Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Applicability of the NHL-Based Study

  • Some see the NHL context as too “game-like” and morally insulated to generalize to workplaces; others argue high-level sports clearly involve real leadership, risk, and decision-making.
  • Debate over whether penalties/fouls in sports are “rule-breaking” or simply part of the designed tradeoff system (take a penalty to stop a sure goal).

Rule-Breaking in Sports vs “Real World”

  • In many sports, strategic fouls are explicitly priced into the rules; they’re not cheating but a legal tradeoff.
  • Clear distinction between:
    • Strategic penalties that benefit the team.
    • “Dumb” penalties and violations of unwritten norms.
    • Dangerous or maiming behavior, which is strongly discouraged.
  • Some commenters think the paper misreads this structure; penalty-taking can be an expression of game intelligence, not deviance.

Why Supervisors May Favor Rule-Breakers

  • Many supervisors (and some commenters) admit they reward people who understand when to bend rules for better outcomes.
  • Rule-breaking is seen as a signal of commitment, judgment, and mission-focus—“engaging with rules with purpose.”
  • However, support from supervisors stops where their own risk, ethics, or career are threatened.

Types and Purposes of Rules

  • Repeated distinction between:
    • Red-tape rules vs. critical, must-never-break rules.
    • “Forbidden good behavior” vs. “allowed bad behavior.”
  • Understanding why a rule exists (Chesterton’s fence analogy, “business logic in code”) is presented as crucial before deciding to follow or bend it.
  • Some rules are written mainly for plausible deniability; in practice “actual rules” are what get enforced, unevenly across hierarchy.

Liability, Power, and Selective Enforcement

  • Supervisors can reap rewards from subordinates’ rule-breaking while offloading blame when things go wrong.
  • Systems may be designed so workers must break rules to get work done, shifting responsibility away from leadership.
  • Examples include military “E4 Mafia,” corporate finance/trading cultures, and steroid/blackmail dynamics in sports.

Backlash and Ethical Concerns

  • Some workers resent rule-breakers because coordinated rule-following (e.g., focus hours, documentation) collapses when a few ignore norms.
  • There’s concern about “normalized deviance” and catastrophic failures when rule-breaking becomes standard.
  • Commenters emphasize balancing flexibility with ethics and recognizing that blind rule-following can be harmful, but so can casual rule erosion.