Understanding and managing misbehavior in organizations

Full text

220
It is quite safe to assume that most, if not all, members
of work organizations, throughout their employment,
engage in some form of misbehavior that is related to
their jobs, albeit in varying degrees of frequency and inten-
sity. Such misbehaviors appear to range the full spectrum
from relatively minor to very serious, for example, work-
place incivility; insulting behaviors; social undermining;
theft of company assets; acts of destructiveness, vandalism,
and sabotage; substance abuse; and misconduct perpetrated
against fellow employees, toward the employer, or toward
other organizations. Such acts of misbehavior are important
organizational events and must be better understood (Fox &
Spector 2005; Kidwell & Martin 2005; Griffin & O’Leary-
Kelly 2004; Vardi & Weitz 2004).
Organizational misbehavior (OMB) comes with a hefty
price tag attached to it. Just 10 years ago, estimates of the
costs of the most prevalent misbehavior, employee theft, run
as high as $200 billion annually in the United States alone.
Estimates of total costs resulting from problem drinking in
the workplace were close to $170 billion. Fortunately, with
the awareness of costs comes a growing consciousness of
OMB. As Trevino, Weaver, and Reynolds (2006) recently
stated, “Stakeholders, including stockholders, communi-
ties, and governments, have placed increasing pressure
on organizations to manage employees’ behavior in ways
that will reduce individuals’ illegal and unethical conduct”
(p. 951). It is therefore incumbent upon managers to learn
and know about such phenomena in their organizations,
and to develop effective ways of properly managing them
(see Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson 2005, chap. 8). In
order to control such costs, leaders need to understand what
motivates employees, as well as which factors in the work
environment are conducive to such behaviors.
Over the last two decades, the prevalence of misbehav-
iors in the workplace has come to be coupled with a wide
array of scholarly definitions and conceptualizations. They
also come under a variety of terms denoting similar mean-
ing, such as the following:
• noncompliant behavior (Puffer 1987);
• organizational misbehavior (Vardi & Wiener 1996; Ackroyd
& Thompson 1999);
• workplace deviance (Robinson & Bennett 1995);
• workplace aggression (Baron & Neuman 1996; O’Leary-
Kelly, Griffin, & Glew 1996);
• antisocial behavior (Giacalone & Greenberg 1997);
• employee vice (Moberg 1997);
• retaliatory behavior (Skarlicki & Folger 1997); and
• counterproductive behavior (Sackett & Devore 2001).
Considering workplace misbehavior as a form of devi-
ance, Hollinger (1986) observed that sociological research
72
UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING
MISBEHAVIOR IN ORGANIZATIONS
ELY WEITZ
Tel Aviv University
YOAV VARDI
Tel Aviv University
Wankel_Part11_1PGS.indd 220 10/22/07 9:44:03 PM

on employee misbehavior centers around two foci: produc-
tion deviance and property deviance. The first category in-
cludes various types of behavior that are counterproductive
(e.g., substandard work, slowdowns, insubordination), and
the second category pertains to acts against property and
assets of the organization (e.g., theft, pilferage, embezzle-
ment, vandalism).
A more comprehensive, empirically based typology of
deviant workplace behavior was developed by Robinson
and Bennett (1995). They conceived of employee deviance
as voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational
norms and that threatens the well-being of an organization,
its members, or both. They offered a typology of “employee
deviance” that consists of two dimensions: one running
from personal to organizational targets, and the other from
minor to serious infractions. Therefore, four types of vol-
untary and harmful misconduct emerge: (a) production
deviance (e.g., wasting resources), (b) property deviance
(e.g., stealing from company), (c) political deviance (e.g.,
showing undue favoritism), and (d) personal deviance (e.g.,
sexual harassment). Here, we expand on these typologies
and offer a more comprehensive framework for learning
about misbehavior in organizations.
The underlying question is, “Why do members of orga-
nizations engage in acts that constitute deviance from an
acceptable mode of employee behavior?” Among scholars
of management ethics, there is an ongoing debate as to
whether the decision to misbehave (e.g., to make an unethi-
cal decision) is more a function of “bad apples” or of “bad
barrels.” That is, are misbehaviors a function of the personal
characteristics of individuals (the “bad apples” perspective)
or of organizational and societal variables (the “bad barrels”
perspective)? For example, some argue that organizational
psychopaths may be responsible for organizational mis-
behavior including accounting fraud, stock manipulation,
unnecessarily high job losses, and corporately induced
environmental damage (Boddy 2006). Others argue that
neither the individual nor the organizational and societal
perspectives alone fully explain organizational misbehavior.
Most, indeed, propose explanations that integrate both per-
spectives (e.g., Robinson & Bennett 1995; Vardi & Weitz
2004). That is, organizational misbehavior is a function of
the person and of circumstances.
We propose that misbehavior in organizations should
be viewed not only as pervasive but, as intentional work
related behavior that mostly (yet not necessarily) bears
negative consequences for both individuals (perpetrators
and targets) and the organization. OMB is an integral com-
ponent of organizational reality and an important facet of
individual, group, and organization conduct—not a mar-
ginal, negligent (i.e., deviant) organizational occurrence.
We therefore adopt the Vardi and Wiener (1996) definition
of organizational misbehavior (OMB) as “any intentional
action by member/s of organization/s which defies and vio-
lates (a) shared organizational norms and expectations, and/
or (b) core societal values, mores and standards of proper
conduct” (p. 151). This excludes unintentional acts such
as accidental damage to a machine or injury to a coworker
which, albeit significant and costly, are not committed with
a conscious purpose to inflict damage.
BASIC TYPES OF OMB
An examination of a broad range of norm violating behav-
iors in the workplace suggests that all such actions may be
classified into three basic categories in terms of the underly-
ing intention of the misbehaving individual:
1. Misbehaviors that are intended to benefit the self (OMB
Type S): These are mostly internal to the organization and
usually victimize the employing firm or its members. Such
behaviors may have three categories of internal targets:
(a) the work itself (e.g., distorting data); (b) the organiza-
tion’s property, resources, symbols, or regulations (e.g.,
stealing and selling manufacturing secrets); and (c) other
members (e.g., harassing peers). An exception is a behavior
by a member that appears to benefit the organization (e.g.,
overcharging customers), but is, in fact, intended to eventu-
ally benefit the individual (e.g., gaining a promotion).
2. Misbehaviors that are primarily intended to benefit the
member’s employing organization as a whole (OMB Type
O): These (e.g., falsifying records or offering inducements
in order to improve chances of obtaining a contract for the
organization) are usually directed toward external victims
such as other organizations, social institutions, public agen-
cies, or customers. If the intention underlying this form of
behavior is not primarily to benefit the organization, but is
self-serving (e.g., for career considerations), it should not
be classified as OMB Type O. More likely, this would be
OMB Type S.
3. Misbehaviors that primarily intend to inflict damage and to
be destructive (OMB Type D): Targets of these behaviors
could be both internal and external. Whereas the intentions
underlying Type S and Type O misbehaviors are to benefit
either the individual or the organization, the intention under-
lying OMB Type D is to hurt others or the organization.
Such intentional misbehaviors (e.g., sabotaging company-
owned equipment) may be perpetrated by members either
on their own volition (e.g., as a revenge or a response to
perceived or actual mistreatment) or on behalf of significant
others (e.g., interfering with organizational operations to
comply with a union’s expectations). However, the underly-
ing intention must be to cause some type of damage. As a
rule, when more than one intention seems to underlie an act
of OMB, and when observations yield equivocal data, the
predominant intention would determine the classification.
ANTECEDENTS OF OMB
Over the years, researchers have identified many ante-
cedents contributing to property misconduct as feelings of
Understanding and Managing Misbehavior in Organizations • 221
Wankel_Part11_1PGS.indd 221 10/22/07 9:44:04 PM

222 • ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
injustice or exploitation, attempts to ease personal financial
pressure, moral laxity, available opportunities, dissatisfac-
tion with work, perceptions of pay inequity, feelings of
frustration, and a desire to revenge. Vandalism, as property
deviance, was also found to be associated with percep-
tions of inequity and mistreatment. Others have viewed mis-
behavior principally as retaliatory tactics against manage-
ment mistreatment.
Our definition of OMB and the proposed conceptual
framework, which emphasizes the distinction between nor-
mative and instrumental determinants of misbehavior, sug-
gest the existence of identifiable antecedents that may affect
the formation of the motivational components in the model.
We believe that antecedents contributing to the instrumental
component would primarily influence Type S misbehavior,
and that antecedents contributing to the normative compo-
nent would affect Type O misbehavior. Both forces may
influence OMB Type D misbehavior. The antecedents are
categorized according to the levels of analysis generally ac-
cepted by scholars of organizational behavior: organization,
group, task, and individual.
Organization-Level Antecedents
Organizational goals
Organizational goals—both implicit and declared targets
that serve to translate organization strategy to actual plans,
closely reflecting top management values and expectations
—are likely to strongly influence members’ job perfor-
mance and productivity levels. However, the pursuit of orga-
nizational goals may also encourage employee misbehavior,
particularly when they are conflicting, highly demanding,
vague, or unrealistic (Stein & Kanter 1993) and are sup-
ported by a strong culture or by “neurotic” (Kets de Vries
& Miller 1984) executives. Ackroyd and Thompson (1999),
for example, posited that employee misconduct is mostly a
form of protest against arbitrary managerial control.
Control systems
Control systems are physical or procedural entities
within the workplace designed specifically to reduce the
occurrence of events judged to be detrimental to the orga-
nization. Typically, they serve to increase the risk of detec-
tion, and thus, the likelihood that perpetrators of such acts
will be sanctioned (Sackett & DeVore 2001). It stands to
reason that oppressive—as well as lax—controls, perfor-
mance appraisal, rewards, disciplinary systems, and special
monitoring arrangements may contribute to the emergence
of OMB. Certain jobs and work organizations involve op-
erations for which external control of employee behavior
is inherently difficult. Home delivery, professional or food
services, and operations in which cash transactions cannot
be directly monitored by receipts and inventory counts are
only a few examples of work processes that may, at times,
be difficult to monitor. Thus, control systems may have
direct impact on members’ instrumental considerations on
whether to engage in, or refrain from, acts of misconduct:
when confronted with extreme control (e.g., surveillance),
employees might attempt to resist and protest through dam-
aging behavior (OMB Type D); lax controls may, however,
be perceived as a sign of trust and may lead to exemplary
behavior. However, the very same signals may be viewed
as a form of organizational weakness and may present a
built-in opportunity to misbehave.
Organizational culture and climate
Organizational culture is widely regarded as a construct
denoting the extent to which members share core organi-
zational values (Wiener 1988). Several writers have dem-
onstrated the power of culture as a tool used by certain
dominant groups to shape members’ values and to reduce
deviance (Boye & Jones 1997). Furthermore, the way em-
ployees perceive the fairness with which they are treated
and the perceived equity of the distribution of resources
are important antecedents of misbehavior. Thus, ethical or-
ganizational policies and practices (ethical climate) clearly
influence the ways in which employees behave and misbe-
have (e.g., Vardi 2001).
Organizational cohesiveness
Cohesiveness is the degree of social bonding and nor-
mative closeness. In very cohesive work environments, the
pressures to adhere to norms of work conduct are especially
high. Cohesiveness, therefore, may affect misbehavior in
a manner similar to the way that organizational culture
effects OMB (Vardi & Wiener 1996). Indeed, it may be
more powerful. We regard this organization characteristic
as a significant antecedent that may strongly contribute to
wrongdoing in the name of ideology and organizational
causes (OMB Type O). It may also facilitate and encourage
widespread “prosocial” rule breaking in the organization
(Morrison 2006).
Group-Level Antecedents
As Goffman (1971) so vividly demonstrated, the self
exists only in relation to others. In the workplace, the work-
group is indeed a very significant other. Griffin, O’Leary-
Kelly, & Colins (1998) emphasized the importance of groups
both in terms of both the cause and the consequences of
what they call “dysfunctional behavior” in organizations.
Internal pressures
Ever since the role of work group affiliation was demon-
strated to be a major determinant of work behavior, groups
have captured significant research attention. Studies on
groups and their effects within the organizational setting
Wankel_Part11_1PGS.indd 222 10/22/07 9:44:05 PM

have exposed both positive (productivity) and negative (re-
striction) effects. Most theorists and researchers posit that
work groups bear a positive influence on individual work
behavior by reinforcing normative performance and at-
titudes. Such influential social-psychological approaches
as Bandura’s (1973) social learning theory and Salancik
and Pfeffer’s (1978) social information processing theory
attempt to explain why and how groups exercise (positive)
power over their members. Social information process-
ing theory would suggest that if one is a member of a
workgroup in which misbehavior such as pilfering or false
reporting goes unsanctioned, he or she is more likely to
engage in such misbehavior as well.
External pressures
Interest in group behavior in organizations has received
significant boost from contingency, charismatic and trans-
formation, and team leadership theories (Avolio 1999).
These approaches, however, tend to emphasize the role of
the manager-leader in influencing subordinate (individual
and group) normative behavior. But leaders may encourage
both positive and negative attitudes and behaviors. Green-
berg (1997) explicated the role of groups in enhancing not
only prosocial, but also antisocial (e.g., stealing), work be-
havior. Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998) found that the
group’s antisocial behavior may actually serve as a model
for individual members’ work related OMB (e.g., damaging
employer property, purposely hurting a colleague, deliber-
ately breaking rules).
Task-Level Antecedents
Job design
Most jobs are designed so that they include some built-in
opportunity to take advantage of or misuse various organi-
zational resources (e.g., time, office equipment; work tools,
telephone and mail, Internet, etc.). In many cases, the degree
to which such built-in opportunities exist may enter into the
instrumental calculations by the employee concerning the
benefits, consequences, and risks of capitalizing on such
opportunities. Some work organizations apply stringent
mechanisms to determine what their employees are doing at
any given moment, while other employ lax systems or none
at all. It is clear that these may affect employee behavior
and misbehavior in the workplace. Vardi and Weitz (2001)
reported results of a field study in which job autonomy was
a significant predictor of misbehavior.
Individual-Level Antecedents
Personality
Two personality variables in particular seem to affect
motivational components and, in turn, the intention to en-
gage in OMB: the level of moral development and the de-
gree of sociopathic predisposition—the state characterized
by disregard for social norms and obligations without the
inhibiting experience of guilt and remorse—of an organi-
zation member. Of course, extreme degrees of sociopa-
thy characterize only a marginal portion of any legitimate
organization’s workforce.
Significant relationships between certain personality
traits and workplace delinquency were reported by Ashton
(1998). Trevino (1986) proposed the usefulness of such
traits as locus of control and field dependence in predict-
ing unethical decision-making behavior among managers.
Griffin et al. (1998), too, included individual ethics, values,
and morality as antecedents of dysfunctional work behavior.
Fox and Spector (1999) also found that personality traits af-
fect misbehavior and reported that significant relationships
exist between irascibility, anxiety, impulsiveness, and or-
ganizational misbehavior. In addition, it is common knowl-
edge that in extreme cases, sociopathic predispositions or
pathological tendencies of organizational members are im-
portant antecedents of such conduct. Hence, undoubtedly,
personality plays a role in determining whether a worker
will misbehave.
Attitudes
When individuals perceive that they are being mis-
treated by their employing organizations, the valence of
self-benefiting misbehavior may increase (Vardi & Wiener
1996). Researchers as Greenberg (1990) discovered that such
feelings may lead to employee theft. Hackett (1989) found a
stable relationship between job dissatisfaction and absentee-
ism, and Klein, Leong, and Silva (1996) reported a relation-
ship between workplace dissatisfaction and sabotage.
OMB MANIFESTATIONS
Following Vardi & Weitz’s (2004) classification, we or-
ganize the expressions and manifestations of OMB in five
broad categories: (a) intrapersonal misbehavior (e.g., work-
place problem drinking, drug abuse, workaholic behavior),
(b) interpersonal misbehavior (e.g., incivility, aggressive
behavior, bullying, sexual harassment), (c) production mis-
behavior (e.g., rule breaking, loafing, absenteeism, tardi-
ness), (d) property misbehavior (e.g., vandalism, theft, es-
pionage, computer hacking), and (e) political misbehavior
(e.g., misuse of power, impression management, politick-
ing, favoritism).
Intraperson Manifestations
Substance abuse
One of the critical manifestations of intrapersonal mis-
behavior in the workplace is substance abuse, or excessive
Understanding and Managing Misbehavior in Organizations • 223
Wankel_Part11_1PGS.indd 223 10/22/07 9:44:05 PM

224 • ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
use of substances such as alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs
(Bacharach, Bamberger, & Sonnenstuhl 2002; Mangione,
Howland, & Lee 1998). The use of drugs by workers is
perceived to be a growing problem for the American labor
force.
Workaholism
Individuals may choose to “abuse” themselves at work
in other ways as well. They may, for example, exaggerate
the role work plays in their lives. Some, for a variety of
reasons, become increasingly devoted to their jobs, to their
work, and to their careers. Such overcommitment and over-
involvement has been dubbed “workaholism” to denote a
form of addictive behavior (e.g., Peiperl & Jones 2001).
Interperson Manifestations
Incivility
We begin with what Andersson and Pearson (1999) so
aptly call “workplace incivility.” We find it necessary to
stress that even miniscule expressions of impoliteness or
rudeness may spiral into increasingly aggressive behaviors.
One of the most common forms of workplace incivility
is, without doubt, insulting behavior. Gabriel (1998), who
charted different forms of insulting behavior such as exclu-
sion, stereotyping, ingratitude, scapegoating, rudeness, and
being ignored or being kept waiting, offered a unique in-
sight into the social psychology of insults in organizations.
To G ab ri el, i ns ul ts ar e in te nd ed to b e slighting, humiliating,
or offensive. Cynicism, another form of disparagement, is
becoming an inherent characteristic of as much as 43% of
the American workforce (Kanter & Mirvis 1989). We treat
cynicism as OMB because organizational members are
expected to take their work environment seriously and act
responsibly.
Revenge
Retribution and revenge are retaliatory behaviors well
documented in human history (“eye for an eye”) and are,
not surprisingly, prevalent in organizational behavior (e.g.,
Skalicki & Folger 1997). McLean Parks (1997) has writ-
ten extensively about the “art and science” of revenge in
organizations. She has explored retribution both from the
perspective of internal justice, as well as the reciprocity
norms on which assessments of organizational justice and
injustice are based. Her focus is on a type of reciprocal
behavior that is relatively neglected: retributive justice, a
form of justice available to those in organizations who feel
mistreated, but are relatively less powerful. Perpetrators
of workplace violence often see themselves as victims of
injustice in the workplace. We view such conduct primarily
as OMB Type D.
Hostility, aggression, bullying, and violence.
Cumulative survey data clearly demonstrate how preva-
lent violence in the workplace is. For example, in 1993
about 480 managers were surveyed about violence in their
companies by Society for Human Resource Management
(SHRM). Seventy-five percent reported fistfights, 17% re-
ported shooting, 7.5% stabbing, and 6.5% sexual assault. A
year later, the American Management Association (AMA),
found that of the 500 general managers surveyed about 10%
reported fistfights and assault with weapons, and about 1%
reported workplace rape. The 1996 SHRM survey shows
that 48% respondents reported violent incidents in their
companies as compared to 57% in the 1999 survey. Inci-
dents of work related homicides frequent the media citing
emotional upheaval, stress, drugs, and layoffs as just a few
of the factors which trigger such crisis events (Mantell
1994).
Sexual harassment
Flirting, bantering, and sexual attraction are common-
place in work organizations. Certainly, not all social ex-
changes which have a sexual flavor constitute harassment
or assault. Cleveland, Stockdale, and Murphy (2000) differ-
entiate between workplace romance and sexual harassment.
Consensual relationships, defined as those reflecting posi-
tive and autonomous expressions of workers’ attraction, are
prevalent in the workplace. Sexual harassment, however,
consists of unwelcome advances, requests for sexual favors,
or physical conduct of a sexual nature. It is unfortunately
a pervasive phenomenon in work organizations. According
to Schneider, Swan and Fitzgerald (1997), to cite just one
credible source, close to 75% of female employees report
that they have been the object of sexually harassing behav-
iors in their workplaces.
Withdrawal behavior
Undoubtedly, the most prevalent production related
misbehavior is the physical as well as the psychological
absence or withdrawal from work (e.g., Hackett 1989). In
human resource terms, we refer to these as dysfunctional
lateness, absence, and turnover. Unjustified absence from
work and excessive tardiness, if they are acts of defiance
of organizational norms, regardless of their consequences,
are indeed a form of production and work-process-related
OMB. Not only do such behaviors negatively affect indi-
vidual performance, they affect coworkers’ attitudes and
work behaviors as well.
Social loafing
Through a collective effort, teamwork may, indeed, ease
the load and creatively enhance productivity. However,
Wankel_Part11_1PGS.indd 224 10/22/07 9:44:06 PM

working in a team may also cause individual members to
exert less effort than they may otherwise—social loafing
(see Kidwell & Bennett 1993). The survival and success of
a team are greatly dependent on members’ belief that their
participation in it will be personally beneficial to them,
more so than if they worked on their own. When this belief
is lacking, the willingness of the team members to contrib-
ute their relative share (sometimes more than their share) to
the success of the collective task, diminishes.
Whistle-blowing
Typically, whistle-blowing is an act undertaken by an
employee when he or she decides to inform internal or
external authorities or members of the media about prac-
tices considered unacceptable in the workplace. We view
this phenomenon as a case of intentional organizational
misbehavior, because in many settings, it may constitute
a violation of core norms of duty expected from members.
It is, to many, a form of treason or betrayal. Two of the
most prominent researchers and writers on whistle-blowing,
Near and Miceli (1997), view it as antisocial organizational
behavior—behavior that is intentionally performed by a
member of an organization directed toward an individual,
group, or organization that the actor interacts with, with the
intention of causing harm. For whistle-blowing to qualify as
antisocial behavior under this definition, it must be pursued
with the intent of inflicting damage or harming others. This
behavior, then, is consistent with OMB Type D (Vardi &
Wiener 1996), and it would also be regarded as an antisocial
act of retaliation or revenge (Miceli & Near 1997). Blow-
ing the whistle on the organization, or on specific members
(e.g., superiors), would be considered as OMB Type O if it
is motivated by a strong sense of identification with organi-
zational values and mission, and thus, by a genuine concern
for its well being and success.
Political behavior
Scholars of organizations have pursued different avenues
in their exploration of the intricacies of political action
within work organizations. For most, the emphasis has been
on the ways individuals and groups acquire and use power
and influence to obtain desired resources. Some of the tac-
tics actors choose to use are indeed legitimate and part of
the normative system. At times, however, these tactics may
indeed be negative, manipulative, and exploitative in nature
(Vigoda 1997). We take the second approach and consider
as OMB those behaviors that are self-serving and manipu-
lative and not sanctioned by the organization. Such behav-
ior has many potentially negative consequences, including
conflict and disharmony that occur when elements in the
organization are pitted against each other. When individuals
resort to deceptive and manipulative political tactics that are
in violation of organizational codes of acceptable conduct,
they clearly engage in acts of organizational misbehavior.
Moreover, when their work environment becomes too po-
litically oriented or politicized, it may inadvertently become
an arena for various other manifestations of misconduct,
such as social undermining and subversion, incivility and
insult, betrayal, and revenge.
Property Manifestations
Conceptually, we regard acts such as theft, vandalism,
and espionage as organizational misbehavior when the act
violates core organizational and/or societal rules. Thus, if
the company specifies that using the company car for pri-
vate use is not permitted, any such use may be regarded as
OMB Type S if the purpose was to benefit from it.
Employee theft
Employee theft is by far the most pervasive and intrigu-
ing form of organizational misbehavior, and one of the
costliest. Employees at all levels take home office sup-
plies such as paper clips, return late from breaks, misuse
computer time, falsify reimbursement requests, embezzle
monies, cheat customers, use a design idea for private busi-
ness—theft of some valuable organizational resource. It is
estimated that 75% of organizational members steal some-
thing of value from their workplace at least once, and that
most damage is not due to isolated grand theft cases, but to
the accumulation of petty theft. To the extent that people
desire to present themselves as behaving in a morally ap-
propriate manner, they attempt to negotiate the legitimacy
of their acts of taking with others who threaten to impose
labels (e.g., “thief”) that challenge their moral self-images.
Efforts to dissuade others from interpreting one’s taking
behavior as acts of theft involve different mental mecha-
nisms and tactics such as neutralization and rationalization.
Greenberg (1997) proposed that employee theft may be
deterred by efforts to counter these cognitive strategies as
well as attempts to strengthen inhibiting forces and weaken
encouraging forces.
Sabotage and vandalism
Undoubtedly, the most blatant manifestations of em-
ployee misconduct that target the organization’s products
and property with the intention to inflict some damage are
vandalism and sabotage. Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987)
suggested that employee sabotage occurs when people
who are currently employed in an organization engage in
intentional behaviors that effectively damage that firm’s
property, reputation, products, or services. Harris and
Ogbonna (2006) found evidence of deliberate employee
misbehavior—sabotage—in a variety of service settings.
Some mild forms of sabotage and vandalism, such as graf-
fiti or spreading rumors maligning the employer, are quite
Understanding and Managing Misbehavior in Organizations • 225
Wankel_Part11_1PGS.indd 225 10/22/07 9:44:06 PM

226 • ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
often dismissed by management and may at times even be
tolerated. Any act that purposely inflicts some damage on
the organization as a whole, its assets, or its stakeholders
we regard as OMB Type D—damaging, destructive, or
disparaging behavior committed intentionally.
Cyber crime
One of the most frightening documents we read on
computer-related misbehavior is Cornwall’s (1987) book
Datatheft. It chillingly describes the endless opportunities
to misbehave, the unlimited possibilities that the computer
and the telecommunication systems provide and the incred-
ible repertoire of activities they generate. With the Internet’s
infinite capabilities of handling sensitive data, the opportu-
nities to steal and manipulate other people’s data have risen
exponentially.
A MODEL OF OMB MANAGEMENT
This framework posits four key points of intervention along
the OMB process by which the organization may act to lower
the probability of organizational misbehavior occurring
(thus minimizing costs and other negative consequences).
These four action levers differ with respect to their focus,
and hence, call for different kinds of interventions. One
important implication derived from this perspective is that
we should think of the management of OMB not as a linear
but as an iterative process (i.e., dynamic, repetitive, ongo-
ing). Furthermore, the organization may apply a preventive
strategy (i.e., try to prevent OMB) or a responsive strategy
(react to identifiable OMB), or both. The key issue is, “To
what extent does the intervention succeed in lowering the
level and frequency of the misbehavior?”
In order to cope with organizational misbehavior, one
must be familiar with the dynamics of the phenomenon.
That is, management needs to gain an understanding of
why employees intend to misbehave. Management should
also be aware of the organizational forces that influence (in-
crease or decrease) the intention to misbehave, and what are
the possible expressions and costs that are to be expected.
It is, however, important to keep in mind that there are
possible beneficial as well as adverse consequences of the
intervention(s) designed to control these behaviors.
We do not intend to provide the reader with a com-
plete one-size-fits-all remedy to organizational misbehav-
ior—such a panacea is beyond our reach. After all, work
organizations differ in their goals, values, culture, rules,
norms, and design, as well as in their control systems and
the built-in opportunities they provide their members to
misbehave. Similarly, employees differ in their personal-
ity traits, personal needs, attitudes, intentions, and desires.
Thus, the varieties of possible forms of misbehavior, as well
as the ways to confront them, make it impossible to cover
the whole range of possible antecedents and expressions
of OMB and to develop and implement a generic solution.
Our goal is to offer some aids for the decision makers and
organization development practitioners in their attempt to
cope with the problem, to present the reader with guidelines
for dealing with the relevant issues and devising proper
alternatives for action. A word of caution: Interventions
designed to prevent OMB may have an adverse impact on
the level of OMB if not designed and implemented carefully
and sensitively.
The Rationale for OMB Management
Although the costs of OMB alone may give sufficient
reason for management to attempt to control it, other ratio-
nales exist as well. First and foremost is the legal rationale:
Many forms of OMB (e.g., theft, homicide, fraud, sexual
harassment, discrimination) are legally forbidden by state
regulations which employers are obliged to enforce. More-
over, companies are typically considered liable for the ac-
tions of their employees even when these actions are not in
accordance with company policies, and firms can be held
responsible for employees’ OMB. For example, employers
may be held liable of negligent hiring or negligent reten-
tion of employees with a known propensity for violence
(Towler 2001).
As shown above, the wide range of recorded manifesta-
tions and the heavy social and economic price tag they bear
clearly indicate that organizational misbehavior cannot be
perceived as a marginal aspect of the organizational life nor
can it be overlooked. Managers should be aware of the phe-
nomenon, its negative consequences to the organization and
its stakeholders, and their need to alleviate the problem.
Prevention and Response
Researchers debate whether the organization should
focus its efforts to cope with OMB in preventive activi-
ties (e.g., use selection procedures to screen out potential
troublemakers, design the job a-priori so that it does not al-
low autonomy-related misbehavior), or responsive activities
(e.g., termination of employees caught stealing). Denenberg
and Braverman (1999) argued that trying to identify the
cause of violence (and for that matter, any form of OMB)
makes less practical sense than examining the capacity of
the organization to respond to the signs of stress or potential
danger, whatever their origin. Prevention, they argue, lies in
recognizing the need for a prompt and effective response as
soon as early signs (such as distress) appear. Hence, a more
significant question, they claim, is not what causes orga-
nizational misbehavior, but rather, how well (i.e., quickly
and efficiently) does the system respond to misbehavior
(irrespective of the cause).
We follow Collins and Griffin’s (1998) proposed ap-
proach that counterproductive workplace behavior can be
managed through the prevention of dysfunctional activities,
the maintenance of functional work behavior, and the dis-
Wankel_Part11_1PGS.indd 226 10/22/07 9:44:07 PM

charge of counterproductive employees when other means
have failed. Prevention, they claim, begins with personnel
selection and screening using cognitive ability (e.g., critical
reasoning, interpersonal problem solving) and personality
(e.g., reliability) tests designed to predict both produc-
tive and counterproductive job performance. Maintenance
involves the integration of the newly hired employee into
the organization through regulated practices, procedures,
and culture.
Figure 72.1 presents an integrative model of organi-
zational misbehavior. It identifies four main points of in-
tervention designed to decrease the likelihood of OMB
occurring. These interventions are assumed to influence the
future recurrence of the misbehavior by affecting actors’
intention to misbehave, directly or indirectly.
OMB Interventions
By OMB interventions, we mean any planned action
taken by the organization in order to cope (i.e., prevent,
control and/or respond) with organizational misbehavior
with the intention of reducing the probability, frequency,
scope and costs. Our model suggests four points of inter-
vention, in which the organization may attempt to intervene
and lower the possibility of organizational misbehavior
taking place. These phases are marked A, B, C, and D. As
depicted, these four action levers address the four main
transitions in the process: the preliminary phase (A), which
can also be thought of as the costs [ antecedents transition
when dealing with second-order misbehavior; antecedents
[ intention transition (B); intention [ expressions transition
(C); and expressions [ costs transition (D). Importantly, it
is assumed that at all points, the intervention influence the
possibility of the recurrence of the misbehavior by affect-
ing actors’ and colleagues’ intentions to misbehave, either
directly (phases B and C) or indirectly (phases A and D).
The following section discusses these four points of inter-
vention in depth.
Phase A—Preemployment
At this stage, interventions can be designed to prevent
misbehavior from occurring in the first place or to alter
the existing antecedents to prevent misbehavior. Use of
selection techniques and careful job design/redesign meth-
odologies are two examples for such interventions. The
goal at this stage should be keeping potential OMB-related
antecedents out of the organization. Such tactics may some-
times be problematic, as with the case of a job that requires
assertiveness (e.g., sales people)—a personality trait that
Individual Level
Personality
Values
Attitudes
Affect and Emotion
Stress
Position Task Level
Job Design
Job characteristics:
Autonomy
Responsibility
Pressures
Jobtype:
Employment Status
Built-in Opportunity to Misbehave
Group Level
Norms
Cohesiveness
Group Dynamics
Leadership
Organizational and Prefessional Level
Organization Type
Goals
Culture
Climate
Control System
Organizational Socialization
Organizational and professional Ethics
ANTECEDENTS
AB C D
MEDIATORS EXPRESSIONS COSTS
Normative force
Internalized
Organizational
Expectations
Instrumental force
Beliefs about
Personal Interests
Intention
To
Misbehave
Aimed at Antecedents:
Selection
Education and Training
Job Redesign
Aimed at Expressions:
Reward and Punishment
Termination
EAPs
INTERVENTIONS
Political Misbehavior
Impression
Management
Favoritism
Misuse of power
Property Misbehavior
Theft
Vandalism and Sabotage
Misuse of assets\property
Industrial Espionage
Production Misbehavior
Absenteeism
Social Loafing
Restriction of output
Interpersonal Misbehavior
Violence and Agression
Discrimination
Sexual harassment
Bullying
Intrapersonal Misbehavior
Substance Abuse
Workaholism
Financial Costs
Productivity Loss
Lawsuits and Compensation
Reputation
Social Costs
Mental and Physical Injuries
Psychological Withdrawal
Job Dissatisfaction
Figure 72.1 A Revised Integrative Model of Organizational Misbehavior Management
Understanding and Managing Misbehavior in Organizations • 227
Wankel_Part11_1PGS.indd 227 10/22/07 9:44:07 PM

228 • ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
is arguably desirable, yet not too dissimilar and not easily
differentiated in the selection stage from aggressiveness,
which might lead to violent behavior on the job.
Phase B—Socialization
The intention formation stage (the antecedent [ intention
transition or phase B) calls for two axes of intervention: one
that is aimed at affecting the normative force and one that
is aimed at affecting the instrumental force. In both cases,
the goal is to lower the possibility of a given antecedent(s)
to trigger the intention to misbehave. In other words, in-
terventions at this stage need to enhance the identifica-
tion of the sense of wrongdoing within the individual—the
understanding that, for example, stealing is wrong, or that
violence is not the solution—while at the same time reduc-
ing the instrumental motive to misbehave (“If I am caught
stealing I might get fired”).
An intervention at this point may address a specific ante-
cedent (e.g., personal attitudes, built-in opportunity) or, as-
suming that the antecedents have a common denominator(s),
be designed to address one or more of the four possible
levels of antecedents (i.e., individual, task/position, group
or organization). For example, job redesign may reduce the
built-in opportunity to misbehave (i.e., reduce the instru-
mental force) while a systemwide effort to disseminate,
communicate, and implement a nonmisbehavior policy (i.e.,
cultural change) throughout the organization may reduce
the normative force. Some interventions may influence
both normative and instrumental forces: a formal mentor-
ship program, for example, may help communicate values
of proper conduct to newcomers (normative), as well as the
possible sanctions facing misbehavior (instrumental).
Phase C—Behavior Control
The focus of intervention at this stage shifts from pre-
vention to deterrence. That is, from reducing the likelihood
of the intention to misbehave to arise to actively reducing
the probability of this intention of turning into an action.
Naturally, reward, control, and sanction systems, which
may deter employees from carrying out their intentions
because of fear of the associated punishment, play a major
role. Consider the use of tracking devices (control) com-
bined with use of bonuses and employee stock options
(rewards). An embittered employee may not choose to
misbehave if he knows that he is being closely monitored
and that if caught he may lose a bonus or, in more serious
cases, his job.
Phase D—Corrective measures.
Interventions in point D (expressions [ costs transition)
have three goals: (a) minimizing the costs of the misbehav-
ior, (b) restoring the damage, and (c) providing assistance
(to both perpetrators and targets). Hence, periodical drug
tests, for example, may help in identifying substance abuse,
thus lowering the rate of accidents on the job. The substance
abusers can participate in rehabilitation programs. Simi-
larly, employee assistance programs (EAPs) for victims of
violence or sexual harassment may contribute to their early
return to work while reducing the possibility of second-
order misbehavior perpetrated against their assessor(s) or
a third party. It may reduce the possibility that the victims
might sue their employer. As in point A, interventions at this
stage may address a specific expression (e.g., theft, sexual
harassment) or, assuming a common denominator(s), one or
more of the five categories of expressions (i.e., production,
property, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and political misbe-
havior). Hence, sanctions may reduce future absenteeism,
while team-building interventions can be designed to cope
with high levels of observed interpersonal misbehavior
(e.g., aggression, bullying, withholding information, lack
of cooperation) associated with a specific group or team
within the organization.
A word of caution: OMB interventions, if not designed
and applied carefully and wisely might, in fact, foster OMB.
Punishment, for example, needs to be perceived as justified
and proportionally relative to the severance of the act in
order to be accepted as legitimate.
To c on cl ud e, t he su gg es te d gui de li ne s fo r OM B m an ag e-
ment and interventions for its control are as follows:
• First, OMB management is a dynamic, ongoing process,
similar to the other conventional practices of administration
and development, and is, in fact, part of it.
• Second, there is no panacea for organization misbehav-
ior; there is no one-size-fits-all remedy for OMB. Con-
trol mechanisms for its reduction need to be based on the
specific needs of the organization, the members, and the
organizational context. That is, the general phenomenon of
OMB needs to be carefully analyzed and its components
(antecedents and/or expressions) must be clarified and un-
derstood before designing and applying any interventions.
• Third, there are four main points of intervention through
which the organization may attempt to control OMB. The
intervention points differ in relation to their focus, yet the
general purpose of all OMB interventions should be mini-
mizing (i.e., weakening) the relationships between anteced-
ents, mediators, expressions, and consequences of the OMB
cycle, with the intention of preventing undesirable behav-
iors (just as organizational change efforts are designed to
enhance desirable ones). Obviously, some interventions or
mechanisms may be used in more than one point through-
out this process, and different interventions may be applied
simultaneously. For example, in a transportation company
whose drivers were involved in accidents (costs) due to
substance abuse (expression), it may be wise to establish
periodic drug testing programs and send substance abusers
to rehabilitation programs (phase D interventions). Also,
new employees should be tested for substance abuse prior
to hiring, as part of the selection process (phase A inter-
Wankel_Part11_1PGS.indd 228 10/22/07 9:44:08 PM

ventions). A successful coping strategy calls for the simul-
taneous application of a combination of interventions, at
different stages.
• Fourth, for OMB interventions to be effective, they should
be designed so that the employees perceive them as legiti-
mate and justified. Perceived lack fairness may lead to more
severe forms of misbehavior in reaction to the imposed
sanctions. This leads to the assertion that OMB interven-
tions, like other managerial practices, need to be constantly
assessed for efficiency and effectiveness relative to their
goals. Finally, while designing interventions, managers
should consider the possibility that an intervention—be
it because of faulty design, improper application, or inap-
propriateness—may have undesired effects and may even
trigger misbehavior.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, P. (1999). Organizational misbehav-
iour. London: Sage.
Analoui, F., & Kakabadse, A. (1992). Unconventional practices at
work: Insight and analysis through participant observation.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 7(5), 6–12.
Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination
using a contract violation framework. Human Relations,
49(11), 1395–1418.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The
spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of
Management Review, 24(3), 452–471.
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The
importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Be-
havior, 19(3), 289–303.
Avolio, B. (1999). Full leadership development: Building on vital
forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Sonnenstuhl, W. J. (2002).
Driven to drink: Managerial control, work related risk factors
and employee drinking behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(4), 637–658.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. En-
glewood 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(3), 161–173.
Boddy, C. R. (2006). The dark side of management decisions:
Organizational psychopaths. Management Decision, 44(10),
1461–1475
Boye, M. W., & Jones, J. W. (1997). Organizational culture
and employee counterproductivity. In R. A. Giacalone &
J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations
(pp. 18–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cleveland, J. N., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. R. (2000). Women
and men in organizations: Sex and gender issues at work.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, J. M., & Griffin, R. W. (1998). The psychology of
counterproductive Job performance. In R. W. Griffin, A. M.
O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional be-
havior in organizations (pp. 219–242). Stamford, CT: JAI
Press.
Cornwall, H. (1987). Datatheft: Computer fraud, industrial espio-
nage, and information crime. London: Heinemann.
Denenberg, R. V., & Braverman, M. (1999). The violence-prone
workplace: A new approach to dealing with hostile, threaten-
ing, and uncivil behavior. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Fox. S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-
aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(6),
915–931.
Fox. S., & Spector, P. E. (Eds.). ( 2005). Counterproductive work
behavior: investigations of actors and targets. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Gabriel, Y. (1998). An introduction to the social psychology of
insults in organizations. Human Relations, 51(11), 1329–
1354.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behaviors in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1987). Reasons for employee
sabotage in the workplace. Journal of Business Psychology,
1(4), 367–378.
Goffman, E. (1971). The presentation of self in everyday life.
Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a response to underem-
ployment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561–568.
Greenberg, J. (1997). The steal motive: Management the so-
cial determinants of employee theft. In R. A. Giacalone &
J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations
(pp. 85–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Griffin, R. W., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (Eds.). (2004). The dark
side of organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., & Collins, J. M. (1998).
Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations. In C. L.
Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational
behavior (pp. 65–82). New York: Wiley.
Hackett, R. D. (1989). Work attitudes and employee absenteeism:
A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Occupational Psy-
chology, 62(3), 235–248.
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2006). Service sabotage: A study
of antecedents and consequences. Academy of Marketing
Science, 34(4), 543–516.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bond-
ing and employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7(1), 53–75.
Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2005).
Organizational behavior and management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kets de Vries, F. R., & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic organiza-
tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kidwell, R. E., & Bennett, N. (1993). Employee propensity
to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three
avenues of research. Academy of Management Review, 18(3),
429–456.
Kidwell, R. E., & Martin, C. L. (Eds.). (2005). Managing organi-
zational deviance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Klein, R. L., Leong, G. B., & Silva, J. A. (1996). Employee sabo-
tage in the workplace: A biopsychosocial model. Journal of
Forensic Sciences, 41(1), 52–55.
Mangione, T. W., & Quinn, R. P. (1975). Job satisfaction, coun-
terproductive behavior, and drug use at work. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60(1), 114–116.
Understanding and Managing Misbehavior in Organizations • 229
Wankel_Part11_1PGS.indd 229 10/22/07 9:44:08 PM

230 • ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
Mangione, T. W., Howland, J., & Lee, M. (1998). New perspec-
tives for worksite alcohol strategies: Results from a corporate
drinking study. Boston: JSI Research and Training, Inc.
Mantell, M. (1994). Ticking bombs: Defusing violence in the
workplace. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
McLean Parks, J. (1997). The fourth arm of justice: The art
and science of revenge. Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. &
Bies, R. (Eds.). Research on Negotiation in organizations, 6,
(pp. 113–144). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1997). Whistle blowing as antisocial
behavior. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Anti-
social behavior in organizations (pp. 130–150). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moberg, D. J. (1997). On employee vice. Business Ethics Quar-
terly, 7(4), 41–60.
Morrison, E. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-
social rule breaking. Journal of Management, 32(1), 5–28.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996).
Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework.
Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 225–253.
Peiperl, M., & Jones, B. (2001). Workaholics and overworkers:
Productivity or pathology? Group & Organization Manage-
ment, 26(3), 369–393.
Puffer, S. M. (1987). Pro social behavior, noncompliant behavior,
and work performance among commission salespeople. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 615–621.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of devi-
ant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see,
monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial
behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal,
41(6), 658–672.
Sackett, P. R., & Devore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behav-
iors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S., Ones, H. K. Sinangil &
C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and
organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 145–164). London:
Sage.
Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information process-
ing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253.
Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F (1997). Job-related
and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the work-
place: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 401–415.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace:
The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–443.
Stein, B. A., & Kanter, R. M. (1993). Why do good people do
bad things: A retrospective of the Hubble fiasco. Academy of
Management Executive, 7(4), 58–62.
Towler, J. (2001). Don’t hire a killer—How to avoid violence
prone employees. Kitchener, ON: Creative Organizational
Design. Retrieved 10 September 2007 from <http://www.
creativeorgdesign.com/downloads/articles/Don’t%20Hire%
20A%20Killer.pdf>.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A
person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 11(3), 601–617.
Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behav-
ioral ethics in
organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–
990.
Vardi, Y. (2001). The effects of organizational and ethical climates
on misconduct at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(4),
325–337.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. 2001, August. Lead them not to temptation:
Job autonomy as an antecedent of organizational misbehav-
ior. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meet-
ing, Washington, DC.
Vardi, Y. & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations:
Theory, research and management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Va r di , Y. , & Wi e n e r, Y. (1 9 9 2 , A u gu s t ) . O rg a n i za t i o na l mi s b e ha v -
ior (OMB): Toward a motivational model. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of Academy of Management, Miami
Beach, FL.
Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A
motivational framework. Organization Science, 7(2), 151–
165.
Vigoda, E. (1997). Organizational politics: Characteristics, an-
tecedents, and implications of interpersonal influence pro-
cesses on employee performance in the Israeli public sec-
tor. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Haifa,
Haifa, Israel.
Wiener, Y. (1988). Forms of value systems: A focus on organi-
zational effectiveness and cultural change and maintenance.
Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 534–545.
Wankel_Part11_1PGS.indd 230 10/22/07 9:44:09 PM