Research suggests supervisors often favor employees who moderately bend the rules, viewing them as resourceful and proactive. These "constructive nonconformists" challenge procedures in ways that benefit the organization, while still adhering to core values and demonstrating respect for authority. However, this tolerance has limits. Employees who consistently or significantly violate rules, exhibiting "destructive nonconformity," are viewed negatively and penalized. Supervisors perceive a key difference between rule-breaking that aims to improve the organization versus self-serving or malicious violations.
A recent study published in the Academy of Management Discoveries journal, entitled "Supervisors Often Prefer Rule Breakers, Up to a Point," delves into the complex relationship between managerial perceptions of employee rule-breaking behavior and subsequent performance evaluations. The research, meticulously conducted through a series of experiments and analyses of real-world organizational data, challenges the conventional wisdom that adherence to established rules and procedures invariably leads to positive supervisory assessments. Instead, the findings suggest a more nuanced perspective, indicating that supervisors frequently exhibit a preference for subordinates who demonstrate a moderate degree of rule-breaking, particularly when such deviations are perceived as resourceful attempts to improve efficiency or effectiveness. This predilection stems from the belief that a certain level of independent thinking and initiative can be beneficial for organizational outcomes, indicating a proactive and problem-solving mindset.
However, this tolerance for rule-breaking is not without its limits. The study emphasizes the existence of an inverted U-shaped relationship between rule-breaking and supervisory evaluations. While moderate levels of transgression may be viewed favorably, excessive or egregious violations of established protocols are likely to be met with disapproval and negative consequences. This suggests that supervisors engage in a careful calculus, weighing the potential benefits of innovative rule-breaking against the potential risks associated with instability and non-compliance. The optimal point of rule-breaking, therefore, lies within a carefully defined zone of resourceful deviance, where employees demonstrate initiative without jeopardizing organizational norms or creating undue disruption.
Furthermore, the research highlights the importance of context in shaping supervisory responses to rule-breaking. Specifically, the perceived motivation behind the deviation plays a crucial role in determining whether it is viewed positively or negatively. Rule-breaking motivated by prosocial intentions, such as a desire to improve team performance or enhance customer satisfaction, is more likely to be tolerated and even rewarded, whereas self-serving or malicious rule-breaking is almost universally condemned. This underscores the importance of employees effectively communicating the rationale behind their actions to ensure that their initiative is understood and appreciated by their supervisors. In conclusion, the study provides compelling evidence that the relationship between rule-breaking and supervisory evaluations is far more intricate than previously assumed, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that recognizes the potential value of resourceful deviance while maintaining appropriate boundaries and safeguards.
Summary of Comments ( 117 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43555220
HN commenters generally agree with the study's findings that moderate rule-breaking is viewed favorably by supervisors, particularly when it leads to positive outcomes. Some point out that "rule-breaking" is often conflated with independent thinking, initiative, and a willingness to challenge the status quo, traits valued in many workplaces. Several commenters note the importance of context and company culture. In some environments, rule-breaking might be implicitly encouraged, while in others, it's strictly punished. A few express skepticism about the study's methodology and generalizability, questioning whether self-reported data accurately reflects supervisors' true opinions. Others highlight the potential downsides of rule-breaking, such as creating inconsistency and unfairness, and the inherent subjectivity in determining what constitutes "acceptable" rule-breaking. The "Goldilocks zone" of rule-breaking is also discussed, with the consensus being that it's a delicate balance, dependent on the specific situation and the individual's relationship with their supervisor.
The Hacker News post titled "Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point" sparked a lively discussion with several compelling comments. Many commenters related the findings of the study to their own experiences.
Several commenters highlighted the nuance of "rule-breaking" discussed in the study, emphasizing that it's not about flagrant disregard for rules but rather about strategically challenging or bending them for positive outcomes. One commenter illustrated this by contrasting "malicious compliance," which aims to harm the organization by strictly adhering to unhelpful rules, with constructive rule-breaking that aims to improve processes or outcomes. Another pointed out that the type of rule-breaking matters, with some rules being bendable (bureaucratic red tape) and others not (safety regulations).
The concept of context was also a recurring theme. Commenters noted that the acceptability of rule-breaking depends heavily on the specific industry, company culture, and the individual supervisor's personality. One commenter shared an anecdote about working in a large organization where rule-breaking was tolerated, even encouraged, during periods of rapid growth and innovation, but became frowned upon during periods of consolidation and cost-cutting. Another commenter suggested that supervisors might appreciate rule-breaking in employees who demonstrate competence and loyalty, while viewing the same behavior in less trusted employees as insubordination.
Some commenters discussed the potential downsides of tolerating rule-breaking, such as creating an inconsistent environment or fostering resentment among employees who consistently follow the rules. One commenter cautioned that supervisors might unconsciously favor rule-breakers who are similar to themselves, leading to bias and unfair treatment. Another raised concerns about the potential for escalation, where tolerated minor rule-breaking could embolden employees to break more significant rules.
The discussion also touched on the challenges of defining and measuring "constructive" rule-breaking. One commenter questioned how organizations could systematically encourage beneficial rule-breaking without creating chaos. Another suggested that organizations should focus on fostering a culture of open communication and psychological safety, where employees feel comfortable challenging outdated or ineffective rules without fear of retribution.
Finally, several commenters pointed out the practical implications of the study for both managers and employees. They suggested that managers should be mindful of their own biases and strive to create clear guidelines about which rules are flexible and which are non-negotiable. Employees, on the other hand, should carefully consider the potential consequences before breaking any rules and ensure that their actions are aligned with the organization's overall goals.