Approaches to Motivating Rule Adherence

The distinction between the command-and-control approach and the self-regulatory approach has deep roots within both the organizational and the psychological literature. The command-and-control approach is linked to extrinsic motivational models of human behavior, in which people behave primarily in response to external contingencies in their environment. The self-regulatory approach, on the other hand, is linked to intrinsic motivational models of human behavior, which emphasize individuals' innate preferences and desires as the fundamental drivers of behavior. These innate preferences are conceptualized as operating independent of contingencies in the environment for the performance or nonperformance of particular behaviors. We elaborate on the fundamental theoretical distinction between these two approaches below.

The command-and-control model represents a traditional approach to encouraging rule-following, insofar as it operates via extrinsic forces and draws upon employees' instrumental concerns and utility maximization goals. It is based on the view that people follow rules as a function of the costs and benefits they associate with doing so. It is rooted in traditional economic theory, insofar as it assumes that employees are rational actors who are primarily concerned about maximizing their own outcomes in work settings (Reference Blair and StoutBlair & Stout 2001), and it embodies the principles of approaches such as agency theory that emphasize the influence of self-interested outcome maximization on employee behavior. The command-and-control approach argues that employees are instrumentally motivated and are thus primarily interested in the resources and outcomes they receive from their organizations. Therefore, organizations need to take an active role in enforcing rules by providing incentives (to encourage desired behavior) and sanctions (to discourage undesirable behavior) (Reference KohnKohn 1999).

Do such techniques work? Studies generally indicate that instrumental strategies often, but not always, shape people's behavior (Reference Nagin and TonryNagin 1998; Reference Nagin and PaternosterNagin & Paternoster 1991; Reference PaternosterPaternoster 1987, Reference Paternoster1989), with some studies supporting this argument in work settings (Reference HuselidHuselid 1995; Reference JenkinsJenkins et al. 1998). But such strategies also come with significant costs. For sanctions and deterrence systems to work, organizations must be able (and willing) to devote considerable resources to the surveillance needed to make the detection of rule-breaking sufficiently likely that people are deterred. The efficacy of command-and-control strategies has recently been questioned (Reference KatyalKatyal 1997; Reference MalloyMalloy 2002; Reference MarkellMarkell 2000; Reference Sutinen and KuperanSutinen & Kuperan 1999), particularly in the arena of legal regulation (Reference Tyler and HuoTyler & Huo 2002).

We empirically examine the influence of the command-and-control approach on rule adherence. We do so by examining perceptions about the connection between behavior and incentives/sanctions, by asking whether high performance is rewarded and misconduct punished. By considering both sanctions and incentives, we cover the breadth of instrumental or extrinsic motivations that shape behavior. That is, we cover the range of cost/benefit analyses that may underlie decisions whether to adhere to organizational rules or not.

The Self-Regulatory Approach

The self-regulatory model represents an alternative approach to encouraging rule-following, because it focuses on intrinsic motivations. It identifies rule-following as originating within an individual's intrinsic desire to follow organizational rules, and not with external contingencies in the environment that are linked to rule-following. The underlying theoretical distinction of this approach from the command-and-control approach has its roots in prior social psychological research, in particular the work of Reference KelmanKelman (1958), which distinguishes between compliance based upon external contingencies and self-regulation linked to identification and internalization. This distinction has previously been extended to organizational arenas by Reference Kelman and HamiltonKelman and Hamilton (1989) and to work settings by Reference O'Reilly and ChatmanO'Reilly and Chatman (1986).

The utility of such a self-regulatory model has been long advocated within discussions of legal regulation of business (Reference SelznickSelznick 1969) and has been more widely advanced in recent years (Aalders & Wilthagen 1997; Reference Darley, Hogg and CooperDarley et al. 2003; Reference Gunningham and ReesGunningham & Rees 1997; Reference King and LenoxKing & Lenox 2000; Reference RechtschaffenRechtschaffen 1998; Reference SuchmanSuchman 1995; Reference TylerTyler 2001).

Given the organizational characteristics discussed in organizations focused on law enforcement and combat, self-regulation seems particularly relevant, since it provides a basis for behavior when agents are in situations where they are not being closely supervised. Past research on the exercise of discretion by soldiers and law enforcement agents has focused upon the issue of decision quality, i.e., the ability to manage uncertainty in stressful situations and perform well. The concern here is with the question of regulation of conduct under conditions of high discretion and low control/surveillance, i.e., organizational structures that lead agents to keep their behavior within the bounds dictated by the rules and policies of the organization.

In the studies presented here, we focus on an intrinsic desire to follow organizational rules that is rooted in value judgments regarding the organization, or those judgments of the organization that are related to agents' value systems. Our focus on value judgments reflects our interest in determining the characteristics of environments—as opposed to individuals—that may shape rule adherence. This emphasis has the potential to be of particular utility to leaders in their attempts to design organizational models that foster rule-following. Furthermore, the influence of value judgments on behavior has garnered empirical support (Reference Aalders and WilthagenAalders & Wilthagen 1997; Reference Gunningham and ReesGunningham & Rees 1997; Reference King and LenoxKing & Lenox 2000; Reference RechtschaffenRechtschaffen 1998), for the role of both legitimacy (Reference SuchmanSuchman 1995; Reference Wyatt and GalWyatt & Gal 1990; Reference Zimmerman and ZeitzZimmerman & Zeitz 2002) and morality (Reference Paternoster and SimpsonPaternoster & Simpson 1996) in shaping social behavior.

Based on this work linking legitimacy and morality to social behavior, we consider two specific ethical judgments regarding organizations: (1) the perceived legitimacy of the organization's rules and authorities, and (2) the congruence of those rules with an agent's moral values. Legitimacy refers to the view that “the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions” (Reference SuchmanSuchman 1995:574), and thus feelings of legitimacy are expected to be related to adherence to rules and policies (Reference TylerTyler 2005, Reference Tyler2006a).

Congruence between rules and an individual's moral values should also motivate adherence, as people strive to follow their inclinations to do what they feel is morally right. For example, in legal settings an important motivation that encourages people to bring their behavior into line with the law is their belief that many behaviors that are illegal are also immoral (Reference CarlsmithCarlsmith et al. 2002; Reference Robinson and DarleyRobinson & Darley 1995, Reference Robinson and Darley1997; Reference TylerTyler 2006a). Conversely, in situations where behaviors are contrary to official policy but viewed by people as not being immoral, such as employee theft performed in an effort to restore equity, it is more difficult to bring people's behavior into conformity with the rules.

The self-regulatory approach argues that the concerns embodied in these two judgments can intrinsically motivate feelings of personal responsibility and desire to bring behavior into line with corporate rules and policies. While other factors and judgments may likewise intrinsically motivate individuals to follow rules, in these studies we operationalize the self-regulatory perspective by examining the impact of judgments that an organization (1) is led by legitimate authorities and structured around legitimate rules, and (2) has values consistent with that of the agent. We test the argument that the self-regulatory strategy represents a viable approach to shaping rule adherence behavior. Further, we compare the self-regulatory approach to the command-and-control approach to determine whether it is a more desirable way to approach issues of social control.

Several types of evidence suggest that ethical values may shape rule adherence behavior. Research suggests that ethical concerns motivate self-regulatory behavior in organizational settings (Reference Aalders and WilthagenAalders & Wilthagen 1997; Reference Gunningham and ReesGunningham & Rees 1997; Reference King and LenoxKing & Lenox 2000; Reference RechtschaffenRechtschaffen 1998). This includes studies focused on legitimacy (Reference Human and ProvanHuman & Provan 2000; Reference SuchmanSuchman 1995; Reference TylerTyler 2006a; Reference Tyler and BladerTyler & Blader 2000, Reference Tyler and Blader2005; Reference Zimmerman and ZeitzZimmerman & Zeitz 2002), on morality (Reference Paternoster and SimpsonPaternoster & Simpson 1996; Reference TylerTyler 2006a; Reference Tyler and BladerTyler & Blader 2000, Reference Tyler and Blader2005), and on the general role of fairness in shaping social behavior (Reference RabinRabin 1993; Reference Tyler and BladerTyler & Blader 2000; Reference VandenberghVandenbergh 2003). Ethical values shape behavior when people believe that the rules of their organization are legitimate, and hence ought to be obeyed, or that the values defining the organization are more congruent with their own moral values, leading people to feel that they ought to support the organization.

At the organizational level, there is evidence of the importance of ethical values in studies showing that companies are reluctant to use their market power by lowering employee wages during recessions because they believe such an action will be viewed by employees as unethical (Reference BewleyBewley 1999), that companies often forgo opportunities to press their market advantages when dealing with their customers due to ethical concerns (Reference KahnemanKahneman et al. 1986), and that ethical issues shape wage determination (Reference ReesRees 1993) as well as other aspects of the employment relationship (Reference JollsJolls 2002). These studies argue that private companies are motivated to respond to ethical issues because they believe that ethical judgments shape people's reactions and behavior (Reference EstreicherEstreicher 2002), an argument supported by studies suggesting that companies regarded as ethical by employees, customers, and other constituencies are more profitable (Reference HuselidHuselid 1995; Reference Margolis and WalshMargolis & Walsh 2001).

The findings of recent research support the argument that in work settings ethical values shape behavior and in particular rule adherence. One example is provided by Reference Tyler and BladerTyler and Blader (2005). Two studies are reported by Tyler and Blader, one of a sample of corporate bankers and another of a large and diverse sample of American employees. Analysis of both samples indicates that employee rule-following and policy adherence is strongly influenced by employee's ethical values. This includes distinct influences of legitimacy and moral value congruence.

And, ironically, there is support for the role of values in shaping behavior in the training programs developed within military settings (Reference GrossmanGrossman 1995). Military research has identified moral inhibitions against killing as a major impediment to effective combat performance, and military training is designed to use psychological conditioning to overcome such inhibitions. This process involves creating a conflict between legitimacy and morality. By legitimating the cause for which fighting is occurring, violence is viewed as authorized by authorities. This acts as a mechanism for overcoming moral inhibitions. When soldiers authorize others to determine the appropriate course of action, they regard their own moral values as not relevant to decisions about how to behave (Reference Kelman and HamiltonKelman & Hamilton 1989). The importance placed upon deactivating moral values in military training is itself a statement about their potentially powerful influence upon soldiers' behavior.

Forms of Rule Adherence

Two aspects of rule adherence are considered in this study: compliance and deference. Organizations first want their members to adhere to organizational rules concerning how to do their jobs. Organizational rules stipulate desired employee behavior, and the organization benefits when those policies are followed. Similarly, compliance with organizational policies is important. Such compliance facilitates coordination between employees and ensures the smooth functioning of the organization. This aspect of rule-following involves conformity to organizational rules, since it involves employee actions that bring their behavior into line with organizational rules.

We distinguish between compliance or conformity with organizational policies and voluntary deference to organizational policies. The roots of the distinction between compliance and deference lie in the literature on obeying the law, which distinguishes between compliance with the law and voluntary, willing acceptance of the law (see Reference KelmanKelman 1958; Reference TylerTyler 2006a). The same distinction is important in work settings (Reference O'Reilly and ChatmanO'Reilly & Chatman 1986).

The distinction between these forms of behavior lies in the conditions under which people indicate that they follow rules. With compliance, they indicate how often they generally follow rules, thereby showing their willingness to abide by or tolerate rules. But voluntary deference refers to more discretionary acceptance of rules, tapping into whether agents follow rules even when no one is around and when their behavior is not being monitored. It therefore includes that subset of situations where issues of detection are largely or completely irrelevant. Such situations, as has been noted, have been strongly associated with the occurrence of rule violations in the past.

In summary, the first issue addressed is whether legitimacy and moral congruence judgments shape three types of rule adherence. Those types of rule adherence are following job requirements, complying with organizational policies, and willingly deferring to those policies.

Organizational Characteristics

It is already generally clear from policing research that the policies and practices of organizations have some impact on the thoughts and feelings of those involved in order maintenance and influence their job performance (Reference BennettBennett 1997; Reference Bennett and SchmittBennett & Schmitt 2002; Reference Crank and LongworthyCrank & Longworthy 1992; Reference KappelerKappeler et al. 1994; Reference Wyatt and GalWyatt & Gal 1990). However, whether internal rules can be effective in shaping rule adherence depends upon both the situation being studied and the type of rules that are the focus of concern (Reference Edelman and SuchmanEdelman & Suchman 1997). The purpose of this study is to consider a particular set of organizational characteristics expected, based upon research findings in other areas, to shape rule adherence—those characteristics linked to the procedural justice of the organization.

Within work settings it has been shown that employees are more likely to view as legitimate and to comply with workplace rules and policies if they view the organizations within which they work as exercising their authority via fair procedures. This procedural justice effect is widespread and shows that procedural justice encourages legitimacy, commitment, and rule adherence (Reference TylerTyler 2000, Reference Tyler and Sarat2004, Reference Tyler2005; Reference Tyler and BladerTyler & Blader 2000, Reference Tyler and Blader2005). Such findings are consistent with the evidence within the legal literature that procedural justice promotes both compliance with legal regulations and the acceptance of third-party decisions (Reference Tyler and TonryTyler 2003, Reference Tyler2006a).

The self-regulatory model operates via the activation of employees' values and feelings of responsibility toward their company. The group engagement model (Reference Tyler and BladerTyler & Blader 2000, Reference Tyler and Blader2003) hypothesizes that factors such as values are shaped by employee perceptions of how fairly they are treated by management. As has been noted, the potentially important role of fairness in motivating positive work attitudes and behavior has been recognized by economists as well as by social and organizational psychologists. This approach is based upon a psychological model suggesting that an organizational environment characterized by fair procedures will activate strong employee organizational identification, thus leading them to engage in desirable workplace behaviors and to hold positive attitudes toward their work organizations.

This analysis does not explore the effect of social class or education on legitimacy, obligation, andr rule-following behavior. However, other studies emphasize that social class and education are strongly connected to people's views about authority. Reference Kelman and HamiltonKelman and Hamilton (1989), for example, demonstrate that both education and social class shape people's views about their obligation to obey superior authorities. Reference Hamilton and SandersHamilton and Sanders (1996) extend this exploration cross-culturally and show that the influence of social class and education upon views about obligation to authorities differs within Japan, Russia, and the United States.

Organizational Policies and Practices

Various aspects of an organization's policies, human resource practices, and culture may potentially influence rule adherence and organization-related ethical values. One set of management theories argues that the primary organizational factor shaping reactions to the work organization is the distribution of outcomes in the work environment. According to these theories, attitudes and behaviors are responsive to judgments about the favorability of the outcomes (i.e., resources) provided by corporate rules and policies, as well as to the incentives and sanctions associated with behaviors on the job. These arguments flow from an instrumental model that views those within organizations as motivated to maximize the outcomes they receive from their work organizations.

Psychological models of equity and distributive justice also suggest that people within organizations are instrumentally motivated and focus on outcomes but that they focus on issues of distributive fairness (Reference AdamsAdams 1965). They suggest that people are sensitive to whether they feel that they are receiving a fair level of wages and benefits. These models are based on the premise that agents recognize that no one can have all that they want, and subsequently shift the basis of how they react toward their organization to their judgment of whether they are receiving their fair share of workplace resources and opportunities (Reference WalsterWalster et al. 1978).

An alternative set of management theories argues that reactions to work organizations of all types may be based on employees' judgments about the fairness of the procedures used in the workplace. Factors affecting these fairness judgments may include, for example, whether the procedures allow input into decisionmaking processes, whether they require that objective information be used in decisionmaking, whether efforts are made to reduce biased treatment, etc. (Reference Lind and TylerLind & Tyler 1988; Reference TylerTyler 2000, Reference Tyler and Sarat2004; Reference Tyler and LindTyler & Lind 1992).

Widespread evidence from all types of organizations attests to the importance of procedural fairness judgments in shaping the behavior of employees in private work settings (Reference ColquittColquitt et al. 2001; Reference CropanzanoCropanzano et al. 2001; Reference Greenberg and CropanzanoGreenberg & Cropanzano 2001; Reference Lind and TylerLind & Tyler 1988; Reference TylerTyler et al. 1997). Typical of this research is a study by Kim and Mauborgne, who demonstrate that procedural justice evaluations influence the willingness of subsidiaries to accept corporate strategic policy decisions in multinational work organizations (Reference Kim and MauborgneKim & Mauborgne 1993). Other studies link the fairness of workplace procedures to employees' willingness to voluntarily help their work groups, to their intention to stay with their company, and to the quality of their job performance (Reference Tyler and BladerTyler & Blader 2000).

The procedural justice argument is based upon the belief that people's procedural justice judgments are distinct from their instrumental concerns. That is, their reactions to judgments about the fairness of the organization's procedures are not related to judgments about the outcomes that they receive from their organization. Instead, they react to procedures because they make inferences about their relational connections and social identities based on the fairness of those procedures (Reference Lind and TylerLind & Tyler 1988; Reference Tyler and BladerTyler & Blader 2000, Reference Tyler and Blader2005). This approach is based on the idea that people are influenced by the nature of the organizational environment in which they work, so that the “fit” between the practices of the organization and people's impression of themselves (including their ethical values) is important (Reference ChatmanChatman 1989, Reference Chatman1991).

The findings of procedural justice research lead us to hypothesize that procedural justice judgments will impact: (1) views about the legitimacy of corporate rules, policies, and authorities; (2) perceptions that employees' organization's values are consistent with their own; and (3) rule adherence behavior. In other words, fair organizational procedures and processes are hypothesized to foster a sense that corporate authorities are legitimate and that the organization itself possesses moral values similar to those of the individual. This activates internal motivations, and agents more voluntarily follow rules and policies, i.e., they become self-regulatory.

Note that this approach can be contrasted to one in which ethical values are shaped by instrumental concerns. That is, the two instrumental judgments discussed earlier—i.e., the favorability or fairness of outcomes received from the organization—may shape the extent to which organizations and authorities are viewed as legitimate and the organization itself possess moral values similar to those of the individual. This would be the prediction of instrumental models that emphasize the concern agents have over the outcomes they receive.

As noted, the findings of studies conducted in work settings suggest that one way that work organizations can motivate their employees is by exercising authority in ways that will be judged by those employees as fair. Reference Tyler and BladerTyler and Blader (2000), for example, find that procedural justice judgments are the central antecedent of rule-following and policy adherence. Those employees who feel that they work in a fair work environment are especially willing to take the responsibility to follow company policies upon themselves, with the obvious advantage that the company does not then have to compel such behavior. Studies show that procedural justice judgments have the potential to shape rule-related behavior, and that such influence is primarily explained by the impact that procedural justice has on ethical values. Hence, it is important for companies to be concerned about acting in ways that employees will judge to be fair. By acting fairly, companies motivate employees to both follow company policies and refrain from engaging in actions that undermine the company, actions ranging from theft to sabotage. These actions are costly to the company, undermining efficiency and effectiveness, and make clear why companies should be motivated to understand and respond to employees' feelings about what is fair.

These findings have optimistic implications for the ability of organizational authorities to encourage rule-following behavior among their employees. Authorities are seldom in the position to expend excessive organizational resources on monitoring and punishing employee misbehavior. The procedural justice perspective suggests that people will comply with, and, more strikingly, voluntarily defer to rules when they feel that the rules and authorities within their organization are following fair procedures when they exercise their authority and make managerial decisions. This strategy similarly promotes the view amongst employees that organizational authorities are legitimate and that the moral values of the organization correspond with their own personal moral values. What makes such a finding optimistic from an organizational point of view is that the creation and implementation of procedures that all individuals perceive as fair is not restricted in the same way that allocations of resources are. Procedural fairness is not finite, particularly since it is based on ethical criterion.

Interestingly, the procedural justice perspective is consistent with emerging trends in law and the legal regulation of business. As command-and-control-based strategies of regulation have increasingly been questioned, government regulatory agencies have developed a variety of strategies for enlisting businesses and other “stakeholders” in the formulation and implementation of regulatory policy. These include negotiation to reach consensus on administrative regulations (Reference CoglianeseCoglianese 1997), cooperative arrangements for delivering social services (Reference StewartStewart 2003), and joint efforts to manage wildlife and wild lands (Reference KarkkainenKarkkainen 2002; Reference LinLin 1996). These policies decentralize power to “enable citizens and other actors to utilize their local knowledge to fit solutions to their individual circumstances” (Reference Dorf and SabelDorf & Sabel 1998:267). All of these efforts involve procedures for decisionmaking that embody the procedural justice values of voice, participation, neutrality, and acknowledging the rights, needs and concerns of people involved in the decision. This does not mean that they involve wide employee participation, but rather that they reflect the values inherent in procedural justice perspectives on management.

The concern of this study is with the possibility that similar approaches can be effective in shaping the behavior of those involved in order maintenance activities. If law enforcement agents and soldiers are influenced by procedural justice judgments, then there is an organizational framework through which self-regulatory approaches can be developed.

What Is a Fair Procedure?

From an organizational perspective, procedural justice judgments are most useful to managers if those within the organization distinguish them from outcome judgments and rely on distinct procedural justice assessments when evaluating the actions of management. Based upon research in work settings, it is expected that views about the fairness of company procedures will, in fact, be heavily influenced by distinct judgments about procedural fairness that are not linked to the favorability or fairness of the outcomes that results from those procedures (Reference Tyler and BladerTyler & Blader 2000). These include, for example, whether the procedures allow input into evaluations, whether they require that objective information be used, whether they try to control the influence of bias, etc. (Reference Lind and TylerLind & Tyler 1988; Reference Tyler and LindTyler & Lind 1992). Recent research draws upon the four-component model of procedural justice and tests the importance of four potential procedural justice criteria (see Reference Blader and TylerBlader & Tyler 2003a, Reference Blader and Tyler2003b).

Understanding the nature of procedural justice judgments is central to efforts to design a culture that encourages supportive values and that enhances rule adherence behavior. The argument advanced here is that the potential impact of these procedural issues lies in the ability of organizations to design systems of management that are sensitive to procedural concerns, even when they cannot or do not provide those within the organization with the outcomes they desire. Several such efforts have already been made in police agencies by relying upon the ideas of total quality management, which include encouraging officer input into decisionmaking and the use of objective data analysis (Reference Couper and SabineCouper & Sabine 1991; Reference Wycoff and SkoganWycoff & Skogan 1993).

The four-component model of procedural justice identifies four procedural components, or evaluations, each of which contributes to overall procedural justice judgments. Those components are defined by (1) two distinct aspects of organizational processes, and (2) two sources of information about procedures. We discuss the influence of each of these four components on definitions of procedural justice.

One of the aspects of organizational processes considered in the model refers to the organization's decisionmaking procedures. Specifically, the model considers evaluations of the quality of decisionmaking in the organization. Consideration of these evaluations links to the elements of legal procedures and emphasizes issues of decision maker neutrality, the objectivity and factuality of decisionmaking, and the consistency of rule application (Reference Lind and TylerLind & Tyler 1988; Reference Tyler and LindTyler & Lind 1992).

There is a distinct but potentially equally important issue involving the quality of people's treatment by organizational authorities. Quality of interpersonal treatment issues constitute the second aspect of organizational processes. Quality of treatment involves treatment with politeness and dignity, concern for people's rights, and other aspects of procedures that are not directly linked to the decisions being made through the procedure.

Each of these two aspects of procedures (quality of decisionmaking, quality of treatment) can potentially be linked to two sources of procedure. One source of information involves the rules of the organization. The formal rules and structures of the organization, as well as statements of organizational values, communicate information about organizational procedures. For example, organizations vary in terms of whether they have formal grievance procedures that allow people to voice complaints. They also differ in their statements of values (“vision statements”).

The other source of information is employees' experience with their superiors. While they are constrained by formal institutions and procedures, organizational authorities typically have considerable discretion concerning the manner in which they implement decisionmaking procedures and how they make decisions regarding issues that have no formal procedures associated with them. Further, they have a great deal of flexibility about how they treat those with whom they deal. The same decisionmaking procedure can be implemented in a way that emphasizes the dignity of those involved, or employees can be treated rudely or dismissively. A similar situation is found with the law. There are formal laws and rules constraining the conduct of police officers and judges. However, those authorities typically have considerable latitude in the manner in which they exercise their authority within the framework of those rules.

The four-component model argues that each of the four components defined by these two dimensions has an important role in the definition of the fairness of procedures. While the four-component model provides a guideline for the types of evaluations that compose overall evaluations of an organization's procedural justice, the essential argument advanced here is that the nature of those evaluations is noninstrumental and nonmaterial. Neither of the aspects of organizational processes emphasized in this model of the antecedents of procedural justice (quality of decisionmaking, quality of interpersonal treatment) is directly linked to evaluations of the favorability or fairness of the outcomes people receive.

This psychological model of procedural justice suggests that formal and informal procedures will typically complement one another. However, it is important to acknowledge a sociological tradition suggesting that the interpersonal connections made within work groups may foster the development of separate norms and ways of doing business that facilitate rule-breaking. Bourdieu highlights the possibility that work groups may create the organizational dynamics that support rule-breaking and corruption by creating separate social realities within which such practices are regarded as acceptable (Reference WacquantWacquant 2005).

Summary

The argument advanced here is for a broader view of the antecedents of rule adherence behavior among agents of social control, i.e., law enforcement agents and soldiers. We want to articulate and show the importance of a broader and more realistic picture of the motivation of those within order maintenance settings. This model looks at the influence of value-based motivations in shaping rule adherence behavior. The results presented suggest that values are useful in understanding the occurrence of rule-following.

Method

The total sample size was 419. Three groups were approached: city police officers and federal law enforcement agents (n=209), and soldiers in a combat setting (n=210). Within each group, questionnaires were made available within the organization and anonymous participation was invited. It was not possible to establish the size of the populations, so the response rate was unclear. Those who chose to participate completed their questionnaires anonymously.

Of the 419 respondents, 85 percent were male, and 40 percent had a bachelor's degree or more. The mean age was 35 years. The sample was somewhat heterogeneous with respect to race, with 67 percent Caucasian, 10 percent Latino, and 14 percent African American. More detailed demographic information is provided in Appendix A

Results

An examination of the means first suggests that law enforcement officers were more likely to rate their organizations as legitimate (law enforcement=4.56 vs. military=4.29) and as value-congruent (law enforcement=4.55 vs. military=3.95). Further, they were more likely to rate their organization to be procedurally just (law enforcement=4.17 vs. military=3.46) and as distributively fair (law enforcement=3.90 vs. military=3.32). Law enforcement officers also indicated that they received more favorable outcomes (law enforcement=4.17 vs. military=3.58) and higher pay (law enforcement=4.06 vs. military=3.06). Law enforcement agents also rated their superiors as making decisions using fairer procedures (law enforcement=4.07 vs. military=3.56) and as treating them more fairly (law enforcement=4.42 vs. military=3.75). Ratings for institutional justice were similar, but the differences were smaller (decisionmaking: law enforcement=3.67 vs. military=3.52; treatment: law enforcement=3.48 vs. military=3.36).

Do Values Matter?

Regression analysis was used to test the relative efficacy of the command-and-control and self-regulatory approaches to promoting employee adherence to organizational rules, and in particular to determine whether the self-regulatory approach represents a viable and even superior strategy for gaining such adherence. In the analysis, the command-and-control variable was entered, as were the two self-regulatory variables (legitimacy and moral value congruence). These variables were regressed on each of the three types of rule-following (adherence to job requirements, compliance with organizational policies, and deference to organizational policies). The results of those regression analyses are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. The Antecedents of Behavior

^* p<0.05;

^** p<0.01;

^*** p<0.001.

The results presented in Table 1 confirm the hypothesized pattern of results. They indicate that self-regulatory variables such as employee views about legitimacy and value congruence both significantly shaped all three types of employee rule-following. Judgments about the legitimacy of organizational authorities significantly impacted following rules and deferring to policies among law enforcement officers, and all three forms of rule-following among soldiers. Moral value congruence was significantly related to following job requirements and deferring to policies among law enforcement agents and members of the military.

What Shapes Values?

The key hypothesis drawn from the prior literature is that assessments of the procedural justice of the organizations within which order maintenance agents work would significantly influence the degree to which those agents followed rules and policies in the workplace. In other words, like the members of the general public, who are widely found to react to the procedural justice they experience when dealing with legal authorities (Reference Tyler and HuoTyler & Huo 2002), order maintenance agents could react to the procedural justice they experience when dealing with their superiors and within their own organizations. This prediction is supported by the literature on private sector employees, which shows that procedural justice shapes both legitimacy judgments and rule-following behaviors (Reference Tyler and BladerTyler & Blader 2000, Reference Tyler and Blader2005).

Regression analysis, shown in Table 2, provides support for the procedural justice argument. The assessments of legitimacy made by both law enforcement agents and soldiers were found to be significantly influenced by procedural justice. Further, the degree to which procedural justice was judged to characterize their own organization was linked to the degree to which they evaluated the policies of their organization as consistent with their own moral values.

Table 2. Factors Shaping Values

^* p<0.05;

^** p<0.01;

^*** p<0.001.

Three types of outcome judgment were included in the equation: the fairness of organizational outcomes, the favorability of organizational outcomes, and pay level. None of these three judgments influenced legitimacy, which was only found to be linked to procedural justice. Moral congruence was influenced by outcome favorability, in addition to the already outlined influence of procedural justice.

The congruence in the findings across the two samples is striking. While both law enforcement agents and soldiers are engaged in order maintenance, and both operate in similarly hierarchical environments, many aspects of their jobs are different. In particular, law enforcement agents deal with communities that are part of their own society, while the soldiers are involved in an occupation of another society and are dealing with civilians who are “foreigners.” Yet the psychological dynamics of the influence of legitimacy and moral value congruence upon rule adherence were found to be very similar.

Elements of Procedural Justice

The analysis of the meaning of procedural justice drew upon the four-component model outlined by Reference Blader and TylerBlader and Tyler (2003a, Reference Blader and Tyler2003b). Again, regression analysis was used to test that model. The dependent variable in this analysis was procedural justice. The independent variables were the four aspects of procedural justice, distributive fairness, and demographic controls. The results are shown in Table 3. The first equation examined procedural justice influences without controlling upon distributive fairness, while the second equation controlled upon distributive fairness.

Table 3. Aspects of Procedural Justice

^* p<0.05;

^** p<0.01;

^*** p<0.001.

Within the samples of both law enforcement agents and soldiers, the key issues defining procedural justice were similar. When distributive justice was controlled upon, the most important issue was the quality of the interpersonal treatment experienced from one's superiors. Those who experienced dignity, politeness, respect, and concern for their well-being rated the procedures of the organization to be just. A second factor important in both groups was the neutrality and factuality of organizational decisionmaking procedures. And finally, among soldiers the neutrality of work group decisionmaking procedures was important. In both groups, the fairness of outcomes was linked to procedural justice judgments.

Overall Analysis

Structural equation modeling was used to consider all three of the questions addressed via regression analysis at one time. The structural equation modeling was conducted using AMOS (Reference Arbuckle and WothkeArbuckle & Wothke 1995). In the analysis, the four procedural elements, the two values, and the three aspects of rule adherence were treated as latent variables and other variables as observable indicators. The analysis considered the groups as separate groups. Overall, the model explained 17 percent of the variance in rule adherence among law enforcement officers (23 percent among local police officers and 13 percent among federal agents) and 54 percent among soldiers.

The results are shown in Figure 1. All possible paths were included, and all significant paths (p < 0.01) are shown. The first coefficient is for law enforcement officers, and the second, in parentheses, is for soldiers. The results indicate that values shape rule adherence, while procedural justice shapes values. Procedural justice itself is shaped by the four procedural elements and by distributive justice.

Figure 1. Overall Model (CFI=0.87). Three Coefficients are Shown: Soldiers; Law Enforcement Agents; Federal Agents. Significant Coefficients are Shown.

Discussion

The results from both the law enforcement agents and the soldiers confirm our central prediction that the self-regulatory approach represents a viable approach to fostering rule adherence among agents of social control who are involved in order maintenance activities. The social value judgments made regarding their organizations, embodied in their perceptions of the legitimacy of organizational authorities and the perceived congruence of their personal values with those of the organization, shaped rule and policy adherence. This was true across the three types of rule-following behavior examined—following job requirements, adhering to organizational rules, and voluntarily deferring to organizational policies. These results confirm that the self-regulatory strategy is a viable approach to attaining rule adherence.

These results support the argument that social value judgments shape behavior, and in particular rule-following behavior. Those judgments are a major motivation leading to adherence with organizational policies and rules. These results suggest that one promising way to bring the behavior of law enforcement agents and members of the military into line with codes of conduct is to tap into their social values—i.e., their motivation to defer to legitimate rules and authorities and to engage in actions congruent with their own moral values. To gain acceptance for rules and policies, organizations should activate employee values. These values are central to the self-regulatory strategy for achieving compliance.

Of course, the activation of values is not the only way to influence rule-related behavior. As is the practice in many organizations, organizational efforts to monitor and sanction/reward behavior may likewise motivate the following of organizational policies, consistent with the command-and-control approach. However, in the data analyzed here, the utility of that approach overall appears to be weaker than that of a self-regulatory approach. Although there were significant influences of the command-and-control approach in some instances, these influences were typically secondary in magnitude to the influence of the variables in the self-regulatory approach. Hence, we suggest that self-regulatory approaches are more than just another approach to regulation—they are a more effective approach.

These findings suggest that both law enforcement and military organizations have a great deal to gain by going beyond instrumental strategies of social control and focusing attention on the activation of values that are consistent with a self-regulatory strategy. Overall, the results presented here indicate the viability of such a strategy and, furthermore, the potential superiority of that strategy over the more traditional command-and-control approach. This alternative strategy leads to cooperation much more efficiently and effectively, since those in the organization become self-regulatory and take the responsibility of following rules onto themselves. Further, they do so without reference to the likelihood of being punished for wrongdoing or rewarded for acting appropriately.

The use of self-regulatory approaches is also important because it addresses the organizational issues outlined. If it is important for those involved in order maintenance to be able to act with discretion, then the solution to the problem of rule adherence must work within a discretionary environment. Because values are an aspect of self-regulation, they work in such an environment. If agents are following rules based upon their internal values, their behavior should continue to be consistent with the rules when they are not being controlled by direct surveillance by superiors.

As might be expected, those involved in training order maintenance agents to some degree already recognize the potential importance of value-based approaches. For example, the U.S. Army leadership training manual makes values a core part of leadership training and includes values such as respect and integrity (U.S. Army Field Manual 22–100 1999). That manual illustrates integrity by pointing approvingly to an incident in which a soldier in Vietnam protects civilians from his own comrades by threat of force (1999:2–10). On the other hand, the Leaders' Manual for Combat Stress Control (U.S. Army Field Manual 22–51 1994) emphasizes the need to prevent misconduct but does not discuss the role of values with either soldiers or officers. Rather, it focuses upon the importance of high unit cohesion and “competence, courage, candor, and commitment” among leaders (1994: Ch. 4). This alternative focus highlights the potential value to organizations of an emphasis upon the “sense of mission.”

An additional important issue is the relationship between the findings for local and federal law enforcement agents. Figure 1 separately examines the results from local police officers and federal agents. This model indicated that the data from both groups support the model. However, the model for local officers explained 23 percent of the variance in rule adherence, while the model for federal agents explained 13 percent. And, of course, the model worked most effectively for soldiers, for whom 54 percent of the variance was explained.

Overall, therefore, the model was most effective in explaining the actions of soldiers, and less effective in explaining the actions of federal law enforcement agents. Significant relationships were found among all three groups, but behavior was best explained among soldiers and least well explained among federal agents. When the three groups were considered as a continuum, the model was found to be most effective in those settings where those involved are the most likely to confront issues of regulating their use of violence. This problem is most central to the mission of soldiers, is an everyday issue among police officers, and comes up most selectively among federal agents, who are involved in more specialized law enforcement tasks. Of course, it must be acknowledged that many variables distinguish soldiers, local police officers, and federal agents, so a clearer answer to this question requires further research.

Earlier studies in the area of everyday law-related behavior highlight the important role of social values in encouraging citizen compliance with the law (Reference TylerTyler 2006a, Reference Tyler2006b). It has been shown that people are more likely to comply with laws when they feel that legal authorities are legitimate and ought to be obeyed. The findings outlined here support this argument and extend it to a different arena—the agents responsible for maintaining social control and their relationship to the organization in which they work. This extension is especially striking since the work arena is one in which the influence of values has traditionally been downplayed in favor of alternative instrumental or “rational” approaches.

The current findings also extend previous work by considering not only the social value of legitimacy but also that of moral value congruence (i.e., the match between a person's moral values and those of the organization). When those within an organization feel that the values of their organization are congruent with their own, their own motivation to behave morally leads them to follow organizational rules out of their intrinsic motivation to behave appropriately. These findings parallel findings in work settings, which show that employees' rule-following is shaped by their views about the congruence of organizational policies with their personal moral values (Reference Tyler and BladerTyler & Blader 2005).

In addition to the empirical support for the utility of the self-regulatory strategy reported here, such an approach has additional benefits over a command-and-control strategy. For instance, it prevents organizations from expending resources on creating and maintaining credible systems of surveillance to enforce rules. These problems are typical of any efforts to regulate conduct using incentive- or sanction-based strategies. Exacerbating this problem, such strategies actually encourage people to hide their behavior and thus make it necessary to have especially comprehensive and costly surveillance systems.

Conclusion

The argument advanced here is for a broader view of those responsible for maintaining social control and of the antecedents of rule-following behavior among those agents. This approach looks at the influence of both instrumental and value-based motivations in shaping rule-following behavior. The results presented suggest that the consideration of both models together better explains such behavior than is possible via either model taken alone.

The view presented here includes not only the motivations traditionally studied, motivations that are linked to sanctions and incentives, but also social motivations for following group rules. These social motivations are linked to concerns about acting in fair ways in work settings. The case for this broader model rests on the finding that, in two different studies, corporate actors are found to be motivated in their rule-following by their social values concerning legitimacy and morality. These findings suggest that we will be better able to understand rule-following behavior in work organizations, as well as other settings, if we adopt a broader model of human motivation that adds an account of social motivations to our models of behavior.