misbehavior in organizations: a motivational frameworkhome.ubalt.edu/ntygmitc/642/articles...

Misbehavior in Organizations:A Motivational Framework

Yoav Vardi • Yoash WienerDepartment of Management and Labor Relations, College of Business Administration,

Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio 44115

Yoav Vardi is on leave from Tel Aviv University.

M y reason for accepting this paper is well reflected in a commenl from one of its reviewers: Thispaper " . . . tackles an area that is long overdue for some conceptual clarification, theoretical

development and empirical research. I hope that publishing this piece will start a burst of research onthis neglected and important topic."

The thinking and resultant framework presented in this paper by Yoav Vardi and Yoash Wienerprovide us with a sense of the research possibilities such an approach might engender in the study oforganizational misbehaviour. Their definitions help us tease out some of the complexities of thisphenomenon. Their framework is presented in a form that allows for rigorous testing. The proposi-tions stated are suggestive of some of the interesting questions about misbehaviour that could beinvestigated in an effort to better understand why misbehaviour occurs and what its consequencesmight be for individuals, organizations and societies. My hope, like that of the reviewer is that thepaper will motivate some thoughtful research on the topic.

Peter Frost

AbstractObservers of organizations recognize now that work relatedmisconduct is both pervasive and costly. There is ampleevidence that members of organizations sabotage processes,steal company property, harass others, cheat the government,or mislead customers. Companies and the public pay dearly.

What are the motivational forces that drive organizationalmemhers to exhibit such varied forms of misconduct? Arethese forces different from those that drive them to engage inconstructive behavior? What kinds of personal and organiza-tional factors influence such acts of intentional misbehavior?

Our basic objectives in this paper are three-fold; first, toformally define a new construct of Organizational Misbehav-ior (OMB), and to discuss the theoretical implications of thetletinition; second, to identify different types of OMB; andthird, to develop a conceptual framework that would allowthe inclusion of OMB in a comprehensive theory of workmotivation, applicable to both proper and improper conduct.

We define Organizational Misbehavior as "any intentionalaction by members of organizations that violates core organi-zational and/or societal norms." A crucial element in thedefinition is the intention underlying the misbehavior. Ittherefore serves as the basis for the distinction among three

types of organizational misbehavior; (a) OMB Type S. misbe-havior that intends to benefit the self; (b) OMB Type O,misbehavior that intends to benefit the organization: and(c) OMB Type D, misbehavior that intends to inflict damage.

ln order to Integrate these forms of misconduct within acomprehensive motivational framework, we use the distinc-tion between normative and instrumental sources of motiva-tion. We propose that people who engage in OMB Type Sare primarily motivated by self-interest consideration (i.e.,instrumental processes), whereas those that perpetrate OMBType O do so mostly because of strong identification withand loyalty to their organization (i.e.. normative processes).OMB Type D, however, may be triggered by either instru-mental or normative forces, or by both at the same time.

The various instrumental and normative factors that influ-ence misbehavior are not only personal; they can also beorganizational. On the individual level, we refer to suchfactors as the stage of moral development and personal needsatisfaction. At the organization level, we examine the role ofsuch factors as organization culture and cohesiveness. Wefinally use the instrumental-normative framework to derive aset of formal propositions about the effects of some of thesefactors on the form and intensity of OMB.

I047-7039/%/0702/0151/S01.25Copyright S' I'Wii. Insiituttf fur Opiiralions Researchiind rhe Management Soiences ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VO1. 7, No. 2. March-April 1996 151

YOAV VARDI AND YOASH WIKNER Misbehavior in Organizations

We hope that such propositions and the theoretical frame-work presented here, will be helpful in furthering our under-standing of behavior in organizations, both "good"and "bad."{Misbehavior, Intentional Behavior, Nonnatiue Forces;Instrumental Forces)

IntroductionOrganization scientists and practitioners are increas-ingly becoming more aware that patterns of work-related misconduct by members of organizations areprevalent, and that their consequences for work orga-nizations are significant. Moreover, over the years,researchers from most social science disciplines (e.g.,psychology, sociology, social psychology, criminology,management), have studied related phenomena andinterpreted them from a variety of perspectives. Thesemisbehaviors range from a mere breach or violation ofpsychological contracts (Kotter 1973, Rousseau 1989)to blatant acts bordering on criminal activity perpe-trated against others and organizations (Henry 1978,Hollinger 1979). Such forms of misconduct appear tobe universal. Most members of work organizations, itappears, engage in some form of misbehavior that isrelated to their work, albeit in varying degrees ofintensity, severity and frequency. In fact, misbehavior isnot restricted to certain employees; it has beenrecorded for both nonsupervisory and managerialmembers of different types of work organizations. Notsurprisingly, then, both the economic and social costsof many forms of work- and organization-related mis-behavior may, indeed, be quite substantial (e.g.,Greenberg 1990, Murphy 1993).

Researchers have, in recent years, provided ampleevidence for the large variety of such behaviors, andsome examples may illustrate this wealth. Greenberg(1990) recently conducted a study of and reviewed theliterature on employee theft, and Analoui andKakabadse (1992) reported a longitudinal study of un-conventional practices at work. Hollinger (1986)reviewed a considerable body of sociological and psy-chological literature on counterproductive behavior inorganizations. Trevino (1986) discussed important con-tributions to management ethics, and Braithwaite(1985) extensively reviewed white-collar crime. In fact,the growing interest in specific events or phenomenasuch as whistle-blowing (Miceli and Near 1992), profes-sional deviant behavior (Raelin 1986), concealing perti-nent information (Reimann and Wiener 1988a),substance abuse (Trice and Sonnenstuhl 1988), sexualharassment at work (Gutek 1985), or even vandalism

(DeMore et al. 1988), only underscores the need tobetter understand this "darker" side of organizationallife.

Our review of the literature seems to demonstratethat misconduct in organizations has not only beenviewed as pervasive, but, for the most part, as inten-tional work-related behavior. It also establishes that, atthe same time, we may lack a systematic approach tothe understanding of such behavior. Based on theseobservations, we develop in this paper a conceptualframework which assumes that misbehaviors in organi-zations differ and vary, and that members commit suchacts intentionally. We will elaborate on these funda-mental arguments in further sections.

Treatment of Misbehavior in Behavioral SciencesSeveral attempts to systematize the treatment of phe-nomena related to organizational misbehavior havebeen reported in the past. Hollinger (1986) observedthat sociological research on employee misbehavior(defined as deviance) has centered around two foci:''Production deviance" and "Property deviance." Whileboth constitute rule-breaking behavior, the first in-cludes various types of behavior that are counter-productive (e.g., substandard work, slowdowns, insub-ordination), and the second category pertains to actsagainst property and assets of the organization (e.g.,theft, pilferage, embezzlement, vandalism). Hollinger(1986) employed Hirschi's "social bonding" model toidentify antecedents for both types of misbehavior.Based on empirical analysis he concluded that suchindividual acts are more likely to occur when individualattachment (e.g., commitment) to an organization islow. Other antecedents that were found to affect "pro-ductivity deviance" are mostly related to group andpeer pressures (e.g., Zey-Ferrell and Ferrell 1982),maladjustment (Raelin 1986), increased competitivepressures (Hegarty and Sims 1978), or disagreementwith organizational goals and expectations (e.g.,Gouldner 1954). Antecedents contributing to "prop-erty deviance", such as theft, tnay be feelings of injus-tice or exploitation (Hollinger and Clark 1982. 1983;Mars 1974), attempts to ease personal financial pres-sures (Merton 1938), moral laxity (Merriam 1977),available opportunities (Astor 1972), dissatisfactionwith work (Mangioni and Quinn 1975), perceptions ofpay inequity (Greenberg 1990), and feelings of frustra-tion (Analoui and Kakabadse 1992). Similarly, vandal-ism, as property deviancy, was found to be associatedwith perceptions of inequity and mistreatment(DeMore et al. 1988).

152 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2. Mareh-April 1996

YOAV VARHI AND YOASH WIENER Misbehavior in Organizations

Another major attempt to systematically deal withorganizational misbehavior has been undertaken byTrevino (1986, 1992). Her focus is the interaction be-tween personality and situational factors in determin-ing ethical or unethical decisions among managers inorganizations. In Trevino's model the individual levelvariables are the stage of moral development, egostrength, field dependence, and locus of control. Thesituational variables are the immediate job context, theorganization culture, and characteristics of the work.Although the dependent variable (ethical/unethicalbehavior) is not formally defined. Trevino's work offersan extensive set of interactional propositions articulat-ing specific predictions about unethical decisions andactions. Moreover, Trevino and Youngblood (1990)recently reported using hypothetical dilemmas in anexperiment that provided partial empirical support forthe multiplc-intlucncc model of managerial unethicaldecision making.

The present article offers a motivational frameworkof organizational misbehavior that is consistent withand expands Hollinger's and Trevino's contributions.However, it departs from previous work primarily inthree respects. First, it offers a comprehensive defini-ti(m of a new construct—Organizationai MisBehavior(OMB)—which is inclusive of the various wrong-doingsand counter-normative behaviors dealt with in pastliterature. Second, it develops a general typology ofdifferent types of OMB that allows for integration ofprevious notions. Third, and most importantly, it ap-plies and expands an overall normative-instrumentalmodel of work motivation to explain and predict differ-ent types of organizational misbehavior. This, integra-tion, in turn, will allow predictions of both positive andnegative forms of organizational behavior.

Toward a Deflnition of OMBDefinitions of behavio!^ that are considered as OMBmay lake a variety of approaches and properties de-pending on theoretical positions concerning (a) thecriterion or yardstick against which OMB is deter-mined, (b) the agent or agents who decide what consti-tutes OMB, and (c) the personal and organizationalconsequences of OMB. The position that our paperlakes concerning these requirements is guided by onemain principle: the resulting definition should be broadenough to integrate various types of misbehavior, yetcapable of providing a foundation for a constructiveand explanatory model of OMB. Consistent with thisguideline we selected the concepts of values and normsas the criterion determining OMB, and viewed both

society at large and the organization as the definingagents. Since consequences of OMB can vary in differ-ent situations (e.g., functional or dysfunctional; nega-tive or positive; short term or long term), we did notinclude them in the definition itself but, rather, as adependent variable in the overall model.

ORGANIZATIONAL MISBEHAVIOR (OMB) is defmedhere as any intentional action by members of organiza-tions that defies and violates (a) shared organizationalnorms and expectations, and/or (b) core societal val-ues, mores and standards of proper conduct. Severalelements of the definition require further elaboration.First, since the violation of "organizational norms andvalues" is the fundamental component in definingOMB, we must clarify what is meant by the con.struct"organization" in this context. Recognizing that mostwork organizations are complex social entities, oftencomprising multiple subunits and constituencies, theterm "organization" does not convey a determinateentity. Rather, it represents the relevant unit of choiceof an investigator, a manager, or a consultant inter-ested in the phenomenon of OMB. They may, depend-ing on their perspectives and special interests, refer toa work organization as a whole, or to any significantsector within it. such as a Strategic Business Unit. Theimportant point is that explicit choices of the identityof the unit of interest must be made in order toidentify the relevant core values against which a viola-tion (and therefore OMB), may occur. Thus, through-out the paper, whenever the term "organization" isused, it should convey exactly this meaning.

Second, both overt action and its underlying inten-tion are necessary to identify misbehavior; to defineOMB without its underlying intention will result inincluding misbehavior that is unintentional or acciden-tal. Hence, work-related aetions that involve errors,mistakes, or even unconscious negligence and action-slips (e.g., a harmful mistake in a surgical procedurethat is committed unintentionally) do not con.stituteOMB, despite their similar consequences in organiza-tional as well as personal terms.

Third, the level of analysis is the individual ratherthan the group or the organization. Even though it ispossible to apply the concept of OMB to misbehaviorby groups (e.g., see Trice and Beyer, 1993, on deviantorganizational subcultures) or by organizations (e.g.,see Baucus and Near, 1991, on illegal corporate behav-ior), we focus here on individuals who are intention-ally, actually and directly involved in some form ofmisbehavior. This is principally because the present

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2, March-April 1996 153

YOAV VARDI AND YOASH WIENER Misbehavior in Orgatiizatioiu

model proposes the role of individual motivation as asource of OMB. Fourth, values and norms pertain toboth formal (laws, rules and regulations, standardoperating procedures, etc.) and informal social expec-tations. Last, and significantly, the definition acknowl-edges the importance of both internal (intraorgani-zational) and external (societal) value systems indetermining OMB.

Values and Norms: A General ViewBecause the concept of values is a central componentin the analysis of OMB, a definition of the conceptitself is necessary, ln the social literature there areserious inconsistencies in the definition of value and inthe distinctions between value and related constructssuch as attitude, belief, and norm. Nevertheless, cer-tain formulations that allow operational definitions andmeasurement have gained a fair degree of acceptance(see, for example, discussions by Brown, 1976; Fallding,1965; Meglino et al. 1986). One such definition byRokeach (1973, p. 5) states that "a value is an enduringbelief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state ofexistence is personally or socially preferable to anopposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state ofexistence." In this definition values are viewed as formsof beliefs, and a major source of these values may besocial expectations, particularly when they are shared.Thus, social values may indeed be viewed as normativebeUefs complementing instrumental beliefs as an-tecedents of behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Fur-ther, values can be construed as internalized normativebeliefs; once established, they may act as built-in nor-mative guides for behavior, independent from the ef-fect of rewards and punishments that are consequencesof actions (Wiener 1982).

Rokeach's definition suggests that values shared bygroup members, particularly values concerning modesof conduct, become similar to norms guiding memberstoward uniformity in behavior. Others (e.g., Kilman1985), however, distinguish between norms as morespecific and often more explicit behavioral expecta-tions, and values that are broader in scope than norms.(For thorough discussions on organizational value sys-tems consult Wiener, 1988, and on societal level valuesconsult Rokeach, 1973). The above analysis of theconcepts of values and norms applies to various typesof social units, including the two most congruous withthe definition of OMB: work organizations and societyat large.

OMB: Dennitional ImplicationsThe definition of OMB, as suggested above, implies

four important features or attributes that seem usefulfor the construction of an integrative model, the mea-surement of variables, and the derivation of relevantpredictions. We discuss these implications in the fol-lowing sections.

Broadness of Scope of OMB. A basic implication ofthe definition is that a behavior does not have toviolate both societal and organizational values in orderto be identified as OMB. While such behaviors are notuncommon (e.g., unauthorized use of company prop-erty), it would be theoretically too narrow and notconstructive to limit OMB to jus! such acts. Accordingto the proposed definition, a behavior which may beconsistent with organizational expectations but violatessocietal values (e.g., misleading customers), would beconsidered OMB in our model. Such organizationallycondoned misbehaviors may be detrimental in the longrun. Similarly, member behavior that is consistent withsocietal values but violates organizational expectationswould be classified as OMB as well (e.g., whistle-blow-ing in an organization that does not sanction such abehavior). Unaccepted behaviors such as these may,however, be beneficial to organizalions in the long run.We deem this kind of definitional broadness as essen-tial in any attempt to construct an integrative andinclusive model of organizational misbehavior. It alsoprovides a solid basis for a meaningful typology ofmisbehaviors that, in and of itself, would be useful inthe overall understanding and prediction of organiza-tional outcomes.

OMB: Is It "Good'' or ''Badn A second feature ofthe definition is that it does not necessarily equatenorm and value violation with negative and undesirablebehavior. For one thing, the definition itself does notmake any references to consequences of OMB. Sec-ondly, the desirability of any value-breaking behavior isinherently, by definition, a judgmental matter. In gen-eral, a value-violating behavior would be deemed "un-desirable" by a collective of individuals holding thatvalue, but may be seen "desirable" by another collec-tive for which this behavior meets expectations. Thus,again, cheating customers may be evaluated as undesir-able by members of society at large, but quite accept-able in a particular organizational setting. By the sametoken, whistle-blowing may be viewed as commendableaction by members of society at large, but unacceptablein a context of a particular organization.

Results of OMB. While the proposed definition doesnot allow attribution of inherent, absolute value to

154 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2, March-April 1996

YOAV VARDI AND YOASH WIENER Misbehavior in Organizations

OMB, the consequences of OMB may be evaluated asto their degree of constructiveness for any given orga-nization. The basic premise is that an organization maynot be successful, in the long run, if it expects, or evenallows, members to violate values of the larger societywithin which it operates. Thus, using the same exam-ples of misbehavior, cheating customers would tend, inthe long run, to be detrimental to organizations thatallow it, but whistle-blowing may prove constructive(Miceli and Near 1994). OMB that simultaneously vio-lates both societal and organizational values, such asharassing members, sabotaging work, or vandalizingequipment, is clearly destructive in its consequences.

OMB as a Variable. Since OMB is defined in rela-tion to a set of core values of a particular social unit,and since such core values can be measured, OMBitself can be considered a variable. Moreover, becauseof the complex phenomenon it may tap. OMB shouldbe treated as a multidimensional variable. Such anapproach is not only useful for improved precision ofthe model, but is necessary for generating significantpredictions about the phenomenon. In general, then,OMB may range from a low (benign) degree of misbe-havior to a high (severe) degree of misbehavior, andthe measurement may take two forms: behavioral andattitudinal.

The behavioral aspect of OMB can be measuredusing frequency counts of acts of misbehavior withrespect to a given organizational unit, or with respectto individual members. This frequency measure canalso be weighted by an index of severity of the ob-served misbehavior. Such an index may be comprisedof two facets: (a) the centrality of the violated norm orvalue (for proposals related to the measurement of thecentrality of a core value see, for example, Wiener,1988), and (b) the degree of premeditation, preoccupa-tion or planning seemingly involved in displaying themisbehavior. A second measure of OMB (attitudinal)may tap the individual's strength of the intention, pre-disposition, or propensity to engage in work- and orga-nization-related misconduct. Although people tend tobe quite reluctant to openly express intentions to mis-behave, measures might be operationally developed ina questionnaire form, for example.

Such multifaceted indices {behavioral and attitudi-nal) are used by OB researchers to measure specificwork behaviors about which individuals are hesitant toreport as withdrawal behavior (e.g., actual incidents ofturnover and intentions to leave the organization), ororganizational citizenship behavior (e.g., actual altruis-tic deeds and pro-social attitudes). Indeed, using both

actual and attitudinal observations may facilitate amore meaningful classification of the misbehavior phe-nomenon.

Basic Types of OMBAn examination of a broad range of instances of normviolating behaviors would suggest that all such actionscan be classified into three basic types in terms of theunderlying intention of the misbehaving individual:

(a) Misbehaviors that are intended to benefit the self(OMB Type S). These misbehaviors are mostly internalto the organization, and usually victimize the employ-ing organization or its members. Thus, such behaviorsmay have three categories of internal targets: (1) thework itself (e.g., distorting data); (2) the organization'sproperty, resources, symbols or regulations (e.g., steal-ing and selling manufacturing secrets); and (3) othermembers (e.g., harassing peers). An exception to theabove is a behavior by a member that appears tobenefit the organization (e.g., overcharging customers),but is, in fact, intended to eventually benefit the indi-vidual (e.g., gaining a promotion).

(b) Misbehaviors that primarily intend to benefit themember's employing organization as a whole (OMBType O). Those misbehaviors (e.g., falsifying records inorder to improve chances of obtaining a contract forthe organization), are mostly external in nature, usuallydirected toward outside "victims" such as other organi-zations, social institutions, public agencies, or cus-tomers. If the intention underlying this form of behav-ior is not primarily to benefit the organization, but isself-serving (e.g., for career considerations), it shouldnot be classified as OMB Type O. More likely, thiswould be OMB Type S.

(c) Misbehaviors that primarily intend to inflict dam-age and be destructive (OMB Type D). Targets ofthese behaviors could be as listed above, both internaland external. Whereas the intentions underlying TypeS and Type O misbehaviors are to benefit either theindividual or the organization, the intention behindOMB Type D is to hurt others or the organization.Such intentional misbehaviors (e.g., sabotaging com-pany-owned equipment) may be perpetrated by mem-bers either on their own initiative (e.g., as a revenge ora response to perceived or actual mistreatment), or onbehalf of "significant others" (e.g., interfering withorganizationai operations to comply with Union's ex-pectations). However, the underlying intention must beto cause some type of damage whether minor or con-siderable, subtle or visible.

While the above classification of OMB types is basedon an internal psychological state (intentions), it seems



that the classifying task itself should not be highlysubjective; in most cases, the proper classificationshould be fairly accurately derived from the overtmisbehavior itself. As a rule, when more than oneintention seem to underlie an act of OMB and whenobservations yield equivocal data, the intention consid-ered as predominant would determine the classifica-tion. Again, we emphasize, the "'intention" principlewhich is at the core of the OMB classification isnecessary for the analysis of OMB within a motiva-tional framework. We therefore elaborate on this re-quirement in the following section.

Theoretical FoundationsThe present conception of OMB is predicated on therole of norms and values in guiding behavior of organi-zational members. Willful violation of such expecta-tions (norms and values) constitutes misbehavior.Therefore, mainstream OB paradigms that make dis-tinctions between normative, value-based processes,and instrumental-ealculative ones In determining indi-vidual behavior in organizations might be also useful asa basis for a model of individual misbehavior. One suchparadigm that has been effectively used in the litera-ture to explain determinants of individual behavior, isFishbein and Ajzen"s behavioral intentions theory(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975).

The Fishbein and Ajzen ModelThis modol deals primarily with the prediction andunderstanding of behavioral intentions. It hypothesizesthat an individual's behavior is a function of the inten-tion to perform that behavior. A person's behavioralintention, in turn, is determined by two basic factors:(a) the attitude toward performing the act, that is,person's evaluation or affect with respect to the act,and (b) the subjective norm, i.e., perception of thetotality of the normative pressures concerning the be-havior. The first component—the person's attitude to-ward performing a particular act—is a function ofbeliefs concerning the consequences ofthe act and thevalue ofthe consequences for the person. These can bereferred to as instrumental-cognitive beliefs. The sec-ond component, the subjective norm, is a function of aperson's beliefs about what important referents thinkhe or she should do. weighted by motivation to complywith them. Such referents may include significant oth-ers, a particular reference group, or society at large. Inaddition, several researchers (e.g., Fishbein 1967,Jaccard and Davidson 1975, Pomazal and Jaccard 1976,Schwartz and Tessler 1972) have suggested that the

subjective norm is determined not only by social nor-mative beliefs (i.e., a person's beliefs of how othersexpect him or her to act), but also by personal norma-tive beliefs, that is, personal moral standards concern-ing a behavior. Personal moral standards (e.g., Jones1991) concerning a particular mode of conduct areestablished when a person internalizes expectations ofothers concerning this behavior. These determinants ofthe subjective norm can be termed "internalized sub-jective beliefs." When behavioral acts are guided bysuch internalized pressures, they are no longer depen-dent on their linkage with the reinforcements andpunishments on which they were initially based (Jonesand Gerard 1967). In the Fishbein and Ajzen model"attitude" and "subjective norm" are viewed as predic-tors, and the "'behavioral intention." is the criterion.Furthermore, the two components are given empiriealweights in a multiple regression equation proportionalto their relative importance in the determination ofbehavioral intentions. Importantly, the model incorpo-rates both cognitive and affective components becauseattitudes, by definition, include affective or evaluativeconsiderations concerning ensuing acts (in ourcase—intentional acts of misbehavior). It is clear nowhow this approach may be u.seful in the analysis ofOMB as well.

The OMB Conceptual System: Core RelationshipsFigure 1 represents the overall OMB conceptualframework. The core relationships are based on theFishbein and Ajzen model as adapted by Wiener (1982)to form a normative-instrumental framework of indi-viduai commitment, and by Wiener and Vardi (1990) toconceptually integrate organizational culture and indi-vidual motivation. However, unlike the original model,in the proposed OMB system, misbehavior is not al-ways some function of the two predictor categories:instrumental and normative. Instead, depending on itstype, OMB may be determined by either one of thetwo predictors, or simultaneously by both.

OMB Type S reflects intention to benefit the indi-vidual rather than the employing organization. It isdetermined primarily by '"attitude" which, in turn, is afunction of the sum of beliefs concerning the conse-quences of the misbehavior for the individual ("instru-mental motivation"" according to Wiener, 1982). Thereason for this assertion is inherent in the definition ofOMB Type S. Because such misbehavior intends tobenefit the self, it stands to reason that it wouldbe influenced by person's beiiets concerning the extentto which the misbehavior is likely to result in favorable

156 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2. March-April

VOAV V,\R1>I AND YOASH WIENER Misbehavior in Organizations

aoz

aO

IaO)

as OO U

7 V

BO-J• <

UJ^ .a

E

h

55LL.

EL

I

•a

Otoa:UJa.

UJC£Ul

d ^ .̂" t (p., UJo 13 z:EC : J oo u u

o o

H

d

PE

RL

UE

S,L

VA

<

VID

i

oH>̂

CO

G

UJ

VA

L


YOAV VARDI AND YOASH WIENER Misbehauior in Organizations

or unfavorable outcomes. For instance, the probabilityof misusing company resources is smaller if the personbelieves that punishment may readily result from suchact, than when no punishment is anticipated. Thus, themotivational process underlying OMB Type S is pri-marily calculative-instrumental. Nevertheless, while thistype of misconduct is a function of instrumental pro-cesses, one key constraint that can inhibit such behav-ior is the strength of the organization's cohesiveness(we provide further discussion of this issue in thepropositions section).

OMB Type O, which by definition reflects intentionsto benefit the employing organization rather than di-rectly the individual, would be primarily determined by"subjective norms" that are a function of the totality ofinternalized normative beliefs concerning organiza-tional expectations from members (see definitions anddiscussion of norms and values above). Thus, as a rule,Type O misbehaviors are anchored in ideology andvalues, and are carried out by individuals who stronglyidentify with their organization, its mission and itsleadership, and who often are willing to sacrifice self-interests for such causes. Breaking the law to protectinterests of the company while risking personal well-being, would be a case in point. While normativepressures determine this type OMB, one could alsoargue that certain instrumental factors serve as con-straints (for example, when the perpetrators refrainfrom acting because they estimate high likelihood ofbeing punished by extemal agencies). Of course, it ispossible that an individual may break the law on behalfof the company for personal interests. But, as westipulated above, this form of misbehavior should beclassified as OMB Type S because the predominatemotive is benefitting the self.

Unlike OMB Types S and O, OMB Type D isdetermined by either normative or instrumentalprocesses, or by both simultaneously. OMB Type Dreflects intentions to damage and hurt a particularorganization or social unit. Underlying such intentionsmay be normative forces as in the case of damagingcompany property as a show of solidarity with strikingunion members. At the same time, this kind of behav-ior might be largely determined by instrumental fac-tors: deriving personal satisfaction out of an act ofrevenge or of vandalism. This is why we contend that,in principle, both normative and instrumental forcesmay converge simultaneously to determine Type Dmisbehavior. In addition to the core relationships dis-cussed above. Figure 1 presents the position in themodel of individual and organizational factors thatinfluence the formation of internalized organizational

expectations and instrumental motivation of members.Subsequent sections will discuss additional theoreticalfoundations, issues that pertain to determinants ofOMB, and an analysis of consequences of OMB.

Input from Decision and Social Information TheoriesMisbehavior in organizations involves both calculativedecision making and the processing of social informa-tion. In order to integrate such psychological processesin the OMB framework, we adapt two additional main-stream OB contributions that articulate such processes.The two models are complementary in that they de-scribe both caleulative and normative forces.

The March and Simon Model. Since in our proposedframework one major determinant of misbehavior isrational calculations of utility of behavior to self, it isimportant to account for the considerations that gointo such a decision making process. March and Simon's(1958) seminal book on organizations offers importantinsights (e.g., inducement-contribution tradeoffs) aboutcauses of work-related behavior. According to theirparadigm, individuals in organizations decide not onlyto join or leave, but also explicitly how to perform.Granted, those decisions are constrained by imperfect(bounded) rationality, yet individuals are, by and large,aware of both constraints and opportunities in theirorganizational environment. For instance, they use suchinformation in their decisions to stay or leave. Thisrationale can be readily adapted to explain forms ofmisbehavior because individuals are aware (albeit im-perfectly) of the opportunities, as well as the conse-quences of engaging in misconduct. Such knowledge, inturn, provides the sources of most instrumental orcalculative considerations that, like in the case of"standard" behavior, may be limited. Thus, theparadigm provides an essential attribute of the majorcognitive inputs contributing to the formation of indi-vidual interests that determine Type S misbehavior,and may contribute to OMB Type D as well.

The Salancik and Pfeffer Model. The second compo-nent determining misbehavior comprises internalizedbeliefs and expectations. Relevant questions that mayarise are: How do members of a social unit acquirenorms and values? How do members "know" whenthey act in defiance, and therefore when they engage incertain forms of organizational misbehavior? TheSalancik and Pfeffer (1978) theory of social informa-tion may be particularly helpful. For them, the socialcontext itself affects person's behavior by shaping his orher perceptions and beliefs about organizationalsituations. Yet, one can argue, sense-making cues.


VOAV VARDI AND YOASH WIENER Misbehavior in Organizations

transmitted through both formal and informal socialinteractions, pertain not only to desirable behavior, butalso, and perhaps more dramatically, to misbehavior.Such cues may carry important symbolic and affectivemeanings, as well as instrumental ones. Thus, individ-ual attitudes and beliefs that are formed from suchperceived "socially constructed realities," may deter-mine the intentions that lead to all three types ofOMB.

Core Antecedents of OMBOur definition of OMB, the proposed conceptualframework which emphasizes the distinction betweennormative and instrumental determinants of misbehav-ior, imd the support from (ither OB paradigms, allsuggest the specific antecedents that may affect theformation of the motivational components in the model.These components can be seen as intervening con-structs, mediating the relationships between variousantecedents, on one hand, and intentions and misbe-haviors, on the other hand (see Figure 1). Generallyspeaking, the basic reasoning underlying the model isthat antecedents contributing to the instrumental com-ponent would primarily influence Type S misbehavior,and antecedents contributing to the normative compo-nent would affect Type O misbehavior. Both forces,however, may intluencc OMB Type D. The purpose ofthis section is to identify core antecedents of OMB.Rather than providing a complete list, we selected asample of determinants that may contribute most tothe variance of the normative and instrumental compo-nents of the model, and consequently to OMB. Twomajor types of antecedents are proposed: individual-level and organizational-level. Specific arguments andmore detailed description of selected antecedents arefurther developed in the propositions section.

Individual FactorsIndividuals differ in their propensity to engage in theforms of misbehavior as conceptualized in the presentmodel, both in terms of values and attitudes, andpersonality traits. The model focuses on five types ofindividual differences as follows:

Personality. Two personality variables in particularseem to affect both motivational components and, inturn, the intention to engage in OMB. The two vari-ables can affect both the normative process of valueinternalization and the "calculations" Involved in form-ing instrumental beliefs about personal interests. Firstis the level of moral development of an organizationmember (Kohlberg 1969). Trevino (1986) has already

demonstrated the usefulness of this factor in the con-text of unethical behavior among managers. Second isthe degree of sociopathic predisposition, that is, thestate characterized by disregard for social norms andobligations without the inhibiting experience of guilt.Of course, extreme degrees of sociopathic tendenciescharacterize only a marginal portion of any organiza-tion's workforce.

Person-organization Value Congruence. This an-tecedent refers to the degree to which personal valuesheld by the individual are consistent with core organi-zational norms and values. The higher is such a con-gruence, the more likely is a member to identify with areferent social unit and be guided by its values andnorms (Chatman 1989, Hall and Schneider 1972).Hence, it is reasonable to assume that this variablerepresents a strong contribution to the normative com-ponent of the model and, in turn, to OMB.

Generalized Value of Loyalty and Duty. This is apersonal value acquired in the process of primary so-cialization. It represents a generalized sense of dutyand obligation, namely, the belief by individuals thatthey have a moral obligation to exhibit loyalty in allsignificant social situations in which they are involved(Wiener 1982). Regardless of their other values, indi-viduals who rank high on Generalized Loyalty andDuty would tend to identify with their organization andbehave accordingly. Therefore, this variable also repre-sents a strong contribution to the normative compo-nent of the model.

Personal Circumstances. When an individual faces acompelling need or deprivation—material or otherwise—he or she might be more inclined to engage inmisbehavior that may help them resolve such needs(e.g., Merton 1938). Conversely, employees may be lessinclined to misbehave when anticipating being at riskof losing membership. Thus, specific personal circum-stances partially determine one's tendencies to engagein OMB, primarily by shaping instrumental beliefsabout the value of the ensuing consequences of anygiven misbehavior.

Dis.'iati.^faction of Personal Needs by the Organization.When individuals perceive being mistreated by theiremploying organizations, the valence of self-benefit tingmisbehavior may increase (e.g., Analoui andKakabadse 1992, Greenberg 1990, Hoilinger 19H6,Mangioni and Ouinn 1975). Indirectly, this factor mayalso influence the way organizational expectations arelearned and internalized; it is less likely for a member



to be successfully socialized by and to identify with anorganization when mistreatment of self and others isperceived. Thus, dissatisfaction of needs by an organi-zation primarily affects the instrumental component ofmotivation to misbehave but it can, indirectly, eon-tribute to the normative forces as well.

Organizational FactorsOrganizations differ in terms of the contextual condi-tions, at both the task and organization levels, that mayaffect the propensity of an individual member to en-gage in work related misbehavior. Five types of suchfactors are listed below:

Built-in Opportunity. Certain work organizations andjobs involve operations for which control is inherentlydifficult, for example, home delivery, operating cashregisters, professional or food services, operationswhere cash transactions cannot be directly monitoredby receipts, and inventory counts. In fact, most jobsmay consist of some built-in opportunity to misuse ortake advantage of various organizational resources(such as office equipment). The degree to which suchbuilt-in opportunities exist may enter into the instru-mental calculations concerning the benefits, conse-quences, and risks of capitalizing on such opportunities(e.g., Astor 1972).

Control Systems. Regardless of the inherent oppor-tunity, control systems such as appraisal, reward anddisciplinary systems, or special monitoring arrange-ments, in some organizations, are more effective atcontrolling behavior than in others. Both oppressiveand lax controls may contribute to the emergence ofOMB (cf. Hegarty and Sims 1979). Thus, control sys-tems, especially those that represent both extremes,may have a direct impact on members' instrumentalconsiderations whether to engage in or refrain fromacts of misconduct.

Organizational Culture. Organizational culture iswidely regarded as a construct denoting the extent towhich members share core organizational values (e.g.,Wiener 1988). Several writers (e.g., Kunda 1992) havedemonstrated the power of culture as a tool "used" bycertain dominant groups (top management, for exam-ple) purposely to shape other members'values. Others(e.g., Hatch 1993) have begun to develop a conceptionof cultural dynamism that looks at how elements ofculture interact over time. Either way, "organizationalculture" may constitute an important normative influ-ence on the inclination of members to engage in acts ofmisbehavior. Trevino's (1986) model, for instance, di-

rectly relates the organizational culture variable tounethical decision behavior of managers.

Organizational Cohesiveness. Since in very cohesivesocial units the pressures to adhere to norms of con-duct are especially high (e.g.. Janis 1982), this factormay be similar to organizational culture in its effectson misbehavior. It may, indeed, be more powerful.Accordingly, we regard this organization characteristicas a significant antecedent that may strongly contributeto the normative component in the OMB model.

Organizational Goals. By definition, organizationalgoals are closely associated with organizational valuesand expectations and, therefore, are likely to exertinfluence on the normative motivational component inthe model. Furthermore, organizational goals may di-rectly instigate misbehavior, particularly when they arehighly demanding and unrealistic [for example, NASA'sChallenger disaster (Reimann and Wiener 1988a) and.more recently, the Hubble fiasco (Stein and Kanter1993)].

In the next section we begin to develop formalpropositions for predicting OMB. Of the above list ofantecedents, the following variables will be furtherdiscussed and the rationale behind their selection willbe explained: Person-organization value congruence,personal need satisfaction by the organization, level ofindividual moral development, and organizational eo-hesiveness.

PropositionsA large number of specific propositions can be gener-ated concerning the main and Interaction effects ofvarious antecedents on OMB. However. In this sectionwe chose to focus on three groups of propositions thatappear to most parsimoniously tap the principal rela-tionships posited in our framework. Also, these propo-sitions may serve as examples for the rationale and wayof thinking underlying other potential hypotheses. Thethree groups are: (a) The effect of person-organizationvalue congruence (POVC) on the predisposition toengage in different types of OMB, both directly and ininteraction with personal need satisfaction providedby the organization (PNS); (b) The effects of levels ofpersona! moral development on the predisposition toengage in different types of OMB; and (c) The inten-tion to engage in OMB as a function of organizationaleohesiveness. The dependent variables in all proposi-tions are stated in terms of the strength of individualpredispositions (or intentions) to engage in OMB Types



S, O. and D, as articulated in the section "OMB as avariable" above. We use the predispositional ratherthan tbe behavioral measures here because they are, bydefinition,, the immediate outcome of motivation.Moreover, for these hypotheses we do not expect anydifference in predictions when applying either behav-ioral or intentional variables.

The basic rationale underlying the propositions is asfollows: Normative pressures, when consistent with theinterests of a referent social unit (i.e., an organization,or part of it), will enhance misbehavior on behalf of theunit (OMB Type O). and will suppress misbehaviorsthat either benefit the individual (OMB Type S) or areintended to inflict damage (OMB Type D). On theother hand, organizational actions and conditions thateither frustrate instrumental interests of individualmembers, or lead them to believe that to engage inmisconduct is self-benefitting, will tend to promotestronger predispositions towards OMB Type S andOMB Type D.

OMH AS a Function of Person-Organiza tion ValueCongruence iind Personal Need SatisfactionPerson-organization value congruence (POVC), consid-ered an essential determinant of organizational behav-ior (e.g.. Hall and Schneider 1972), serves as a crucialfactor in predicting OMB. As an antecedent of behav-ior in the context of social organizations, POVC seemsto be the most immediate and most potent determinantof the totality of normative pressures impinging on theindividual. But POVC itself is a variable. Thus, for thepurpose of developing testable hypotheses we assumethree levels of congruence: Identification: personal val-ues are highly consistent with those of the referentsocial unit; Detachment: personal values are unrelatedor neutral vis a vis the referent social unit; and Alien-ation: personal values are in conflict with those of thereferent social unit.

Another important antecedent variable we focus onis personal need satisfaction by the organization (PNS),postulating a dichotomy of low and high levels ofsatisfaction. While POVC denotes a normative an-tecedent, we consider this particular psychological an-tecedent to be a direct determinant of instrumentalmotivation that, in turn, influences the intention tomisbehave.

First we present propositions about the expectedmain effects of the person-organization value congru-ence antecedent. These main effects are summarizedin Table 1, and the predictions pertain to the antici-pated strength or weakness of the intention or predis-position to engage iji a particular type of misbehavior.

Table 1 The Expected Main Etfects of Person-organizationValue Congruence, Moral Development andCohesiveness on the Predisposition to Engagein Three Types of OMB

Types of OMB

Determinants of OMB Type S Type O Type D

Person-organization Identification Low High LowValue Congruence Detachment

AlienationHigh Low LowHigh Low High

Moral Developmenl Preconventional High Low HighConventional Low High LowPrincipled Low Low Low

Organization Low Cohesion High Low HighCohesiveness High Cohesion Low Htgh Low

PROPOSITION 1. Main effect of POVC on OMB TypeS. Stronger predisposition to engage in OMB Type S isexpected under conditions of Detachment and Alienation,and weaker predisposition to engage in OMB Type S isexpected for Identification.

PROPOSITION 2. Main effect of POVC on OMB TypeO. Stronger predisposition to commit OMB Type O isexpected under the Identification condition, and weakerpredispositions are expected for Detachment and Alien-ation.

PROPOSITION 3. Main effect of POVC on OMB TypeD. Stronger predispo.sition to engage in OMB Type D isassociated with the Alienation condition, and weaker pre-dispositions are expected tinder Identification and Detach-ment.

The next set of propositions pertains to the predic-tion of the predisposition to engage in OMB as afunction of the interaction of the two core antecedents:Person-organization value congruence (POVC) andpersonal need satisfaction by the organization (PNS).These variabies, again, are designed to represent thenormative and instrumental dimensions, respectively.

PROPOSITION 4. Interaction effects on OMB Type S.The predisposition to commit OMB Type S would be thestrongest for individuals who experience dissatisfaction oftheir needs under POVC conditions of Detachment andAlienation. Weaker predi.spositions to engage in OMBType S are expected under all other conditions.

PROPOSmoN 5. Interaction effects on OMB Type O.The predispositions to commit OMB Type O would be the

OKCANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2, March-April 1996 161


Table 2 The Predispositlort to Engage in Three Types of OMBas a Function ol Person-organization ValueCongruence and Personal Need Satisfactionby the Organization

Person-OrganizationValue Congruence

Need Satisfaction by theOrganization (PNS)

(POVC)

Identttication(Values—Congruent)

Detachment(Values—Neutral)

Alienation(Values—Incongruent)

High

HighOMB Type 0

Low

HighOMB Type S

HighOMB Type SOMB Type D

Note: Empty cells denote a tow disposition to engage in any typeof OMB,

Strongest when individuals experience satisfaction of per-sonal needs (high PNS) under the condition of Identifica-tion. In all other conditions the predispositions to engagein OMB Type O are expected to be weaker.

PROPOSITION 6. Interaction effects on OMB Type D.The predispositions to engage in Type D misbehauiorwould he the strongest when individuals experience dissat-isfaction of personal needs (low PNS) under the conditionof Alienation. Such predispositions would be weaker un-der all other conditions.

Propositions 4-6 are exhibited in Table 2. The nextgroup of propositions spell out the expected impact ofmoral development (as a personality factor) on theindividual predisposition to engage in OMB.

Effects of Moral Development on OMBKohlberg (1969) classified stages of moral developmentinto three consecutive levels which denote a progres-sion from a lower to a higher order moral personalitystructure. In organizational settings individuals atthe '• Preconventional" level (Kohlberg's moral de-velopment stages 1 and 2) are basically obedient andinstrumentally oriented towards their organizationalobligations. But when faced with opportunities to mis-behave they would be less hesitant to take advantage ofsuch circumstances, especially when they do not fore-see negative consequences for themselves. Organiza-tion members at the "Conventional" level of moraldevelopment (Kohlberg's stages 3 and 4), when makingbehavioral choices at work, are primarily guided by

r162

their acceptance of local social and organizational ex-pectations. Because they are more strongly influencedby their social environment, such persons tend to yieldto conventional normative pressures. In turn, such nor-mative pressures may lead "conventionals" to violatenorms which they deem irrelevant. Individuals at the"Principled" level (stages 5 and 6) are guided solely byinternalized and stable universal principles that governtheir judgment of right and wrong. For them theseprinciples are absolute and, therefore, nonnegotiable.Such persons, we believe, are not inclined to misbe-have under any ofthe hypothesized conditions. Table 1presents a summary of the specific predictions (Pro-positions 7-9).

PROPOSITION 7. Effect of moral development onOMB Type S. Indiuiduak at the Preconventional level ofmoral development would tend to exhibit a stronger predis-position to engage in self benefitting misbehauior at work,than individuals at either the Conventional or Principledlevels.

PROPOSITION 8. Effect of moral det.>elopment onOMB Type O. Indiuiduals at the Conventional leuel ofmoral development would tend to exhibit stronger predis-position to engage in organization benefttting misbehavior,than indiuiduals at either Preconventional or Principledleuels.

PROPOSITION 9. Effect of moral development onOMB Type D. Individuals at the Preconuentional level ofmoral development would tend to exftibit stronger predis-position to engage in destructive misbehavior, than wouldindividuals at either the Conventional or Principled levels.

Effects of Organization a) Cohesiveness «n OMBCohesiveness is viewed here as the degree of attach-ment or attractiveness the members of a social unit(e.g., work organization) experience toward each otherand toward the social unit itself. A cohesive social unitexerts strong pressures on members to leam, internal-ize, and adhere to its core values and norms of con-duct. As a result, such pressures contribute to a rela-tively high degree of uniformity in actions, beliefs, andsentiments among the unit's members. Indeed, thehigher the cohesiveness, the stronger the pressurestoward both uniformity and conformity (Lott and Lott1965). Cohesiveness, then, seems to constitute a signifi-cant determinant of the normative component of ourmodel, with the expected effects on OMB as indicatedin the following propositions and in Table 1.

PROPOSiTiON 10. Effect of organizational cohesive-ness on OMB Type S. There will be a stronger predisposi-

OROANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2, March-April 1996


tion to engage in OMB Type S among memhers in lowcohesiveness social units, than among members in highcohesiveness social units.

PROPOSITION 11. Effect of organizational cohesive-ness on OMB Type O. There will he a .stronger predisposi-tion to engage in OMB Type O among members in highcohesiveness social units, than among members in lowcohesivene.ss social units.

PROPOSITION 12. Effect of organizational cohesive-ness on OMB Type D. There will he a stronger predisposi-tion to engage in OMB Type D among members in lowcohesiveness social units, than among members in highcohesiveness social units.

The effects of high organizational cohesiveness onOMB Type O, namely the pressures to completelyidentify with a social unit's goals, and therefore toengage in unconventional acts on its behalf, arc consis-tent with Janis's (19K2) anaiysis of the "groupthink"phenomenon. In his terms, the normative pressurestoward uniformity exerted on members in highly cohe-sive groups inevitably lead to dysfunctional decisionmaking processes. Such dynamics, we believe, mayeventually result in willful, unethical choices, as well asdestructive acts.

Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that thepredisposition to engage in type O misbehavior will notnecessarily be strong in all high-cohesiveness socialunits. The analyses of organizational value-systems byRciman and Wiener (I988b> and Wiener (1988) suggestIhat organizations whose value systems are dispropor-tionalely weighted with "elitist" values (i.e., thoseexpressing superiority and uniqueness of the organiza-tion), are more likely to cut ethical corners, and evenengage in criminal acts, than organizations whose valuesystems are essentially "functional"(i.e.. denote valuesof performance, quality, or service). Thus, we expectthe predisposition to engage in OMB Type O to beparticularly strong in high cohesiveness organizationalunits which espouse "elitist'" value systems.

Conclusions and New DirectionsThis paper suggests an integrative framework withinwhich organizational misbehavior can be conceptual-ized from a motivational perspective. Such notionshave long been due, given the prevalence of this phe-nomenon in organizations, the growing awarenessamong managers and experts, the social and financialcosts of misbehaviors such as theft, estimated at over$25 billion a year in the United States (Greenberg

1990), or substance abuse, and the relative paucity ofsystematic attention given to it by mainstream Organi-zational Behavior literature.

The present theoretical statement on OMB has sev-eral advantages. First, it brings the construct of Orga-nizational MisBehavior to the main arena of workbehavior thinking by anchoring it in widely acceptedmotivational principles. Second, the framework reem-phasizes the role of values and normative processes indetermining organizational behavior (and misbehavior).Third, the proposed model allows for researeh proposi-tions that lend themselves to empirical investigationand strategic managerial implications. Fourth, the pro-posed typology of OMB enables integration of differ-ent categories of intentional misbehavior, such asagainst production, property, and people (Hollinger1986) with unethical behavior (Trevino 1986). into aunified conceptual framework.

Undoubtedly, further theoretical work on the OMBphenomenon is needed to expand our understanding ofboth its seope and effects. The following are examplesof directions for future conceptual work. First, depend-ing on the particular type of OMB, a given act ofmisbehavior can be analyzed in terms of several di-mensions such as: (a) origin (e.g., authorized/unauthorized), (b) sustainability (e.g., rewarded/penal-ized), (c) manifestation (e.g., overt/latent), (d) perpe-trator (e.g., solitary/collective), and (e) intensity (e.g.,severe/benign). These dimensions must be definedand refined. Second. OMB must be assessed in relationto other modes of work-related behavior, for example,in the context of performance appraisal systems (e.g.,should employees receive feedback on misbehavior aswell as on standard and exceptional performance?).Third, misbehavior must be better understood in termsof the choice of actual and potential targets(internal/external, other members, property, rules,symbols, etc.). For instance, how are such targets cho-sen and why. Fourth, more refinement is needed inorder to integrate the underlying paradigms of individ-ual choice and decision behavior (March and Simon1958). and of social information processing (Salancikand Pfeffer 1978) with the proposed motivational the-ory of organizational misbehavior. For example, weneed to know more how different types of membersobtain and process relevant (personal, organizational,symbolic) information that eventually leads them toengage in the various forms of misbehavior or refrainfrom it. We certainly need to better understand thero!e of organizational cohesiveness as mitigating socialinformation and decision processes in the context ofOMB. Fifth, considerable effort must be expended on



identifying outcomes and consequences of organiza-tional misbehavior and how they affect not only theperpetrators themselves, but also their social environ-ment (e.g., superiors, peers, subordinates), both in shortand long terms. The dynamic nature of OMB in tem-poral perspective (How do OMB patterns change overtime? What do members learn about misbehavior?),for instance, can be explored by adapting frameworksof cultural dynamics (e.g.. Hatch 1993) to account formisbehavior as weil as "behavior." Finally, there is aneed to more directly examine the role of acute orshort-term emotional states (such as rage, mood, jeal-ousy, hatred, vengeance) as antecedents of organiza-tional misbehavior. While our framework empha.sizesmore generalized affect (values, need satisfaction) vari-ables, it only begins to explore some of these effects,especially on the emergence of OMB Type D.

To us. OMB should become an integral part oforganizational research and theory. There is no ques-tion that we must recognize the pervasive existence ofmisbehavior at work and use a creative approach to itsresearch. The long-term disguised participant observa-tion applied by Analoui and Kakabadse (1992), theanthropological design used by Mars (1982), the quasiexperimental design used by Greenberg (1990), orRobinson and Bennett's (1993) recent effort to developmultidimensional scaling of workplace (destructive) de-viance, may represent such ingenuity. Indeed, we be-lieve, that once research designs that would overcomeour apparent reluctance to study misbehavior are de-veloped, they are bound to open fascinating avenuesfor investigation in organizations.

The fundamental implication of the OMB frame-work is that policy makers and researchers must betterunderstand the compelling impact of instrumental andnormative forces on the emergence of different formsof intentional misconduct in different kinds of organi-zational settings. Recognizing these differences is cru-cial for the design of more effective behavior controlstrategies. From that perspective, the exploration oforganizational misbehavior promises a more insightfulunderstanding of ways to manage the whole spectrumof behavior in organizations. We believe that the newtypology and conceptual framework presented hereoffer an important step in that direction.

AcknowledgementsA preliminary paper was presented at the Academy of ManagementMeeling.s, Liis Vegas. August. 1992, The authors would like to IhankOrly Goldman for her contributions, and Sam Bacharach. Dov Eden,Ken Dunegan. Gideon Kunda. Arie Shirom and anonymous review-ers for their constructive comments on earlier versions.

RefereneesAnaloui. F. and A. Kakabadse (1992), "Unconventional Practices at

Work: Insight and Analysis Through Panicipant Observation,"Joumal of Managerial P.'{)ichology, 7, I - J l .

Astor. S. D. (1972). "Twenty Steps for Preventing Theft in Business,"Management Review, 61, 34~35.

Baucus, M. S. and J. P. Near (1991), "Can Illegal Corporate Behav-ior be Predicted? An Event Histoiy Analysis," Academy ofManagement Journal, 34, 9-36.

Braithwaite, J. (198.'i), 'White Collar Crime," Annual Review ofSociology, 11, 1-25.

Brown, M. M. (1976). "Values—A Necessary but Neglected Ingredi-ent of Motivation on the Job,'" Academy of Management Review.1. 15-23.

Chatman, J. A. (1989), "Improving tnteractionai Organizational Re-search: A Mode! of Person-organization F'W." Academy of Man-agement Review, 14, 333-349.

DeMore. S. W., J. D. Fisher and R. M. Baron (198S), "The Equity-

control Model as a Predictor of Vandalism among College

Studenls," Joumal of Applied Social Psycfiolog)', 18. 80-91.

Fallding, H. A. (1965), ' 'A Proposal tor the Empiriciil Study of

Values," American Sociolo^cal Reuiew, 30, 223-233.

Fishbein, M. (1967). "Attitude and the Prediction of Behavior," inM. I-ishbein (Ed.). Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement,New York: Wiley.

and I. Ajzen (1975), Belief. Attitude. Intention and Bettavior: An

Introduction to Theory Research, Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gouldner, A. (1954), Wildcat Strike: A Study in Worker-managemeruRelationships, New York: Harper and Row.

Greenberg. J. (1990), "Employee Theft as a Response to Underem-ployment Inequity: The Hidden Cost of Pay Cuts," Joumal ofApplied Psychotog}-. 75, 56]-5f)8,

Gutek, B. A. (1985), Sex in the Workplace, San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Hall, D. T. and B. Schneider (1972), "Correlates of Organizationai

Identification," Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 340-350.

Hatch, M. J. (1993), "The Dynamics of Organizational Culture."

Academy of Management Review, IS. 657-693.

Hegarty. W. H. and H. P. Sims, Jr. (1978), "Some Determinants ofUnethical Decision Behavior: An ExperitnenU" Joumat of Ap-plied Psychology. 63, 451-457.

, iintl (1979). "Organizational Philosophy. Policies and

Objectives Related to Unethical Decision Behavior: A Labora-tory Experiment," Joumat of Applied Psychology. 64, 331-338.

Henty, S. (1978). The Hidden Economy: The Cost and Control of

Border-line Crime, Ixindon, UK: Martin Robertson.

Hollinger, R. C. (1979). Employee Deviance: Acts Against the FormaliVork Organization, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota.Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilm.

(1986). '"Acts against the Workplace: Social Bonding andEmployee Deviance," Dwian/ Behavior, 1, 53-75.

and J. P. Clark (1982), "Employee Deviance: A Response to

the Perceived Ouality of the Work Experience," Work andOccupations, 10,97-114.

164 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2, March-April 19%

YOAV VARDI AND YOASH WIENER Misbehauior in Organizations

and (1983). "Deterrence in the Workplace: Perceived

Certainty. Perceived Severity, and Employee Theft." Social

Forces, 62. 398-418.

Jaccard, J. and A. R. Davidson (1975), "A Comparison of Two

Models of Social Behavior: Results of a Survey Sample,"

.Stmometry. 38. 497-517.

Janis, 1. L. (I'W2). Victims of groupthink (revised edition), Boston,

MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Jones, E. E. and H. B. Gerard (1967), Foundations of Social Psychol-

ogy. New York: Wiley.

Jones. T. M. (IWl). "Elhica! Decision Making hy Individuals in

Organizations: An Issue-contingent Model." .Academy of Man-

agement Review, 16. 366-395.

Kilman. R. H. (1985), "Five Steps for Closing the Culture-gaps," in

R. H. Kilman. M. J. Saxton and R. Serpa (Eds.), Gaining Control

ofthe Corporate Culture, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kohlberg. L. (1%9), "Moral Stages and Moralization: The

Cognitive-developmental Approach," in T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral

Dei.'ehpment and Behavior. Theory. Re.seanh. and Social Issues,

New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Kolter. J. P. (1973), "The Psychological Contract: Managing the

Joining-up Proeess," Ca/i/omifl Management Review, 15, 91-99.

Kunda, G. (1992), Engineering Culture, Philadelphia, PA: Temple

University Press.

Lott. A. J. and B. E, Lott (1965). "Group Cohesiveness as Interper-

sonal Attraction: A Review of Relationships with Antecedent

and Consequent Variables." P.^cho!ogical Bulletin, 64, 259-309.

Mangioni. T. W. and R. P. Ouinn (1975), "Job Satisfaction.

Counter-productive Behavior, and Drug Use al Work," Joumal

of Applied Psychology. 11. 114-116.

March. .}. G. and H. A. Simon (1958), Organizations, New York: John

Wiley.

Mars, G. (1974), "Dock Pilferage: A Case Study in Occupational

Theft." in P. Rock and M. Mclntosh (Eds.), DetJiance and Social

Control, London, UK: Tavistock Institute.

(1982). Cheats at Work: An Anthropology of Workplace Crime,

Boston, MA: G. Allen and Unwin.

Meglino, B. M., J. M. Czajka and J. C. Ullman (1986), A Review of

the Work Values Uterature, Paper presented at the Academy of

Management Meeting, Chicago. IL.

Merriam. D. (1977), "Employee Theft," Criminal Justice Abstracts, 9,

380-386.

Merton, R. T, (1938), "Social Structure and Anomie," American

SiKiological Review, 6, 672-6S2.

Miceli. M. P. and J. P. Near (1992). Blowing the Whistle: The

Organizational and Legal Implications for Companies and Employ-

ees. New York: Lexington Books.

and (1994). " Whistieblowing: Reaping the Benefits,"

Academy of Management Executive. VIII, 65-72.

Murphy, K. R. (1993), Honesty in the Workplace, Belmont, CA:

Brooks/Coie.

Poma2al. R. J. and J. J. Jaccard (1976), "An Informational Approaeh

to Altruistic Behavior," Joumal of Personality and Socuil Psychol-

ogy, 33, 217-226.

Raelin, J. A. (1986), "An Analysis of Profes.sional Deviance within

Organizations," Human Relations, 39. 1103-1130.

Reimann, B. C. and Y. Wiener (1988a), "Ignorance at the Top: Why

Bad News May Never Reach the Bonn," Intemational Joumat of

Management, 5, 170-179.

and (1988b). "Corporate Culture: Avoiding the Elitist

Trap." Busine.-<s Horizons, 31, 36-44.

Robinson, S. L. and R. J. Bennett (1993), 77ic FourP's of Destruction:

A Multidimensional Settling of Deviance in the Workplace, Paper

presented at the Academy of Management Meeting. Atlanta.

Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, New York: Free

Press.

Rousseau, D. M. (1989), "Psychological and Implied Contracts in

Organizations." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Joumal. 2.

121-139.

Salancik, G. and J. Pfeffer (1978), "A Social Information Prwessing

Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design," Administratitie

Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.

Schwartz. S. and R. Tessler (1972). "A Test of a Model for Reducing

Measured Attitude-behavior Discrepancies," Joumat of Personal-

ity arul Social Psychology, 24, 225-236.

Stein. B. A. and R. M. Kanter (1993). "Why Good People Do Bad

Things: A Retrospective on the Hubble Fiasco." Academy of

Management Executive. VII, 58-62.

Trevino, L. K. (1986)." Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A

Person-situation Inleractionist Model," Academy of Management

Review, 11, 601-617.

(1992), "The Social Effects of Punishment in Organizations: A

Justice Perspective," Academy of Management Reuiew, 17,

647-676.

. and S. A. Youngblood (1990), "Bad Apples in Bad Barrels: A

Causal Analysi.s of Ethical Decision-making Behavior." Joumal

of Applied Psychology, 75, 378-385,

Trice, H. and J. M. Beyer (1993), The Cultures of Work Organizations,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

and W. Sonnenstuhl (1988), "Drinking Behavior and Risk

Factors Related to the Workplace: Implications for Research

and Prevention," Joumat of Applied Behavioral Science, 24,

327-346.

Wiener. Y. (1982), "Commitment in Organizations: A Normative

View," Academy of Management Review, 1, 418-428.

(1988). "Forms of Value Systems: A Focus on Organizational

Effectiveness and Cultural Change and Mainienancc." Academy

of Management Retnew. 13, 534-545.

and Y. Vardi (1990), "Relationship Between Organizational

Culture and Individual Motivation: A Conceptual Integration."

Psychological Reports, 67, 295-306.

Zey-Ferrell, M. and O. C. Ferrell (1982). "Role Set Configuration

and Opportunity as Predictors of Unethical Behavior in Organi-

zations," Human Relations, 32, 557-569.

Accepted hy Peter Frost; received March 1993. This paper has been with the authors for two reuisions.

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VO1. 7, No. 2, March-ApriJ 1996 165

misbehavior in organizations: a motivational frameworkhome.ubalt.edu/ntygmitc/642/articles...

Documents