Understanding the antecedents of employees’ prosocial rule-breaking (PSRB) has become an important topic both in theory and practice, while the elicitation of such behavior must be framed within accountability considerations. This study proposes a moderated mediation model to explore whether and how flexible human resource management (FHRM) practices affect public employees’ PSRB. A three-wave investigation of public employees in southern China was conducted to test our hypotheses. The empirical results reveal that FHRM practices significantly increase employees’ PSRB by improving their ability to thrive at work. Furthermore, public service motivation moderates the relationship between FHRM practices and thriving at work, as do FHRM practices and PSRB. The moderated mediation hypothesis is also supported. These findings advance our understanding of how to influence employees’ PSRB from the perspective of FHRM practices in public organizations.
BabalolaMTRenSOgbonnayaC, et al. (2022) Thriving at work but insomniac at home: understanding the relationship between supervisor bottom-line mentality and employee functioning. Human Relations75(1): 33–57.
2.
BalPMDe LangeAH (2015) From flexibility human resource management to employee engagement and perceived job performance across the lifespan: a multisample study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology88(1): 126–154.
3.
BerrySTrochmannMBMillesenJL (2024) Putting the humanity back into public human resources management: a narrative inquiry analysis of public service in the time of COVID-19. Review of Public Personnel Administration44(1): 8–31.
4.
BertelliAMFallettiV (2025) Bureaucracy under pressure: structural integrity and the ethics of democratic administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523251406200.
5.
BorryELHendersonAC (2020) Patients, protocols, and prosocial behavior: rule breaking in frontline health care. The American Review of Public Administration50(1): 45–61.
6.
BoseliePVan HartenJVeldM (2021) A human resource management review on public management and public administration research: stop right there … before we go any further …. Public Management Review23(4): 483–500.
7.
BoyneGA (1998) Bureaucratic theory meets reality: public choice and service contracting in US local government. Public Administration Review58(6): 474–484.
8.
ChangSGongYWaySA, et al. (2013) Flexibility-oriented HRM systems, absorptive capacity, and market responsiveness and firm innovativeness. Journal of Management39(7): 1924–1951.
9.
ChenCAChenDYLiaoZP, et al. (2020) Winnowing out high-PSM candidates: the adverse selection effect of competitive public service exams. International Public Management Journal23(4): 443–464.
10.
ChenDXZhangYBayiz AhmadA, et al. (2024) Exploring the trickle-down effect of public service motivation from supervisors to their subordinates. International Public Management Journal27(5): 809–826.
11.
DahlingJJChauSLMayerDM, et al. (2012) Breaking rules for the right reasons? An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Organizational Behavior33(1): 21–42.
12.
FlemingCJ (2020) Prosocial rule breaking at the street level: the roles of leaders, peers, and bureaucracy. Public Management Review22(8): 1191–1216.
13.
García-ChasRNeira-FontelaEVarela-NeiraC (2016) High-performance work systems and job satisfaction: a multilevel model. Journal of Managerial Psychology31(2): 451–466.
14.
HaHHurH (2024) Public agents’ empowerment and rule-breaking behaviors: evidence from panel analysis of US federal agencies. Public Organization Review24(1): 407–431.
15.
HanifMZVan de WalleS (2024) The autonomy and governance of mutual aid organizations for civil servants’ welfare. International Review of Administrative Sciences91(1): 43–59.
16.
KarkRCarmeliA (2009) Alive and creating: the mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior30(6): 785–804.
17.
KimMBeehrTA (2023) Empowering leadership improves employees’ positive psychological states to result in more favorable behaviors. The International Journal of Human Resource Management34(10): 2002–2038.
18.
KleineAKRudolphCWZacherH (2019) Thriving at work: a meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior40(9–10): 973–999.
19.
KnillCSteinbacherCSteinebachY (2021) Balancing trade-offs between policy responsiveness and effectiveness: the impact of vertical policy-process integration on policy accumulation. Public Administration Review81(1): 157–160.
20.
KrøtelSMLøkkeAK (2025) Organizational changes in the public sector and employee presenteeism: does (change) leadership matter?Public Management Review27(5): 1245–1268.
21.
LenzAEckhardS (2023) Conceptualizing and explaining flexibility in administrative crisis management: a cross-district analysis in Germany. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory33(3): 485–497.
22.
LiRTianXLiuS (2015) Does benevolent leadership increase employee pro-social rule-breaking?Acta Psychologica Sinica47(5): 637–652. (In Chinese.)
23.
LiuBCZhangXYDuLY, et al. (2015) Validating the construct of public service motivation in for-profit organizations: a preliminary study. Public Management Review17(2): 262–287.
24.
LuuT (2018) Discretionary HR practices and proactive work behaviour: the mediation role of affective commitment and the moderation roles of PSM and abusive supervision. Public Management Review20(6): 789–823.
25.
LuuTT (2019) Service-oriented high-performance work systems and service-oriented behaviours in public organizations: the mediating role of work engagement. Public Management Review21(6): 789–816.
26.
Lynn JrLE (2001) The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: what traditional public administration really stood for. Public Administration Review61(2): 144–160.
27.
MorrisonEW (2006) Doing the job well: an investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Management32(1): 5–28.
28.
MostafaAMSGould-WilliamsJSBottomleyP (2015) High-performance human resource practices and employee outcomes: the mediating role of public service motivation. Public Administration Review75(5): 747–757.
29.
ParkerSKCollinsCG (2010) Taking stock: integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management36(3): 633–662.
30.
PatersonTALuthansFJeungW (2014) Thriving at work: impact of psychological capital and supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior35(3): 434–446.
31.
PerryJLHondeghemAWiseLR (2010) Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review70(5): 681–690.
32.
PiatakJMohrZMcDonaldJ (2022) Rule formalization, gender, and gender congruence: examining prosocial rule breaking for internal and external stakeholders. International Public Management Journal25(4): 566–584.
33.
PorathCSpreitzerGGibsonC, et al. (2012) Thriving at work: toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior33(2): 250–275.
34.
PotipiroonW (2022) Rule formalization, bureaucratic red tape, and prosocial rule breaking among street-level bureaucrats: a citizen-centered perspective. Public Performance & Management Review45(3): 638–671.
35.
SchottCBouwmanR (2024) Does public service motivation truly predict dishonesty? Behavioural evidence from the private and public sectors. International Review of Administrative Sciences90(2): 474–489.
36.
ShenCALiuRYangJ, et al. (2022) How family supportive supervisor behaviors enhance employees’ work-family enrichment? Thriving at work as mediator and intrinsic motivation as moderator. Psychology Research and Behavior Management15: 3133–3146.
37.
SpreitzerGSutcliffeKDuttonJ, et al. (2005) A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science16(5): 537–549.
38.
TaoLLiuNWenB (2024) Exploring the impact of public service motivation on public employee’s coping strategy with clients: Nuanced insights from varied contexts. Review of Public Personnel Administration: 1–28.https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X241304024.
39.
VermeerenB (2017) Influencing public sector performance: studying the impact of ability-, motivation- and opportunity-enhancing human resources practices on various performance outcomes in the public sector. International Review of Administrative Sciences83(4): 717–737.
40.
WeissmüllerKSDe WaeleLvan WitteloostuijnA (2022) Public service motivation and prosocial rule-breaking: an international vignettes study in Belgium, Germany, and The Netherlands. Review of Public Personnel Administration42(2): 258–286.
41.
WhitenerEM (2001) Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Management27(5): 515–535.
42.
WrightBEPandeySK (2008) Public service motivation and the assumption of person-organization fit: testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration & Society40(5): 502–521.
43.
WrightPMSnellSA (1998) Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review23(4): 756–772.
44.
XuYQianHZhangM, et al. (2023) Flexible human resource management systems and employee innovation performance in China–based on the moderated mediation effect. Chinese Management Studies17(6): 1259–1275.
