Productivity & Processes
FundamentalsUseful illegality: why organisations need small rule violations
Niklas Luhmann and Stefan Kühl show that without pragmatic deviations from rules, organisations would be paralysed. What this means for processes and digital projects.
of Josef Kujawski4 min read
Short answer
Useful illegality, also called functional illegality, describes deviations from internal rules that benefit an organisation. Niklas Luhmann coined the term in 1964, Stefan Kühl adapted it for today's practice. No set of rules covers every situation, and without pragmatic shortcuts many organisations would be paralysed. Laws, data protection and customer interests always remain off-limits. Frequent workarounds are a good pointer to where a process should be improved.
The problem: rules that would paralyse everything
Imagine everyone in your company followed every single rule to the letter from tomorrow. Every approval goes the official route, every order waits for the second signature, nobody takes a shortcut. Sounds tidy. In practice, much of the work grinds to a halt within days. Unions use exactly this as leverage: work-to-rule is almost as effective as a strike.
That leads to an uncomfortable insight: organisations don't work despite small rule violations, but often because of them.
The principle: useful illegality
In 1964, sociologist Niklas Luhmann coined the term useful illegality (brauchbare Illegalität). [1] It describes deviations from formal rules that benefit the organisation. "Illegal" doesn't mean criminal here, but: not covered by the organisation's own official rules. The idea is also known as functional illegality.
Luhmann's observation: no organisation can regulate every situation in advance. Formal structures are rigid, reality is not. The gap is filled by people who interpret rules pragmatically, take short paths and solve problems before they are officially reported.
What Stefan Kühl makes of it
Organisational sociologist Stefan Kühl has adapted Luhmann's ideas for today's practice. [2] His core thesis: every organisation has three sides.
| Side | What it shows | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Formal side | Official rules, processes, responsibilities | Approval process with two signatures |
| Informal side | Lived practice, shortcuts, agreements | A quick call instead of a ticket |
| Display side | The image presented to the outside | A clean process chart in the proposal |
Useful illegality lives on the informal side. It isn't an accident, but a sign that people take responsibility where the rule doesn't help.
Kernaussage
Rule deviations aren't automatically a problem. Often they show you exactly where your official process misses reality.
Where the line is
Not every rule violation is useful. Kühl and Luhmann clearly distinguish between deviations that help the organisation and those that harm it or others.
- Useful: An employee approves a small website correction directly instead of waiting three days for the official review.
- Borderline: A team permanently bypasses a process because it's annoying. Usually the process is the problem, not the team.
- Taboo: Anything that violates laws, data protection, security or customers' interests. That isn't useful illegality, it's simply wrong.
What this means for digital projects
In website and software projects you encounter this principle all the time:
- Approval loops: If every text change has to pass five people, unofficial shortcuts appear. Better: clear areas where the team decides on its own.
- Workarounds in systems: If staff maintain data in Excel although there is a CMS, that reveals a gap in the tool. Look closer instead of banning it.
- Style guides: A design system that allows no exceptions will be quietly bypassed. Plan room for flexibility on purpose.
- Process automation: Before automating a process, understand the lived practice, not just the org chart. Otherwise you automate a workflow that doesn't really exist.
Kernaussage
Before you ban a workaround, ask which problem it solves. It's often the best pointer to a better process.
Related principles
Why you shouldn't simply digitise bad workflows is shown in Never automate a bad process. How postponed shortcuts become expensive in software is explained by Technical Debt. And why too many options paralyse is described by the Paradox of Choice.
When a team keeps working around a rule, we don't see a discipline problem, but an invitation to rethink the process.
Quick check
- Where do people in your team regularly bypass an official workflow?
- Which real problem do these shortcuts solve?
- Is it clear where flexibility is allowed and where it isn't?
- Would your business keep running under work-to-rule?
Frequently asked questions
What does useful illegality mean?+
Useful illegality describes deviations from an organisation's formal rules that benefit it. It doesn't mean breaking the law, but pragmatically bypassing internal rules.
Who coined the term?+
Niklas Luhmann introduced the term in 1964 in his book "Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation". Stefan Kühl later adapted it for today's organisational practice.
Is functional illegality the same as useful illegality?+
Yes, both terms essentially mean the same: rule deviations that serve a function for the organisation and keep it able to act.
Why do organisations need rule-breaking?+
Formal rules can never cover every situation. Without pragmatic deviations many workflows would stall, as work-to-rule demonstrates.
Is useful illegality a licence to break the law?+
No. Violations of laws, data protection, security or customer interests are never useful. It only concerns internal rules with room for interpretation.
What are the three sides of an organisation according to Stefan Kühl?+
Kühl distinguishes the formal side with official rules, the informal side with lived practice and the display side, the image shown to the outside.
How should managers deal with workarounds?+
First ask which problem the workaround solves. It often points to a better official process.
What does this have to do with websites and software?+
Anyone digitising or automating processes needs to know the lived practice. Otherwise the system maps workflows that don't really exist.
Sources
- Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation, Duncker & Humblot (1964)
- Brauchbare Illegalität. Vom Nutzen des Regelbruchs in Organisationen, Campus Verlag (2020)
#Organisation#Processes#Sociology#Leadership
Author
Josef KujawskiManaging Director & Creative Director at Maluure
Josef leads the strategic and creative development of brands at Maluure. For over a decade, he has guided medium-sized businesses from brand positioning to digital delivery.
Managing Director of Maluure GmbH, Cologne. Specialising in corporate design, brand strategy and digital brand experiences.
Related articles
Development
Technical Debt: Why Quickly Built Websites Cost Twice as Much Later
Technical debt arises when shortcuts taken today cost interest tomorrow. Where the term comes from, what types exist, and how to tell when a rebuild is cheaper than repairs.
5 min read
Productivity & Processes
Maluure Principle: Never Automate a Bad Process
Automation makes good workflows faster and bad workflows faster at being bad. Our first Maluure principle explains why order matters and how to tell if a process is ready for automation.
6 min read
Psychology & Decisions
The Paradox of Choice: Why More Options on Your Website Mean Less Revenue
The paradox of choice explains why visitors faced with too many options decide nothing at all. With the jam experiment, the limits of the effect, and concrete rules for navigation, pricing pages, and forms.
5 min read