World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Workplace deviance

Article Id: WHEBN0022709409
Reproduction Date:

Title: Workplace deviance  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Emotions in the workplace, Workplace bullying, Workplace relationships, Cyber-aggression in the workplace, Workplace listening
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Workplace deviance

Workplace deviance, in [1]

Reasons

Psychological contract

Employees often create a set of expectations about their workplace; people tend to make [2] This "breach" of the psychological contract then presents potential problems, particularly in the workplace.

Workplace deviance may arise from the worker's perception that their organization has mistreated him or her in some manner. Employees then resort to misbehaving (or acting out) as a means of avenging their organization for the perceived wrongdoing. Workplace deviance may be viewed as a form of negative reciprocity. "A negative reciprocity orientation is the tendency for an individual to return negative treatment for negative treatment".[3] In other words, the maxim "an eye for an eye" is a concept that some employees strongly feel is a suitable approach to their problem. However, what is critical in understanding employee deviance is that the employee perceives being wronged, whether or not mistreatment actually occurred.

Abusive supervision

Workplace deviance is also closely related to [4]

Workplace experiences may fuel the worker to act out. Research has been cthat they provide onducted demonstrating that the perception of not being respected is one of the main causes for workplace deviance; workplace dissatisfaction is also a factor. According to Bolin and Heatherly,[5] "dissatisfaction results in a higher incidence of minor offenses, but does not necessarily lead to severe offense". An employee who is less satisfied with his or her work may become less productive as their needs are not meet. In the workplace, "frustration, injustices and threats to self are primary antecedents to employee deviance".[6] Although workplace deviance does occur, the behavior is not universal. There are two preventive measures that business owners can use to protect themselves. The first is strengthening the employee's commitment by reacting strongly to abusive supervision so that the employee knows that the behavior is not accepted. Holding the employee at high esteem by reminding them of their importance, or setting up programs that communicate concern for the employee may also strengthen employee commitment. Providing a positive ethical climate can also help. Employers can do this by having a clear code of conduct that is applied to both managers and employees alike. [4]

Types

Workplace deviance may be expressed in various ways. Employees can engage in minor, extreme, nonviolent or violent behavior, which ultimately leads to an organization's decline in productivity. Interpersonal and organizational deviance are two forms of workplace deviance which are directed differently; however, both cause harm to an organization.

Interpersonal deviance

Interpersonal deviance can occur when misconduct "target(s) specific stakeholders such as coworkers".[7] Behavior falling within this subgroup of employee deviance includes gossiping about coworkers and assigning blame to them. These minor (but unhealthy) behaviors, directed at others, are believed to occur as some employees perceive "a sense of entitlement often associated with exploitation".[7] In other words, they feel the need to misbehave in ways that will benefit them.

Organizational deviance

Deviant behavior typically aimed directly at the organization is often referred to as organizational deviance.[7] Organizational deviance encompasses production and property deviance. Workplace-deviant behavior may be expressed as tardiness or excessive absenteeism.[8] These behaviors have been cited by some researchers as "withdraw(al) behaviors…such behaviors allow employees to withdraw physically and emotionally from the organization".[8]

Silence

Employee silence is also considered a deviant behavior in the workplace, falling into the realms of both interpersonal and organizational deviance. Silence becomes employee deviance when “an employee intentionally or unintentionally withholds any kind of information that might be useful to the organization”.[9] The problem occurs if an employee fails to disclose important information, which detrimentally affects the effectiveness of the organization due to poor communication.

Coworker backstabbing

Coworker backstabbing occurs to some degree in many workplaces. It consists of an employee's doing something to another employee to get a "leg up" on the other employee. Strategies used for backstabbing include dishonesty, blame (or false accusation), discrediting others and taking credit for another’s work. Motives for backstabbing include disregarding others' rights in favor of one's own gain, self-image management, revenge, jealousy and personal reasons.[10]

Cyberloafing

A novel form of workplace deviance has emerged in recent years, as technology becomes a bigger part of people’s work lives. Internet workplace deviance (or “cyberloafing”) has become another way for employees to avoid the tasks at hand.[11] This includes surfing the web and doing non-work-related tasks on the internet such as chatting on social-networking sites, online shopping and other activities.

Production deviance

All behaviors in which deviant employees partake ultimately have a negative impact on the overall productivity of the organization. For this reason, all are considered production deviance. Production deviance is “behavior that violates formally prescribed organizational norms with respect to minimal quality and quantity of work to be accomplished as part of one’s job”.[7]

Property deviance

More serious cases of deviant behavior harmful to an organization concern property deviance. Property deviance is “where employees either damage or acquire tangible assets…without authorization”.[7] This type of deviance typically involves theft but may include “sabotage, intentional errors in work, misusing expense accounts”, among other examples.[8]

Other types

Deviant behavior can be much more extreme, involving sexual harassment and even violence. All these deviant behaviors create problems for the organization. It is costly for an organization to pay employees who are not working efficiently.

Reducing

The relationships employees have with their organization are crucial, as they can play an important role in the development of workplace deviance. Employees who perceive their organization or supervisor(s) as more caring (or supportive) have been shown to have a reduced incidence of workplace-deviant behaviors. Supervisors, managers and organizations are aware of this, and “assess their own behaviors and interactions with their employees and understand while they may not intend to abuse their employees they may be perceived as doing so…”.[3]

Organizational justice and the organizational climate are also critical, since the quality of the work experience can impact employee behavior in the workplace. Organizational justice may be organized into three subcategories: procedural, distributive and interactional justice.

Research indicates that procedural justice (combined with interactional justice) is beneficial in reducing workplace-deviant behavior. Employees who are consulted (and given an opportunity to be involved in the decision-making processes at their organization) are less likely to act out, since their voices are valued.

Workplace deviance is a phenomenon which occurs frequently within an organization. Ultimately, it is the managers' and the organization's responsibility to uphold the norms to which the organization wishes to adhere; it is the organization's job to create an ethical climate.[13] If organizations have authority figures who demonstrate their ethical values, a healthier workplace environment is created. “Research has suggested that managers’ behavior influences employee ethical decision-making”.[13] Employees who perceive themselves as being treated respectfully and valued are those less likely to engage in workplace deviance.

See also

Footnotes

  1. ^ Griffin and O’Leary-Kelly
  2. ^ Chiu and Peng
  3. ^ a b c Mitchell and Ambrose
  4. ^ a b c
  5. ^ Bolin and Heatherly
  6. ^ Benner and Robinson
  7. ^ a b c d e Pulich and Tourigny
  8. ^ a b c Everton et al
  9. ^ Tangirala and Ramanujam
  10. ^ Malone
  11. ^ Zoghbi
  12. ^ Harris and Ogbonna
  13. ^ a b Litzky et al

References

  • Bennett and Robinson (2003)
  • Bolin, A. and Heatherly, L . ( 2001). Predictors of Employee Deviance: The Relationship between Bad Attitudes and Bad Behaviors.” Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(3), pg 405.
  • Chiu. S and Peng, J. (2008) “The relationship between psychological contract breach and employee deviance: The moderating role of hostile attributional style.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73 (4), 426-433.
  • Everton, W.J., et al. (2007). “Be nice or else: understanding reasons for employee’s deviant behaviors.” The Journal of Management Development. 26 (2), 117.
  • Griffin, R.W. and O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (2004). The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior. Wiley, New York.
  • Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2006). “Service Sabotage: A Study of Antecedents and Consequences.” Academy of Marketing Science Journal. 34(4), 543-599.
  • Hollinger, R. and Clark, J. (1982).“ Employee Deviance: A response to Perceived Quality of the Work Experience.” Work and Occupations, 9 (1), 97-114.
  • Litzky, B.E., et al. (2006). “The Good, the Bad, and the Misguided: How Managers Inadvertently Encouraged deviant Behaviors” Academy of Management Perspectives, 13 (5), 91-100.
  • Malone, Patty. "Coworker Backstabbing: Strategies, Motives, and Responses" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, TBA, San Francisco, CA, May 23, 2007
  • Mitchell, M. and Ambrose, M.L. (2007). “Abusive Supervision and Workplace Deviance and the Moderating Effects of Negative Reciprocity Beliefs.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 ( 4), 1159-1168.
  • Pulich, M. and Tourigny, L. (2004). “Workplace deviance: Strategies for Modifying Employee Behavior.” The Health Care Manager, 23 (4), 290-301.
  • Tangirala, Subrahmaniam, and Rangaraj Ramanujam. (2008): "Employee Silence on Critical Work Issue: The Cross Level Effects of Procedural Justice Climate." Personnel Psychology, 61 (2), 40-68.
  • Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P. (2006) “Fear in Organizations, Does intimidation by formal punishment mediate the relationship between interactional justice and workplace internet deviance?” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21( 6), 580.
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Hawaii eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.