As clinical psychologist Dr. Noam Shpancer points out, by common sense and experience, we would expect people who follow the rules to be rewarded and those who break them to experience negative consequences.
However, as we can see from the pictures, that's not always the case. And there's a study from 2024 that might explain why we're entertained or even impressed by people who don't always play along.
The paper by Astrid Homan of the University of Amsterdam and colleagues provided insight into people's responses to normative and counter-normative behavior in relation to leadership.
The researchers hypothesized that rule breakers are less likely to end up in leadership roles because, while they may demonstrate dominance, it would be perceived as low in prestige and thus they would be seen as inferior leaders compared to those who are rule abiders.
In their first study, 149 participants were asked to consider a car company in dire need of revenue that also had to complete a large amount of administrative work to be allowed to sell cars. Three solutions were presented to keep the business in operation:
- Relying on crowdfunding (rule abider)
- Selling cars anyway (rule breaker)
- Selling memberships that include a free car—this way, cars can find new owners while technically no cars are sold, so there is no need to keep records preventing the sale of cars (rule bender).
Participants of the experiment were then asked to indicate their willingness to grant leadership to the person in each of the scenarios, as well as the extent to which they perceived that person to be prestigious and/or dominant.
Results revealed that, as hypothesized, rule breakers were seen as more dominant and less prestigious than rule abiders—rule breaking reduced one's prestige and in turn, resulted in granting less power.
However, the results further showed that rule benders were rated as more dominant than rule abiders but more prestigious than rule breakers. They were granted more leadership than either rule abiders or rule breakers.
In the second study, involving 480 participants, the researchers hypothesized that since rule bending may signal both dominance and prestige, it should provide an advantage in competitive leadership contests across contexts.
The team varied the context within which leadership was to be granted, asking participants to judge the suitability of a person for a leadership position in various competitive and cooperative settings.
Results showed that rule benders did best in both competitive and cooperative contexts. Rule breakers (higher dominance and lower prestige) were granted less leadership in cooperative contexts than both rule abiders and rule benders. Still, while rule breakers were granted the least leadership overall, they were granted more leadership in the competitive than in the cooperative setting. This suggests that rule breakers’ leadership appeal may increase in adverse environments.
Commenting on the results, Shpancer wasn't one hundred percent optimistic. "[They] suggest that the leadership appeal of rule bending constitutes a risk factor for organizations and society, since rule benders tend to operate in the gray area between adherence and violation and are thus able to manipulate the very rules devised to keep checks and balances on powerful leaders," he said.
As rule benders rise to power, they create a self-reinforcing loop, gaining influence that enables more rule bending, which in turn brings them even greater influence. It appears that sly is the way.
For more, check out our previous article on r/TheyKnew.
