Journal of/Management

ARTICLE
10.1177/0149206305277790
Morrison Doing the Job/ February
W ell 2006

Doing the Job Well:

An Investigation of Pro-Social Rule Breaking†
Elizabeth W. Morrison*
Stern School of Business, New York University, 44 West 4th Street, New York, NY 10012

This article introduces and explores the construct of pro-social rule breaking. Pro-social rule
breaking is rooted in a desire to promote the welfare of the organization or one of its stakeholders.
The first two studies used interview data to identify three primary types of pro-social rule break-
ing: rule breaking to perform one’s responsibilities more efficiently, rule breaking to help a sub-
ordinate or colleague, and rule breaking to provide good customer service. A third study used a
scenario-based laboratory experiment. It found that the likelihood of pro-social rule breaking was
positively related to job autonomy, coworker behavior, and risk-taking propensity.

Keywords: rule breaking; positive deviance; pro-social behavior; employee initiative;

proactive behavior

Imagine the following scenario. It is 2:37 p.m., and a customer at a branch of a large
national drug store chain is trying to drop off a roll of film for same-day developing. Store pol-
icy states that film must be dropped off by 2:00 p.m. for this service. The clerk knows that rules
like this are supposed to be followed. At the same time, he wants to be accommodating to the
customer, and he knows that the film could, in fact, be processed that day. He decides to accept
the film, and in so doing, to violate the policy. He just hopes that his manager does not find out.

†I am indebted to Linda Dunn-Jensen, Patricia Hewlin, Naomi Rothman, and Jennifer Tosti for their help with the data
collection, coding, and analyses. These studies would not have been possible without their assistance. I also owe
thanks to Steven Blader and Jennifer Mueller for their input on earlier drafts of the article and for their statistical
advice, and to three anonymous Journal of Management reviewers for their very helpful feedback. The article was
accepted under the editorship of Daniel Feldman.
*Corresponding author. Tel: 212-998-0230; fax: 212-995-4234.
E-mail address: emorriso@stern.nyu.edu
Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, February 2006 5-28
DOI: 10.1177/0149206305277790
© 2006 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.
5

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

6 Journal of Management / February 2006

One may wonder what it is that causes the employee in this case to decide to violate the rule.
One may also wonder why, when faced with such choices, some employees choose the obedi-
ent, rule-bound route, whereas others choose to disobey the rule. Every day, employees face
choices that pit obedience to formal organizational rules against responsiveness, innovation,
customer service, or compassion. In essence, they face choices of whether to deviate from the
rules to perform their jobs well. In many cases, like the one described above, they choose to
ignore or violate the rules. This article aims to better understand this behavioral choice.

The Construct of Pro-Social Rule Breaking

Within the organizational literature, the breaking of formal rules is generally viewed as
deviant behavior displayed by angry or self-interested employees, or by employees who do
not identify with the organization or its goals. In contrast, this article highlights that rule break-
ing often represents positively intended employee initiative, referred to here as pro-social rule
breaking. Pro-social rule breaking is defined as any instance where an employee intentionally
violates a formal organizational policy, regulation, or prohibition with the primary intention of
promoting the welfare of the organization or one of its stakeholders. The objective of this arti-
cle is to highlight the pro-social or nonselfish nature of many instances of rule breaking within
organizations and to shed light on the forms, motives, and antecedents of pro-social rule
breaking.
To begin, it is important to clarify what I mean by the term rule. In using this term, I mean an
explicit organizationally defined policy, regulation, or prohibition pertaining to how members
of an organization are supposed to execute their jobs (March, Schulz, & Zhou, 2000) and for
which there is reasonably wide consensus, legitimacy, and enforcement (Edgerton, 1985;
Jackson, 1966). This can be distinguished from a norm, which is an informal rule governing
behavior within a social context (Axelrod, 1986; Feldman, 1984). More precisely, norms have
been defined in the literature as ranges of behavior that are tolerated or expected by a particular
social group (Jackson, 1966; Rushing, 1975). Unlike formal organizational rules, which are
imposed from the top down, institutionalized, formally enforced, and part of the “bureaucratic
control system” of the organization (Ouchi, 1980), norms are emergent, enforced informally,
and a form of “social control” (Axelrod, 1986; Feldman, 1984). When employees violate
norms, they are subject to punishment from the social group. When they violate formal rules,
however, they are subject to organizational sanctions (reprimand, write-up, termination).
Although the line between formal and informal rules is sometimes blurred, and these two
terms sometimes are used interchangeably (Edgerton, 1985), this analysis focuses on explicit
and formal organizational policies and procedures.
It is also important to clarify what is meant by “rule breaking.” By rule breaking, I am refer-
ring to intentional violation of an explicit organizationally defined policy, regulation, or prohi-
bition. This excludes, then, accidental violation (when the actor is unaware of the rule) as well
as violation of a rule that is not enforced (i.e., a rule that most people know does not really need
to be followed).

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

 Morrison / Doing the Job Well 7

Existing Perspectives on Rule Violation

Where rule violation has been discussed most extensively is in the literature on organiza-
tional misbehavior (Vardi & Weiner, 1996; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). In their recent book, which
provides a review and integration of much of this literature, Vardi and Weitz defined organiza-
tional misbehavior as “acts in the workplace that are done intentionally and constitute a viola-
tion of rules pertaining to such behavior” (2004:3). Related constructs include workplace
deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), antisocial behavior (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997),
employee vice (Moberg, 1997), noncompliant behavior (Puffer, 1987), and production and
property deviance (Hollinger, 1986). These research streams all highlight the undesirable and
destructive nature of rule violation, and motives such as dissatisfaction, alienation, low com-
mitment to the organization, feelings of injustice, self-interest, and available opportunities to
“take advantage of” the organization (see Vardi & Weitz, 2004, for a review). Rules are
assumed to be functional, and thus employees who fail to follow them are assumed to be self-
interested or disenfranchised “deviants” either focused on personal gain or trying to inflict
harm on the organization.
A similar perspective on rule breaking is found in economic models of employee behavior.
Agency theory, for example, suggests that employees will be apt to break rules whenever it is
in their interest to do so and whenever there are insufficient organizational controls to ensure
rule compliance (Eisenhardt, 1989). In other words, rule breaking is a form of opportunism or
shirking (Williamson, 1985), a way in which employees try to pursue their own self-interest
by taking advantage of their organization. A similar perspective can be found in the literature
on corporate crime (e.g., Baucus, 1994). That literature also highlights the effect of strong sit-
uational pressures to engage in deviant, and typically illegal, behavior.

A Different Perspective on Rule Violation

It seems clear that these conceptualizations of rule breaking are sometimes appropriate.
Employees often do act out their feelings of disengagement, anger, or entitlement by purpose-
fully violating existing policies and procedures (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997; Hollinger,
1986; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Yet to conceptualize employee rule breaking as always self-
interested and destructive, or even as predominantly self-interested and destructive, is much
too narrow. Employees may feel trapped by a rule that is counterproductive or too rigid. This
can create tension for employees, as they feel pulled between the desire to be rule-abiding
employees on one hand and the desire to respond appropriately to situational demands on the
other. In response, employees may decide at times to disregard rules, even though they know
that doing so carries risk for them.
Rule breaking, in other words, may be motivated by the desire to do one’s job better or to do
what one believes to be appropriate in a given situation. In fact, I argue that employee rule
breaking is sometimes, and perhaps often, pro-social rather than solely self-interested or
malevolent. I define pro-social rule breaking as intentional violation of a formal organiza-
tional policy, regulation, or prohibition with the primary intention of promoting the welfare of

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

8 Journal of Management / February 2006

the organization or one of its stakeholders. Such behavior reflects a desire to do things better or
to “do good” in the context of one’s organizational role.
In using the term pro-social, I am borrowing from Brief and Motowidlo (1986), who
defined pro-social behavior as acts performed with the intention of promoting the welfare of
another individual, a group, or the organization. Pro-social behavior may also benefit the self,
but the primary drive behind it is other-focused. Thus, an act of rule violation would qualify as
a pro-social act if there was a strong element of “other-focus” even if self-focus also plays a
role. Conversely, an act of rule violation would not be considered pro-social if the motive was
primarily, or solely, to benefit the self or to inflict harm.
Support for the notion of pro-social rule breaking can be found in several places. One is in
recent discussions of “constructive” or “positive” deviance, defined as voluntary behavior that
violates significant norms to enhance the well-being of the organization or its stakeholders
(Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003; Warren, 2003). Pro-social rule breaking is a form of positive
deviance, but distinguished by the fact that it goes against a formal rule or policy rather than
just being “different from the norm” or “exceptional,” which is how positive deviance has been
conceptualized (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003).
Support for the idea that employees will sometimes break a rule if they feel this is the right
thing to do can also be found in Graham’s (1986) essay on principled dissent. Graham pro-
posed that organizational members may refuse to behave as instructed or expected if they feel
that organizational procedures or policies are in some way wrong. A similar perspective can be
found in Staw and Boettger’s (1990) study of what they called “task revision.” Staw and
Boettger found that when individuals regard certain procedures or task demands as incorrect,
they may modify them to most effectively perform the task at hand. On the basis of their work,
the authors argued that if rules, instructions, guidelines, or procedures are misspecified or mis-
directed, it is both appropriate and good for the organization if employees disregard rather
than follow them.
Supporting evidence for the notion of pro-social rule breaking can also be found in a variety
of works on other positively intended behaviors. These behaviors include personal initia-
tive (Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997), taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999),
voice (Van Dyne & Lepine, 1998), whistle-blowing (Miceli & Near, 1992), and innovation
(Nemeth, 1997). Research on each of these behaviors focuses on employees pro-actively
addressing or solving problems by stepping outside of the boundaries around their jobs. How-
ever, these literature streams do not explicitly address the question of whether (and under what
conditions) employees will break a rule in order to engage in these positively intended acts.
This is an important point because employees can go above and beyond their job in ways that
are consistent with the rules, or they can do so in ways that violate explicit organizational poli-
cies and regulations. The latter may be particularly likely when there are rules that impede
extrarole behavior.
In sum, little explicit attention has been given to understanding extrarole behavior that vio-
lates formal organizational rules. Yet such behavior deserves attention as it suggests a psycho-
logical basis for rule breaking that is very different from the motives usually discussed and
assumed. Specifically, it suggests that rule breaking is sometimes motivated by an employee’s
desire to exercise initiative and do what he or she believes is needed to perform the job in an
effective, responsible, and responsive manner.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

 Morrison / Doing the Job Well 9

Three studies were conducted in an effort to shed light on pro-social rule breaking. Studies
1 and 2 were qualitative and exploratory. They had two objectives. The first was to see whether
employees, when asked about their own rule-breaking behavior, would give examples that
appeared to be pro-social rather than selfish or organizationally destructive. The second objec-
tive was to help identify different forms of pro-social rule breaking and the motives that drive
these behaviors. Study 3 was an experimental study using scenarios. The objective was to
identify contextual and individual-level variables that might help to explain the likelihood of
an employee choosing to engage in pro-social rule breaking.

Study 1

Method

In Study 1, 24 phone interviews were held with people working in a range of different jobs,
organizations, and industries to see whether, when asked about rule breaking, they provided
examples that fit the definition of pro-social rule breaking. It was reasoned that if most
instances of rule breaking are “negative” or self-interested forms of behavior, then individuals
will either deny having engaged in rule breaking or give examples consistent with this concep-
tualization. However, if rule breaking sometimes reflects efforts to behave responsibly, then
individuals should give some examples that fit this broader conceptualization.
Respondents were alumni of a large undergraduate business school who agreed to hold a
short phone interview. They ranged in age from 32 to 64, had an average of 9.7 years of work
experience, and 58% were female. The participants worked in a variety of jobs (supervisor of
guest relations, managing director of data services, financial analyst, project supervisor,
administrative aide, Web-page manager, trader) and in a variety of industries (entertainment,
telecommunications, health care, education, financial services). They were all in either
nonsupervisory, first-line managerial, or middle management positions.
Respondents were told that we were studying rule following and rule breaking, and they
were asked whether they could recall a situation, in their current job or in previous jobs, where
they had knowingly not followed a rule, policy, or procedure that was supposed to be followed.
If so, they were asked to tell about that situation, describing what they did, why they did it, and
the consequences. Respondents were asked if there were other situations where they had vio-
lated a rule until they could not think of any other instances. Thus, each interview generated as
many examples of rule-breaking behavior as the person could recall.
The responses were independently coded by two graduate students who were not involved
with the data collection. These evaluators were first asked to try to categorize each example as
either self-focused (any example that appeared to be primarily or solely motivated by desire
for personal gain or a sense of anger or unfairness) or as non-self-focused (rule breaking that
appeared to not be primarily or solely motivated by personal gain or a sense of anger or unfair-
ness). Interrater agreement was 100%.
Following this initial coding, the evaluators focused on just the examples that were coded
as non-self-interested. They were instructed to sort these examples into subcategories reflect-
ing different types of pro-social rule-breaking behavior. The evaluators were not given pre-

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

10 Journal of Management / February 2006

defined categories. However, they both identified the same three themes and made identical
classifications of examples into these thematic categories.
Finally, a third graduate student evaluator was asked to sort the examples into the three cat-
egories identified by the other two evaluators. There were only two instances of disparity
between the initial coding and the coding by this third evaluator (interrater reliability = .92).
This disparity was easily resolved through discussion.

Results

Of the 24 respondents, 3 were unable to think of an instance where they had broken a rule.
The remaining 21 respondents provided a total of 40 examples of rule-breaking behavior. The
number of examples provided by respondents ranged from 1 (the modal number) to 7, with a
mean of 2.0 examples. Sixteen of the 40 examples (40%) were coded as self-interested (pri-
marily or solely motivated by personal gain or a sense of anger or unfairness). These included
behaviors such as not coming to work when the boss was away, charging personal expenses to
one’s expense account, using the phone or Internet for personal nonwork matters, and taking
office supplies. The remaining 24 examples (60%), which were provided by 19 respondents,
were coded into the pro-social category (not primarily or solely motivated by personal gain or
a sense of anger or unfairness).
The 24 examples of pro-social rule breaking fell into three different categories. As shown
in Table 1, these categories reflected three different driving motives for the rule-breaking
behavior: efficiency, desire to help a subordinate or colleague, and customer service. The first
and largest category reflected instances where the actor was trying to more efficiently perform
his or her job duties. Together, the respondents provided 10 examples of this type of rule-
breaking behavior. These included making copies oneself instead of sending the materials to
the copy center in order to ensure a faster turnaround time and purchasing office supplies from
a nonapproved vendor to get a lower price.
The second category included instances where the actor was trying to help another
employee (usually a subordinate). There were nine examples of this type of behavior. One
example was a manager at a community hospital who told of a situation where she violated
company policy by paying one of her subordinates in advance for an upcoming vacation. She
indicated doing so because she felt that the employee, a single mother, “was really strapped for
money.” A concert hall manager said that on cold days, she sometimes let her guest relations
staff come inside to warm up, even though the rules indicated that these employees are sup-
posed to remain outside for their entire shift.
The third category (N = 5) consisted of customer-focused forms of rule breaking. One
example was a manager who sometimes gave unauthorized exchanges or refunds to custom-
ers. Another example was a respondent who explained that there is a rule in his organization
that material cannot be put on the company’s Web page if it is not licensed for distribution out-
side of the United States. He violated this rule and put his job at risk because he felt that cus-
tomers within the United States needed this material. He noted that “my role is to grease the
wheels to make other people do their jobs better. Had I not done that, I would not be doing my

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015


Examples From Study 1 Interviews
Job Title
Efficiency (n = 10)
Budget and financial analyst
Administrative assistant
Office administrator
Helping subordinate/colleague (n = 9)
Concert hall manager
Director of data services
Hospital manager
Customer service (n = 5)
Supervisor of guest relations
Web-page manager
Drug store manager
Self-interest (n = 16)
Special education teacher
Conference center director
Record company employee
job.” A third example was a drug store manager who said that she often personally delivered
pharmacy items to elderly customers, even though store policy prohibited this.
Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015
Table 1
Example Given
Using nonapproved vendors
that offered products at a
cheaper price
Using mail meter instead of
stamps
Making copies oneself instead
of sending to copy center
Letting staff come inside to get
warm
Informing divisions of upcom-
ing audit
Paying an employee in advance
for her vacation
Giving refunds or exchanges
when appropriate
Putting material on the Web
page even if it is not licensed
for use outside of the United
States
Delivering pharmacy items to
elderly customers
Not signing out at the end of
the day
Not coming into work for 5
days
Leaving with Rolodex on last
day
Taking Post-its and pens home
Taking boyfriend out on
expense account
Morrison / Doing the Job Well 11
Rationale Given
“I was just trying to do my job well.”
“For the sake of time and efficiency”
“There are often time constraints.”
“It was the right thing to do.”
“I felt the need to help these divisions
because the service objectives were
extremely high.”
She was “really strapped for cash.”
There was no real harm.
“It is a matter of customer service.”
“My role is to grease the wheels to
make other people do their jobs
better. Had I not done that, I would
not be doing my job.”
“It’s very hard for them to get out, and
not a big deal for me to do it on my
way home.”
“Why should I suffer because others
took advantage of the system? The
policy was ridiculous.”
“It was sort of a taking back. I felt I
was contributing too much. So I had
this feeling that I deserved it.”
“I didn’t agree with the policy. They
were my contacts, not the
company’s.”
12 Journal of Management / February 2006

Discussion

Although exploratory, the interview data from Study 1 provide support for the notion of
pro-social rule breaking. When asked whether they had ever engaged in rule breaking at work,
respondents provided not just examples of self-focused behavior that fit traditional conceptu-
alizations of rule breaking but also behaviors that focused on doing their jobs more efficiently,
helping other employees, and providing good customer service. Indeed, 60% of the rule-
breaking incidents provided were of these “nonselfish” types. Moreover, most of the individu-
als interviewed (19 of the 24) provided at least one example of pro-social rule breaking.

Study 2

Method

Study 2 was designed to provide additional data on the various forms of pro-social rule
breaking and to see if the results from Study 1 could be confirmed using a larger and more
diverse sample. Unlike Study 1, however, respondents were asked just for examples that fit the
definition of pro-social rule breaking. To access a diverse sample, three research assistants
went to a popular tourist location where people must wait in line. They went on three occa-
sions, approached 112 people at random, and asked whether they would be willing to answer a
few questions for a research project. Respondents were told the following: “Sometimes people
at work make the choice to not follow a formal rule, policy, or procedure in order to do their job
in the way that they feel they should. Can you think of a time when you have done this?” If they
could think of an instance, they were asked to describe it, indicating the nature of the rule and
why they chose to not follow it.
Respondents’ work experience ranged from 4 months to 40 years (M = 14.7 years, SD = 8.7
years). They worked in a variety of jobs (manager, customer service representative, designer,
analyst, sales associate, administrative assistant, teacher, broker, nurse, consultant, accoun-
tant, lawyer) and industries (health care, manufacturing, financial services, consulting, educa-
tion, government, travel, accounting, insurance, software, entertainment, pharmaceutical,
retail, law). Sixty-four percent were female, and the average age was 37.9 years (SD = 12.3).
The same two coders from Study 1 independently classified the responses. They used the
three categories from the first study but were instructed that they could add or modify catego-
ries as needed. Interrater reliability was .86. Disagreements were resolved by the third rater. In
four cases, this rater concluded that the underlying motive was too unclear to reliably classify
the example. These were all examples where the rater was unable to determine whether there
was a pro-social motive (e.g., helping the organization), as opposed to solely self-interest
(e.g., saving time or effort for oneself). These four examples were not classified.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

 Morrison / Doing the Job Well 13

Results

Of the 112 potential participants, 33 declined to be interviewed or indicated that they were
either not employed or self-employed, and 79 (70.5%) agreed to participate. Seventeen of
these (21.5%) were unable to think of a time when they had broken a rule. Each of the remain-
ing 63 people (79.7%) gave an example of rule-breaking behavior. Fourteen (22.2%) were
classified as efficiency-focused rule breaking, 15 (23.8%) were classified as rule breaking
focused on helping a subordinate or colleague, 22 (34.9%) were classified as focused on cus-
tomer service, and 7 (11.1%) were classified as self-interested rule breaking. As noted, 4
examples (6.3%) were deemed “unclear” and not placed into any of the above categories.
The examples of efficiency-focused rule breaking described situations where speed was
very important and where the respondent felt that rule compliance would take too much time
and would thereby threaten the attainment of organizational goals or objectives (e.g., an
important organizational deadline would not be met). One respondent, for example, described
a situation where she had circumvented the chain of command to get two additional employees
allocated to her project in order to meet a looming deadline.
An example of subordinate/colleague-focused rule breaking was allowing a subordinate to
work a flexible schedule because of personal circumstances, even though this was in violation
of company policy. Another respondent described a time when he gave a subordinate a higher
rating on his formal review than his performance warranted. The respondent wanted to give
the subordinate time to look for a new position while still employed. He explained, “I did this
because I wanted to give the guy as much time as possible to find something and be able to
take care of his family.” Concern and compassion were evident in many of the examples of
employee-focused rule violation.
An example of customer-focused rule breaking came from an employee who described
leaving the office to pick up money from a client, even though this went against the rules. He
explained that “the client would have lost the trade, and his account would have been frozen.”
In several of the customer-service examples, the respondent emphasized that following
the rule would jeopardize the customer or client relationship. Stated one respondent, “I just
want to ensure that the client relationship with the firm does not start off with a negative
experience.”
Even though participants were asked to give examples of rule breaking where they were
trying to do their job well, eight individuals gave examples that were coded as solely self-
interested. An example was an employee at an insurance company who indicated that she
sometimes modified steps in the processing of insurance forms in order to make the job less
boring, but with no apparent benefit to clients or the organization. Further examples from each
of the four categories can be found in Table 2.

Discussion

A majority of respondents were able to recall a time when they had engaged in pro-social
rule breaking. Replicating the results from Study 1, the examples fell into three categories:
rule breaking focused on speed and efficiency, rule breaking focused on helping another

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

14 Journal of Management / February 2006
Job Title
Efficiency (n = 14)
Applications designer
Vice president of tax services
Consultant
Advertising executive
Helping subordinate/colleague
(n = 15)
Benefits manager
Payroll manager
Vice president of distribution
Vice president of human
resources
Customer service (n = 22)
Registered representative
Sales associate at a jewelry store Holding a piece of jewelry for a
Equities associate
Customer service representative
Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015
Table 2
Examples From Study 2 Interviews
Example Given Rationale Given
Circumventing chain of command to “If I followed the rule, a milestone
get two additional employees for production would not have
allocated been met.”
Ordering software using own credit “The project would have missed
card rather than going through pur- the deadline if I waited for the
chasing department purchasing department.”
Making a decision that diverged from “It did not fit the needs of the situ-
corporate policy regarding travel ation and resulted in expenditure
of more time and money than
needed.”
Giving “the green light” to production “We can lose up to a week waiting
before paperwork was all done for paperwork to come through.”
Allowing a subordinate to work a Employee had a child with special
flexible schedule (rules did not needs and needed to leave early.
allow this)
Processing special checks ($100 or “There are many employees who
less) for employees when they have live paycheck to paycheck that I
not been paid correctly feel I should help out.”
Providing recognition to staff without “I did not want to risk the possibil-
going through appropriate proce- ity that they would say ‘no’
dures to get the funds because I knew giving my staff
recognition was the right thing
to do.”
Giving a laid-off employee a paid day “He was getting emotional about
off on his last day (policy was that his layoff. . . . I also wanted to
he needed to take it as a vacation compensate him for work he had
day in order to receive severance done while one of the staff was
package) out on family leave.”
Leaving the office to pick up money “The client would have lost the
from a client trade, and his account would
have been frozen.”
Allowing customers time to get
customer during a going-out-of- cash
business sale
Going through “compliance proce- “I just want to ensure that the cli-
dures” after starting a new client ent relationship with the firm
relationship rather than before does not start off with a negative
experience.”
Expediting a “hot order” without fol- “If I didn’t do this, the customer
lowing approval procedures might place the order at a differ-
ent manufacturer.”
(continued)
 Morrison / Doing the Job Well 15

Table 2 Examples From Study 2 Interviews

Job Title Example Given Rationale Given

Graphic designer at a hospital Not following standards for hospital
logo or other designs
Self-interest (n = 7)
Administrative assistant Skipping steps in the processing of
insurance forms
Nurse Skipping paperwork
Teacher Skipping bus duty
Nurse Parking in an area where hospital em- “It’s closer to the door. . . . If I’m
ployees are not supposed to park
The clients (doctors) “are paying
large sums of money for it to be
done, so I want to produce it
their way.”
“For my own mental sanity”
“Rebellion . . . and also, I just
don’t have the time.”
“Sometimes I have somewhere else
to be.”
in a hurry or the weather’s bad”

employee (typically a subordinate), and rule breaking focused on providing good customer
service. These results suggest several reasons, other than self-interest, anger, or alienation,
that can cause an employee to decide to violate a formal organizational rule. They also provide
some insight into the types of situations that might be particularly likely to elicit pro-social
rule breaking. For example, if rule breaking sometimes reflects a desire to do one’s job more
efficiently, then employees who attach a high value to conscientious job performance might be
more likely to display pro-social rule breaking than employees who do not. Similarly, if rule
breaking sometimes reflects the desire to help subordinates or customers, then empathy might
be a predictive variable.

Study 3

The interview data help to establish that employees sometimes do engage in pro-social rule
breaking. They also suggest some hypotheses about conditions that might make this more or
less likely and suggest that a deeper look is warranted. Like other forms of risky discretionary
behavior, pro-social rule breaking reflects a conscious choice (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, &
Dutton, 1998; Frese et al., 1997; Morrison & Phelps, 1999). The employee must decide
whether to follow a particular rule or violate it. In many cases, this is not an easy choice. The
employee may feel that rule following will lead to a suboptimal outcome, but at the same time,
he or she may worry that rule breaking will be punished. How this decision is resolved will
depend on a variety of individual and contextual factors.
The objective of Study 3, therefore, was to investigate, through the use of scenarios, the
effects of several specific variables on the decision of whether to engage in pro-social rule
breaking. The underlying theoretical model is consistent with Spreitzer and Sonnenshein’s
(2003) model of positive deviance. In presenting that model, the authors argued that there are
five psychological conditions that facilitate positive deviance: meaning, self-determination,
focus on others, personal efficacy, and courage. Building from this framework, I argue that

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

16 Journal of Management / February 2006

pro-social rule breaking will be more likely when one’s job provides both meaning and auton-
omy and when the following three individual dispositions are strong: empathy (similar to
other-focus), proactive personality (similar to personal efficacy), and risk-taking propensity
(similar to courage). I also propose that the decision to engage in pro-social rule breaking will
be influenced by the behavior of one’s coworkers.

Job Meaning

Job meaning refers to the perceived value of one’s work or the extent to which a person
cares about his or her work and believes that it matters in important ways (Hackman &
Oldham, 1976; Spreitzer, 1995). When people care deeply about their work, they have a strong
desire to take action, to do what is needed to excel, and to enact a broad conceptualization of
their job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Job meaning increases the desire to make a differ-
ence at work (Spreitzer & Sonnenshein, 2003). On the basis of these ideas, I predict that indi-
viduals who derive a strong sense of meaning from their job will care more about doing the
best job possible and will hence be more willing to violate rules that get in the way of excep-
tional role execution.

Hypothesis 1: Job meaning will be positively related to the likelihood of deciding to engage in pro-
social rule breaking.

Autonomy

Autonomy reflects the amount of choice or discretion inherent in a person’s job (Hackman
& Oldham, 1976). Jobs that provide high autonomy lead to feelings of responsibility, latitude,
and self-determination (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Spreitzer, 1995). They enable individuals
to feel that they have control over how to accomplish their work activities and achieve organi-
zational objectives. These feelings of control and discretion should cause employees to per-
ceive that they can deviate from formal organizational rules and to therefore increase the likeli-
hood of employees disregarding rules when they feel this is warranted. Indirect support for this
prediction comes from research showing that a strong predictor of initiative taking is the
amount of control afforded by one’s job (Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2000).

Hypothesis 2: Job autonomy will be positively related to the likelihood of deciding to engage in pro-
social rule breaking.

Empathy

Empathy refers to sensitivity to the emotional experiences of others and ability to take the
perspective of others (Batson, 1991; McNeely & Meglino, 1994). Scholars have argued that
empathy evokes a motivation to help meet another person’s needs, and there is empirical evi-
dence that concern for others promotes interpersonal helping behavior and causes people to

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

 Morrison / Doing the Job Well 17

be less focused on personal instrumentality (Berkowitz, 1972; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987;
McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). Building on these ideas, I predict
that empathy will increase the likelihood of an employee breaking an organizational rule when
the rule gets in the way of assisting or responding to the needs of others or the collective.

Hypothesis 3: Empathy will be positively related to the likelihood of deciding to engage in pro-social
rule breaking.

Proactive Personality

Bateman and Crant (1993) introduced the construct of “proactive personality,” which they
argued reflects differences among people in the extent to which they take action to influence
their environment. Individuals with proactive personalities look for opportunities, show initia-
tive, persevere in bringing about change, and feel relatively unconstrained by situational
forces (Bateman & Crant, 1993). If they believe in something or want to make something hap-
pen, they will find a way to get it done. This logic suggests that when faced with a rule that
seems inappropriate or constraining, individuals with proactive personalities will be more
likely to violate that rule. That is, they will be motivated to find a way around the rule rather
than simply complying with it. This idea is consistent with Spreitzer and Sonnenshein’s
(2003) argument that personal efficacy, by enhancing motivation and causing people to perse-
vere in the face of obstacles, will facilitate positive deviance.

Hypothesis 4: Proactive personality will be positively related to the likelihood of deciding to engage
in pro-social rule breaking.

Risk-Taking Propensity

Risk-taking propensity is also likely to be relevant for understanding pro-social rule break-
ing. Individuals with high risk-taking propensity not only enjoy taking risks but overestimate
the likelihood of success associated with risky courses of action and underestimate the likeli-
hood of failure (Brockhaus, 1980; Sitkin & Pablo, 1992). Individuals with low risk-taking pro-
pensity, on the other hand, magnify the possibility of negative outcomes associated with risk
taking and hence pursue less risky activities (Kogan & Wallach, 1964). Research has shown
that risk-taking propensity is positively associated with the tendency to deviate from organiza-
tional norms (Howell & Higgins, 1990). On the basis of these findings, I expect that when an
employee is faced with the choice of whether to respond to a pressing need in a way that vio-
lates a rule, high risk takers will be more likely to do so, whereas low risk takers will be more
likely to “play it safe” by adhering to the rule.

Hypothesis 5: Risk-taking propensity will be positively related to the likelihood of deciding to engage
in pro-social rule breaking.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

18 Journal of Management / February 2006

Coworker Behavior

In addition to job cognitions and individual dispositions, information from the social con-
text is likely to play a role in affecting the choice of whether to engage in pro-social rule break-
ing (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). When deciding whether to engage in risky behavior, research
has shown that employees try to glean cues about how the behavior will be perceived and
responded to by others (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997). These social cues
can provide guidelines about whether the behavior is likely to be tolerated versus punished
(Ashford et al., 1998). One form of social cues has to do with the behavior of similar others. If
an employee learns, for example, that coworkers have sometimes engaged in pro-social rule
breaking, he or she will be more likely to feel that it is okay to do so himself or herself. Indeed,
even if there is a risk of sanctions, information suggesting that a particular rule has sometimes
been broken by others will increase the likelihood of an employee breaking that rule himself or
herself.

Hypothesis 6: Information suggesting that coworkers have sometimes broken a particular rule will be
positively related to the likelihood of deciding to engage in pro-social rule breaking.

Method

Sample. The sample for this study consisted of 168 MBA students at a large urban univer-
sity who volunteered to participate and were paid $15 for doing so. The average age of the par-
ticipants was 28.4 years (SD = 2.3 years), and 39% were female. Work experience ranged from
1 to 18 years, with a mean of 5.37 years (SD = 2.23 years).

Procedure. Participants were given two short scenarios to read. These scenarios were based
on examples of pro-social rule breaking from Study 2 and were pretested to check for realism.
Scenario A described a situation in which an employee had to decide whether or not to break a
rule by placing an urgent order for a customer. Scenario B described a situation in which an
employee had to decide whether or not to break a rule to procure additional employees to meet
an important deadline (see Appendix A). At the end of each scenario, participants responded
to six questions that assessed the likelihood that they would break the rule. They also re-
sponded to three questions that assessed the perceived realism of the scenario and answered
two questions that assessed whether they regarded the potential rule breaking as pro-social
rather than self-interested. Then, respondents completed a short survey that assessed proactive
personality, empathy, and risk-taking propensity.

Design. The study used a between-subjects design in which three variables were manipu-
lated and three were measured. All together, there were eight versions of each of the two sce-
narios, reflecting eight different experimental conditions. These eight conditions reflected all
possible combinations of the three manipulated independent variables: job meaning (high or
low), autonomy (high or low), and coworker behavior (yes or no). The number of respondents
in each condition was between 18 and 22. Each participant completed one of the eight versions

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

 Morrison / Doing the Job Well 19

of Scenario A and one of the eight versions of Scenario B (both on a randomly selected basis).
Thus, each participant responded to two different experimental conditions.

Measures. Pro-social rule breaking was the dependent variable. It was measured using six
items that were developed for this study. Principal axis analysis with a varimax rotation was
used to assess the structure of the dependent variable. All six items assessing pro-social rule
breaking loaded on one factor (loadings ranged from .45 to .83). The items were averaged to
create a pro-social rule-breaking measure for each participant (a = .87 for Scenario A and a =
.90 for Scenario B). The complete scale is in Appendix B.
Appendix A shows the wording used for both the high and low conditions of each of the
three manipulated variables. Job meaning was manipulated by stating that “this job has a great
deal of personal meaning to you” or “this job does not have much personal meaning to you.”
Autonomy was manipulated by stating that one either feels or does not feel that he or she has
freedom to make decisions regarding his or her work. Co-worker behavior was manipulated
by stating either that the individual had “heard through the grapevine” that others had some-
times violated the policy in the past or that the individual had never heard of others violating
the policy.
Proactive personality, empathy, and propensity for risk were measured on the survey that
participants completed at the end of the study. All three variables were assessed with estab-
lished measures. Responses were on 5-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
The survey also assessed gender and work experience, which were control variables in the
analyses.
Proactive personality was measured with the 17-item scale developed by Bateman and
Crant (1993). Sample items are the following: “I am always looking for better ways to do
things,” and “I love to challenge the status quo.” Reliability for the scale was high (a = .88).
Empathy was measured with a seven-item scale developed by Davis (1980). Two examples
of items are the following: “If I see someone in trouble, I want to help out in any way I can,”
and “Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal” (reverse scored). The
scale’s reliability was .80.
Propensity for risk was assessed with a four-item scale from Gomez-Mejia and Balkin
(1989). Sample items are the following: “I am not willing to take risks when choosing a job or
a company to work for,” and “I view risk on a job as something to be avoided at all costs.” Reli-
ability was acceptable (a = .72).

Results

I first looked to determine whether participants regarded the scenarios as realistic and
whether they regarded rule breaking as something that would help the company more than the
self. In response to the question “How realistic is this scenario?” 92% of the participants
responded “agree” or “strongly agree” for Scenario A, and 87.8% responded “agree” or
“strongly agree” for Scenario B. Also, 86.8% and 82.8% responded “agree” or “strongly
agree” to the following statement: “I could easily imagine myself in a situation like this.”
There was also evidence that the rule breaking in question was seen as pro-social. In response

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

 20
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for All Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Rule breaking (A) 3.05 0.79 .87

2. Rule breaking (B) 3.24 0.88 .12 .90
3. Job meaning (A) 0.50 0.50 –.06 –.07
4. Autonomy (A) 0.48 0.50 .20* –.05 .01
5. Coworker behavior (A) 0.52 0.50 .16* .03 –.01 –.01
6. Job meaning (B) 0.50 0.50 –.07 .12 –.01 .01 .01
7. Autonomy (B) 0.51 0.50 –.13 .21** –.01 .03 –.04 -.01
8. Coworker behavior (B) 0.51 0.50 –.06 .28** –.01 .02 .04 .05 .05
9. Proactive personality 3.83 0.72 .01 .20* –.05 .12 –.02 .07 .05 –.01 .88
10. Empathy 3.74 0.60 .12 .15 .11 –.11 –.12 .08 –.08 –.13 .10 .80
11. Risk taking 2.21 0.71 .18* .30** –.07 –.08 –.04 .01 –.06 .07 .30** .06 .72
12. Gender (female = 1) .39 .49 –.04 –.35** .18* .03 .06 –.07 –.16* –.19* –.05 .31** .10
13. Work experience 5.37 2.23 .02 –.02 –.02 –.01 –.01 .08 –.12 .02 –.05 –.20* .22* –.19*

Note: Alpha coefficients are on the diagonal. A = Scenario A measures; B = Scenario B measures.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

*p < .05 (two-tailed)
**p < .01 (two-tailed)
 Morrison / Doing the Job Well 21

Table 4
Results of Regression Analyses (N = 168)
Scenario A Scenario B
b DR b DR
2 2 2 2
Variable R F R F

Step 1
Gender (female = 1) –.02 –.20**
Work experience .05 .01 .01 0.32 –.01 .12 .12 10.90***
Step 2
Job meaning (Hypothesis 1) –.02 .10
Autonomy (Hypothesis 2) .22** .17*
Empathy (Hypothesis 3) .10 .04
Proactive personality (Hypothesis 4) –.07 .09
Risk-taking propensity (Hypothesis 5) .17* .23**
Coworker behavior (Hypothesis 6) .16* .17 .16** 3.08** .21** .27 .15*** 6.80***

*p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001

to the statement “Violating this policy would be good for the company,” 67.7% responded
“agree” or “strongly agree” for Scenario A, and 69.7% did likewise for Scenario B. In
response to the statement “Violating the policy would be good for my career,” on the other
hand, only 17.2% responded “agree” or “strongly agree” for Scenario A, and 22.3%
responded “agree” or “strongly agree” for Scenario B.
Descriptive statistics and correlations were computed for all of the variables used in the
study. Table 3 contains the means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and inter-
correlations among the variables. As shown, participants reported, on average, a moderate
likelihood of rule breaking. For both scenarios, the likelihood of rule breaking correlated with
autonomy, coworker behavior, and risk-taking propensity. For Scenario B, there was also a
significant correlation with gender, with women reporting less likelihood of rule breaking.
Gender also related to a few of the manipulated variables, indicating that men and women
were not evenly distributed across the high and low conditions for these variables. In addition,
women had higher empathy and lower risk-taking propensity than men. These significant cor-
relations highlight the importance of controlling for gender in the analyses.
The hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression. This approach was chosen rather
than analysis of variance because three of the independent variables were continuous rather
than categorical. Gender and work experience, the two control variables, were entered in Step
1. In Step 2, the six independent variables were entered. The three manipulated independent
variables were coded as dummy variables (0, 1). Scenarios A and B were analyzed separately.
Results are reported in Table 4. For Scenario A, autonomy (b = .22), risk-taking propensity
(b = .17), and coworker behavior (b = .16), each had significant effects on the likelihood of
pro-social rule breaking. Together, the variables in the equation explained 17% of the variance
(R2 = .17, F = 3.08, p < .01). For Scenario B, autonomy (b = .17), risk taking (b = .23), and co-
worker behavior (b = .21) also had significant effects on the likelihood of pro-social rule

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

22 Journal of Management / February 2006

breaking. Together, the variables in the equation explained 27% of the variance (R2 = .27, F =
6.80, p < .001). These results provide support for Hypotheses 2, 5, and 6. Support was not
found for Hypotheses 1, 3, or 4.

Discussion

The results of Study 3 provide further support for the idea that, under certain conditions,
individuals are willing to break a rule in the interest of meeting an important deadline or cus-
tomer request. This finding contributes to research on employee deviance, which has focused
mainly on self-interested deviant acts that are at odds with organizational objectives. It pro-
vides a broader view of rule breaking, one that includes other-focused acts and acts directed
toward performing one’s organizational role effectively and helping the organization achieve
its goals.
As predicted, participants indicated a higher likelihood of rule violation when they felt that
they had autonomy in their role and when they had information suggesting that coworkers had
sometimes broken the rule in question. Job meaning was unrelated to the reported likelihood
of rule breaking. Unfortunately, we did not perform a manipulation check, so there is no way
to know whether the manipulation was sufficiently strong to affect participants’perceptions of
job meaning.
Risk-taking propensity, an individual-difference variable, also predicted the reported like-
lihood of pro-social rule breaking. Regardless of how much autonomy they had, and regard-
less of whether others always follow the rule, individuals who were more comfortable with
risk reported a higher likelihood of breaking the rules than those who were more risk avoidant.
The two other individual-difference variables did not have significant effects on the likelihood
of pro-social rule breaking. There are several possible reasons for this. One is that pro-social
rule breaking is driven more by job cognitions and situational variables than by dispositions. A
second is that this study did not assess the right set of dispositional factors. In future studies,
researchers should assess a broader range of individual differences. The nonsignificant effects
for proactive personality and empathy might also be due to the fact that participants were
responding to scenarios. Although most participants indicated that they saw the scenarios as
realistic, responding to the scenarios was not the same as being in an actual situation where
one must choose whether to follow or violate a rule.
An additional possibility worth considering is that, rather than having main effects, pro-
active personality and empathy may have interacted with one or more of the situational vari-
ables. To explore this possibility, post hoc analyses were conducted. The control variables and
main effects were entered first. To reduce multicollinearity, the individual-difference vari-
ables were centered. Then, the nine possible interaction terms (3 manipulated variables ´ 3
individual difference variables) were entered. These analyses yielded only one significant
effect for each of the scenarios. For Scenario A, there was a significant interaction between
proactive personality and coworker behavior (b = .27, p < .05). For Scenario B, there was a sig-
nificant interaction between empathy and job meaning (b = .29, p < .01). Plots of these interac-
tions showed that coworker behavior has a stronger effect for people who were not proactive,
and job meaning had a stronger effect for those with low rather than high empathy.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

 Morrison / Doing the Job Well 23

Conclusion

The results of these studies contribute not only to research on employee deviance but also to
the literature on employee initiative and extrarole behavior. Scholars have highlighted the
value of discretionary behavior that goes beyond role requirements (Frese et al., 1997;
Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Organ, 1988), yet there has been little discussion in the literature of
how such behavior may sometimes entail rule violation, nor of how rules may sometimes pose
barriers that impedes extrarole behavior. The results also contribute to research on compliance
and obedience at work. The power of organizations to evoke obedience is strong (Asch, 1951;
Barnard, 1938; Milgram, 1974). Yet, there are times when employees choose not to comply or
obey. Understanding these special cases can help us to understand the limits of compliance
and the conditions that may motivate employee disobedience.
The ideas in this article raise important questions for future investigation. For example, it
would be valuable to conduct a more in-depth investigation of the cognitive processes leading
to the judgment that it is appropriate to break a rule. In particular, it would be valuable to more
fully understand how individuals weigh perceived benefits and risks of pro-social rule break-
ing. It would also be useful to understand how affective and cognitive variables such as job sat-
isfaction, procedural justice, and organizational commitment affect decisions of whether to
engage in pro-social rule breaking. Third, future research should consider how employees’
judgments about the appropriateness of rule breaking are affected by the nature of the rule
itself (e.g., how clearly understood, how strongly enforced, severity of punishment for vio-
lation, etc.).
Another important issue for future research relates to the organizational implications of
pro-social rule breaking. Pro-social rule breaking can increase organizational adaptability and
flexibility in the face of unanticipated circumstances and may be an impetus for eliminating or
altering rules that have outlived their usefulness. Over time, a rule that is repeatedly broken
may prompt an examination of whether the rule is appropriate. More systematic study of rule
breaking, therefore, may provide insight into how “deviance” becomes institutionalized and
accepted within an organization and how this can lead to adaptive organizational change.
At the same time, pro-social rule breaking can be organizationally dysfunctional. A rule
that appears inappropriate to an employee may have a purpose that the employee fails to rec-
ognize, such that well-intended rule breaking may hurt rather than help the organization. For
example, Campbell (2000) told of an airline employee who, knowing that the airline valued
customer satisfaction, rerouted a customer who has missed his flight. This decision, however,
ended up costing the airlines several times the traveler’s original ticket fare. Also, an employee
may violate a rule with the intent of helping, but his or her actions may end up being unfair to
other parties (e.g., giving a customer the sale price on an item a day early).
The issue of whether rule breaking is “functional” or “dysfunctional” is a complex one. An
instance of rule breaking might be functional from the perspective of one stakeholder, but dys-
functional from the perspective of another. The frequency and intensity of rule breaking will
also affect its impact. It is likely that even relatively benign forms of rule breaking will be-
come harmful when excessive. Organizations rely on rules to ensure order and predictability.
Although some degree of rule breaking may be acceptable and/or beneficial, too much is
likely to create confusion and chaos. The challenge, therefore, is to discover the threshold

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

24 Journal of Management / February 2006

point between too much, and too little, rule violation and the conditions that make it more or
less likely that pro-social rule breaking will be organizationally functional.
Another issue that is important to consider in future research is the effects of pro-social rule
breaking for employees. At a psychological level, we would expect that pro-social rule break-
ing will bring a greater sense of control, thereby enhancing job satisfaction and motivation
(Frese et al., 1997). It is also likely that employees who engage in rule breaking to satisfy cus-
tomers will be rated as higher on customer service than they would be if they rigidly adhered to
policy. It is less clear, however, how such employees will be evaluated by their supervisors.
This set of studies has implications not only for research but also for practice. For example,
the results suggest that it is important for organizational leaders to clearly convey the rationale
behind formal organizational rules. If there are rules that are important for employees to fol-
low, then employees need to understand why this is the case and the potential implications of
noncompliance. On the other hand, organizational leaders may want to consider places where
they should allow some latitude around rules in order to encourage and enable appropriate
forms of extrarole behavior. In contexts where certain forms of pro-social rule breaking are
considered desirable, managers may want to ensure that employees feel that they have suffi-
cient autonomy and may want to avoid hiring people with low risk-taking propensity.
To conclude, the notion of pro-social rule breaking raises many intriguing questions. It is
hoped that these questions will serve as a spark for future research. In recent years, several
researchers have raised questions about what it means for employees to “go above and beyond
the call of duty” in performing their jobs and about the motives for such behavior. Similarly, it
is important for scholars to raise questions about what it means for employees to “deviate”
from the rules and about the motives behind rule violation.

APPENDIX A
The Scenarios

Scenario A

You are a customer service representative at a company that sells, leases, and services computer sys-
tems to small- and medium-sized businesses (e.g., PCs, servers, networking equipment, printers). You
have been with the company for 3 years. Your responsibilities include, among other things, taking orders
from customers. You have just received a “hot order” from a large, important customer. This means that
the order would have to be pushed to the front of the schedule and turned around within 24 hours. You
know that there are strict policies in place for rush orders. One such policy is that customer service repre-
sentatives are not allowed to rush a job without approval from their manager. You want to be able to give
the customer an answer, because otherwise, they are likely to place the order with a competitor. But your
manager is tied up in meetings until the end of the day, so you cannot get her approval in time.
You are considering whether to accept the order without approval, even though this would mean vio-
lating the policy, and you could get in trouble for this. You are really torn. Although you have nothing per-
sonally to gain by rushing this job, it would be good for the customer and might also be good for the
company.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

 Morrison / Doing the Job Well 25

High Conditions

As you think about what to do, you consider the fact that you have always felt that you have a reason-
able amount of freedom to make decisions regarding your work. You also consider the fact that you have
heard through the grapevine that other customer service representatives have sometimes violated this
policy in the past. You also consider the fact that this job has a great deal of personal meaning to you.

Low Conditions

As you think about what to do, you consider the fact that you have never felt that you have much free-
dom to make decisions regarding your work. You also consider the fact that you have never heard of other
customer service representatives violating this policy in the past. In addition, you consider the fact that
this job does not have much personal meaning to you.

Scenario B

You are an applications designer for a growing software company that creates custom software appli-
cations for small- and medium-sized businesses. You have been with the company for 3 years. Your
responsibilities include developing custom software for clients. You are working on a project that is very
important to your company and are up against a tight deadline. To meet that deadline, you need to have
two additional employees allocated to work with your team. You know that the company has rules gov-
erning how people get allocated to projects. But following these rules in this case would take too much
time and could cause the company to lose out on an important opportunity.
You are considering whether to “borrow” a few people without following normal procedures, even
though this would mean violating the rules, and you could get in trouble for this. You are really torn. You
do not like the idea of bypassing the rules, but you know how important the project is for the company.

High Conditions

As you think about what to do, you consider the fact that you have always felt that you have a reason-
able amount of freedom to make decisions regarding your work. You also consider the fact that you have
heard through the grapevine of other designers “borrowing” people without following normal proce-
dures. You also consider the fact that this job has a great deal of personal meaning to you.

Low Conditions

As you think about what to do, you consider the fact that you have never felt that you have much free-
dom to make decisions regarding your work. You also consider the fact that you have never heard of other
designers “borrowing” people without following normal procedures. In addition, you consider the fact
that this job does not have much personal meaning to you.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

26 Journal of Management / February 2006

APPENDIX B
Pro-Social Rule Breaking Scale

1. In this situation, how likely would you be to violate the policy and place a rush on the order with-
out your manager’s approval?

1 2 3 4 5
Very Neither likely Very
unlikely Unlikely nor unlikely Likely likely

2. What is the probability that you would violate the policy?

1 2 3 4 5
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

3. How appropriate would it be for you to violate the policy and place a rush on the order without
approval?

1 2 3 4 5
Very Neither appropriate Very
inappropriate Inappropriate or inappropriate Appropriate appropriate

4. How would you feel about violating the policy and placing a rush on the order without approval?

1 2 3 4 5
Very Neither comfortable Very
uncomfortable Uncomfortable or uncomfortable Comfortable comfortable

5. I think that violating the policy in this situation would be wrong.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree

6. I would feel conflicted about violating the policy.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree

References
Asch, J. E. 1951. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.),
Groups, leadership, and men: 177-190. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

 Morrison / Doing the Job Well 27

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. 1998. Out on a limb: The role of context and impression
management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 23-57.
Axelrod, R. 1986. An evolutionary approach to norms. American Political Science Review, 80: 1095-1111.
Barnard, C. 1938. Functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. 1993. The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 103-118.
Batson, C. D. 1991. The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baucus, M. 1994. Pressure, opportunity and predisposition: A multivariate model of corporate illegality. Journal of
Management, 20: 699-721.
Berkowitz, L. 1972. Social punishments, feelings and other factors affecting helping and altruism. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: 63-108. New York: Academic Press.
Brief, A., & Motowidlo, S. 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11: 710-725.
Brockhaus, R. H. 1980. Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23: 509-520.
Campbell, D. J. 2000. The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Executive,
14: 52-66.
Davis, M. H. 1980. Empathy: A social psychological approach. Dubuque, IA: Brown Communications.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. 1997. Reading the wind: How middle managers
assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 407-425.
Edgerton, R. 1985. Rules, exceptions and social order. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. 1987. The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin,
101: 91-119.
Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14: 57-74.
Feldman, D. C. 1984. The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9: 47-53.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K. & Tag, A. 1997. The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reli-
ability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70: 139-
161.
Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. 2000. Control and complexity in work and the development of personal initiative: A
four wave longitudinal structural equation model of occupational socialization. Working paper, University of
Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. 1997. Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. 1989. Effectiveness of individual and aggregate compensation strategies. Indus-
trial Relations, 28: 431-445.
Graham, J. W. 1986. Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In L. L. Cummings & B. W. Staw (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior, 8: 1-52. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 15: 250-279.
Hollinger, R. V. 1986. Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7: 53-75.
Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. 1990. Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35:
317-341.
Jackson, J. 1966. A conceptual and measurement model for norms and roles. Pacific Sociological Review, 9: 35-47.
Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. 1964. Risk taking: A study in cognition and personality. New York: Rinehart & Winston.
March, J. G., Schulz, M., & Zhou, X. 2000. The dynamics of rules. Stanford, CA: Stanford Press.
McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. 1994. The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial behavior:
An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 836-844.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. 1992. Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implications for companies and
employees. New York: Lexington.
Milgram, S. 1974. Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.
Moberg, D. J. 1997. On employee vice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7: 41-60.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy
of Management Journal, 42: 403-419.
Nemeth, C. J. 1997. Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40: 59-74.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015

28 Journal of Management / February 2006

Ouchi, W. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 129-141.
Puffer, S. M. 1987. Prosocial behavior, non-compliant behavior, and work performance among commission salespeo-
ple. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 615-621.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study.
Academy of Management Journal, 2: 555-572.
Rushing, W. A. 1975. Deviant behavior and social process. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-253.
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. 2002. Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and
task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 255-267.
Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. 1992. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management
Review, 17: 9-38.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. 2003. Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, &
R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: 207-224. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Staw, B., & Boettger, R. 1990. Task revision: A neglected form of work performance. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 3: 534-559.
Van Dyne, L., & Lepine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence of construct and predictive valid-
ity. Academy of Management Journal, 1: 108-119.
Vardi, Y., & Weiner, Y. 1996. Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organization Science, 7: 151-
165.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. 2004. Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research and management. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Warren, D. E. 2003. Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28:
622-632.
Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York:
Free Press.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. 2001. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy
of Management Review, 26: 179-201.

Biographical Note

Elizabeth W. Morrison is a professor of management and organizations at New York University’s Stern School of
Business. She received her Ph.D. from Northwestern University. Her research focuses on ways in which employees
take initiative at work and some of the barriers that impede proactive employee behavior. Her current work is on pro-
social rule breaking, upward voice, and network building.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at KAI NAN UNIV on January 28, 2015