Workforce miscreants have been in the firing line recently, as companies crack down on corporate rule-breakers. Both EY and Meta have recently dismissed staff for flouting company policies.
First, Meta fired two dozen workers for abusing its meal-credit programme. The company’s smaller offices don’t all have an on-site canteen, so employees are provided credits for food delivery services, such as Grubhub and UberEats. They get $20 for breakfast, $25 for lunch and $25 for dinner.
But several workers were caught spending their daily allowance on household items, such as wine glasses, toothpaste, acne pads and laundry detergent. While occasional rule-breakers were allowed to keep their jobs, those who consistently cheated the system were fired, according to reporting by The Financial Times.
Meanwhile, EY reportedly dismissed dozens of US staff who took multiple online training sessions simultaneously – something the accountancy firm says is cheating and in violation of its code of conduct.
Although these infractions may sound minor, such workforce indiscretion can have serious consequences. For instance, the US Securities and Exchange Commission fined EY $100m in 2022 after discovering that its staff had cheated on professional tests and the company withheld evidence from the regulator.
While this might explain EY’s hard-line response, not all rule-breaking is ill-intentioned. In some cases, allowing employees to bend the rules could actually benefit the business.
When should rule-breaking be allowed?
A 2019 study in the International Journal of Hospitality Management found that although a portion of staff violate organisational policy out of self-interest, others rule-breakers are simply trying to increase efficiency, provide better customer service or help a subordinate or co-worker.
In fact, one of the fired EY employees made the work-efficiency argument, claiming that multitasking is encouraged by the company.
The study’s authors warn that, while managers’ attempts to strictly enforce company policy can help to reduce “deviant rule-breaking”, it also deters pro-social rule-breaking behaviours and can be counterproductive.
Such rigidity can also damage company culture. Allowing some pro-customer rule violations can improve employees’ feelings of autonomy and competence and increase customer indebtedness, according to research published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Clearly, not all rule violations should be forgiven
Employees who are empowered in this way tend to be less emotionally exhausted, more satisfied with their job and more likely to share concerns, ideas and suggestions with management to improve existing practices, according to the report’s authors.
Although these studies focus on customer-facing roles, it’s important that all managers understand staff intentions before passing judgement. Were the rules broken for the employee’s own gain, or was company policy preventing someone from helping a colleague or customer more effectively?
Clearly, not all rule violations should be forgiven, particularly those that put the company or other people at risk. But in some instances showing discretion is advisable. Even in Meta’s case, issuing a reminder to staff of how the meal-credit benefit should be used would have been a better response than terminating the perpetrators’ contracts.
Leading through a culture of fear, where even genuine mistakes are met with severe repercussions, risks damaging employee engagement and discouraging innovation. It’s worth remembering, Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s CEO, once encouraged people to “move fast and break things”. Apparently, this doesn’t apply to rules governing its meal vouchers.
Managers who want their employees to feel empowered, trusted to solve problems and free use their initiative, should occasionally show some leniency. Not all rule-breaking is bad for business.
