In any large organization, there are basically two classes of rules: 1) stupid red tape rules that slow everyone down and 2) really important rules that you can never break ever. Effective people learn which rules fall into which group so they can break the red tape rules and get more stuff done.

This study seems to be focused on breaking rules imposed on the organization by external entities, not rules the organization created independently to support its own objectives.

Supervisors aligned with an organization's goals likely often view such external rules with contempt. It's not surprising they tolerate or support rule breaking as long as they believe it won't be punished externally.

That's a rather binary view and I disagree that rules always fall in either category.

Knowing _why_ a rule exists and what it's trying to prevent/achieve is much more valuable in my opinion. Wether or not to follow or bend a rule depends so much on the context.

I disagree. I think it's more like the rules are there for a reason, but most of them can be broken if there is a good enough reason.