Rule bending and red tape: Organizational and individual influences and the effect of ethical climate

While it is established that rules are a critical part of organizations, less is known about the influences on the unintended consequences resulting from rules. Two of these consequences—rule bending and perception of red tape—are explored as a result of both organizational and individual influences; in particular, the context within which rules operate is considered as having a major impact. This dissertation investigates how components of bureaucratic structure (formalization and centralization), minority status, and ethical climate influence the prevalence of rule bending and perception of red tape. Twelve hypotheses are tested utilizing data from the employees of two local governments in a Midwestern state. Interview data lends support for the relationships between structure and rule consequences while quantitative results show that ethical climate has a mediating influence on those relationships. Structural equation models show that through three ethical climates, formalization and centralization indirectly affect rule bending; through one, they indirectly affect perception of red tape. Additionally, one's minority status influences willingness to bend rules and perceptions of red tape. In all, this study provides evidence that bureaucratic rules are influenced by the context within which they operate. It offers both practical and theoretical insight: practically, managers can consider the ethical climate that their organization encourages and whether or not that climate can or should be changed; theoretically, this dissertation contributes to existing knowledge by introducing ethical climate into the public management literature and showing that the context of the organization influences how bureaucratic structure leads to the unintended consequences of rules.