SafetyInsights.org

Using three studies, this paper developed a measure of Pro-social rule breaking (PSRB) and explored its influence on workplace perceptions, counterproductive behaviours, and task and contextual performance ratings made by supervisors via survey.

PSRB is when employees volitionally choose to depart from top-down rules in order to benefit others, e.g. the organisation or stakeholders; like improving efficiency of work, helping another co-worker, or provide better customer support.

PSRB is distinct from other volition rule departing behaviour, some termed counter-productive work behaviors (CWB). CWB include things like wasting time, gossiping, physical or verbal violence, theft which are motivated by instrumental or vindictive concerns, whereas PSRB is motivated by “honorable intentions to meet normative expectations” (p27); falling under broad categories of positive or constructive “deviance”.

Previous work suggests that people are more likely to depart from rules if the situation was marked by more autonomy; if the rule was seen as unfair or unreasonable; or if other employees engaged in PSRB in the past.

Although the studies had relatively decent sample sizes, it seemed to only include university staff or employed students – so caveat emptor.

Results

Perceptions of others’ PSRB had a strong positive relationship with PSRB, indicating that people are more likely to depart rules if others had done so.

Supervisors were found to view PSRB negatively – even though rule breaking was well-intentioned. Coworkers also rated task performance lower for employees who reported more PSRB.

Authors conjecture that, perhaps, since supervisors often have to ‘enforce’ rules they view any deviation negatively, well-intentioned or not. Further, even though PSRB may be a “rational, appropriate response that generates the best possible outcome for the organisation” (p37), they conjecture that supervisors and coworkers may view PSRB negatively because people when drawing conclusions may overemphasise personality factors over situational factors that influenced the rule use (e.g. fundamental attribution bias).

That is, supervisors and coworkers may overlook the intentions or positive goals of the rule departure in favour of constructive a narrative about the rule departing worker such that they’re seen as “reckless, low in conscientiousness, or not respectful of the organization because he broke rules—from the rater’s perspective—for no good reason” (p37).

Further, the negative performance rating of PSRB assessed by supervisors and coworkers may be influenced by the fact that something may only be classified as pro-social in hindsight by the rule departer.

Also suggested for the negative view on PSRB is that perhaps divergent rule use, positive or not, may be seen to “open the door for counterproductive deviance later” (p37); a process of which is called “ethical fading”. Moreover, authors argue that the organisational cultures and climates may influence the perception of PSRB.

E.g. rule breaking towards assisting a customer may not be seen negatively in a company with a strong customer service climate – whereas PSRB to improve efficiency may be seen negatively in a company with a strong focus on rule following.

While both constructive and destructive rule departure behaviours had a shared emphasis on departing from rules and norms, respondents drew clear distinctions on their intentions between both types. Thus, and not surprisingly, PSRB is empirically distinct from counter-productive work behaviours.

Authors: Dahling, J. J., Chau, S. L., Mayer, D. M., & Gregory, J. B. (2012). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 21-42.

Study link: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.730

Link to the LinkedIn article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/breaking-rules-right-reasons-investigation-pro-social-ben-hutchinson