Rules and processes are a double-edged sword: they can not only prevent wrong things from happening, they may also prevent the right things from happening.
When the least competent people are the bar for shaping your rules and processes, your most competent people will suffer the most. They will actually become less competent, because your rules and processes will limit their degrees of freedom to do what's right.
Highly competent people, by definition, need few rules and processes, because they know what they are doing. When your most competent people are the bar for shaping your rules and processes, then you will need very little rules and processes.
Your least competent people will suffer, but that's the point, because rules and processes can't make you any better than mediocre.
The problem is that we frequently design our rules and processes for our least competent people. We end up spoon-feeding our most competent people when they know far better than can ever be captured in any rules or processes.
Basically, we're capping their competence based on the least competent people in the company. We're railroading them to prevent the mistakes of people who struggle at their jobs.
But what we frequently don't realize when we design our rules and processes for the least competent: we are also stifling the innovation that’s made possible by the most competent.
Don't design your rules and processes for your least competent people. Raise the bar for your expected level of competence. Don't fix the symptoms with silly rules and processes, fix the actual problem.
The alternative is lowering the bar for everyone. You may not make big mistakes but you won't do anything revolutionary either.
When you don't trust your people you will design a system where you can't trust your people.
When you bake distrust caused by incompetence into your rules and processes, you will end up with spoon-feeding competence rot.
Everybody will be more miserable and nobody will become more competent.