Deviance Within the Workplace
Sharla Kliebenstein
Soc. 336
Professor Gibson
December 11, 2012
Deviance within the Workplace Scholars from both sociological traditions define deviance using comparisons (Warren, 2003, p. 623). Ultimately, the question “Deviant compared to what?” must be answered in order to assign the label deviant. In order to conduct such behavioral comparison, researchers need to summarize the person’s behavior in some way. Norms serve as this function: they summarize the behavior of the reference group (Warren, 2003, p. 624). The act of deviance occurs every day within workplace organizations all over the United States. There are many types of deviance that can be considered not only by employees but from managerial staff as well. Warren has thus far defined deviance as a departure from norms but clearly states that identifying a departure does not reveal anything about the value or merit of the behavior (2003). Although deviance is mostly considered destructive, it has its constructive characteristics as well. For instance, a departure from workplace harassment norms is not the same thing as a departure from work dress norms. In order to determine if the deviance is constructive or destructive, the deviant behavior must be compared to some measure or standard of what should or ought to happen. It is important that our society has knowledge of deviant acts that take place within the workplace because it could happen to them or someone they know within their own organization. Labeling theory explains more of the conflicting definitions of deviance in the sense that others point out some people to be “deviant” but are falsely accusing them. This paper is going to further explain the many types of workplace deviance as well as way to diminish the problem. There are two streams of research on deviance in the management literature, one on its positive effects and one of its negative effects (Warren, 2003, p. 622). The stream that casts its negative light emphasizes
Soc. 336
Professor Gibson
December 11, 2012
Deviance within the Workplace Scholars from both sociological traditions define deviance using comparisons (Warren, 2003, p. 623). Ultimately, the question “Deviant compared to what?” must be answered in order to assign the label deviant. In order to conduct such behavioral comparison, researchers need to summarize the person’s behavior in some way. Norms serve as this function: they summarize the behavior of the reference group (Warren, 2003, p. 624). The act of deviance occurs every day within workplace organizations all over the United States. There are many types of deviance that can be considered not only by employees but from managerial staff as well. Warren has thus far defined deviance as a departure from norms but clearly states that identifying a departure does not reveal anything about the value or merit of the behavior (2003). Although deviance is mostly considered destructive, it has its constructive characteristics as well. For instance, a departure from workplace harassment norms is not the same thing as a departure from work dress norms. In order to determine if the deviance is constructive or destructive, the deviant behavior must be compared to some measure or standard of what should or ought to happen. It is important that our society has knowledge of deviant acts that take place within the workplace because it could happen to them or someone they know within their own organization. Labeling theory explains more of the conflicting definitions of deviance in the sense that others point out some people to be “deviant” but are falsely accusing them. This paper is going to further explain the many types of workplace deviance as well as way to diminish the problem. There are two streams of research on deviance in the management literature, one on its positive effects and one of its negative effects (Warren, 2003, p. 622). The stream that casts its negative light emphasizes
References: Andersson, L., Pearson, C. (1999) Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace The Academy of Management Review, 24 (3), 452-471 Becker, H. (1963) Labeling Theory Studies in the Sociology of Deviance 39-41. Bolin, A.,Heatherly,L.(2001) Predictors of Employee Deviance: The Relationship between Bad Attitudes and Bad Behavior Henle, C., Giacalone, R., Jurkiewicz, C. (2005) The Role of Ethical Ideology in Workplace Deviance Journal of Business Ethics, 56(3), 219-230. Hollinger, R., Clark, J. (1982) Formal and Informal Social Controls of Employee Deviance The Sociological Quarterly, 23(3), 333-343. Litzky, B., Eddleston, K., Kidder D. 2006) The Good, the Bad, and the Misguided: How Managers Inadvertently Encourage Deviant Behaviors Peterson, D. (2002) Deviant Workplace Behavior and the Organization 's Ethical Climate Journal of Business and Psychology 17(1), 47-61. Robinson, S., Bennett, R. (1995) A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study Schneider, B. (1991) Put up and Shut up: Workplace Sexual AssaultsGender and Society, 5(4) 533-548. Warren, D. (2003) Constructive and Destructive Deviance in Organizations The Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 622-632.