Download Organization Misbehaviour and more Essays (university) Organization Behaviour in PDF only on Docsity!
Misbehavior in Organizations:
A Motivational Framework
Yoav Vardi • Yoash Wiener
Department 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: This paper "... 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 on this neglected and important topic." The thinking and resultant framework presented in this paper by Yoav Vardi and Yoash Wiener provide us with a sense of the research possibilities such an approach might engender in the study of organizational misbehaviour. Their definitions help us tease out some of the complexities of this phenomenon. 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 be investigated in an effort to better understand why misbehaviour occurs and what its consequences might be for individuals, organizations and societies. My hope, like that of the reviewer is that the paper will motivate some thoughtful research on the topic. Peter Frost
Abstract Observers of organizations recognize now that work related misconduct is both pervasive and costly. There is ample evidence 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 organizational memhers to exhibit such varied forms of misconduct? Are these forces different from those that drive them to engage in constructive 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, to formally define a new construct of Organizational Misbehav- ior (OMB), and to discuss the theoretical implications of the tletinition; second, to identify different types of OMB; and third, to develop a conceptual framework that would allow the inclusion of OMB in a comprehensive theory of work motivation, applicable to both proper and improper conduct. We define Organizational Misbehavior as "any intentional action by members of organizations that violates core organi- zational and/or societal norms." A crucial element in the definition is the intention underlying the misbehavior. It therefore 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 a comprehensive motivational framework, we use the distinc- tion between normative and instrumental sources of motiva- tion. We propose that people who engage in OMB Type S are primarily motivated by self-interest consideration (i.e., instrumental processes), whereas those that perpetrate OMB Type O do so mostly because of strong identification with and 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 be organizational. On the individual level, we refer to such factors as the stage of moral development and personal need satisfaction. At the organization level, we examine the role of such factors as organization culture and cohesiveness. We finally use the instrumental-normative framework to derive a set of formal propositions about the effects of some of these factors on the form and intensity of OMB.
I047-7039/%/0702/0151/S01. Copyright S' I'Wii. Insiituttf fur Opiiralions Research iind 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)
Introduction Organization scientists and practitioners are increas- ingly becoming more aware that patterns of work- related misconduct by members of organizations are prevalent, 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 and interpreted them from a variety of perspectives. These misbehaviors range from a mere breach or violation of psychological 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 to be universal. Most members of work organizations, it appears, engage in some form of misbehavior that is related to their work, albeit in varying degrees of intensity, severity and frequency. In fact, misbehavior is not restricted to certain employees; it has been recorded for both nonsupervisory and managerial members of different types of work organizations. Not surprisingly, then, both the economic and social costs of 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 ample evidence for the large variety of such behaviors, and some examples may illustrate this wealth. Greenberg (1990) recently conducted a study of and reviewed the literature on employee theft, and Analoui and Kakabadse (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 in organizations. 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 phenomena such 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), sexual harassment at work (Gutek 1985), or even vandalism
(DeMore et al. 1988), only underscores the need to better understand this "darker" side of organizational life. Our review of the literature seems to demonstrate that misconduct in organizations has not only been viewed as pervasive, but, for the most part, as inten- tional work-related behavior. It also establishes that, at the same time, we may lack a systematic approach to the understanding of such behavior. Based on these observations, we develop in this paper a conceptual framework which assumes that misbehaviors in organi- zations differ and vary, and that members commit such acts intentionally. We will elaborate on these funda- mental arguments in further sections.
Treatment of Misbehavior in Behavioral Sciences Several attempts to systematize the treatment of phe- nomena related to organizational misbehavior have been reported in the past. Hollinger (1986) observed that sociological research on employee misbehavior (defined as deviance) has centered around two foci: ''Production deviance" and "Property deviance." While both 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 acts against property and assets of the organization (e.g., theft, pilferage, embezzlement, vandalism). Hollinger (1986) employed Hirschi's "social bonding" model to identify antecedents for both types of misbehavior. Based on empirical analysis he concluded that such individual acts are more likely to occur when individual attachment (e.g., commitment) to an organization is low. Other antecedents that were found to affect "pro- ductivity deviance" are mostly related to group and peer pressures (e.g., Zey-Ferrell and Ferrell 1982), maladjustment (Raelin 1986), increased competitive pressures (Hegarty and Sims 1978), or disagreement with 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), dissatisfaction with work (Mangioni and Quinn 1975), perceptions of pay inequity (Greenberg 1990), and feelings of frustra- tion (Analoui and Kakabadse 1992). Similarly, vandal- ism, as property deviancy, was found to be associated with perceptions of inequity and mistreatment (DeMore et al. 1988).
152 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI.^ 7, No. 2. Mareh-April 1996
YOAV VARDI AND YOASH WIENER Misbehavior in Orgatiizatioiu
model proposes the role of individual motivation as a source of OMB. Fourth, values and norms pertain to both formal (laws, rules and regulations, standard operating 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 in determining OMB.
Values and Norms: A General View Because the concept of values is a central component in the analysis of OMB, a definition of the concept itself is necessary, ln the social literature there are serious inconsistencies in the definition of value and in the distinctions between value and related constructs such as attitude, belief, and norm. Nevertheless, cer- tain formulations that allow operational definitions and measurement have gained a fair degree of acceptance (see, for example, discussions by Brown, 1976; Fallding, 1965; Meglino et al. 1986). One such definition by Rokeach (1973, p. 5) states that "a value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence." In this definition values are viewed as forms of beliefs, and a major source of these values may be social expectations, particularly when they are shared. Thus, social values may indeed be viewed as normative beUefs complementing instrumental beliefs as an- tecedents of behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Fur- ther, values can be construed as internalized normative beliefs; once established, they may act as built-in nor- mative guides for behavior, independent from the ef- fect of rewards and punishments that are consequences of actions (Wiener 1982). Rokeach's definition suggests that values shared by group members, particularly values concerning modes of conduct, become similar to norms guiding members toward uniformity in behavior. Others (e.g., Kilman 1985), however, distinguish between norms as more specific 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 values consult Rokeach, 1973). The above analysis of the concepts of values and norms applies to various types of social units, including the two most congruous with the definition of OMB: work organizations and society at large.
OMB: Dennitional Implications The definition of OMB, as suggested above, implies
four important features or attributes that seem useful for the construction of an integrative model, the mea- surement of variables, and the derivation of relevant predictions. We discuss these implications in the fol- lowing sections.
Broadness of Scope of OMB. A basic implication of the definition is that a behavior does not have to violate both societal and organizational values in order to be identified as OMB. While such behaviors are not uncommon (e.g., unauthorized use of company prop- erty), it would be theoretically too narrow and not constructive to limit OMB to jus! such acts. According to the proposed definition, a behavior which may be consistent with organizational expectations but violates societal values (e.g., misleading customers), would be considered OMB in our model. Such organizationally condoned misbehaviors may be detrimental in the long run. Similarly, member behavior that is consistent with societal values but violates organizational expectations would be classified as OMB as well (e.g., whistle-blow- ing in an organization that does not sanction such a behavior). 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 and inclusive model of organizational misbehavior. It also provides a solid basis for a meaningful typology of misbehaviors that, in and of itself, would be useful in the overall understanding and prediction of organiza- tional outcomes.
OMB: Is It "Good'' or ''Badn A second feature of the definition is that it does not necessarily equate norm and value violation with negative and undesirable behavior. For one thing, the definition itself does not make any references to consequences of OMB. Sec- ondly, the desirability of any value-breaking behavior is inherently, by definition, a judgmental matter. In gen- eral, a value-violating behavior would be deemed "un- desirable" by a collective of individuals holding that value, 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 same token, whistle-blowing may be viewed as commendable action by members of society at large, but unacceptable in a context of a particular organization.
Results of OMB. While the proposed definition does not 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 as to their degree of constructiveness for any given orga- nization. The basic premise is that an organization may not be successful, in the long run, if it expects, or even allows, members to violate values of the larger society within which it operates. Thus, using the same exam- ples of misbehavior, cheating customers would tend, in the long run, to be detrimental to organizations that allow it, but whistle-blowing may prove constructive (Miceli and Near 1994). OMB that simultaneously vio- lates both societal and organizational values, such as harassing members, sabotaging work, or vandalizing equipment, 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, OMB itself can be considered a variable. Moreover, because of the complex phenomenon it may tap. OMB should be treated as a multidimensional variable. Such an approach is not only useful for improved precision of the model, but is necessary for generating significant predictions about the phenomenon. In general, then, OMB may range from a low (benign) degree of misbe- havior to a high (severe) degree of misbehavior, and the measurement may take two forms: behavioral and attitudinal. The behavioral aspect of OMB can be measured using frequency counts of acts of misbehavior with respect to a given organizational unit, or with respect to individual members. This frequency measure can also be weighted by an index of severity of the ob- served misbehavior. Such an index may be comprised of two facets: (a) the centrality of the violated norm or value (for proposals related to the measurement of the centrality of a core value see, for example, Wiener, 1988), and (b) the degree of premeditation, preoccupa- tion or planning seemingly involved in displaying the misbehavior. 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 to be quite reluctant to openly express intentions to mis- behave, measures might be operationally developed in a questionnaire form, for example. Such multifaceted indices {behavioral and attitudi- nal) are used by OB researchers to measure specific work behaviors about which individuals are hesitant to report as withdrawal behavior (e.g., actual incidents of turnover and intentions to leave the organization), or organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., actual altruis- tic deeds and pro-social attitudes). Indeed, using both
actual and attitudinal observations may facilitate a more meaningful classification of the misbehavior phe- nomenon.
Basic Types of OMB An examination of a broad range of instances of norm violating behaviors would suggest that all such actions can be classified into three basic types in terms of the underlying intention of the misbehaving individual: (a) Misbehaviors that are intended to benefit the self (OMB Type S). These misbehaviors are mostly internal to the organization, and usually victimize the employ- ing organization or its members. Thus, such behaviors may have three categories of internal targets: (1) the work itself (e.g., distorting data); (2) the organization's property, resources, symbols or regulations (e.g., steal- ing and selling manufacturing secrets); and (3) other members (e.g., harassing peers). An exception to the above is a behavior by a member that appears to benefit 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 the member's employing organization as a whole (OMB Type O). Those misbehaviors (e.g., falsifying records in order to improve chances of obtaining a contract for the organization), are mostly external in nature, usually directed 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 is self-serving (e.g., for career considerations), it should not be classified as OMB Type O. More likely, this would be OMB Type S. (c) Misbehaviors that primarily intend to inflict dam- age and be destructive (OMB Type D). Targets of these behaviors could be as listed above, both internal and external. Whereas the intentions underlying Type S and Type O misbehaviors are to benefit either the individual or the organization, the intention behind OMB 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 or a response to perceived or actual mistreatment), or on behalf of "significant others" (e.g., interfering with organizationai operations to comply with Union's ex- pectations). However, the underlying intention must be to cause some type of damage whether minor or con- siderable, subtle or visible. While the above classification of OMB types is based on an internal psychological state (intentions), it seems
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2, March-April 1996 (^155)
VOAV V,\R1>I AND YOASH WIENER Misbehavior in Organizations
a o z
a O I a O)
as O O U
7 V
BO -J • <
UJ ^. a
E
h
LL.
ELI •a
Oto a: UJ a.
UJ C£Ul
d ^ .^ o 1^ " t^ (p., 3 z:^ UJ EC : J o o u u
o o
H
d
PER
LUES, LVA < VID i
o H
^ COG
UJ VAL
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2, March-April 1996 (^157)
YOAV VARDI AND YOASH WIENER Misbehauior in Organizations
or unfavorable outcomes. For instance, the probability of misusing company resources is smaller if the person believes that punishment may readily result from such act, than when no punishment is anticipated. Thus, the motivational process underlying OMB Type S is pri- marily calculative-instrumental. Nevertheless, while this type 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 the propositions section). OMB Type O, which by definition reflects intentions to benefit the employing organization rather than di- rectly the individual, would be primarily determined by "subjective norms" that are a function of the totality of internalized normative beliefs concerning organiza- tional expectations from members (see definitions and discussion of norms and values above). Thus, as a rule, Type O misbehaviors are anchored in ideology and values, and are carried out by individuals who strongly identify with their organization, its mission and its leadership, and who often are willing to sacrifice self- interests for such causes. Breaking the law to protect interests of the company while risking personal well- being, would be a case in point. While normative pressures determine this type OMB, one could also argue that certain instrumental factors serve as con- straints (for example, when the perpetrators refrain from acting because they estimate high likelihood of being punished by extemal agencies). Of course, it is possible that an individual may break the law on behalf of the company for personal interests. But, as we stipulated above, this form of misbehavior should be classified as OMB Type S because the predominate motive is benefitting the self. Unlike OMB Types S and O, OMB Type D is determined by either normative or instrumental processes, or by both simultaneously. OMB Type D reflects intentions to damage and hurt a particular organization or social unit. Underlying such intentions may be normative forces as in the case of damaging company property as a show of solidarity with striking union 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 of revenge or of vandalism. This is why we contend that, in principle, both normative and instrumental forces may converge simultaneously to determine Type D misbehavior. In addition to the core relationships dis- cussed above. Figure 1 presents the position in the model of individual and organizational factors that influence the formation of internalized organizational
expectations and instrumental motivation of members. Subsequent sections will discuss additional theoretical foundations, issues that pertain to determinants of OMB, and an analysis of consequences of OMB.
Input from Decision and Social Information Theories Misbehavior in organizations involves both calculative decision making and the processing of social informa- tion. In order to integrate such psychological processes in 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 proposed framework one major determinant of misbehavior is rational calculations of utility of behavior to self, it is important to account for the considerations that go into such a decision making process. March and Simon's (1958) seminal book on organizations offers important insights (e.g., inducement-contribution tradeoffs) about causes of work-related behavior. According to their paradigm, individuals in organizations decide not only to 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 their organizational environment. For instance, they use such information in their decisions to stay or leave. This rationale can be readily adapted to explain forms of misbehavior because individuals are aware (albeit im- perfectly) of the opportunities, as well as the conse- quences of engaging in misconduct. Such knowledge, in turn, provides the sources of most instrumental or calculative considerations that, like in the case of "standard" behavior, may be limited. Thus, the paradigm provides an essential attribute of the major cognitive 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 internalized beliefs and expectations. Relevant questions that may arise are: How do members of a social unit acquire norms and values? How do members "know" when they act in defiance, and therefore when they engage in certain forms of organizational misbehavior? The Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) theory of social informa- tion may be particularly helpful. For them, the social context itself affects person's behavior by shaping his or her perceptions and beliefs about organizational situations. Yet, one can argue, sense-making cues.
158 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2, March-April 1996
YOAV VARDI AND YOASH WIENER Misbehavior in Organizations
to be successfully socialized by and to identify with an organization when mistreatment of self and others is perceived. Thus, dissatisfaction of needs by an organi- zation primarily affects the instrumental component of motivation to misbehave but it can, indirectly, eon- tribute to the normative forces as well.
Organizational Factors Organizations differ in terms of the contextual condi- tions, at both the task and organization levels, that may affect the propensity of an individual member to en- gage in work related misbehavior. Five types of such factors are listed below:
Built-in Opportunity. Certain work organizations and jobs involve operations for which control is inherently difficult, for example, home delivery, operating cash registers, professional or food services, operations where cash transactions cannot be directly monitored by receipts, and inventory counts. In fact, most jobs may consist of some built-in opportunity to misuse or take advantage of various organizational resources (such as office equipment). The degree to which such built-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 and disciplinary systems, or special monitoring arrange- ments, in some organizations, are more effective at controlling behavior than in others. Both oppressive and lax controls may contribute to the emergence of OMB (cf. Hegarty and Sims 1979). Thus, control sys- tems, especially those that represent both extremes, may have a direct impact on members' instrumental considerations whether to engage in or refrain from acts of misconduct.
Organizational Culture. Organizational culture is widely regarded as a construct denoting the extent to which members share core organizational values (e.g., Wiener 1988). Several writers (e.g., Kunda 1992) have demonstrated the power of culture as a tool "used" by certain dominant groups (top management, for exam- ple) purposely to shape other members'values. Others (e.g., Hatch 1993) have begun to develop a conception of cultural dynamism that looks at how elements of culture interact over time. Either way, "organizational culture" may constitute an important normative influ- ence on the inclination of members to engage in acts of misbehavior. Trevino's (1986) model, for instance, di-
rectly relates the organizational culture variable to unethical decision behavior of managers.
Organizational Cohesiveness. Since in very cohesive social units the pressures to adhere to norms of con- duct are especially high (e.g.. Janis 1982), this factor may be similar to organizational culture in its effects on misbehavior. It may, indeed, be more powerful. Accordingly, we regard this organization characteristic as a significant antecedent that may strongly contribute to the normative component in the OMB model.
Organizational Goals. By definition, organizational goals are closely associated with organizational values and expectations and, therefore, are likely to exert influence on the normative motivational component in the model. Furthermore, organizational goals may di- rectly instigate misbehavior, particularly when they are highly demanding and unrealistic [for example, NASA's Challenger disaster (Reimann and Wiener 1988a) and. more recently, the Hubble fiasco (Stein and Kanter 1993)]. In the next section we begin to develop formal propositions for predicting OMB. Of the above list of antecedents, the following variables will be further discussed and the rationale behind their selection will be explained: Person-organization value congruence, personal need satisfaction by the organization, level of individual moral development, and organizational eo- hesiveness.
Propositions A large number of specific propositions can be gener- ated concerning the main and Interaction effects of various antecedents on OMB. However. In this section we chose to focus on three groups of propositions that appear to most parsimoniously tap the principal rela- tionships posited in our framework. Also, these propo- sitions may serve as examples for the rationale and way of thinking underlying other potential hypotheses. The three groups are: (a) The effect of person-organization value congruence (POVC) on the predisposition to engage in different types of OMB, both directly and in interaction with personal need satisfaction provided by the organization (PNS); (b) The effects of levels of persona! moral development on the predisposition to engage in different types of OMB; and (c) The inten- tion to engage in OMB as a function of organizational eohesiveness. The dependent variables in all proposi- tions are stated in terms of the strength of individual predispositions (or intentions) to engage in OMB Types
(^160) ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2, March-April 1996
YOAV VARDI AND YOASH WIENER Misbehavior in Organizations
S, O. and D, as articulated in the section "OMB as a variable" above. We use the predispositional rather than tbe behavioral measures here because they are, by definition,, the immediate outcome of motivation. Moreover, for these hypotheses we do not expect any difference in predictions when applying either behav- ioral or intentional variables. The basic rationale underlying the propositions is as follows: Normative pressures, when consistent with the interests of a referent social unit (i.e., an organization, or part of it), will enhance misbehavior on behalf of the unit (OMB Type O). and will suppress misbehaviors that either benefit the individual (OMB Type S) or are intended to inflict damage (OMB Type D). On the other hand, organizational actions and conditions that either frustrate instrumental interests of individual members, or lead them to believe that to engage in misconduct is self-benefitting, will tend to promote stronger predispositions towards OMB Type S and OMB Type D.
OMH AS a Function of Person-Organiza tion Value Congruence iind Personal Need Satisfaction Person-organization value congruence (POVC), consid- ered an essential determinant of organizational behav- ior (e.g.. Hall and Schneider 1972), serves as a crucial factor in predicting OMB. As an antecedent of behav- ior in the context of social organizations, POVC seems to be the most immediate and most potent determinant of the totality of normative pressures impinging on the individual. But POVC itself is a variable. Thus, for the purpose of developing testable hypotheses we assume three levels of congruence: Identification: personal val- ues are highly consistent with those of the referent social unit; Detachment: personal values are unrelated or neutral vis a vis the referent social unit; and Alien- ation: personal values are in conflict with those of the referent social unit. Another important antecedent variable we focus on is personal need satisfaction by the organization (PNS), postulating a dichotomy of low and high levels of satisfaction. While POVC denotes a normative an- tecedent, we consider this particular psychological an- tecedent to be a direct determinant of instrumental motivation that, in turn, influences the intention to misbehave. First we present propositions about the expected main effects of the person-organization value congru- ence antecedent. These main effects are summarized in 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-organization Value Congruence, Moral Development and Cohesiveness on the Predisposition to Engage in Three Types of OMB
Types of OMB Determinants of OMB Type S Type O Type D
Person-organization Identification Low High Low Value Congruence Detachment Alienation
High Low Low High Low High Moral Developmenl Preconventional High Low High Conventional Low High Low Principled Low Low Low Organization Low Cohesion High Low High Cohesiveness High Cohesion Low Htgh Low
PROPOSITION 1. Main effect of POVC on OMB Type S. Stronger predisposition to engage in OMB Type S is expected under conditions of Detachment and Alienation, and weaker predisposition to engage in OMB Type S is expected for Identification.
PROPOSITION 2. Main effect of POVC on OMB Type O. Stronger predisposition to commit OMB Type O is expected under the Identification condition, and weaker predispositions are expected for Detachment and Alien- ation.
PROPOSITION 3. Main effect of POVC on OMB Type D. Stronger predispo.sition to engage in OMB Type D is associated 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 a function of the interaction of the two core antecedents: Person-organization value congruence (POVC) and personal need satisfaction by the organization (PNS). These variabies, again, are designed to represent the normative and instrumental dimensions, respectively.
PROPOSITION 4. Interaction effects on OMB Type S. The predisposition to commit OMB Type S would be the strongest for individuals who experience dissatisfaction of their needs under POVC conditions of Detachment and Alienation. Weaker predi.spositions to engage in OMB Type 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)
YOAV VARDI AND YOASH WIENER Misbehavior in Organizations
tion to engage in OMB Type S among memhers in low cohesiveness social units, than among members in high cohesiveness 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 high cohesiveness social units, than among members in low cohesivene.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 low cohesiveness social units, than among members in high cohesiveness social units.
The effects of high organizational cohesiveness on OMB Type O, namely the pressures to completely identify with a social unit's goals, and therefore to engage in unconventional acts on its behalf, arc consis- tent with Janis's (19K2) anaiysis of the "groupthink" phenomenon. In his terms, the normative pressures toward uniformity exerted on members in highly cohe- sive groups inevitably lead to dysfunctional decision making processes. Such dynamics, we believe, may eventually result in willful, unethical choices, as well as destructive acts. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that the predisposition to engage in type O misbehavior will not necessarily be strong in all high-cohesiveness social units. The analyses of organizational value-systems by Rciman and Wiener (I988b> and Wiener (1988) suggest Ihat organizations whose value systems are dispropor- tionalely weighted with "elitist" values (i.e., those expressing superiority and uniqueness of the organiza- tion), are more likely to cut ethical corners, and even engage in criminal acts, than organizations whose value systems are essentially "functional"(i.e.. denote values of performance, quality, or service). Thus, we expect the predisposition to engage in OMB Type O to be particularly strong in high cohesiveness organizational units which espouse "elitist'" value systems.
Conclusions and New Directions This paper suggests an integrative framework within which organizational misbehavior can be conceptual- ized from a motivational perspective. Such notions have long been due, given the prevalence of this phe- nomenon in organizations, the growing awareness among managers and experts, the social and financial costs 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 of systematic 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 work behavior thinking by anchoring it in widely accepted motivational principles. Second, the framework reem- phasizes the role of values and normative processes in determining organizational behavior (and misbehavior). Third, the proposed model allows for researeh proposi- tions that lend themselves to empirical investigation and strategic managerial implications. Fourth, the pro- posed typology of OMB enables integration of differ- ent categories of intentional misbehavior, such as against production, property, and people (Hollinger
- with unethical behavior (Trevino 1986). into a unified conceptual framework. Undoubtedly, further theoretical work on the OMB phenomenon is needed to expand our understanding of both its seope and effects. The following are examples of directions for future conceptual work. First, depend- ing on the particular type of OMB, a given act of misbehavior 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 defined and refined. Second. OMB must be assessed in relation to other modes of work-related behavior, for example, in the context of performance appraisal systems (e.g., should employees receive feedback on misbehavior as well as on standard and exceptional performance?). Third, misbehavior must be better understood in terms of 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 in order to integrate the underlying paradigms of individ- ual choice and decision behavior (March and Simon 1958). and of social information processing (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978) with the proposed motivational the- ory of organizational misbehavior. For example, we need to know more how different types of members obtain and process relevant (personal, organizational, symbolic) information that eventually leads them to engage in the various forms of misbehavior or refrain from it. We certainly need to better understand the ro!e of organizational cohesiveness as mitigating social information and decision processes in the context of OMB. Fifth, considerable effort must be expended on
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2, March-April 1996 (^163)
YOAV VARDI AND YOASH WIENER Misbehavior in Organizations
identifying outcomes and consequences of organiza- tional misbehavior and how they affect not only the perpetrators themselves, but also their social environ- ment (e.g., superiors, peers, subordinates), both in short and long terms. The dynamic nature of OMB in tem- poral perspective (How do OMB patterns change over time? What do members learn about misbehavior?), for instance, can be explored by adapting frameworks of cultural dynamics (e.g.. Hatch 1993) to account for misbehavior as weil as "behavior." Finally, there is a need to more directly examine the role of acute or short-term emotional states (such as rage, mood, jeal- ousy, hatred, vengeance) as antecedents of organiza- tional misbehavior. While our framework empha.sizes more 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 of organizational research and theory. There is no ques- tion that we must recognize the pervasive existence of misbehavior at work and use a creative approach to its research. The long-term disguised participant observa- tion applied by Analoui and Kakabadse (1992), the anthropological design used by Mars (1982), the quasi experimental design used by Greenberg (1990), or Robinson and Bennett's (1993) recent effort to develop multidimensional scaling of workplace (destructive) de- viance, may represent such ingenuity. Indeed, we be- lieve, that once research designs that would overcome our apparent reluctance to study misbehavior are de- veloped, they are bound to open fascinating avenues for investigation in organizations. The fundamental implication of the OMB frame- work is that policy makers and researchers must better understand the compelling impact of instrumental and normative forces on the emergence of different forms of intentional misconduct in different kinds of organi- zational settings. Recognizing these differences is cru- cial for the design of more effective behavior control strategies. From that perspective, the exploration of organizational misbehavior promises a more insightful understanding of ways to manage the whole spectrum of behavior in organizations. We believe that the new typology and conceptual framework presented here offer an important step in that direction.
Acknowledgements A preliminary paper was presented at the Academy of Management Meeling.s, Liis Vegas. August. 1992, The authors would like to Ihank Orly 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.
Referenees Analoui. 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 of Management Journal, 34, 9-36. Braithwaite, J. (198.'i), 'White Collar Crime," Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 1-25. Brown, M. M. (1976). "Values—A Necessary but Neglected Ingredi- ent of Motivation on the Job,'" Academy of Management Review.
- 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," in M. 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-managemeru Relationships, New York: Harper and Row. Greenberg. J. (1990), "Employee Theft as a Response to Underem- ployment Inequity: The Hidden Cost of Pay Cuts," Joumal of Applied 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 of Unethical 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 Formal iVork Organization, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilm. (1986). '"Acts against the Workplace: Social Bonding and Employee Deviance," Dwian/ Behavior, 1, 53-75. and J. P. Clark (1982), "Employee Deviance: A Response to the Perceived Ouality of the Work Experience," Work and Occupations, 10,97-114.
(^164) ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 7, No. 2, March-April 19%
