Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions

Steven H. Appelbaum, Giulio David Iaconi and Albert Matousek

Steven H. Appelbaum, Giulio David Iaconi and Albert Matousek are all based at John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

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 afliates. 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 organizations norms, attitudes and social values to a specic 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 benecial 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

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007, pp. 586-598, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1472-0701

DOI 10.1108/14720700710827176

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 nancial 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 organizations 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 nancial 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 managers 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 signicant organizational norms (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004). Spreitzer and Sonenshein (2004) contend that the research on deviance in the workplace overlooks how establishments and their afliates 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 denitions 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 denition of the term is proposed, and different types of positive deviant behaviors will be examined. Positive deviance is dened 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 nancial 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 nancial 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 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 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, nancial 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 specic questions about specic 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 Bennetts (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 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 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 rst dimension of Robinsons 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 Bennets (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 Bennetts (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 inuence the ethical climate of an organization include personal self-interest, company prot, operating efciency, 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 classied 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 nal 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 classied 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 classied 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 Sonensheins (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) dene 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 rst 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

VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 589

Figure 2 Typology of positive deviant behavior

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 nancial 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 dened as behavior outside the requirements demanded of a person at a specic rm, but that will encourage efcient running of the organization. While OCBs are intended to enhance the performance of an organization, positive deviance may or may not fulll such a goal (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004). Todays 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 dened 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

PAGE 590 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007

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 rst 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 nancial gains. Individuals who practice bottom-line mentality view workplace ethics as an obstacle to their main goal of prot (Appelbaum et al., 2005). Another factor that causes individuals to engage in acts of negative deviance in the workplace is the inuence 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 inuence others in the group to commit acts of deviance as well (Appelbaum et al., 2005). It is important to stress the inuence 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 signicantly inuence 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 employees contact with the public, working with rearms, 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 inuence 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

VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 591

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 individuals 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 modies 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 inuence 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 benecial to the organization. And, companies making their employees empowered have led to much nancial and psychological gain: supervisors who reported higher levels of empowerment were seen by their subordinates as more innovative, upward inuencing 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 signicantly) 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 persons 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

PAGE 592 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007

practices for the overall nancial benet of the rm, while sacricing 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 afrmed 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 WorldComs publicly drawn nancial scandals, which regrettably lead to one of the biggest bankruptcy lings 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 WorldComs Bernie Ebbers, as well as Enrons Ken Lay, we discover that their successes within those organizations were often acclaimed by numerous nancial analysts. They were deemed outstanding executive leaders who went against the conventional beliefs of the nancial world, often surpassing short-term expectations (Trevino and Brown, 2005). Eventually, their successes instilled motivation within the lower ranks of both rms, 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 prot became the major goal for lower ranking ofcers 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 rms with greater resources. It is believed that employees of such rms 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 signicant inuence 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 inuence of work groups can also contribute to workplace deviance (Peterson, 2002). There are four main demographic factors that may

VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 593

affect ethical behavior in an organization. The rst 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 benet 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 Hirschis 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 nd 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 specic 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).

PAGE 594 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007

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). Specically, an increase in employee self-efcacy 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 condent of their skills. And, with this increased self-efcacy, employees are more likely to persist. Since innovation, for example, has been linked to employee persistence, employee self-efcacy 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 benet 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 tting 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 todays 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 ndings 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 nancial well-being of the organization (Galperin, 2002). Adhering tightly

VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 595

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 protable 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 organizations 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 specic organizational culture. Specically, 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 dened 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 specic 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 specic 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 nd 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 nancial 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

PAGE 596 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007

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 oor 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 rst 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 Bradeld, 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., OMalley, 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.

VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 597

Peterson, D.K. (2002), Deviant workplace behavior and the organizations 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 denition 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 inuencing 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 whistleblowers 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: shappel@vox2.concordia.ca

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

PAGE 598 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 7 NO. 5 2007

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