Deviant Workplace Behaviour

Sinem BulkanOrganisational Behaviour

Deviant Workplace Behaviour (DWB)

• Workplace deviance is o voluntary behaviour o violates significant organizational norms o 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 Davranış (Puffer, 1987),

• Workplace aggression – İşyerinde Saldırganlık (Baron and Neuman, 1996),

• Organization-motivated aggression – Örgüt Kaynaklı Saldırganlık (O’Leary- Kelly et al., 1996)

• Organizational misbehavior – Örgütsel Kötü Davranış (Vardi and Wiener, 1996),

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

• Employee vice – Çalışan ahlaksızlığı (Moberg, 1997),

• Organizational retaliation behavior – Örgütsel Karşılık verme Davranışı (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997),

• Dysfunctional behavior – İşlevsiz Davranış (Griffin et al., 1998),

• Occupational deviance - Mesleki Sapma (Friedrichs, 2002),

• Counterproductive behavior – Verimlilik Karşıtı Davranış (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• Perpetrator

o Insider Perpetrator o Outside Perpetrator

• Intention – Conscious act

• Target – all organisational stakeholders.

• Actiono Direct/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.

o Active/Passive (harming coworker’s 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 one’s 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 Factorso Demographics (a much likely occurrence among young, newer, part-time

working, low-paid, having low-status employees)

o 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

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

o Norms (norms of illegal organisations, strike, bribe)

Factors Effecting Workplace

Deviance (Robinson and

Greenberg, 1998)

• Organisational Factors o Organisational Structure (When size increases, the levels of supervision decrease,

employee theft)

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

o 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)

o Pay systems

o 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

Purpose

• 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).

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

• Procedural justice (İşlem 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 (Etkileşim Adaleti) involves the quality of interpersonal treatment employees experience when procedures are enacted (Bies and Moag,1986).

Socialization

• 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).

Socialization

• 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

• 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).

Hypothesis 2:

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

Control Variables

• Gender (males tend to engage in more aggressive behavior at work..)

• Age (Older employees tend to be more honest than younger employees)

• Tenure (Employees with less tenure are more likely to commit property deviance)

Method

• Sample and Procedures

• 272 employed undergraduate business and psychology students.• Response rate 78%.• Analyses were based on a sample of 151.• 81 female• Ages from 18 to 44. Average 22.• Most participants worked in management 23%

Method

• Procedures

• A survey – describing their perceptions of justice at work, involvement in deviant work behaviours and demographic characteristics.

• Measures• Organisational Justice – Multidimensional measure developed by

Colquitt (2001). • Socialization – Socialization subscale from the California Psychological

Inventory (Gough and Peterson, 1952). Coefficient alpha of .75 • Impulsivity – Impulsivity subscale of the Personality Research Form

(PRF; Jackson, 1984) Coefficient alpha of .85• Workplace deviance – A scale developed by Bennett and Robinson

(2000). Coefficient alpha of .86.

Results

Results

• Gender and age were negatively related to workplace deviance (r = -.33, p <.001, r = -.16, p < .05)

• Tenure was not significantly correlated.

• Distributive, procedural and interactional justice were negatively correlated with deviance ( r= -.20, p < .01, r = -.15, p < .05, r = -.24, p < .01)

• Socialization was negatively correlated ( r = -.29, p < .001)• Impulsivity was positively related ( r = .37, p < .001)

Results

Results

• Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses

• The only control variable that significantly predicted workplace deviance was gender. Males are more likely to be deviant.

• Interactional justice was the only significant justice predictor.

• Impulsivity was the only significant personality variable suggesting that impulsive employees are more likely to behave deviantly.

Results on Hypotheses 1

and 2

• H1 is partially supported. The interaction between interactional justice and socialization was statistically significant. (Beta = .32, p < .05)

Results on Hypotheses 1

and 2

• H2 is partially supported. The interaction between interactional justice and impulsivity was statistically significant. (Beta = -.24, p < .05)

Discussion• Contrary to prediction, distributive and procedural justice did not interact

with either personality trait in the prediction of workplace deviance.

• This suggests that employees concentrate more on the fair treatment they receive from their supervisors than the fairness of organisational procedures and the outcomes.

• Managerial implications• Measurement of personality tests during the recruitment.• Limitations• Most participants worked part time and were young.

Affective and Continuance Commitment and Their Relations with Deviant

Behaviors in Korea

Asia Pac J. Manag, 2011, 28:595-607

Harjinder Gill, John P. Meyer, Kibeom Lee, Kang-Hyun Shin,

Young Yoon

Purpose

• The purpose of the present study was to extend Dalal’s (2005) findings by examining the relation between Meyer and Allen’s (1991, 1997) two forms of commitment and negative workplace behaviors using Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) measure of DWB as our criterion measure.

• In his recent meta-analytic review, Dalal (2005) was able to locate 22 studies (largely unpublished) reporting correlations between employee commitment and counterproductive workplace behavious (CWB). He reported a corrected correlation of −0.36 between commitment to the organization and CWB.

The Three-Component Model of

Commitment

• Affective Commitment - affective attachment to the organization

• Normative Commitment - obligation to remain in the organisation

• Continuance Commitment - perceived cost of leaving

*** affective and normative commitment have similar relations with outcome variables, although relations with affective commitment tend to be stronger.

Continuance commitment, on the other hand, has been found to have weak or negative relations with important workplace outcomes (e.g., performance).

Deviant Workplace Behaviour

(DWB)

According to Robinson and Bennett (1995), DWB is a form of discretionary behavior that is intended to have a detrimental effect for other individuals or the organization in general.

• High financial and social costs• Increased job stress and job dissatisfaction• Higher rates of absenteeism• Lower levels of performance

Organisational Commitment and

DWB

Affective Commitment

Meyer and Allen (1997) - Employees with high affective commitment feel a strong emotional attachment to their organizations and therefore have a greater desire to remain and contribute to its success than do employees with low affective commitment. This would be expected to include a greater reluctance to engage in harmful DWB.

Hypothesis 1 Affective commitment is negatively related to DWB.

Organisational Commitment and

DWB

Continuance Commitment

• Continuance commitment has been found to correlate positively with negative affect and other indicators of stress (Meyer et al., 2002; Thoresen et al., 2003), perhaps reflecting resentment at being “trapped” in the organization (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).

Hypothesis 2 Continuance commitment is positively related to DWB.

Method

• Sample and Procedures

• 400 survey packages to 2 organisations in South Korea.o A survey for the supervisor to rate subordinate workplace behaviours,o Subordinate survey packet that each supervisor was asked to forward to his/her

subordinates.

• 218 surveys were returned, response rate of 55%.

Measures

• Organisational Commitment

Commitment was measured by the six affective and six continuance commitment scales developed by Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993).

• Deviant Workplace Behaviour

Supervisor ratings of employees’ deviant behavior were collected using Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) 19-item DWB scale.

Results• (r = −0.32, p < 0.01, one-tailed), Affective commitment correlated negatively and significantly.

• (r = 0.15, p < 0.01, one-tailed), Continuance commitment correlated positively and significantly.

• Gender and type of organization correlated significantly with the commitment variables and DWB.

• When only gender was controlled, affective commitment (r = −0.27, p < 0.01, one-tailed) was negatively and significantly correlated, and continuance commitment (r = 0.12, p < 0.05, one-tailed) was positively and significantly correlated to supervisor ratings of DWB.

• When only type of organization was controlled, affective commitment (r = −0.30, p < 0.01, one-tailed) correlated negatively and significantly, but continuance commitment (r = 0.07, p = 0.12) correlated positively but not significantly with supervisor ratings of DWB.

Results

• H1 was supported. Negative relation between affective commitment and supervisor ratings of DWB.

• H2 was partially supported for the hypothesized positive relation between continuance commitment and supervisor ratings of DWB.

Discussions

• Future research will be required to examine the role of affect and other potential mediating mechanisms to help explain why affectively committed employees engage in less DWB.

• Finding that continuance commitment is positively related to DWB is consistent with recent evidence linking it to higher levels of stress and burnout (e.g., Armstrong-Stassen, 2004; Irving & Coleman, 2003).

• The correlation between continuance commitment and DWB weakened and became non-significant when type of organization was controlled.o continuance commitment was greater among employees in the insurance company than

government social workers.o For example, it is possible that the work conditions in the insurance company contributed to a

stronger continuance commitment and that this sense of entrapment was at least partially responsible for the higher levels of DWB in this organization.

Limitations

• It is not clear to what extent supervisors had an opportunity to observe deviant behaviors.

• Another potential limitation is that some supervisors provided ratings for multiple employees, which raises the problem of non-independence of observations.

• The study was nonexperimental and therefore making causal inferences from the findings is limited. It may be that DWB causes changes in organizational commitment rather than the opposite.

Workplace Passion as a Moderator for Workplace Deviant Behaviour – Job

Satisfaction Relationship: A Comparative Study between Public Sector and Private

Sector Managers

Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 2012,

8:517-523

Shalini Srivastava

Purpose

• The purpose of the research article was to understand the moderating role of workplace passion on workplace deviant relationship on public and private sector managers.

• It further intends to know the gender and sectoral difference amongst the two sectors.

Job Satisfaction and WDB

• Mowday, Koberg and McArthur (1984) who found that greater job satisfaction is generally related to reduced intent to leave the organisation and also with reduced rates of absenteeism (Porter & Steers, 1973).

• A study by O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin and Glew (1996) also reflects that employees who are targets of workplace deviance are more likely to quit, have stress-related problems, decreased productivity, low morale, lost work time or low self-esteem, increased fear and insecurity at work and discomfort.

• When employees are not satisfied with their jobs, they would display more workplace deviant behaviour. Job dissatisfaction may result in low performance, less communication, high turnover and lower productivity. Dissatisfied employees may engage in deviant behaviour as a cathartic means of restoring control over the job.

Gender/Sector Difference and Job

Satisfaction

• Many studies show that women are overall more satisfied then men. This implies that there is a relationship between gender and satisfaction (Carmel, 1985).

• The study done by Rainey (1979) concluded that private sector managers scored higher in job satisfaction than their public sector counterparts.

• Kumar and Achamamba (1993), in their study of 300 employees from public and private industries (workers and administrative staff) derived that public sector administrative staff have greater job satisfaction than private sector administrative staff.

Hypotheses Development• H1: Interpersonal deviance and job satisfaction have a significant relationship.

• H2: Organisational deviance and job satisfaction have a significant relationship.

Hypotheses Development

• H3: Workplace passion and job satisfaction have a significant relationship

Hypotheses Development

• H4: Female managers are more satisfied with their jobs as compared to their male counterparts.

• H5: Female managers are more passionate towards their work than male managers.• H6: Public sector managers are more satisfied with their jobs as compared to

private sector managers.• H7: Private sector managers are more passionate towards their work compared to

public sector managers.• H8: Workplace passion is negatively related to interpersonal deviant and

organisational deviant behaviour (Figure 3 )

Hypotheses Development

• H9: Workplace passion will significantly moderate the relationship between interpersonal deviance and job satisfaction.

• H10: Workplace passion will significantly moderate the relationship between organisational deviance and job satisfaction.

Method

• Sample• The sample consisted of 124 public sector and 156 private sector

managers.

Measures

• Job Satisfaction Survey

The scale was developed by Paul E. Spector (1985). It is a 36-item, nine-facet scale to assess employee attitudes about the job and aspects of the job. Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.80

• Workplace Passion Scale

The questionnaire was designed with the help of studies done in the past and experts’ advice.

• Workplace Deviant Behaviour

Workplace deviance was assessed with Bennett and Robinson’s (2003) measure.

Results

• Hypothesis 1 – rejected.• Hypothesis 2 – accepted.• Hypothesis 3 – accepted.• Hypothesis 4 – rejected.• Hypothesis 5 – accepted.• Hypothesis 6 – accepted.• Hypothesis 7 – rejected.• Hypothesis 8 – accepted.• Hypothesis 9 – rejected. (R² change = 4 per cent)• Hypothesis 10 – accepted. (R² change = 12 per cent)

Results

Results

Results

Results

Discussion and Conclusion

• The study shows that there is a significant level of job satisfaction in both the sectors, but public sector managers are comparatively more satisfied than private sector managers. This result is in contrast with the study done in the past which inferred that private sector managers scored higher in job satisfaction than their public sector counterparts (Rainey, 1979).

• The study is focused on difference in perception between male and female employees and secondly, the difference in perception between the employees of public and private sectors. However, many other important variables are determinants of job satisfaction. Nowadays, it has been observed that length of service and monotonous work tends to reduce the creativity of the employees, resulting in low performance and subsequently job dissatisfaction.

THANK YOU