Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors - CiteSeerX

Positive and negative deviant workplacebehaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions

Steven H. Appelbaum, Giulio David Iaconi and Albert Matousek

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact on organizations of both negative deviant

workplace behaviors – those that violate organizational norms, policies or internal rules – and positive

deviant workplace behaviors – those that honorably violate them. The reasons why people engage in

such behaviors are explored, along with some of the reasons why organizations allow such behaviors to

thrive within their walls. A typology of positive workplace behavior is determined and is compared with

other pro-social behaviors such as: whistleblowing, corporate social responsibility, organizational

citizenship behavior and innovation. Possible solutions to overcome problems associated with negative

deviant behavior in the workplace are examined, along with how to promote positive deviant behavior in

the workplace.

Design/methodology/approach – A literature review on current positive and negative deviant

workplace behavior was conducted.

Findings – Regardless of whether negative deviance is overt or implicit, it has negative consequences

for the entity and its affiliates. The estimated impact of the widespread theft by employees on the US

economy has been reported to be $50 billion annually. Toxic organizations depend on employees that

are dishonest and deceitful in order to be successful. Furthermore, it is found that psychological

empowerment is likely to be a key enabler of positive deviance.

Originality/value – It is proposed that the survival of an organization in the face of negative deviant

employees is possible with a remodeling of an organization’s norms, attitudes and social values to a

specific organizational culture centered on important ethical core values; by addressing value

differences between employee subcultures, and more frequent background checks when hiring.

Adhering tightly to organizational norms may preclude positive deviant behaviors that would be

beneficial to the organization, and thus employee psychological empowerment is recommended.

Keywords Social deviance, Organizational culture, Whistleblowing, Ethics

Paper type Literature review

Introduction to deviant behavior

This article investigates the nature of deviant workplace behaviors and its impact on

organizations. The purpose is to broaden the research in organizational studies by focusing

not only on deviant behaviors that are negative, but on those that are positive as well.

Furthermore, this article examines different types of both positive and negative deviant

workplace behaviors, along with some of the reasons why managers/employees engage in

such behaviors. Also, some of the reasons why organizations allow negative deviant

behaviors to thrive, while discouraging positive deviant behaviors are investigated. Lastly,

possible solutions to overcome problems arising from negative deviance in the workplace

will be examined, along with how organizations can encourage positive deviant behaviors

that will help them reach their organizational goals.

The workplace is a forum where a variety of different behaviors are expressed, each with a

different consequence to the individuals within the organization as well as the entire

organization. These behaviors usually fall within the constructs of the norms of the

PAGE 586 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007, pp. 586-598, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1472-0701 DOI 10.1108/14720700710827176

Steven H. Appelbaum,

Giulio David Iaconi and

Albert Matousek are all

based at John Molson

School of Business,

Concordia University,

Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

organization. Organizational norms are a grouping of ‘‘expected behaviors, languages,

principles and postulations that allow the workplace to perform at a suitable pace’’ (Coccia,

1998). However, when normal work behavior goes outside the norms of the organization, its

consequences are far-reaching and affect all levels of the organization including its

decision-making processes, productivity and financial costs (Coccia, 1998).

Researchers have given these behaviors many different names including workplace

deviance (Bennett and Robinson, 2003), counterproductive behavior (Mangione and Quinn,

1975), and antisocial behavior (Giacolone and Greenberg, 1997). In essence, behavior is

deemed deviant when an ‘‘organization’s customs, policies, or internal regulations are

violated by an individual or a group that may jeopardize the well-being of the organization or

its citizens’’ (Robinson and Bennett, 1995).

The management of negative deviant behavior in the workplace is of growing concern in

organizations globally since such behaviors can be detrimental to their financial well-being.

Whether the negative deviance is explicit or subconscious, whether it involves sexual

harassment, vandalism, rumor spreading, and corporate sabotage or otherwise,

unauthorized organizational behavior has negative consequences for the entity. Negative

deviant behaviors include employee delinquencies such as not following the manager’s

instructions, intentionally slowing down the work cycle, arriving late, committing petty theft

as well as not treating co-workers with respect and/or acting rudely with co-workers

(Galperin, 2002). It is important to note the difference between unethical behavior and

negative deviant behavior because while the former deals with the breaking of societal rules,

the latter focuses on violation of significant organizational norms (Spreitzer and Sonenshein,

2004).

Spreitzer and Sonenshein (2004) contend that the research on deviance in the workplace

overlooks how establishments and their affiliates exhibit positive sets of behaviors not merely

negative ones. The literature on positive deviance is almost exclusively zeroed in on the

negative aspects of workplace deviance. For example, Sagarin (1975) arrived at 40 different

definitions of deviance and only two are nonnegative. Dodge (1985) broadened the

discipline of organizational behavior by coining the term positive deviance, but was

antagonized by scholars such as Sagarin (1975) who argued against the validity of the term.

In order to shed light on positive deviance in this article, a definition of the term is proposed,

and different types of positive deviant behaviors will be examined. Positive deviance is

defined as ‘‘intentional behaviors that depart from the norms of a referent group in honorable

ways’’ (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2003). In other words, positive deviant behavior must be

praiseworthy and must focus on actions with honorable intentions, irrespective of the

outcomes (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2003).

Positive deviant behaviors may comprise behaviors that organizations do not authorize, but

help the organization reach its financial and economic goals. Thus, positive deviant

behaviors may include behaviors such as innovative behaviors, noncompliance with

dysfunctional directives, and criticizing incompetent superiors (Galperin, 2002).

The growing interest in the study of positive workplace behaviors can be attributed at least in

part to the increasing awareness of positive organizational scholarship (POS). POS focuses

on the ‘‘dynamics that lead to developing human strength, producing resilience and

restoration, fostering vitality, and cultivating extraordinary individuals, units and

organizations’’ (Cameron et al., 2005). Positive organizational scholarship is based on the

idea that comprehending to the ways to ‘‘enable human excellence in organizations will

unlock potential, reveal possibilities, and facilitate a more positive course of human and

organizational welfare’’ (Cameron et al., 2005).

The impacts of deviant behavior in the workplace

The impetus for the growing interest in deviant behavior is the increasing prevalence of this

type of behavior in the workplace and the enormous costs associated with such behavior

(Peterson, 2002). The financial impact alone of workplace deviance on the US economy, for

example, is a substantial one. This is due to the fact that three out of every four employees

VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007 jCORPORATE GOVERNANCEj PAGE 587

reported having stolen at least once from their employers. Furthermore, incidences of

negative workplace deviance are now soaring out of control, with nearly 95 percent of all

companies reporting some deviance-related experience within their respective

organizations (Henle et al., 2005). Up to 75 percent of employees have engaged in one

form or another of the following deviant behaviors: theft, computer fraud, embezzlement,

vandalism, sabotage or absenteeism (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). The estimated impact

of widespread employee theft has been reported to be $50 billion annually on the US

economy (Henle et al., 2005). Other researchers estimate this number in the range anywhere

from $6 to $200 billion annually (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Moreover, victims of

interpersonal workplace deviance are more likely to suffer from stress-related problems and

show a relatively decreased productivity, lost work time and a relatively high turnover rate

(Henle et al., 2005). Thus, there is great incentive, financial and otherwise, for organizations

to prevent and discourage any negative workplace deviance within their walls.

Classifying workplace deviance: negative

Research has focused on negative behaviors that may be considered deviant such as

absenteeism, withdrawal, withholding effort, and behaviors that lead to corporate inequality

(Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Most of the studies on negative deviant workplace behavior

prior to 1995 were mostly concerned with isolated attempts to answer specific questions

about specific deviant acts such as theft, sexual harassment and unethical decision making.

Robinson and Bennett (1995) integrated the various deviant workplace behaviors into a

single framework in order to gather the increasingly scattered research available on the

subject into one comprehensive chart. In this way, the researchers were able to integrate

numerous deviant workplace behaviors into a single framework.

According to Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) typology of workplace deviance, deviant

behavior varies along two dimensions, minor versus serious and interpersonal versus

organizational (see Figure 1). ‘‘Organizational deviance’’ is a grouping of behaviors between

the individual and the organization that involves such things as theft, sabotage, lateness, or

putting little effort into work (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). On the other hand, ‘‘interpersonal

Figure 1 Typology of negative deviant workplace behavior

PAGE 588 jCORPORATE GOVERNANCEj VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007

deviance’’ is a behavior displayed between individuals in the workplace and involves

behaviors such as: belittling others, playing pranks on others, acting rudely, arguing, and

physical aggression (Henle et al., 2005). The first dimension of Robinson’s typology is the

organizational-interpersonal dimension. The axis ranges from deviance directed towards

individuals to deviance directed towards the organization. The second dimension of

Robinson and Bennet’s (1995) typology shows the severity of workplace deviance ranging

from minor to serious. The results of their research yielded a two-dimensional chart which

organizes deviant workplace behavior into four quadrants labeled: production deviance,

property deviance, political deviance, and personal aggression (Robinson and Bennett,

1995).

Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) typology of workplace deviance can be used to classify

deviant behavior according to organizational climate. Researchers have determined that the

ethical climate of an organization is a good predictor of unethical behavior (Robinson and

Bennett, 1995). The ethical climate of an organization refers to the shared perceptions of

what is ethically correct behavior and how ethical issues should be handled in the

organization (Peterson, 2002). The factors that influence the ethical climate of an

organization include personal self-interest, company profit, operating efficiency, team

interests, friendships, social responsibility, personal morality, and rules, laws and

professional codes (Peterson, 2002). Peterson (2002) performed correlation studies

between different kinds of deviance exhibited with the types of climates in the organization.

The clearest relationship linked political deviance with a caring climate (Figure 1: bottom left

quadrant). Political deviance is classified as a minor form of deviance, for example,

‘‘favoritism, gossiping, and blaming co-workers’’ (Peterson, 2002). When the organizational

climate is one that fosters the sense in its employees that the organization cares about their

welfare, then employees are less likely to engage in politically deviant behaviors (Peterson,

2002). Another correlation was between property deviance (Figure 1: lower right quadrant)

and the climates of rules and professionalism. In this case, organizations that uphold high

adherence to company policies are at the lowest risk for property deviance. Predictors of

production deviance (Figure 1: top left quadrant) were most strongly correlated to

instrumental climates within organizations. Organizations in which individuals protect their

self-interests are most likely to put up with such deviance. The final category, personal

aggression (Figure 1: bottom right quadrant) was not correlated with any organizational

climate and is thus most strongly related to the personality of the individual committing the

deviant act (Appelbaum et al., 2005).

Classifying workplace deviance: positive

It is equally important to examine the workplace behavior spectrum and investigate how

positive deviance may or may not be classified as a pro-social type of behavior. The

pro-social types of behaviors that are examined are: organizational citizenship behaviors,

whistle-blowing, corporate social responsibility and creativity/innovation (Spreitzer and

Sonenshein, 2004). All of these pro-social types of behaviors may indeed be classified as

positive deviant behaviors only if the behavior diverges from organizational norms, the

behavior is voluntary, and its intent is an honorable one (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004).

Spreitzer and Sonenshein’s (2004) typology of positive workplace behavior is shown in

Figure 2.

While whistle-blowing may be perceived as negative deviant workplace behavior, it may also

be characterized as a positive. In effect, this perception is highly dependant on the

circumstances surrounding the disclosure of the organizational offence by the employee in

question. Near and Miceli (1985) define whistle blowing as ‘‘disclosure of illegal, immoral, or

illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to a person or organizations that

may be able to effect action’’. The first to be aware of ‘‘any unethical, immoral or downright

illegal’’ (Anonymous, 2003) organizational activities are most often employees, however they

also the most likely to make an objection the last, ‘‘fearing the loss of their job, their friends or

their potential for promotion’’ (Anonymous, 2003). Lack of remedial action and concern that

their objections will not be kept private are the main reasons why employees decide not to

speak out against corporate wrong-doings (Verschoor, 2005). However, whistle-blowers


may act out of a sense of personal ethics or sense of duty regardless of the opposing

‘‘organizational and situational pressures’’ (Vinten, 1995). For example, if an employee

knows that the organization in which she/he works is involved in illegal practices, disclosing

this information voluntarily to third-parties would be considered positive deviance (Spreitzer

and Sonenshein, 2004). In this case, the behavior is considered an act of positive deviance

because it goes outside the constructs of the organizational norms, it is intentional, and the

goal of the whistle-blower is honourable (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004). But not all

whistle-blowing is an example of positive deviance. For example, some whistle-blowers may

want to exact revenge on an employer, or they may want to reap financial gain for exposing

organizational fraud (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004). In this way, whistle-blowing may be

regarded as an act of positive deviance in some circumstances, while in other it is plainly not.

Another group of pro-social behaviors that differ from what is classically thought to be

positively deviant behavior are called organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). that is

defined as behavior outside the requirements demanded of a person at a specific firm, but

that will encourage efficient running of the organization. While OCBs are intended to

enhance the performance of an organization, positive deviance may or may not fulfill such a

goal (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004).

Today’s organizations are increasingly being held accountable for contributing positively to the

communities in which they live and engaging in socially responsible actions. This

organizational behavior has historically been known as corporate social responsibility

(CSR). Some of the CSR activities that companies carry out include: environmentally friendly

manufacturing processes, human rights programs, and donations to charities (Spreitzer and

Sonenshein, 2004). An important distinguishing feature of CSR and positive deviance is that

CSR activities may or may not conform to organizational norms, but positive deviance requires

a departure from organizational or business norms (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004).

The fourth type of pro-social behavior is innovation. Innovation may enhance, and in some

cases, hinder corporate performance and productivity. Innovation is defined as ‘‘the

successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization’’ (Amabile et al., 1996).

The literature on innovation suggests that by its very nature, innovation requires, at least in

part, a departure from the organizational accepted norms (Galperin, 2002). This is because

innovative thinking involves the creation and development of new ideas that are not held by

the majority (Galperin, 2002). Thus, employees who display behaviors that are innovative

can be considered positive deviants. On the other hand, while creativity and innovation in the

workplace may lead to advancements in business practices, a great many of such behaviors

Figure 2 Typology of positive deviant behavior


do not fall within the constructs of positive deviance (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004).

Taking the example from Spreitzer and Sonenshein (2004) of a computer hacker illustrates

this idea clearly. While the computer hacker may very well be creative and innovative in

creating new virus-spreading software it is not an act of positive deviance (Spreitzer and

Sonenshein, 2004). This is because while they may be departing from the norms of the

organization in an innovative fashion, they are behaving in a way that is not considered

honorable.

Negative deviant behavior: some causes

While there are a number of reasons why individuals may engage in deviant behavior in the

workplace the major one is that the organization in which they work supports or encourages

such behavior (Sims, 1992). While society values persons who are honest and that are not

deceitful, some organizations however depend on employees that are dishonest and

deceitful in order to be successful (Sims, 1992). These types of organizations have been

termed toxic and are characterized by a history of poor performance, poor decision-making,

very high levels of employee dissatisfaction and employee stress well beyond normal

workload issues (Coccia, 1998).

Toxic organizations will develop under certain circumstances. The first condition is for a relatively

small work unit with a high level of face-to-face interaction that stimulates interpersonal

relationships (Sims, 1992). Under these conditions, the ‘‘sick organization’’ will develop with a

high interdependence of its employees who have personal agendas that do not match with the

needs of the organization (Sims, 1992). The second condition for the development of a toxic

organization is an ineffective manager that is immoral or mentally unsound (Sims, 1992).

In light of this, organizations may be viewed as falling on a continuum ranging from

organizations that function well to toxic organizations that are destructive to its employees and

leaders (Sims, 1992). One postulate for why toxic organizations encourage workers to engage

in counter norms behavior has been referred to as ‘‘bottom-line mentality’’ (Appelbaum et al.,

2005). Sims (1992) explains this type of mentality as encouraging unethical practices in order

to reap financial gains. Individuals who practice bottom-line mentality view workplace ethics

as an obstacle to their main goal of profit (Appelbaum et al., 2005).

Another factor that causes individuals to engage in acts of negative deviance in the

workplace is the influence of deviant role models (Appelbaum et al., 2005). Social learning

theory proposes that deviant role models in an organization or in any group in general, will

influence others in the group to commit acts of deviance as well (Appelbaum et al., 2005). It

is important to stress the influence of groups in the workplace when assessing the effects of

deviant behavior within organizational structure. Aggressors (within the group) have lasting

effects on emotional and organizational outcomes due to the close proximity the aggressor

may share with the victim. Research suggests that deviant role models within a group setting

will significantly influence others within the group (Appelbaum et al., 2005). Furthermore,

organizational stressors have also have been shown to lead to deviance. Studies suggest

that all stressors, save for workload, had a direct relationship with aggressive acts, theft and

the wanting to quit (Appelbaum et al., 2005).

Appelbaum et al. (2005) suggested that operational environment is a good predictor of

employees engaging in negative deviant workplace behavior. The research suggested that

it is the workplace environment characteristics rather than individual personality

characteristics that are a good predictor of workplace violence, an extreme form of

deviance. Studies have shown that employee violence can be assessed simply on job

characteristics such as the employee’s contact with the public, working with firearms,

carrying out security functions, serving alcohol, supervising others, disciplining others etc.

(Appelbaum et al., 2005). In this light, it is important to realize that even though an individual

may uphold the highest moral standards, the type of organization one works for exerts a

strong influence on their members and may predispose them to engage in deviant behavior.

Another view that has gained recognition as a reliable predictor of workplace deviance is

called situation-based behavior, and it proposes that certain conditions of the organizational


environment predispose employees to deviance (Henle, 2005). Organizational factors that

may contribute to employee deviance include ‘‘job stressors, organizational frustration, lack

of control over the work environment, weak sanctions for rule violations and organizational

changes such as downsizing’’ (Henle, 2005). Thus, situation-based deviance proposes that

employees will perpetrate deviant acts depending on the workplace environment,

irrespective of their personal characteristics (Henle, 2005).

Another perspective that is used as a predictor of workplace deviance is called

person-based perspective, and postulates that an individual’s personality, not the

environment he is in, dictates his behavior (Henle et al., 2005). In this view, persons with a

predisposition to deviance will likely be risk-takers, have a Type A personality and negative

affectivity (Henle et al., 2005). Traditionally, situation-based and person-based predictors of

employee deviance were considered mutually exclusive. Today, cognitive social theorists

believe that there is a strong interaction between the person-based and situation-based

types of deviance. This is because personality is contextual and it modifies how individuals

interpret and thus respond to particular situations (Henle, 2005).

Positive deviant behavior: some facilitators

Organizational behavior literature shows that there is a greater likelihood that employees

with engage in positive deviant behaviors once they are psychologically empowered in the

working environment (Spreitzer and Doneson, 2005). Spreitzer and Doneson (2005) states

that ‘‘it is clear that psychological empowerment is likely to be a key enabler of positive

deviance’’.Here is the question, ‘‘what does it take for people to be positively deviant?’’

Spreitzer and Doneson (2005) argues that an empowered mindset is critical. Empowerment

‘‘enables employees to participate in decision making, helping them to break out of stagnant

mindsets to take a risk and try something new’’ (Spreitzer and Doneson, 2005).

Organizational behavior researchers point out that, ‘‘the pervasive influence of norms

provides a means of control over what people say and do’’ (Spreitzer and Doneson, 2005).

‘‘Positive deviance requires real risk, and it requires departing from norms in a positive way –

often making others uncomfortable’’ (Spreitzer and Doneson, 2005). In other words, when

companies enable their employees to be empowered the employees are more likely to

engage in risk-taking behaviors that depart positively from the norms of the organization in a

way that is beneficial to the organization. And, companies making their employees

empowered have led to much financial and psychological gain: ‘‘supervisors who reported

higher levels of empowerment were seen by their subordinates as more innovative, upward

influencing and inspirational’’ (Spreitzer and Doneson, 2005).

Conditions underlying workplace deviance

Causes of deviant behavior have been studied on many different levels. To begin with, it

appears that on the individual level, deviant behavior cannot be attributed to personality traits

alone. As previously mentioned, it is more likely that deviant behavior may be best predicted

based on a combination of personality variables and the nature of the workplace situation

(Peterson, 2002). In addition to personality variables and the workplace situation, other key

factors in determining the likelihood of deviant behavior within organizations include: unfair

treatment, organizational culture and climate, as well as supervisory behavior (Caruana, 2001).

A strong relationship between frustration and workplace aggression and/or deviant behavior

was elucidated by Robinson and Bennett (2000). The psychological state of frustration was

predicted in their study to be associated with various forms of interpersonal deviance (i.e.

spreading rumours or acts of aggression) as well as organizational deviance (i.e. vandalism,

theft and sabotage). Results of their experimentation however brought light to the fact that

frustration was not in fact correlated with organizational deviance, and was simply

associated (albeit significantly) to interpersonal deviance (Robinson and Bennett, 2000).

Machiavellianism is another trait thought to be linked to the likelihood of deviant behavior

within individuals and groups. It refers to a person’s strategy in dealing with co-workers by

seeking to manipulate others into completing extraneous tasks within the workplace

(Robinson and Bennett, 2000). Such manipulation can often proceed to fall into unethical


practices for the overall financial benefit of the firm, while sacrificing moral norms. According

to a study by Robinson and Bennett (2000), such a scale of Machiavellianism was related to

both interpersonal and organizational deviance.

Bolin and Heatherly (2001) argue that there are four major origins of deviant workplace

behavior. It is believed that theft approval, intent to quit, dissatisfaction with the organization as

well as company contempt are all symptomatic of workplace deviance. Symptoms manifested

include substance abuse, absenteeism, abuse of employment privileges and theft (Bolin and

Heatherly, 2001). In addition to the aforementioned causes, other reasoning behind the

likelihood of the occurrence of deviant behavior will be elaborated in greater detail.

Although workplace deviance is most often destructive in nature, it may have a positive aspect

to it. For example, it may provide such things as a safety valve, it allows workgroups to know of

each others common interests, and could provide warning signals to organizations. Different

types of workplace deviance have a variety of consequences. For example, interpersonal

deviance can actually increase employee cohesion by building interpersonal bonds, while

organizational deviance can warn the company of impending problems so that solutions can

be devised (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). But where are the leaders in all this deviance?

Several studies have concluded that the basis of continuing unethical behavior in the

workplace is most likely linked to the lack of moral leadership in an organization. The former

CEO of WorldCom, Bernie Ebbers, was once affirmed as a great leader for helping develop

the company into a telecommunications superpower. Ebbers’ reputation was later

destroyed, after failing to provide moral leadership during WorldCom’s publicly drawn

financial scandals, which regrettably lead to one of the biggest bankruptcy filings in US

history (Trevino and Brown, 2005). While his managerial skills obtained great success for the

company, Ebbers’ lack of moral leadership led to its ultimate demise.

Leaders who engage in unethical practices often create an atmosphere of allowance within

the organization that is conducive to deviant employee behavior that parallels that of the

leader (Trevino and Brown, 2005). Employees will observe the ethical judgment of their CEO

or managing director and are often likely to imitate, even if such imitation constitutes acting

unethically. Oftentimes, whether or not a leader is rewarded for his or her behavior will also

help determine the likelihood of employee imitation. If we consider WorldCom’s Bernie

Ebbers, as well as Enron’s Ken Lay, we discover that their successes within those

organizations were often acclaimed by numerous financial analysts. They were deemed

outstanding executive leaders who went against the conventional beliefs of the financial

world, often surpassing short-term expectations (Trevino and Brown, 2005). Eventually, their

successes instilled motivation within the lower ranks of both firms, who would go to even

greater unethical lengths to play a role in their respective companies’ outcomes (Trevino and

Brown, 2005). This ultimate outcome of profit became the major goal for lower ranking

officers of the company (regardless of how unethical the means to get to it were) and would

remain so until each entity eventually defaulted (Trevino and Brown, 2005).

Workplace variables (negative and positive)

Among the different types of workplace constructive and destructive deviances lay many

variables within the workplace that may accommodate such deviant behaviors or limit them.

Baucus and Near (1991) have shown that illegal (or negative) behaviors are most likely to

occur in larger firms with greater resources. It is believed that employees of such firms are

predisposed to take part in illegal activities since such activities are tied to social

acceptance within the organization (Baucus and Near, 1991). Therefore it is recognized that

many organizations can wield a significant influence on their employees, even if such

employees tend to have solid ethical values.

Several studies have reported that some forms of production deviance and property deviance

are more likely to involve employees who are young, new to their job, work part-time, and have

low-paying positions (Baucus and Near, 1991). Various studies have also shown that wrongful

treatment, social normality as well as the influence of work groups can also contribute to

workplace deviance (Peterson, 2002). There are four main demographic factors that may


affect ethical behavior in an organization. The first factor is gender, due to the fact that males

tend to engage in more aggressive behavior than females at work. Tenure is an additional

factor to consider, as employees with less tenure are more likely to commit property deviance

(aside from other instances of destructive workplace deviance). Third, it has been shown that

the more educated the employee is, the less likely they will be involved in unethical behavior,

as per age, where older employees are likely to be more honest than younger employees

(Appelbaum et al., 2005). Taking all such factors into consideration, it is important to note that

there is a trade-off between both extremes of each individual factor, since constructive deviant

behavior arising from the greater propensity to deviate from corporate constructs and

regulations will more than often benefit the entity responsible.

Sims (2002) concluded that employees who report high levels of job and organizational

satisfaction also reported lower levels of likelihood of ethical rule breaking within the

organization. This concept may be explained by the fact that individuals who have grown

more attached to their jobs and organizations as a whole are more likely to follow the rules set

forth by their workplace, which preside over ethical decision making (Sims, 2002).

Commitment is also factor in assessing the likelihood of engaging in unethical or deviant

behavior (Hirschi, 1969). Employees that are most loyal and passionate about their work are,

on average, least likely to consider quitting. Consequently, such an employee will most likely

not engage in unlawful business practices. Conversely, Sims (2002) discovered that

‘‘increased feelings of continuance commitment’’ would actually be positively related to the

likelihood of deviant behavior. Furthermore, Liao et al. (2004) showed that organizational

commitment was inversely related to interpersonal and organizational deviance.

Additionally, the researchers found that co-worker satisfaction was also inversely related

to interpersonal and organization deviance.

One of Hirschi’s classical and early elements of social bonding theory that was believed to

be linked to deviant behavior was the concept of involvement. According to Hirschi (1969),

‘‘the assumption is that a person may be simply too busy doing conventional things to find

time to engage in deviant behavior’’. Therefore it can be concluded that although personal

involvement in corporate tasks diminishes the possibility of destructive behaviors, it also

diminishes the chances of any positive involvement that may lead to greater good, e.g.

whistle-blowing.

It was also demonstrated that the multitude of ethnic differences between workers in an

organization was inversely related with the likelihood of deviance (Liao et al., 2004). What

was shown was that ethnic similarity actually increases the likelihood of workplace deviance,

possibly due to the fact that ethnically-different employees feel they have the need to

conform to organizational norms in order to avoid any negative connotations with not abiding

to such rules (Liao et al., 2004).

Moreover, studies conducted by Osgood et al. (1996) provide evidence to suggest that

company task structure is a major determinant for the likelihood of workplace deviance taking

place. First, activities within the workplace that are well organized and allotted to specific

individuals will often place these individuals in roles that make them responsible for their own

social control within that task. In addition to this, structured activities will seldom offer

opportunities to engage in deviant activities (Osgood et al., 1996). Therefore it may be

postulated that keeping workers occupied with tasks that they will be asked to take responsibility

for will often lead to a lower likelihood that such employees engage in deviant behaviors.

It has been shown in the literature that employees with a high status and that possess

numerous reference groups are more likely to engage in positive deviant behaviors than

those without (Galperin, 2002). A likely explanation for this behavior is that employees

exposed to multiple outside reference groups are more likely to face a relatively broader

range of varying perspectives and viewpoints (Galperin, 2002). Integrating these

wide-ranging perspectives can aid employee problem-solving skills, a precursor to

forward-thinking ideas that may lead to increased workplace creativity and eventually may

lead to innovation, a type of positive workplace deviance (Galperin, 2002).


Furthermore, research also suggests that those with a high status are more likely to receive

support for engaging in positive deviant behaviors than those with a low status (Galperin,

2002). Specifically, an increase in employee ‘‘self-efficacy’’ has been linked to an increased

tendency to engage in positive deviant behaviors (Galperin, 2002). This has been linked to

research that shows that when employees have the support of their colleagues they are more

confident of their skills. And, with this increased self-efficacy, employees are more likely to

persist. Since innovation, for example, has been linked to employee persistence, employee

self-efficacy can be positively related to increased positive deviant behaviors (Galperin, 2002).

Organizational justice

Many researchers assert that workplace deviance occurs as a response to being treated

inequitably in the workplace. Equity theory supports these researchers’ claims, since this

theory hypothesizes that employees compare their ration of outcomes (i.e. pay, raises, and

promotions) to inputs (i.e. skill, training, education, and effort) (Henle, 2005). When employees

experience similar outcomes in response to similar inputs as compared to other coworkers,

employees experience equity. Conversely, when there is a discrepancy between their input

versus output ratio and others, the employees experience inequity. In order to restore their

sense of inequity, employees will often turn to resorting to acts of deviance (Henle, 2005).

When leaders exercise discipline on wrongful acts within an organization, a powerful signal

about the value of organizational norms is sent to others (Trevino and Brown, 2005). When

employees act in an accepted manner and perform their allotted task without trouble, they

seek approval from their superiors. In addition to working in such a way as to receive approval,

some employees also seek gratitude for deviating from normal regulations within the

workplace environment for the benefit of the entity. Conversely, if the same employees notice a

colleague acting unacceptably and subsequently going unpunished, they will rightly feel

disappointed with the justice served to those breaking the intra-organizational norms (Trevino

and Brown, 2005). Therefore, if an employee is caught committing an unethical act (i.e.

viewing pornographic materials) and is terminated as a result of his actions, colleagues will

clearly perceive the message that such behavior will not be condoned within the workplace

and punishment will be harsh and fitting for the act (Trevino and Brown, 2005).

Receiving rewards or positive acknowledgement for constructive deviant behavior or, on the

opposing side, being punished for breaking the rules is of utmost importance within today’s

corporate entities (Trevino and Brown, 2005). The social learning concept stresses that

positions of organizational authority will often determine how workers react to situations that

have ethical implications. Leaders have a responsibility in providing reward and punishment

when it is needed, even if such recourses need not be so direct and explicit in nature (Trevino

and Brown, 2005).

Conclusions

Some of the empirical findings in the literature suggest it is imperative for employees to

abide by corporate norms, procedures, and policies in order to facilitate organizational

goals, and preserve the well-being of the organization. Once employees fail to adhere to

these accepted behavioral rules organizational integrity becomes vulnerable (Galperin,

2002). If employees, for example, engage in negative deviant behaviors such as lateness,

theft, and sabotage the integrity of the organization will surely be strained.

In their attempt to curb negative deviant behaviors in the workplace, organizations should

look beyond simply individual factors and focus on organizational factors as well. Rather

than simply screening individual employees for potentially aggressive or dishonest

tendencies, organizations should focus on creating a fair work environment that prevents

such behavior by providing their employees with ‘‘socio-cultural support and access to

information’’ (Galperin, 2002). An environment with ‘‘fair procedures, equitable outcome

distributions, and employees are treated with respect; they will have increased perceptions

of justice’’ (Galperin, 2002).

On the other hand, a rigid observance of corporate norms, procedures and policies may

also challenge the financial well-being of the organization (Galperin, 2002). Adhering tightly


to organizational norms may preclude innovative and creative business ideas by employees

since such innovation usually requires a ‘‘thinking outside the box’’ perspective (Galperin,

2002). Employees who display creativity and innovation at the workplace may lead to break

through advancements in technology or techniques that may be very profitable to the

company (Galperin, 2002).

It is vital for an organization seeking long-term success to discourage negative deviant

behavior from developing within the workplace, and encouraging positive workplace

behaviors that contribute to their organizational goals. Reevaluating a remodeling an

organization’s norms, attitudes and social values are necessary for the survival of

organizations in the face of deviant employees.

Recommendations and possible solutions

In order to minimize negative deviant behavior within the workplace, organizations must

adapt to a specific organizational culture. Specifically, an organizational culture that is

centered on extremely important ethical core values (Sinclair, 1993). Ethical core values are

established by the management team in order to create a ‘‘unitary and cohesive

organizational structure’’ (Sinclair, 1993). The ethical core values that are shared by the

entire organization include both organizational values and norms and are defined by a ‘‘clear

articulation of corporate strategy, philosophy, or mission’’ (Sinclair, 1993). In order to resolve

the problems associated with negative workplace deviance, it is necessary that employees

throughout the whole organization adopt this specific frame of mind. It is imperative that the

upper-level management focus on conveying strong ethical values and norms in order for

these norms to ‘‘trickle down’’ throughout the whole organization (Appelbaum et al., 2005).

In order to spread this message to subordinates, management must actively participate in

the promotion and maintenance of a new organizational climate (Appelbaum et al., 2005).

A second, less drastic approach to minimize negative deviant workplace behaviors involves

grouping together all the generally accepted values and norms present within the workforce

by the management team. By understanding the different values held by different

subcultures within the company, management can then provide the direction for employees

belonging to a specific subculture of the company (Appelbaum et al., 2005). In doing so, the

employees in question are steered towards helping the organization meet its goals, rather

than having a brand new set of values imposed on them.

Third, another way of preventing the likelihood of employee deviant behavior is to conduct

frequent background checks when hiring. It is imperative in an organization to stop any type

of behavior that would negatively affect it. Furthermore, managers should also find methods

of matching severity of punishment to the violation of organizational norms (Robinson and

Bennett, 1995).

On the other hand, organizations have a vested interest in increasing some types of positive

deviant workplace behaviors within their walls by empowering their employees.

Empowerment is a precursor of pro-social behaviors such as innovation, and innovation is

the key to maintaining the competitive edge of a company (Galperin, 2002). Such a strategy

is likely to increase the long-term financial success of the organization. By making

information accessible to employees about organizational strategies and goals, employees

are more apt to engage in positive deviant behaviors such as corporate innovation because

of their understanding of the corporate environment (Galperin, 2002).

The future of deviance

Replacing negative deviance with the positive deviance models will reinforce the

organizational message that it is OK and acceptable to engage in all the behaviors that

positively impact on the effectiveness of any organization intending to stay ahead of the curve

and reward those individuals who contribute and risk without the stigma of being declared a

negative deviant when being a positive deviant is the raison d’ etre of success.

Further research should be carried out to further investigate how organizations can minimize

the effects of negative workplace deviance as well their origins, and study how organizations


can foster positive deviance in their employees. While Spreitzer and Sonenshein (2003)

postulate that possible effects of positive deviance include a ‘‘personal sense of well-being’’

and ‘‘the advancement of organizational norms’’ it leaves the floor open to a number of

questions that need to be further addressed (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004). For example,

Spreitzer and Sonenshein (2004) raises the important question: is positive workplace

deviance contagious? Further research should address the question of ‘‘why would members

of an organization decide to engage in positive deviant behaviors in the first place?’’

References

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), ‘‘Assessing the work environment

for creativity’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1154-84.

Anonymous (2003), ‘‘Establishing a policy for whistle blowing: structured procedures for calling foul’’,

Strategic Direction, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 14-17.

Appelbaum, S.H., Deguire, K.J. and Lay, M. (2005), ‘‘The relationship of ethical climate to deviant

workplace behavior’’, Corporate Governance, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 43-56.

Aquino, K., Margaret, U.L. and Bradfield, M. (1999), ‘‘Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and

employee deviance: a proposed model and empirical test’’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20

No. 7, p. 1073.

Baucus, M. and Near, J. (1991), ‘‘Can illegal corporate behavior be predicted? An event history

analysis’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 9-36.

Bennett, R.J. and Robinson, S.L. (2003), ‘‘The past, present and future of workplace deviance

research’’, in Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science, 2nd ed., Erlbaum,

Mahwah, NJ, pp. 247-81.

Bolin, A. and Heatherly, L. (2001), ‘‘Predictors of employee deviance: the relationship between bad

attitudes and bad behavior’’, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 405-18.

Cameron, K., Dutton, J., Quinn, R. and Spreitzer, G. (2005), ‘‘What is positive organizational

scholarship?’’, Ross School of Business, Michigan University, Ann Arbor, MI, available at: www.bus.

umich.edu/Positive/WhatisPOS/

Caruana, A. (2001), ‘‘Anomie and deviant behavior in marketing: some preliminary evidence’’, Journal of

Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 322-38.

Coccia, C. (1998), ‘‘Avoiding a toxic organization’’, Nursing Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 32-4.

Dodge, D. (1985), ‘‘The over-negativized conceptualization of deviance: a programmatic exploration’’,

Deviant Behavior, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 17-37.

Galperin, B.L. (2002), ‘‘Determinants of deviance in the workplace: an empirical examination in Canada

and Mexico’’, unpublished doctoral dissertation. Concordia University. Montreal.

Giacolone, R.A. and Greenberg, J. (1997), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, Sage Publishing,

Thousand Oaks, CA.

Henle, C.A. (2005), ‘‘Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice

and personality’’, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 17 No. 2, p. 247.

Henle, C.A., Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2005), ‘‘The role of ethical ideology in workplace

deviance’’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 56 No. 3, p. 219.

Hirschi, T. (1969), Causes of Delinquency, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Liao, H., Joshi, A. and Chuang, A. (2004), ‘‘Sticking out like a sore thumb: employee dissimilarity and

deviance at work’’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 969-1000.

Mangione, J.W. and Quinn, R.P. (1975), ‘‘Job satisfaction, counter-productive behavior and drug use at

work’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 114-16.

Near, J.P. and Miceli, M.P. (1985), ‘‘Organizational dissidence: the case of whistle-blowing’’, Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Osgood, D.W., Wilson, J.K., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G. and Johnston, L.D. (1996), ‘‘Routine activities

and individual deviant behavior’’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 635-55.


Peterson, D.K. (2002), ‘‘Deviant workplace behavior and the organization’s ethical climate’’, Journal of

Business and Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 47-61.

Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995), ‘‘A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional

scaling study’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 555-72.

Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (2000), ‘‘Development of a measure of workplace deviance’’, Journal of

Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 349-60.

Sagarin, E. (1975), Deviants and Deviance: An Introduction to the Study of Disvalued People, Praeger,

New York, NY.

Sims, R. (1992), ‘‘The challenge of ethical behavior in organizations’’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11,

pp. 505-13.

Sims, R.L. (2002), ‘‘Ethical rule breaking by employees: a test of social bonding theory’’, Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 101-9.

Sinclair, A. (1993), ‘‘Approaches to organizational culture and ethics’’, Journal of Business Ethics,

Vol. 12, pp. 63-73.

Spreitzer, G.M. and Doneson, D. (2005), ‘‘Musings on the past and future of employee empowerment’’,

in Cummings, T. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Development, Sage Publishing, London.

Spreitzer, G.M. and Sonenshein, S. (2003), ‘‘Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing’’,

in Cameron, K., Dutton, J. and Quinn, R. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, Berrett-Koehler,

San Francisco, CA, pp. 207-24.

Spreitzer, G.M. and Sonenshein, S. (2004), ‘‘Toward the construct definition of positive deviance’’,

American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 828-47.

Trevino, L.K. and Brown, M.E. (2005), ‘‘The role of leaders in influencing unethical behavior in the

workplace’’, in Kidwell, R.E. and Martin, C.L. (Eds), Managing Organizational Deviance, Sage

Publishing, London, pp. 69-96.

Verschoor, C. (2005), ‘‘Is this the age of whistleblowers?’’, Strategic Finance, Vol. 86 No. 7, pp. 17-18.

Vinten, G. (1995), ‘‘The whistleblower’s charter’’, Executive Development, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 25-8.

Further reading

Appelbaum, S.H., Al Asmar, J., Chehayeb, R., Konidas, N., Maksymiw-Duszara, V. and Duminica, I.

(2003), ‘‘Organizational citizenship: a case study of Medlink Ltd’’, Team Performance Management,

Vol. 9 Nos 5/6, pp. 136-54.

Appelbaum, S.H., Bartolomucci, N., Beaumier, E., Boulanger, J., Corrigan, R., Dore, I., Girard, C. and

Serrano, C. (2004), ‘‘Organizational citizenship behavior: a case study of culture, leadership and trust’’,

Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 13-40.

Chrirayath, V., Eslinger, K. and De Zolt, E. (2002), ‘‘Differential association, multiple normative standards,

and the increasing incidence of corporate deviance in an era of globalization’’, Journal of Business

Ethics, Vol. 41, pp. 131-40.

Forsyth, D.R., Nye, J.L. and Kelley, K. (1988), ‘‘Idealism, relativism, and the ethic of caring’’, Journal of

Psychology, Vol. 112, pp. 243-8.

Hollinger, R.C. (1986), ‘‘Acts against the workplace: social bonding and employee deviance’’, Deviant

Behavior, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 53-75.

West, B. (2003), ‘‘Synergies in deviance: revisiting the positive deviance debate’’, Electronic Journal of

Sociology, Vol. 17 No. 4, Flinders University, Adelaide, available at: www.sociology.org/content/Vol.17

No.4/west.html

Corresponding author

Steven H. Appelbaum can be contacted at: [email protected]


To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors - CiteSeerX

Documents

Transcript of Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors - CiteSeerX