Rules are often treated as fixed, neutral and universally understood. But what if breaking a rule can sometimes be ethical, even necessary?
In this Academy of Management Annals paper, Michael Gill (2025) brings together decades of research across management, sociology, criminology and psychology to examine why people break rules at work. Rather than treating rule breaking as a single type of misconduct, the article offers a more nuanced framework that helps leaders understand the very different motivations that can sit behind the same behaviour.
Gill defines rule breaking as the intentional violation of an explicit organisational policy or regulation. He then synthesises the literature into four broad explanations.
First, rule breaking can be self interested. This is the most familiar account, where individuals weigh up personal gains against potential costs, such as sanctions or reputational damage. Much organisational policy and compliance practice is built around this assumption, using monitoring and punishment to deter violations.
Second, rule breaking can be pro social. Here, individuals break rules to do their job better or to help others, such as bending procedures to support a client or colleague. Research in this area shows that people are more likely to engage in this kind of behaviour when they feel trusted, empowered and motivated by a sense of responsibility.
Third, rule breaking can be corrupted. In these cases, social pressure, group norms or organisational culture encourage violations that benefit a powerful in-group, often at the expense of others. Gill highlights how competitive or coercive climates can normalise harmful behaviour, even among individuals who might not otherwise choose to break rules.
Finally, rule breaking can be edified. This is the least studied but arguably most important category. Edified rule breaking occurs when social influence and ethical climates encourage people to prioritise broader moral principles or the welfare of those beyond the organisation. Professional standards, human rights principles or deeply held values may come into conflict with formal rules, prompting individuals to act in ways they believe are morally right.
A key contribution of the article is its challenge to the idea that there is a single best response to rule breaking. Gill argues that managerial reactions such as punishment, tolerance or compassion are only effective when they align with the underlying motivation. Treating all rule breaking as self interested misconduct risks suppressing ethical voice and pro social action, while failing to address cultures that enable harm.
This has important implications for inclusion. Many organisational rules were not designed with all groups in mind, and strict enforcement can disproportionately disadvantage those already marginalised. At the same time, cultures that reward silence or conformity can enable exclusionary practices to persist unchallenged.
An inclusive organisation needs leaders who can distinguish between harmful violations and those driven by care, fairness or ethical concern. Psychological safety, ethical climates and clear signals about whose welfare truly matters all shape whether people feel able to speak up or act when rules fall short.
The evidence reminds us that rule breaking is not simply a problem to eliminate. It is a signal. Understanding why it happens can help leaders design fairer systems, respond more thoughtfully to misconduct, and create cultures where inclusion and integrity are genuinely supported.
You can read the original article here: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:d181aea2-ab52-4b3b-ac7b-e4b5106978ee/files/spk02cd12b
