Deviant workplace behavior

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)



Text of Deviant workplace behavior

PowerPoint Presentation

Deviant Workplace Behaviour

Sinem BulkanOrganisational Behaviour

Deviant Workplace Behaviour (DWB)

Workplace deviance is voluntary behaviour violates significant organizational norms threatens the well-being of the organization and/or its members (Robinson and Bennett, 1995).

Example: Stealing, witholding effort, and acting rudely to co-workers.

Deviant Workplace Behaviour (DWB)

Non-compliant behavior Uyumsuz Davran (Puffer, 1987),

Workplace aggression yerinde Saldrganlk (Baron and Neuman, 1996),

Organization-motivated aggression rgt Kaynakl Saldrganlk (OLeary- Kelly et al., 1996)

Organizational misbehavior rgtsel Kt Davran (Vardi and Wiener, 1996),

Antisocial behavior Anti-sosyal Davran (Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997),

Employee vice alan ahlakszl (Moberg, 1997),

Organizational retaliation behavior rgtsel Karlk verme Davran (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997),

Dysfunctional behavior levsiz Davran (Griffin et al., 1998),

Occupational deviance - Mesleki Sapma (Friedrichs, 2002),

Counterproductive behavior Verimlilik Kart Davran (Marcus et al., 2002) are the names given to deviant behaviors in the literature.

Workplace Deviance

A study conducted by McGurn (1998) indicated that 75% of employees will have a tendency to steal property from their employees at least once.

42% of women have suffered from sexual harassment at work (Robinson and Greenberg, 1998).

Workplace deviance studies conducted in the USA, indicates that the companies loses exceeds $200 billion each year due to the employee deviance.

Dimensions of Workplace Deviance

PerpetratorInsider Perpetrator Outside Perpetrator

Intention Conscious act

Target all organisational stakeholders.

ActionDirect/Indirect (verbally abusing a coworker as a result of anger-direct action;, In case where the action would sabotage (target is the organization) work of this coworker with an intention of giving harm to the coworker would be considered as an indirect action.Active/Passive (harming coworkers car (active), not taking safety precautions for workers (passive)

Consequences Dysfunctional results

Typologies of Workplace Deviance

Typologies of Workplace Deviance

Production Deviance

Production deviance which is violating organizational norms regarding the quantity and quality of work performed is minor and organization targeted.

Typologies of Workplace Deviance

Property Deviance

Property deviance which is acquiring or damaging property belonging to ones employer is serious and organization targeted deviance behavior.

Typologies of Workplace Deviance

Political Deviance

Political deviance which is engagement in social interaction that outs other individuals at a personal or political disadvantage is minor and interpersonal

Typologies of Workplace Deviance

Personal Aggression

Personal aggression which is behaving in an aggressive or hostile manner toward other individuals is serious and interpersonal.

Factors Effecting Workplace Deviance (Robinson and Greenberg, 1998)

Individual FactorsDemographics (a much likely occurrence among young, newer, part-time working, low-paid, having low-status employees)

Personality (emotionally stable and having high conscientious people are less likely to steal, withhold, on the other hand agreeable people are less likely to be hostile to their coworkers.) Stress, Type A, aggreablenes, conscientousness

Factors Effecting Workplace Deviance (Robinson and Greenberg, 1998)

Social and Interpersonal Factors

Unfair interpersonal Treatment (Importance of perceived fairness, organisational justice)

Norms (norms of illegal organisations, strike, bribe)

Factors Effecting Workplace Deviance (Robinson and Greenberg, 1998)

Organisational Factors Organisational Structure (When size increases, the levels of supervision decrease, employee theft)

Organisational Culture (values and vision, not tolerating deviant behaviour)

Leadership Style of Managers (Bullying, quickly blaming others, not setting priorities, making mistakes over and over, worrying about short-term organizational success only, and behaving unethically and illegally are further negative examples of leaders behaviors. Unsurprisingly, deviant behavior will take place more often in these organisations)

Pay systems

Formal Policies and Codes of Ethics

Consequences of Deviant Behaviour

Economic Costs Decreased productivity, effectiveness and performance

Social Costs Decreased reputation, reduced employee morale

Sufferer psychological problems, aggressive behaviours, anxiety

Hostile working environment

Preventing Deviant Behaviour

Promoting an Ethical Organisational Culture

Ethical Leadership (role models)

Training Programs

Personnel Selection (background checks, honesty tests, interviews, polygraph tests..)

Promoting Pro-social Behaviour (organisational ctizenship behaviour, whistleblowing, corporate social responsibility)

Ethics courses

Predicting Workplace Deviance from the Interaction Between Organisational Justice and Personality

Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. XVII No.2, Summer 2005, 247-263

Christine A. HenleAssistant Professor of Management



The purpose of this study is to contribute to the workplace deviance literature by adopting an interactional approach to empirically examine how both person- and situation-based variables interact to explain workplace deviance.

The article discuss the approaches for studying workplace deviance, the negative relationship between organisational justice and workplace deviance, and two personality traits that may moderate this relationship (socialization and impulsivity).

mpulsivity drtsellik, drtlerine hakim olamama


Interactional Approach to Studying Workplace Deviance

Situation based perspectives advocate that certain characteristics of the work environment predispose organizations to employee deviance.

Certain organizational factors make companies more vulnerable to deviant behaviors by employees such as job stressors (e.g.. Fox et al 2001), organizational frustration (e.g., Spector, 1975), lack of control over the work environment (e.g., Bennett, 1998), weak sanctions for rule violations (e.g., Hollinger and Clark, 1983), and organizational changes such as downsizing (e.g.. Baron and Neuman, 1996).

The second perspective uses person-based explanations to expound why employees vary in their propensity to be deviant. According to this perspective, personality dictates how individuals will behave irrespective of the enviroronment or situation they are in.

Indeed, acommonly-held belief is that there is a personal profile of someone likely to be deviant. This profile might include personality traits such as sensation-seeking, risk-taking, Type A personality, and negative affectivity.

Organisational Justice

Organizational justice refers to employees perceptions of fairness in the workplace and represents a situation-based explanation of workplace deviance.

Distributive Justice (Datm Adaleti) refers to perceptions of fairness associated with the distribution of outcomes employees receive (Adams. I965)

Procedural justice (lem Adaleti) refers to the fairness of the procedures used to make decisions, which is determined by the presence of certain characteristics like voice, consistency, bias suppression, and appeal processes (Leventhal, 1980).

Interactional justice (Etkileim Adaleti) involves the quality of interpersonal treatment employees experience when procedures are enacted (Bies and Moag,1986).

Bias suppression nyarg bastrmas



Socialization is the process of internalizing societal and cultural norms (Gough, 1987).

Asocial individuals are low in social maturity, integrity, righteousness, and morality and are often perceived as rebellious, dissatisfied, and defensive (Gough aud Peterson, 1952).

Individuals high in socialization are considerate, dependable, well-balanced, patient, tactful, and easily able to conform (Gough, 1987).

They tend to resist rules and regulations and find it difficult to conform.ntegrity- drstlkRebellious asi - isyanc



Socialization is expected to moderate the relationship between justice and employee deviance because individuals low in socialization tend to lack integrity and morality and can therefore be expected to violate organizational rules and regulations (Collins and Rader, 1996)

Conversely, those high in socialization have internalized generally-accepted societal norms and tend to conform to them.

Hypothesis 1 :

The relationship between organizational justice and workplace deviance will be greater for individuals who are lower in socialization than those who are higher.


Impulsivity refers to the tendency to act with little forethought as to the consequences of one's actions (Eysenck, 1967).

Individuals scoring high on impulsivity measures are characterized as rash, reckless, uninhibited, incautious, and foolhardy(Jackson, 1984).

Those scoring lower on measures of impulsivity are thought to be self-disciplined and able to control their emotions (Megargee, 1972).

Forethought- nsezi-saduyuReckless korkusuzUninhibited-ekinmesizncautious-dikkatsizFoolhardy-atlgan-cesur


Hypothesis 2:

The relationsh

Related documents