Written Versus Unwritten Rules: The Role of Rule Formalization in Green Tape

Abstract

Contemporary conceptions of written organizational rules evoke images of inefficiency, constraint, and rigidity. While formal rules can generate negative outcomes, this article argues that their written nature is not the culprit. Rather, theory suggests that the formalization process increases a rule's likelihood of becoming effective ''green tape.'' From a rule design perspective, rule formalization is expected to trigger more organizational learning and greater scrutiny than unwritten rules, which undergo no such process. From a compliance perspective, written rules are expected to focus organizational attention and convey legitimacy better than unwritten rules, thereby increasing the likelihood of compliance. Combining these expectations, the article hypothesizes that written rules will exhibit more logical designs, higher compliance, and ultimately greater effectiveness than unwritten rules. Statistical modeling of two data sources supports these expectations and suggests the need to rethink reflexively negative attitudes toward written organizational rules.

Formalization and consistency heighten organizational rule following: Experimental and survey evidence

“…Most notably, written and unwritten rules were both conveyed to research subjects in writing, triggering the question of whether unwritten rules could have been more validly communicated in the experiment through auditory means such as audio or visual media. While this is a legitimate research consideration that should be addressed in future research, the current research design probably underestimates the compliance differential in written and unwritten rules by infusing the unwritten rule with the authority of the written word (DeHart‐Davis et al ).…”

“…Specifically, green tape theory posits that effective rules require technical capacity and stakeholder cooperation, that is, effectively designed rules that people are willing to follow. From this perspective, rule effectiveness is a function of rule design and rule following (DeHart‐Davis et al ). Five rule attributes—rule formalization, rule logic, rule consistency, optimal control, and understood rule purposes—are expected to strengthen rule design and increase rule following.…”

“…Rules vary in formalization on a continuum from completely written to completely unwritten (Pugh et al ; March et al ; Kieser et al ). An unwritten rule is still a rule, defined here as ‘requirements for specific organization behaviors under particular circumstances’ (DeHart‐Davis et al , p. 333), but is disseminated verbally and stored in memory. Examples of unwritten rules referenced in the literature include those governing overtime pay (DeHart‐Davis ), allowable email communications (Gilsdorf , ), and promotion processes (Roth and Sonnert ).…”

“…Both attributes are theoretical dimensions of ‘green tape’, or effective organizational rules (DeHart‐Davis ). Rule formalization, the extent to which rules are written, is expected to increase rule following by focusing the attention of organizational members on rule requirements and conveying their legitimacy (DeHart‐Davis et al ). The consistency of rule application is expected to increase rule following by conveying to rule followers ‘peripheral cues’, the support of ‘like others’ for rule requirements (Brehm and Gates ).…”

“…Organizational rule following shapes the pursuit of the public interest and the effectiveness of bureaucratic structure (Wise 2004). It signifies the legitimacy of authority (DeHart-Davis et al 2013), the effectiveness of group functioning (Tyler and Blader 2001), and the strength of public sector accountability (Romzek and Dubnick 1987). Rule following also implies the effectiveness with which public values such as equity, transparency, and accountability are delivered (Bozeman 2000) and enables a host of organizational functions that cannot be achieved otherwise, including coordination (March and Simon 1958;Stinchcombe DOI: 10.1111/padm.12407 2000), legitimacy (Weber 1947;Sitkin and Bies 1993;Rubin 2009), socialization (Ocasio 1997;Olsen 2006;Vlaar et al 2006) and knowledge storage and transfer (March et al 2000).…”