In practice, however, these policies often deliver the opposite. Instead of preventing overspending and ensuring alignment with budgets, they create unnecessary work, operational friction and a false sense of oversight.
To understand why 100% PO policies fall short, it’s important to examine where and how spending actually happens. In decentralized operations, onsite associates and maintenance teams make frequent decisions about repairs, replacements and services. Their role is to keep communities running safely and smoothly, which means many decisions are reactive, time‑sensitive and driven by resident needs.
For large, planned, high‑dollar projects—such as a roof replacement, major renovation or generator installation—the PO process works exactly as intended. There is ample time to scope work, gather bids and obtain approvals. Compliance is naturally high because the workflow aligns with reality.
That alignment disappears when urgency enters the picture. Emergencies don’t wait for approvals. When a pipe bursts at midnight, maintenance teams have to act immediately. The repair gets completed, the invoice arrives and operations move forward. Technically, this violates a 100% PO policy but operationally, it’s the only feasible choice.
How Policies Quietly Break Down
When policies don’t reflect real‑world conditions, teams have to adapt. Property managers, maintenance supervisors and regional leaders begin forming informal rules about what really requires a PO. These thresholds vary by person and by property, introducing inconsistency across the portfolio.
Leadership often remains unaware of this drift. After‑the‑fact POs are created simply to satisfy the policy, giving the illusion of compliance. On reports, every invoice appears to have a PO even though the purchasing decision was made long before any approval occurred.
The Hidden Cost of Forced Compliance
The most damaging outcome of a rigid PO policy isn’t the occasional exception. It’s the constant cycle of wasted effort. Teams respond to an urgent issue, receive the invoice, then pause operations to create a PO that no longer serves a purpose. That PO moves through an approval chain that cannot influence a decision that has already been made.
Everyone involved knows the truth: the work is meaningless. Over time, this erodes morale, slows operations and strains trust between onsite teams and corporate leadership.
Organizations adopt 100% PO policies with the right goals in mind: budget discipline, predictability and consistency. But good intentions don’t overcome operational reality. Not all spending carries the same level of risk, urgency or impact. Treating every dollar in the same manner creates inefficiency rather than control.
To regain meaningful oversight, organizations need a model that balances fiscal discipline with the realities of day‑to‑day operations. In the next blog, we’ll explore the approach many leading operators are adopting for that precise purpose: the Hybrid PO policy.