Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17, No.

1, Fall 2002 (2002)

DEVIANT WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR AND THE ORGANIZATIONS ETHICAL CLIMATE Dane K. Peterson
Southwest Missouri State University

ABSTRACT: While a number of previous studies have investigated the effects of personal characteristics and interpersonal factors on a specific type of deviant behavior, the present study examined how organizational factors, or more specifically ethical climates within organizations, are related to various types of deviant behavior. The results provided evidence that certain types of ethical climates were related to specific types of deviant behavior, suggesting that the causes for deviant behavior might depend on the specific type of deviant behavior. It was noted that the results of the present study have both theoretical relevance and practical implications with respect to workplace deviance. KEY WORDS: deviant workplace behavior; organizational climate; Ethical Climate Questionnaire.

There is growing interest among researchers and practitioners concerning negative workplace behaviors. The number of studies examining such issues as fraud, vandalism, theft, lying, spreading malicious rumors, withholding effort, aggressive behavior, and sexual harassment in the workplace is growing rapidly (Griffin, OLeary-Kelly, & Collins, 1998). The obvious impetus for the growing interest in counterproductive behavior is the increasing prevalence of this type of behavior in the workplace and the enormous costs associated with such behavior. Several studies have documented not only the financial impact, but also the social and psychological effects of negative workplace behavior on the organization (Hollinger & Clark, 1982, 1983; Murphy, 1993; Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). Given the growing prevalence of detrimental behaviors and the associated costs, it would be extremely beneficial to organi-

Address correspondence to Dane K. Peterson, Professor of Quantitative Business Analysis, College of Business Administration, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65804; e-mail: dkp215f@mail.smsu.edu. 47
0889-3268/02/0900-0047/0 2002 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

48

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

zations to determine which variables contribute to such behavior, or at least identify potential factors that can predict the occurrence of various types of negative workplace behavior. This study examined the possibility of predicting various types of negative workplace behavior based on an instrument used to assess the ethical climate of organizations. DEVIANT WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR Negative workplace behavior has been referred to as antisocial behavior (Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998), organizational misbehavior (Vardi & Wiener, 1966), non-compliant behavior (Puffer, 1987), workplace deviance (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998) and dysfunctional workplace behavior (Griffin et al., 1998), to name a few. This paper focuses on the construct of deviant workplace behavior as defined by Robinson and Bennett (1995). Deviant workplace behavior has been the topic of several investigations and this concept may arguably be considered the most fully developed (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). That is, researchers have empirically developed a comprehensive typology of deviant workplace behaviors and validated potential methods for measuring workplace deviance. Workplace deviance has been defined as voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well being of an organization, its members, or both (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). An empirically derived typology of workplace deviance has been developed with the aid of a multidimensional scaling procedure. The results produced a two dimensional configuration of deviant workplace behaviors. One axis of the perceptual map was labeled the organizationalinterpersonal dimension. This dimension represented the target of the deviant behavior. The dimension ranged from deviant behavior aimed at the organization (e.g., sabotaging equipment) to deviant behavior primarily directed at a member of the organization (e.g., sexual harassment). The second dimension represented the severity of the deviant behavior. Deviant behavior on this dimension varied on a continuum from minor forms of deviance (e.g., gossiping about fellow employees) to serious forms of deviant behavior (e.g., physical abuse). The perceptual configuration based on the two dimensions resulted in four quadrants, or four classifications of deviant behavior. Robinson and Bennett (1995) referred to the four classes of deviant behavior as (1) Production Deviance, (2) Political Deviance, (3) Property Deviance, and (4) Personal Aggression. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO WORKPLACE DEVIANCE Possible explanations for workplace deviance include individual factors, social and interpersonal factors, and organizational factors (Boye &

DANE K. PETERSON

49

Jones, 1997; Vardi & Wiener, 1996; Vardi, 2001). At the individual level, several papers have examined the possibility that personality characteristics of the employee may provide an explanation for workplace deviance (Blasi, 1980). Despite numerous investigations in the area, there has been very little if any support for a positive association between personality and various forms of deviant behavior (Arbuthnot, Gordon, & Jurkovic, 1987). It appears that personality variables alone are unlikely to account a significant portion of the variance in predicting deviant workplace behavior (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). Rather it is more likely that deviant behavior may be best predicted based on a combination of personality variables and the nature of the workplace situation (Trevino & Youngblood, 1990). Also at the individual level, several studies have also investigated a number of demographic variables. Studies have reported that some forms of production deviance and property deviance are more likely to involve employees who are young, new to their job, work part-time, and have low-paying positions (Frank, 1989; Hollinger & Clark, 1983). However, these findings may be more likely to be a result of the nature of the job than due to personal demographic characteristics (see Robinson & Greenberg, 1998 for a review). The research on social and interpersonal factors has been much more favorable. Research has shown that perceptions of unfair treatment, social norms, and the influence of work groups can contribute to workplace deviance (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998; Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998). With respect to the relationship between organizational factors and workplace deviance, there has been very little, if any valid research in this area (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). Except for studies involving inequity in pay (Greenberg, 1990; Hollinger & Clark, 1983), most articles on the influence of organizational factors are merely anecdotal reports. Thus, there would appear to be a need for research examining potential organizational factors that may be related to deviant workplace behavior.

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE Situational and organizational factors are known to influence the behavior and attitudes of the employees (Trevino, 1986). One organizational factor that has been demonstrated to have a significant impact on employee behavior is the organizational climate (Turnipseed, 1988). Organizational climate has been defined as the shared perceptions of organizational policies, practices, and procedures, both formal and informal (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). It has been argued that there are many types of work climates, such as a climate for service, climate for safety compliance, climate for innovation, etc. (Schneider & Rentsch, 1988). One of the many types of work climates that have been proposed

50

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

to exist within organizations is an ethical climate (Victor & Cullen, 1988). According to Victor and Cullen (1987), the ethical climate of an organization refers to the shared perceptions of what is ethically correct behavior and how ethical issues should be handled in the organization. Several studies have demonstrated that the ethical climate of an organization significantly influences the ethical behavior of the employees (Deshpande, George, & Joseph, 2000; Fritzsche, 2000; Trevino, Butterfield, & McCabe, 1998). It has been suggested that the ethical climate of an organization may be linked not only to the ethical behavior of employees, but also to a range of behaviors including counterproductive behaviors such as tardiness, absenteeism, and lax performance (Wimbush & Shepard, 1994). Thus, the ethical climate of an organization may be predictive of both ethical behavior as well as the occurrence of deviant workplace behaviors. Further support for this notion is that several of the behaviors that are considered deviant may also be considered unethical (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). The distinction between the two types of behavior is that ethics focuses on behavior that is right or wrong when judged in terms of justice, law, or other societal guidelines determining the morality of behavior whereas deviance focuses on behavior that violates significant organizational norms. Since deviance is defined in terms of departure from organizational norms, this would seem to provide further support for the possibility that deviant behavior in the workplace may be predictable from the climate of the organization.

ETHICAL CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRE To assess the ethical climate within organizations, Victor and Cullen (1987) developed the Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ). The underlying assumption of the ECQ is that the ethical climate in organizations can be classified into categories analogous to Kohlbergs (1981) ethical standards (egoism, benevolence, and principle) and the referent group that serves as a source of moral reasoning (individual, local, and cosmopolitan). The ethical standards reflect the three major classes of ethical theory, egoism, utilitarianism, and deontology (Fritzsche & Becker, 1984). They may be distinguished in terms of maximizing ones own self-interests (egoism), maximizing the interests of as many people as possible (benevolence), or adherence to universal standards and beliefs (principle). The referent refers to the source from which individuals receive their cues regarding what is considered ethically appropriate. The source could be the employees self-determined ethical beliefs (individual), the organizations standards and policies (local), or external to the individual and organization, such as a professional association (cosmopolitan). The

DANE K. PETERSON

51

cross-classification of the three ethical standards with the three referents produces nine theoretical dimensions of an ethical work climate. The most recent version of the ECQ was constructed by developing four questions for each of the nine theoretical dimensions (Cullen, Victor, & Bronson, 1993). Four studies have reported the results of using the most recent version of the ECQ (Cullen et al., 1993; Trevino & Butterfield, 1998; Vaicys, Barnett, & Brown, 1996; Wimbush, Shepard, & Markham, 1997). These studies have analyzed data obtained from the ECQ with exploratory factor analysis procedures to identify and determine the number of ethical climate dimensions in organizations. While there have been some similarities in the results of these studies, there have also been a number of differences in the observed factor structure. For example, the number of factors, or dimensions, extracted in the investigations varied from five in one study (Wimbush et al., 1997) to seven dimensions in two other studies (Cullen et al., 1993; Trevino et al., 1998). In addition, the labels for the dimensions and how the items loaded on each dimension varied across studies. As an illustration, Trevino et al. (1998) identified the following seven dimensions in their study; (1) Rulesthe perceived importance the organization places on complying with company rules and regulations, (2) Lawthe perceived importance the organization places on complying with laws and professional standards, (3) Employee Focus the perceived concern the organization has for the employees, (4) Community Focusthe perceived concern the organization has for customers, the community, and public interest, (5) Personal Ethicsthe perceived degree to which the organization lets individual employees decide what is right and wrong, (6) Self Interestthe perceived degree to which individuals in the organization are primarily concerned about themselves or protect their own interests, and (7) Efficiencythe perceived degree to which efficiency is the primary concern of the organization.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study explored the possibility that deviant workplace behavior might be predictable from the organizations ethical climate and that certain ethical climate types might be related to the various classes of deviant workplace behavior identified by Robinson and Bennett (1995). The ECQ was used in the present study to assess the ethical climate of the organizations. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedure was used to determine which of the models based on the exploratory factor analyses in previous studies provided the best fit for the data collected in the current study. The factors identified on the basis of the CFA were

52

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

then used to predict the self-reported incidence of deviant workplace behavior. While numerous studies have investigated potential causes of workplace deviance, very few of the studies have attempted to relate the potential causes with any type of classification scheme for the various types of workplace deviance. Robinson and Bennett (1995) speculated that the factors contributing to deviant behavior might vary depending on the type of deviant behavior. Based on their classification scheme for workplace deviance, they suggested that situational or organizational factors might be responsible for workplace deviance directed at the organization, whereas personal characteristics of the individual committing the deviant behavior may explain interpersonal deviance. Thus, it might be expected that the organizations ethical climate is a better predictor of Production and Property Deviance than Political Deviance and Personal Aggression.

METHOD The Questionnaire The survey included the 36 items of the ECQ (Cullen et al., 1993). The instructions and procedure were identical to that described in previous studies (Cullen & Victor, 1987). Subjects indicated their responses on a six point Likert scale from (0) Completely false to (5) Completely true. Respondents were asked to respond to the items based on how it really is in their company and not how they would prefer it to be. Prior evidence suggests that if respondents are assured of anonymity, it is possible to assess workplace deviance through self-reports (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Thus, to assess the extent of workplace deviance, 20 items were initially selected, five from each of the four classifications identified in the Robinson and Bennett (1995) study. The survey was first pre-tested and then discussed with a group of 28 MBA students, most of who had experience working full-time in a professional position. Some modifications were made to the questionnaire and it was pretested a second time with a second group of 23 MBA students. Based on the results of the two pre-tests, some of the items were modified, while others were removed based on the expectation for extremely low frequency of self reported occurrences of the deviant behavior in question. The final survey included 12 deviant items, three from each of the four classifications. The items chosen for this study are displayed in Table 1. The respondents were asked to check each behavior they engaged in at work during the previous year. To obtain a sample of business professionals from a number of diverse functional areas and organizations, the sampling frame in the

DANE K. PETERSON

53

Table 1 Deviant Work Behaviors Production Deviance 1. Worked on a personal matter instead of worked for your employer 2. Taken an additional or a longer break than is acceptable at your place of work 3. Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked Political Deviance 4. Showed favoritism for a fellow employee or subordinate employee 5. Blamed someone else or let someone else take the blame for your mistake 6. Repeated gossip about a co-worker Property Deviance 7. Padded an expense account to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business expenses 8. Accepted a gift/favor in exchange for preferential treatment 9. Taken property from work without permission Personal Aggression 10. Cursed at someone at work 11. Made an ethnic or sexually harassing remark or joke at work 12. Made someone feel physically intimidated either through threats or carelessness at work

present study consisted of names on a computerized list of alumni from a large mid-western state university. The random selection option was used to randomly select 700 names of alumni who graduated with an undergraduate degree from the college of business between the years 1983 and 1995. A cover letter, the survey, and a self-addressed postage paid envelope were mailed to the individuals randomly selected for the study. A total of 184 useable questionnaires were received for a return rate of 26.3%, a response rate that approximates similar studies of this nature.

RESULTS A maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the data to determine which of the four previously obtained models best fit the data. In the analysis, no cross loadings were allowed. Latent factors were allowed to intercorrelate freely and factor variances were set equal to one. The results for various measures of goodness of fit are presented in Table 2. Recent rules of thumb suggest that a combination of fit criteria should be used when making a decision whether or not to reject a model. For example, it has been suggested that a RSMR value greater than .09 and a Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) less than .96 would be an indication that a model can be rejected as not providing an adequate fit to the data

54

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Table 2 Summary of Fit Tests for Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models Study Cullen Trevino Vaicys Wimbush NFI .682 .821 .763 .589 TLI .779 .928 .883 .712 GFI .781 .882 .836 .728 AGFI .733 .842 .797 .690 RMSR .111 .070 .074 .102 RMSEA .074 .046 .055 .075

NFINormalized Fit Index, TLITucker Lewis Index, GFIGoodness of Fit Index, AGFIAdjusted Goodness of Fit Index, RMSRRoot Mean Square Residual, RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

(Hu & Bentler, 1999). Based on these criteria, the empirically obtained models in the Cullen and Wimbush study can be rejected as not providing an adequate fit to the data obtained in the present study. Only the models reported by Trevino and Vaicys provide close approximations to the present data. It has been suggested that an indication of good fit would be a value of at least .95 for the TLI and a RMSEA value of no more than .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). As can be seen in Table 2, none of the models satisfies both of these criteria. Of the four models, it appears that Trevinos model provides the best fit, although the fit would probably best be described as in the reasonable to moderately acceptable range. Thus, Trevinos model was used to derive factor-based scores to examine the relationship between ethical climate and deviant workplace behavior. To investigate the relationship between the various ethical climates and deviant workplace behaviors, twelve separate forward logistic regression analyses were performed on the data. The dependent measure was the dummy coded results for the twelve deviant behaviors. The seven independent variables in each regression analysis were the factorbased scores for the seven ethical climate dimensions identified in the Trevino study. The results of the twelve forward logistics regression analyses are presented in Table 3. The first row of Table 3 illustrates the percent of respondents that indicated they engaged in each of the twelve deviant behaviors during the last year. For the most part, the data appears to be similar to the results reported by Bennett and Robinson (2000). The percentage of respondents engaging in each of the deviant behaviors ranged from 25.4% for cursing at someone at work to 61.7% for repeated gossip about a co-worker. The results would seem to confirm the notion that deviant behavior is not an unusual or a rare event in the modern workplace. Each column represents the results of one of the 12 forward logistics regression analyses. The values in rows two through eight represent the

Table 3 Forward Logistics Regression Results for the Twelve Deviant Workplace Behaviors Production 1 56.8 .492 52.0 32.0 52.0 45.6 61.7 42.4 .527 .459 40.0 .610 44.8 25.4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Political Items Property Items Personal Items 11 46.4 12 32.0

Items

.241 .478 1.70 .783 46.0 .728 26.3 .674 24.9 .641 12.0 .658 14.0 .663 24.2 .679 27.9 .541 1.79 .663 6.10

.508

.512

.483

.332

.277 .462 .569

DANE K. PETERSON

Observed Behavior (Percent) Rules Law Employee Focus Community Focus Personal Ethics Self Interest Efficiency Percent Correct Chi-square .592 .674 21.8

72.8 43.6

70.6 6.69

Percent observed behavior is the proportion of respondents engaging in the deviant behavior. Values represent adjusted log odds ratios. If no value is present in a cell, the dimension did not enter the forward logistics regression model. Percent correct represents the percent of respondents correctly classified by the logistics regression model. The chi-square test statistic is for the logistics regression model and is significant (p < .05) for all items except number 10.

55

56

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

logistics regression odds ratios. Values appear in rows two through eight only for the ethical climate dimensions that entered the forward logistics regression analysis at the .05 level of significance. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that the odds of engaging in the deviant behavior increase as the score on the ethical climate dimension increases, while an odds ratio less than 1 indicates that the odds of engaging in the deviant behavior decreases as the score on the ethical climate increases. Thus for the first item (worked on a personal matter instead of worked for your employer), the significant predictors were Employee Focus and Selfinterest. The results suggest that an organization with a high concern for the employees (a high value for the Employee Focus dimension) is less likely to experience incidences of employees working on personal matters during company time. Conversely, an organization with a climate in which the employees are primarily concerned about themselves (Self-interest dimension) is more likely to have problems associated with employees working on personal matters during company time. The next to last row in Table 3 indicates the percentage of correctly classified responses to the items based on the logistic regression model. Thus the first model correctly classified 78.3 percent of the 184 responses given by the subjects on the first item. The regression model chi-square test statistic is displayed in the last row. All reported chi-square values that are displayed in Table 3 are significant. As can be seen in the first three columns of Table 3, the Employee Focus, Personal Ethics, and Self-interest dimensions were each significant predictors for two of the three Production Deviance items. This may suggest that companies are likely to experience deviant production behavior if the ethical climate of the organization is high in terms of emphasis on employees looking out for themselves, and low on both organizational concern for the employees and failure to stress individual ethics. The only ethical climate dimension that entered the logistics regression model for the three items representing Political Deviance (Columns 3 through 6) was Employee Focus. Thus, it would appear that companies that show high concern for the employees are less likely to experience deviant political behavior. For Property Deviance, both the Rules and Laws ethical dimensions entered as significant predictors for two of the three items. This suggests that ethical climates that stress adherence to company rules along with adherence to professional standards and the law are less likely to experience Property Deviance. The Efficiency climate was also found to be a significant predictor of taking company property without permission. The final category of deviant behavior, Personal Aggression, did not show any clear pattern with respect to its relationship with the ethical climate dimensions. None of the ethical climates were significant predictors of cursing at someone at work. Both the Law and Employee Focus

DANE K. PETERSON

57

dimensions entered the model as significant predictors of ethnic or sexually harassing remarks, while Personal Ethics was the only significant predictor of physical intimidation.

DISCUSSION The results clearly demonstrate that deviant workplace behavior can be partially predicted from the ethical climate of an organization. Form a theoretical perspective, the results provided some mixed results regarding how consistently the ethical climate dimensions predicted deviant behaviors that were selected from the same category. While some classifications of deviant behavior were consistently related to the same ethical climate dimensions, the data did not show a clear pattern with respect to the ethical climates and deviant behaviors in other classifications. The clearest relationship was between Political Deviance and the Employee Focus dimension. The Employee Focus dimension was significantly related to all three items in this category and was the only dimension that significantly predicted Political Deviance. Political Deviance is considered a minor form of deviance directed at members of the organization, such as favoritism, gossiping, and blaming co-workers. An Employee Focus climate is one in which the employees perceive that the organization is very concerned about the welfare of everyone in the organization. This implies that organizations that foster a climate of caring for the individual employees is less likely to experience problems associated with Political Deviance. A second classification in which the data provided some consistent results for each item within the category was in terms of Property Deviance. Property Deviance is characterized as a serious form of deviant behavior directed at the organization. Property Deviance typically involves direct costs to the organization such as stealing from the company, damaging company property, or padding expense accounts. Deviant property behavior was primarily predictable from the Rule and Law dimensions. Rules pertain to the degree to which employees perceive the organization stressing the need to adhere to the companys policy and regulations, whereas the Law dimension is more concerned with adherence to norms outside the organization, such as a professional code of conduct. The results of the present study indicate that organizations with a low perceived emphasis on adherence to company rules and laws would be more likely to experience deviant behavior related to misuse of organizational property. In addition, a climate emphasizing high efficiency was significantly related to one of the deviant behaviors selected as a representation of this classification. All three dimensions, Rules,

58

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Law, and Efficiency, would seem to be related in that they suggest an adherence to procedures for conducting organizational business. While it is obvious that a strong organizational emphasis on obeying regulations cannot guarantee the absence of deviant behavior related to property misuse, the results strongly suggest these ethical climates provide an atmosphere for reducing this deviant behavior. The significant predictors of Production Deviance included the Personal Ethics dimension, Self-interest dimension, and again the Employee Focus dimension. Production Deviance is classified as a minor form of deviance directed at the organization. The Self-interest dimension was the only dimension that had a direct or positive relationship with deviant behavior. This implies that in organizations in which individual members are primarily concerned for themselves are more likely to experience problems associated with Production Deviance. On the other hand, organizations that appear to place an emphasis on each employee deciding what is right and what is wrong (Personal Ethics), along with a high level of concern for the employees (Employee Focus) are less likely to experience production deviance. The final category, Personal Aggression, provided the least consistent results. Personal Aggression represents a serious form of deviance directed at members of the organization. While one behavior in this category was unpredictable from any of the dimensions, the best predictors of the remaining two items represented different types of ethical climates. The Law and Employee Focus dimensions were the best predictor of engaging in ethnic and sexually harassing remarks, while Personal Ethics was the best predictor of physically intimidating co-workers. None of the seven ethical climate dimensions were significant predictors of the deviant behavior cursed at someone at work. Thus, there was a lack of consistency in this category. It would seem plausible that organizational climate may have less of an impact on the prevalence of personal aggression. Possibly deviant behavior in this category is best be explained by factors related to characteristics of the individual committing the act (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). While previous studies have shown that the ECQ is a valid predictor of unethical behavior, the present study demonstrates that the instrument is also predictive of deviant behavior. The ethical dimensions were predictive of many types of behaviors examined in this study providing support for the notion that the climate of the organization can have a significant impact on deviant workplace behavior. In addition, which ethical climate dimensions best predicted the deviant behavior appeared in many cases to depend on the type of deviant behavior. For minor forms of deviance (Production and Political), the dimensions representing a caring and sincere interest for the well being of each employee (Employee Focus) was predictive of five of the six items. Conversely, for

DANE K. PETERSON

59

serious forms of deviant behavior (Property and Personal), a dimension associated with requiring employees to adhere to the codes and regulations of their profession or government (Law) was predictive of three of the six items. Thus, the results support the notion that the factors contributing to deviant workplace behavior may depend on the type or classification of deviant behavior as proposed by Robinson and Bennett (1995). However, based on the percentage of correct classifications, the results did not provide much support for the notion that deviant behavior directed at the organization was more predictable from the ECQ than deviant behavior aimed at members of the organization. Thus, organizational factors may be just as predictive of some types of deviant behavior aimed at individuals as deviant behavior aimed at the organization. From a managerial perspective, the ECQ appears to provide a useful means to assess an organizations ethical climate, which may provide some indication as to the types of deviant workplace behavior that may occur within that organization. To assist management in developing a more conducive moral climate, Vidaver-Cohen (1998) has proposed a framework that offers some helpful guidelines. For example, VidaverCohen proposed that an organizations climate could be influenced through the wording of mission statements by emphasizing an employee focus or concern for employees. Strategy formulation could emphasize the need to look out for the welfare of employees. In addition, the behavior exhibited by those in power could establish an important role in providing employees with a model for acceptable behavior in the organization. Similarly the cultural processes, which include formal socialization practices and rituals, may influence the organizations ethical climate. These may be established through such programs as management training or new employee orientations. Other possibilities are also addressed by Vidaver-Cohen (1998). In summary, the present study provides needed research on the relationship between organizational variables and deviant workplace behavior. Rather than focusing on factors associated with a single deviant behavior as in many previous studies, the present study examined how various types of deviant workplace behavior were related to different ethical climate dimensions within the organization. In addition, this paper demonstrated that the factors contributing to deviant workplace behavior might depend on the type or classification of deviant behavior. REFERENCES
Arbuthnot, J., Gordon, D. A., & Jurkovic, G. J. (1987). Personality. In H. C. Quay (Ed.), Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency, pp. 139 183. New York: Wiley. Bennett, R. J. & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349 360.

60

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1 45. Boye, M. W. & Jones, J. (1997). Organizational culture and employee counter-productivity. In R. A. Giacalone and J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, pp. 172 184. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J. W. (1993). The ethical climate questionnaire: An assessment of its development and validity. Psychological Reports, 73, 667 674. Deshpande, S. P., George, E., & Joseph, J. (2000). Ethical climates and managerial success in Russian organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 211 217. Frank, R. F. (1989). How passion pays: Finding opportunities in honesty. Business and Society Review, Summer, 20 28. Fritzsche, D. J. (2000). Ethical climates and the ethical dimension of decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 125 140. Fritzsche, D. J. & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 166 175. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561 568. Griffin, R. W., OLeary-Kelly, A., & Collins, J. (1998). Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations. Trends in Organizational Behavior, 5, 65 82. Hollinger, R. C. & Clark, J. P. (1982). Formal and informal social controls of employee deviance. Sociological Quarterly, 23, 333 343. Hollinger, R. C. & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by Employees. Lexington MA: D. C. Heath. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1 55. Kohlberg, L. K. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development. New York: Harper & Row. Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the Workplace. Belmont, CA: Brooks & Cole. Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance among commission sales people. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 615 621. Reichers, A. E. & Schneider B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, pp. 5 39. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Robinson, S. L. & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555 572. Robinson, S. L. & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. Trends in Organizational Behavior, 5, 1 30. Robinson, S. L. & OLeary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: the influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658 672. Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601 617. Trevino, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. I. (1998). The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 447 476. Trevino, L. K. & Youngblood, S. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 378 38. Turnipseed, D. L. (1988). An integrated, interactive model of organizational climate, culture, and effectiveness. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 9, 17 21. Vaicys, C., Barnett, T., & Brown, G. (1996). An analysis of the factor structure of the ethical climate questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 79, 115 120. Vardi, Y. (2001). The effects of organizational and ethical climates on misconduct at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 325 337. Vardi, Y. & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organizational Science, 7, 151 165. Victor, B. & Cullen, J. B. (1987). A theory and measure of ethical climate in organizations. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 9, 51 71. Victor, B. & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 33, 101 125.

DANE K. PETERSON

61

Vidaver-Cohen, D. (1998). Moral climate in business firms: A conceptual framework for analysis and change. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1211 1226. Wimbush, J. C. & Shepard, J. M. (1994). Toward an understanding of ethical climate: Its relationship to ethical behavior and supervisory influence. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 637 647. Wimbush, J. C., Shepard, J. M., & Markham, J. (1997). An examination of the relationship between ethical climate and ethical behavior from multiple levels of analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1705 1716.