Decoding Workplace Deviance: Interpersonal and Organizational Dimensions and Their Correlates

Key Points:

1. Costing organizations billions of dollars in lost productivity and other expenses, deviant workplace behaviours are harmful not only to employees but also to organizations at large.

2. Workplace deviance is distinct from counterproductive workplace behaviour with the key distinction being that workplace deviance includes specific negative work behaviours.

3. Workplace deviance can be further divided into interpersonal deviance, which is strongly correlated with traits like agreeableness (negative correlation), negative affectivity, and hostility, and organizational deviance, which is strongly correlated with conscientiousness (negative correlation), psychological contract violation, and moral disengagement.

Organizational norms are established rules that ensure the smooth functioning of organizations. When those norms are violated, the organization’s well-being and productivity are threatened. Think about your current workplace, if it is a culture in which there is theft of equipment, gossip, verbal abuse, and harassment, would you want to stay at that company? Chances are, you would leave and never look back. Workplace deviance refers to specific types of negative workplace behaviours that violate organizational norms.

Why would anyone want to engage in workplace deviance? Social psychology suggests employees might engage in such behaviours as a means to right a wrong. For example, if one perceives an injustice in their workplace, they might be more likely to act in deviant ways to balance the scales (Holtz & Harold, 2013). Additionally, employees may turn to workplace deviance to regain a sense of personal control. For example, if one has an abusive supervisor, they may engage in deviant behaviours to feel more in control (Zellars et al., 2002). In contrast, people may also engage in these behaviours when they have high autonomy and their resources (i.e., emotional exhaustion) are threatened. To answer the question, these negative workplace behaviours are often a response to feeling wronged or as a way to restore one’s resources.

It is no surprise that workplace deviance is not something any organization strives for. Given the profound adverse effects of workplace deviance, both to employees and organizations, workplace deviance has been a critical area of study in the field of organizational behaviour. However, due to the proliferation of research on this topic, cohesion was lacking leading to an incomplete understanding of the measurement and magnitude of the relationships of workplace deviance. Thus, using novel meta-analytic techniques, and focusing on interpersonal and organizational workplace deviance, Mackey et al. (2019) attempt to fill in the gaps and provide new insights to advance the field.

A closer look into workplace deviance

Before we get into what workplace deviance is all about, it is worth starting off with an understanding of counterproductive work behaviour (CWB). CWB refers to workplace actions and behaviours that intentionally harm the organization and its members. CWB has multiple and distinct subsets, one of which is workplace deviance. Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) work was the foundation for workplace deviance, developing a typology that distinctly characterized workplace deviance from CWB. Workplace deviance can be further characterized by its targets (interpersonal and organizational) and severities (minor and serious).

For a closer look into the workplace deviance Mackey (2019) conducted a random effects meta analysis study spanning 156 interpersonal and 206 organizational research studies. The research Mackey et al. suggest that interpersonal and organizational deviance behaviours are strongly related. Factors (i.e., age, gender, job tenure, workplace fairness perceptions) typically expected to play a role in shaping attitudes and behaviours were actually weak to moderate predictors. Traits that were strong predictors for interpersonal deviance include low agreeableness, those who tend to focus on negative emotions (i.e., sadness, anger, and anxiety) and hostility. On the other hand, organizational deviance was predicted by low conscientiousness, those who felt their psychological contract with the employer was violated and moral disengagement (i.e., justifying unethical behaviours). Negative treatment from other organizational members, for example, abusive supervision, was a strong predictor for both types of deviance.

Takeaways for your practice

One size doesn’t fit all. All negative workplace behaviours have detrimental consequences for organizations, but different types of deviance may be related but are distinct. While one may identify employees engaging in one type of deviance, that does not mean that employees are engaging in all types of deviance. Additionally, generalizations about characteristics and traits that may identify which employees may engage in workplace deviance should be avoided.

Personality assessments can be utilized. Given that agreeableness and conscientiousness are associated with lower workplace deviance, hiring managers may benefit from using personality assessments to screen for such traits during the hiring process.

HR may also want to develop clear codes of conduct that outline organizational policies and expected behaviours, and clearly communicate this to all employees. To maintain positive work environments, it is important to tailor interventions for different types of deviance. For example, organizational deviance may involve reinforcing organizational policies, whereas interpersonal deviance may require conflict resolution training. This tailored approach ensures that interventions are effective in eliminating deviant behaviours.

While this article sheds some light on the relationships of organizational and interpersonal deviance, it also lays the foundation for future research in this field. We look forward to new discoveries on harmful workplace behaviours and effective strategies for avoiding them.

Trustworthiness score:

The trustworthiness of the study is high (80%). This means there is a 20% chance that alternative explanations for the effects found are possible.

Learn how we critically appraise studies to assign them a Trustworthiness Score

We aim to provide you only the best available scientific evidence to inform your decisions.

Did you like this article? share it with your network by clicking on the buttons below!

Follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and subscribe to our newsletter to receive all the quality of scientific research in less than 1000 words!

References

Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2013). Interpersonal justice and deviance: The moderating effects of interpersonal justice values and justice orientation. Journal of Management, 39(2), 339-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310390049

Mackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., Ellen, B. P., & Carson, J. E. (2021). A meta-analysis of interpersonal and organizational workplace deviance research. Journal of Management, 47(3), 597–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319862612

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572. https://doi.org/10.5465/256693

Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068–1076. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1068

You can find the original article here!