Deviant Behaviour in the Workplace

Nair and Bhatnagar (2011) state that deviant workplace behaviour can be demonstrated in a number of ways, all of which are considered counter-productive, causes of dysfunction, and displays of antisocial behaviour (Griffin et al., 1998; Hogan and Hogan, 1989; Storms and Spector, 1987), in the work place. The cause of great financial loss to organisations, other authors have indicated that research has previously favoured the more positive aspect of workplace behaviour such as commitment (for example, Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Murphy, 1992; Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Whilst the previous description explains deviant workplace behaviour as a number of smaller, almost insidious issues (Nair and Bhatnagar, 2011), culminating in ill-feeling and the demonstration of illicit acts, the impact of employee deviance being the cause of multi-billion dollar losses to the global economy (Murphy, 1992), prompts a greater need for further interest in workplace and employee deviance traits in business today.

Status is often cited as a cause of deviant behaviour, with research focussing more often on lower grade employees (Hollander, 1958), enabling more senior members to maintain social dominance and exert power (Bowles and Gelfand, 2010b): a display of management deviance itself? Resultant behaviour at the higher status level is displayed by hierarchical differentiation with regards to belief of deserved privileges, differing levels of rule abidance due to tiered shifts in freedom of creativity (Hollander, 1958), whereas those at a lower level in the organisation yearn to achieve ideals such as equality and fair treatment (Sidanius, 2001). However, this would suggest that lower status employees should demonstrate better behaviour to achieve their own increased status and a more idealistic workplace, existing literature implies that they are the more deviant groups in the organisation (Bowles and Gelfand, 2010b), however these authors

research identifies that status- and social-linked status do effect workplace deviance, with a higher level of deviance being displayed by the lower-status workers.

Litzky et al. (2006) suggest that managers are to blame for inadvertently promoting deviant traits to foster in their subordinates in so far as they are able to identify deviance and allow this to continue. For example, around 60% of employees are prone to engage in theft from their organisation and a similar amount have previously admitted to acts of subterfuge or deception where the quality of their work has been actively compromised, embellishing product attributes to customers, or even accepting small pay-offs (bribes) (Litzky et al., 2006). As these behaviours are adopted by others, the acts of deviance become repeated and greater in frequency throughout an organisation, it is likely a warning signal that the traits are being witnessed, allowed to continue, and almost accepted by management as part of the ongoing, day-to-day routine of work, and manage this as everyday goings-on (Van Fleet and Griffin, 2006). Managers permitting minor occurrences of misbehaviour to happen is perhaps the most obvious manner of developing negative action, however it is also possible for senior status members to foster engagement. By management providing poor working conditions workers become unhappy and feel that they deserve more, which is attained by theft, lower levels of conscientiousness, disregard for colleagues, and disrespect or non-approval of senior decision making and rules (Colbert et al., 2004; Griffin et al., 1998; Kidder, 2005).

As deviance is demonstrated by individuals, it becomes associated as voluntary and part of human behaviour and personality (Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Colbert et al., 2004; Robinson and Bennett, 1995), and has negative implications to both other individuals in the workgroup or work associates, and the organisation itself (Judge et al., 2006). Using the five-factor model (Judge et al., 2002), it is possible to demonstrate the ways in which personality can be categorised as relationships with deviant behaviour and, whilst the five factor model is commonly used as a motivation identification tool, it is also now a method of showing dimensions of bad behaviour (Miller et al., 2003). A summary of deviant behaviour analysis has been applied to Judge et al.’s (2002) Five- Factor Model, below (table 2.4).

Table 2.4: Five Factors of Personality with Deviance Indicators

Neuroticism Neurotic behaviour is seen as a weakness, and shows an inability to lead, resulting in a muddled view of organisation goals and achievements, which has the propensity to engage further deviant behaviour.

(Podsakoff et al., 1990; Wang et al., 1998)

Extraversion Social dominance, dependant on the organisation or surrounding area culture, will either reduce or allow deviance to occur.

(House and Howell, 1992; Judge and Bono, 2000)

Openness to

Experience

Continual improvement can cause ambiguity, conflict or stress amongst subordinates.

(Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1985; Judge and Bono, 2000; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Wang et al., 1998)

Agreeableness The idea that power is created by distance over employees inhibits the ability for agreeable relationships to reduce deviant traits in order to create harmony in the organisation.

(Hofstede et al., 1991; Judge and Bono, 2000; Wang et al., 1998; Wiggins, 1996)

Conscientiousness Positive behaviour is embraced by those in a committed relationship with their organisation, and vice-versa.

(Avolio et al., 1996; Barrick and Mount, 2006; Hofstede et al., 1991; Judge and Bono, 2000)

(adapted using Judge and Bono, 2000; Shao and Webber, 2006)

Further to their earlier work together, Bennet and Robinson (2000) embarked on an empirical study to define deviance in the workplace. Their work developed a noted measurement of workplace deviant behaviour which characterised tendencies, and tested the relationships between levels of deviance amongst participants. The study also acknowledges the varying severity of expressions of deviance (Bennet & Robinson, 2000; Robinson & Bennet, 1997; 1996), hence it being combined in this study.