Rule-Breaking Typology (Motivation-Based)
A motivation-based framework for organizational rule-breaking (self-interested, prosocial, corrupted, edified) that distinguishes well-intentioned deviation — which can signal a flawed rule rather than a bad actor — from ordinary misconduct, rather than treating all rule-breaking as uniform.
Also known as: self-interested rule-breaker, prosocial rule-breaker, corrupted rule-breaker, edified rule-breaker, well-intentioned deviation, constructive rule-breaking
How authors use it
Oldest first (extraction date when no publication date is known).
| Author | Their term | Their meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Every Organization Has Two Realities Harvard Business Review (Gretchen Gavett, The Insider newsletter) · 2026-07-06 | Edified rule-breaker | One of Gill's four types: driven by a personal commitment to doing the right thing (implicitly, even when that conflicts with the stated rule). |
Documents (1)
- Every Organization Has Two Realities Harvard Business Review (Gretchen Gavett, The Insider newsletter) · 2026-07-06 source ↗ Reader 🖥️
Organizations run on a gap between the version leaders formally present, govern, and are accountable for (board decks, compliance categories, regulatory structure) and the version that is actually lived, worked, and enforced day to day (employee experience, well-intentioned deviation, political reality) — and leaders who fail to actively surface and reconcile that gap accumulate risk (talent loss, misjudged misconduct, blindsided strategy) that a more legible, presented reality obscures.