Some of the late Clayton Christensen’s books on innovation theory are useful, but seem to favor “disruption” and concomitantly “rule breakers.” Relatedly, see my reviews of two of his books via the links below:

Christensen et al “How Will You Measure the Value of Your Life?”

https://www.amazon.com/review/R20U5N52I7VGWQ/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8

Christensen et al “Seeing What’s Next”

https://www.amazon.com/review/RNVGG5ZVE4SJR/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8

More recently Kim and Mauborgne have advocated “Beyond Disruption” as the way to go which seems entail making “new markets and new rules.” See my review of their book of the same name via the link that follows:

https://www.amazon.com/review/R1LAVC27JMNPQI/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8

Hope this information is helpful regarding your question

In my research on digital transformation and institutional change in SMEs and public sector organizations, I explore how innovation often emerges at the intersection of institutional constraints and entrepreneurial agency. While not all innovators self-identify as "rule breakers," there is growing evidence that those who challenge established norms—whether through technology adoption, process redesign, or new governance models—are key drivers of transformative change (Garud, Hardy & Maguire, 2007).

This aligns with the concept of institutional entrepreneurship, where actors leverage resources and networks to disrupt existing logics and introduce new practices (Battilana, Leca & Boxenbaum, 2009). In this view, innovators do not break rules for disruption's sake but see the future as shaped by their ability to redefine what is legitimate, efficient, or possible—especially in rigid institutional environments like rural municipalities or traditional retail sectors (Patalon & Wyczisk, 2024).

Thus, rather than uniformly celebrating rule-breaking, successful innovators are often those who navigate between conformity and deviation, challenging outdated structures while building coalitions that legitimize change. This nuanced view reflects the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework’s emphasis on organizational adaptability within institutional and environmental constraints (Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990).

Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107.

Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28(7), 957–969.

Patalon, M., & Wyczisk, A. (2024). Mapping Digital Transformation of Municipalities through the Lens of Institutional Isomorphism. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES), 6(1), 51–67.

Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington Books.