Workplace destructive and constructive deviance behaviour in India and the USA: scale development, validation, theoretical model development and testing
MetadataShow full item record
Workplace deviance behaviour has resulted in 20% of business failure and annual loss of $6-$200 billion in US organizations and it was found that 33% to 75% of employees engage in deviant activities like withdrawal, theft, production deviance, abuse of co-workers etc., (Coffin, 2003; Diefendorff & Mehta, 2007). In addition, several researchers have concentrated on constructive deviance that would benefit the organizations. Thus, deviance has been a topic of interest for many researchers. However, previous research on deviance behaviour has concentrated predominantly in the USA despite proof that Indian organizations are indeed affected by workplace deviance (Pradhan & Pradhan, 2014) and on destructive or constructive deviance. In addition, from the deviance perspective, surprisingly no study so far has examined the presence and effects of individualism and collectivism within the same culture at the individual level. To contribute towards the extant deviance literature and to fill in the aforementioned gaps, this PhD thesis develops and tests a model using social cognitive theory as a lens to determine the relationship between environment, personality and behavioural outcomes of an individual. It incorporates workplace destructive and constructive deviance in the same study with individualistic and collectivistic orientation of individuals as moderators in India and the USA. What is the relationship of organizational and individual determinants with workplace destructive and constructive deviance when individual cultural orientation acts as a moderator? For this purpose, this research first determines the various factors that will be considered in the model by reviewing previous research done on workplace deviance. It was found that organizational climate, though it contributes to deviance behaviour in the workplace, has not yet been extensively researched so, climate was one of the factors examined in the research. In addition and despite its importance, an individual witness perspective towards deviance is still in its infancy. What are the behavioural responses of an individual while being a witness to supervisor, organizational, co-worker involvement in workplace destructive deviance? Therefore, the present study extended, developed and validated a construct to define and measure the witness behaviour towards workplace deviance behaviour using the theory of planned behaviour as its theoretical lens. This construct formed the second factor to be included in the model. This research makes use of the multi-strategy research paradigm that consists of two main studies: Study 2, 3 and 4 involves the development and validation of the witness behaviour towards workplace deviance scale; Study 5 involves the development and testing of a theoretical framework. Study 2 to 4 made use of a mixed methods strategy and inductive approach where the results from analysing the qualitative one-to-one interviews conducted in India and the USA formed the basis of scale construction. The scale, after undergoing rigorous analysis by using the quantitative data collected from India and the USA, resulted in a two-dimensional self-serving and intervening behaviour 9-item measure that proved to be a universal construct. It was then validated for construct, discriminant and predictive validity to classify it within the nomological network. It was found to sit closer to the phenomenon of voluntary behaviours, thus contributing to deviance and scale development literature. Study 5 involved the development of a conceptual framework that was tested with the quantitative data collected from India and the USA. The results provided support that when an individual has high organizational climate experience as well as more self-serving and less intervening behaviour, he/she would be involved in more constructive and destructive deviance behaviour providing support that organizations should focus on these factors and a clear distinction should be made between negative and positive deviance accepted within the organization. The results also provided support that individualistic and collectivistic orientation of an individual did moderate the effect of organizational climate, self-serving and intervening behaviour with destructive and constructive deviance. Therefore, an individual’s orientation to individualism and collectivism would influence the relationship of organizational climate and witness behaviour towards workplace deviance so that organizations may benefit from implementing the study findings and suggestions. This would then prevent individuals from becoming involved in destructive deviance and enhance their involvement in constructive deviance.