31 - deviant workplace behavior and

8/13/2019 31 - Deviant Workplace Behavior And

1/15

Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 1, Fall 2002 ( 2002)

DEVIANT WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR ANDTHE ORGANIZATIONS ETHICAL CLIMATE

Dane K. PetersonSouthwest Missouri State University

ABSTRACT: While a number of previous studies have investigated the effects of

personal characteristics and interpersonal factors on a specific type of deviantbehavior, the present study examined how organizational factors, or more specif-ically ethical climates within organizations, are related to various types of devi-ant behavior. The results provided evidence that certain types of ethical climateswere related to specific types of deviant behavior, suggesting that the causes fordeviant behavior might depend on the specific type of deviant behavior. It wasnoted that the results of the present study have both theoretical relevance andpractical implications with respect to workplace deviance.

KEY WORDS: deviant workplace behavior; organizational climate; Ethical Cli-mate Questionnaire.

There is growing interest among researchers and practitioners con-cerning negative workplace behaviors. The number of studies examining such issues as fraud, vandalism, theft, lying, spreading malicious ru-mors, withholding effort, aggressive behavior, and sexual harassmentin the workplace is growing rapidly (Griffin, OLeary-Kelly, & Collins,1998). The obvious impetus for the growing interest in counterproductivebehavior is the increasing prevalence of this type of behavior in the work-place and the enormous costs associated with such behavior. Severalstudies have documented not only the financial impact, but also the so-cial and psychological effects of negative workplace behavior on the orga-nization (Hollinger & Clark, 1982, 1983; Murphy, 1993; Robinson &Greenberg, 1998). Given the growing prevalence of detrimental behav-iors and the associated costs, it would be extremely beneficial to organi-

Address correspondence to Dane K. Peterson, Professor of Quantitative Business Anal-ysis, College of Business Administration, Southwest Missouri State University, Spring-field, MO 65804; e-mail: [email protected].

47

0889-3268/02/0900-0047/0 2002 Human Sciences Press, Inc.


2/15

48 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

zations to determine which variables contribute to such behavior, or atleast identify potential factors that can predict the occurrence of varioustypes of negative workplace behavior. This study examined the possibil-ity of predicting various types of negative workplace behavior based onan instrument used to assess the ethical climate of organizations.

DEVIANT WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR

Negative workplace behavior has been referred to as antisocial be-havior (Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998), organizational misbehavior(Vardi & Wiener, 1966), non-compliant behavior (Puffer, 1987), work-place deviance (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998) and dysfunctional work-place behavior (Griffin et al., 1998), to name a few. This paper focuseson the construct of deviant workplace behavior as defined by Robinsonand Bennett (1995). Deviant workplace behavior has been the topic of several investigations and this concept may arguably be considered themost fully developed (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Robinson & Bennett,1995; Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). That is, researchers have empiri-cally developed a comprehensive typology of deviant workplace behaviorsand validated potential methods for measuring workplace deviance.

Workplace deviance has been defined as voluntary behavior that vio-lates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the wellbeing of an organization, its members, or both (Robinson & Bennett,1995). An empirically derived typology of workplace deviance has been

developed with the aid of a multidimensional scaling procedure. The re-sults produced a two dimensional configuration of deviant workplace be-haviors. One axis of the perceptual map was labeled the organizational-interpersonal dimension. This dimension represented the target of thedeviant behavior. The dimension ranged from deviant behavior aimed atthe organization (e.g., sabotaging equipment) to deviant behavior pri-marily directed at a member of the organization (e.g., sexual harass-ment). The second dimension represented the severity of the deviant be-havior. Deviant behavior on this dimension varied on a continuum fromminor forms of deviance (e.g., gossiping about fellow employees) to seri-ous forms of deviant behavior (e.g., physical abuse). The perceptual config-uration based on the two dimensions resulted in four quadrants, or fourclassifications of deviant behavior. Robinson and Bennett (1995) referred

to the four classes of deviant behavior as (1) Production Deviance, (2) Polit-ical Deviance, (3) Property Deviance, and (4) Personal Aggression.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

Possible explanations for workplace deviance include individual fac-tors, social and interpersonal factors, and organizational factors (Boye &


3/15

49DANE K. PETERSON

Jones, 1997; Vardi & Wiener, 1996; Vardi, 2001). At the individual level,several papers have examined the possibility that personality character-istics of the employee may provide an explanation for workplace devi-ance (Blasi, 1980). Despite numerous investigations in the area, therehas been very little if any support for a positive association betweenpersonality and various forms of deviant behavior (Arbuthnot, Gordon, &Jurkovic, 1987). It appears that personality variables alone are unlikelyto account a significant portion of the variance in predicting deviantworkplace behavior (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). Rather it is morelikely that deviant behavior may be best predicted based on a combina-tion of personality variables and the nature of the workplace situation(Trevino & Youngblood, 1990).

Also at the individual level, several studies have also investigated anumber of demographic variables. Studies have reported that someforms of production deviance and property deviance are more likely toinvolve employees who are young, new to their job, work part-time, andhave low-paying positions (Frank, 1989; Hollinger & Clark, 1983). How-ever, these findings may be more likely to be a result of the nature of the job than due to personal demographic characteristics (see Robinson &Greenberg, 1998 for a review). The research on social and interpersonalfactors has been much more favorable. Research has shown that percep-tions of unfair treatment, social norms, and the influence of work groupscan contribute to workplace deviance (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998; Rob-inson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998).

With respect to the relationship between organizational factors andworkplace deviance, there has been very little, if any valid research inthis area (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). Except for studies involving in-equity in pay (Greenberg, 1990; Hollinger & Clark, 1983), most articleson the influence of organizational factors are merely anecdotal reports.Thus, there would appear to be a need for research examining potentialorganizational factors that may be related to deviant workplace behavior.

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

Situational and organizational factors are known to influence thebehavior and attitudes of the employees (Trevino, 1986). One organiza-tional factor that has been demonstrated to have a significant impacton employee behavior is the organizational climate (Turnipseed, 1988).Organizational climate has been defined as the shared perceptions of organizational policies, practices, and procedures, both formal and infor-mal (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). It has been argued that there aremany types of work climates, such as a climate for service, climate forsafety compliance, climate for innovation, etc. (Schneider & Rentsch,1988). One of the many types of work climates that have been proposed


4/15


to exist within organizations is an ethical climate (Victor & Cullen,1988). According to Victor and Cullen (1987), the ethical climate of anorganization refers to the shared perceptions of what is ethically correctbehavior and how ethical issues should be handled in the organization.Several studies have demonstrated that the ethical climate of an organi-zation significantly influences the ethical behavior of the employees(Deshpande, George, & Joseph, 2000; Fritzsche, 2000; Trevino, Butter-field, & McCabe, 1998).

It has been suggested that the ethical climate of an organizationmay be linked not only to the ethical behavior of employees, but alsoto a range of behaviors including counterproductive behaviors such astardiness, absenteeism, and lax performance (Wimbush & Shepard,

1994). Thus, the ethical climate of an organization may be predictiveof both ethical behavior as well as the occurrence of deviant workplacebehaviors. Further support for this notion is that several of the behaviorsthat are considered deviant may also be considered unethical (Robin-son & Bennett, 1995). The distinction between the two types of behavioris that ethics focuses on behavior that is right or wrong when judged interms of justice, law, or other societal guidelines determining the moral-ity of behavior whereas deviance focuses on behavior that violates signif-icant organizational norms. Since deviance is defined in terms of depar-ture from organizational norms, this would seem to provide furthersupport for the possibility that deviant behavior in the workplace maybe predictable from the climate of the organization.

ETHICAL CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRE

To assess the ethical climate within organizations, Victor and Cullen(1987) developed the Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ). The underly-ing assumption of the ECQ is that the ethical climate in organizationscan be classified into categories analogous to Kohlbergs (1981) ethicalstandards (egoism, benevolence, and principle) and the referent groupthat serves as a source of moral reasoning (individual, local, and cosmo-politan). The ethical standards reflect the three major classes of ethicaltheory, egoism, utilitarianism, and deontology (Fritzsche & Becker, 1984).They may be distinguished in terms of maximizing ones own self-inter-ests (egoism), maximizing the interests of as many people as possible(benevolence), or adherence to universal standards and beliefs (princi-ple). The referent refers to the source from which individuals receivetheir cues regarding what is considered ethically appropriate. The sourcecould be the employees self-determined ethical beliefs (individual), theorganizations standards and policies (local), or external to the individualand organization, such as a professional association (cosmopolitan). The


5/15

51DANE K. PETERSON

cross-classification of the three ethical standards with the three refer-ents produces nine theoretical dimensions of an ethical work climate.The most recent version of the ECQ was constructed by developing fourquestions for each of the nine theoretical dimensions (Cullen, Victor, &Bronson, 1993).

Four studies have reported the results of using the most recent ver-sion of the ECQ (Cullen et al., 1993; Trevino & Butterfield, 1998; Vaicys,Barnett, & Brown, 1996; Wimbush, Shepard, & Markham, 1997). Thesestudies have analyzed data obtained from the ECQ with exploratory fac-tor analysis procedures to identify and determine the number of ethicalclimate dimensions in organizations. While there have been some simi-larities in the results of these studies, there have also been a number of

differences in the observed factor structure. For example, the number of factors, or dimensions, extracted in the investigations varied from fivein one study (Wimbush et al., 1997) to seven dimensions in two otherstudies (Cullen et al., 1993; Trevino et al., 1998). In addition, the labelsfor the dimensions and how the items loaded on each dimension variedacross studies. As an illustration, Trevino et al. (1998) identified the fol-lowing seven dimensions in their study; (1) Rulesthe perceived impor-tance the organization places on complying with company rules and reg-ulations, (2) Lawthe perceived importance the organization places oncomplying with laws and professional standards, (3) Employee Focusthe perceived concern the organization has for the employees, (4) Com-munity Focusthe perceived concern the organization has for customers,the community, and public interest, (5) Personal Ethicsthe perceiveddegree to which the organization lets individual employees decide whatis right and wrong, (6) Self Interestthe perceived degree to which indi-viduals in the organization are primarily concerned about themselves orprotect their own interests, and (7) Efficiencythe perceived degree towhich efficiency is the primary concern of the organization.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study explored the possibility that deviant workplace behaviormight be predictable from the organizations ethical climate and thatcertain ethical climate types might be related to the various classes of deviant workplace behavior identified by Robinson and Bennett (1995).The ECQ was used in the present study to assess the ethical climate of the organizations. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedure wasused to determine which of the models based on the exploratory factoranalyses in previous studies provided the best fit for the data collectedin the current study. The factors identified on the basis of the CFA were


6/15


then used to predict the self-reported incidence of deviant workplace be-havior.

While numerous studies have investigated potential causes of work-place deviance, very few of the studies have attempted to relate the po-tential causes with any type of classification scheme for the various typesof workplace deviance. Robinson and Bennett (1995) speculated that thefactors contributing to deviant behavior might vary depending on thetype of deviant behavior. Based on their classification scheme for work-place deviance, they suggested that situational or organizational factorsmight be responsible for workplace deviance directed at the organization,whereas personal characteristics of the individual committing the deviantbehavior may explain interpersonal deviance. Thus, it might be expected

that the organizations ethical climate is a better predictor of Productionand Property Deviance than Political Deviance and Personal Aggression.

METHOD

The Questionnaire

The survey included the 36 items of the ECQ (Cullen et al., 1993).The instructions and procedure were identical to that described in previ-ous studies (Cullen & Victor, 1987). Subjects indicated their responseson a six point Likert scale from (0) Completely false to (5) Completelytrue. Respondents were asked to respond to the items based on how itreally is in their company and not how they would prefer it to be.

Prior evidence suggests that if respondents are assured of anonym-ity, it is possible to assess workplace deviance through self-reports (Ben-nett & Robinson, 2000). Thus, to assess the extent of workplace deviance,20 items were initially selected, five from each of the four classificationsidentified in the Robinson and Bennett (1995) study. The survey wasfirst pre-tested and then discussed with a group of 28 MBA students,most of who had experience working full-time in a professional position.Some modifications were made to the questionnaire and it was pre-tested a second time with a second group of 23 MBA students. Based onthe results of the two pre-tests, some of the items were modified, whileothers were removed based on the expectation for extremely low fre-quency of self reported occurrences of the deviant behavior in question.The final survey included 12 deviant items, three from each of the fourclassifications. The items chosen for this study are displayed in Table 1.The respondents were asked to check each behavior they engaged in atwork during the previous year.

To obtain a sample of business professionals from a number of di-verse functional areas and organizations, the sampling frame in the


7/15

53DANE K. PETERSON

Table 1Deviant Work Behaviors

Production Deviance1. Worked on a personal matter instead of worked for your employer2. Taken an additional or a longer break than is acceptable at your place of work3. Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked

Political Deviance4. Showed favoritism for a fellow employee or subordinate employee5. Blamed someone else or let someone else take the blame for your mistake6. Repeated gossip about a co-worker

Property Deviance7. Padded an expense account to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on busi-

ness expenses8. Accepted a gift/favor in exchange for preferential treatment9. Taken property from work without permission

Personal Aggression10. Cursed at someone at work11. Made an ethnic or sexually harassing remark or joke at work12. Made someone feel physically intimidated either through threats or carelessness at

work

present study consisted of names on a computerized list of alumni froma large mid-western state university. The random selection option wasused to randomly select 700 names of alumni who graduated with anundergraduate degree from the college of business between the years1983 and 1995. A cover letter, the survey, and a self-addressed postagepaid envelope were mailed to the individuals randomly selected for thestudy. A total of 184 useable questionnaires were received for a returnrate of 26.3%, a response rate that approximates similar studies of thisnature.

RESULTS

A maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis was performedon the data to determine which of the four previously obtained modelsbest fit the data. In the analysis, no cross loadings were allowed. Latentfactors were allowed to intercorrelate freely and factor variances wereset equal to one. The results for various measures of goodness of fit arepresented in Table 2.

Recent rules of thumb suggest that a combination of fit criteriashould be used when making a decision whether or not to reject a model.For example, it has been suggested that a RSMR value greater than .09and a Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) less than .96 would be an indicationthat a model can be rejected as not providing an adequate fit to the data


8/15


Table 2Summary of Fit Tests for Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models

Study NFI TLI GFI AGFI RMSR RMSEA

Cullen .682 .779 .781 .733 .111 .074Trevino .821 .928 .882 .842 .070 .046 Vaicys .763 .883 .836 .797 .074 .055Wimbush .589 .712 .728 .690 .102 .075

NFINormalized Fit Index, TLITucker Lewis Index, GFIGoodness of Fit Index, AGFIAdjusted Goodness of Fit Index, RMSRRoot Mean Square Residual, RMSEARoot Mean Square Error of Approximation.

(Hu & Bentler, 1999). Based on these criteria, the empirically obtainedmodels in the Cullen and Wimbush study can be rejected as not provid-ing an adequate fit to the data obtained in the present study. Only themodels reported by Trevino and Vaicys provide close approximations tothe present data. It has been suggested that an indication of good fitwould be a value of at least .95 for the TLI and a RMSEA value of nomore than .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). As can be seen in Table 2, none of the models satisfies both of these criteria. Of the four models, it appearsthat Trevinos model provides the best fit, although the fit would prob-ably best be described as in the reasonable to moderately acceptablerange. Thus, Trevinos model was used to derive factor-based scores toexamine the relationship between ethical climate and deviant workplacebehavior.

To investigate the relationship between the various ethical climatesand deviant workplace behaviors, twelve separate forward logistic re-gression analyses were performed on the data. The dependent measurewas the dummy coded results for the twelve deviant behaviors. Theseven independent variables in each regression analysis were the factor-based scores for the seven ethical climate dimensions identified in theTrevino study. The results of the twelve forward logistics regressionanalyses are presented in Table 3.

The first row of Table 3 illustrates the percent of respondents thatindicated they engaged in each of the twelve deviant behaviors during the last year. For the most part, the data appears to be similar to theresults reported by Bennett and Robinson (2000). The percentage of re-spondents engaging in each of the deviant behaviors ranged from 25.4%for cursing at someone at work to 61.7% for repeated gossip about aco-worker. The results would seem to confirm the notion that deviantbehavior is not an unusual or a rare event in the modern workplace.

Each column represents the results of one of the 12 forward logisticsregression analyses. The values in rows two through eight represent the


9/15

55DANE K. PETERSON

T a b l e 3

F o r w a r d L o g i s t i c s R e g r e s s i o n R e s u l t s f o r t h e T w e l v e D e v i a n t W o r k p l a c e B e h a v i o r s

P r o d u c t i o n

P o l i t i c a l I t e m s

P r o p e r t y I t e m s

P e r s o n a l I t e m s

I t e m s

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

O b s e r v e d B e h a v i o r ( P e r c e n t )

5 6 . 8

5 2 . 0

3 2 . 0

5 2 . 0

4 5 . 6

6 1 . 7

4 2 . 4

4 0 . 0

4 4 . 8

2 5 . 4

4 6 . 4

3 2 . 0

R u l e s

. 5 2 7

. 6 1 0

L a w

. 4 5 9

. 4 9 2

. 2 7 7

E m p l o y e e F o c u s

. 2 4 1

. 5 0 8

. 5 1 2

. 4 8 3

. 3 3 2

. 4 6 2

C o m m u n i t y F o c u s

P e r s o n a l E t h i c s

. 4 7 8

. 5 4 1

. 5 6 9

S e l f I n t e r e s t

1 . 7 0

1 . 7 9

E f f i c i e n c y

. 5 9 2

P e r c e n t C o r r e c t

. 7 8 3

. 7 2 8

. 6 7 4

. 6 4 1

. 6 5 8

. 6 6 3

. 6 7 9

. 6 6 3

. 6 7 4

7 2 . 8

7 0 . 6

C h i - s q u a r e

4 6 . 0

2 6 . 3

2 4 . 9

1 2 . 0

1 4 . 0

2 4 . 2

2 7 . 9

6 . 1 0

2 1 . 8

4 3 . 6

6 . 6 9

P e r c e n t o b s e r v e d b e h a v i o r i s t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s e n g a g i n g i n t h e d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r .

V a l u e s r e p r e s e n t a d j u s t e d l o g o d d s r a t i o s .

I f n o v a l u e i s p r e s e n t i n a c e l l

, t h e d i m e n s i o n d i d n o t e n t e r t h e f o r w a r d l o g i s t i c s r e g r e s s i o n

m o d e l .

P e r c e n t c o r r e c t r e p r e s e n t s t h e p e r c e n t o f r e s p o n d e n t s c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d b y t h e l o g i s t i c s r e g r e s s i o n m o d e l .

T h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t s t a t i s t i c i s f o r t h e l o g i s t i c s r e g r e s s i o n m o d e l a n d i s s i g n i f i c a n t ( p < . 0

5 ) f o r a l l i t e m s e x c e p t n u m b e r 1 0

.


10/15


logistics regression odds ratios. Values appear in rows two through eightonly for the ethical climate dimensions that entered the forward logisticsregression analysis at the .05 level of significance. An odds ratio greaterthan 1 indicates that the odds of engaging in the deviant behavior in-crease as the score on the ethical climate dimension increases, while anodds ratio less than 1 indicates that the odds of engaging in the deviantbehavior decreases as the score on the ethical climate increases. Thusfor the first item (worked on a personal matter instead of worked foryour employer), the significant predictors were Employee Focus and Self-interest. The results suggest that an organization with a high concernfor the employees (a high value for the Employee Focus dimension) isless likely to experience incidences of employees working on personal

matters during company time. Conversely, an organization with a cli-mate in which the employees are primarily concerned about themselves(Self-interest dimension) is more likely to have problems associated withemployees working on personal matters during company time. The nextto last row in Table 3 indicates the percentage of correctly classified re-sponses to the items based on the logistic regression model. Thus thefirst model correctly classified 78.3 percent of the 184 responses given bythe subjects on the first item. The regression model chi-square test sta-tistic is displayed in the last row. All reported chi-square values that aredisplayed in Table 3 are significant.

As can be seen in the first three columns of Table 3, the EmployeeFocus, Personal Ethics, and Self-interest dimensions were each signifi-cant predictors for two of the three Production Deviance items. This maysuggest that companies are likely to experience deviant production be-havior if the ethical climate of the organization is high in terms of em-phasis on employees looking out for themselves, and low on both organi-zational concern for the employees and failure to stress individual ethics.

The only ethical climate dimension that entered the logistics regres-sion model for the three items representing Political Deviance (Columns3 through 6) was Employee Focus. Thus, it would appear that companiesthat show high concern for the employees are less likely to experiencedeviant political behavior. For Property Deviance, both the Rules andLaws ethical dimensions entered as significant predictors for two of thethree items. This suggests that ethical climates that stress adherence tocompany rules along with adherence to professional standards and thelaw are less likely to experience Property Deviance. The Efficiency cli-mate was also found to be a significant predictor of taking companyproperty without permission.

The final category of deviant behavior, Personal Aggression, did notshow any clear pattern with respect to its relationship with the ethicalclimate dimensions. None of the ethical climates were significant predic-tors of cursing at someone at work. Both the Law and Employee Focus


11/15

57DANE K. PETERSON

dimensions entered the model as significant predictors of ethnic or sexu-ally harassing remarks, while Personal Ethics was the only significantpredictor of physical intimidation.

DISCUSSION

The results clearly demonstrate that deviant workplace behaviorcan be partially predicted from the ethical climate of an organization.Form a theoretical perspective, the results provided some mixed resultsregarding how consistently the ethical climate dimensions predicted de-viant behaviors that were selected from the same category. While some

classifications of deviant behavior were consistently related to the sameethical climate dimensions, the data did not show a clear pattern withrespect to the ethical climates and deviant behaviors in other classifica-tions.

The clearest relationship was between Political Deviance and theEmployee Focus dimension. The Employee Focus dimension was signifi-cantly related to all three items in this category and was the only dimen-sion that significantly predicted Political Deviance. Political Deviance isconsidered a minor form of deviance directed at members of the organi-zation, such as favoritism, gossiping, and blaming co-workers. An Em-ployee Focus climate is one in which the employees perceive that theorganization is very concerned about the welfare of everyone in the orga-nization. This implies that organizations that foster a climate of caring for the individual employees is less likely to experience problems associ-ated with Political Deviance.

A second classification in which the data provided some consistentresults for each item within the category was in terms of Property Devi-ance. Property Deviance is characterized as a serious form of deviantbehavior directed at the organization. Property Deviance typically in-volves direct costs to the organization such as stealing from the com-pany, damaging company property, or padding expense accounts. Devi-ant property behavior was primarily predictable from the Rule and Lawdimensions. Rules pertain to the degree to which employees perceive theorganization stressing the need to adhere to the company s policy andregulations, whereas the Law dimension is more concerned with adher-ence to norms outside the organization, such as a professional code of conduct. The results of the present study indicate that organizationswith a low perceived emphasis on adherence to company rules and lawswould be more likely to experience deviant behavior related to misuse of organizational property. In addition, a climate emphasizing high effi-ciency was significantly related to one of the deviant behaviors selectedas a representation of this classification. All three dimensions, Rules,


12/15


Law, and Efficiency, would seem to be related in that they suggest anadherence to procedures for conducting organizational business. While itis obvious that a strong organizational emphasis on obeying regulationscannot guarantee the absence of deviant behavior related to propertymisuse, the results strongly suggest these ethical climates provide anatmosphere for reducing this deviant behavior.

The significant predictors of Production Deviance included the Per-sonal Ethics dimension, Self-interest dimension, and again the EmployeeFocus dimension. Production Deviance is classified as a minor form of deviance directed at the organization. The Self-interest dimension wasthe only dimension that had a direct or positive relationship with deviantbehavior. This implies that in organizations in which individual mem-

bers are primarily concerned for themselves are more likely to experi-ence problems associated with Production Deviance. On the other hand,organizations that appear to place an emphasis on each employee decid-ing what is right and what is wrong (Personal Ethics), along with a highlevel of concern for the employees (Employee Focus) are less likely toexperience production deviance.

The final category, Personal Aggression, provided the least consis-tent results. Personal Aggression represents a serious form of deviancedirected at members of the organization. While one behavior in this cate-gory was unpredictable from any of the dimensions, the best predictorsof the remaining two items represented different types of ethical cli-mates. The Law and Employee Focus dimensions were the best predictorof engaging in ethnic and sexually harassing remarks, while PersonalEthics was the best predictor of physically intimidating co-workers. None of the seven ethical climate dimensions were significant predictorsof the deviant behavior cursed at someone at work. Thus, there was alack of consistency in this category. It would seem plausible that organi-zational climate may have less of an impact on the prevalence of per-sonal aggression. Possibly deviant behavior in this category is best beexplained by factors related to characteristics of the individual commit-ting the act (Robinson & Bennett, 1995).

While previous studies have shown that the ECQ is a valid predictorof unethical behavior, the present study demonstrates that the instru-ment is also predictive of deviant behavior. The ethical dimensions werepredictive of many types of behaviors examined in this study providing support for the notion that the climate of the organization can have asignificant impact on deviant workplace behavior. In addition, whichethical climate dimensions best predicted the deviant behavior appearedin many cases to depend on the type of deviant behavior. For minorforms of deviance (Production and Political), the dimensions represent-ing a caring and sincere interest for the well being of each employee(Employee Focus) was predictive of five of the six items. Conversely, for


13/15

59DANE K. PETERSON

serious forms of deviant behavior (Property and Personal), a dimensionassociated with requiring employees to adhere to the codes and regula-tions of their profession or government (Law) was predictive of threeof the six items. Thus, the results support the notion that the factorscontributing to deviant workplace behavior may depend on the type orclassification of deviant behavior as proposed by Robinson and Bennett(1995). However, based on the percentage of correct classifications, theresults did not provide much support for the notion that deviant behaviordirected at the organization was more predictable from the ECQ thandeviant behavior aimed at members of the organization. Thus, organiza-tional factors may be just as predictive of some types of deviant behavioraimed at individuals as deviant behavior aimed at the organization.

From a managerial perspective, the ECQ appears to provide a usefulmeans to assess an organization s ethical climate, which may providesome indication as to the types of deviant workplace behavior that mayoccur within that organization. To assist management in developing amore conducive moral climate, Vidaver-Cohen (1998) has proposed aframework that offers some helpful guidelines. For example, Vidaver-Cohen proposed that an organization s climate could be influencedthrough the wording of mission statements by emphasizing an employeefocus or concern for employees. Strategy formulation could emphasizethe need to look out for the welfare of employees. In addition, the behav-ior exhibited by those in power could establish an important role in pro-viding employees with a model for acceptable behavior in the organiza-tion. Similarly the cultural processes, which include formal socializationpractices and rituals, may influence the organization s ethical climate.These may be established through such programs as management train-ing or new employee orientations. Other possibilities are also addressedby Vidaver-Cohen (1998).

In summary, the present study provides needed research on the re-lationship between organizational variables and deviant workplace be-havior. Rather than focusing on factors associated with a single deviantbehavior as in many previous studies, the present study examined howvarious types of deviant workplace behavior were related to differentethical climate dimensions within the organization. In addition, this pa-per demonstrated that the factors contributing to deviant workplace be-havior might depend on the type or classification of deviant behavior.

REFERENCES

Arbuthnot, J., Gordon, D. A., & Jurkovic, G. J. (1987). Personality. In H. C. Quay (Ed.), Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency, pp. 139 183. New York: Wiley.

Bennett, R. J. & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85, 349 360.


14/15


Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the litera-ture. Psychological Bulletin , 88, 1 45.

Boye, M. W. & Jones, J. (1997). Organizational culture and employee counter-productivity.In R. A. Giacalone and J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, pp.172 184. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J. W. (1993). The ethical climate questionnaire: Anassessment of its development and validity. Psychological Reports , 73, 667 674.

Deshpande, S. P., George, E., & Joseph, J. (2000). Ethical climates and managerial successin Russian organizations. Journal of Business Ethics , 23, 211 217.

Frank, R. F. (1989). How passion pays: Finding opportunities in honesty. Business andSociety Review , Summer, 20 28.

Fritzsche, D. J. (2000). Ethical climates and the ethical dimension of decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics , 24, 125 140.

Fritzsche, D. J. & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy. Academy of Management Journal , 27, 166 175.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden

cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology , 75, 561 568.Griffin, R. W., O Leary-Kelly, A., & Collins, J. (1998). Dysfunctional work behaviors inorganizations. Trends in Organizational Behavior , 5, 65 82.

Hollinger, R. C. & Clark, J. P. (1982). Formal and informal social controls of employeedeviance. Sociological Quarterly , 23, 333 343.

Hollinger, R. C. & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by Employees . Lexington MA: D. C. Heath.Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analy-

sis. Structural Equation Modeling , 6, 1 55.Kohlberg, L. K. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development. New York: Harper & Row.Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the Workplace. Belmont, CA: Brooks & Cole.Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance

among commission sales people. Journal of Applied Psychology , 72, 615 621.Reichers, A. E. & Schneider B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In

B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, pp. 5 39. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Robinson, S. L. & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal , 38, 555 572.

Robinson, S. L. & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determi-nants and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. Trends in Organizational Behavior , 5, 1 30.

Robinson, S. L. & O Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: the influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Jour-nal , 41, 658 672.

Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interac-tionist model. Academy of Management Review , 11, 601 617.

Trevino, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. I. (1998). The ethical context in organiza-tions: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly , 8,447 476.

Trevino, L. K. & Youngblood, S. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology , 75, 378 38.

Turnipseed, D. L. (1988). An integrated, interactive model of organizational climate, cul-ture, and effectiveness. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal , 9, 17 21.

Vaicys, C., Barnett, T., & Brown, G. (1996). An analysis of the factor structure of the ethicalclimate questionnaire. Psychological Reports , 79, 115 120.

Vardi, Y. (2001). The effects of organizational and ethical climates on misconduct at work. Journal of Business Ethics , 29, 325 337. Vardi, Y. & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework.

Organizational Science , 7, 151 165. Victor, B. & Cullen, J. B. (1987). A theory and measure of ethical climate in organizations.

Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy , 9, 51 71. Victor, B. & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Admin-

istrative Sciences Quarterly , 33, 101 125.


15/15

61DANE K. PETERSON

Vidaver-Cohen, D. (1998). Moral climate in business firms: A conceptual framework foranalysis and change. Journal of Business Ethics , 17, 1211 1226.

Wimbush, J. C. & Shepard, J. M. (1994). Toward an understanding of ethical climate: Itsrelationship to ethical behavior and supervisory influence. Journal of Business Ethics ,13, 637 647.

Wimbush, J. C., Shepard, J. M., & Markham, J. (1997). An examination of the relationshipbetween ethical climate and ethical behavior from multiple levels of analysis. Journalof Business Ethics , 16, 1705 1716.

31 - deviant workplace behavior and

Documents