**2.1. Concept of workplace deviance**

According to Wikipedia workplace deviance in group psychology may be described as the deliberate (or intentional) desire to cause harm to an organization—more specifically, a workplace. The concept has become an instrumental component in the field of organizational communication.

But counterproductive work behaviors can be defined as a voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization,

Workplace Deviance Behaviors

27

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75941

Workplace deviance is enacted in a wide variety of forms that can vary from context to con-

According to Robinson and Bennett [8], they identified two dimensions of workplace devi-

*Severity*: The dimension of severity refers to the extent to which the deviant act violates important organizational norms and thus is perceived as more potentially harmful to the organization or its members. Relatively, minor forms of deviance include such behaviors as social loafing and unjustified absenteeism, whereas more severe forms might involve physical aggression or theft. *Target*: The target dimension reflects whether the deviance is directed at the organization or organizational members. Organization-directed deviance might include, for example, vandalism, theft, or sabotage. In contrast, individual-directed deviance might include gossip or physical assault. Although a given act of deviance may harm both targets, organizational members will tend to direct their deviant actions at primarily an individual or an organizational target. Bennett and Robinson [19] proposed two types of workplace deviance as shown in **Figure 1**. The first type, organizational deviance (OD), refers to deviant behaviors targeting the organization such as theft, sabotage, coming to work late without permission, or putting little effort into work; they see property and production deviances as both targeting the organization and labeling this organizational deviance. Conversely, the second type, interpersonal deviance (ID), pertains to deviant acts directed toward individuals in the workplace such as coworkers, supervisors, and subordinates and includes behaviors like making fun of others, playing mean pranks, acting rudely, arguing, and physical aggression; it is from behaviors targeted

For example, as shown in **Figure 1**, (a) production deviance related to offenses such as leaving early without supervisors' permission, promoting or participating in gambling within work premises, transmission or dissemination of obscene pornographic materials, and Internet surfing during work hours pertains to production deviance; (b) property deviance related to offenses such as obtaining office materials without permission, tampering, falsifying or forging of attendance card, and unauthorized use of company equipment pertains to property deviance; (c) political deviance related to offenses such as gossiping and rumor mongering represents political deviance; and (d) personal aggression related to offenses such as making malicious or obscene statements about another employee and acting disrespectfully toward

Interpersonal deviance can occur when misconduct target(s) of specific stakeholders such as coworkers' behavior falling within this subgroup of employee deviance includes gossiping

ance, severity and target; they use multidimensional scaling analysis as follows [18]:

its members, or both ([8], p.556).

text [17].

**2.3. The dimensions of workplace deviance**

against other members of the organization [20].

supervisors pertains to personal deviance [3].

*2.3.1. Interpersonal deviance*

Also, workplace deviance has been defined as a voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization, its members, or both [8].

DeVore (2001) insists that workplace deviance related to any intentional behavior on the part of an organization member is viewed by the organization as divergent and contrary to its valid or legitimate interests. Workplace deviance can be explained as the intentional or planned desire to cause damage to an organization [9].

Neuman and Baron [10] noted that there is much conceptual overlap between workplace deviance and workplace aggression as both involve hostile intent and motive. Despite many similarities, several critical components distinguish deviant behaviors from other constructs. For example, workplace deviant behaviors:


The employees who are abused by their supervisors will be more likely to engage in deviant workplace behaviors, but also not all employees retaliate in deviance [13]; Hollinger's [14] division of deviant work behaviors into property and production deviance recognized distinctions between attacks on organizational processes and attacks on material resources of the organization, but did not recognize deviant behavior with respect to persons.

#### **2.2. Deviant behavior definition**

Deviant behavior may be acceptable or not from the legal standpoint, but, importantly, it contradicts general social norms. For example, verbally abusing a coworker, lying, taking credit for others' work, or unfairly claiming more resources for the self may be legal or not. However, one of its common examples is that these behaviors violate significant societal norms and have the potential to harm others [15].

Robinson and Bennett [8] identified deviant behavior among individuals—interpersonal deviant—as one of the two primary categories of such behavior [16].

But counterproductive work behaviors can be defined as a voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both ([8], p.556).

### **2.3. The dimensions of workplace deviance**

**2. Literature review**

26 Leadership

communication.

bers, or both [8].

**2.1. Concept of workplace deviance**

planned desire to cause damage to an organization [9].

For example, workplace deviant behaviors:

a reflection of the employees' personality.

norms and have the potential to harm others [15].

reaction to experiences at work.

**2.2. Deviant behavior definition**

According to Wikipedia workplace deviance in group psychology may be described as the deliberate (or intentional) desire to cause harm to an organization—more specifically, a workplace. The concept has become an instrumental component in the field of organizational

Also, workplace deviance has been defined as a voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization, its mem-

DeVore (2001) insists that workplace deviance related to any intentional behavior on the part of an organization member is viewed by the organization as divergent and contrary to its valid or legitimate interests. Workplace deviance can be explained as the intentional or

Neuman and Baron [10] noted that there is much conceptual overlap between workplace deviance and workplace aggression as both involve hostile intent and motive. Despite many similarities, several critical components distinguish deviant behaviors from other constructs.

**1.** Are not accidental, but instead voluntary and motivated; deviance is conceptualized as a

**2.** Violate norms established by leaders of the organization; therefore, deviance happened as

**3.** Can be targeted at organizational members or at the organization itself; therefore, the devi-

The employees who are abused by their supervisors will be more likely to engage in deviant workplace behaviors, but also not all employees retaliate in deviance [13]; Hollinger's [14] division of deviant work behaviors into property and production deviance recognized distinctions between attacks on organizational processes and attacks on material resources of the

Deviant behavior may be acceptable or not from the legal standpoint, but, importantly, it contradicts general social norms. For example, verbally abusing a coworker, lying, taking credit for others' work, or unfairly claiming more resources for the self may be legal or not. However, one of its common examples is that these behaviors violate significant societal

Robinson and Bennett [8] identified deviant behavior among individuals—interpersonal

ance happened as adaptation to the social context at work [11, 12].

organization, but did not recognize deviant behavior with respect to persons.

deviant—as one of the two primary categories of such behavior [16].

Workplace deviance is enacted in a wide variety of forms that can vary from context to context [17].

According to Robinson and Bennett [8], they identified two dimensions of workplace deviance, severity and target; they use multidimensional scaling analysis as follows [18]:

*Severity*: The dimension of severity refers to the extent to which the deviant act violates important organizational norms and thus is perceived as more potentially harmful to the organization or its members. Relatively, minor forms of deviance include such behaviors as social loafing and unjustified absenteeism, whereas more severe forms might involve physical aggression or theft.

*Target*: The target dimension reflects whether the deviance is directed at the organization or organizational members. Organization-directed deviance might include, for example, vandalism, theft, or sabotage. In contrast, individual-directed deviance might include gossip or physical assault. Although a given act of deviance may harm both targets, organizational members will tend to direct their deviant actions at primarily an individual or an organizational target.

Bennett and Robinson [19] proposed two types of workplace deviance as shown in **Figure 1**. The first type, organizational deviance (OD), refers to deviant behaviors targeting the organization such as theft, sabotage, coming to work late without permission, or putting little effort into work; they see property and production deviances as both targeting the organization and labeling this organizational deviance. Conversely, the second type, interpersonal deviance (ID), pertains to deviant acts directed toward individuals in the workplace such as coworkers, supervisors, and subordinates and includes behaviors like making fun of others, playing mean pranks, acting rudely, arguing, and physical aggression; it is from behaviors targeted against other members of the organization [20].

For example, as shown in **Figure 1**, (a) production deviance related to offenses such as leaving early without supervisors' permission, promoting or participating in gambling within work premises, transmission or dissemination of obscene pornographic materials, and Internet surfing during work hours pertains to production deviance; (b) property deviance related to offenses such as obtaining office materials without permission, tampering, falsifying or forging of attendance card, and unauthorized use of company equipment pertains to property deviance; (c) political deviance related to offenses such as gossiping and rumor mongering represents political deviance; and (d) personal aggression related to offenses such as making malicious or obscene statements about another employee and acting disrespectfully toward supervisors pertains to personal deviance [3].

#### *2.3.1. Interpersonal deviance*

Interpersonal deviance can occur when misconduct target(s) of specific stakeholders such as coworkers' behavior falling within this subgroup of employee deviance includes gossiping

**2.4. Negative effects of workplace deviance**

broad to narrow variables and their relative merit [24].

pay employees who are not working efficiently.

ity constructs, are causes of workplace deviant behaviors [34].

**2.5. Causes of workplace deviance**

and performance at work [30].

Organizations stand to lose millions of dollars through employees' theft and sabotages. Those employees who are targets of workplace deviance are more likely forced to quit, suffer stress-

Workplace Deviance Behaviors

29

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75941

Researchers have found that employee thefts resulted in a loss of between five and ten billion dollars annually and all forms of deviance together accounted for approximately \$40 billion [5]. Accordingly, minimizing losses associated with workplace deviance is a priority for the current research and practice, yet few studies in this area have made any comprehensive comparison of

Organizational deviance also extracts a significant human cost, employee performance,

Deviant workplace behavior has accounted for a tremendous amount of revenue loss and even more permanent damage to a workplace environment. As an example, \$4.2 billion in legal expenses and decreased productivity were lost in 1992 [26]. Other costs include insurance losses, tarnished reputations and public relations expenses, lost repeat business, worker compensation, and increased turnover [27]. Workplace deviance causes enormous social and economic losses to organizations and their members [28]. It is costly for an organization to

Researchers on the nature and causes of workplace deviance have identified organizational justice as a significant predictor of deviance [29]. Organizational justice related to employees' perceptions of fairness in the workplace has a significant influence on individuals' motivation

If such individuals feel abused or unfairly treated, they will be more likely to engage in deviant behavior directed toward the organization in general and sometimes toward the offending manager or other employees [31]. Managers may try to limit employees' sensitivity and negative affective and behavioral reactions to mistreatment by providing subordinates with feedback in a respectful and constructive manner as well as opportunities to utilize and develop their skills and other competencies [32], because employees refrain from responding to perceived mistreatment with acts of deviance when they hold lower power positions relative to the perpetrator [33]. Studies have identified that organizational factors such as job stressors, organizational frustration, lack of control over the work environment, weak sanctions for rule violations, and organizational changes such as downsizing are causes of workplace deviance; also, studies have shown that individual employees' personality, for example, socialization and impulsiv-

Based on a self-determination theory perspective, the negative effects of abusive supervision on organizational deviance should lie in abusive supervision's ability to threaten the fundamental

related problems, have decreased productivity, low morale, and lose work time [23].

morale, and well-being which are all impacted by such deviant behaviors [25].

**Figure 1.** A typology of workplace deviance. Source: Lawrence and Robinson [18].

about coworkers and assigning blame to them. These minor (but unhealthy) behaviors, directed at others, are believed to occur as some employees perceive a sense of entitlement often associated with exploitation. In other words, they feel the need to misbehave in ways that will benefit them [21].

#### *2.3.2. Organizational deviance*

Deviant behavior typically aimed directly at the organization is often referred to as organizational deviance. Organizational deviance encompasses production and property deviance. Workplace deviant behavior may be expressed as tardiness or excessive absenteeism. These behaviors have been cited by some researchers as withdraw behaviors; such behaviors allow employees to withdraw physically and emotionally from the organization [22].

#### *2.3.3. Production deviance*

All behaviors in which deviant employees partake ultimately have a negative impact on the overall productivity of the organization. For this reason, all are considered production deviance. Production deviance is the behavior that violates formally the prescribed organizational norms with respect to minimal quality and quantity of work to be accomplished as part of one's job [21].

#### *2.3.4. Property deviance*

A more serious case of deviant behavior harmful to an organization concern is property deviance. Property deviance is where employees either damage or acquire tangible assets without authorization [21]. This type of deviance typically involves theft but may include sabotage, intentional errors in work, and misusing expense accounts [22].

#### **2.4. Negative effects of workplace deviance**

Organizations stand to lose millions of dollars through employees' theft and sabotages. Those employees who are targets of workplace deviance are more likely forced to quit, suffer stressrelated problems, have decreased productivity, low morale, and lose work time [23].

Researchers have found that employee thefts resulted in a loss of between five and ten billion dollars annually and all forms of deviance together accounted for approximately \$40 billion [5]. Accordingly, minimizing losses associated with workplace deviance is a priority for the current research and practice, yet few studies in this area have made any comprehensive comparison of broad to narrow variables and their relative merit [24].

Organizational deviance also extracts a significant human cost, employee performance, morale, and well-being which are all impacted by such deviant behaviors [25].

Deviant workplace behavior has accounted for a tremendous amount of revenue loss and even more permanent damage to a workplace environment. As an example, \$4.2 billion in legal expenses and decreased productivity were lost in 1992 [26]. Other costs include insurance losses, tarnished reputations and public relations expenses, lost repeat business, worker compensation, and increased turnover [27]. Workplace deviance causes enormous social and economic losses to organizations and their members [28]. It is costly for an organization to pay employees who are not working efficiently.

#### **2.5. Causes of workplace deviance**

about coworkers and assigning blame to them. These minor (but unhealthy) behaviors, directed at others, are believed to occur as some employees perceive a sense of entitlement often associated with exploitation. In other words, they feel the need to misbehave in ways

Deviant behavior typically aimed directly at the organization is often referred to as organizational deviance. Organizational deviance encompasses production and property deviance. Workplace deviant behavior may be expressed as tardiness or excessive absenteeism. These behaviors have been cited by some researchers as withdraw behaviors; such behaviors allow

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

A more serious case of deviant behavior harmful to an organization concern is property deviance. Property deviance is where employees either damage or acquire tangible assets without authorization [21]. This type of deviance typically involves theft but may include sabotage,

intentional errors in work, and misusing expense accounts [22].

employees to withdraw physically and emotionally from the organization [22].

**Figure 1.** A typology of workplace deviance. Source: Lawrence and Robinson [18].

that will benefit them [21].

28 Leadership

*2.3.2. Organizational deviance*

*2.3.3. Production deviance*

one's job [21].

*2.3.4. Property deviance*

Researchers on the nature and causes of workplace deviance have identified organizational justice as a significant predictor of deviance [29]. Organizational justice related to employees' perceptions of fairness in the workplace has a significant influence on individuals' motivation and performance at work [30].

If such individuals feel abused or unfairly treated, they will be more likely to engage in deviant behavior directed toward the organization in general and sometimes toward the offending manager or other employees [31]. Managers may try to limit employees' sensitivity and negative affective and behavioral reactions to mistreatment by providing subordinates with feedback in a respectful and constructive manner as well as opportunities to utilize and develop their skills and other competencies [32], because employees refrain from responding to perceived mistreatment with acts of deviance when they hold lower power positions relative to the perpetrator [33].

Studies have identified that organizational factors such as job stressors, organizational frustration, lack of control over the work environment, weak sanctions for rule violations, and organizational changes such as downsizing are causes of workplace deviance; also, studies have shown that individual employees' personality, for example, socialization and impulsivity constructs, are causes of workplace deviant behaviors [34].

Based on a self-determination theory perspective, the negative effects of abusive supervision on organizational deviance should lie in abusive supervision's ability to threaten the fundamental psychological needs of the subordinate. By definition, abusive supervision encompasses behaviors which are likely to negatively impact an individual's basic psychological needs [35].
