Well, what a week it has been. We can’t move for people breaking the rules. Yesterday, the Supreme Court in the USA ruled that President Trump’s tariffs were illegal. The day before, the former Prince Andrew was arrested on suspicion of breaking the rules while serving as a Trade Envoy. And the day before that, the Canadian curling team was accused of cheating during a game at the Winter Olympics. It rather looks like rule-breaking is “on trend” at the moment.
Except it’s not. Breaking the rules is commonplace and has been around forever. Indeed, yesterday the Royal Mint revealed that it was celebrating one of the world’s most famous rule-breakers on a special new coin. In recognition of his 75 years of rule-breaking success, the new 50p honours “Dennis the Menace”. That naughty boy has been in the Beano comic since 1951 and is still entertaining children today.
Dennis is a “loveable rogue” who falls into the category of rule-breakers we don’t mind. Yet he still breaks rules, just like President Trump and (allegedly) Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. We clearly forgive some people who break the rules but want others punished.
In your office, as in mine, some people break the rules and seem to get away with it. In contrast, others do something wrong and get hung out to dry over it. The issue is, why are we so inconsistent?
Studies show that we allow people to break the rules when we perceive their behaviour as prosocial or moral, as in the case of Rosa Parks. If we think rule-breaking is for the greater good of our friends or colleagues, we do not mind it. We also tend to forgive rule-breakers if their behaviour is seen as creative, as in entrepreneurs. In other words, we don’t mind people breaking the rules if there is something in what they do “for us”.
However, the tables get quickly turned when we think the rule-breaker is in it for themselves. As soon as we think the person breaking the rules is doing so to exert power or does so from a position of arrogance or entitlement, we get cross. Think ex-Royals or Presidents here.
We want such people punished as an example. However, research from Germany shows that we tend to punish people closer to us more harshly than those in distant relationships. We judge those in our immediate circle more harshly because their behaviour reflects on us. No matter how much you might want to punish a transgressing ex-Prince, his family would want him hit harder.
Here is the problem for us in business. We allow some people to break the rules because it seems there is some benefit for the office. We let others do wrong because “everybody knows” they are creative. But then, when someone does not fall into these categories, we want them punished and publicly shamed, especially if they are in our team and not at some remote office where we hardly know anyone. It is this inconsistency that leads to conflict at work. It also leads to perceptions of unfairness, thereby reducing trust in management. When staff cannot predict how rule-breaking will be treated, they become cautious and defensive.
The solution is surprisingly straightforward and one that has a spin-off benefit in terms of job satisfaction and resulting loyalty to the firm. Research at a Japanese bank found that when you give your staff a variety of tasks, they are more likely to follow the rules. This implies that job boredom and repetitiveness are key triggers in rule-breaking.
Perhaps you should not be so tough on your employees, particularly those close to you, when they bend the rules. Rather, you should look at the way you have designed their jobs. When was the last time you redesigned a role rather than reprimanded a person?
