Search results

Constructive deviance has received increasing attention across the last 20 years. However, because the distinction between constructive and traditional forms of deviance (i.e., destructive) is based on the intent behind the behaviors, it can be difficult to determine which acts are constructive. As an umbrella construct consisting of several forms of deviant acts (e.g., whistle-blowing, employee voice, necessary evils), research into constructive deviance has largely remained focused on the individual behaviors to date. While advancements have been made, this focus has limited the consideration of an overarching understanding of constructive deviance in the workplace. Further, constructs like constructive deviance that straddle the bounds between beneficial and detrimental necessitate the exploration into their antecedents as determined by the employees (i.e., apples), their environments (e.g., barrels), or some combination of the two. The author seeks to advance the research in constructive deviance by proposing a testable model. In which, the author develops an interactionist perspective of the antecedents to reposition constructive deviance as the acts of good employees in restrictive or negative environments. In doing so, the author considers how various aspects of individuals, their organizational environments, and the influence of their leaders interact. The author then develops a multi-stakeholder approach to the outcomes of constructive deviance to consider how the various parties (i.e., organization, coworkers, customers) are expected to respond and how these responses impact the more distal outcomes as well as the likelihood of engaging in future constructive deviance.

Recent studies on commuter parking in an age of fully autonomous vehicles (FAVs) suggest, that the number of parking spaces close to the workplace demanded by commuters will decline because of the capability of FAVs to return home, to seek out (free) parking elsewhere or just cruise. This would be good news because, as of today, parking is one of the largest consumers of urban land and is associated with substantial costs to society. None of the studies, however, is concerned with the special case of employer-provided parking, although workplace parking is a widespread phenomenon and, in many instances, the dominant form of commuter parking. The purpose of this paper is to analyze whether commuter parking will decline with the advent of self-driving cars when parking is provided by the employer.

This study looks at commuter parking from the perspective of both the employer and the employee because in the case of employer-provided parking, the firm’s decision to offer a parking space and the incentive of employees to accept that offer are closely interrelated because of the fringe benefit character of workplace parking. This study develops an economic equilibrium model that explicitly maps the employer–employee relationship, considering the treatment of parking provision and parking policy in the income tax code and accounting for adverse effects from commuting, parking and public transit. This study determines the market level of employer-provided parking in the absence and presence of FAVs and identifies the factors that drive the difference. This study then approximates the magnitude of each factor, relying on recent (first) empirical evidence on the impacts of FAVs.

This paper’s analysis suggests that as long as distortive (tax) policy favors employer-provided parking, FAVs are no guarantee to end up with less commuter parking.

This study’s findings imply that in a world of self-driving cars, policy intervention related to work commuting (e.g. fringe benefit taxation or transport pricing) might be even more warranted than today.

Self-employment is presented as enabling people to better balance their work and family roles but research on its effectiveness is equivocal. We collected survey data from 280 self- and organizationally-employed certified public accountants and conducted a multivariate analysis comparing positive spillover and conflict between the two groups.The self-employed reported less work-to-family conflict with no differences with respect to family-to-work conflict or positive spillovers. However, there were different patterns between male and female subsamples: self-employed males experienced less conflict and more positive spillover than male employees, whereas self-employed females had less of one form of conflict but more of the other.