New research sheds light on surprising preferences of managers
Not all rule violations are sanctioned in organisations - some even lead to promotions. This is the surprising result of an international study conducted in collaboration with Prof Dr Philip Yang (Chair of Business Administration, in particular Sustainable Human Resource Management and Leadership, Paderborn University), which has been published in the renowned journal "Academy of Management Discoveries". Together with Prof. Dr. D. Wiley Wakeman (Stockholm School of Economics) and Prof. Dr. Celia Moore (Imperial College London), Prof. Yang investigated the conditions under which rule-breaking is tolerated or even rewarded in organisations - and when it is not.
To investigate these questions empirically, the research team turned to professional sport. According to the researchers, this offers particularly suitable research conditions, as most sports have clearly codified rules and a close-knit monitoring system. Rule violations can be clearly observed and systematically documented - ideal conditions for a scientific analysis. Specifically, the co-authors analysed extensive data on rule violations and coaching decisions over the playing time of individual players from six seasons of the North American ice hockey league NHL. The study was supplemented by an online experiment with over 200 participants to analyse the psychological mechanisms.
The key finding: In certain situations, managers tend to evaluate rule-breakers more positively - especially if their behaviour is interpreted as particularly committed or "team-friendly". In such circumstances, breaking the rules can be seen as an expression of commitment and is honoured accordingly. However, this tolerance has its limits: In the case of gross violations, in organisations with a strong ethical culture or in critical phases - such as in play-off games - the effect is reversed. In such cases, rule-breakers are penalised with less playing time for breaking the rules. These two effects were replicated in the online experiment and show that commitment vs. liability perceptions of managers underlie this inverse u-shaped relationship. "Breaking the rules is not automatically sanctioned. Our study shows that managers differentiate between destructive and constructive rule-breaking - in many cases, the latter is even rewarded with more responsibility or playing time," explains Prof Yang.
What does this mean for companies?
"Managers should consciously reflect on how they react to rule-breaking - and whether they may be unintentionally encouraging it," says Prof Yang. A mindful approach to rule-breaking is essential in order to avoid creating false incentives. At the same time, the Paderborn scientist is in favour of critically questioning internal structures: "Not every rule makes sense. Sometimes breaking the rules is due to inefficient processes."
The study sheds light on the tension between compliance, commitment and leadership culture and provides valuable impetus for reflective, sustainable HR management.
To read the summary of the study "A (Bounded) Preference for Rule Breakers" by the Academy of Management: https://journals.aom.org/doi/full/10.5465/amd.2022.0280.summary.
This text was translated automatically.