Googlepreview PDF

MISBEHAVIOR IN ORGANIZATIONS
Theory, Research, and Management

SERIES IN APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University
Jeanette N. Cleveland, Pennsylvania State University
Series Editors
Gregory Bedny and David Meister

The Russian Theory of Activity: Current Applications to Design and Learning
Michael T. Brannick, Eduardo Salas, and Carolyn Prince
Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Research, and
Applications
Jeanette N. Cleveland, Margaret Stockdale, and Kevin R. Murphy
Women and Men in Organizations: Sex and Gender Issues at Work
Aaron Cohen
Multiple Commitments in the Workplace: An Integrative Approach
Russell Cropanzano
Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource
Management, Volume 1
Russell Cropanzano
Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice, Volume 2
David V. Day, Stephen Zaccaro, and Stanley M. Halpin
Leader Development for Transforming Organizations: Growing Leaders for
Tomorrow’s Teams and Organizations
James E. Driskell and Eduardo Salas
Stress and Human Performance
Sidney A. Fine and Steven F. Cronshaw
Functional Job Analysis: A Foundation for Human Resources Management
Sidney A. Fine and Maury Getkate
Benchmark Tasks for Job Analysis: A Guide for Functional Job Analysis (FJA)
Scales
J. Kevin Ford, Steve W. J. Kozlowski, Kurt Kraiger, Eduardo Salas, and
Mark S. Teachout
Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations
Jerald Greenberg
Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science, Second Edition
Uwe E. Kleinbeck, Hans-Henning Quast, Henk Thierry, and
Hartmut Häcker
Work Motivation
Martin I. Kurke and Ellen M. Scrivner
Police Psychology Into the 21st Century
Joel Lefkowitz
Ethics and Values in Industrial–Organizational Psychology
Manuel London
Job Feedback: Giving, Seeking, and Using Feedback for Performance
Improvement, Second Edition
Manuel London
How People Evaluate Others in Organizations
Manuel London
Leadership Development: Paths to Self-Insight and Professional Growth
Robert F. Morrison and Jerome Adams
Contemporary Career Development Issues
Michael D. Mumford, Garnett Stokes, and William A. Owens
Patterns of Life History: The Ecology of Human Individuality
Kevin R. Murphy
Validity Generalization: A Critical Review
Kevin R. Murphy and Frank E. Saal
Psychology in Organizations: Integrating Science and Practice
Susan E. Murphy and Ronald E. Riggio
The Future of Leadership Development
Erich P. Prien, Jeffrey S. Schippmann, and Kristin O. Prien
Individual Assessment: As Practiced in Industry and Consulting
Ned Rosen
Teamwork and the Bottom Line: Groups Make a Difference
Heinz Schuler, James L. Farr, and Mike Smith
Personnel Selection and Assessment: Individual and Organizational Perspectives
John W. Senders and Neville P. Moray
Human Error: Cause, Prediction, and Reduction
Frank J. Smith
Organizational Surveys: The Diagnosis and Betterment of Organizations
Through Their Members
George C. Thornton III and Rose Mueller-Hanson
Developing Organizational Simulations: A Guide for Practitioners and Students
Yoav Vardi and Ely Weitz
Misbehavior in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Management
MISBEHAVIOR IN ORGANIZATIONS
Theory, Research, and Management
Yoav Vardi
Tel Aviv University
Ely Weitz
Tel Aviv University
and visiting at
Baruch College, City University of New York
LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

2004 Mahwah, New Jersey London
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
Copyright C 2004 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in

any form, by photostat, microfilm, retrieval system, or any
other means, without prior written permission of the publisher.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers

10 Industrial Avenue
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
Cover design by Sean Sciarrone
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Vardi, Yoav, 1944–
Misbehavior in organizations / by Yoav Vardi & Ely Weitz.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8058-4332-9 (c) – ISBN 0-8058-4333-7 (pbk.)
1. Organizational behavior. 2. Corporate culture. 3. Business ethics. 4. Work ethic.
I. Weitz, Ely. II. Title.
HD58.7.V367 2003
302.3 5–dc21 2003044093
ISBN 1-4106-0905-7 Master e-book ISBN
Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are printed on

acid-free paper, and their bindings are chosen for strength and durability.
We dedicate this work to our loved ones.
Ely also dedicates this book to the memory of his late father Ben Zion Weitz.
Yoav also dedicates this book to his late father Avraham Vardi
and nephew Ori Armon.
Contents
Series Foreword
Edwin A. Fleishman and Jeanette N. Cleveland xiii
Preface xv
Acknowledgments xix
I: ORGANIZATIONAL MISBEHAVIOR
1 ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND MISBEHAVIOR 3
Prevalence of Misbehavior at Work 4
Misbehavior in OB Discourse 5
A Historical Perspective 15
Toward a Framework for Misbehavior 22
2 A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR OMB ANALYSIS 24
Need for Conceptual Clarification 26
Definitional Implications 31
OMB as Intentional Behavior 36
Antecedents of Misbehavior 38
A General Framework 44
A Road Map 47
II: OMB MANIFESTATIONS AND ANTECEDENTS

3 INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL MANIFESTATIONS OF OMB 51
Intrapersonal Manifestations 53
Interpersonal Manifestations 61
4 PRODUCTION AND POLITICAL MANIFESTATIONS 76
Counterproductive Workplace Behavior 77
Political Manifestations 83
5 PROPERTY MANIFESTATIONS 95
Physical Manifestations 97
ix
x CONTENTS
Intellectual Manifestations 108

A Final Observation 113
6 INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL ANTECEDENTS OF OMB 115
Personality Traits 117
Intentions and Attitudes 126
Affect and Emotion 135
Others’ Influence 139
7 POSITION AND GROUP-LEVEL ANTECEDENTS 143
Job-Level Antecedents 145
Group-Level Influences 158
8 ORGANIZATION-LEVEL ANTECEDENTS 165
Organization Type 167
Organization Culture and Climate 184
Behavior Control Systems 189
III: IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND

MANAGEMENT
9 MANAGERIAL ETHICS: AN OMB PERSPECTIVE 197
Prologue 197
A Framework for Unethical Managerial Behavior 199
Models of Ethical Decision Making 200
An OMB Perspective of Unethical Decisions 203
The Israeli Bank Shares Regulation Affair 205
The Enron Affair 211
Commentary—The Organizationthink
Phenomenon 215
General Propositions on Managerial Ethics 218
A Sad Epilogue 219
10 MEASUREMENT DILEMMAS IN OMB RESEARCH 221
Dilemmas Pertaining to Measurement Strategy 222
Problems Affecting the Measurement of OMB 233
How to Measure OMB 239
11 A MODEL OF OMB MANAGEMENT 244
Toward OMB Management: Prevention Versus
Response 246
The Rationale for OMB Management 247
An Integrative Model of OMB Management 250
OMB Interventions 252
CONTENTS xi
Summary 256
Research Implications 257
Summary 258
References 261
Appendixes 289
Author Index 307
Subject Index 317
Series Foreword
Series Editors
Edwin A. Fleishman
George Mason University
Jeanette N. Cleveland
The Pennsylvania State University
There is a compelling need for innovative approaches to the solution of many

pressing problems involving human relationships in today’s society. Such ap-
proaches are more likely to be successful when they are based on sound research
and applications. This Series in Applied psychology offers publications which
emphasize state-of-the-art research and its application to important issues of hu-
man behavior in a variety of societal settings. The objective is to bridge both
academic and applied interests.
This book fills an important void in the study and understanding of organiza-
tional behavior. Work in this field historically emphasized the study of positive,
desirable behaviors facilitating the performance of individuals, teams, and systems
in furthering organizational objectives. Relatively little attention has been given to
research on what the authors call organizational misbehaviors (OMB) that can be
dysfunctional in furthering the objectives of the organization.
In this book, Professors Vardi and Weitz present a systematic, careful, and
thorough analysis of organizational misbehavior. For the most part, OMB has been
indirectly addressed in the organizational behavior literature. There has been some
discussion of dysfunctional political misbehavior, negative affect or emotions, or
specific negative behaviors. This book is one of the first to organize and synthesize
the diverse kinds of misbehavior in organizations.
The authors identify a range of organizational misbehaviors including “soldier-
ing”, as described in Taylor’s early work, to vandalism and sabatoge to modern
issues of data theft, substance abuse on the job, sexual harassment, political be-
haviors such as’ whistle blowing, deception and Interpersonal manifestations such
as incivility, bullying, and jealousy. Next, antecedents and important correlates
xiii
xiv SERIES FOREWORD
of organizational misbehavior are presented, including findings from different

job types and organizations, organizational climates, and various control systems.
Values and ethics are presented within the OMB context using up to date cases
illustrating ethical violations including the Enron affair.
The authors have an impressive history of contributions to the literature of or-
ganizational psychology, management, leadership, human resource management.,
and career development. They have collaborated on research in OMB and related
areas. We are very pleased to have this book in our Series in Applied Psychology.
The book provides an important framework and typology for OMB, and pro-
vides an agenda for future research in this area. The book also highlights the
relevance of these issues to effective management of human resources in organiza-
tions. The book will appeal to academic researchers in industrial and organizational
psychology and to those in related disciplines concerned with the behavior of indi-
viduals in organizations. It can serve as a text or supplementary text in upper level
I/O psychology and OB courses. The book will also be of interest to thoughtful
managers concerned with these issues in a variety of organizations in the public
and private sectors.
Preface
Ideas for new constructs come from different sources. The idea for Organizational
Misbehavior (OMB) came from a surprise at being caught off guard. The inci-
dent was recorded in Vardi’s personal file and is quoted from there. It happened
during the fall term of 1990 when he taught a course in an Executive MBA pro-
gram at Cleveland State University. The course title was: Behavioral Sciences
for Organizations. All of the 24 students attending the class on those Saturday
mornings were either managers or had previous experience as managers in a wide
variety of industries. Their real-life experiences, as well as their natural prefer-
ence for the practical over the academic, were often shared in class vocally and
enthusiastically.
Dr. Vardi wrote the following in his notes for an essay on teaching Organiza-
tional Behavior to managers:
During the class on work motivation, I posed a general question to the group: How
can we design the work to be done so that people will want to expend more effort?
Eventually we got to discuss different theories of work motivation. They particularly
liked Adams’ inequity theory. We also explored the classical job design model by
Hackman and Oldham. The students seemed to appreciate it, as many OB students do.
It is one of these Organizational Behavior models that makes good theoretical sense
and also seems to have practical value because it clearly demonstrates how employees
react to their own jobs; as a consequence, it has implications for supervisors and
managers. As we explored the model with its different facets and emphasized the
role of the intervening “critical psychological states” in eliciting good performance,
satisfaction, and motivation, John M. (who at the time ran a large manufacturing
department) said, quite cynically: “You know, professor, I like this model, but there
is one problem with it.” Expecting the usual comments about subjectivity versus
objectivity or about the role of individual differences, I was taken by surprise when
he said: “The way I see it, the problem is that this model has nothing to do with
reality. Excuse me, but only academics who don’t really manage people can view the
world like this. My job as a manager is not to make work more interesting or more
satisfying. My job is to make sure people don’t waste time, don’t steal, don’t cheat
their supervisors, don’t take drugs, and don’t fight with one another. Believe me, I
am more of a cop than a cheerleader. I don’t want to give them more autonomy, I
just want them to be honest and do their jobs.”
xv
xvi PREFACE
This quite uncharacteristic outburst started a heated class debate about misconduct
at work—issues that had never come up in class before. They all recalled incidents at
their organizations. They felt that there is a lot of improper behavior going around. Not
only employees do this, they observed; executives engage in it. They even admitted
that they, too, stray from time to time (small stuff you know, like making long-
distance phone calls, doing their term papers on company time, etc.). I was completely
caught off guard and taken aback. The model indeed says nothing about predicting
misbehavior on the job. I promised to do a quick search of the OB literature for next
class to see whether anybody writes about misconduct at work and why it happens.
I was intrigued and spent the week skimming management and OB textbooks and
found very little. I read several scholarly reviews of the field in the prominent Annual
Review of Psychology — not a word.
It was then when I began to suspect that Organizational Behavior as a discipline
has for some reason neglected to explore what I decided to call Organizational
Misbehavior. Quite apologetically, I told my students that indeed there are no OB
models that systematically explain why members of organizations are motivated
to engage in misconduct and concluded that they were right to feel quite cynical
toward them. If these models indeed fail to account for the negative aspects of work
behavior, they offer only partial explanations for the wide range of organizational
behaviors in the “real world.” I added that because we have a formal concept to
describe exceptionally good behavior (OCB—Organizational Citizenship Behavior),
we might as well have a new concept to tap “bad” behavior: OMB—Organizational
Mis-Behavior).
It caught on.
The next few years were spent conducting graduate-level seminars and work-
shops, first in Cleveland with Yoash Wiener and later in Tel Aviv with Ely Weitz,
focusing on such questions as: How prevalent is organizational misbehavior? What
are the different forms of such misconduct? Who engages in them and why? Over
10 years, we collected hundreds of stories and questionnaires from participants
willing to share their experiences and opinions (mostly anonymously, of course).
We started to identify a lot of data about the economic costs of such phenomena as
theft by employees, corporate fraud, substance abuse, computer and information
sabotage, sexual harassment in organizations, monitoring and control, and much
more. The evidence is staggering and quite overwhelming. Although many work
organizations have had to deal with forms of improper conduct for years, either by
choosing to ignore them or battling them, academia seems to be falling behind in
realizing the extent of such phenomena. This initial effort culminated in a theoret-
ical article entitled “Misbehavior in Organizations: A Motivational Framework”
written with Dr. Wiener (1996) and a number of research papers with Dr. Weitz
(2000–2002). At Tel Aviv University, over 30 studies for master’s theses were
conducted during that period, all devoted to the study of OMB.
The rationale for our book is this. It is safe to assume that most, if not all, mem-
bers of work organizations, throughout their employment, engage in some form
PREFACE xvii
of misbehavior related to their jobs, albeit in varying degrees of frequency and

intensity and for different reasons. Certainly unconventional work-related mani-
festations by employees are not new. Some date employee theft (a major form of
OMB), for instance, to ancient times. Scientific Management brought such prac-
tices as soldiering and goldbricking out into the open and the early proponents
of the Human Relations production restriction and rate busting (and their con-
sequences) as early as the 1920s. Nonetheless, it appears that most management
literature has presented normative, if not plain positive, aspects of behavior at
work. We found that only in recent years have organization scholars become more
willing to acknowledge that various forms of work-related misbehavior by em-
ployees and managers are prevalent, and that their consequences for employers
are indeed quite significant and costly.
We wish to emphasize that misbehavior in business is not at all a new phe-
nomenon. We simply wish to reintroduce the topic into mainstream organization
studies. As early as 1776, Adam Smith argued that salaried managers would not
administer honestly:
The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s
money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over
it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery
frequently watch over their own. Like the stewards of a rich man, they are apt to
consider attention to small matters as not for their master’s honour, and very easily
give themselves a dispensation from having it. Negligence and profusion, therefore,
must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company.
(Smith, 1937, p. 700)
Thus, the purpose of this book is to delineate a new agenda for OB theory and
research. It is intended for students of organizations as well as practitioners who
manage organizational behavior. The message is a simple one: For many years we,
the scholars aligned with mainstream research paradigms that make up OB have
been leaning toward the more positive depiction of organizational reality. For most
of us, behavior patterns that are unconventional, so to speak, constitute deviance
in the sociological sense or unethical behavior in the managerial sense. We have
not come to grips with the fact that certain forms of organizational misbehavior
are indeed commonplace, are prevalent, are part of any organizational life, and
are not necessarily bad or dysfunctional for either perpetrators or organizations.
We must explore misbehavior simply to better understand people’s behavior in the
workplace. In short, we can no longer dismiss organizational misbehavior as some
esoteric form of deviant behavior. To claim that such deviance is indeed pervasive
is to use an oxymoron. We know OMB is part and parcel of OB.
We devote this book to the study and management of misbehavior in work
organizations. We do not take a pessimistic view of organizational life, just a re-
alistic one. Part I discusses the prevalence of these phenomena. It then searches
xviii PREFACE
for typologies and definitions for misbehavior in the management literature us-
ing a historical perspective and proposes a general framework of OMB. Part II
explores some important manifestations and antecedents of OMB at different
levels of analysis—person, job, organization. Finally, Part III presents practical
and methodological implications for managers and researchers. Thus, we offer a
comprehensive and systematically developed framework for the identification and
management of misbehavior in organizations.
Acknowledgments
During the past 13 years, in which this book gradually emerged from unorthodox
questions about the field of Organizational Behavior, through numerous gradu-
ate seminars and research projects, to this final format, many wise and caring
individuals have contributed willingly and enthusiastically to the Organizational
Misbehavior (OMB) approach. They all deserve our gratitude and most heartfelt
appreciation.
First, we thank Professor Emeritus Yoash Wiener of Cleveland State University
with whom scores of most challenging and rewarding hours were spent in conceiv-
ing the foundations of the motivational model of OMB. As we began to evaluate
various possible answers for the inevitable question of why would employees mis-
behave on the job, we were struck by the similarities between our explanations
of normative and non-normative behaviors. We realized that people misbehave at
work because they want to; because they have their reasons just as they do for
behaving properly. This intellectual exercise culminated in a 1992 paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, in which the motivational
framework of OMB was first introduced.
Professor Peter Frost of the University of British Columbia deserves special
thanks for his editorial role in reviewing, improving and accepting an early (1996)
paper on behalf of Organization Science. In his introductory statement he recog-
nized the importance of studying organizational misbehavior. At Cleveland State
University professors Stu Klein and Ken Dunnegan carefully read and commented
on early manuscripts. Dr. Vlado Dimovski of the University of Ljubljana and other
members of the 1990–1991 doctoral seminar, were the first students to system-
atically search the literature and articulate ideas about OMB. Cornell University
ILR professors Tove Hammer and Larry Williams encouraged the project in its
earlier stages. Our colleagues at Tel Aviv University commented on various re-
search projects and papers that eventually became the raw material for this book:
Yinon Cohen, David DeVries, Yitchak Haberfeld, Dan Jacobson, Gideon Kunda,
Guy Mundlak, Amos Spector and Haya Stier. Moshe Semyonov, Ephraim Yaar
and Yinon Cohen strongly supported the initial idea to write this book and actu-
ally suggested this co-authorship. Professors Hugh Gunz from the University of
Toronto, Aharon Tziner from Netanya College, and the late Rami Sagie from Bar
Ilan University, contributed helpful commentaries on papers and earlier chapter
xix
xx ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
drafts. Professor Steve Barley of Stanford University deserves special thanks for
providing his support and guidance during the early stages of the publication phase.
Finally, Ely Weitz’s colleagues at the Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College,
CUNY, where he has been visiting during this past year, provided valuable in-
sights and support. Special among these are Abe Korman, Allen Kraut, Hannah
Rothstein, T. K. Das, Moshe Banai, Richard Kopelman, Don Vredenburgh, Shyam
Kumar, Al Booke and the Management Department Chair, Harry Rosen.
Many graduate students in Tel Aviv University’s Department of Labor Studies
participated in the Unconventional Behavior in Organizations research seminar,
which generated over thirty research projects between 1992 and 2003. We wish to
warmly acknowledge the conceptual and empirical contributions of the following
former students, presented in chronological order of graduation: Orly Goldman,
Eran Galmor, Tzipi Gushpanz, Tamar Naor, Tamar Bejerano, Dina Bar-Ulpan,
Sara Zangi, Revital Balasi, Tali Cohen-Orenstein, Idit Siton-Avisror, Iris Reshef-
Tamari, Halit Kantor, Anat Biran, Sharon Ganot, Tamar Ravid-Robbins, Galit
Cohen, Yael Peled, Yael Rubin-Kedar, Yael Lichtenstein, Ateret Malaachi, Hila
Yosifon, Dikla Elisha-Michael, Nurit Meltser, Efrat Bareket, Eyal Egozi, Keren
Youldus, Keren Tsuk, Limor Davison-Carmel, Anat Schwartz, Einat Bar-Liberman
and Rinat Ofer.
A number of research assistants and graduate students were particularly helpful
in material search and in managing the project. They deserve our most sincere com-
pliments and gratitude: Tzippi Gushpantz and Danny Tzabbar (the banks shares
case), Karni Krigel (the personality variables), Eyal Egozi (the historical review
and the OMB management model), Keren Youldus (the OMB measurement dilem-
mas) and Keren Tsuk (management ethics). Avital Sella and Merav Apirion were
very instrumental in the editorial phase. Our thanks go also to Hana Raz and Hazel
Arieli for translating some of the material from Hebrew to English, and especially
to Yasmin Alkalai for her continuous help with the computer and in data analysis.
We wish to thank Anne Duffy and Art Lizza at LEA, and the editors of this book’s
series Ed Fleishman and Jan Cleveland for patiently, professionally and graciously
supporting this project. A grant from the Tel Aviv University research authority
and generous support from the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Department of
Labor Studies were very helpful.
We also wish to acknowledge the contribution of the hundreds of anonymous
managers and employees who volunteered to participate in the many field studies
we conducted and to honestly report opinions and behaviors that are, indeed,
quite sensitive. They helped us take a good hard look at organizational reality as
they know it. When we put the final touches on the management ethics chapter,
American corporate giants such as Enron and Worldcom succumbed to their own
managers’ OMB, creating havoc in the business world. We could not have expected
a more clear-cut and painful reminder of the importance of what we were trying
to say throughout this volume.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xxi
Ely Weitz feels a deep sense of gratitude to his family for their support in this
project. Ruth and Daniel Gilan, Ruth Wheat, Marilyn and Lenny Bielory, Cheryl
Gilan, Rita Wheat, and Iris and Elliot Schreier who were so supportive and helpful
on the USA parts of the project. Ely would like to express special thanks to his
brother, Moshe Weitz and Marta Morales, and his sister and brother-in-law, Erela
and Doron Goldfeld who supported him in more ways than they can imagine.
We humbly ask forgiveness from our families for being so physically and emo-
tionally involved in the writing of this book over the past three and a half years. We
deeply appreciate their indulgence and unrelenting support. With them in heart and
mind we embarked on this arduous endeavor. Hugs of love go to Yoav’s mother
Yehudit, wife Dina, grown children Itai and Yael and Golan Rice, and grandsons
Tom and Yonatan; to Ely’s mother Chava, wife Einat and daughters Eden and
Alissa. Now it seems that it was all worth it. Doesn’t it?
Tel Aviv and New York City, June 2003

I
ORGANIZATIONAL
MISBEHAVIOR
1
Organizational Behavior
and Misbehavior
Problematic behavioral manifestations in the organized workplace are not new.

F. W. Taylor (1895, 1903) brought the practice of soldiering or goldbricking—
deliberately slowing down production—to light. The early proponents of the Hu-
man Relations School reported extensively on production restriction and rate bust-
ing (and their consequences) as early as the 1920s (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1964). Greenberg and Scott (1996) dated employee theft (a major form of orga-
nizational misbehavior) to ancient times. These phenomena are unquestionably
universal. Therefore, it is safe to assume that most, if not all, members of work
organizations, throughout their employment, engage in some form of misbehavior
related to their jobs, albeit in varying degrees of frequency and intensity. Hence,
to achieve a better understanding of organizational behavior (OB), we must study
organizational misbehavior as well. Organizational misbehavior (OMB) is defined
as acts in the workplace that are done intentionally and constitute a violation of
rules pertaining to such behaviors. We strongly believe that, to truly comprehend
the behavior of people at work and the functioning of organizations, social scien-
tists need to explore and research both the positive and negative aspects of work
life. After all, how can we understand the functional if we fail to recognize the
dysfunctional and unconventional?
In recent years organization scholars have become more willing to acknowl-
edge that various forms of work-related misbehavior by employees and managers
3
4 1. ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND MISBEHAVIOR
are prevalent, and that their consequences for employers are indeed quite signifi-
cant and costly (e.g., Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999; Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997;
Greenberg, 2002; Griffin, O’Leary-Kelly, & Collins, 1998a, 1998b; Robinson &
Bennett, 1997; Sackett & DeVore, 2001). Such behaviors range a full spectrum
from minor to serious—a mere perception of violation of the psychological contract
(Robinson & Rousseau, 1994), minor workplace incivility (Andersson & Pearson,
1999), insulting behaviors (Gabriel, 1998), workplace social undermining (Duffy,
Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), theft of company assets (Greenberg, 1998; Greenberg
& Scott, 1996), acts of destructiveness, vandalism and sabotage (Jermier, 1988;
Sprouse, 1992), substance abuse while at work (Sonnenstuhl, 1996), and aggres-
sion perpetrated against fellow employees or toward the organizations (Fitzgerald,
1993; Neuman & Baron, 1997; O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996).
Although such forms of misconduct appear to be rampant and universal, sys-
tematic OB research of these phenomena is lacking (Vardi & Wiener, 1992, 1996).
Also there is conceptual confusion in describing them (O’Leary-Kelly, Duffy, &
Griffin, 2000). Until recently, OB, as a distinct academic discipline devoted to
exploring and expanding our understanding of work behavior, has lagged behind
other social science disciplines in exploring this vast domain. This is quite sur-
prising given that OMB, referred to by other scholars as antisocial (Giacalone &
Greenberg, 1997), dysfunctional (Griffin, O’Leary-Kelly & Collins, 1998a), de-
viant (Hollinger & Clark, 1982; Robinson & Bennett, 1995), or counterproductive
behavior (Sackett & Devove, 2001; Mangione & Quinn, 1975), is not restricted
to certain marginal members. It has been recorded for workers of all types of
organizations—for employees at all levels of the organizational hierarchy, salaried
professionals and nonprofessionals, and both nonsupervisory and managerial em-
ployees (cf. Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997; Griffin et al., 1998a; Robinson &
Greenberg, 1998; Vardi & Weitz, 2002a).
This chapter is devoted to the ubiquity of OMB. First, we discuss the prevalence
of misbehavior and then employ a historical perspective to search the literature for
previously proposed typologies and definitions for employee misbehavior. Second,
we address the question why the field of OB has overlooked OMB and has, in fact,
evolved into a (positively) “skewed” discipline focusing on more normative aspects
of work behavior. Last, we describe the emergence of the current interest in OMB
from the early sociological research of white-collar crime, focusing on employee
deviance, workplace aggression, and political organizational behavior as selected
examples.
PREVALENCE OF MISBEHAVIOR
AT WORK
Undoubtedly, OMB comes with a hefty price tag. With the cost comes a grow-
ing awareness of it. Estimates of the costs of the most prevalent misbehavior—
employee theft—run as high as $200 billion annually in the United States alone
MISBEHAVIOR IN OB DISCOURSE 5
(Greenberg, 1997). Estimates of total costs resulting from problem drinking in

the workplace are close to $170 billion (Mangione, Howland, & Lee, 1998).
The economics of OMB are indeed staggering once the costs of fraud, sabotage,
vandalism, substance abuse, litigation, and so on are factored in, although some
costs may be offset by benefits that often follow organizational improvements
launched due to misbehavior (e.g., new quality and monitoring practices in the
wake of exposure of misconduct by whistle blowers). For example, information
concerning employee theft has become publicly available on the Internet by gov-
ernmental agencies and private security firms (e.g., www.workplacecrime.com).
One site (www.etheft.com) offers employees an opportunity to anonymously blow
the whistle on fraud, pilfering, and embezzlement in their companies. Case-based
and practitioner-oriented literature flourished in the 1990s under such telling titles
as Dirty Business (Punch, 1996) and Are Your Employees Stealing You Blind?
(Bliss & Aoki, 1993). Some semi-academic books offer solid practical advice on
how to prevent violent behavior in the workplace (e.g., Denenberg & Braverman,
1999) or handle employee problem drinking (Sonnenstuhl, 1996).
During the past three decades, work organizations, research has provided ample
evidence for the large variety of such misbehaviors (cf. Ackroyd & Thompson,
1999; Bamberger & Sonnenstuhl, 1998a; Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997; Griffin
et al., 1998a; Sackett & DeVore, 2001). Mars (1974) studied deviant work prac-
tices among dockworkers, Hollinger and Clark (1982) found it in all sectors of
the economy, and Analoui and Kakabadse (1992) conducted a longitudinal study
of an entertainment and hospitality organization and found unconventional prac-
tices among both managers and employees. Greenberg (1990a, 1997) extensively
examined the causes of employee theft in organizations, Trevino (1986) inves-
tigated unethical managerial decisions, Raelin (1984) studied deviant behavior
among professionals, and Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987) researched sabotage
behavior. In fact, there is a growing research interest in specific OMB phenom-
ena such as incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), lying and cheating (Grover,
1993), insulting (Gabriel, 1998), betrayal of trust (Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998;
Moberg, 1997), whistle blowing (Miceli & Near, 1992), concealment of perti-
nent information (Reimann & Wiener, 1988), substance workplace abuse (Trice &
Sonnenstuhl, 1988), sexual harassment (Gutek, 1985), vandalism (DeMore, Fisher,
& Baron, 1988), and revenge (Bies & Tripp, 1995). Remember, this is just a sam-
ple. As Moberg (1997) observed, both employee virtue and employee vice seem
endless.
MISBEHAVIOR IN OB DISCOURSE
OB is an interdisciplinary field of research that explores the behavior of indi-

viduals and groups within organizational contexts, as well as the structure and
behavior of the organizations (see Greenberg, 1994, on the state of the science).
At the macrolevel, OB is rooted in sociology, political science, and economics; it
deals with questions of organizational form, design, and action in the socioeco-
nomic context. At the more microlevel, OB stems from psychology, especially
industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, focusing on the individual and
dealing with his or her attitudes and behavior and how these affect and are affected
by the organizational system (Staw, 1984). During its years of development, OB
was primarily influenced by its psychological origins, as may be witnessed by
the objects of its research and subjects of its practice (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991;
Mowday & Sutton, 1993). The social psychology roots of OB have contributed to
the extensive interest in work groups and teams in organizations (the mesolevel).
Most OB research focuses on the individual (micro) level, rather then on the
effects of culture and environment on behavior (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991; Erez &
Early, 1993; House, Rousseau, & Themas-Hurt, 1995). Some scholars argue that
this tendency to emphasize interpersonal differences over situational variables
is somewhat of a universal approach in OB (Erez & Early, 1993), which may
indeed be its main drawback (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991). This line of thought
led researchers such as Mowday and Sutton (1993) to conclude that the field
is exhausted—that scholars should redirect their attention to the macrolevel and
search for new relationships between the organizational context and its individual
members, behaviors. We found, however, that although the research concerning the
positive-normative behavior of the individual in the organization seems somewhat
saturated, the systematic study of the darker side of human behavior at work
(Vaughn, 1999) has only just begun.
An examination and tabulation of nine major reviews of the organizational
behavioral literature (Cummings, 1982; House & Singh, 1987; Ilgen & Klein,
1989; Mitchell, 1979; Mowday & Sutton, 1993; O’Reilly, 1991; Rousseau, 1997;
Schneider, 1985; Staw, 1984) highlights the tendency of OB theory and research to
focus on a positive depiction of organizational life. As Table 1.1 shows, attitudes
toward work, motivation, performance, and leadership appear to be main areas
of interest in OB research. For example, Mitchell (1979) emphasized that work
motivation is a highly popular subject in the field (up to 25% of the articles he
reviewed deal with the topic). Although by definition attitudes toward work can
be negative as well as positive, the articles reviewed tend to focus on positive
attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Later literature
reviews (Cummings, 1982; House & Singh, 1987; Rousseau, 1997; Staw, 1984)
demonstrate this same tendency.
Even more remarkable is that each writer took a different perspective: Cum-
mings (1982) focused on the macrolevel, whereas Staw (1984) and Mitchell (1979)
paid more attention to job satisfaction and motivation, the former also addressing
absenteeism and turnover. Even absenteeism and tardiness, which may be consid-
ered expressions of negative or dysfunctional forms of behavior, are not addressed
within a wider perspective of unconventional or deviant organizational behavior,
but from the traditional human resource management viewpoint of organizational
productivity. Schneider (1985), who reviewed the literature through the prism of
TABLE 1.1
Main Topics in the OB Literature Reviews (1979–1997)
ARP OB Review Topics Covered in the Review
Mitchell (1979) Personality and individual differences, satisfaction, commitment,

involvement, motivation, leadership.
Cummings (1982) Task design, feedback, organizational structure, control, technology,
research methodology, emerging trends.
Staw (1984) Field of OB, job satisfaction, job design, comparison theories,
absenteeism, turnover, motivation and performance, other
behaviors.
Schneider (1985) Motivation, satisfaction, leadership, groups, organizational climate
and culture, productivity.
House & Singh (1987) Power motive, leadership, executive succession, decision making,
OB in evolutionary context.
Ilgen & Klein (1989) Social cognition, social information processing, expectancy theories,
attribution, control theory.
O’Reilly (1991) Motivation, work attitudes, job design, turnover and absenteeism,
leadership, future directions.
Mowday & Sutton (1993) Organizational context as an influence on groups and individuals,
individuals and groups as an influence on organizational context,
interaction of individuals and groups with their organizational
context.
Wilpert (1995) Organizations as constructed realities, action theory, theoretical
controversies, methodological approaches, new technology,
participation, hazardous work system, organizational learning,
organization–environment relationship.
Rousseau (1997) New employment relations, performance, goal setting, information
processing, organizational learning, managing organizational
change and individual transition, leisure, nonwork, community,
organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior at work.
Note. ARP = Annual Review of Psychology.
organizational climate, addressed the same topics reviewed by Mitchell—

motivation, job satisfaction, leadership, and productivity.
Two years later, House and Singh (1987), despite their avowed intent to review
new issues, also emphasized the positive aspects of leadership, successful manage-
ment, decision making, and power and influence in organizations. However, they
did not deal with the darker aspects of organizational power and control. O’Reilly
(1991) concluded that the four main research topics in OB that were identified
by Mitchell (1979) are still the most popular more than a full decade later. Fi-
nally, Rousseau’s (1997) content analysis of 23 chapters of the Annual Review of
Psychology, from 1979 to 1995, clearly demonstrates that the main issues investi-
gated in OB research are performance (mainly performance appraisal), motivation
(goals and rewards), and employee reactions to the workplace (mainly satisfaction,
commitment, and stress). Nonetheless, Rousseau’s is the first comprehensive OB
review in which employee misconduct, as a research topic, is referred to, albeit in
one short paragraph.
Clearly demonstrating this positive bias, none of the reviews addresses mis-
behavior as an integral facet of organizational behavior. Traditional OB models
emphasize normatively desirable behaviors under constructs such as satisfaction,
attachment, motivation, commitment, leadership, development, redesign, and en-
richment (e.g., Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975) and neglect issues such as
indifference, undermining, jealousy, abuse, exploitation, insults, manipulation, ly-
ing, betrayal of trust, malice, misinformation, pilferage, harassment, conspiracy,
sabotage, and so forth. Even less blatant manifestations of misbehavior, such as
white lies, arm twisting, incivility, and buckpassing, are almost ignored. There is
no compelling evidence, however, that the former type of constructs better describe
the complex realities in work organizations.
The situation is not much better in OB textbooks. A cursory study of some of
the better known OB textbooks (e.g., Daft, 2000; Daft & Noe, 2001; Greenberg
& Baron, 1997; Hellriegel, Slocum, & Woodman, 2001; Ivancevich & Matteson,
1990; Steers, 1991) reveals that by far most of the terms defined in their glossaries
are positively skewed. None of these textbooks seriously relates to negative types of
organizational behaviors. Terms such as those used in this book to describe various
forms of employee misconduct (misbehavior, dysfunctional, counterproductive, or
antisocial behaviors) are hardly mentioned and certainly not discussed as prevalent
work-related phenomena that need to be understood, explained, and controlled.
Therefore, the depiction of organizations in most textbooks is incomplete.
Finally, we examined titles of articles pertaining to OB in the leading journals
(presented in alphabetic order): Academy of Management Journal (1958–1999),
Academy of Management Review (1976–1999), Administrative Science Quarterly
(ASQ; 1956–1999), American Journal of Sociology (1895–1999), American Soci-
ological Review (1936–1999), Journal of Applied Psychology (1967–1999), Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Performance (1966–1984), and Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Process (1985–1999). Not surprisingly, these titles
clearly reflect the discipline’s inherent positive orientation. The number of titles
referring to OMB phenomena (misconduct, deviance, unethical behavior, political
behavior, theft, violence, harassment, etc.), compared with the enormous amount
of research concerning issues such as productivity, attachment, attendance, mo-
tivation, leadership, job satisfaction, and career development, is negligible (less
than 5%). Thus, the inevitable question is: How did this happen and where has
misbehavior gone?
We suggest that the paucity of empirical research into the darker side of organi-
zational life, and the lack of well-developed mainstream models of organizational
misbehavior, may be explained by four interrelated reasons: (a) the field’s inherent
tendency toward specialization and the predominance of functionalism, (b) the
predominance of a congruence paradigm, (c) the tendency to address managerial
needs, and (d) the lack of methodologies to adequately capture misbehavior in
organizations.
Specialization and Functionalism

OB emerged as an interdisciplinary academic field and has prospered primarily in
schools of management and business administration (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995).
It is grounded, however, in traditional I-O psychology, which has had a profound
impact on its formation and may have inadvertently limited its areas of research
interest (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991; Mowday & Sutton, 1993). Because of its im-
portance in this analysis, we now turn to a brief review of the history of I-O
psychology.
During the first part of the 20th century, I-O psychologists concentrated their
efforts on recruitment and selection, work methods, and job design (Katzell &
Austin, 1992). These new practices became part of the academic discourse during
World War I, at which time the U.S. government turned to psychologists for help
in developing recruitment and selection procedures for the military (see Cappelli
& Sherer, 1991). Their apparent success in this endeavor accorded the emerging
field legitimization and gave the new area official and widespread recognition,
which in turn helped practitioners market professional tools to the prospering
postwar private sector seeking and hiring new employees. During the 1930s, the
core practices of the field were employee selection, appraisal, and training. On
the whole, academic research in those years was characterized by retesting and
reexamining what was already achieved, rather than by breaking new ground and
defining new directions (Katzell & Austin, 1992).
The number of universities offering programs in I-O psychology was growing.
By 1930, Pennsylvania State College, Ohio State University, the University of Min-
nesota, and Stanford University were offering PhD degrees in I-O psychology. As
the decade progressed, several more academic institutions began offering programs
to train students for careers in I-O psychology. Of course this offered additional
respectability to the new discipline and was a force in its institutionalization as a
professional and academic pursuit. Yet even with this growing recognition, there
was no marked change in I-O psychology’s objects of inquiry. Researchers contin-
ued to further their knowledge in the familiar areas, reassess previous studies, and
reexamine well-established theories and models. The core objects of I-O psychol-
ogy remained employee selection, performance appraisal, and training techniques.
World War II had a significant influence on the evolution and development of I-O
and OB. As in World War I, hundreds of I-O psychologists representing a variety of
specialties were employed by the U.S. military, developing even more sophisticated
selection tests. The war gave rise to additional subspecializations within the areas
of appraisal, group processes, and attitude change (Katzell & Austin, 1992). The
exposure I-O psychologists received in the military during WWII had once again
helped them legitimize and expand their professional endeavors in the rapidly
growing postwar economy. The 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s were characterized
by rapid economic growth. I-O psychology scholars and practitioners were again
in demand by growing companies, giving them opportunities to expand and test
their knowledge of employee selection, appraisal, and training. Human resource
management was elevated to an academic discipline in its own right.
Work motivation (Locke, 1968; Vroom, 1964), job satisfaction (Herzberg,
1968), job redesign (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), and career development (Hall,
1976) were also widely addressed both scientifically and in practice. This tendency
toward the noneconomic and personal rewards was explained in light of Maslow’s
(1954) general theory of human motivation. The I-O psychology literature of the
postwar era was characterized by writings highly critical of the stultifying nature
of most jobs and called for expanding opportunities for self-expression and per-
sonal growth (Argyris, 1957; McGregor, 1960). Although the starting point for the
need deficiency approach may have been the sense of worthlessness and alienation
experienced by employees (e.g., Blauner, 1964), the workplace was fast reframed
as the arena in which the employee should fulfill his or her various needs—from
security and a decent wage to self-esteem and self-actualization. Less pleasant
aspects of the human experience at work were neglected.
Years later, in the first Annual Review of Psychology state-of-the-art analysis
of OB, Mitchell (1979) rightly noted the saturation of research in some areas
as opposed to the nonexistence of study in others. Others (e.g., O’Reilly, 1991)
argued that most studies in OB contribute to the progress of already existing areas or
methodologies, but tend not to seek new concepts or objects of inquiry. Following
this, House et al. (1995) suggested that the field needs new theories and a wider
range of objects, and Daft and Lewin (1993) openly called for a new research
agenda, including the development of issues such as leadership in flexible and
nonhierarchical organizations, employee empowerment, organizational learning,
computer communication, and interorganizational cooperation. Still this agenda
did not include a call for systematic research, which may shed some light on the
less observable corners of organizational life, misbehavior among them.
The exclusion of misbehavior from OB discourse is apparently the result of
a long process of institutionalization of several practices leading to a positive-
normative bias in the field. This process was further reinforced by the dominant
approach in the social sciences, especially at the formative stage of OB develop-
ment as a distinct discipline—functionalism. As a paradigm, functionalism was
neither reflexive nor critical. Therefore, it was not sensitive to the problems and
conflicts of the society at large (Smelser, 1999) and the work organization in par-
ticular (Bensman & Gerver, 1963).
Although this trend was typical of I-O psychology, sociology was no differ-
ent. Early on the academic field of sociology also ventured into the workplace.
The famous Hawthorne studies, which seem to mark the shift from scientific
management to human relations, have become the cornerstone of every course
dealing with industrial sociology. In 1914, when Henry Ford faced grave organi-
zational problems, he founded a sociological department that employed 250 peo-
ple. Aiming to reduce a daily absentee rate exceeding 10%, compounded by a
huge yearly turnover rate, which required nearly $2 million a year just to train
new workers, and facing fierce negotiations with one of the most militant unions
in the country, Ford designed a new program for commitment, loyalty, and con-
formity. Every qualified employee was paid $5 per day (Marcus & Segal, 1989).
The sociological department was charged with determining who was qualified
to receive this remuneration. These agents of social control visited homes and
interviewed friends, neighbors, and priests to determine who conformed with
the code of conduct stressing family values, community values, thrift, and per-
sonal character. They used strict criteria for unsuitability and norms of exclu-
sion: single young men, men who were engaged in divorce, those who did not
spend evenings wisely, those who drank alcohol, or those who did not speak
English. They also gave lessons in home management to workers and their fam-
ilies and taught them how to shop and preserve moral values (Marcus & Segal,
1989).
Sociology, as a form of social praxis, sought to establish rational control over
human nature and society (Shenhav, 2002). Although these social agents focused
on improving good and proper behavior and expunging what they considered to
be evil or deviant, they, like I-O psychologists, failed to further investigate these
darker sides of work life and the reasons for their prevalence. Even when crime and
deviance were discussed, they were considered as pathologies or problems to be
solved through the mechanisms of equilibrium (hence need not be worried about)
or as functional to the system in the long run and thus no longer categorized as a
problem (Bensman & Gerver, 1963). In his classic study of the French bureaucracy,
Crozier (1964) described an organization in which a lack of integration between
the staff and the firm’s goals caused negative employee attitudes toward the work-
place. However, he concluded that “this lack of integration does not seem to have
much influence over other aspects of the staff’s behavior and attitudes. . . . The
staff’s dissatisfaction and pessimism do not prevent a satisfactory basic pattern of
adjustment. Indeed, they can be viewed as a specific way, a grumbling way, of
achieving it” (p. 50). Moreover, “they adjust to it [to the bureaucratic hierarchy]
in a grumbling way, but, one way or another, they adjust” (p. 55). Although aware
of the possibility of irregularities, back-door deals, and subtle blackmail, Crozier
argued that no organization could survive if it were run solely by such individual
and back-door deals. This was due to “the rational side of the organization and the
series of social controls that prevent people from taking too much advantage over
their own strategic situation” (p. 166). Management control in the workplace has
indeed been a dominant notion for the better part of the 20th century (cf. Edwards,
1979).
A Congruence Paradigm
Functionalism, however, does not stand alone. Later mainstream approaches to the
study of organization behavior, emerging from Katz and Kahn’s (1966) adaptation
of the open system model, also focus on the positive-normative aspects of work
and organizational life (e.g., Nadler & Tushman, 1980; Porter et al., 1975). These
approaches contend that, for the enterprise to be efficient, there needs to be a fit
(a congruence, a match) among its components. The implication that its absence
leads to problems, dysfunctional behavior, and underperformance has somehow
remained unaddressed, which is our second concern regarding OMB research. The
influence of the congruence argument has permeated several key areas of interest in
OB. The following are some well- known examples from both macro- and micro-
OB.
At the strategic level, the best known theory promoting the tenet of congruency
is Miles and Snow’s (1978) seminal work on the fit between organization types
and their environments. In another realm, one of the most influential models of
occupational careers is based on the assumption that personal career fulfillment is a
function of the fit between a person’s occupational orientation and a commensurate
occupational environment (Holland, 1985). In the study of organizational careers,
Hall (1976) and Schein (1978) promoted the view that successful careers are a result
of a good match between the needs of the employee and opportunities provided by
the organization through its career management system. This was in line with the
predominant person–environment fit approach to personal adjustment promoted
by work psychologists (see Pazy & Zin, 1987). Finally, at the person–organization
interaction level, the popular notion of the psychological contract promoted the
proposition that congruency of expectations and obligations between employer
and employee should lead to desirable outcomes (e.g., Kotter, 1973).
Perhaps a good example of the congruence paradigm’s influence on OB is
Nadler and Tushman’s (1980) framework for organizational diagnosis. They (fol-
lowing Katz & Kahn, 1966; Leavitt, 1972) proposed a general model in which
organizational effectiveness is a function of fit among key organization compo-
nents: mission or task, formal structure, informal structure, and the individual.
Despite their logical appeal, the weakness of such theories is that they strongly
imply that congruence is desirable and incongruence is not. Thus, they portray a
normative bias and shy away from dealing with potential or actual misfit. Certainly
misbehavior at work may result from such mismatches (e.g., when individual val-
ues are incongruent with the organization’s policy). Yet they may also emerge when
fit between person and work exists (e.g., when loyalty leads to acting illegally or
unethically on behalf of the organization).
In summary, traditional research on attitudes toward work, job satisfaction in
particular, tended to focus on improving the fit between the individual and his or her
occupation. The consequences of lack of fit or mismatch between the individual
and his or her work were not adequately explored or researched (Pazy & Zin,
1987). Similarly, the positive consequences of lack of fit, such as certain friction
and tension that may enhance creativity and change, were ignored. Such conditions
could indeed be important precursors of misbehavior on the job.
OB and Management
The third reason for the lack of OMB research again goes back to the early days of
management—namely, the rise of scientific management and, later, the emergence
of the Human Relations School. Both focused their attention on issues of produc-
tivity and motivation (Farrell & Petersen, 1982; Katzell & Austin, 1992) mostly
because, in the wake of the two world wars and the Depression, times of vast oppor-
tunities and economic growth unfolded. The main interest was enhancing organiza-
tional productivity and developing work organizations and their managers. Perhaps
in the search for yet higher levels of effectiveness, especially in the footsteps of the
Human Relations School, many of the founding fathers of OB (e.g., Argyris, 1957;
Herzberg, 1968; McGregor, 1960; Porter & Lawler, 1968; Schein, 1969) empha-
sized behavior and deemphasized misbehavior. The models depicting employee
behavior at work, which were attractive to practitioners and management, were and
perhaps had to be positively skewed. Management fads (Abrahamson, 1996, 1997)
such as efficiency improvement, job enrichment and sociotechnical programs, ca-
reer development, quality circles, total quality management, sensitivity training,
and the like caught the public’s fancy because they also sounded and sold well.
Understandably, programs with more realistic names, such as insensitivity treat-
ment, defect correction, or inefficiency prevention, would not have had the same
appeal, although these might have better reflected their learning contents. Most
telling of this trend in OB is the way Adams’ (1963) theory of inequity came to
be commonly known as equity theory. Perceived equity is not a motivator. Rather,
the theory subsumes that individuals are driven to cope with cognitive dissonance
that results from perceived incomparable worth—not equal worth—and are thus
motivated to act to restore an internal sense of balance. Later, in fact, Greenberg
(1990a) demonstrated how perceived inequity at work may lead to theft.
Practitioners, consultants, and academics, offering solutions to managers’ ever
more demanding perceived or real problems, tend to wrap their goods in attrac-
tive package and promote positive aspects of behavior while mostly ignoring the
negative ones. The venerable Harvard Business Review (HBR), which, during
its 75 years of existence, offered managers up-to-date practical programs and
prescriptions, designed to increase the firm’s efficiency and profitability, and the
employees’ well-being clearly demonstrates this bias. A thorough review of HBR
publications (Sibbet, 1997) reveals that models, research, or practical advice for the
daily and cumbersome confrontation with misbehavior in the workplace occupy
negligible space if at all.
Many questions come to mind. Does mainstream OB literature portray be-
havior in organizations accurately? Is it reasonable to assume that management
and organizational scholars do not encounter misbehavior in the workplace? Does

management seek to not deal with dysfunctional behaviors? Has it not experienced
manifestations of theft of company property by employees, aggression, sexual ha-
rassment, and the like? Are researchers not aware of these phenomena? Why do
managers and practitioners prefer to deal only with techniques such as coopera-
tive management, interpersonal communication total quaity management, and the
like while ignoring the more murky aspects of the workplace? Have researchers
attempting to study negative aspects of organizational life encountered a total lack
of cooperation from management?
It appears that top management generally has had no interest in studying un-
conventional practices in their firms and even less interest in publishing—going
public with—such findings. It may be that they are wary of tarnishing their or
the company’s reputation (Analoui & Kakabadse, 1992), preferring to sweep the
bad news under the proverbial corporate rug. Unquestionably, this lack of co-
operation and consent creates difficulties for would-be OMB researchers in the
quest for valid data, which leads us to our fourth concern regarding the pavc-
ity of OMB research: the methodological problems in the study of OMB (see
chap. 10).
Methodological Limitations
The methodology in use by the majority of organizational researchers has no doubt
influenced the development of OB. It may also explain OB’s tendency to focus on
a relatively small number of phenomena. Historically, OB researchers have spe-
cialized in cross-sectional correlational designs, whereas experiments were left to
psychologists and ethnographic research was left to anthropologists. For example,
most of the studies published in the ASQ between 1959 and 1979 tended to be
empirical—that is, mostly low variety and statistical (Daft, 1980). These methods,
using quantitative, precise, and rigorous language to describe organizational phe-
nomena, narrow the scope of organizational issues that can be investigated. That
is, they limit research projects to relatively accessible, tangible, a priori-defined
characteristics of individuals and organizations, and therefore do not tap the amor-
phous and often hidden dimensions of everyday organizational life. Thus, generally
speaking, OB research sheds light on only a narrow range of the organizational
reality. It misses, as Daft (1980) argued, “the complex, intangible, emotional di-
mensions of organizations [that] probably cannot be processed through the fine
filter of linear statistics” (p. 632).
In addition to the lack of agreement among scholars as to the nature of OMB, the
tools they use to encompass the dimensions of OB are limited. Most instruments
used in OB research tap a fairly limited amount of behavioral variance because
of the manner in which behavior is operationalized. In many ways, it is a myopic
view of both the fidelity and bandwidth of human behavior in organizations. For
example, take one of OB’s most studied variables: job satisfaction. Traditionally,
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 15
research captures this affect or attitude on a preset numerical (i.e., arbitrary) scale.
Yet those individuals who are either euphoric or utterly miserable at work, by defini-
tion, cannot convey their true feelings toward their job on such a scale. Similarly, or-
ganization climate scales (e.g., Litwin & Stringer, 1968) are not designed to assess
the extent to which manipulative managerial behavior is predominant in an organi-
zation, leadership questionnaires (e.g., Fleishman & Harris, 1962) typically ignore
the possible abuse of supervisory power, and most commitment measures tap nei-
ther betrayal intentions nor addiction to work or workaholism. We believe our tools,
with their limited measures, provide some explanation for the institutionalization
of the positively leaning descriptions of organizational life OB has generated.
Qualitative, long-term ethnographic research has definite advantages over quan-
titative methodology in revealing new fields of knowledge, but it tends to be highly
time-consuming and evokes many ethical dilemmas. To conduct such research,
generous funding, a commitment by management, and academic support are re-
quired. For example, it took Dr. Analoui 6 years of undercover work to record
and analyze some 450 incidents of OMB in one particular British organization
(see Analoui & Kakabadse, 1992). This may not be suitable for academicians
struggling with the pressure to publish within given time constraints and incom-
mensurate with the lack of funding, as well as management’s unwillingness to
participate in research examining company-sensitive issues and secrets (Analoui
& Kakabadse, 1992). In addition to increasing difficulty to publish in leading aca-
demic periodicals, these constraints may explain the paucity of rigorous OMB
research.
Finally, the lack of agreement among scholars about common descriptions, ex-
planations, and definitions of observed phenomena of misbehavior also makes it
difficult for this new theoretical and empirical body of knowledge to be developed.
Furthermore, the fact that OB scholars come from varied academic disciplines
makes it more difficult to agree on what is instrumental and what is evil (Near &
Miceli, 1984), what is prosocial and what is antisocial (Giacalone & Greenberg,
1997), and what is functional and what is dysfunctional (Bamberger & Sonnen-
stuhl, 1998). We believe the need to resolve such conceptual and methodological
dilemmas becomes quite apparent.
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
After almost five decades of OB research, three distinct phases in the evolution of
the newly emergent area of OMB can be identified: mid-1950s to the late 1970s—
the early phase, a period of sporadic and nonsystematic research; early 1980s to
the mid-1990s—the formative phase, a period of wide scholarly call for systematic
research and the evolvement of the major areas of interest in the new field; and the
mid-1990s to date—the current phase, toward the full integration of the emerging
subfield of OMB into mainstream OB.
The Early Phase

Although OB scholars and practitioners tend to ignore the dark side of orga-
nizational life, other disciplines such as industrial sociology, occupational psy-
chology, criminology, and organizational anthropology did in fact deal with it
(Hollinger & Clark, 1982). For instance, Quinney (1963) investigated the impact
of an occupational structure on its employees’ criminal behavior at work. Larceny,
in the forms of embezzlement (Altheide et al., 1978; Cressey, 1953), fiddling
(Mars, 1973), pilferage (Altheide et al., 1978; Ditton, 1977; Mars, 1973), and em-
ployee theft (Horning, 1970; Kemper, 1966; Mars, 1974; Merriam, 1977), was ex-
plored extensively. Sabotage, whether referred to as industrial sabotage (Taylor &
Walton, 1971), vandalism (Cohen, 1973; Fisher & Baron, 1982), or destruction
(Allen & Greenberger, 1980), also received widespread attention mainly because
it was harmful, costly, and easy to track. Restriction of output (Collins, Dalton, &
Roy, 1946; Harper & Emmert, 1963), goldbricking (Roy, 1952), informal coworker
interaction (Roy, 1959), and unauthorized use of time-saving tools (Bensman &
Gerver, 1963) were other types of deviant behaviors addressed by scholars, perhaps
following management’s growing attention to production efficiency and produc-
tivity in the 1950s and 1960s.
The only extensive attempt to explore improper work behavior was made by
sociologists and criminologists using the concept of white-collar crime proposed
by Sutherland (1940) in his presidential address to the American Sociological
Society in 1939. Later Sutherland (1949) defined it as “crime committed by a
person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation”
(p. 9). Although the notion was never developed into a full and coherent theory,
and despite its inherent deficiencies (for review of the critiques, see Coleman, 1987;
Shapiro, 1990), it offered a significant contribution to criminology, sociology, and,
later, OB research as well (Braithwaite, 1985).
From an analytical viewpoint, the term white-collar crime has three foci: ille-
gality of the act, social status of the actor, and identity of the beneficiary. Most
definitions comply with the first—that is, writers (e.g., Coleman, 1985; Horning,
1970) emphasize the formal definition of acts of misbehavior as criminal. How-
ever, they often relate it to only one of the other two foci, thus contributing to the
concept’s proliferation.
Originally, a class distinction was made between white- and blue-collar crime—
or more accurately between white-collar crime and blue-collar theft (Horning,
1970). Later, more widely accepted conceptualizations were suggested by
Clinard and Quinney (1973) and Coleman (1985, 1987) based on the identity
of the beneficiary of the illegal act. Clinard and Quinney decomposed the concept
of white-collar crime into occupational crime, defined as “offenses committed by
individuals for themselves in the course of their occupation and the offenses of
employees against their employers,” and corporate crime, which, in contrast, is
defined as “the offenses committed by corporate officials for the corporation and
the offenses of the corporation itself” (cited in Braithwaite, 1985, p. 18). The
definition of occupational crime encompasses many blue-collar, occupational

crimes. Coleman (1987) in a somewhat different classification, called for the
distinction between occupational crime, which he defined as “[crimes] commit-
ted for the benefit of individual criminals without organizational support,” and
organizational crime, which refers to “[crimes] committed with support from an
organization, that is, at least in part, furthering its own ends” (p. 406). A more
clear-cut distinction, supplementing Clinard and Quinney’s (1973) work, empha-
sizes the difference between crimes committed against coworkers and those com-
mitted against the organization (Greenberg & Scott, 1996). In fact, Greenberg and
Scott (1996) took the definition a step further by adopting the distinction made by
Hollinger and Clark (1982) between production deviance and property deviance,
thus adding a third dimension to the conceptualization of organizational crime.
The evolving definitions of white-collar crime demonstrate the long way Suther-
land’s term traveled during its 60 years of existence. However, the history of the
white-collar crime concept has its share of controversy. Sutherland’s overarching
definition “has been criticized, refined and debated” more than supported (Shapiro,
1990, p. 347). Although Sutherland’s conceptualization was incorporated into pop-
ular culture, it has proved to be somewhat confusing and obfuscating. Today the
term has come to be used generically, dealing with a wide variety of work-related
illegal acts by persons at all organizational levels (Greenberg & Scott, 1996; Jensen
& Hodson, 1999). “Taken as a whole,” Coleman (1987) observed, “the literature
on the etiology and development of white-collar crime is a hodgepodge of stud-
ies looking at different crimes from different levels of analysis” (p. 408). These
studies “confuse acts with actors, norms with norm breakers, the modus operandi
with the operator” (Shapiro, 1990, p. 347), resulting in “an unfortunate mixing of
definition and explanation” (Braithwaite, 1985, p. 3). Although the white-collar
crime construct offers important insights into the darker side of organizations, it
fails to develop a systematic theory of OMB. We expanded on it to exemplify some
of the dilemmas involved in conceptualizing the phenomenon.
The Formative Phase

Besides Blauner’s (1964) seminal work on alienation in the American workplace,
systematic thinking about employee reactions to work dissatisfaction has its most
profound roots in Hirschman’s (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to De-
cline in Firms, Organizations and States. Identifying voice as employees’ political
response to job dissatisfaction, and defining it as “any attempt at all to change
rather than to escape from an objectionable state of affairs” (p. 30), was a major
contribution to the OB field (Farrell, 1983). Not only did Hirschman bring the
darker aspects of organizations into the forefront, but he also set the basis for
one of the most important conceptual frameworks in OB. The Exit, Voice, Loy-
alty, and Neglect (EVLN) model, for example, derived from Hirschman’s work
by Rusbult, Zembrodt, and Gunn (1982), is a useful conceptual framework for
analyzing the relationships among responses to job dissatisfaction (Farrell, 1983).
Although Hirschman’s conceptualization was developed to explain the responses

of organizations to decline, it could also prove useful in understanding how indi-
viduals act when things are not going well (Withey & Cooper, 1989). Thus, the
EVLN model may serve as a general framework for understanding a variety of
workplace behaviors.
We posit that loyalty, may be viewed as organizational citizenship behavior (Or-
gan, 1988), prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), extra-
role behavior, and the like (for review, see Van Dyne et al., 1994). That is, loyalty
may be defined as individual acts that are first and foremost supportive of the
organization (for a discussion in the variety of meanings attached to loyalty, see
Withey & Cooper, 1989). Similarly, antisocial behaviors (Giacalone & Greenberg,
1997) may be viewed as related to voice and exit and, to a lesser degree, neglect.
However, unlike Rusbult et al. (1982) and Farrell (1983), we do not view voice as
merely a contributive behavior, but more as a variety of behaviors ranging from acts
aimed at restoring past situations (e.g., filing a grievance) to destructive behaviors
aimed at causing damage to the organization (e.g., sabotage) or its members (e.g.,
aggression and violence). Moreover, although the EVLN responses were found
to be both conceptually and empirically distinguishable, (Farrell, 1983; Withey &
Cooper, 1989), their boundaries are somewhat blurred. For instance, exit and voice
could be independent, sequential, or co-occurring (Withey & Cooper, 1989). In
any case, during the 1980s in particular, with the exception of the EVLN model
and some work on workplace deviance (Hollinger & Clark, 1982, 1983; Raelin
1984), interest in organizational misbehavior is still marginal in OB, but the seeds
for the rapid development in the 1990s are sewn.
The Current Phase

Interdisciplinary and eclectic by nature, the emerging approach to OMB is in a
unique position because it can appropriate and enjoy the fruits of the research con-
ducted in other disciplines. For the sake of parsimony and focus, in this section,
we only discuss the evolution of selected OMB subinterests: employee deviance,
workplace aggression, and political behavior. Each domain has a somewhat differ-
ent focus: The employee deviance literature is concerned with the social conditions
under which certain behaviors are considered to be counternormative or deviant.
Workplace aggression research is limited to exploring mainly harmful and dam-
aging behaviors. Political behavior research attempts to shed light on the use and
misuse of power and influence as means to achieve particular individual and group
interests. Evidently, these three scientific branches are not totally distinct. In fact,
to a large extent, they are interrelated and overlap at times (we explore these topics
further throughout the book).
Employee Deviance. Several early attempts have been made to clas-

sify employee deviance, also referred to as workplace deviance or organizational
deviance. For instance, Wheeler (1976) classified forms of organizational rule

breaking into serious and nonserious offenses. Mangione and Quinn (1975) pro-
posed two categories of deviance: counterproductive behavior, defined as “pur-
posely damaging employer’s property,” and doing little on the job, defined as
“producing output of poor quality or low quantity” (p. 114)—somewhat similar to
Taylor’s (1895, 1903) definition of soldiering over 100 years ago.
A significant breakthrough in understanding workplace deviance was made by
Hollinger and Clark (1982). They noted, “for the student of occupational behav-
ior a relatively unexplored area of inquiry is the deviance [which] occurs in the
workplace, particularly those unauthorized acts by employees which are intended
to be detrimental to the formal organization” (p. 97). Following Mangione and
Quinn (1974), they classified the findings of Cressey, (1953), Mars, (1973), Ditton
(1977), Horning (1970), and others into two distinct categories of employee de-
viance: property deviance and production deviance. Property deviance focuses on
those instances when employees acquire or damage the tangible property or assets
of the organization without authorization, whereas production deviance concerns
behaviors that violate the formally proscribed norms delineating the quality and
quantity of work to be accomplished. Unlike white-collar crime, their definitions
of production deviance and property deviance classify the act as anormative, not
as a crime. That is, occupational white-collar crime against the company is now
replaced by employee deviance (mostly toward property); however, the former
focuses on the illegality of the act (yet possibly normative), whereas the latter
underlines it as being counternormative (yet possibly legal).
More than a decade later, Robinson and Bennett (1995) called for expanding
this framework, arguing that an accurate typology of employee deviance should
consider not only behavior directed at organizations, but also behavior that targets
other individuals. Their typology—derived from a statistical analysis of survey-
based data—offers two solid dimensions: type of target chosen by the perpetrator
(other persons or the organization) and extent of damage inflicted (minor or seri-
ous). Bennett and Robinson (2000) further refined their understanding of employee
deviance and developed and validated a measure called the Workplace Deviance
Scale. Their measure distinguishes between organization and interpersonal deviant
behavior. We return to their influential contributions to OMB theory and research
throughout the book.
Workplace Aggression. The phenomenon of workplace aggression was

rarely studied within OB until the beginning of the 1990s. Perhaps this reflects a
more benign work atmosphere in organizations in the post-WWII era characterized
by rapid growth and full employment. Since the early 1980s, the workplace in the
United States and Europe has become markedly more vulnerable and unsettled,
accompanied by new-age forms of employee alienation and the breakdown of
the old psychological contract. The term aggression is employed to describe many
different behaviors, not all of which are necessarily antisocial in either their intents
or effects. As Neuman and Baron (1997) noted, for example, there is a distinction
between aggressive (with mostly negative connotation) and assertive (with mostly
positive connotation) forms of behavior, and the difference is not always clear-cut.
Yet most of the more recent literature seems to tilt toward the hostile dimension of
the behavior (e.g., O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1996). Again this may not be surprising
in view of the rapid growth of reported cases of aggression, homicide included,
within the workplace (for a comprehensive review, see Neuman & Baron, 1997).
The proposition that aggression is a plausible outcome of frustration in the
workplace is not new (Spector, 1978). Blauner (1964) observed that “machine-
breaking was a common response in the early stages of industrialization when
new factory conditions appeared oppressive” (p. 106), suggesting that aggression
is a result of employees’ frustration brought on by their lack of control, perhaps
“ways of getting even with a dominating technology” (p. 107). However, despite
Blauner’s depiction of powerlessness and alienation in industry, and although early
work motivation theories (Adams, 1965; Herzberg, 1968; Vroom, 1964) alluded to
the possibility of hostile behavior at work, aggression as an intentionally harmful
behavior was not fully conceptualized until the mid-1970s (Spector, 1975, 1978).
This is quite surprising considering that a significant amount of research outside the
organizational context was devoted to factors that cause, facilitate, or exacerbate
human aggression or that tend to prevent or reduce it. Unfortunately, Neuman and
Baron (1997) observed that there is little evidence to suggest that this large body
of knowledge has been systematically applied to the social context in which most
adults spend most of their waking time—their work environment.
Workplace violence and aggression are often discussed in the popular literature
(for a review, see Martinko & Zellars, 1998), suggesting that a number of work-
place factors are associated with these forms of misbehavior (e.g., pressures of
widespread job losses and fewer job opportunities, lower levels of organizational
loyalty, souring peer relationships, authoritarian styles of management, substance
abuse, etc.). Although this literature offers anecdotal evidence regarding elements
that have been or are postulated to be associated with workplace aggression and vi-
olence, there has been little systematic research explaining their effects. In social
psychology, for example, human aggression is considered an adaptive reaction
to frustration—an instinct resulting from internal excitation or a learned social
behavior that is part drive-based and part learned behavior. The social learning
perspective posits that organizational aggression is prompted by external factors
(social-situational cues and reinforcers), rather than internal factors (instincts and
drives; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1996).
An early adaptation of the social psychology models to the organizational set-
ting was made by Korman (1971, 1976), who presented a framework relating en-
vironmental antecedents to motivational processes and suggested that a high level
of aggression toward self and others stems from the workplace’s environmental
characteristics. This model, although novel, is undeveloped and lacks a defini-
tion of aggression. In a similar vein, Spector (1975, 1978) explored the relation-
ship between frustration caused by factors in the work setting and aggression. He
defined aggression as “behaviors designed to hurt the employer or the organization”

(Spector, 1975, p. 635) and noted that aggression was traditionally conceptualized
as a reaction to an organization’s control and punishment systems. He concluded
that frustrating events, which interfere with employees’ goal attainment and/or
maintenance in organizational settings, may indeed cause aggressive behavior.
Two further distinctions regarding aggression can be made. The first distin-
guishes organizational aggression and interpersonal aggression. Although the for-
mer is intended to harm the organization, the latter is intended to hurt another
person and “is primarily verbal” (Spector, 1978, p. 637). The second distinction
accounts for the visibility of the act. Thus, it differentiates between overt (work
slowdowns, grievances) and covert (sabotage, withholding of output) forms of
aggression. Neuman and Baron (1997) noted that research concerning aggres-
sion tends to focus almost exclusively on the covert forms of aggression. In any
case, as suggested earlier, except for Spector and a few others (for reviews, see
O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1996; Neuman & Baron, 1997; Robinson & Bennett, 1997),
workplace aggression and violence per se remained almost unexplored until the
1990s.
Political Organizational Behavior. Crozier (1964) studied power re-

lations and the problem of control in organizations, concepts that gained respect
in the Marxist sociological tradition (e.g., Baritz, 1960; Bendix, 1956; Braverman,
1974; Edwards, 1979). During the 1970s and early 1980s, there was a surge of
theoretical and empirical work on the acquisition and exercise of power within
complex organizations (e.g., Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Pfeffer, 1981). This body
of research focused primarily on structural and environmental factors affecting
the distribution and dynamics of power in organizations. It made clear that power
reflects the degree to which organizational members cope with critical demands
facing the organization and the degree to which members control critical resources
or critical information on which others must depend. However, little research at-
tention was given to the more psychological determinants of individual acquisition
of power, let alone its manipulative use in organizations.
Although widely recognized by organizational members, instrumental political
behavior of individuals within organizations was not integrated into organizational
theory until the mid-1980s. Empirical studies of the processes by which individ-
uals select the target of political behavior in which they engage have rarely been
conducted (Farrell & Petersen, 1982; Kacmar & Carlson, 1998). The main rea-
son for this apparent paradox is, as already noted, that the Scientific Management
and Human Relations schools, with their managerial perspective and prescriptive
biases, focused on issues of motivation and productivity at the expense of under-
standing resource allocation and the related intraorganizational conflict, which is
an integral part of it.
Scholarly interest in the political behavior of individuals stems from waves
of growing interest in the way power is used in organizations in the 1970s (Far-
rell & Petersen, 1982; Kacmar & Carlson, 1998). Other social science disciplines
already demonstrated interest in the roots of such behaviors at various levels. Po-
litical scientists addressed unrest as antecedent to political protests, psychologists
considered personality variables such as Machiavellianism as potential antecedents
of political behaviors, and anthropologists studied leveling behaviors—behaviors
that reduce others to one’s own level or status within a social context (Robinson
& Bennett, 1997). In addition, sociologists began to explore mechanisms of neu-
tralization, which allow individuals in social situations to justify and rationalize
improper conduct (Sykes & Matza, 1957).
Political behavior in organizations is defined as “those activities that are not
required as part of one’s organizational role but that influence, or attempt to in-
fluence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization”
(Farrell & Petersen, 1982, p. 405). This definition emphasizes the instrumental
nature of political behavior by conceptualizing it as residing in informal structures
and relating to the promotion of self and group interests, especially the expansion
of the available resources for mobilization. Farrell and Petersen (1982) presented
a preliminary multidimensional typology of political behavior in organizations
consisting of three dimensions: internal–external, vertical–lateral, and legitimate–
illegitimate.
The first dimension relates to the focus of resources sought by those engaging
in political behavior. The second recognizes the difference between influence pro-
cesses relating superiors to subordinates and those relating to equals. The third, and
perhaps the most relevant to our discussion, acknowledges that in organizations
there is a distinction between normal everyday and even positive and beneficial
politics and extreme political behavior that violates the rules. As to the question of
who engages in this kind of behavior, Farrell and Petersen argued that illegitimate
political behavior is likely to be action taken by alienated members and those who
feel they have little to lose.
Over two decades after Farrell and Petersen’s (1982) work was published, it
is now clear that the real contribution of their work was not in its adaptation of
political behavior to organizational context, or their definition of the new concept,
or the typology they presented. Their main contribution to OB, with which we
definitely concur, was in identifying an inherent positive-normative bias in its
perspective, thus in effect calling for the expansion of its boundaries to encompass
the more sinister sides of human behavior in organizations.
TOWARD A FRAMEWORK
FOR MISBEHAVIOR
In this chapter, we showed that, since its formation as a distinct discipline in the
mid-1950s, OB research tended to (a) focus on the microlevel, and (b) empha-
size the positive-normative side of human behavioral patterns in work organiza-
tions. Undoubtedly, the field failed to pay proper attention to the microlevel of the
TOWARD A FRAMEWORK FOR MISBEHAVIOR 23
unconventional side of organizational behavior despite its aspirations to become a

scholarly field of inquiry. It is now attempting to rectify this omission.
Today more than ever, we witness a surge in OMB research and literature.
Certainly we do not yet have the time perspective necessary to judge its impact on
and contribution to management and the OB field. The emergence of this relatively
new and distinct body of knowledge is the reason the field has moved from the early,
formative stage to its current, developed phase—even if this stage is yet to reach
full bloom. Beginning in the late 1970s, and especially during the 1990s, we can
clearly identify a corrective tendency of the OB field—an increasing awareness
of as well as research into OMB. Thus, together with OMB and OCB, the OB
discipline forms a new, distinguishable, and expanding body of knowledge rooted
in academic discourse as well as practice.
We suggest that the classical models of behavior in work organizations, relating
principally to enhancing positive outcomes of work life, be reconsidered and ex-
panded to cover the whole range of human behavior in organizational settings. This
is necessary because misbehavior is both a pervasive and universal phenomenon.
It cuts across individuals, jobs, hierarchical levels, occupations, organizations, and
geographic borders. Only by further broadening our focus, intensively combining
new knowledge to what we already understand, and tirelessly reconsidering our
existing theories and our models can OB become the scholarly, multileveled, over-
arching, and encompassing field it aspires to be. However, to date little is known
about the effects of meso-(group) level variables on individual misbehavior at work
(Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Thus, we attach relatively more importance
to the organizational, positional, and individual determinants of OMB.
The next chapter adopts Vardi and Wiener’s (1996) original motivational model
and extends it to an overall Antecedents–Intentions–Manifestations framework for
OMB analysis. The new framework serves as our guide and road map for this
book, distinguishing various levels of antecedents of intentional OMB and its
large variety of manifestations in the workplace. As is seen, both expositions deal
with the challenges and demands presented earlier: They are anchored in classical
models of OB, and they allow us to extend the discussion of OMB to the effects of
both microlevel (person and job) and macrolevel (unit, organization) factors and
variables.
References
Abdel Halim, A. A. (1978). Employee affective responses to organizational stress: Moderating effects
of job characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 31, 561–578.
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21, 254–285.
Abrahamson, E. (1997). The emergence and prevalence of employee management rhetoric: The effects
of long waves, labor union, and turnover, 1875 to 1992. Academy of Management Journal, 40,
491–533.
Academy of Management (August, 2002). Newsletter. Radcliff Manor, NY: Author.
Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, P. (1999). Organizational misbehaviour. London: Sage.
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
67, 422–436.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Adams, S. (1996). The Dilbert principle. New York: Harper Business.
Aguinis, H., Henle, C. A., & Ostroff C. (2001). Measurement in work and organizational psychology.
In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial,
work and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 27–50). London: Sage.
Ailon-Souday, G. (2001). Merging ourselves apart: A study of identities in an Israeli high-tech cor-
poration undergoing a merger with an American competitor. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kurhl & J. Beckman
(Eds.), Consistency in social behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 2, pp. 3–15). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
261
262 REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood-
Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Akeroyd-Lear, J. (2001). DrugPolicy.com. http://www.hr.com
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Allcorn, S. (1994). Anger in the workplace: Understanding the causes of aggression and violence.
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Allen, V. L., & Greenberger, D. B. (1980). Destruction and perceived control. In A. Baum &
J. E. Singer (Eds.), Applications of personal control (Vol. 2 pp. 85–109). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Allinson, R. E. (1998). Ethical values as part of the definition of business enterprise and part of the
internal structure of the business organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1015–1028.
Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.
Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Riverside.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Altheide, D. L., Adler, P. A., Adler, P., & Altheide, D. A. (1978). The social meanings of employee theft.
In J. M. Johnson & J. D. Douglas (Eds.), Crime at the top (pp. 90–124). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
American Psychological Association. (1996). Task force on statistical inference: Initial report.
http://www.apa.org/science/tfsi.html
Amernic, J. (2000). Applicant background checks. http://www.hr.com
Analoui, F., & Kakabadse, A. (1992). Unconventional practices at work: Insight and analysis through
participant observation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 7, 1–31.
Analoui, F., & Kakabadse, A. (1991). Sabotage: How to recognize and manage employee defiance.
London: Mercury.
Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework.
Human Relations, 49, 1395–1418.
Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 449–469.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace.
Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.
Anthony, R. N., & Dearden, J. (1976). Management control systems: Text and cases (3rd ed.).
Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Archer, E. R. (1994). Words of caution on the temporary workforce. HR magazine, 39, 168–170.
Archer, D. (1999). Exploring “bullying” culture in the para-military organization. International Journal
of Manpower, 2, 94–105.
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization: The conflict between system and the individual.
New York: Harper.
Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organizational behavior. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley.
Arthur, M. B., Claman, P. H., & DeFillippi, R. J. (1995). Intelligent enterprise, intelligent careers.
Academy of Management Executive, 9, 7–22.
Ashforth, B. E. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management Review,
10, 837–847.
Ashforth, B. E. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755–778.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotions in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relation,
48, 97–125.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Jackson, C. R. A. (2001). Organizational culture and climate. In N. Anderson,
D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organiza-
tional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 398–415). London: Sage.
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 289–303.
Astor, S. D. (1972). Twenty steps for preventing theft in business. Management Review, 61, 34–35.
REFERENCES 263
Avolio, B. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management
Review, 14, 496–515.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Sonnenstuhl, W. J. (2002). Driven to drink: Managerial control,
work related risk factors and employee drinking behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
637–658.
Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1980). Power and politics in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Bachman, R. (1994). Violence and theft in the workplace. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics,
U.S. Department of Justice.
Bamberger, P. A., & Sonnenstuhl, W. J. (1998). Introduction: Research on organizations and deviance—
some basic concerns. In S. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 15,
pp. vii–xviii). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baritz, L. (1960). The servants of power: A history of the use of social science in American industry.
Middletown; CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on
their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161–173.
Baron, S. A. (1993). Violence in the workplace: A prevention and management guide for businesses.
Oxnard, CA: Pathfinder.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–27.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big
five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales
representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
715–722.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Antecedents of involuntary turnover due to
reduction in force. Personnel Psychology, 47, 515–536.
Bartram, D. (1994). Computer-based assessment. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Interna-
tional review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 31–69). Chichester, England:
Wiley.
Baruch, Y. (2000). Bullying on the net: Adverse behavior on the e-mail and its impact. Unpublished
manuscript, University of East Anglia, Great Britain.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier syndrome: The relation-
ship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.
Baucus, M. S., & Near, J. P. (1991). Can illegal corporate behavior be predicted? An event history
analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 9–36.
Becker, T. E., & Martin, S. L. (1995). Trying to look bad at work: Methods and motives for managing
poor impressions in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 174–199.
Bejsky, M. (1986). Report of the inquest committee on the regulation of bank shares. Jerusalem, Israel:
Government of Israel.
Bendix, R. (1956). Work and authority in industry: Ideologies of management in the course of indus-
trialization. New York: Harper & Row.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of measure of workplace deviance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.
Bensman, J., & Gerver, I. (1963). Crime and punishment in the factory: The function of deviancy in
maintaining the social system. American Sociological Review, 28, 588–598.
Berelson, B. (1971). Content analysis in communication research. New York: Hafner.
264 REFERENCES
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of
knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Beugré, C. D. (1998). Understanding organizational insider-perpetrated workplace aggression: An
integrative model. Research in Sociology of Organizations, 15, 163–196.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1995). The use and abuse of power: Justice as social control. In
R. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Manag-
ing the social climate at the workplace (pp. 131–145). Westport CT: Quorum.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the need for revenge. In
R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research
(pp. 246–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Revenge in organizations: The good, the bad and the ugly. In
R. W. Griffin, A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations:
Non-violent dysfunctional behavior (Vol. 23, Part B, pp. 49–67). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics
of revenge in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in
organizations (pp. 18–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Biran, A. (1999). Job autonomy as chance or temptation: The relationship between autonomy, personal
and organizational variables, and misbehavior at work. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv
University, Israel.
Blau, G. J. (1987). Using a person-environment fit model to predict job involvement and organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 240–257.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his industry. Chicago: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Bliss, E. C., & Aoki, I. S. (1993). Are your employees stealing you blind? San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy
of Management Review, 24, 82–98.
Bologna, P. S., & Shaw, P. (2000). Avoiding cyberfraud in small businesses: What auditors and owners
need to know. New York: Wiley.
Bommer, M., Gratto, C., Gravander, J., & Tuttle, M. (1987). A behavioral model of ethical and unethical
decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 265–280.
Bowie, N. E., & Dunka, R. F. (1990). Business ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Boyd, R. G. (1990). How employee thievery can plague an acquisition. Mergers and Acquisitions, 24,
58–61.
Boye, M. W., & Jones, J. W. (1997). Organizational culture and employee counterproductivity. In R. A.
Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 172–184). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes
in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 9–30.
Braithwaite, J. (1985). White collar crime. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 1–25.
Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social
network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 14–31.
Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century.
New York: Monthly Review Press.
Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38, 551–570.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management
Review, 11, 710–725.
Briner, B., & Hockey, R. G. (1988). Operator stress and computer-based work. In C. L. Cooper &
R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping, and consequences of stress at work (pp. 115–140). New York:
Wiley.
Brown, M. A. (1976). Values—a necessary but neglected ingredient of motivation on the job. Academy
REFERENCES 265
Brummer, J. (1985). Business ethics: Micro and macro. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 81–91.
Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19, 1–15.
Bryant, C. D. (Ed.). (1974). Deviant behavior: Occupational and organizational bases. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Bryson, J. B. (1977, August). Situational determinants of the expression of jealousy. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Psychology Association, San Francisco, CA.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1999). Fatal occupational injuries by event and exposure, 1993–1998.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
Burke, R. J. (1999). Workaholism in organizations: The role of personal beliefs and fears. Anxiety,
Stress and Coping, 13, 53–65.
Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.
Buss, D. (1993). Ways to curtail employee theft. Nation’s Business, 81, 36–37.
Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C.A., III. (1982). Responses to failure: The effects of choice and respon-
sibility on impression management. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 121–136.
Cappelli, P., & Chauvin, K. (1991). An interplant test of the efficiency wage hypothesis. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 106, 769–787.
Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. (1991). The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level
approach. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13,
pp. 55–110). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Chappell, D., & Di Martino, V. (1998). Violence at work. Geneva: International Labor Organization.
Carr, A. Z. (1968). Is business bluffing ethical? Harvard Business Review, 46, 143–153.
Carroll, A. B. (1978). Linking business ethics to behavior in organizations. S.A.M. Advanced Man-
agement Journal, 43, 4–11.
Caudron, S. (1995). Fighting the enemy within. Business Week, 244, 16, 36–40.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization
fit. Academy of Management Review,14, 333–349.
Cherniss, C. (1980). Staff burnout: Job stress in the human service. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cherrington, D. J. (1980). The work ethic: Working values and values that work. New York: Amacom.
Cherrington, D. J., & Cherrington, J. O. (1985). The climate of honesty in retail stores. In W. Terris
(Ed.), Employee theft: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 51–65). Park Ridge , IL: London
House Press.
Cleveland, J. N., & Kerst, M. E. (1993). Sexual harassment and perceptions of power: An under-
articulated relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 49–67.
Cleveland, J. N., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. R. (2000). Women and men in organizations: Sex and
gender issues at work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clinard, M. B., & Quinney, R. (1968). Criminal behavior systems: A typology. (2nd ed.) New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Cohen, G. (1999). The relationship between different types of commitment in the workplace and orga-
nizational misbehavior. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.
Cohen, S. (1973). Property destruction: Motives and meanings. In C. Ward (Ed.), Vandalism
(pp. 23–53). London: Architectural Press.
Coleman, J. W. (1985). The criminal elite: The sociology of white-collar crime. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Coleman, J. W. (1987). Toward an integrated theory of white-collar crime. American Journal of Soci-
ology, 93, 406–439.
Collins, J. M., & Griffin, R. W. (1998). The psychology of counterproductive job performance. In
R. W. Griffin, A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations
(pp. 219–242). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Collins, J. M., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Personality, integrity, and white collar crime: A construct
validity study. Personnel Psychology, 46, 295–311.
266 REFERENCES
Collins, O., Dalton, M., & Roy, D. (1946). Restriction of output and social cleavage in industry. Applied
Anthropology, 5, 1–14.
Cooper, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.). (1999). The virtual organization. Trends in organizational
behavior (Vol. 6). New York: Wiley.
Cornwall, H. (1987). Datatheft: Computer fraud, industrial espionage, and information crime. London:
Heinemann.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-
reports and spouse ratings on the NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 853–863.
Crawford, N. (1999). Conundrums and confusion in organizations: The etymology of the word “bully.”
International Journal of Manpower, 20, 86–93.
Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people’s money: The social psychology of embezzlement. New York: The
Free Press.
Crino, M. D., & Leap, T. L. (1988). Sabotage: Protecting your company means dealing with the dark
side of human nature. Success, 35(1), 52–55.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathol-
ogy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. London: Tavistock Publications.
Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., Stephens, C. (1989). An ethical weather report: Assessing the organization’s
ethical climate. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 50–63.
Cummings, L. L. (1982). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 541–579.
Dabney, D. A., & Hollinger, R. C. (1999). Illicit prescription drug use among pharmacists. Work and
Occupation, 26, 77–106.
Daboub, A. J., Rasheed, A. M. A., Priem, R. L., & Gray, D. A. (1995). Top management team,
characteristics and corporate illegal activity. Academy of Management Review, 20, 138–170.
Daft, R. L. (1980). The evaluation of organization analysis in ASQ, 1959–1979. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 25, 623–636.
Daft, R. L. (1995). Organization theory and design. St. Paul, MN: West.
Daft, R. L. (2000). Management. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.
Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1993). Where are the theories for the “new” organizational form? An
editorial essay. Organizational Science, 4(4), i–iv.
Daft, R. L., & Noe, R. A. (2001). Organizational behavior. New York: Harcourt.
Daft, R. L. & Marcic (2004). Understanding Management (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Dalton, D. R., Johnson, J. L., & Daily, C. M. (1999). On the use of “Intent To . . . ” variables in
organizational research: An empirical and cautionary assessment. Human Relations, 52, 1337–
1350.
Dalton, M. A. (1999). Learning tactics inventory: Facilitator’s guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Danet, B. (1981). Client-organization relationships. In P. C. Nystrome & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Hand-
book of organizational design (Vol. 2, pp. 382–417). New York: Oxford University Press.
De George, R. T. (1986). Theological ethics and business ethics/replies and reflections on theology
and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 5, 421–437.
Delaney, J. (1993). Handcutting employee theft. Small Business Report, 18, 29–38.
Delgado, A. R., & Bond, R. A. (1993). Attenuating the attribution of responsibility: The lay percep-
tion of jealousy as a motive for wife battery. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1337–
1356.
DeMore, S. W., Fisher, J. D., & Baron, R. M. (1988). The equity control model as a predictor of
vandalism among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 80–91.
Denenberg, R. V., & Braverman, M. (1999). The violence-prone workplace: A new approach to dealing
with hostile, threatening, and uncivil behavior. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
REFERENCES 267
DeVries, D., & Vardi, Y. (2002). The bank-shares regulation affairs and illegalism in Israeli society: A
theoretical perspective of unethical managerial behavior. Israel Affairs, 8, 226–252.
Diamond, M. A. (1997). Administrative assault: A contemporary psychoanalytic view of violence and
aggression in the workplace. American Review of Public Administration, 27, 228–247.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Ditton, J. (1977). Perks, pilferage, and the fiddle: The historical structure of invisible wages. Theory
and Society, 4, 39–71.
Drory, A. (1993). Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
392–407.
Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1990). The definition of organizational politics: A review. Human Relations,
43, 1133–1154.
Dubinsky, A., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Business
Research, 19, 83–107.
Dubois, P. (1976). Sabotage in industry. Middlesex, England: Pelican.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 331–351.
Dworkin T. M. & Near, J. P. (1997). A better statutory approach to whistleblowing. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 7, 1–16
Ehrlich, H. J., & Larcom, B. E. K. (1994). Ethnoviolence in the workplace. Baltimore: Center for the
applied study of Ethnoviolence.
Edwards, R. (1979). Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century.
New York: Basic Books.
Egozi, E. (2002). Towards a general framework of organizational misbehavior. Unpublished master’s
thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Eisenhardt, K. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31,
134–149.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review,
14, 57–74.
Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (1998). Betrayal of trust in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 547–566.
Ellis, S., & Arieli, S. (1999). Predicting intentions to report administrative and disciplinary infractions:
Applying the reasoned action model. Human Relations, 52, 947–967.
Erez, M., & Early, P. C. (1993). Culture, self, and identity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Ewing, J. A. (1984). Detecting alcoholism: The CAGE questionnaire. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 252, 1905–1907.
Fallan, J. D., Kudisch, J. D., & Fortunato, V. J. (2000, April). Using conscientiousness to predict
productive and counter productive work behavior. Paper presented at the 15th annual conference
of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Fallding, H. (1965). A proposal for the empirical study of values. American Sociological Review, 30,
223–233.
Fandt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). The management of information and impressions: When employ-
ees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 140–
158.
Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimen-
sional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 596–607.
Farrell, D., & Petersen, J. C. (1982). Patterns of political behavior in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 7, 403–412.
Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of Management
Review, 6, 309–318.
268 REFERENCES
Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (1994). Business ethics: Ethical decision making. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision
making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 87– 96.
Ferrell, O. C., Gresham, L. G., & Fraedrich, J. (1989). A synthesis of ethical decision modes in
marketing. Journal of Macro Marketing, 9, 55–64.
Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1988, March). Organization politics and affective reactions. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Division of the Academy of Management, San
Antonio, TX.
Ferris, G. R., & Aranya, N. (1983). A comparison of two organizational commitment scales. Personnel
Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone &
P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143–170). Hillsdale, NJ:
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fimbel, N., & Burstein, J. S. (1990). Defining the ethical standards of the high-technology industry.
Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 929–948.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory
research. Readings, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work life: An introduction.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 123–129.
Fisher, J. D., & Baron, R. M. (1982). An equity-based model of vandalism. Population and Environment,
5, 182–200.
Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes between
workers and their supervisors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 147–162.
Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace. American
Psychologist, 48, 1070–1076.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hullin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and
consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of
Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., Ormerol, A. J., &
Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the
workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152–175.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The measurement of leadership attitudes in industry. Journal of Applied
Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievance
and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 43–56.
Foa, E. B., & Foa, V. G. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In M. K. Gergen,
M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange (pp. 77–102). New York: Plenum.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). A popcorn metaphor for employee aggression. In R. W. Griffin,
A. M. Oleary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations (pp. 43–81).
Stamford, CT: JAI.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration–aggression. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 915–931.
Fraedrich, J. P., & Ferrell, O. C. (1992). The impact of perceived risk and moral philosophy type on
ethical decision making in business organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 281–295.
Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R. Jr. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
REFERENCES 269
Friedlander, R., & Greenberg, S. (1971). Effects of job attitudes, training and organizational climate
on performance of hard-core unemployed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 287–295.
Friedlander, R., & Margulis, N. (1969). Multiple impacts of organizational climate and individual value
systems upon job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 22, 171–183.
Friedman, M. (1979). The social responsibility of business. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.),
Ethical theory and business (pp. 81–83). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Frijda N. H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes and emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.),
Handbook of emotions (pp. 381–403). New York: Guilford.
Furnham, A., & Zacherl, M. (1986). Personality and job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 7, 453–459.
Gabriel, Y. (1998). An introduction to the social psychology of insults in organizations. Human Rela-
tions, 51, 1329–1354.
Gaertner, K. N. (1980). The structure of organization careers. Sociology of Education, 53, 7–20.
Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gale, E. K. (1993). Social influences on absenteeism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue Uni-
versity, Lafayette, IN.
Galmor, E. (1996). The effect of employment status (temporary/permanent) on the organizational
misbehavior. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Galperin, B. L., & Aquino, K. (1999, August). Individual aggressiveness and minority status as mod-
erators of the relationship between perceived injustice and workplace deviance. Paper presented at
the Academy of Management meeting, Chicago, IL.
Ganot, S. (1999). Subjective pressure, job satisfaction and workplace misbehavior among R&D em-
ployees in a high-tech organization. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Ganster, D. C. (1989). Stress, personal control and health. London: Wiley.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, W. L., III, & Martinko, M. J. (1998). An organizational perspective of the effects of dys-
functional impression management. In R. W. Griffin, A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins
(Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Non-violent dysfunctional behavior (pp. 69–125).
Stamford, CT: JAI.
Gayford, J. J. (1979). Battered wives. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 22, 496–503.
George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Business Psychology, 74, 317–324.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects of feel-
ings on focus of attention and work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 75–
109.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behaviors in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Giacalone, R. A., Riordan, C. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1997). Employee sabotage: Toward a practitioner–
scholar understanding. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organiza-
tions (pp. 109–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1987). Reasons for employee sabotage in the workplace. Journal
of Business Psychology, 1, 367–378.
Giacalone, R. A., Rosenfeld, P. (1991) (Eds.). Applied impression management: How image-making
affects managerial decisions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 29, 499–517.
Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., & Drasgow, F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An
integrated model of antecedents and consequences.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 71, 309–328.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Goffman, E. (1971). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Penguin.
270 REFERENCES
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of marker variables for the big-five factor structure. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Goldman, O. (1992). Deviant behavior in work organizations: Constructs, dimensions, and factors
influencing individual involvement in deviance. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University,
Israel.
Goldshmid-Avon, L. (1997). Individual and organizational antecedents of workaholism. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D., & Cherniss, C. (Eds.). (2001). The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for,
measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Golembiewski, R. T., & Munzenrider, R. (1975). Social desirability as an intervening variable in
interpreting OD effects. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 11, 317–332.
Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. New York: The Free Press.
Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.
American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
Granovetter, M. S. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria & R. G.
Eccles (Eds.). Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 25–56). Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Gray-Toft, P., & Anderson, J. G. (1981). The nursing stress scale: Development of an instrument.
Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 3, 11–23.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan,
J. Johnson, & S. R. Brrigs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Green, R. M. (1994). The ethical manager: A new method for business ethics. New York: Macmillan.
Greenberg, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1986). Development and application of a model of personal control
in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11, 164–177.
Greenberg J. (1998). The cognitive geometry of employee theft: Negotiating “the line” between stealing
and taking. In R. W. Griffin, A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior
in organizations: Non-violent dysfunctional behavior (Vol. 23, Part B, pp. 147–193). Stamford,
CT: JAI.
Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a response to underemployment inequity: The hidden cost of
pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568.
Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management,
16, 399–432.
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of
theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
54, 81–103.
Greenberg, J. (1994) (Ed.). Organizational behavior: The state of the science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Greenberg, J. (1995). Employee theft. In N. Nicholson (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary
of organizational behavior (pp. 154–155) Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Greenberg, J. (1997). The steal motive: Management the social determinants of employee theft. In
R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 85–107). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenberg, J., & Alge, B. J. (1998). Aggressive reactions to workplace injustice. In R. W. Griffin,
A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and
deviant behavior (Vol. 23, Part A, pp. 83–117). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 985–1003.
REFERENCES 271
Greenberg, J., & Barling, J. (1996). Employee theft. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends
in organizational behavior (pp. 49–64). New York: Wiley.
Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates
and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 20, 897–913.
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. B. (1997). Behavior in organizations (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Greenberg, J., & Scott, K. S. (1996). Why do workers bite hands that feed them? Employee theft as
a social exchange process. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 111–156). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Greengard, S. (1993). Theft control starts with HR strategies. Personnel Journal, 72, 80–88.
Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., & Collins, J. M. (Eds.). (1998a). Dysfunctional behavior in
organizations: Non-violent dysfunctional behavior (Vol. 23, Part B). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., & Collins, J. M. (1998b). Dysfunctional work behaviors in
organizations. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior
(pp. 65–82). New York: Wiley.
Grover, S. L. (1993). Lying, deceit and subterfuge: A model of dishonesty in the workplace. Organi-
zational Science, 4, 478–495.
Gruys, M. L. (1999). The dimensionality of deviant employee performance in the workplace. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Guinsel, J. (1997). Cyberwars: Espionage on the Internet. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and
effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338.
Hackett, R. D. (1989). Work attitudes and employee absenteeism: A synthesis of the literature. Journal
of Psychology, 62, 235–248.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades: Goodyear.
Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. (1972). Correlates of organizational identification as a function of career
pattern and organizational type. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 340–350.
Hall, R. H. (1999). Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Halverson, R. (1998). Employee theft drives shrink rate. Discount Store News, 9, 2–12.
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An evaluation
of a causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 110–128.
Harper, D., & Emmert, F. (1963). Work behavior in a service industry. Social Forces, 42, 216–225.
Harrell, T., & Alpert, B. (1979). The need for autonomy among managers. Academy of Management
Review, 4, 259–267.
Harris, M. M., & Greising, L. A. (1998). Alcohol and drug abuse as dysfunctional workplace be-
haviors. In R. W. Griffin, A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behav-
ior in organizations: Non-violent dysfunctional behavior (Vol. 23, Part B, pp. 21–48). Stamford,
CT: JAI.
Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P. (1978). Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experi-
ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 451–457.
Helldorfer, M. C. (1987). Church professionals and work addiction. Studies in Formative Spirituality,
8(2), 199–210.
272 REFERENCES
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (1974). Organizational climate: Measures, research and contingencies.
Academy of Management Journal, 17, 255–280.
Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W., & Woodman, R. W. (2001). Organizational behavior (9th ed.). Cincinnati,
OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1982). Management of organizational behavior (4th ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46,
53–62.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes and delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations and
states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive,
7, 81–94.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1989). How to measure employee reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 273–279.
Hogan, R., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, &
S. R. Brigs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 849–870). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environment (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding an employee deviance. Deviant
Behavior, 7, 53–75.
Hollinger, R. C. (1991). Neutralizing in the workplace: An empirical analysis of property theft and
production deviance. Deviance Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 169–202.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. (1982). Employee deviance: A response to the perceived quality of the
work experience. Work and Occupations, 9, 97–114.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. (1983). Deterrence in the workplace: Perceived certainty, perceived
severity and employee theft. Social Forces, 62(2), 398–418.
Holsti, O. R. (1968). Content analysis. In G. Lindzeye & E. Aronson (Eds.). The handbook of social
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 596–692). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Holtsman-Chen, E. (1984). The effects of entry jobs on the chances for promotion. An Unpublished
Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Horning, D. N. M. (1970). Blue collar theft: Conceptions of property, attitudes toward pilferage, and
work group norms in a modern industrial plant. In E. O. Smigel & H. L. Ross (Eds.), Crimes against
bureaucracies (pp. 46–64). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hosmer, T. L. (1987). Ethical analysis and human resource management. Human Resource Manage-
ment, 26, 313–330.
Hosmer, T. L. (1991). The ethics of Management. Boston: Irwin.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “big-five” personality variables-construct confusion: Description versus
prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.
Hough, L. M., Eaton, M. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related
validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.
Hough, L. M., & Schnieder, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organi-
zations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 31–88).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
House, R. J., & Singh, J. V. (1987). Organizational behavior: Some new directions for I/O psychology.
Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 669–718.
REFERENCES 273
House, R. J., Schuler, R. S., & Levanoni, E. (1983). Short notes, role conflict and ambiguity scales:
Reality or artifacts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 334–337.
House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: Past perspectives and future di-
rections for research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science
(pp. 45–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
House, R., Rousseau, D., & Themas-Hurt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the
integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17,
71–114.
Humphreys, L. G. (1977). Predictability of employee theft: Importance of the base rate. Journal of
Hunt, S. T. (1996). Generic work behavior: An investigation into the dimensions of entry level, hourly
job performance. Personnel Psychology, 49, 51–83.
Ilgen, D. R., & Klein, H. J. (1989). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 327–351.
Ilgen, D. R., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off job activities, interole
conflict and affective experiences.Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 272–279.
Isaac, R. G. (1993). Organizational culture: Some new perspectives. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 91–112). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor on categorization. In L. L. Cummings &
B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 1–53). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1990). Organizational behavior and management. Boston, MA:
Irwin.
Izraeli, D. (1994). Marketing: Theory and practice. Tel Aviv: Cherikover.
Jaccard, J., & Davidson, A. R. (1975). A comparison of two models of social behavior: results of a
survey sample. Sociometry, 38 (4), 497–517.
James, G. G. (1984). In defense of whistle blowing. In W. H. Shaw & V. Barry (Eds.), Moral issues in
business (6th ed., pp. 409–417). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes
(rev. ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology to trauma. New York:
The Free Press.
Jansen, E., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1985). Ethical ambivalence and organizational reward systems.
Jensen, G. F., & Hodson, R. (1999). Synergies in the study of crime and the workplace. Work and
Occupations, 26, 6–20.
Jermier, J. (1988). Sabotage at work: The rational view. Sociology of Organizations, 6, 101–134.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.
John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptions. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor
(Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 261–271). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Johns, G. (1997). Contemporary research on absence from work: Correlations, causes and conse-
quences. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 115–174.
Johns, G. (2001). The psychology of lateness, absenteeism, and turnover. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones,
H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psy-
chology (Vol. 2, pp. 232–252). London: Sage.
Johnson, P., & Gill, J. (1993). Management control and organizational behavior. London: Paul
Chapman.
Johnson, P. R., & Indvik, J. (1994). Workplace violence. PUBLIC personnel Management, 23, 515–523.
Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley.
Jones, G. R. (1984). Task visibility, free riding, and shirking: Explaining the effect of structure and
technology on employee bahavior. Academy of Management Review, 9, 684–695.
274 REFERENCES
Jones, J. W., & Terris, W. (1983). Predicting employees theft in home improvement centers. Psycho-
logical Reports, 52, 187–201.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contigent model.
Judge, T. A., Matocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee
absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745–755.
Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1998). A qualitative analysis of the dysfunctional aspects of po-
litical behavior in organizations. In R. W. Griffin, A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.),
Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Non-violent dysfunctional behavior (Vol. 23, Part B,
pp. 195–218). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1994). Using impression management in women’s job search
processes. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 682–696.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational
stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Kanji, G. K. (1999). 100 Statistical tests. London: Sage.
Kanter, D. L., & Marvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans: Living and working in an age of
discontent and disillusion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kantor, H. (1999). Misbehavior among social workers in welfare agencies: Its relationship with pro-
fessional commitment, burnout at work, and the violence of patients. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of
working life. New York: Basic Books.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integra-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: J Wiley.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Katzell, R. A., & Austin, J. T. (1992). From then to now: The development of industrial-organizational
psychology in the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 803–835.
Kemper, T. D. (1966). Representative roles and the legitimization of deviance. Social Problems, 13,
288–298.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kidwell, R. E., & Bennett, N. (1993). Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to
intersect three avenues of research. Academy of Management Review, 18, 429–456.
Killinger, B. (1991). Workaholics: The respectable addicts. New-York: Simon & Schuster.
Kilman, R. H. (1985). Managing your organization’s culture. Nonprofit World Report, 3, 12–15.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Exploration
in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.
Klein, R. L., Leong, G. B., & Silva, J. A. (1996). Employee sabotage in the workplace: A biopsychoso-
cial model. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 41, 52–55.
Knoke, D. (1990). Organizing for collective action: The political economies of associations.
Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Kochan, N., & Whittington, B. (1991). Bankrupt: The BBCI fraud. London: Gollancz.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In
D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development. New York: Harper & Row.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived pairness of employee drug testing as a pre-
dictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 5, 698–
707.
Konrad, A. M., & Gutek, B. A. (1986). Impact of work experiences on attitudes toward sexual harass-
ment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 422–438.
REFERENCES 275
Korman, A. K. (1971). Organizational achievement, aggression and creativity: Some suggestions to-
ward an integrated theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 593–613.
Korman, A. K. (1976). Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 1, 50–63.
Kotter, J. P. (1973). The psychological contract: Managing the joining up process. California Manage-
ment Review, 15, 91–99.
Kraut, A. I. (1975). Predicting turnover of employee from measured job attitudes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 233–243.
Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 50, 936–941.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1995). Organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Chicago: Irwin.
Krigel, K. (2001). Relationship between personality traits (Big 5), organizational justice, and orga-
nizational misbehavior: A conceptual model. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University,
Israel.
Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Kurland, N. B. (1995). Ethical intentions and the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 297–313.
Kurland, O. M. (1993, June). Workplace violence. Risk Management, p. 76.
Kurmar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measur-
ing ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619–
627.
Laabs, J. (2000). Employee sabotage: Don’t be a target. www.workforceonline.com/feature/00/03/17
Landau, A. (1981). Organizational-climate and work performance (Absenteeism and performance
appraisal). Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Landy, F. J. (1985). Psychology of work behavior (3rd ed.) Homewood, IH: Dorsey Press.
Langer, E. J. (1983). The psychology of control. Beverly-Hills, CA: Sage.
Lasley, J. R. (1988). Toward a control theory of white collar offending. Journal of Quantitative Crim-
inology, 4(4), 347–362.
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and
consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Leatherwood, M. L., & Spector, L. C. (1991). Enforcements, inducements, expected utility and em-
ployee misconduct. Journal of Management, 17, 553–569.
Leavitt, H. J. (1972). Managerial psychology (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, C., Ashford, S. J., & Bobko, P. (1990). Interactive effects of “Type A” behavior and perceived
control on worker performance, job satisfaction, and somatic complaints. Academy of Management
Journal, 33, 870–881.
Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. London: Sage.
Lehman, W. E. K., & Simpson, D. D. (1992). Employee substance use and on the job behavior. Journal
Lerner, H. (1980). Internal prohibitions against female anger. American Journal for the Advancement
of Psychoanalysis, 40(2), 137–148.
Levin, D. (1989). Investigating the concept of violence among social-workers in welfare agencies.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers . New York: Harper Bros.
Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotions: How followers respond to negative emotional
expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 221–234.
Lewis, P. V. (1985). Defining “business ethics”: Like nailing Jello to a wall. Journal of Business Ethics,
4, 377–383.
Lichtenstein, Y. (2000). Employee jealousy and envy and their behavioral outcomes. Unpublished
276 REFERENCES
Liden, R., & Green, S. (1980, August). On the measurement of career orientation. Paper presented at
the Midwest Academy of Management Meeting, Cincinnati, OH.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Linden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of
Linstead, S. (1985). Breaking the purity rule: Industrial sabotage and the symbolic process. Personnel
Review, 15, 12–19.
Lipman, M., & McGraw, W. R. (1988). Employee theft: A $40 billion industry. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 498, 51–59.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Locke, E. A. (1968). Theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 3, 157–189.
London House Press (1980). Personnel selection inventory. Park Ridge, IL: Author.
Lovelock, C. H. (1983). Classifying services to gain strategic advantages: Marketing insights. Journal
of Marketing, 47, 9–20.
Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1985). Organizational behavior modification and beyond: An operant and
social learning approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics, living with them, working with them. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Maclagan, P. (1998). Management and morality: A developmental perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Maidment, F., & Eldridge, W. (2000). Business in government and society: Ethical, international
decision-making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mangione, T. W., & Quinn, R. P. (1975). Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and drug use at
work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 114–116.
Mangione, T. W., Howland, J., & Lee, M. (1998). New perspectives for worksite alcohol strategies:
Results from a corporate drinking study. Boston: JSI Research and Training, Inc.
Manning, F. V. (1981). Managerial dilemmas and executive growth. Reston, VA: Reston.
Mantell, M. (1994). Ticking bombs: Defusing violence in the workplace. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Marcus, A. I., & Segal , H. P. (1989). Technology in America: A brief history. San Diego, CA: Harcourt,
Brace, Jovanovich.
Mars, G. (1973). Chance, punters and the fiddle: Institutionalized pilferage in a hotel dining room. In
M. Warner (Ed.), The sociology of the workplace (pp. 200–210). New York: Halsted.
Mars, G. (1974). Dock pilferage: A cause stdy in occupational theft. In P. Rock & M. McIntosh (Eds.),
Deviance and social control (pp. 209–228). London: Tavistock.
Mars, G. (1982). Cheats at work: An anthropology of workplace crime. London: George Allen &
Unwin.
Mars, G. (1987). Longshore drinking, economic security and union politics in Newfoundland. In M. T.
Douglas (Ed.), Constructive drinking (pp. 91–101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Martin, T. C. (1996). The comprehensive terrorism prevention act of 1995. Seton Hall Legislative
Journal, 20(1), 201–248.
Martinko, M. J., & Zellars, K. L (1998). Toward a theory of workplace violence and aggression: A
cognitive appraisal perspective. In R. W. Griffin, A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.),
Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (Vol. 23, Part A, pp. 1–42).
Stamford, CT: JAI.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Masuch, M. (1985). Vicious circles in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 14–33.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: Macmillan.
REFERENCES 277
Mazzeo, J., & Harvey, A. L. (1988). The equivalence of scores from automated and conventional
educational and psychological tests: A review of the literature. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates to openness to experience. In
R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–846).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications.
Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.
McFarlin, S. K., & Fals-Stewart, W. (2001, August). Workplace absenteeism and alchohol use: A
day-to-day examination. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Washington,
DC.
McGarvey, M. (1992). The challenge of containing health-care costs. Financial Executive, 8, 34–
40.
McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1351–1395). Chicago: Rand McNally.
McGurn, R. (1988). Spotting the thieves who work among us. Wall Street Journal, p. 164.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mclean Parks, J. (1997). The fourth arm of justice: The art and science of revenge. In R. J. Lewicki,
R. J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 113–144).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Meglino, B. M. (1977). Stress and performance: Are they always incompatible? Supervisory Manage-
ment, 22, 2–12.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture:
A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of
Mensch, B. S., & Kandel, D. B. (1988). Do job conditions influence the use of drugs? Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 29(2), 169–184.
Merriam, D. H. (1977). Employee theft. Criminal Justice Abstracts, 9, 375–410.
Merton, R. K. (1953). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Merton, R. T. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1992). Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implications for
companies and employees. New York: Lexington.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1997). Whistle blowing as antisocial behavior. In R. A. Giacalone &
J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 130–149). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 243–281.
Mitroff, I. I., & Kilmann, R. H. (1984). Corporate tragedies: Product tampering, sabotage, and other
catastrophes. New York: Praeger.
Moberg, D. J. (1997). On employee vice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7, 41–60.
Molstad, C. (1988). Control strategies used by industrial brewery workers: Work avoidance, impression
management and solidarity. Human Organization, 47, 354–360.
Moore, G. A. (1995). Inside the Tornado: Markeing strategies from Silicon Valley’s cutting edge. New
York: Harper Business.
Moorman, R. H., & Podaskoff, P. M. (1992). A meta analytic review and empirical test of the potential
confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behavior research. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 131–149.
278 REFERENCES
Moran, E. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of organizational climate.
Human Relation, 45, 19–47.
Morin, W. J. (1995). Silent sabotage: Mending the crisis in corporate values. Management Review, July,
10–14.
Mosier, S. K. (1983). Workaholics: An analysis of their stress, success and priorities. Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of Texas, Austin.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big five personality dimensions: Implications for research
and practice in human resources management. Research in Personality and Human Resource Man-
agement, 13, 153–200.
Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to
organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195–229.
Muchinsky, P. M. (2000). Emotions in the workplace: The neglect of organizational behavior. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 21, 801–805.
Murphy, K. R. (1996). Individual differences and behavior in organizations: Much more than g. In
K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 3–30). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Murry, W. D., Sivasubramaniam, N., & Jacques, P. (1999, August). The leader’s role in organizations:
The moderating effects of leader behavior on perceived sexual harassment. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational behavior: Applying
a congruence perspective. Organizational Dynamics, 9, 35–51.
National Council on Crime and Deliquency (1975). Workplace crime: Proceedings and resources of
the internal business theft conference. Chicago: Author.
Naughton, T. J. (1987). A conceptual view of workaholism and implications for career counseling and
research. Career Development Quarterly, 35(3), 180–187.
Near, J. P., Baucus, M. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1993). The relationship between values and practice:
Organizational climates for wrongdoing. Administration & Society, 25, 204–226.
Near, J. P., Dworkin, T. M., & Miceli, M. P. (1993). Explaining the whistle-blowing process: Sugges-
tions from power theory and justice theory. Organization Science, 4, 392–411.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1984). The relationship among beliefs, organizational position, and whistle-
blowing status: A discriminant analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 687–705.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of
Business Ethics, 4, 1–16.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1986). Retaliation against whistle blowers: Predictors and effects. Journal
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management Review, 20,
679–708.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg
(Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 37–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neven, T. (2001). Employee theft on the rise, but shoplifting losses fall (online).
www.homecenternews.com
Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. (1997). Human resource management: Gaining
a competitive advantage. Chicago: Irwin.
Nomani, A. Q. (1995, October). Women likelier to face violence in the workplace. The Wall Street
Journal, p. A16.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor
structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66,
483–574.
Oates, W. E. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York: World.
Ofer, R. (2003). How do new employees learn to misbehave? The unexpected influence of organizational
socialization. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
REFERENCES 279
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Paetzold, R. L., & Griffin, R. W. (2000). Sexual harassment as aggressive
behavior: An actor-based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25, 372–388.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A
research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21, 225–253.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Duffy, M. K., & Griffin, R. W. (2000). Construct confusion in the study of
antisocial behavior at work. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 18, 275–
303.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity
test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703.
O’Reilly, C. A. III. (1991). Organizational behavior: Where we’ve been, where we’re going. Annual
Review of Psychology, 42, 427–458.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Ozer, D. J., & Reise, S. P. (1994). Personality assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 357–388.
Painter, K. (1991). Violence and vulnerability in the workplace: Psychological and legal implica-
tions. In M. J. Davidson & J. Earnshaw (Eds.), Vulnerable workers: Psychsocial and legal issues
(pp. 159–178). New York: Wiley.
Pazy, A., & Zin, R. (1987). A contingency approach to consistency: A challenge to prevalent views.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 84–101.
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility.
Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137.
Peiperl, M., & Jones, B. (2001). Workaholics and overworkers: Productivity or pathology? Group &
Organization Management, 26, 369–393.
Peled, Y. (2000). Sexual harassment: Attitudes and behavior among doctors and nurses in a general
hospital. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Petrick, J. A., & Manning, G. E. (1990). Developing an ethical climate for excellence. Journal for
Quality and Participation, March 84–90.
Petrick, J. A., Wagley, R. A., & Thomas, J. (1991). Structured ethical decision-making improving the
prospects of managerial success in business. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 56, 28–34.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators
for transformational and transactional leadership: A tow-sample study. Journal of Management,
25, 897–933.
Pines, A. (1981). Job stress and burnout: Research, theory and intervention perspectives. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Pines, A., & Kanner, A. D. (1982). Nurses’ burnout: Lack of positive conditions and presence of
negative conditions as two sources of stress. In E. A. McConnell (Ed.), Burnout in the nursing
profession (pp. 139–145). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Plutchik, R. (1993). Emotion and there vicissitudes:. Emotions and psychopathology. In M. Lewis &
J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotion (pp. 53–66). New York: Guilford.
Pomazal, R. J., & Jaccard, J. J. (1976). An informational approach to altruistic behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 317–326.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative
outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 70–84.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin
Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. (1975). Behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational work, and personal factors in employee turnover
and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151–176.
280 REFERENCES
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment,
job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59,
603–609.
Price, A. V. (1982). Type A behavior pattern: A model for research and practice. New York: Academic
Press.
Pritchard, R. D., & Karasick, B. W. (1973). The effects of organizational climate on managerial job
performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 110–119.
Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance among com-
mission salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 615–621.
Punch, M. (1996). Dirty business: Exploring corporate misconduct: Analysis and cases. London: Sage.
Quinney, E. R. (1963). Occupational structure and criminal behavior: Prescription violation by retail
pharmacists. Social Problems, 11, 179–185.
Raelin, J. A. (1984). An examination of deviant/adaptive behaviors in the organizational careers of
professionals. Academy of Management Review, 9, 413–427.
Raelin, J. A. (1986). An analysis of professional deviance within organizations. Human Relations, 39,
1103–1130.
Raelin, J. A. (1987). The professional as the executive’s ethical aide de camp. The Academy of Man-
agement Executive, 1, 171–182.
Raelin, J. A. (1994). Three scales of professional deviance within organizations. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 15, 483–501.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organization life. In L. L. Cummings
& B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 11, pp. 1–42). Greenwich, CT:
JAI.
Rahamim, Y. (1979). Organization climate as a mediator between personal characteristics (ability and
personality) and personal behavior (performance and satisfaction). Unpublished master’s thesis,
Technion, Israel.
Randall, D. M., & Gibson, A. M. (1990). Methodology in business ethics research: A review and critical
assessments. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 457–471.
Ravid-Robbins, T. (1999). The relationship between attitudes, perceptions and personal characteris-
tics & organizational misbehavior among hospital nurses. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv
University, Israel.
Reddin, W. J. (1967). The 3–D management style theory: A typology based on task and relationships
orientations. Training and Development Journal, 21, 8–17.
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.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about
organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 48–59.
Reimann, B. C., & Wiener, Y. (1988). Corporate culture: Avoiding the elitist trap. Business Horizons,
31, 36–44.
Reiss, A., & Biderman, A. (1980). Data sources on white collar lawbreaking. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice.
Reshef-Tamari, I. (1999). Perceived organizational climate, job satisfaction and misbehavior among
R&D employees in high-tech organization. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.
Riordan, C. M., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1994). A central question in cross-cultural research: Do em-
ployees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in an equivalent manner? Journal of
Management, 20, 643–671.
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 41, 574–599.
REFERENCES 281
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimen-
sional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its manifestations, and
its causes. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in
organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 3–27). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants and
dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends
in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–30). New York: Wiley.
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-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.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception
but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1964). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
Rosen, L. (2001a). How firms handle workers’ drug tests (online). http://www.hr.com
Rosen, L. (2001b). What employers can—and can’t—find out about applicants (online). http://
www.hr.com
Rosenbaum, R. W. (1976). Predictability of employee theft using weighted application blanks. Journal
Rosenbaum, D. P., & Baumer, T. L. (1984). Measuring and controlling employee theft: A national
assessment of the state of the art. Journal of Security Administration, 5, 67–80.
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect.” An egocentric bias in so-
cial perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–
301.
Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1999). Whistle-blowing disclosures and management retaliation. Work
and Occupations, 26(1), 107–128.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibil-
ities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hires’ perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations: A study
of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389–400.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwrit-
ten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rousseau, D. M. (1997). Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual Review of
Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with their organizations? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19, 217–233.
Rousseau, D. M., & Parks, J. M. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. Research in
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues, alternatives
and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 679–696.
Roy, D. F. (1952). Quota restriction and goldbricking in a machine shop. American Journal of Sociology,
57, 427–442.
Roy, D. F. (1959). Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18,
158–168.
Roznowski, M., & Hulin, C. (1992). The scientific merit of valid measures of general constructs with
special reference to job satisfaction and job withdrawal. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & F. S. Stone
(Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it effects their performance (pp.
123–163). New York: Lexington Books.
Rubin-Kedar, Y. (2000). Organizational misbehavior in a fast-food restaurant chain: Task and orga-
nization influences. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
282 REFERENCES
Runice, J. F. (1988). Deviant behavior: Achieving autonomy in a machine-paced environment. In

M. O. Jones, M. D. Moore, & R. C. Snyder (Eds.), Inside organizations: Understanding the human
dimension (pp. 129–140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rusbult, C. E., Zembrotd, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty and neglect: Responses
to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,
1230–1242.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S.,
Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 145–164). London: Sage.
Sagie, A. (1998). Employee absenteeism, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: Another
look. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 156–171.
Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organization behavior and belief. In B. M. Staw
& G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 1–54). Chicago: St. Clair
Press.
Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task
design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9,
185–211.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1986). The differentiation of social comparison jealousy and romantic jealousy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1100–1112.
Sarchione, C. D., Cuttler, M. J., Muchinsky, P. M., & Nelson-Gray, R. O. (1998). Prediction of dys-
functional job behavior among law enforcement officer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 904–
912.
Savery, L. K. (1988). Comparison of managerial and non managerial employees’ desire and perceived
motivators and job satisfaction levels. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 9, 17–
22.
Scarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural,
and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.
Schein, E. H. (1969). Process consultation: Its role in organization development. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (1971). The individual, the organization and the career: A conceptual scheme. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 401–426.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review,
25, 3–16.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schein, V. E. (1979). Examining an illusion: The role of deceptive behaviors in organizations. Human
Relations, 32, 287–295.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Development of a casual model of processes determining job
performance. Current Direction in Psychology Science, 1, 89–92.
Schmidt, W. C. (1997). World Wide Web survey research: Benefits, potential problems and solutions.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 29(2), 274–279.
Schminke, M. (1998). Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes. Mahwah, NJ:
Schnake, M. E. (1983). An empirical assessment of the effects of affective response in the measurement
of organizational climate. Personnel Psychology, 36, 791–807.
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climate: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28, 447–479.
Schneider, B. (1980). The service organization: Climate is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, 9, 52–65.
Schneider, B. (1985). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 573–611.
REFERENCES 283
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1995). Winning the service game. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Schneider, B., & Hall, D. T. (1972). Toward specifying the concept of work climate: A study of Roman
Catholic diocesan priests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 447–456.
Schneider, B., & Rentsch, J. (1988). Managing climates and cultures: A futures perspective. In J. Hage
(Ed.), Futures of organizations (pp. 181–200). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of sexual
harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal of Applied
Schwartz, S. H., & Tessler, R. C. (1972). A test of a model for reducing measured attitude-behavior
discrepancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 225–236.
Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences
of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287–314.
Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999, August). The five factor model of personality and its relationship
with career success. Paper presented at the Academy of Management meeting, Chicago, IL.
Selznick, P. (1957). The organizational weapon. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sennewald, C. A. (1986, September). Theft maxims. Security Management, p. 85.
Setter, O. (2001). Entitlements and obligations: Psychological contracts of organizational members.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Sewell, G. (1998). The discipline of teams: The control of team-based industrial work through electronic
and peer surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 397–428.
Shain, M. (1982). Alcohol, drugs and safety: An updated perspective on problems and their management
in the workplace. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 14, 239–246.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership:
A self concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
Shapiro, S. P. (1990). Collaring the crime, not the criminal: Reconsidering the concept of white-collar
crime. American Sociological Review, 55, 346–365.
Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (1995). Moral issues in business (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: International
Thompson Publishing.
Shenhav, Y. (2002). Manufacturing rationality: The engineering foundations of the managerial revo-
lution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis
of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 15, 325–343.
Shirom, A. (1982). What is organizational stress? A facet analytic conceptualization. Journal of Oc-
cupational Behavior, 3, 21–37.
Shoham, S. G., Rahav, G., & Adad, M. (1987). Criminology. Tel Aviv: Shoken (Hebrew).
Sibbet, D. (1997). 75 years of management ideas and practice (1922–1997). Harvard Business Review,
75, 2–12.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural,
and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between
fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100–108.
Slora, K. B. (1989). An empirical approach to determining employee deviance base rates. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 4, 199–219.
Smelser, N. J. (1999). Looking back at 25 years of sociology and the Annual Review of Sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 1–18.
Smigel, E. O., & Ross, H. L. (1970). Crimes against bureaucracies. New York: Van Nostvand Reinhold.
284 REFERENCES
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Somers, J. J., & Casal, J. C. (1994). Organizational commitment and whistle blowing: A test of the
reformer and the organization man hypothesis. Group & Organization Management, 19, 270–284.
Sonnenstuhl, W. J. (1996). Working sober: The transformation of an occupational drinking culture.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Sonnenstuhl, W. J., & Trice, H. M. (1991). The workplace as locale for risks and interventions in
alcohol abuse. In P. M. Roman (Ed.), Alcohol: The development of sociological perspectives on
use and abuse (pp. 295–318). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies.
Snir, R., & Harpaz, I. (2000). Workaholism and the meaning of work. In M. Koslowski & S. Stashevsky
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Work Values and Behavior (pp. 593–
598). Jerusalem, Israel.
Spector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions of
employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 635–637.
Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and review of the literature. Personnel
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta analysis of studies concerning autonomy
and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.
Spector, P. E. (1997a). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spector, P. E. (1997b). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work. In R. A. Giacalone &
J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Spector, P. E. (2001). Research methods in industrial and organizational psychology: Data collection
and data analysis with special consideration to international issues. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones,
H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.) Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psy-
chology (Vol. 1, pp. 10–26). London: Sage.
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement and preliminary results.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160–178.
Sprouse, M. (1992). Sabotage in the American workplace. San Francisco: Pressure Drop Press.
Sprouse, M. (1994). Sabotage in the American workplace: Anecdotes of dissatisfaction, mischief, and
revenge. San Francisco: Pressure Drop Press.
Staw, B. M. (1984). Organizational behavior: A review and reformulation of the field’s outcome
variables. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 627–666.
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime
longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56–77.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes
at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51–71.
Steers, R. M. (1991). Introduction to organizational behavior. New York: Harper Collins.
Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1977). The motivational properties of tasks. Academy of Management
Review, 2, 645–658.
Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). Motivation and work behavior. New York: McGraw.
Steers, R. M., & Spencer, D. G. (1977). The role of achievement motivation in job design. Journal of
Stevens, S. S. (1968). Measurement, statistics, and the schemapiric view. Science, 161, 849–856.
Stein, B. A., & Kanter, R. M. (1993). Why good people do bad things: A retrospective of the Hubble
Fiasco. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 58–62.
Strool, W. M. (1978). Crime Prevention through physical security. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Sukenik, N. (2001). Goal-oriented mechanisms designed by organizations to promote safety are often
used instead to promote profits. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Sutherland, E. H. (1940). White-collar criminality. American Sociological Review, 5, 1–12.
REFERENCES 285
Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White collar crime. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Szwajkowski, E. (1985). Organizational illegality: Theoretical integration and illustrative application.
Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). On neutralizing delinquent self-images. American Sociological
Review, 22, 667–670.
Taylor, F. W. (1895). A piece rate system: A step toward partial solution to the labor problem. ASME
Transactions, 16, 856–893.
Taylor, F. W. (1903). Shop management. New York: Harper.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton.
Taylor, L., & Walton, P. (1971). Industrial sabotage: Motives and meanings. In S. Cohen (Ed.), Images
of deviance (pp. 219–245). Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in the organization. In
S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), The social psychological processes: Research in the sociology
of organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 31–58). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Reiss, M. (1981). Identities, the phenomenal self, and laboratory research. In J.T.
Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 3–23). New
York: Academic Press.
Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., & Bonoma, T. V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination
or public spectacle? American Psychology, 26, 685–695.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job perfor-
mance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, S. C. (1981). Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to a simple question.
Psychological Bulletin, 90, 89–101.
Tichy, N. M. (1982, August). Managing change strategically: The technical, political, and cultural keys.
Organizational Dynamics, pp. 59–80.
Toffler, B. L. (1986). Tough choices: Managers talk ethics. New York: Wiley.
Towler, J. (2001a). Finding employees with integrity (online). http://www.hr.com
Towler, J. (2001b). Don’t hire a killer—how to avoid violence prone employees (online).
http://www.hr.com
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist
model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617.
Trevino, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice perspective. Academy
Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (1994). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it
right. New York: Wiley.
Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical
decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 378–385.
Trevino, L. K. Hartman, L. P. & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives
develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42, 128–142.
Trice, H. M. (1993). Occupational subcultures in the workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Trice, H. M., & Sonnenstuhl, W. (1988). Drinking behavior and risk factors related to the workplace:
Implications for research and prevention. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 327–346.
Turgeman-Goldschmidt, O. (2001). To become a deviant: Reality construction among computer delin-
quents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.
Turner, A. N., & Lawrence, P. R. (1965). Industrial jobs and the worker: An investigation of response
to task attributes. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Turnispeed, D. L. (1988). An integrated, interactive model of organizational climate culture and effec-
tiveness. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 9(5), 17–21.
286 REFERENCES
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit,
voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52, 895–922.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations:
Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
25–42.
Tziner, A., & Vardi, Y. (1982). Effects of command style and group cohesiveness on the performance
effectiveness of self- selected tank crews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 769–775.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin-
istration. (2000). 1999 national household survey on drug abuse. Rockville, MD: U.S. Government.
Usdiken, B., & Leblebici, H. (2001). Organization theory. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil,
& C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 377–397). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct
redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765–802.
Van Maanen, J. (1979). The fact of fiction in organization ethnography. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 24, 539–550.
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational culture and control in organizations. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 6, 287–365.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in
Vardi, Y. (1978). Individual-level and organizational-level of career mobility patterns: An integrative
model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University. Ithaca, New York.
Vardi, Y. (2001) The effects of organizational and ethical climates on misconduct at work. Journal of
Business Ethics, 29, 325–337.
Vardi, Y. & Weitz, E. (2001, August). Lead them not into temptation: Job autonomy as an antecedent of
organizational misbehavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management
Meeting, Washington, DC.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2002a). Antecedents of organizational misbehavior among caregivers. In M.
A. Rahim, R. T. Golembiewski, & K. D. Mackenzie (Eds.), Current topics in management (Vol. 7,
pp. 99–116). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2002b). Organizational misbehavior: Hypotheses, research, and implications.
In M. L. Pava & P. Primeaux (Eds.), Re-imaging business ethics: Meaningful solutions for a global
economy (Vol. 4, pp. 51–84). New York: JAI.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2002c). Using reasoned action theory to predict organizational misbehavior.
Psychological Reports, 91, 1027–1040.
Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1992, August). Organizational misbehavior (OMB): Toward a motivational
model. A paper presented at the annual meeting of Academy of Management, Miami Beach.
Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organization
Science, 7, 151–165.
Vaughan, D. (1998). Rational choice, situated action, and the social control of organizations. Law &
Society Review, 32(1), 23–61.
Vaughan, D. (1999). The dark side of organizations: Mistake, misconduct, and disaster. Annual Review
of Sociology, 25, 271–305.
Vecchio, R. P. (1995). It’s not easy being green: Jealousy and envy in the workplace. In G. R. Ferris
(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 13, pp. 201–244). Stamford
CT: JAI.
Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Categorizing coping response for envy: A multidimentional analysis of workplace
perceptions. Psychological Reports, 81, 137–138.
Vecchio, R. P. (2000). Negative emotion in the workplace: Employee jealousy and envy. International
Journal of Stress Management, 7(3), 161–179.
REFERENCES 287
Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1987). A theory and measure of ethical climate in organizations. Research
in Corporate in Social Performance and Policy, 9, 51–71.
Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative
Vigoda, E. (1997). Organizational politics: Characteristics, antecedents, and implications of inter-
personal influence processes on employee performance in the Israeli public sector. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Haifa, Israel.
Villanova, P., & Bernardin, H. J. (1989). Impression management in the context of performance ap-
praisal. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization
(pp. 299–314). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of
predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586–597.
Vinten, G. (Ed.). (1994). Whistleblowing: Subversion or corporate citizenship? London: Paul Chapman.
Von Glinow, M. A. (1988). The new professionals: Managing today’s high tech employees. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wayne, S. J. Y., & Kacmar, K. M. (1991). The effects of impression management on the performance
appraisal process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 70–88.
Weber, J. (1996). Influences upon managerial moral decision making: Nature of the harm and magnitude
of consequences. Human Relations, 49, 1–22.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning
Press.
Weiss, H. M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 6, 1–50.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the struc-
ture, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Weitzman, M. (1985). The relationship between climate dimensions and performance measures in
military operational units. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Welch, E. (1997). Business ethics in theory and practice: Diagnostic notes: A prescription for value.
Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 309–313.
Welsh, S. (1999). Gender and sexual harassment. Annual Review Sociology, 25, 169–190.
West, M. A. (2001). The human team: Basic motivations and innovations. In N. Anderson, D. S.
Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 270–289). London: Sage.
Westman, M. (1992). Moderating effect of decision latitude on stress-strain relationship: Does organi-
zational level matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 713–722.
Wheeler, H. N. (1976). Punishment theory and industrial discipline. Industrial Relations, 15, 235–243.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New York:
Guilford.
Whitener, E. M. (1999, August). The effects of cynicism on the development of interpersonal trust.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of the Management, Chicago, IL.
Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review,
7, 418–428.
Wiener, Y. (1988). Forms of value systems: A focus on organizational effectiveness and cultural change
and maintenance. Academy of Management Review, 13, 534–545.
Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization and career commitment and
work outcomes—an investigative model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26,
81–96.
288 REFERENCES
Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1990). Relationship between organizational culture and individual motivation:
A conceptual integration. Psychological Reports, 67, 295–306.
Wiggins J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1992). Personality: Structure and assessment. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 43, 473–504.
Williams, C. L., Giuffre, P. A., & Dellinger, K. (1999). Sexuality in the workplace: Organizational
control, sexual harassment, and the pursuit of pleasure. Annual Review Sociology, 25, 73–93.
Wilpert, B. (1995). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 59–90.
Wimbush, J. C., & Dalton, D. R. (1997). Base rate for employee theft: Convergence of multiple methods.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 756–763.
Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative
Wolfgang, A. P. (1988). Career satisfaction of physicians, nurses and pharmacists. Psychological
Reports, 62, 938–941.
Women’s Bureau, U.S. Department of labor. (1994). Sources of information on the incidence of domestic
violence at work and its effects (Briefing memo). Washington, DC: U.S. Government.
Wood, R. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1981). Manager behavior in a social context: The impact of impres-
sion management on attributions and disciplinary actions. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 28, 356–378.
Wortman, C. B., & Breham, J. W. (1975). Responses to uncontrollable outcomes: An integration of re-
actance theory and the learned helplessness model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (pp. 278–336). New York: Academic Press.
Yanai, D. (1998). Sexual harassment in the workplace: Women battery. Unpublished master’s thesis,
York, K. M. (1989). Defining sexual harassment in workplaces: A policy-capturing approach. Academy
of Management Journal, 32, 830–850.
Yosifon, H. (2001). The relationship between job satisfaction and organizational misbehavior among
employees. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A
re-conception. Academy of Management Review, 12, 250–264.
Zeitlin, L. R. (1971). A little larceny can do a lot for employee morale. Psychology Today, 14, 22.
Zey-Ferrell, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1982). Role set configuration and opportunity as predictors of
unethical behavior in organizations. Human Relations, 35, 587–604.

Googlepreview PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Googlepreview PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Googlepreview PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MISBEHAVIOR IN ORGANIZATIONS

Theory, Research, and Management

Gregory Bedny and David Meister

LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

Copyright C 2004 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers

Cover design by Sean Sciarrone

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 1-4106-0905-7 Master e-book ISBN

Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are printed on

II: OMB MANIFESTATIONS AND ANTECEDENTS

Intellectual Manifestations 108

III: IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND

There is a compelling need for innovative approaches to the solution of many

of organizational misbehavior are presented, including ﬁndings from different

of misbehavior related to their jobs, albeit in varying degrees of frequency and

Tel Aviv and New York City, June 2003

Problematic behavioral manifestations in the organized workplace are not new.

(Greenberg, 1997). Estimates of total costs resulting from problem drinking in

OB is an interdisciplinary ﬁeld of research that explores the behavior of indi-

ARP OB Review Topics Covered in the Review

Mitchell (1979) Personality and individual differences, satisfaction, commitment,

Note. ARP = Annual Review of Psychology.

organizational climate, addressed the same topics reviewed by Mitchell—

Specialization and Functionalism

and organizational scholars do not encounter misbehavior in the workplace? Does

The Early Phase

deﬁnition of occupational crime encompasses many blue-collar, occupational

The Formative Phase

Although Hirschman’s conceptualization was developed to explain the responses

The Current Phase

Employee Deviance. Several early attempts have been made to clas-

deviance. For instance, Wheeler (1976) classiﬁed forms of organizational rule

Workplace Aggression. The phenomenon of workplace aggression was

deﬁned aggression as “behaviors designed to hurt the employer or the organization”

Political Organizational Behavior. Crozier (1964) studied power re-

unconventional side of organizational behavior despite its aspirations to become a

Runice, J. F. (1988). Deviant behavior: Achieving autonomy in a machine-paced environment. In

You might also like