Fair point, but the parent.parent says this was to "approve some minor thing" The risk is that the "minor thing" isn't so minor, especially when the bypassing of the review process becomes routine.
I suppose put it this way. Imagine a software developer slipped in smaller code changes and circumvented procedures like QA or code review because they though it was "just some minor thing" Would you find that OK?
Where I work, making code changes after an approved review is pretty normal. Particularly because we aren’t all awake at the same time (different time zones). It’s quite common to see “feel free to merge after fixing.” Otherwise it would take days to merge something.
Somehow I don't think a bunch of retail employees processing returns without the manager's approval is gonna be a big deal. The manager will see the returns regardless of whether they approve them on an individual basis.
Unfortunately the parent up there never mentioned the type of job or any other context to help us understand if dishonesty could be an issue in their actions. In my code example, definitely an issue. In DanBC's comment below RE: regulated professionals? Definitely an issue.
We all know there are bad or stupid rules out there. But honesty's not a rule, it's more of a moral principle. Gray areas for sure, but when dishonesty becomes a habit, or makes one lose trust, or actually breaks a rule meant to prevent an issue, it's a problem.
I suppose put it this way. Imagine a software developer slipped in smaller code changes and circumvented procedures like QA or code review because they though it was "just some minor thing" Would you find that OK?