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.

Aggression in the workplace has increasingly become a focus of organizational behavior research given its debilitating effects on employees and consistent links to reduced organizational performance. The current literature on workplace aggression presents a bewildering array of definitions with overlapping meanings creating confusion for researchers and academics. In response to this, we consider a range of definitions of workplace aggression and build a taxonomy of workplace aggressive behaviors based on four dimensions: intensity, impact, intentionality, and indirect/direct aggression. This chapter contributes to the field offering a taxonomy of aggressive behaviors at work that can be used in subsequent research.

Workplace abuse, interpersonal mistreatment that occurs within the victim’s work environment, has attracted considerable attention in recent years. In this chapter, we argue that problems with the conceptualization and measurement of workplace abuse have thwarted scientific progress. We identify two needs that we believe are especially pressing: (a) the need to consider the construct breadth of workplace abuse scales and (b) the need to test whether the measures of various types of workplace abuse effectively capture the unique qualities of the constructs they purport to assess. To guide our discussion of these issues, we conducted a review of the item content of several workplace abuse measures. We offer suggestions for addressing these and other conceptualization and measurement issues, and we discuss the possible implications of these issues on the study of the hypothesized predictors and consequences of workplace abuse.

A number of theoretical frameworks exist to explain perpetrators’ motivation for workplace aggression. Most of them consider these behaviors as retaliatory actions from individuals who experience triggering events in their workplaces. The current chapter describes a model that focuses on the motivations underlying proactive workplace aggression, and identifies situations where perpetrators consider their aggressive behaviors as morally justifiable. In particular, we argue that depending on the targets’ in- versus out-group membership and higher- versus lower-status in the hierarchy, aggressive behaviors may be viewed as acceptable to achieve perpetrators’ goals of forcing compliance or managing identity. The model extends the current literature by considering non-retaliatory workplace aggression, and by identifying potential avenues for future research and intervention to reduce proactive workplace aggression.

In eulogizing Randy Hodson, I reflect on and celebrate the development and deepening of Randy’s intellectual legacy as I have seen it unfold and intersected with it at different points over the years. Our careers commenced in 1980 as labor sociologists were turning their attention toward worker agency in an emerging post-bureaucratic era of neo-liberalism. Our careers next intersected two decades later in an era of globalization through our initiative in building a transnational sociology of work. Randy triumphed as an agent of worker agency as he moved the field into the globalizing, post-bureaucratic epoch of the discipline’s intellectual history.

Post-merger integration (PMI) success depends heavily on the social and cultural integration of the two legacy organizations. Given that organizational members work and exchange information through social relationships, social network analysis can serve as a useful tool to identify key actors, address areas of concern, and measure PMI success. However, few PMI studies have employed a social network perspective or social network analysis. In this chapter, the authors review the current literature on PMI and organizational change, including the few studies that use social networks approach. The authors also identify recent developments in social networks and organizational change research that can improve our understanding of PMI processes and propose promising avenues for future research. Further, the authors identify obstacles for social network research on PMI and provide practical advice for overcoming them.

Considerable progress has been made over the past 20 years toward the construction of a global stress paradigm for accountants in the workplace. Over this time period, a number of antecedents and consequences of personal and organizational stress have been identified and empirically verified. These efforts have provided the foundation for future investigations, which will likely provide additional guidance to those seeking to implement strategies aimed at enhancing individual well-being and organizational efficiency. This chapter synthesizes the findings of these studies to construct a model of the stress dynamic among accountants aimed at guiding future efforts designed to refine our understanding of this critical phenomenon.

The Stress Arousal Scale (SAS; Everly, Sherman, & Smith, 1989) is a 20-item psychometric instrument designed to measure cognitive–affective precipitators of the physiological stress response. The SAS has been utilized in a number of studies that have examined various relations between stress arousal and its antecedents and consequences in the accounting work environment. This study introduces a new version of this scale, the SAS4, developed based on the Perseverative Cognition Hypothesis (Brosschot, Gerin, & Thayer, 2006). It is hypothesized that this new scale has internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and both convergent and divergent validity as well as significant correlation with the balance of the items on the original scale. These predictions are tested with a sample of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) members employed in public accounting, and four independent samples of undergraduate business students. The results indicate that the SAS4 is a valid and reliable psychometric measure with potential benefits in terms of its congruence with recent theoretical and empirical advances in the etiology of stress, as well as its administrative efficiency for those seeking to further examine the stress dynamic among accountants in the workplace.

A cursory review of behavioral ethics research reveals a growing interest in what scholars regularly refer to as the “dark side,” a genre of studies in which concepts that are generally regarded as positive and good are shown to be associated with some sort of negative or bad outcomes. We employ philosophical and institutional lenses to explain why any concept would have a dark side and why researchers would be drawn to it. We then take a social scientific point of view to consider how the dark side of various constructs is typically revealed. Finally, we discuss the implications of dark side research, paying particular attention to the negative implications (no irony intended) focusing on the dark side has for the practice of research and the practice of management.