A more palatable phrasing, "supervisors prefer people that engage with the rules with purpose." That is, choosing to break a rule because you are making a cost call based on what you were able to achieve is not, necessarily, a bad thing.
The "point" where this fails, of course, is where the "cost" call above is such that the supervisor can't agree.
The use of private internet access for work is denied. Doing so, shifts all responsibility from the IT-department on the private citizen. The WiFi is currently out of service.
Like anything it's a balance.
On one extreme you have crap like the gig economy where workers have all of the responsibility and none of the control.
On the other extreme you have perverse workplaces where there would otherwise be no individual responsibility for work if people were not taking on that responsibility by working outside the rules.
I do think that having the system and the rules support the way the organization actually runs in reality is better than even a good implementation of systematic rule breaking.
Sometimes, the goal is to create an environment where people must break certain rules to get anything done, which everyone (including supervisors) understands, but by way of imposing those rules responsibility and liability is transferred to subordinates.