Rules play a pivotal role in creating and maintaining well-functioning societies. It seems self-evident that whether or not people follow rules has implications for their standing in groups and organizations. However, previous research has yielded mixed evidence. Some studies indicate that people who abide by rules are afforded positions of rank and influence, whereas other studies suggest that people who break rules gain influence. Building on the dominance/prestige framework of social rank, we argue that people who break rules appear high in dominance (through their assertive behavior), but low in prestige (as they do not act like role models). Thus, although rule breakers may appeal to stereotypes about leaders as assertive, in the absence of prestige, people are likely hesitant to grant leadership to rule breakers. In contrast, we argue that people who bend rules – who abide by the letter of the rule but not by its spirit – obtain the benefits of rule breakers (increased dominance) without their associated drawbacks (no reduction in prestige). Rule benders may therefore readily be granted leadership, and more so than people who abide by rules or engage in outright rule violation. Two scenario-based experiments provide support for this prediction, employing a behavioral measure of leadership granting (Study 1, N = 235) and a contextualized measure of leadership granting (Study 2, N = 480, preregistered). We discuss practical implications for the prevalence of rule bending and theoretical implications for the study of social norms in general.