ability to explain why the current system evolved as it did.
Innovation often begins somewhere between those two perspectives, when somebody knows enough to understand the problem but remains curious enough to ask whether the existing solution is the only possible one.
Every major technological change makes some established business practices suddenly look less inevitable than they did before, and artificial intelligence is likely to expose an unusually large number of assumptions because it changes the cost, speed and accessibility of tasks that have traditionally depended upon scarce human expertise.
Work that once required days of specialist labour can increasingly be completed, or at least substantially assisted, in minutes. Small organisations can acquire capabilities that previously required larger teams, while customers themselves can analyse information, create material and solve problems that once required them to pay an intermediary.
None of this means expertise has become irrelevant or that replacing people with software is automatically progress. In many situations the opposite may prove true, particularly where judgement, accountability, trust and human understanding matter more than simply producing an output quickly.
The more useful implication is that industries built around the historical cost and scarcity of certain capabilities now have reason to revisit assumptions that previously appeared unavoidable.
Instead of asking only “How can our business use AI?”, a more revealing question is:
“Which parts of our industry only work this way because, until recently, there was no practical alternative?”
That question moves the conversation away from using AI as another productivity tool and towards examining whether technology has changed the reason an industry is structured the way it is.
The easiest way to apply all of this is not to begin by trying to transform an entire industry, but by choosing one part of it that almost everybody handles in roughly the same way. It might be pricing, hiring, qualifications, distribution, marketing, contracts, customer service, product design, payment terms, working hours or the way customers purchase what you sell.
Start by describing the current default as neutrally as possible, without deciding whether it is good or bad, and then work backwards until you understand where it came from. What problem was the convention originally intended to solve, who benefits from it today, and what evidence tells you that it remains necessary? If somebody says customers expect it, find out how that expectation is known. If the explanation depends upon cost, determine whether the economics are still the same. If technology has changed, ask whether the original limitation has changed with it.
Then imagine removing the rule altogether and consider what genuine problem would return. That question matters because it prevents the exercise becoming a hunt for traditions to destroy. If eliminating the rule immediately creates a serious problem, you have learned something important about why it exists. The next question is whether that problem can now be solved another way without simply rebuilding the same structure under a different name.
Eventually the investigation arrives at what may be the most revealing question in the entire exercise :
If you were creating this industry from scratch today, knowing everything you know now, would you deliberately design it this way?
Sometimes the answer will be yes, and that is a perfectly good result. The purpose of the audit is not to prove that the existing industry is wrong. It is to discover which parts of it are still right for reasons that remain true.
Discovering a questionable assumption does not require you to announce that an entire industry has been doing things wrong for fifty years. In fact, the more confident you become that everybody else has missed something obvious, the more useful it may be to resist that temptation and design the smallest experiment capable of proving or disproving your idea.
A retailer might offer one group of customers a different purchasing option, while a service business could remove a single step from its process, test another pricing structure or allow a small customer segment to interact with the company differently. A manufacturer might experiment with another distribution channel, while a professional practice could use technology to change one part of a service without redesigning everything around it.
The important point is that you are replacing an argument about what should work with evidence about what does work.
If the experiment fails, you may discover that the industry’s convention existed for a better reason than you appreciated, which is valuable knowledge rather than defeat. If the experiment succeeds, however, you have learned something much more interesting: what everybody treated as permanent may simply have been familiar.
The purpose of questioning an unwritten rule isn't to prove the industry wrong. It's to discover what is actually true.
Once you begin noticing unwritten rules, there is a danger of becoming so enthusiastic about questioning convention that convention itself starts to look suspicious. That would simply replace one automatic way of thinking with another.
Some industry rules represent accumulated wisdom. They protect customers, maintain standards or prevent mistakes that have already been made enough times for somebody to realise that a rule was needed. Others are historical leftovers whose original purpose has disappeared, while some continue largely because everybody has become so accustomed to them that nobody remembers they were ever a choice.
Independent thinking requires the patience to tell the difference.
NoRuleBook isn’t about automatically choosing the unconventional answer, because if everybody in your industry turns left and you automatically turn right simply because they’re turning left, the industry is still determining your direction. The objective is to understand why everybody is turning left, decide whether those reasons still make sense, and only then choose the direction that the evidence supports.
The most dangerous rules in an industry aren't necessarily the ones everybody argues about. They're the ones nobody remembers choosing.
Before leaving this article, identify one rule in your industry that almost nobody talks about because almost everybody assumes it is simply how things work, and write it down without immediately deciding that it needs to change.
Trace it backwards until you understand why it exists, what problem it was designed to solve, who benefits from it and what evidence supports it today. Then look at what has changed around it—technology, customer behaviour, regulation, information, cost or competition—and ask whether you would deliberately recreate the same arrangement if you were designing the industry now.
If the rule still makes sense, keep it with greater confidence because you now understand why it deserves to exist. If you are no longer certain, design the smallest sensible experiment that allows you to test an alternative without betting the business on being right.
That is the distinction at the heart of NoRuleBook thinking. Don’t break a rule because it’s conventional, but don’t follow it simply because it’s conventional either. Understand the problem it solves, determine whether that problem still exists, and then use evidence rather than habit to decide what deserves to come next.
Click the NoRuleBook image below to explore the collection.
-
-20%
NoRuleBook
Original price was: $9.95.$7.95Current price is: $7.95. -
-50%
No Rules Start-Up
Original price was: $19.95.$9.95Current price is: $9.95. -
-35%
NoRuleBook Bundle
Original price was: $22.90.$14.95Current price is: $14.95.
Submitted 1.0
Manual 5.0
