Introduction

Positive, creative or constructive deviance addresses behaviour which violates the normative expectations of institutions (and those who govern them), yet, in time, results in positive outcomes (Pascale et al. 2010; Mainemelis 2010). Positive deviants are outliers (Gladwell 2008; Secchi 2010). Within the normative context of institutions, they pose a problem. Their behaviours are unlicensed. They are seen as a threat by those governing the institution. They not only bypass authority but, in time, produce beneficial results (Spreitzer and Sonenshein 2004; Warren 2003). Those in authority lose face. The behaviour generating the benefits contradicts the normative and authoritative position adopted by the organization. Thus, in the eyes of those entrusted with institutional governance, positive deviants not only license disorder, but serve more menacingly as a precedent for those seeking to justify future acts of a related nature.

Positive deviance rooted in an outlier perspective (hereafter PD) is a process useful for recognizing, internalizing and organizing people, ideas and or behaviours which violate norms. They are labeled as costly, yet produce desirable outcomes (Galperin, 2003: Crom and Bertels, 1999). Intuitively, it is clear that creative people frequently engender nonconformist behaviour which can rankle but, over time, produce valuable outcomes. Organizations which seek creativity, but make no clear distinction between positive (creative) and negative (destructive) deviance, fail to realize the costs entailed in investing in creativity while outlawing positive deviants.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, to provide those interested in enhancing performance within public agencies with a better understanding of PD. Second, to highlight how and where, those in public sector organizations may put the idea of PD into practice. To accomplish these ends, the paper is divided into five sections. The first and second sections look at PD from an institutional perspective. The third focuses on an emerging literature which suggests how to apply PD in risk adverse contexts. The fourth section provides both a five-step technique for developing a pragmatic PD strategy for application within public institutions and points towards limitations or contra-indications in its application. The paper concludes with a discussion of how to experiment with PD in a public sector organization or introduce it as a pilot project.

An institutional framework: order

Kenneth Burke (1997) reminds one that those with legitimate authority in the regulation and governance of institutions must steer a path between the need for permanence and change. Permanence, largely understood by those drawn to the notion of “order,” is found in rules, structure and clear policies. Order generates clarity and the very structure upon which “built to last” public agencies create the stability and reliability needed in an otherwise all too rapidly changing market. Change, unlike order, bends or looks the other way with regards to hard and strictly applied rules. Those who champion change promote experiments. These revamp, replace or reduce the hold of old, tired and less useful policies, structures and rules. In most institutions, both order and change not only have separate champions, but, as well, have different vocabularies. Each institution must navigate a path between the degree to which it stresses one over the other, and when.