Deviant and Criminal Behavior in the Workplace

6. Human Resource Management and Deviant/Criminal Behavior in Organizations

128 > 129 Disruptive Behavior at Work: What Is the Domain of Interest? The realm of disruptive/dysfunctional behavior in the workplace is vast. Behaviors that fall into this general category can be relatively mild (such as passive-aggressive behavior at work and workplace incivility) to extremely impactful and even illegal (workplace violence possibly including murder , large-scale sabotage, and major forms of theft). Robinson and Bennett (1995) performed multidimensional scaling of questions about deviant workplace behaviors, and found that two dimensions seem to capture the domain (minor vs. serious and interpersonal vs. organizational). Thus, they define deviant workplace behavior as being production deviance, property deviance, political deviance, and personal aggression. More recently other researchers have broadened the concept, and today a wide variety of behaviors can fall into the general category of disruptive, dysfunctional, or deviant workplace behavior. Such behavior has been referred to as the “dark side” of organizational behavior (Furnham & Taylor, 2004). Some of these topics have a long history of interest to HRM scholars (such as theft in the workplace), while others have a much more modern origin (such as organizational citizenship behavior and workplace bullying). Given the extremely wide latitude that dysfunctional workplace behavior can entail, specific HRM practices to reduce and manage such behavior can be equally variable. We first need to discuss the kinds of behaviors that are in question. Workplace Incivility. Andersson and Pearson (1999, 475) defined workplace incivility as “low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous.” Such behaviors are clearly of a mild nature when compared to other forms of workplace deviance and dysfunctional behavior. The two key defining elements in this definition are that the behavior is relatively mild in impact, and it assumes an ambiguous role for intentionality. Finally, incivility is really little more than a violation of basic norms of decency in dealing with other people. Numerous varieties of specific behavior can fall within this definition. Simple rudeness, hyper-critical or sarcastic comments, or simple benign hostility all fall within this realm, and it is likely that very few workers have never experienced such forms of treatment from coworkers. Anger. Workplaces have been identified as one of the most interpersonally frustrating contexts that people encounter in their lives (Fitness, 2000), so it is not unreasonable that anger-eliciting and obnoxious workplace events will be experienced by many workers. Anger, it should be noted, is emotional in 130 > 131 violence, yet forms of “internal” violence are known by different names. In the European Union (EU) and Australia for instance, bullying is a commonly used term to describe lower-level violence, whereas in the United States the terms harassment, mistreatment, or emotional abuse are preferred. Horizontal violence and mobbing (group bullying) are other descriptors used to explain hostile and aggressive behavior by individual or group members toward another person (Hastie, 2001). The multi-causal nature of bullying underscores the difficulty of definitional consensus (Agervold 2007; Djurkovic, McCormack & Casimir, 2005) and it is known that different targets experience different types of bullying (Notelaers, Einarsen, De Witte & Vermunt, 2006). Nonetheless, a common denominator of most definitions is a perceived power imbalance. One explanation proposed by Einarsen (1999, 16) describes bullying as an activity that “occurs when someone is systematically subjected to aggressive behavior from one or more colleagues or superiors over a long period of time, in a situation where the target finds it difficult to defend him or herself or to escape the situation.” Generally, it is agreed that bullying is aggressive behavior , typically repeated, and demonstrating an imbalance of power making it difficult for victims to defend themselves. It is germane to point out some distinguishable differences between bullying and harassment, terms sometimes used synonymously. One key difference is that behavior which constitutes harassment is viewed as discriminatory in nature because it is related to a social identity basis, whereas bullying is usually emotional or psychological abuse (Labor Relations Agency, 2007). Counterproductive Workplace Behavior. Various authors have begun using the term “counterproductive workplace behavior” (CWB) to refer to a wide variety of employee misbehaviors. This terminology is a reflection of this being the opposite of what has been referred to as “organizational citizenship behavior” (OCB), a construct with a longer history in the HRM and management research literature. The literature on CWBs in the workplace leads to the notion of...