Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=udbh20

Download by: [Virginia Tech Libraries] Date: 04 November 2015, At: 06:50

Deviant Behavior

ISSN: 0163-9625 (Print) 1521-0456 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20

Sex, drugs, and deception: deviance in the hairsalon industry

Angela Barlow & James Hawdon

To cite this article: Angela Barlow & James Hawdon (2015): Sex, drugs, and deception:deviance in the hair salon industry, Deviant Behavior, DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2014.983009

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.983009

Published online: 16 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Sex, drugs, and deception: deviance in the hair salon industryAngela Barlow a and James Hawdon b

aKeene State College, Keene, NH, USA; bVirginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

ABSTRACTThe unique organizational structure of the hair salon industry fosters anenvironment in which multiple factors, including varying levels of status,opportunity, and motivation, can create or constrain possibilities for deviantbehavior. Using data from participant observation, personal interviews, andsystematic introspection, four categories of deviance emerge: theft, hyper-sexualized interactions, drug/alcohol use, and questionable/illegal businesspractices. This study uses a classification of workplace crime, occupationaldeviance, and occupational crime to illustrate how the typology applies tosalon deviance and how the structural location within the industry predictsthe types of deviance that occur in each salon organizational structure.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 1 August 2014Accepted 2 September 2014

Introduction

A considerable amount of crime and deviance occurs in the workplace (see Bonet 2008; Friedrichs2002; Knefel and Bryant 2004; Traub 1996). Much of the related literature explains workplace crimeand deviance using the deviant backgrounds of those involved, the actors’ financial strain, or theopportunity structure for deviance. Peterson (2002), however, notes the lack of research investigatingthe relationship between organizational factors and deviance. Moreover, those studies of workplacedeviance that consider organizational factors typically focus on deviance within hierarchal bureau-cratic organizations (see Smigel and Ross 1970; Traub 1996; Tucker 1989). Although a few studiesexplore deviant behavior in less bureaucratically organized workplaces, such as the taxi industry(Sheahan and Smith 2003), hotels (Prus and Irini 1980), exotic dancing clubs (Barton 2002,Deshotels and Forsyth 2006; Egan 2006), and carnivals (Easto and Truzzi 1974), these studies arerelatively rare and most are dated. Our study addresses this void in the literature by investigatingdeviance in the hair salon industry as it relates to the organizational structure of that industry.

The hair salon industry is an ideal setting to investigate the influence of organizational structureson workplace deviance. The industry is unique in that stylists may be employed in a variety oforganizational structures, ranging from hierarchal to largely egalitarian. Stylists may work as hourlyemployees, as commission-only stylists, as self-employed booth rental stylists, or as a salon owner/operator. The varieties of organizational styles within the industry create unique environments inwhich varying levels of status encourage or constrain motives and opportunities for engaging inworkplace deviance.

Previous salon studies focus on race, class, and gender intersectionality among salon owners(Harvey 2005), managing gender and class identities (Barber 2008; Gimlin 1996; Lawson 1999), andconsequences of emotional labor for salon workers (Gimlin 1996; Hill and Bradley 2010; Sharma andBlack 2001; Toerien and Kitzinger 2007). While these studies illuminate the richness of the salon, todate, no studies investigate the unique organizational structure of the hair industry and how thisstructure relates to workplace deviance. Using participant observation, personal interviews, and

CONTACT: Angela Barlow abarlow@keene.edu Keene State College, 229 Main St, Keene, NH 03435-3400.Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.983009

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

systematic introspection, our study details how occupational position in the salon industry patternsthe types of deviance in which stylists engage.

We begin by briefly outlining literature on the motives and opportunities for workplace devianceand argue that both motive and opportunity are functions of the structural location occupied by anemployee in the industry. We then investigate the structure and types of deviance found in the salonindustry. We believe this industry provides an excellent lens for observing how organizationalstructure patterns workplace deviance.

Theoretical background: workplace deviance

Studies of workplace crime and deviance typically account for the behavior by focusing on thecharacteristics of the offending workers, the culture of the workplace, the organizational structure ofthe working environment, or a combination of these factors (e.g., El Akremi, Vandenberghe, andCamerman 2010; Ashton and Lee 2008; Knefel and Bryant 2004; O’Neill, Lewis, and Carswell 2011;Piquero and Moffitt 2012; Tucker 1989; Zhang et al. 2000). In general, however, deviant behavior inthe workplace requires both motive and opportunity, and the workplace structure influences both ofthese factors. We briefly review these factors and then consider how organizational and industrystructure can shape them and therefore pattern workplace deviance.

Motives for workplace deviance

Previous studies suggest that workplace deviance is related to perceptions of employer fairness (ElAkremi et al. 2010; Hollinger et al. 1992; O’Neill et al. 2011). Generally, those who perceive theiremployers treat them unfairly are more likely to engage in workplace deviance than are those whoperceive their employers treat them fairly and with respect. When workers perceive they have beenunjustly treated, a “desire for revenge” becomes a core motive for deviance (see Jones 2009).Similarly, those who perceive that outcomes, such as promotions or wages, are unfairly distributedare also more likely to engage in workplace deviance (Aquino, Lewis, and Bradfield 1999). Researchshows that perceptions of unfair treatment result in a variety of deviant behaviors in the workplace,including sabotage (Ambrose Seabright, and Schminke 2002), theft (Colquitt et al. 2006), and otherorganizational-directed deviance (El Akremi et al. 2010).

In addition to employee perceptions of fairness, other workplace stressors, such as job dissatisfac-tion, situational constraints, and interpersonal conflicts are also related to workplace deviance. Forexample, dissatisfied workers are more likely to engage in organizationally directed aggression(Hershcovis et al. 2007; Judge, Scott, and Ilies 2006). Situational constraints, which can interferewith employee’s task performance and realization of their goals, can lead to frustration and, in turn,organizationally directed deviance (Hershcovis et al. 2007). Interpersonal conflict at work is also asource of stress, and conflict at work is related to workplace deviance. In a meta-analysis, Hershcoviset al. (2007) found that interpersonal conflict was one of the best predictors of both interpersonaland organizational aggression in the workplace.

Another potential motive for workplace deviance is being unattached to one’s job. A number ofstudies indicate that employee deviance is highest in occupations where there is minimal subjectiveconnection to the organization (Hollinger et al. 1992; Sheahan and Smith 2003). Huiras, Uggen,and McMorris (2000), for example, found that employees who are socially invested in their jobs,perceiving their work as a “career” rather than as a “survival job,” are less likely to engage inworkplace deviance.

Opportunities for workplace deviance

Work organizations try to limit workplace deviance through various forms of employee surveillanceand monitoring. By 2000, nearly two-thirds of work organizations had implemented some type of

2 A. BARLOW AND J. HAWDON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

employee monitoring and surveillance technology, and this trend has undoubtedly continued (seeSpitzműller and Stanton 2006). The extent that employees are monitored largely determines theopportunity they have to engage in deviance, and the use of monitoring and sanctions can reduceworkplace theft (Chen and Sandino 2012; Hollinger and Clark 1983). Moreover, informal sanctionsby coworkers can also reduce workplace deviance (Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly 1998).

Research also indicates that workplace control mechanisms can influence opportunities fordeviance by affecting the organization’s culture. For example, a lack of control mechanisms cancreate a culture of permissiveness, which has been found to determine workplace drug and alcoholuse (Ames, Grube, and Moore 2000; Bacharach, Bamberger, and Mckinney 2007). Similarly, apermissive organizational climate is one of the strongest empirical predictors of workplace sexualharassment (Bacharach et al. 2007; Pina, Gannon, and Saunders 2009; Willness, Steel, and Lee 2007),workplace bullying, and other forms of workplace aggression (see Salin 2003).

In addition to the amount of social control that can limit employee deviance, organizationalposition can also directly provide or limit opportunities for certain types of workplace deviance.Bookkeepers, for example, are in a position that facilitates embezzling money, and supervisors are inbetter positions to bully subordinates than vice versa (see Cortina et al. 2001; Salin 2003).

The relationship between structural location, motive, and opportunity

Many of the factors related to the motives and opportunities for workplace deviance can be under-stood as a function of the structural location an employee occupies within the work organization or,in our case, the industry. As a body of research indicates, those who hold “marginal” status are morelikely to engage in workplace deviance (Hollinger 1986; Hollinger and Clark 1982; Tucker 1989).Marginalized employees are characterized by low wages, few opportunities for advancement, low jobsecurity, few benefits, low autonomy, low commitment to the organization, and viewing the job as aform of survival rather than a career (Hollinger 1986; Hollinger and Clark 1982; Huiras et al. 2000;Tucker 1989, 1993). Tucker (1989) hypothesized that the higher the degree of marginality inoccupations, the greater amount of employee theft.

It can be argued that as the structural location of the employee becomes more privileged and lessmarginalized, many of the typical motives for workplace deviance are reduced. The marginalized aremore likely to be treated harshly and therefore more likely to perceive their treatment as unfair.Similarly, the marginalized are more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs, face situationalconstraints, and be the targets of workplace harassment or other forms of on-the-job interpersonalconflict. Moreover, the marginalized are more likely to be the focus of organizational attempts atsocial control (Hollinger 1986; Lawrence and Corwin 2003; Lawrence and Robinson 2007; Tucker1989). While it is often argued that surveillance and severe punishment can thwart workplacedeviance, recent research indicates that enacting these controls can increase workplace deviance ifthe controls become situational constraints or result in perceptions of unfair treatment (seeLawrence and Robinson 2007; Zoghbi Manrique de Lara 2006). Therefore, the greater an employee’smarginalization, the greater the likelihood the employee will have motives to deviate.

However, we should recognize that the factors discussed above typically correlate with organiza-tionally directed workplace deviance such as theft, sabotage, or production deviance. Marginalizedemployees, then, are most likely to engage in what Friedrichs (2002) refers to as “workplace crime,”or conventional forms of crime occurring at the workplace. Thus, we can predict that they would bemore likely to commit larceny, sabotage, assault, or harassment. However, these same employees willbe under the most social control that is specifically directed to reduce such acts of workplace crime.They will also be unlikely to occupy positions that afford them the opportunity to commit morelucrative occupational crimes such as embezzlement or tax evasion. Therefore, marginalized employ-ees would likely have the motives for deviance but largely lack the opportunities for deviance. Wewould therefore predict that the deviance in which they engage would be of the “workplace crime”variety, but the frequency of this will be limited by the social control they confront.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

In contrast to marginalized employees, those employees who are less marginalized typically havefewer reasons to attack the organization or lower their productivity. It is unlikely they will engagein high rates of “workplace crime,” especially organizationally directed workplace crime. However,they would still have motives to commit what Friedrichs (2002) refers to as “occupational crime,”which is criminal or unethical acts committed in the context of an occupation for the purpose ofindividual financial gain. They are also more likely to occupy positions that afford them theopportunity to commit occupational crimes such as embezzlement. In addition, with their greaterstatus comes less supervision and less social control, and this relative lack of social controlprovides the freedom to engage in “occupational deviance.”1 While marginalized workers are likelyto be watched and their deviation from occupational norms reprimanded, the less marginalizedwill enjoy greater freedom to violate workplace norms if they so desire. Therefore, the moreintegrated an employee, the lower the probability the employee will engage in “workplace crimes,”but the greater the probability the employee will engage in “occupational crimes” and “occupa-tional deviance.”

We now turn to our observations about deviance in the salon industry. Relying in part onretroactive participant observation, we review the basic structure of the salon industry and notethe common forms of deviance at each structural location.

Methods

The first author worked in the beauty industry in some capacity for nearly 20 years, either as astylist/colorist, a salon owner, or as a color theory educator, and we use this first-hand knowledge asone of our primary sources of data. That is, the first author systematically recalled and recorded herown knowledge and experiences with the structure of the salon industry and incidences of deviantbehavior she encountered as an employee, salon owner, and employer. In addition, the first authorconducted 80 hours of active participant observation in a “high end” salon (Salon Z)2 where sheworked as a self-employed hair colorist for three years prior to the fieldwork. Finally, she supple-mented her observations by conducting semi-structured interviews with all 12 of the Salon Zemployees working there at the time of the field observations. The demographic and occupationalcharacteristics of these workers are provided in Appendix A.

The methods of “retroactive participant observation” (Beitz and Hook 1998; Bulmer 1982; Lugosi2006) and “systematic sociological introspection” (Ellis 1991, 2008; Hedican 2006), in which onerecords memories of specific situations by positioning themselves mentally and emotionally into pastexperiences, have been found to strengthen the quality of participant-observer data (see Ronai andEllis 1989). While including a researcher’s personal experience can be a source of bias, given thedeficit of detailed information on the salon industry from an employee’s viewpoint, the first author’sprevious experiences and knowledge of the field offsets the potential bias for informing this under-researched area of workplace deviance. Drawing on personal knowledge as a professional, field notesfrom active participant observation, and in-depth personal interviews allows for a form of qualitativemethod triangulation (Denzin 1978; Ronai and Ellis 1989) that facilitates a more holistic under-standing of the salon industry and the deviant behaviors that occur within.

1Occupational deviance is “non-criminal violations of norms within a legitimate occupational setting” (Friedrichs 2002:250).Friedrichs (2002) asserts the ambiguity and interchangeability of the various terms for workplace deviance creates confusion.He differentiates between definitions of workplace crime, occupational deviance, and occupational crime, arguing that eachinvolves variable interaction between structures of opportunity and motivation. Friedrichs (2002) reconceptualizes “workplacecrime” as being restricted to conventional forms of crime occurring at the workplace and “occupational crime” as criminal orunethical acts committed in the context of a legitimate occupation for the purpose of individual financial gain. His conceptua-lization of “occupational deviance” restricts the term to “non-criminal violations of norms within a legitimate occupationalsetting, with differentiation between violations of norms of the employer, or professional or occupational associations, and ofcoworkers” (Friedrichs 2002:250).

2Salon Z is located in a mid-sized southeastern city and caters to middle -and upper-middle-class clientele with services rangingfrom $40 to $300.

4 A. BARLOW AND J. HAWDON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Salon industry structure and deviant behavior

Salon employment structure differs from most occupational organizations in that there are manyways to be employed within the hair industry. The organizations in which stylists work can rangefrom highly bureaucratic to organizationally flat, egalitarian businesses. The three common types ofsalons in which stylists work include: hourly chain-salons, commission salons, and booth rentalsalons.3 We begin with an examination of the types of deviant behaviors present in salons based oneach of the three types of salon employment. We conclude with a typology of workplace crime,occupational deviance, and occupational crime in the salon industry that predicts the type ofdeviance in which one may engage based on the structural organization of the salon within theindustry.

Hourly salons

The most basic form of salon employment is for a stylist to be hired as a full-time hourly employee ata chain salon. These salons are bureaucratically structured with the newest stylists in the mostsubordinate positions. Relatively new stylists typically occupy these positions because chain salonsguarantee a base wage, and sometimes nominal benefits, while the stylist is building a regularclientele. Some salons that employ hourly stylists offer the opportunity to combine hourly paywith commission. Once the stylist is consistently generating adequate weekly revenue, she or he maycollect a percent of the profit above a pre-negotiated level of minimum production. As the stylist’sincome increases, the salon still benefits through increased retail sales or the purchase of additionalservices, such as nail or waxing services, from the stylist’s clientele. Stylists employed at these types ofsalons generally have lower status than stylists in other types of salons. They have little flexibility, asthey are required to be present at the salon even when they do not have clients on the schedule, andhave little autonomy in that they must take “walk-ins” and are unable to refuse to perform aparticular service they do not enjoy.

The most common type of deviance among hourly employees is theft. One example of theftoccurred while the first author owned and managed a salon. A new hourly stylist/part-time recep-tionist was fired for repeatedly failing to arrive at her scheduled work time, which is a type ofproduction deviance in its own right (see Hollinger et al. 1992). The night she was fired, she enteredthe salon after hours with the keys still in her possession and stole over $400 in retail products.

A similar situation occurred during the first author’s fieldwork at Salon Z. Debbie, the aestheti-cian, was asked to fill in as a receptionist because Kristie, the full-time receptionist, had been fired forstealing toilet paper and a large box of Splenda packets. Karen, a stylist at Salon Z, and also Kristie’scousin, explained that Kristie felt her behavior was justified:

Tara [salon owner] made Kristie get down on her hands and knees and scrub the baseboards one day. I mean[. . .] she’s a receptionist, ya know? I mean, don’t get me wrong . . . she’s been good to me and she gave [Kristie]the job . . . but she’s not the cleaning lady.

This example demonstrates that both Kristie and Karen felt Tara’s expectations of Kristie were out ofline or, at least, beyond the agreed-on duties required of a receptionist.

Both employees fired for theft were low-wage, low status workers. Theft may be more prevalent insalons where all workers are employed as hourly or commission employees, have lower status andpay, and are low in the organizational hierarchy. As in other industries employing hourly wageemployees, chain salon employees may be motivated to engage in additional types of theft, such astaking money from the cash register or withholding tips, and may be motivated to engage in formsof production deviance, such as wasting time while on the clock by working slowly, focusing on

3Another type of self-employed stylist is the sole-proprietor who often has a salon in her or his home. This organizational structurehas been omitted from this analysis because these stylists usually work alone and lack social interaction with employers andother stylists.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

personal rather than work related interests, or by violating standards of quality (Eddleston, Kidder,and Litzky 2002; Kidwell and Valentine 2009; Litzky, Eddleston, and Kidder 2006). During her yearsworking in the industry, the first author certainly witnessed these types of deviance committed byhourly stylists.

The organizational structure of salons employing hourly wage earners prevents these margin-alized employees from engaging in other types of deviance occurring among higher status workerswithin the hair industry. Employers of hourly stylists and receptionists generally withhold incometaxes, thus preventing the hourly employee from engaging in fraudulent taxes. Many chain salonsrequire their employees to adhere to a strict dress code and code of conduct, thereby limitingopportunities for hyper-sexualized behavior. Higher amounts of supervision and less flexible sche-dules also limit the types of consensual deviance, such as inappropriate sexual conduct or drug andalcohol use on the job.

Commission salons

Other salons operate on a commission-only basis. The owner or salon manager provides theequipment, supplies, and tools necessary for the stylist to work. In exchange, the stylist negotiatesa commission percentage, a set schedule, and possibly benefits. To be profitable, this type of salonemploys many stylists. As a result, competition among stylists for new clients is common. To besuccessful in this setting, stylists must work to solicit new clients through referrals because walk-insare less common and the stylist is not guaranteed any pay other than what he or she personallygenerates. While these organizations are still bureaucratically structured, commission stylists typi-cally have more status than those in hourly paid chain-type salons. They have more autonomy, havethe ability to generate higher incomes, and often work with “higher-end” middle- to upper-middle-class clientele.

Stylists working on commission may still engage in types of theft, but higher status and lesssupervision results in more autonomy (and likely fewer disgruntled employees) suggesting retaliatorytheft may be less likely in commission salons. Some commission salons, like chain salons, institutedress codes, but the first in the author’s experience, commission stylists often had control overclothing choices. Similarly, although commission stylists are required to be available during certaintimes, if they do not have a client they have the freedom to spend their time in the break room atleisure. Since commission stylists get paid according to their level of productivity, the risk of theseemployees engaging in production deviance is less likely than hourly employees. Any unsupervisedfree time, however, allows for the opportunity to engage in other types of deviance, includingsexualized joking and, potentially, drug or alcohol use at work. However, the risk of being caughtby a manager or owner is a possibility for the commission stylist, as is social control by coworkers.Similar to hourly employees, other types of crime and deviance, such as tax fraud, are less likely forthese employees since commission salon owners generally withhold taxes and pay the stylist theirearned percentage of productivity each week.

Booth rental salons

Many stylists use their time working at hourly or commission-based salons as a stepping-stonetoward self-employment. Hourly and commission salons are organized along employee/manager/owner hierarchies. Booth rental salons, however, lack this type of employee supervision andhierarchal structure, making this organizational structure appealing to stylists interested in self-employment. Once a stylist has successfully established a clientele, she or he can rent space in anestablished salon (known as “booth rental”), thereby permitting the stylist to operate her or his ownbusiness. The stylist pays weekly rent for the use of space, which covers salon furniture and utilities,but must supply the necessary products, tools, equipment, phone lines, and book her/his ownappointments. The self-employed booth rental stylist must also pay retail sales taxes and

6 A. BARLOW AND J. HAWDON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

small-business tax. No advertising, benefits, or clients are provided; the stylist works as a self-employed individual among several other booth-renters. These stylists enjoy the highest amount ofautonomy in salon work. The stylist sets the schedule, has full control over services, prices, andclients, and may come and go at will. There is little, if any, supervision over the stylist.

In the first author’s experience as a booth renter, as the owner of booth rental salons, and,primarily, in fieldwork at Salon Z, workplace crime was extremely rare among stylists in thisorganizational structure; however, occupational deviance and occupational crimes were muchmore prevalent in booth rental salons than in hourly or commission salons. Specifically, hyper-sexualized behavior, drug and alcohol use at work, and questionable business practices wererelatively common behaviors.

Hyper-sexualized behaviorA sexualized workplace is a work environment in which overtly sexual behavior, conversations, ordress erode the professional image and conduct of the workplace (Fitzgerald, Swan, and Magley,1997; Leeser and O’Donohue 1997). We describe the sexualized behaviors occurring at Salon Z arehyper-sexualized because such behaviors and discussions would warrant serious reprimand, andwould likely be considered sexual harassment, if occurring in more bureaucratically organizedworkplaces.

The type of clothing worn by many of the stylists at Salon Z would be banned in most workplaces(other than, perhaps, some restaurants such as Hooters or dance clubs). Tara, for example, wasknown for wearing her “fuck-me pumps,” as she called them, with tight jeans and very low-cutt-shirts. These outfits, along with big hair and heavy make-up gave her the appearance of a sexobject, or even a porn star, a look that would generate disapproval or reprimand at many traditionalor bureaucratically organized workplaces (see, e.g., Bourgois 1995, chapter 6). Brian McNair (2002)would argue that the sexualized clothing worn by some stylists at Salon Z is an example of “stripteaseculture”—that the mainstreaming of pornography into modern Western society has spilled over intothe beauty and fashion industry, spawning looks such as “porno-chic,” in which belly shirts andvisible g-strings are daily outerwear. In addition, some services offered at salons such as analbleaching and Brazilian waxing are also reflective of our culture’s wide acceptance of mainstreamingpornography through “striptease” and “porno-chic” fads (McNair 2002).

This sexualized behavior, and the associated look, is also normalized in salon culture through thedisregard of the dangers of cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic surgery is common within the industry. AtSalon Z, all employees, with the exception of two stylists, reported having had some type of cosmeticsurgery or injections, such as Botox or Restalyn, and all but three stylists had breast augmentation.

The acceptance of highly sexualized beauty culture as normal is further depicted when Scarlettreturned to work after a two-week leave following her breast augmentation. She asked some of thestylists in the dispensary (the chemical supply room that is accessible only to employees) if theywanted to see her new breasts. She lifted her shirt and unhooked her bra, exposing her breasts:

They’re still a little high but [the doctor] says they’ll settle. [. . .] You can feel them—they feel really real. David[her husband] loves ‘em. But sex. . .he makes me sit on top—I told him I was gonna have to get some boobs onmy back so we could do doggie style again (group laughter). . .

As demonstrated by Scarlett, not only is cosmetic surgery and sexualized touch normalized in thesalon environment, so is sexualized talk. While collecting field notes one day, the first author walkedinto the dispensary to find Scarlett, Tara, Heather, and Karen gathered around a Playgirl magazine.They were discussing whether Playgirl was actually intended for women or for gay men. Heatherremarked that, “gay men don’t need playgirl . . . they look at that raunchy stuff, or they text eachother pictures of their dicks. That’s how they hook up.”

Most of the overtly sexualized talk at Salon Z occurred between female stylists. An exception tosame-gender sexualized talk occurred with Carlos, who was obsessed with breasts and was notoriousfor walking up to stylists and fondling them. These types of detailed sexualized conversations, as well

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

as sexual jokes, were the norm for most of the stylists at Salon Z. Other sexualized conversationsrecorded at Salon Z included detailed discussion of genital shaving or waxing practices amongstylists, details of sexual practices and positions, and divulging client–stylist conversations about sex.

Drug and alcohol useSimilar to the taxi industry in which drivers justify their drug use because it helps them either stayawake or relax so they can deal with difficult clients (Sheahan and Smith 2003), stylists also justifytheir use of drugs and alcohol at work. The success of these justifications depends on the socialacceptability within the salon industry of the type of drug being used. At Salon Z, the refrigeratorcontained numerous bottles of liquor, usually brands that could be added to other beverages. The topof the refrigerator was often littered with various bottles of wine and liquor—often gifts fromappreciative clients. Alcoholic beverages were usually disguised when consumed around clients,although this informal rule became more lax late in the evening when only a few people remained atthe salon. At Salon Z, Heather and Jessica usually initiated an “end of the week cocktail hour” thatoften started around 2 p.m. on Thursday and Friday afternoons. On one occasion, one of Jessica’sclients questioned her ability to properly cut hair after watching Jessica consume a couple glasses ofwine. After Jessica reassured her, the client conceded, but instructed Jessica to be careful cuttingaround her ears.

In addition to alcohol use while working, it was not uncommon for stylists to share prescriptiondrugs. Tara, for example, complained of back pain one day while rubbing her feet. Jessica remarkedthat her shoulder had recently flared up from too many ten-hour days and offered Tara a solution:“I’ve got some Hydro—Mary Ellis [Jessica’s client and her physician’s wife] brought it to me thismorning for my shoulder. It’s in the top drawer of my station. Go grab one.”

Like the sharing of prescription painkillers such as Hydrocodone, use of prescription diet pills wascommon in Salon Z. In spite of the dangers of prescription diet pills such as Phentermine, Debbieasserted that dieting and diet pill use is common among stylists and appears to be a necessaryconsequence of working in the beauty industry. She described her surprise at the activities the stylistsengaged in to stay thin and what they considered to be beautiful: “Like diet pills—they make some ofthe girls real jittery or sick and they still take ‘em. Everyone here does. [. . .] there’s all this pressureand competition to look the best.”

While alcohol, diet pills, and certain prescription drugs are common among stylists, other types ofdrugs are not tolerated. Lisa, a former stylist at Salon Z, left the salon because she could no longerafford the booth rent when she began losing clientele as a result of her cocaine addiction. Whenasked about the hardest part of owning a large booth rental salon, Tara, the owner, explained herdifficulty in canceling Alicia’s booth rental contract after receiving complaints from other stylistsabout Alicia’s “sketchy” behavior, which was eventually determined to be a result of oxycodone use:“I thought maybe she was doing coke . . . acting all jittery and irritable and leaving every second shecould to ride around with friends. I told her she’d have to leave but [that] she could come back whenshe’s clean [. . .] she’s so so talented (sigh).”

In the case of Lisa and Alicia, the behavior associated with “harder” drugs, whether illegal orprescription, was the concern. Visible signs of drug use, such as jittery hands, irritability, and “ridingaround” were unacceptable. Even though stylists accepted some forms of drug and alcohol use, theyinformally policed co-workers exhibiting behaviors associated with illegal drugs and were wary ofexposing clients to those behaviors.

Questionable business practicesAnother type of deviance found primarily among self-employed, booth rental stylists in the salonindustry concerns business practices. Illegal behaviors surrounding taxes, licensure, and hiringpractices are sometimes condoned in this type of salon structure. Tax evasion is relatively common,especially among both-rental salon workers. For example, to avoid paying costly payroll taxes on oneor two employees, owners will sometimes make arrangements with the employees to pay them a

8 A. BARLOW AND J. HAWDON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

higher wage in exchange for keeping things “under the table” or for accepting a subcontractorform1099 at the end of the year that defines the employee as working on a peer-job basis. Based onthe first author’s experience in the industry, most booth rental salon owners use this method ofemploying stylist to avoid paying state and federal payroll taxes, avoid providing benefits, and tocircumvent quarterly paperwork. Tax evasion was also common among booth rental stylists. Likerestaurant servers and any other service worker who receives tips, self-employed stylists are requiredto report tips and claim all cash income. Salon Z workers Tara, Heather, Marty, and Jessica sharedthat in the past there were conditions in which they did not claim tips and rarely, if ever, reportedcash receipts on self-employed income tax forms.

Questionable business practices also occur with licensure and inspections. Procedures for licen-sure vary by state, but most states require stylists to complete a state-board examination aftercosmetology school to receive an “operator’s license.” While licensing and renewal requirementsvary by state, licenses must be renewed every two years to remain an active stylist in most states.Similarly, salons must also be licensed and undergo a state-board inspection. During this yearlyimpromptu inspection, salons are examined to ensure they meet state requirements for items such assanitation and employee licensure. While the hourly and commission salons in which the first authorworked maintained strict rules for each stylist regarding these requirements, booth rental salons areextremely lax about these requirements. It is not uncommon for a stylist to have allowed his/hercosmetology license to expire or to fail to wear the required name and identification number badgewhile working on clients. If caught by the State Board of Cosmetology inspector, each of theseoffenses results in a fine for the salon if the stylist is an employee, or a fine for the stylist if self-employed in a booth rental salon.

Frequently, when a salon receives an impromptu state-board inspection (usually once per year),someone from that salon will call friends at nearby salons or call the local beauty supply store to letthem know that “state board is in town.” Word spreads quickly to salons that are due for aninspection and the workers are warned to prepare for a potential visit. This happened while the firstauthor worked at Salon Z. Karen returned from the beauty supply store with news that the inspectorwas in town. A few of the stylists who were not with clients at the moment began checking forexpired licenses and nametags. One of the stylists working that day had a recently expired license. Anactive license and nametag were taken from the station of another stylist, who was on vacation, andswitched with the stylist with the expired license. The working area of the stylist on vacation wasthen arranged to appear unoccupied. Fortunately, the inspector did not visit Salon Z that day, whichgave the stylist with the expired license an opportunity to renew her license before the nextinspection.

Salon deviance by organizational location

As the above discussion illustrates, deviance is common in salons. Stylists steal, cheat on taxes, usedrugs and alcohol at work, and engage in hyper-sexualized behaviors. Some of these activities arecriminal while others are deviant; however, all of the stylists interviewed and most of those withwhom the first author worked over a span of nearly 20 years engaged in these activities on occasion.Some did so frequently. We now ask what patterns emerge when we consider the deviant behavior ofsalon workers within the structure of the salon industry? Do industry location and structure matter?

As summarized in Table 1, an employee’s structural location patterns their marginality, oppor-tunity for deviance, and the amount of social control they confront at work. Based on predictionsabout marginalized employees and self-employed stylists, and the type of salon in which they work,we see patterns of types of deviance based on the structural location of the stylists within the salonindustry. Salon employees with higher marginality and greater social control, typically the hourlystylists, are more likely to engage in workplace crime because they lack the opportunity to engage inmore sophisticated occupational deviance and occupational crime with higher pay-offs. As stylistsgain income and autonomy, social controls decrease, thus providing commission stylists with greater

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

opportunity for occupational deviance, such as drug and alcohol use at work. As stylist’s status andcareer stakes increase and marginality decreases, stylists lack the opportunity and the motivation toengage in workplace crime, such as theft against employers, but have greater opportunity andmotivation to engage in various forms of occupational deviance and more elaborate forms ofoccupational crime.

The stylists at Salon Z, and those discussed through the first author’s systematic introspection,represent an unexplored work force: although they lack education and are considered “blue collar”or working class, they have opportunities to gain in status, income potential, and autonomy. In theabsence of marginalization and social control, conditions typically associated with workplace crime,how do we explain why these more motivated stylists engage in occupational deviance and occupa-tional crime at work? We argue the unique workplace culture present at Salon Z, in combinationwith high levels of autonomy, position self-employed hair stylists to have the freedom and security toengage in a wide variety of deviant and even criminal behaviors. Additional discussion of thecomplexities of working in the beauty industry helps to illuminate why these stylists might engagein hyper-sexualized conduct, drug and alcohol use, and questionable business practices in theworkplace.

The hyper-sexualization of the salon workplace is explicitly expressed at Salon Z through (1) theacceptance of highly sexualized beauty practices, such as cosmetic surgery, sexualized clothing, andgenital hair removal; (2) through sexualized talk; and (3) through sexualized touch. Embodyingcultural expectations of beauty among hair stylists goes further than just wearing the latest clothingor make-up fads; women surgically and painfully alter their bodies to conform to the latest beautytrends. While these behaviors are largely accepted in popular culture, few legitimate workplaceswould openly tolerate such behavior, had they knowledge of it.

The structure of the booth rental salon environment is unique in that all workers have the samelicensure, so technical hierarchies do not exists in these types of salons; any difference in status islargely social and based on income rather than inferior or superior occupational positions.Additionally, the physical structure of the salon environment could contribute to the ease ofengaging in deviance at work. Most salons have dispensaries—rooms in which stylists congregateto mix color or other chemicals and to consult with each other away from clients. This space is off-limits to non-stylists and represents an area in which stylists express concerns about performingcomplex chemical services and seek advice from each other on how to handle difficult clients. Thisphysical space protects stylists and allows for a level of emotional bonding between co-workers thatmay not be present in other industries. This emotional bond resulting from a shared understandingof concerns, fears, and anxiety about performing intimate bodywork, emotional labor, and hair careservices on clients, may uniquely position stylists to lose inhibitions with each other and create anenvironment ripe for hyper-sexualized talk and interactions.

While the hyper-sexualized culture of the beauty industry was accepted among many stylists atSalon Z, others chose not to participate in such conduct. During my fieldwork, Alice, a stylist in herlate forties, rarely spent time in the dispensary and sat at her station reading quietly during downtime. Similarly, Alicia, who was friends with Scarlett and Heather, often the instigators of sexual talk,rarely joined in on conversations. Giuffre and Williams (1994) assert that not all people deem thesame sexualized behaviors as acceptable in the workplace. They argue that it is often difficult to drawa line between legitimate and tolerable sexual behaviors or illicit and unacceptable workplacebehaviors. Debbie, for example, often participated in sexualized conversations and even performed

Table 1. Salon deviance typology by organizational location.

Hourly Commission Booth rental

Marginalization high moderate lowOpportunity for Deviance low moderate highSocial Control high moderate lowType of Deviance Workplace crime Occupational deviance Occupational crime and deviance

10 A. BARLOW AND J. HAWDON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

genital hair removal but, during her interview, she explicitly drew the line at co-workers having sexat work.

Many hair stylists consider their work a skilled profession. Some hair stylists belong to profes-sional associations and all stylists must renew professional licensure just as is required of otherlicensed professionals, such as real estate or insurance agents. While some of the behaviors of hairstylists may be overtly sexualized and more representative of behaviors of exotic dancers, manystylists resent those who de-professionalize the industry with, for example, enactments of “stripteaseculture” within the salon. As such, the hyper-sexualization of the hair salon environment meetsFreidrichs’ (2002) definition of occupational deviance, because the co-worker’s behaviors violate notonly bureaucratically organized workplace norms, but employer’s norms (in hourly and commissionsalons) and even violate the professional norms held by some of their own co-workers at salon Z.

There are few other occupations in which alcohol use, and even prescription drug use, ispermissible while working on clients. While alcohol consumption by employees in salons duringoperating hours is illegal, it is acceptable in Salon Z, and has been part of salon work culture in everybooth rental salon in which the first author has worked. Like most traditionally organized work-places, hourly and commission salons would not allow their employees to engage in narcotic druguse or alcohol use at work; social controls and lack of opportunity, due to the presence of managers,supervisors, and owners, prevent stylists from frequently engaging in this type of deviant behavior atbureaucratically organized salons. Explanations of theft among salon employees align well withTucker’s (1989) assertion that temporary or marginalized employees use theft as means for seekingrestitution against superiors who they feel have wronged them. This is supported through theexamples of the two low-status receptionists engaging in theft as means for retaliation againstemployers.

The final type of deviance among stylists, questionable business practices, likely occurs as a resultof opportunity, financial gain, and as a symbol of social cohesion. Being self-employed allows one theopportunity to avoid reporting cash income and tips on self-employment or small business taxes.Perhaps the stylists engaging in these forms of deviance feel some sense of justification to withholdearnings due to the lack of benefits such as sick pay, health insurance, vacation days, and otherbenefits associated with working for a corporation or being unionized. We could go so far as topresume that some stylists resent the lack of benefits and the high level of taxes associated with selfemployed work and, as Tucker (1989) suggests, withhold taxes as a form of punishment (against thegovernment rather than an employer). Along with opportunity, joining together to prepare the salonfor inspection could result in social cohesion in which, together, stylists engage in deviant businesspractices. Since each stylist at Salon Z is self-employed, none of the co-workers were required tocheck for expiration dates on other stylist’s licenses; they did this out of respect and concern for theirfellow stylists.

Income tax deviance may be isolated to self-employed stylists. The formal structure of hourlyand commission salons, along with the often larger number of employees, guarantees most hourlyor commission salons, those with traditional organizational structure, comply with legal businesspractices, such as withholding state and federal income tax and issuing W-2s to all employees.These behaviors all occurred among stylists at Salon Z and while any of these behaviors couldincur fines, suspension, or even revocation of licensure, the risk was immediately assumed anddisregarded by all stylists. Although a larger organizational structure with which to bond is absentin booth rental salons, bonding does occur in the form of friendships and professional socializa-tion among equals. Deviant business practices in booth rental salons, as was the case with Salon Z,are used to help protect co-workers and business owners, rather than injure co-workers, super-visors, or owners, as is the case with some bureaucratically structured workplaces in which there iscompetition among employees. Together, opportunity and social bonding help explain why stylistsengage in occupational deviance and occupational crime in the absence of marginalization andsocial control.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Conclusion

While existing theories of workplace crime explain portions of criminal or deviant behavior for somesalon employees, they lack the ability to consider the complex organizational structure of salonemployment. An important theoretical contribution of this study is that it analyzes the structurallocation of stylists throughout the entire industry, rather than focusing on one specific type ofemployment or workplace. Analyzing deviant behavior among stylists according to their structurallocation has allowed us predict whether stylist will engage in workplace crime, occupationaldeviance, or occupational crime. The data collected from Salon Z along with the informationprovided through systematic introspection supports the assertion that the level of marginalityexperienced by salon workers patterns opportunity, which allows us to predict the type of deviancein which they will engage.

Because Salon Z represents a singular case study, and the first author’s retroactive participantobservation and systematic sociological introspection is limited to experience in eight salons in thesoutheastern United States, this research is limited by its lack of generalizability. While it is possibleto predict the types of deviance in which employees of other salons may engage based on theirstructural location within the industry, they may not engage in the exact same types of occupationalcrime and deviance as employees at Salon Z. Employees at Salon Z were largely homogenous in raceand ethnicity. Results may be far different in salons comprised of employees with varying race, class,ethnic, gender, and sexual identities, and by regional differences.

Along with other studies focusing on non-hierarchal workplace structures, future exploration ofthe various forms of salon employment can provide a rich context through which to compare salonworkers to other types of non-traditionally organized workers. Detailed qualitative explorations canhelp us understand the variation and complexities of workplace culture, co-worker interactions, andtheir relation to workplace crime, occupational crime, and occupational deviance.

Notes on contributors

ANGELA BARLOW is Assistant Professor of criminology in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, andCriminology at Keene State College. In addition to her work on deviance within the hair industry, her research alsoexplores the production of culture within the beauty industry, as well as investigating the use and meaning of beautypractices among incarcerated women. Additional areas of research include investigating the relationship betweenrecidivism and occupational unemployment rates for the specific types of vocational training programs offered atwomen’s prisons.

JAMES HAWDON is a Professor of sociology and the Director of the Center for Peace Studies and ViolencePrevention at Virginia Tech. He has published dozens of articles in the areas of crime, violence, policing, drug use,survey research methods, disaster research, and media studies. His book, Drug and Alcohol Use as Functions of SocialStructure, won the Adele Mellen Prize for Contributions to Scholarship, and he recently co-edited the Encyclopedia ofDrug Policy and The Causes and Consequences of Group Violence: From Bullies to Terrorists. He has been the leadinvestigator on numerous research projects and is currently involved in research focusing on on-line hate groups andagent-based models of violence.

ORCID

Angela Barlow http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4257-9423James Hawdon http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0273-2227

References

Ambrose, Maureen L., Mark A. Seabright, and Marshall Schminke. 2002. “Sabotage in the Workplace: The Role ofOrganizational Justice.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89(1):947–965.

Ames, Genevieve, Joel Grube, and Roland Moore. 1997. “The Relationship of Drinking and Hangovers to WorkplaceProblems: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 58(1):37–47.

12 A. BARLOW AND J. HAWDON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Aquino, Karl, Margaret Lewis, and Murray Bradfield. 1999. “Justice Constructs,Negative Affectivity, and EmployeeDeviance: A Proposed Model and an Empirical Test.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 20(7):1073–1091.

Ashton, Michael and Kibeom Lee. 2008. “The Prediction of Honesty–Humility Related Criteria by the HEXACO andFive-Factor Models of Personality.” Journal of Research in Personality 42(5):1216–1228.

Bacharach, Samuel B., Peter A. Bamberger, and Valerie M. Mckinney. 2007. “Harassing Under The Influence: ThePrevalence of Male Heavy Drinking, the Embeddedness of Permissive Workplace Drinking Norms, and the GenderHarassment of Female Coworkers.” Journal Of Occupational Health Psychology 12(3):232–250.

Barber, Kristen. 2008. “The Well-Coiffed Man: Class, Race, and Heterosexual Masculinity in the Hair Salon.” Gender& Society 22(4):455–476.

Barton, Bunnadette. 2002. “Dancing on the Möbius Strip: Challenging the Sex War Paradigm.” Gender and Society 16(5):585–602.

Beitz, Charles A. and John R. Hook. 1998. “The Culture of Military Organizations: A Participant-Observer Case Studyof Cultural Diversity.” Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal 3(3).

Bonet, Francois. 2008. “A Crime without Deviance: Workplace Theft as a Routine Activity.” Revue Francaise deSociologie 49(2):331–350.

Bourgois, Phillipe. 1995. In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. New York:Cambridge University Press.Bulmer, Martin. 1982. “The Merits and Demerits of Covert Participant Observation.” Pp. 217–251 in Social Research

Ethics, edited by M. Bulmer. London: Macmillan.Chen, Clara X. and Tatiana Sandino. 2012. “Can Wages Buy Honesty?: The Relationship Between Relative Wages and

Employee Theft.” Journal of Accounting Research 50(4):967–1000.Colquitt, Jason A., Brent A. Scott, Timothy A. Judge, and John C. Shaw. 2006. “Justice and Personality: Using

Integrative Theories to Derive Moderators of Justice Effects.” Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses 100(1):110–127.

Cortina, Lilia, Vicki Magley, Jill Hunter Williams, and Regina Day Langhout. 2001. “Incivility in the Workplace:Incidence and Impact.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6(1):64–80.

Denzin, Norman K. 1978. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. 2nd ed. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Deshotels, Tina H. and Craig J. Forsyth. 2006. “Strategic Flirting and the Emotional Tab of Exotic Dancing.” DeviantBehavior 21(1):223–241.

Easto, Patrick C. and Marcello Truzzi. 1974. “The Carnival as a Marginally Legal Work Activity: A TypologicalApproach to Work Systems.” Pp 336–353 in Deviant Behavior: Occupational and Organizational Bases, edited byClifton D. Bryant. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Eddleston, Kimberly, Deborah Kidder, and Barrie Litzky. 2002. “Who’s the Boss? Contending with CompetingExpectations from Customers and Management.” Academy of Management Executive 16(4):85–99.

Egan, R. Danielle. 2006. Dancing for Dollars and Paying for Love: The Relationships between Exotic Dancers and TheirRegulars. New York: Palgrave.

El Akremi, Assâad, Christian Vandenberghe, and Julie Camerman. 2010. “The Role of Justice and Social ExchangeRelationships in Workplace Deviance: Test of a Mediated Model.” Human Relations 63(11):1687–1717.

Ellis, Carolyn. 1991. “Sociological Introspection and Emotional Experience.” Symbolic Interaction 14(1):23–50.———. 2008. Revision: Autoethnographic Reflections on Life and Work. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Fitzgerald, Louise F., Suzanne Swan, and V. J. Magley. 1997. “But was it Really Sexual Harassment? Legal, Behavioral,

and Psychological Definitions of the Workplace Victimization of Women.” Pp. 5–28 in Sexual Harassment, editedby W. O’Donohue. Needham Heights, MA: Viacom.

Friedrichs, David O. 2002. “Occupational Crime, Occupational Deviance, and Workplace Crime: Sorting Out theDifference.” Criminal Justice 2(3):243–256.

Gimlin, Debra. 1996. “Pamela’s Place: Power and Negotiation in the Hair Salon.” Gender & Society 10(5):505–526.Giuffre, Patti A. and Christine L. Williams. 1994. “Boundary Lines: Labeling Sexual Harassment in Restaurants.”

Gender & Society 8:378–401.Harvey, Adia M. 2005. “Becoming Entrepreneurs: Intersections of Race, Class, and Gender at the Black Beauty Salon.”

Gender & Society 19(6):789–808.Hedican, E. J. 2006. “Understanding Emotional Experience in Fieldwork: Responding to Grief in a Northern

Aboriginal Village.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1):17–24. Retrieved 16 July, 2014 (http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/pdf/hedican.pdf).

Hershcovis, Sandy M., Nick Turner, Julian Barling, Kara Arnold, Kathryne Dupre, Michelle Inness, Manon MireilleLeBlanc, and Niro Sivanathan. 2007. “Predicting Workplace Aggression: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of AppliedPsychology 92(1):228–238.

Hill, Terrence D. and Christopher Bradley. 2010. “The Emotional Consequences of Service Work: An EthnographicExamination of Hair Salon Workers.” Sociological Focus 43(1):41–60.

Hollinger, Richard C. 1986. “Acts against the Workplace: Social Bonding and Employee Deviance.” Deviant Behavior 7(1):53–75.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Hollinger, Richard and John Clark. 1983. “Deterrence in the Workplace: Perceived Certainty, Perceived Severity, andEmployee Theft.” Social Forces 62(2):398–418.

Hollinger, Richard C.,Karen B. Slora, and William Terris. 1992. “Deviance in the Fast Food Restaurant: Correlates ofTheft, Altruism, and Employee Counterproductivity.” Deviant Behavior 13:155–184.

Huiras, Jessica, Christopher Uggen, and Barbara McMorris. 2000. “Career Jobs, Survival Jobs, and Employee Deviance:A Social Investment Model of Workplace Misconduct.” Sociological Quarterly 41(4):245–263.

Jones, David A. 2009. “Getting Even with One’s Supervisor and One’s Organization: Relationships Among Types ofInjustice, Desires for Revenge, and Counterproductive Work Behaviors.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(4):525–542.

Judge, Timothy, Brent Scott, and Remus Ilies. 2006. “Hostility, Job Attitudes, and Workplace Deviance: Test of aMultilevel Model.” Journal of Applied Psychology 91(1):126–138.

Kidwell, Roland E. and Sean R. Valentine. 2009. “Positive Group Context, Work Attitudes, and OrganizationalMisbehavior: The Case of Withholding Job Effort.” Journal of Business Ethics 86:15–28.

Knefel, Ann M. and Clifton Bryant. 2004. “Workplace as Combat Zone: Reconceptualizing Occupational andOrganizational Violence.” Deviant Behavior 2(6):579–601.

Lawrence, Thomas B. and Vivien Corwin. 2003. “Being There: The Acceptance and Marginalization of Part-TimeProfessional Employees.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 24(8):923–943.

Lawrence, Thomas and Sandra Robinson. 2007. “Ain’t Misbehavin: Workplace Deviance as OrganizationalResistance.” Journal of Management 33(3):378–394.

Lawson, Helene. 1999. “Working on Hair.” Qualitative Sociology 22(3):235–257.Leeser, John and William O’Donohue. 1997. “Normative Issues in Defining Sexual Harassment.” Pp. 29–49 in Sexual

harassment, edited by W. O’Donohue. Needham Heights, MA: Viacom.Litzky, Barrie, Kimberly Eddleston, and Deborah Kidder. 2006. “The Good, the Bad, and the Misguided: How

Managers Inadvertently Encourage Deviant Behaviors.” Academy of Management Perspectives 20(1):91–103.Lugosi, Peter. 2006. “Between Overt and Covert Research: Concealment and Disclosure in an Ethnographic Study of

Commercial Hospitality.” Qualitative Inquiry 12(3):541–561.McNair, Brian. 2002. Striptease Culture: Sex, Media and the Democratization of Desire. London, UK: Routledge.O’Neill, Thomas, Rhys Lewis, and Julie Carswell. 2011. “Employee Personality, Justice Perceptions, and the Prediction

of Workplace Deviance.” Personality and Individual Differences 51(5):595–600.Peterson, Dane K. 2002. “Deviant Workplace Behavior and the Organization’s Ethical Climate.” Journal of Business

and Psychology 17:47–61.Pina, Afroditi, Theresa Gannon, and Benjamin Saunders. 2009. “An Overview of the Literature on Sexual Harassment:

Perpetrator, Theory, and Treatment Issues.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 14(2):126–138.Piquero, Nicole and Terrie Moffitt. 2012. “Can Childhood Factors Predict Workplace Deviance?” Justice Quarterly 31

(4):664–692.Prus, Robert and Styllianoss Irini. 1980. Hookers, Rounders, & Desk Clerks: The Social Organization of the Hotel

Community. Salem, WI: Sheffield.Robinson, Sandra L. and Anne M. O’Leary-Kelly. 1998. “Monkey See, Monkey Do: The Influence of Work Groups on

the Antisocial Behavior of Employees.” The Academy of Management Journal 41(6):658–672.Ronai, Carol Rambo and Carolyn Ellis. 1989. “Turn-Ons for Money Interactional Strategies of the Table Dancer.”

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 16:271–278.Salin, Denise. 2003. “Ways of Explaining Workplace Bullying: A Review of Enabling, Motivating and Precipitating

Structures and Processes in the Work Environment.” Human Relations 56(10):1213–1232.Sharma, Ursula and Paula Black. 2001. “Look Good, Feel Better: Beauty Therapy as Emotional Labour.” Sociology 35

(4):913–931.Sheahan, Matthew and Philip Smith. 2003. “Deviance and Marginal Occupations: The Case of Taxi Drivers.” Deviant

Behavior 23(5):449–466.Smigel, Erwin O. and H. Laurence Ross. 1970. Crimes Against Bureaucracy. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.Spitzműller, Christiane and Jeffrey Stanton. 2006. “Examining Employee Compliance with Organizational Surveillance

and Monitoring.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 79(2):245–272.Toerien, Merran and Celia Kitzinger. 2007. “Emotional Labour in Action: Navigating Multiple Involvements in the

Beauty Salon.” Sociology 41(4):645–662.Traub, Stewart H. 1996. “Battling Employee Crime: A Review of Corporate Strategies and Programs.” Crime and

Delinquency 42(2):244–256.Tucker, James. 1989. “Employee Theft as Social Control.” Deviant Behavior 10(4):319–334.Willness, Chesea, Piers Steel, and Kibeom Lee. 2007. “A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of

Workplace Sexual Harassment.” Personnel Psychology 60(1):127–162.Zhang, Lening, Steven F. Messner, Dengke Zhou, Allen F. Liska, Marvin D. Krohn, Jianhong Liu, and Zhou Lu. 2000.

“Organization of Ownership and Workplace Theft in China.” International Journal of Offender Therapy andComparative Criminology 44(5):581–592.

14 A. BARLOW AND J. HAWDON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Zoghbi Manrique de Lara, Pablo. 2006. “Fear in Organizations: Does Intimidation by Formal Punishment Mediate theRelationship between Interactional Justice and Workplace Internet Deviance?” Journal of Managerial Psychology 21(6):580–592.

Appendix A. Characteristics of salon employees interviewed.

Name Gender Pay structure Occupation Race Marital Education*

Tara F N/A Owner/Stylist White Married HSHeather F Renter Stylist White Unmarried HSKaren F Renter Stylist White Unmarried HSScarlett F Renter Stylist White Married HSJessica F Renter Stylist White Unmarried SomeShelly F Renter Stylist White Unmarried HSCalli F Renter Stylist White Married HSAlice F Renter Stylist White Married HSMarty M Renter Stylist White Unmarried HS1Carlos M Commission Make-up artist Latino Unmarried <HS2Debbie F Renter/cash Aesthetician/ Receptionist White Unmarried HSStephanie F Renter Massage Therapist White Unmarried HS

1Carlos is a make-up artist and employed on an “under-the-table” commission structure.2Debbie is a booth rental aesthetician, but also works as a part-time receptionist. Her pay for this is either in cash or is deductedfrom the weekly booth rental fee.

*HS = High-school diploma plus cosmetology vocational training; Some = some college courses (no degree); <HS = did notcomplete HS, may have some vocational training.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:50

04

Nov

embe

r 20

15