When talented and committed employees repeatedly break the same rule, it should be treated as organizational feedback, not a disciplinary issue. This pattern is a strong signal that the rule itself is misaligned with operational realities and needs to be re-evaluated by leadership.
Actively encouraging employees to 'break things' risks normalizing the violation of fundamental rules. A safer and more productive approach is to encourage employees to reflect on and challenge existing rules. This creates a space to identify and improve rules that are no longer fit for purpose without promoting chaos.
Leaders often automatically punish rule-breakers under the false assumption of self-interested motives. This approach is flawed because it ignores the other three types of rule-breaking (pro-social, coerced, or edified) and can lead to negative consequences by misdiagnosing the root problem.
To create a culture of psychological safety around rule-breaking, senior leaders should model vulnerability by openly admitting when they have made mistakes or broken rules. This honesty encourages employees to speak up about their own experiences and provide crucial feedback about why certain rules are not working.
Research shows rule-breaking stems from four distinct motivations: 1) Self-interested (personal gain), 2) Pro-social (to help customers or colleagues), 3) Corrupted (feeling coerced or pressured), and 4) Edified (serving a higher moral purpose). Identifying the correct motive is the first step to an effective response.