Breaking rules yet helpful for all: Beneficial effects of pro‐customer rule breaking on employee outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Pro‐customer rule breaking refers to employees' breaking of organizational rules with the primary intention of helping customers or providing better customer service. In spite of its prosocial nature, it is unclear whether and how pro‐customer rule breaking also benefits employees who engage in this behavior. Drawing on self‐determination theory, we examine employees' well‐being and voice at work as outcomes of pro‐customer rule breaking. Across a simulation study and a critical incident‐based survey study, we found that pro‐customer rule breaking was positively related to employee psychological need fulfillment, which, in turn, was associated with lower emotional exhaustion, higher job satisfaction, and increased voice. Furthermore, normative conflict with organizational rule moderated the positive relationship between pro‐customer rule breaking and psychological need fulfillment such that employees with high normative conflict with organizational rule (i.e., employee perception that their existing organizational rule results in inefficiency and that their organization could be much better if it changed its practices) benefited more from their pro‐customer rule breaking. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings and offer directions for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".