Exploring the Nomological Network of Workplace Deviance: Developing and Validating a Measure of Constructive Deviance

Abstract

This paper explores the nomological network of workplace deviance by incorporating constructive deviance behavior. Constructive deviance focuses on behaviors that are intended to benefit the organization. In a series of three studies, a reliable and valid measure of constructive deviance behavior is developed. Individual and contextual‐level factors that facilitate constructive and destructive deviance are examined. The results suggest that while Machiavellianism is an important personality variable in predicting both constructive and destructive deviance, role breadth self‐efficacy is a central mechanism in understanding constructive but not destructive deviance. It was also found that access to information within the organization is a central contextual variable in eliciting both forms of deviance. Future research and implications are discussed.

Full text

Exploring the Nomological Network of Workplace Deviance:
Developing and Validating a Measure of
Constructive Deviance1,2
Bella L.Galperin3
The University of Tampa
This paper explores the nomological network of workplace deviance by incorporat-
ing constructive deviance behavior. Constructive deviance focuses on behaviors that
are intended to benefit the organization. In a series of three studies, a reliable and
valid measure of constructive deviance behavior is developed. Individual and
contextual-level factors that facilitate constructive and destructive deviance are
examined. The results suggest that while Machiavellianism is an important person-
ality variable in predicting both constructive and destructive deviance, role breadth
self-efficacy is a central mechanism in understanding constructive but not destructive
deviance. It was also found that access to information within the organization is a
central contextual variable in eliciting both forms of deviance. Future research and
implications are discussed.
The literature on workplace deviance has generally conceptualized
deviance as destructive (e.g., volitional behaviors that cause or potentially
cause harm to the organization or to its members) (Baron & Neuman, 1996;
Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector & Fox, 2002; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Some
theorists have broadened the definition of deviance to include behaviors
that violate norms in an attempt to help the organization (Galperin, 2003;
Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004; Warren, 2003). These researchers label these
prosocial norm-violating behaviors as “positive” or “constructive deviance,”
thus broadening the construct of deviance to include both positive and nega-
tive deviations from organizational norms.
With the increasing interest in positive organizational scholarship and
the dynamics that lead to exceptional individual and organizational perfor-
mance, interest in constructive deviance has grown. Cameron and Caza (2004)
argue that positive deviance “realizes the highest potential of organizations
1Author Note: Bella L. Galperin, Department of Management, The University of Tampa.
2This research was supported in part by grants from Concordia University, Fonds FCAR of
the Quebec Government, and The University of Tampa David Delo Research Professor Grant.
I would like to thank Vishwanath V. Baba, Alfred Jaeger, Muhammad Jamal, Gary Johns,
Rebecca J. Bennett, and Karl Aquino for their advice on earlier versions of this manuscript.
3Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bella L. Galperin, Depart-
ment of Management, The University of Tampa, 401 W. Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, FL
33606-1490, USA. E-mail: Bgalperin@ut.edu
bs_bs_banner
2988
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2012, 42, 12, pp. 2988–3025.
©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
d o i : 10 . 1111 /j.1559-1816.2012.00971.x

and their members.” Constructive deviance enhances organizations’ potential
because employees who fail to follow the organizational norms can be the
roots of successful innovations. Researchers (e.g., Howell, Shea, & Higgins,
2005) have suggested that employees who engage in nonconforming behaviors
(e.g., champions of innovation and corporate intrapreneurs) can accelerate
the innovation process, increase competitiveness, and foster organizational
change.
A cover story in Business Week highlights that innovation has stumbled
worldwide in the last decade and may even help explain the financial crisis
today (Mandel, 2009, June 3). Innovation is viewed as the creation and
exploitation of new ideas; consequently, innovation entails the deviation of
current processes that is held by the majority. Some organizations may even
characterize product innovations as “illegitimate” because of the violation of
organizational norms (Dougherty & Heller, 1994). Employees who engage in
constructive deviant behaviors are often the pioneers of change and innova-
tions because they engage in acts that break away from the current structure.
For example, Dr. Spencer Silver, a 3M scientist who invented Post-it notes,
first encountered sharp resistance to his novel idea, but the product was
eventually viewed as one of the company’s top innovations. Despite the role
of workplace constructive deviance in increasing innovation and fostering
organizational change, there is a lack of empirical research in the area. The
purpose of this paper is to explore the nomological network of workplace
deviance by incorporating constructive deviance. In a series of three studies,
a reliable and valid measure is first developed—the Constructive Deviance
Behavior Scale (CDBS). Individual and contextual factors of constructive
and destructive deviance are then examined.
Understanding Constructive Workplace Deviance
The term “deviant” has long been used by the psychological, sociological,
and criminology literature to refer to individuals who fail to obey or to
conform to social norms (Cohen, 1966; Merton, 1968). The term “deviance”
has customarily had a negative connotation as “violating norms” and is
typically considered to be harmful to society, or in the case of workplace
deviance, to the organization. The literal definition of deviance as the viola-
tion of norms, however, has allowed researchers (e.g., Galperin, 2003; Mor-
rison, 2006; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004; Warren, 2003) to conceptualize
“constructive” or “positive” (workplace) deviance as behaviors that violate
organizational norms with the intent of helping the organization.
The definition of constructive deviance shares definitional similarities
with (dysfunctional) workplace deviance. Robinson and Bennett (1995) define
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 2989

(dysfunctional) workplace deviance as a voluntary behavior that violates
organizational norms and threatens the well-being of an organization, its
members, or both. Hence, both constructive and destructive deviance focus on
behaviors of internal members of the organization as opposed to external
constituents of the organization, such as customers and suppliers. Robinson
and Greenberg (1998) note that this perspective is more beneficial to organi-
zations because of the concern with the management of behaviors within
company control. Second, both constructs focus on organizational norms and
expectations of management concerning employee behavior. As such, the
definitions refer to the violation of norms that concern a broad range of
employees rather than specific duties. In line with Robinson and Bennett
(1997), both constructs focus on the violation of norms created by the domi-
nant coalition that acts as stewards of the organization. Given that members
of the organization will most likely share the norms of the dominant group,
greater emphasis should be placed on these norms compared with norms that
relate to a specific department or subculture (Robinson & Bennett, 1997).
Finally, both constructive and dysfunctional workplace deviance encompass
behaviors that are purposeful and intentional in nature. As in Robinson and
Bennett (1995), voluntary acts are included in the definition, whereas acciden-
tal acts are excluded. However, one way that the definition of constructive
deviance differs from the construct of destructive deviance elaborated by
Robinson and Bennett (1995, 1997) is in the role of intent. Workplace devi-
ance, as opposed to workplace aggression (Baron & Neuman, 1996), does not
require harmful intentions; the focus is on the harmful (or potentially harmful)
nature of the behavior itself. However, with constructive deviance, the focus is
on behaviors that are intended to benefit the organization.
Constructive deviance is defined as voluntary behavior that violates sig-
nificant norms with the intent of improving the well being of an organization,
its members or both (Galperin, 2002). For example, constructive deviant
behaviors may include behaviors that are unauthorized yet that facilitate
organizational goals, such as noncompliance with dysfunctional directives
(Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). The construct of constructive deviance is similar
to concepts of “productive nonconformity” (Pepinsky, 1961) and “pro-social
rule breaking” (Morrison, 2006).
Constructive deviance is also related to concepts such as organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB), whistle-blowing, voice, and role innovation
because all these concepts refer to aspects of employee performance that
extend beyond the required roles of the organization. However, constructive
deviance also differs from these concepts in important ways. OCB has been
defined as “behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized
by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective
functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1990, p. 45). Unlike constructive
2990 GALPERIN

deviance, which requires employees to be proactive in norm violation, OCB
does not consider whether norms are violated (e.g., helping someone who has
been absent does not imply any norm violation). OCB includes dimensions
of a passive nature (e.g., compliance with procedures) (George & Brief,
1992), and employees who engage in OCB abide by the organizational
norms and rules. Constructive deviance requires employees to be proactive,
take risks, and engage in norm-violating behaviors for the greater good of the
organization.
The concept of constructive deviance is also different from whistle-blowing
or the disclosure of organizational wrongdoing to external entities who can
take action (Near & Miceli, 1987). While both constructive deviants and
whistle-blowers challenge authority (Near & Miceli, 1987), whistle-blowers
may either be viewed as reformers or dissenters. Unlike constructive deviants
who share the goal of improving the organization, the efforts of whistle-
blowers may threaten the organization’s authority structure (Weinstein,
1979). For example, the whistle-blower who informs authorities outside the
organization can threaten the reputation of the organization. On the other
hand, research shows that the whistle-blower who uses internal channels may
save the company in the long run from damaging its reputation by enabling the
company to correct its actions before they become public knowledge (Malin,
1983; Miceli & Near, 1985). Hence, internal whistle-blowing (but not external
whistle-blowing) is included in the definition of constructive deviance.
In addition, constructive deviance differs from voice, which emphasizes
expression of improving rather than merely criticizing the organization
(LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Unlike voice that focuses on making construc-
tive suggestions that may challenge the system, constructive deviance encom-
passes behaviors that violate the organizational norms. Finally, constructive
deviance differs from role innovation or the introduction of new behaviors
into a role (West, 1987). Unlike innovative role behavior, constructive devi-
ance is a broader concept that includes a larger set of behaviors, such as
internal whistle-blowing and behaviors that outwardly challenge the existing
norms of the organization. While constructive deviance includes behaviors
such as violating company procedures in order to solve a problem, innovative
role behavior includes behaviors that do not necessarily violate any organi-
zational norms, such as developing innovative ways of accomplishing work
or initiating new procedures. Based on the above, one can see that construc-
tive deviance is indeed theoretically distinct. Refer to Table 1 for a summary
of differences between constructive deviance, OCB, whistle-blowing, voice,
and role innovation.
Before examining the nomological network, the theoretical framework of
deviance is discussed in order to provide a better understanding of the rela-
tionship between constructive and destructive deviance.
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 2991

Table 1
Summary of Differences Between Constructive Deviance, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Whistle-blowing, Voice,
and Role Innovation
Term Definition Differences
Constructive
deviance
Voluntary behavior that violates significant norms
with the intent of improving the well-being of an
organization, its members, or both (Galperin,
2002)
Behavior that violates significant organizational
norms to help the organization
May be disruptive to personal relationships
Organizational
citizenship
behavior
Behavior that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system,
and that in the aggregate promotes the effective
functioning of the organization (Organ, 1990)
Includes affiliative behavior (e.g., helping) that
focuses on improving relationships
Encompasses behaviors more passive in nature (e,g.
compliance with procedures)
Consists of behaviors that abide by the
organizational norms and rules
Whistle-blowing The disclosure of organizational wrongdoings to
parties who can take action (Near & Miceli,
1987)
Includes external whistle-blowing: efforts may
threaten the organization authority structure and
hurt the organization
Voice Nonrequired behavior that emphasizes expression of
improving rather than merely criticizing the
organization (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998)
Includes making verbal constructive suggestions
More mundane and less dramatic behaviors
Role innovation The introduction of new behaviors into a role
(West, 1987)
Consists of behaviors that do not necessarily violate
any organizational norms, such as developing
innovative ways of accomplishing work or
initiating new procedures
2992 GALPERIN

According to Merton’s (1968) framework, individuals respond to organi-
zational directives based on the degree to which they identify with societal or
organizational goals and the means to attain the goals. He argues that
individuals who do not accept the means (innovators) and/or goals (rebels) of
the organization will deviate from them. Rebels do not identify with organi-
zational goals and instead are focused on their own goals, whether that is
revenge, greed, or some other selfish motive. Therefore, the behavior of rebels
is similar to destructive deviance since both constructs stress the harmful
nature of deviance. However, innovators strongly identify with the organi-
zational goals but may not agree with sanctioned means and hence use
deviant or unorthodox means to attain the goals. Hence the behavior of the
innovator who deviates from orthodox means in order to attain desired
organizational outcomes can be viewed as constructive deviance as the inno-
vation is beneficial for the organization. While Merton’s theoretical frame-
work provides us with an understanding of the relationship between
constructive and destructive deviance, there is a lack of empirical research
on constructive workplace deviance and its relationship with destructive
deviance.
The first step in increasing our understanding of the nomological network
of workplace deviance is to develop a measure of constructive deviance
behavior—the CDBS. In Study 1, instrument development for the CDBS was
conducted in two phases. A pool of items was generated and the scale was
developed during the first phase. During the second phase, item analysis
and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were conducted. Study 2 cross-
validated the factor structure using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA),
and examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the measure.
Finally, Study 3 examined the individual and contextual factors that facilitate
constructive and destructive deviance.
Study 1: Instrument Development
Phase 1: Item Generation
Method
In line with recommended procedures (e.g., DeVellis, 1991), a large
pool of items was developed to measure constructive deviance during the
item generation phase. The theoretical definition of constructive deviance
was used as a framework to develop the questionnaire and capture the
content domain because the primary objective in this phase is content
validity (Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993). Several
methods were used to generate the items of this measure. In-depth
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 2993

semi-structured interviews with eight employees from the pharmaceutical,
food and beverage, telecommunication, communications/marketing, com-
puter, and healthcare industries were conducted to develop some items.
Other items were adapted from measures of similar concepts of previous
empirical studies, such as measures of innovative behavior (Quinn, 1988;
West, 1987) and whistle-blowing (Miceli & Near, 1984). During item genera-
tion, an effort was made to enhance understandability.
Results and Discussion
In the scale development phase, 35 items were evaluated based on the
conceptualization of constructive deviance. Following DeVellis (1991), eight
experts in the field of management were asked to provide feedback on the
items. Five experts were professors with expertise in organizational behavior
and human resource management, and the remaining three experts were
practitioners who had a significant amount of work experience in the
pharmaceutical, healthcare, and telecommunication industries. Using a
rating sheet, the experts were asked to: (1) rate the relevance of each item
and determine whether the items fit the definition (items were rated on
a three-point scale [1 =low relevance,2=moderate relevance, and 3 =high
relevance]); (2) evaluate the items’ clarity, conciseness, and redundancy (i.e.,
recognize awkward or confusing items and suggest alternative wordings); and
(3) identify other items that capture the phenomena of constructive deviance
that were not included in the proposed measure.
Based on the experts’ feedback, several items were deleted or revised, and
three items were added to the scale in order to include an aspect of construc-
tive deviance that was previously excluded. These questions inquired about
people who work on pet projects or personal projects during regular
company hours in order to improve the products/services of the organization.
The revised list consisted of 32 items.
Phase 2: Item Analysis and EFA
Using the 32 items developed in Phase 1, item and EFAs were conducted
in Phase 2. Specifically, item-total correlations, item means, and variances
were first examined. An EFA was then performed to further understand the
underlying structure of the measure.
Method
Sample and procedure. One hundred and thirty-one employees partici-
pated in the current study. All participants worked either full time or part
2994 GALPERIN

time and were taking classes at two large universities in Canada. Fifty-seven
percent of the respondents were male and 89% had completed a bachelor’s
degree. The average respondent was 28.05 (SD =3.94) years old and worked
as a manager. Respondents were assured that their responses would remain
anonymous and confidential. Usable data were received from 122 (93%) of
the respondents.
Measures. The revised list of 32 items was used to measure constructive
deviance. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they had
engaged in each of the behaviors in the last year. Participants answered the 32
items using a 7-point Likert scale (1 =never; 2 =once a year; 3 =twice a year;
4=several times a year; 5 =monthly; 6 =weekly; 7 =daily).
Results and Discussion
Item-total correlations, item variances, and means were examined
to evaluate the performance of the individual items. As recommended by
DeVellis (1991), a scale should consist of highly intercorrelated items. Item
correlations below .30 were deleted (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). As items
with extremely low variances do not allow for differentiation between people
on the construct of interest (DeVellis, 1991), items with variances below 1.5
were eliminated (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). The item means were also
inspected to determine whether many items had means at the extreme ranges
(1 and 7). Based on the item analyses, 11 items of the measure remained. An
EFA was then performed on these items. An EFA with varimax rotation was
performed to assess the underlying structure of the measure. The items were
examined in an exploratory manner as constructive deviance may have a
different factor structure than destructive deviance. Inspection of the eigen-
values, scree plot, and factor loadings showed that there were two factors—
organizational (acts directed toward the organization) and interpersonal
(acts directed toward individuals).
The first factor represents acts of constructive deviance that are directed
toward the organization and is labeled “organizational constructive devi-
ance.” The factor contains five items that describe behaviors that outwardly
challenge the existing norms of the organization and break the rules in order
to help the organization. An example includes breaking the rules to perform
your job. The second factor contains five items that describe acts of construc-
tive deviance that are directed toward individuals rather than the organiza-
tion. The items describe people who do not follow the orders of their
supervisor or challenge the workgroup to perform more efficiently. There-
fore, this factor is labeled “interpersonal constructive deviance.”
In an attempt to ensure that each item corresponded to its respective
factor, a factor weight of .33 as a minimum cutoff was used (Tabachnick &
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 2995

Fidell, 2001). Each item was required to sufficiently load on one factor by
determining that the difference between weights for any item was more than
.10 across factors. One item was dropped for cross-loading on multiple
factors. The results of the EFA are presented in Table 2.
After developing the CDBS in Study 1, the validity of the measure was
examined. The primary objective of Study 2 was to examine the convergent
and discriminant validity of the measure using a second sample. According to
Niehoff and Moorman (1993), it is essential to examine the “nomological
network validity” of new measures. A CFA was first conducted on the sample
in order to cross-validate the two-factor solution obtained in the EFA.
Study 2: Instrument Validation
A measure has convergent validity when it covaries with other measures
purported to measure the same or similar constructs (Campbell & Fiske,
1959). In an attempt to assess the convergent validity of the constructive
deviance measure, correlations between constructive deviance and measures
conceptually similar to constructive deviance were examined. Convergent
validity is demonstrated when high correlations exist between the construc-
tive deviance measure and the related measures. The relationships between
constructive deviance and innovative behavior, forms of organizational
citizenship behavior, and voice were examined to demonstrate convergent
validity.
On the other hand, one is able to demonstrate discriminant validity by
demonstrating nonsignificant relationships between unrelated constructs. A
measure has discriminant validity when it has low or no correlations with
constructs that are expected to be distinct and unrelated to each other. Using
the EVLN or Exit/Voice/Loyalty/Neglect conceptual framework (Farrell,
1983; Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988) of different responses to
dissatisfaction, it is expected that constructive deviance will be less strongly
related to certain responses of dissatisfaction than others. The relationship
between altruism, a form of organizational citizenship behavior, and con-
structive deviance is also examined to demonstrate discriminant validity. As
both factors of constructive deviance were expected to be related to the other
variables, differential relationships between the two factors were not pre-
dicted. Table 3 summarizes the expected relations between variables.
Convergent Validity Assessment
The innovation literature suggests that newcomers, entrepreneurs, and
other individuals who do not accept the norms of the majority can be
2996 GALPERIN

Table 2
Exploratory Factor Analysis for 10-Item Scale
Item
Factor loadings
Organizational
deviance
Interpersonal
deviance
1. Sought to bend or break the rules in
order to perform your job.
.72a.15
2. Violated company procedures in order
to solve a problem.
.66 .28
3. Departed from organizational
procedures to solve a customer’s
problem.
.72 .18
4. Bent a rule to satisfy a customer’s
needs.
.82 .09
5. Departed from dysfunctional
organizational policies or procedures to
solve a problem.
.73 .23
6. Reported a wrong-doing to co-workers
to bring about a positive organizational
change.
.25 .59
7. Did not follow the orders of your
supervisor in order to improve work
procedures.
.23 .62
8. Disagreed with others in your work
group in order to improve the current
work procedures.
.00 .75
9. Disobeyed your supervisor’s
instructions to perform more efficiently.
.21 .66
10. Reported a wrong-doing to another
person in your company to bring about
a positive organizational change.b
.17 .69
Eigenvalue 3.85 1.40
% variance explained 38.50 14.03
aNumbers in boldface indicate dominant factor loadings.
bItem not included in final measure.
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 2997

Table 3
Summary of Hypothesized Relationships
Innovative
behavior Advocacy Obedience Altruism Civic virtue Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect
Constructive
deviance
Positive Positive Negative Not significant Positive Not significant Positive Not significant Not significant
Destructive
deviance
Not significant Not significant Negative Negative Not Significant Positive Not Significant Negative Positive
2998 GALPERIN

important sources of innovation (Howell et al., 2005). Consequently, it is
expected that innovative behavior will be positively correlated to constructive
deviance. The relationship between certain forms of OCB and constructive
deviance was examined. According to Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch
(1994), OCB encompasses all positive behaviors that are related to the orga-
nization that are performed by individuals. It is expected that advocacy
participation, obedience, and civic virtue (three forms of citizenship behavior)
are related to constructive deviance. Advocacy participation describes behav-
iors directed toward other members of the organization that show a willing-
ness to be controversial (Van Dyne et al., 1994). As these behaviors are similar
to constructive deviance in that they describe behaviors of a challenging nature
that may deviate from the norm, it is expected that the constructive deviance
measure will be positively correlated with advocacy participation. Obedience,
another form of organizational citizenship, encompasses behaviors that rep-
resent the respect for organizational rules and policies (Van Dyne et al., 1994).
As obedience describes behaviors that follow or obey the rules of the organi-
zation rather than the willingness to break the rules for the benefit of the
organization, it is expected that obedience is negatively related to constructive
deviance. Civic virtue, another form of citizenship behavior, encompasses
behaviors that relate to participation in political life, such as “speaking up”
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Because civic virtue is a
behavior that relates to participation in efforts to change organizational
conditions, it is expected that civic virtue will be positively related to construc-
tive deviance. Finally, voice emphasizes the expression that constructively
challenges the system with the intent to improve rather than criticize (Van
Dyne & LePine, 1998). Constructive deviance will likely be related to voice as
both include challenging the status quo of the organization with the intent of
helping the organization in the long run.
Discriminant Validity Assessment
The EVLN framework proposes that an employee may respond to dis-
satisfaction in four ways: exit, voice, loyalty, or neglect. In other words, an
employee can decide to: (1) exit or withdraw from the organization; (2)
express voice or appeal to the management to improve the situation; (3)
remain loyal and confident that the situation will improve; or (4) show
neglect and display disregard to other employee (Farrell, 1983). Exit is
defined as the voluntary separation or turnover from the job (Farrell, 1983).
As noted earlier, voice is conceptualized as an expression that construc-
tively challenges the system with the intent to improve the organization
(Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Loyalty encompasses behaviors that represent
allegiance to the organization (Van Dyne et al., 1994). Neglect is defined as
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 2999

inattentive behavior and disregard for fellow coworkers (Farrell, 1983). Con-
structive deviance is unlikely to be related to exit, loyalty, and neglect because
these responses to dissatisfaction do not encompass norm-violating behav-
iors to help the organization. As exit refers to leaving an organization by
quitting, transferring, or job searching, one will expect exit behavior to be
unrelated to norm-violating behavior to help the organization. Loyalty
means that employees are waiting and hoping for an improvement. The
relationship between constructive deviance and loyalty is also unlikely
because loyalty does not encompass the violation of norms. Neglect refers
to allowing conditions to deteriorate. As constructive deviance is intended
to help the organization, a relationship between neglect and constructive
deviance is also unexpected. Finally, altruism, a form of OCB, encompasses
behaviors with the intent to help specific employees (Podsakoff et al., 1990).
As constructive deviance largely focuses on norm-violating behavior, it is
expected that constructive deviance will be unrelated to altruism.
The Relationship Between Constructive and Destructive Deviance
Furthermore, the relationship between destructive and constructive devi-
ance was examined. As destructive and constructive deviance both encom-
pass behaviors that violate the norms of the organization, a low to moderate
positive relationship between the two is expected. While both destructive and
constructive deviance are forms of deviant behavior, it is expected that the
two will only be moderately related, because contrary to constructive devi-
ance, destructive deviance encompasses behaviors that threaten the well-
being of the organization.
The Relationship Between Destructive Deviance and
the Nomological Network
Finally, to further demonstrate the distinct relationship between con-
structive and destructive deviance, the relationships between the nomological
network and destructive deviance is also examined. Contrary to the expected
relationship between innovative behavior and constructive deviance, innova-
tive behavior should be unrelated to destructive deviance. With respect to the
OCB dimensions, it is expected that destructive deviance will be negatively
related to obedience. As noted earlier, because obedience describes behaviors
that obey the rules of the organization, it is expected that individuals who are
obedient will less likely engage in destructive deviance. It is also expected that
destructive deviance is negatively related to altruism. That is, employees who
engage in destructive deviant acts of an interpersonal nature will less likely
3000 GALPERIN

engage in altruistic behaviors. However, it is expected that destructive
deviance will be unrelated to advocacy participation and civic virtue. With
respect to the EVLN framework, it is expected that destructive deviance will
be positively related to exit and neglect, and negatively related to loyalty.
Employees who engage in deviant behaviors with the intent to harm the
organization will more likely exit the organization or disregard their fellow
coworkers. Voice is expected to be unrelated to destructive deviance.
Method
Measures
Innovative behavior. West’s (1987) measure of role innovation was used
(a=.91). Role innovation is the introduction of new behaviors into a role.
The measure of role innovation comprises six items that were measured on
a 4-point scale (1 =I do the job much the same as other people have done it;
4=I do completely differently than others have done it). A sample item is
“Developing innovative ways of accomplishing targets/objectives.”
Advocacy Participation. Van Dyne et al.’s (1994) measure of organiza-
tional citizenship was used to measure advocacy participation (a=.76). The
measure of advocacy participation comprises seven items that were measured
on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly disagree;7=strongly agree). A sample item is
“I encourage others to speak up at meetings.”
Obedience. Van Dyne et al.’s (1994) 10-item measure of organizational
citizenship was used to measure obedience (a=.81). The items were mea-
sured on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly disagree;7=strongly agree). A sample
item is “I follow work rules and instructions with extreme care.”
Altruism. Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) 5-item measure of organizational
citizenship behavior was used to measure altruism (a=.87). The items were
measured on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly disagree;7=strongly agree). A
sample item is “I help orient new people even though it is not required.”
Civic virtue. Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) 4-item measure of organizational
citizenship behavior was used to measure civic virtue (a=.69). The items
were measured on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly disagree;7 =strongly agree). A
sample item is “I attend meetings that are not mandatory, but are considered
important.”
Exit. Exit was measured using four items based on Rusbult et al.’s (1988)
scale (a=.74). The items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly
disagree;7=strongly agree). A sample item is “When working conditions
here decline I think a lot about quitting.”
Voice. Voice was measured using LePine and Van Dyne’s (1988) 6-item
scale (a=.88). The items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3001

disagree;7=strongly agree). A sample item is “I speak up in my group with
ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.”
Loyalty. Loyalty was measured using Van Dyne et al.’s (1994) 7-item
scale (a=.77). The items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly
disagree;7=strongly agree). A sample item is “I represent the organization
favorably to outsiders.”
Neglect. Neglect was measured using six items based on Rusbult
et al.’s (1988) scale (a=.73). The items were measured on a 7-point scale
(1 =strongly disagree;7=strongly agree). A sample item is “Sometimes when
I just don’t feel like working I will call in sick.”
Destructive workplace deviance. Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) measure
of workplace deviance comprises two factors: organizational (a=.85) and
interpersonal (a=.85) deviance. The organizational deviance measure com-
prises 12 items and the interpersonal deviance measure comprises seven items
that are measured on a 7-point scale (1 =never;7=daily). A sample item of
the organizational deviance scale is “Discussed confidential company infor-
mation with an unauthorized person.” A sample item of the interpersonal
deviance scale is “Played a mean prank on someone at work.”
Sample and Procedure
The sample consisted of 124 employees who were taking classes at two
large universities in Canada.4Sixty percent of the respondents were male. The
average respondent was 27.81 (SD =5.63) years old, had 6.24 (SD =3.82)
years of experience, and had worked at the company for 3.92 (SD =3.19)
years. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents completed a bachelor’s degree.
The employees were assured that their responses were anonymous and would
be used for research purposes only. Usable data were received from 115
(93%) of the respondents.
Results and Discussion
CFA
Using the AMOS 16 program (Arbuckle, 2005), CFAs were performed in
order to examine the two-factor structure of the 10-item measure that was
obtained in the EFA. As stated previously, the two-factor model consists of
organizational and interpersonal constructive deviance. The fit of the mea-
surement model was evaluated using the covariance matrix. In line with
4These subjects were different from those subjects in Study 1.
3002 GALPERIN

Bollen’s (1989) recommendation to interpret multiple fit indices, the chi-
square test, Normed Fit Index (NFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), and
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were examined. The general rule of thumb is
that IFI, NFI, and CFI indices with values of .90 or greater indicate a good
fit (Bollen, 1989). Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggest that values of less than
.08 for the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) indicate an
adequate fit.
The fit indices showed a moderate fit for the two-factor model: c2(34,
n=115) =91.11, p<.001 (RMSEA =.12; IFI =.89; CFI =.89; NFI =.84).
However, some of the fit indices failed to achieve the recommended level of
fit. When a model fails to achieve a good fit, Anderson and Gerbing (1988)
suggest that the preferred solution is to delete problematic indicators. An
examination of the modification indices and standardized residuals suggested
that a better fit would be obtained by deleting the item “Reported a wrong-
doing to another person in your company to bring about a positive organi-
zational change.” After deleting the item (Item 10), the fit indices improved
[RMSEA =.07; IFI =.96; CFI =.96; NFI =.95]. The scales showed accept-
able internal consistency reliabilities. Cronbach’s alphas were .85 for the
organizational constructive deviance, and .75 for interpersonal constructive
deviance.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
The correlations for constructive and destructive deviance and the theo-
retically related and theoretically unrelated constructs are shown in Table 4.
As Table 4 reveals, the pattern of results generally supports the above pre-
dictions for constructive deviance. As expected, constructive deviance was
positively related to innovative behavior, advocacy participation, obedience,
and both forms of destructive deviance. Partial support was found for voice.
Voice was significantly related to interpersonal constructive deviance but not
organizational constructive deviance. While constructive deviance was not
significantly related to civic virtue, it was in the expected direction. The
predictions for theoretically unrelated constructs also support the discrimi-
nant validity. As expected, constructive deviance was unrelated to altruism,
exit, loyalty, and neglect. Similarly, the predictions for destructive deviance
also generally supported the above predictions. Both forms of destructive
deviance were related to obedience, exit, loyalty, and neglect. While interper-
sonal destructive deviance was (negatively) related to altruism, the relation-
ship with organizational destructive deviance was not significant. As
expected, both forms of destructive deviance were unrelated to innovative
behavior and advocacy. While civic virtue was unrelated to interpersonal
destructive deviance, it was related to organizational destructive deviance.
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3003

Table 4
Correlations Among Constructive and Destructive Deviance and Theoretically
Related and Theoretically Unrelated Constructs
Comparison measure
Observed correlation for
workplace deviance
Constructive
deviance
(interpersonal)
Constructive
deviance
(organizational)
Theoretically related constructs
Innovative behavior .31** .29**
Advocacy participation .33** .25**
Obedience -.22* -.25*
Civic virtue .15†.03†
Voice .21* .15
Destructive deviance (interpersonal) .42** .35**
Destructive deviance (organizational) .34** .37**
Theoretically unrelated constructs
Altruism .02 -.05
Exit -.02 -.02
Loyalty .06 .14
Neglect .13 .09
Destructive
deviance
(interpersonal)
Destructive
deviance
(organizational)
Theoretically related constructs
Obedience -.44** -.69**
Altruism -.19* -.10
Exit 25** .31**
Loyalty -.24* -.25**
Neglect .38** .51**
Theoretically unrelated constructs
Innovative behavior -.08 -.10
Advocacy -.08 -.08
Civic virtue -.14 -.19*
Voice -.20* -.17
†p<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01.
3004 GALPERIN

Voice was unrelated to organizational destructive deviance but was related to
interpersonal destructive deviance.
Taken together, Study 2 supports the construct validity of the construc-
tive deviance measure. The findings also suggest that the relationship
between constructive and destructive deviance is indeed distinct. While
both forms of deviance are generally related to each other, constructive and
destructive deviances were differentially related to the constructs in the
nomological network. Finally, Study 3 examines the individual and contex-
tual factors that facilitate workplace constructive and destructive deviance.
Study 3: Individual and Contextual Level—Factors of
Workplace Deviance
Given the importance of workplace deviance, researchers have been inter-
ested in examining what drives destructive deviant behaviors (Berry, Ones, &
Sackett, 2007). While a large number of studies have examined the potential
antecedents of destructive deviance (see Bennett & Robinson, 2003 for a
review), relatively little is known about what motivates employees to engage
in constructive deviance. In an attempt to understand the variables that make
individuals engage in constructive deviance, the literatures from related areas
(e.g., voice, whistle-blowing, innovative behavior) were examined. Based on
the review of the various literatures, a variety of individual and contextual
factors were identified as critical variables that may provide us with a broader
framework in understanding workplace deviance, which includes both the
destructive and constructive deviance.
In the final study, a set of relevant individual and contextual-level factors
was identified as specific variables that may facilitate workplace deviance
Specifically, the individual-level factors of workplace deviance included
Machiavellianism and role breadth self-efficacy. The contextual-level factors
were sociopolitical support and access to information and resources.
Machiavellianism
Based on Machiavelli’s works, Christie and Geis (1970) developed the
construct of Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism describes the disposition to
view and treat individuals as objects to be manipulated in order to achieve a
desired end. In an attempt to obtain desired ends, a person with high Machia-
vellian tendencies may use manipulative, persuasive, and deceitful behavior
(Hunt & Chonko, 1984). However, high Machs should not be viewed as
individuals who consistently behave untruthfully or unethically (Gable &
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3005

Dangello, 1994). Instead, individuals high on Machiavellianism are willing
to violate rules and policies that may stand in the way of the accomplish-
ment of their objectives. Christie and Geis (1970) stressed that whether high
Machs are amoral or immoral is not of major concern; instead, the central
idea is that high Machs possess a utilitarian perspective. As high Machs
believe that the ends justify the means, they will do what it takes to satisfy
their goals.
Bass, Barnett, and Brown (1999) and Calhoun (1969) argue that a high
Mach’s desired end may be self-interest or the well-being of a community
or nation. Calhoun (1969, p. 211), for example, describes Machiavellian
employees as people who use “aggressive, manipulative, exploiting, and
devious moves in order to achieve personal and organizational objectives.”
Mudrack and Mason (1996) also differentiate whether Machiavellians violate
or bend the rules to favor their own or their company’s interests.
While the literature typically describes high Machs as having few reser-
vations about bending the rules, typically the focus has been on situations
where violating the rules conflicts with the perceived interests of the organi-
zation (e.g., Grover & Enz, 2005; Mudrack & Mason, 1996). This paper
argues that high Machs will also be more likely to engage in behaviors that
challenge the norms and rules in order to benefit the organization, assuming
that the organizational interests are aligned with their personal goals. High
Machs will be more likely than low Machs to engage in constructive deviant
behaviors directed toward individuals and organizations in order to accom-
plish the goal of helping the organization. As high Machs are willing to treat
individuals as objects and have disregard for those organizational rules that
get in the way of goal accomplishment, it follows that:
Hypothesis 1. Machiavellianism is positively related to interper-
sonal and organizational constructive deviance.
According to Christie and Geis (1970), a person high on Machiavellian-
ism views people as objects to be manipulated rather than showing affect and
empathy; is prone to using deceit and to engage in behaviors that are morally
incorrect; takes an instrumental view of others; and uses tactics to achieve the
ends rather than being inflexible in striving to an idealistic goal. Research
suggests that individuals high on Machiavellianism will be more likely to
engage in destructive workplace deviance. Studies have shown that high
Machs will be more likely to engage in cheating and lying (Grover & Enz,
2005; Ross & Robertson, 2000). In addition, research suggests that high
Machs engage in unethical behaviors (Tang & Chen, 2008). In line with the
above, research has suggested that Machiavellianism relates to an overall
index of counterproductive work behavior, including both interpersonal and
organizational aspects (Kessler et al., 2010).
3006 GALPERIN

Hypothesis 2. Machiavellianism is positively related to interper-
sonal and organizational destructive deviance.
Role Breadth Self-Efficacy
A second individual-level variable hypothesized to relate to constructive
deviance is role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE). RBSE, a particular type of
self-efficacy, refers to the perceived capability of carrying out a broader and
more proactive set of work tasks beyond prescribed technical requirements
(Parker, 1998). Unlike the more common conceptualizations of self-efficacy
that focus on a particular task, RBSE focuses on whether a person feels
confident in carrying broader and proactive roles.
According to self-efficacy theory, people with high self-efficacy believe
that they are good at a task, will put in more effort, and persist longer than
those individuals with low self-efficacy (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Because
self-efficacy increases a person’s feelings of control, self-efficacy is seen as an
important factor in behaviors such as initiative (Speier & Frese, 1997) and
voice (Withey & Cooper, 1989), behaviors related to constructive deviance.
Research has shown a relationship between RBSE and proactive behavior
(Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006) and personal initiative (Hornung &
Rousseau, 2007). More recently, research suggests that self-efficacy relates
to organizational citizenship behavior that includes acts directed toward
individuals and the organization (Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010). Based
on the above, it is expected that individuals with high RBSE will more
likely engage in interpersonal and organizational constructive deviant
behaviors because they have the confidence to display a broad set of work
tasks and because these behaviors contribute to the overall organizational
performance.
Hypothesis 3. RBSE is positively related to interpersonal and
organizational constructive deviance.
It is also proposed that employees who have more RBSE will engage in
less destructive deviant behaviors. While the relationship between RBSE and
destructive deviance has not been examined, the literature on self-efficacy
suggests that self-efficacy influences a person’s choices and emotional reac-
tions (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). According to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy will
affect self-regulatory processes that influence behavior.
Research also suggests that feelings of self-efficacy are related to absen-
teeism behavior (Latham & Frayne, 1989), a form of destructive deviant
behavior. Compared with those individuals with low self-efficacy for atten-
dance, individuals with high self-efficacy for attendance were less likely to be
absent. While only one specific type of self-efficacy has been shown to relate
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3007

to withdrawal behavior, these findings suggest that employees who have
low RBSE will engage in more interpersonal and organizational destructive
deviant behaviors. In support of this perspective, research has demonstrated
that conceptually related variables such as personal mastery, a trait
that emphasizes the desire to learn and perform at a high level, was
related to interpersonal and organizational deviance (Diefendorff & Mehta,
2007).
Hypothesis 4. RBSE is negatively related to interpersonal and
organizational destructive deviance.
Sociopolitical Support
Sociopolitical support is the endorsement or approval from organiza-
tional constituencies that is typically gained from membership in organiza-
tional networks (Kanter, 1983). In the social capital literature, social
networks have been used to refer to the set of social connections between
individuals, such as an employee’s superior, subordinates, peers, and
members of a workgroup. These relationships may be conceptualized in
several ways, including the number of people who are part of the network,
the number of connections between people, and the pattern or configuration
of the ties (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
The management literature has highlighted the importance of social net-
works in organizations because they provide members with channels in order
to accomplish work and achieve goals for individuals, social groups, and
firms, which can lead to greater organizational success and effectiveness
(Cohen & Prusak, 2001). Membership in support networks enhances inter-
action with central organization members, which, in turn, increases one’s
power in organizations (Pfeffer, 1997). Individuals who belong to networks
can have sociopolitical influence on the distribution of power and resources
in organizations. In particular, those employees who are centrally located in
a network are likely to possess more power compared with those employees
who are on the periphery. Employees who are centrally located in the
network are also more likely to be supported politically by their subordi-
nates, supervisors, and peers. As a result, employees who are centrally
located in a network will more likely have influence and less dependency on
the formal structure to achieve their goals (Spreitzer, 1996). As employees
with sociopolitical support are less dependent on the formal structure, it is
expected that they will be more likely deviate from the norms with the intent
to help the organization. Specifically, employees will likely engage in orga-
nizational constructive deviance but not interpersonal constructive deviance
because acts of an interpersonal nature (e.g., not following your supervisor’s
3008 GALPERIN

orders) may jeopardize employees’ social network and sociopolitical support
in the future.
Hypothesis 5. Sociopolitical support is positively related to
organizational constructive deviance.
Sociopolitical support is also expected to be related to destructive devi-
ance. According to the theory of social bonding (Hirschi, 1969), individuals
who are not bonded or connected to the organization will be detached from
the norms of the organization. Consequently, these individuals will be more
likely to engage in destructive deviant behavior (Thau, Crossley, Bennett, &
Sczesny, 2007). It follows that a lack of membership in organizational net-
works will increase detachment and, hence, increase the likelihood of inter-
personal and organizational destructive deviance. In support of the above,
research has demonstrated that perceived organizational support, a concep-
tually related variable, is negatively related to interpersonal and organiza-
tional deviance (Liao, Joshi, & Chuang, 2004).
Hypothesis 6. Sociopolitical support is negatively related to
interpersonal and organizational destructive deviance.
Access to Information and Resources
Furthermore, it is expected that the availability of information and
resources will play an important role in constructive deviance. Employees
who have access to information and resources gain control and have
increased feelings of personal control (Hodson, 1991). It is expected that
employees who have access to information and resources will more likely
follow the norms and rules as they have sufficient information and resources
to improve the organization through legitimate means. On the contrary,
employees who do not have access to information and resources are more
likely to violate the norms directed to individuals and organizations to bring
about an overall positive change to the organization as they may feel that
they do not have the control to do so through legitimate means.
Hypothesis 7(a). Access to information is negatively related to
interpersonal and organizational constructive deviance.
Hypothesis 7(b). Access to resources is negatively related to
interpersonal and organizational constructive deviance.
In addition, employees who have little access to information and resources
will more likely perceive that they have experienced aversive treatment. Peters,
O’Connor, and Rudolf (1980) state that situational constraints, such as
lack of time, material, and information, are features in the environment
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3009

that prevent employees from realizing their full performance. In line with the
above, Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng’s (2001) meta-analysis
found informational justice to be moderately related to negative reactions,
such as employee theft and organizational retaliatory behaviors. Employees
who are faced with constraints become frustrated because despite their moti-
vation and ability to succeed, they are unable to perform well. Research has
shown that perceived frustration is positively related to counterproductive
behaviors such as aggression, sabotage, and hostility and complaining, acts
directed toward individuals and organizations (Storms & Spector, 1987).
Hypothesis 8(a). Access to information is negatively related to
interpersonal and organizational destructive deviance.
Hypothesis 8(b). Access to resources is negatively related to
interpersonal and organizational destructive deviance.
Method
Sample and Procedures
Two organizations in the pharmaceutical and telecommunications indus-
tries participated in the study. These are two highly regulated industries that
are presently undergoing rapid technological advancements. The sample con-
sisted of 240 Canadian employees (38% response rate). Average age was 36.6
years and average organizational tenure was 7.4 years. Sixty-six percent of
the sample were male. The respondents worked in the following positions:
75% staff and supervisory positions; 4% managerial positions; and 21%
executive positions. High school was the highest education attained by 25%
of the sample; 33% held college degrees; 26% held bachelor’s degrees; 14%
held master’s degrees; and 2% completed a PhD or MD.
Anonymous questionnaires were the primary method of data collection.
All respondents who voluntarily participated in the study were assured con-
fidentiality of their responses. In addition, the respondents were told that the
results of the study would be summarized so that individuals would not be
identified. The individuals who were sent the packets were asked to return
their completed questionnaire via mail directly to the author at the university.
Measures
Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism was measured by the MACH IV
Scale (Christie & Geis, 1970). The measure comprises 20 items that are
measured on a 7-point scale (1 =completely disagree to 7 =completely agree)
3010 GALPERIN

(a=.68). Higher scores indicated greater levels of Machiavellianism. A
sample item is “The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want
to hear.”
RBSE. RBSE was measured by Parker’s (1998) scale. Respondents were
asked to indicate how confident they felt carrying out various tasks. The
measure comprises ten items that are measured on a 5-point scale (1 =not at
all confident to 5 =very confident)(a=.90). A sample item is “Designing new
procedures for your work area.”
Sociopolitical support, access to information, and access to resources.
Sociopolitical support, access to information, and access to resources were
measured using Spreitzer’s (1996) scale of social structural characteristics.
Sociopolitical support is the employees’ perceptions of the extent of socio-
political support received from subordinates, peers, workgroup, and supe-
rior. The sociopolitical measure comprises four items that are measured
on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly disagree to 7 =strongly agree)(a=.78). A
sample item is: “I have the support I need from my subordinates to do my
job well.”
Access to information measures the employees’ perception of the extent
of access to information. The access to information measure comprises
three items that are measured on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly disagree to
7=strongly agree)(a=.70). A sample item is: “I understand top manage-
ment’s vision of the organization.”
Access to resources measures the employees’ perceptions of the extent
of their access to resources. The access to resources measure consists of
three items that are measured on a 7-point scale (1 =strongly disagree to
7=strongly agree)(a=.78). A sample item is: “I can obtain the resources
necessary to support new ideas.”
Destructive deviance. Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) measure of work-
place deviance was used to measure interpersonal (a=.82) and organiza-
tional (a=.85) destructive workplace deviance. The interpersonal measure
comprises seven items and the organizational deviance measure comprises
12 items.
Results and Discussion
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Means, standard deviations, and correlations are in Table 5. The
means for organizational and interpersonal constructive deviance were 1.79
and 2.39, respectively, suggesting that these behaviors were uncommon.
Again, there was a low to moderate correlation between destructive and
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3011

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable Mean SD 12345678910111213
1. Genderb1.34 .48
2. Age 36.57 .22 .10
3. Job levelc1.45 .81 .01 .12
4. Organizational tenure 7.41 8.38 .13* .61** .07
5. Machiavellianism 3.28 .67 -.12 -.13* -.13* -.04 .68a
6. Role breath
self-efficacy
3.87 .71 -.14* -.00 .25** -.08 -.20** .90
7. Access to information 5.49 1.17 .12 .08 .12 .11 -.26** .27** .70
8. Access to resources 5.51 1.11 .00 -.05 -.07 -.02 -.16* .16* .35** .78
9. Sociopolitical support 5.67 1.00 -.09 -.06 -.07 -.05 -.17** .13* .30** .57** .78
10. Destructive
Deviance–Organizational
1.64 .67 -.03 -.13* .04 -.06 .31** -.03 -.19** -.11 -.14* .85
11. Destructive
Deviance–Interpersonal
1.61 .79 -.06 -.23** .03 -.15* .24** .04 -.18** -.02 -.04 .56** .82
12. Constructive
deviance–organizational
1.79 1.09 -.10 -.05 .23** -.05 .17** .25** -.12 -.13* -.05 .49** .34** .88
13. Constructive
deviance–interpersonal
2.39 1.01 -.09 -.10 .13* -.15* .06 .19** -.11 -.05 -.05 .51** .40** .56** .67
aCronbach’s alphas are shown on the diagonal and are in boldface.
bCoding: 1 =male.
cCoding: 1 =staff and supervisor, 2 =manager, 3 =executive.
*p<.05. **p<.01.
3012 GALPERIN

constructive deviance, suggesting that the two forms of deviance are related
but differ in whether the behaviors promote or threaten the well-being of the
organization.
Tests of Hypotheses
To test the hypotheses, constructive and destructive deviance were
regressed on the independent variables. Gender, age, job level, and organi-
zational tenure were first entered as control variables because previous
research (e.g., Baron, Neuman, & Geddes, 1999) has shown these variables
to be related to workplace deviance. The regression analyses are shown in
Table 6.
Hypothesis 1 proposed that Machiavellianism is positively related to
interpersonal and organizational constructive deviance. While Machiavel-
lianism was significantly positively related to organizational constructive
deviance (b=.20, t=3.16, p<.01), no support was found for interpersonal
constructive deviance (b=.08, t=1.12, n.s.). In support of Hypothesis 2,
Machiavellianism was significantly positively related to both forms of
destructive deviance (organizational: b=.27, t=4.09, p<.001 and interper-
sonal: b=.20, t=3.06, p<.01). As expected in Hypothesis 3, RBSE was
positively related to both organizational (b=.29, t=4.32, p<.001) and
interpersonal (b=.21, t=2.96, p<.01) constructive deviance. Hypothesis 4,
on the other hand, did not receive support. RBSE was unrelated to destruc-
tive deviance (organizational: b=.06, t=.83, n.s and interpersonal: b=.09,
t=1.34, n.s.). Hypotheses 5 and 6 were unsupported. Sociopolitical support
was unrelated to both constructive (organizational: b=.08, t=1.02, n.s.)
and destructive deviance (organizational: b=-.06, t=-.76, n.s. and inter-
personal: b=-.01, t=-.11, n.s.). Partial support was found for Hypothesis
7(a) because access to information was related to organizational constructive
deviance (b=-.15, t=-2.12, p<.05), but not interpersonal (b=-.12,
t=1.70, p<.10) constructive deviance. On the other hand, Hypothesis 7(b)
did not receive support. Access to resources was unrelated to organizational
(b=-.13, t=-1.68, p<.10) and interpersonal (b=.01, t=.06, n.s.) construc-
tive deviance. Partial support was found for Hypotheses 8(a) because
access to information was significantly negatively related to interpersonal
(b=-.16, t=-2.25, p<.05), but not organizational (b=-.13, t=-1.87,
p<.10) destructive deviance. However, access to resources was unrelated
to destructive deviance (organizational: b=-.00, t=-.05, n.s. and interper-
sonal: b=.06, t=.71, n.s.), providing no support for Hypothesis 8(b).
As shown in Table 6, the independent variables explained a significant
amount of variance in organizational constructive deviance (R2=.18,
adjusted R2=.15, F=5.67, p<.001) and interpersonal constructive deviance
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3013

Table 6
Results of Regression Analyses for Constructive and Destructive Deviancea
Variable
Constructive
deviance
(organizational)
Constructive
deviance
(interpersonal)
Destructive
deviance
(organizational)
Destructive
deviance
(interpersonal)
btbtbtbt
Genderb-.00 -.06 -.02 -.32 .02 .36 .01 .19
Ageb-.05 -.66 -.02 -.29 -.12 -1.49 -.19 -2.35*
Job levelb.20 3.15** .11 1.67†.09 1.33 .08 1.23
Tenureb.02 .28 -.11 -1.32 .03 .40 -.01 -.16
Machiavellianism .20 3.16** .08 1.12 .27 4.09*** .20 3.06**
Role breath self-efficacy .29 4.32*** .21 2.96** .06 .83 .09 1.34
Access to information -.15 -2.12* -.12 -1.70†-.13 -1.87†-.16 -2.25*
Access to resources -.13 -1.68†.01 .06 -.00 -.05 .06 .71
Sociopolitical support .08 1.02 -.03 -.34 -.06 -.76 -.01 -.11
R2.18 .10 .13 .13
Adjusted R2.15 .06 .10 .09
F5.67*** 2.59** 3.87*** 3.60***
aThe final sample size was 240.
bControl variable.
†p<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
3014 GALPERIN

(R2=.10, adjusted R2=.06, F=2.59, p<.01). Similarly, the independent
variables explained a significant amount of variance in organizational
destructive deviance (R2=.13, adjusted R2=.10, F=3.87, p<.001) and
interpersonal destructive deviance (R2=.13, adjusted R2=.09, F=3.60,
p<.001).
General Discussion
Given the increasing importance of innovation and organizational change
in organizations today, this study explores the construct of constructive
deviance. The main objective was to examine the nomological network of
workplace deviance. In a series of three studies, the CDBS, a measure of
constructive deviance, was developed and validated. Evidence of convergent
and discriminant validity was found. Constructive deviance was found to be
related to theoretically relevant constructs (e.g., innovative behavior and
advocacy) and was found to be uncorrelated with measures of unrelated
constructs (e.g., exit, loyalty, and neglect), respectively. Furthermore, the
results suggest that although constructive and destructive deviance are mod-
erately related to each other (perhaps indicating that the same individuals
engage in both behaviors), both forms of workplace deviance were also
differentially related to the constructs in the nomological network. Finally,
by examining the individual and contextual factors that facilitate construc-
tive and destructive deviance, this article contributes to our understanding of
workplace deviance as a broader construct. Destructive and constructive
deviance must be integrated into a single theoretical framework. The system-
atic examination of these two perspectives can provide us with a more coher-
ent understanding of workplace deviance.
The results suggest that Machiavellianism is an important personality
variable in predicting both constructive and destructive deviance. Interest-
ingly, however, Machiavellianism is related to only one form of constructive
deviance—organizational constructive deviance. High Machs are more likely
to engage in behaviors that outwardly challenge the existing norms of the
organization and to break the rules in order to help the organization
as opposed to engaging in constructive deviant behaviors that challenge
individuals. It is possible that because high Machs are typically inclined to
use indirect strategies as thought manipulation, flattery, and ingratiation
on a regular basis (Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991), they may not perceive their
behaviors as being constructively “deviant” toward their supervisors and
workgroups.
High Machs were also found to be related to both forms of destructive
deviance. These findings are consistent with earlier research on destructive
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3015

deviance that has found Machiavellianism to be related to various specific
forms of deviant behaviors such as cheating and lying (Grover & Enz, 2005;
Ross & Robertson, 2000), as well as organizational and interpersonal
destructive deviance in general (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). The findings
that Machiavellianism is related to organizational constructive deviance as
well as interpersonal and organizational destructive deviance are in line with
the literature, which suggests that the desired end for Machiavellians can
be the organization’s welfare and their own self-interests (Calhoun, 1969).
Future research should investigate how these different motivations impact
constructive versus destructive deviance. These findings can inform the
renewed interest and reconceptualization of Machiavellianism in the
workplace, which is not limited to manipulative behaviors (Kessler et al.,
2010).
RBSE, an individual-difference variable, was found to be a central pre-
dictor of constructive deviance; however, it was found to be unrelated to
destructive deviance. These findings suggest that there are some variables
related to the broader understanding of deviance (constructive and destruc-
tive), while some variables are only related to one form of deviance. Future
research should further investigate whether self-efficacy is important in
explaining both forms of constructive and destructive deviance. While
research suggests that self-efficacy is related to destructive deviance (Latham
& Frayne, 1989), one would also expect that employees who have higher
levels of self-efficacy will more likely engage in constructive deviance because
they will feel capable of performing tasks and more likely to persist despite
facing adversity (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1987).
This study makes an important contribution to our understanding of
workplace deviance as a broader construct by empirically establishing a
measure of constructive workplace deviance. To date, scholars have generally
conceptualized deviance as a negative set of behaviors and have overlooked
the functional nature of deviance. The constructive intent of some so-called
deviant behavior needs to be assessed and incorporated into a wider model of
workplace deviance. The systematic examination of both deviant behaviors
intended to challenge the status quo in order to improve the organization and
those challenging organizational norms in a more harmful way will provide
us with a more coherent understanding of workplace deviance and its mul-
tifaceted nature.
How is constructive deviance related to destructive deviance? This study
suggests that, in general, constructive and destructive deviance are positively
related as individuals willing to engage in deviant behavior are norm chal-
lengers. Both forms of deviance encompass behaviors that violate the orga-
nizational norms. However, because the intent of the two forms of deviance
differs, the strength of the relationship between constructive and destructive
3016 GALPERIN

deviance is low to moderate. Unlike constructive deviance, which comprises
discrepant behaviors used to advance the organization’s interests, destructive
deviance encompasses behaviors that threaten the well-being of the organi-
zation. This study suggests that Machiavellianism may be an important
mechanism in norm violation. Similarly, individuals’ perception of access to
information within the organization may be a central contextual variable in
eliciting both forms of deviance. This perspective is in line with the manage-
ment literature, which recognizes that resources (e.g., information) are
a critical aspect of: the task context (Johns, 2006), social capital in the
innovation (Fredericks, 2005), and counterproductive workplace behavior
(Colquitt et al., 2001). Future researchers should explore both the individual
and contextual variables that may serve as key mechanisms in workplace
deviance.
The results of this set of studies suggest that constructive deviance is a
multifaceted construct with two dimensions. However, these dimensions did
not show the same strength or pattern of association to various constructs in
the nomological network. For example, the two dimensions of constructive
deviance were differentially related to voice. Voice was significantly related
to interpersonal but not organizational constructive deviance. Future
research should examine the key psychological mechanisms that facilitate
the likelihood of constructive deviance. In particular, it would be valuable to
understand whether these mechanisms are differentially related to the two
dimensions of constructive deviance.
The article also contributes to research in the area of positive psychology
and positive organizational scholarship. In an effort to build positive quali-
ties, scholars have articulated the need for an approach that studies positively
oriented human resource strengths and psychological capabilities that can
improve the workplace (Cameron & Caza, 2004). Employees who deviate
from the norms to increase the well-being of the organization can be the roots
of successful innovations and champions of change. Future research should
empirically examine the relationship between constructive deviance and posi-
tive organizational scholarship constructs that have been largely neglected,
such as virtuousness and courage.
This set of studies also has important implications for practice. These
findings suggest that employees who engage in deviant acts that harm the
organization or those within it also sometimes engage in deviant acts that
benefit the organization. While employees’ adherence to corporate norms,
policies, and procedures is essential for an organization’s survival, strict
adherence to corporate norms, policies, and procedures may in some cases be
undesirable for organizations. When employees strictly follow organizational
procedures, innovative and new approaches to problem solving may be
limited. Employees who display innovative behaviors or who initiate changes
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3017

in task objectives and processes can provide organizations with necessary
innovations and creativity.
Can constructive deviance apply to all organizations? Constructive devi-
ance will likely exist in certain organizations. That is, one will expect con-
structive deviance to thrive in traditional organizations that have many
bureaucratic process and procedures. On the other hand, when there are few
organizational rules and procedures and employees are encouraged to push
the boundaries, employees who intentionally violate norms will not be con-
sidered “deviant.” For example, employees at Google are encouraged to
engage in creative problem solving, which may require some risk taking.
Consequently, those employees who do not follow company procedures with
the intent to help the organization will not be considered “constructive
deviants.” Future research should examine how contextual variables (e.g.,
organizational and national culture) influence both constructive and destruc-
tive workplace deviance. Moreover, focusing on how individual variables
(e.g., self-efficacy and Machiavellianism) moderate the effects of contextual
variables (e.g., organizational culture) on constructive and destructive
deviance will provide us with the greater understanding of the complexities
regarding workplace deviance.
Despite the numerous contributions of this article, this research has limi-
tations that must be considered. First, this set of studies, like most studies on
deviance, relied on self-reports. There are potential confounds in studying
deviant behavior with such a design because respondents may more likely to
respond in a socially desirable manner. Despite this limitation, considerable
research supports the validity of self-reports in general and self-reports of
deviant behaviors (Ones, Viswesvaren, & Schmidt, 1993) in particular. There-
fore, it is reasonable to believe that self-reports can be a valid way of mea-
suring workplace deviant behaviors.
Furthermore, the concern for common method variance can also be a
concern with using self-report surveys. Spector (2006) suggests that a corre-
lation matrix can be reviewed to determine whether the self-report method
has influenced shared bias among the variables. While common method
variance is often a concern in cross-sectional and self-report research, Spector
(2006) states that method variance may be affecting the results when a
baseline level of significant correlation coefficients is observed among all the
variables studied. Given that no baseline level of correlation was observed
among all the variables nor were all variables statistically significant, it is
likely that common method variance is not a significant concern in this study.
Second, the question of whether a deviant behavior is constructive or
destructive may be multifaceted. A deviant behavior that may be functional
for one stakeholder may be dysfunctional for another. For instance, a cus-
tomer may benefit when an employee gives an unauthorized discount, but the
3018 GALPERIN

organization does not benefit. In line with Bennett and Robinson (2000), the
definition of deviance used in this article referred to organizational norms
and expectations of management as organizations will be most interested in
managing norms that were created by the dominant group. Because members
of the organization will most likely share the norms of the dominant group,
greater emphasis should be placed on the norms of the dominant group
compared with norms of a specific department or subculture (Robinson &
Bennett, 1997). Hence, if the organization benefitted from this “deviant”
behavior, it would be labeled as constructive organizational deviance.
Third, the two dimensions of constructive deviance may not include all
types of constructive deviant behaviors. Although efforts were made to
adequately capture the content domain of constructive deviance during scale
development, items with little relevance, low variances, and low interitem
correlations were deleted to ensure reliability. While the resulting scales may
not include a comprehensive list of all constructive deviant behaviors that
relate to specific organizations and occupations, an attempt was made to
develop a reliable and valid scale that can be generalizable to a range of
organizational contexts.
In conclusion, despite the importance of constructive deviance in the
workplace, there has been almost no empirical research in this area. This
study expands our understanding of constructive deviance and demon-
strated important relationships with theoretical antecedents. The impor-
tance of beneficial intentions is critical to the construct of constructive
deviance and distinguishes it from destructive deviance. Hopefully, this
initial investigation will prompt further research into this critical area of
organizational research.
References
Anderson, J. G., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin,103, 411–423.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). AMOS 6.0 User’s Guide. SPSS Inc.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-
cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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, R. A., Neuman, J. H., & Geddes, D. (1999). Social and personal
workplace aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and
Type A Behavior Pattern. Aggressive Behavior,25, 281–296.
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3019

Bass, K., Barnett, T., & Brown, G. (1999). Individual difference variables,
ethical judgments, and ethical behavioral intentions. Business Ethics
Quarterly,9, 183–205.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). The development of a measure of
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology,85, 349–360.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present, and future of
workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational
behavior: The state of science (pp. 247–281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance,
organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,92, 410–424.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York:
Wiley.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model
fit. In K. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models
(pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Calhoun, R. P. (1969). Niccoli Machiavelli and the 20th century administra-
tor. Academy of Management Journal,12, 205–212.
Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the discipline of positive
organizational scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist,47, 731–739.
Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin,56, 81–105.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York:
Academic Press.
Cohen, A. K. (1966). Deviance and control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: How social capital makes
organizations work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y.
(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of
organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 425–
445.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Mehta, K. (2007). The relations of motivational traits
with workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology,92, 967–977.
Dougherty, D., & Heller, T. (1994). The illegitimacy of successful new prod-
ucts in large firms. Organization Science,5, 200–218.
Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job satis-
faction: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal,26, 596–607.
3020 GALPERIN

Fredericks, E. (2005). Cross-functional involvement in new product develop-
ment: A resource dependency and human capital perspective. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal,8, 327–341.
Gable, M., & Dangello, F. (1994). Locus of control, Machiavellianism,
and managerial job performance. Journal of Psychology,128, 599–608.
Galperin, B. L. (2002). Determinants of deviance in the workplace: an empiri-
cal examination of canada and mexico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
Galperin, B. L. (2003). Can workplace deviance be constructive? In
A. Sagie, S. Stashevsky, & M. Koslowsky (Eds.), Misbehavior and
dysfunctional attitudes in organizations (pp. 154–170). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual
analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship.
Psychological Bulletin,112, 310–329.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self efficacy: A theoretical analysis of
its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review,17,
183–211.
Grover, S. L., & Enz, C. A. (2005). The influence of company rules, ethical
climate, and individual characteristics on sales representative’s honesty.
Journal of Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management,11,
27–36.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Hodson, R. (1991). The active worker: Compliance and autonomy at the
workplace. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,20, 47–78.
Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D. M. (2007). Active on the job—Proactive in
change. How autonomy at work contributes to employee support for
organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,43, 401–
426.
Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M., & Higgins, C. A. (2005). Champions of product
innovations: Defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion
behavior. Journal of Business Venturing,20, 641–661.
Hunt, S., & Chonko, L. (1984). Marketing and Machiavellianism. Journal of
Marketing,48, 30–42.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior.
Academy of Management Review,31, 386–408.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kessler, S. R., Bandelli, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C., Nelson,
C. E., & Penney, L. M. (2010). Reexamining Machiavelli: A three dimen-
sional model of Machiavellianism in the workplace. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology,40, 1868–1896.
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3021

Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instru-
ment measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal
of Applied Psychology,76, 619–627.
Latham, G. P., & Frayne, C. A. (1989). Self-management training for
increasing job attendance: A follow-up and replication. Journal of Applied
Psychology,74, 411–416.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,83, 853–868.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1987). Comparison of three
theoretically derived variables in predicting career and academic behav-
ior: Self-efficacy, interest congruence, and consequence thinking. Journal
of Counseling Psychology,34, 293–298.
Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb:
Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology,57,
969–1000.
Malin, M. H. (1983). Protecting the whistle-blower from retaliatory dis-
charge. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform,16, 277–318.
Mandel, M. (2009). The failed promise of innovation in the U.S. Business
Week. Retrieved November 24, 2010, from www.businessweek.com/
magazine/content/09_24/b4135000953288.htm?chan=magazine+channel_
top+stories
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free
Press.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1984). The relationships among beliefs, organi-
zational position, and whistleblowing status: A discriminant analysis.
Academy of Management Journal,27, 687–705.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1985). Characteristics of organizational climate
and perceived wrongdoing associated with whistle-blowing decisions.
Personnel Psychology,38, 525–544.
Morrison, E. W. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of prosocial
rule breaking. Journal of Management,32, 5–28.
Mudrack, P. M., & Mason, E. S. (1996). Individual ethical beliefs and
perceived organizational interests. Journal of Business Ethics,15, 851–
861.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and
the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review,23, 242–
266.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1987). Whistle-blowers in organizations: Dissi-
dents or reformers? Research in Organizational Behavior,9, 321–368.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the
relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Academy of Management Journal,36, 527–556.
3022 GALPERIN

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaren, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Meta-analysis of
integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection
and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,78, 679–
703.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of citizenship behavior. In
B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(vol. 12, pp. 43–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The role of job
enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied
Psychology,83, 835–862.
Parker, S. K., Williams, E. S., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents
of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,91, 636–
652.
Pepinsky, P. (1961). Social exceptions that prove the rule. In I. A. Berg &
B. M. Bass (Eds.), Conformity and deviation (pp. 380–411). New York:
Harper & Bros.
Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., & Rudolf, C. J. (1980). The behavioral
and affective consequences of performance-relevant situational
variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,25, 79–
96.
Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organizational theory: Problems and
prospects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in
leader satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly,1, 107–142.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes
and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass Inc.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal,38, 555–572.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition,
its nature and its causes. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & R. J. Bies
(Eds.), Research on negotiation in organization (vol. 6, pp. 3–28). Green-
wich, CT: JAI.
Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimen-
sions, 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.
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3023

Ross, W. T., & Robertson, D. C. (2000). Lying: The impact of decision
context. Business Ethics Quarterly,10, 409–440.
Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G., III. (1988). Impact
of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative
model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management
Journal,31, 599–627.
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. L., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., &
Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management
research: Comments and a qualitative approach for assessing the theo-
retical content adequacy of paper and pencil survey-type instruments.
Journal of Management,19, 385–417.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or
urban legend? Organizational Research Methods,9, 221–232.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary
work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior
(CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Human Resource
Management Review,12, 269–292.
Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator
and moderator between control and complexity at work and personal
initiative: A longitudinal study in East Germany. Human Performance,10,
171–192.
Spreitzer, G. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal,39, 483–504.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of
positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist,47, 828–847.
Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frus-
tration with reported behavioral reactions: The moderating effect of locus
of control. Journal of Occupational Psychology,60, 227–234.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tang, T. L., & Chen, Y. J. (2008). Intelligence vs wisdom: The love of money,
Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior across college major and
gender. Journal of Business Ethics,82, 1–26.
Thau, S., Crossley, C., Bennett, R. J., & Sczesny, S. (2007). The relationship
between trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors. Human
Relations,60, 1155–1179.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and valida-
tion. Academy of Management Journal,37, 765–802.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra role behavior:
Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management
Journal,41, 108–119.
3024 GALPERIN

Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research,
and management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership,
procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and orga-
nizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of
Applied Psychology,93, 517–529.
Warren, D. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations.
Academy of Management Review,28, 622–632.
Weinstein, D. (1979). Bureaucratic opposition. New York: Pergamon Press.
West, M. A. (1987). A measure of role innovation at work. British Journal of
Social Psychology,26, 83–85.
Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and
neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly,34, 521–539.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organization
management. Academy of Management Review,14, 361–684.
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVIANCE 3025