Academy of Management Journal

1995. Vol. 38, No. 2, 555-572.

A TYPOLOGY OF DEVIANT WORKPLACE BEHAVIORS: A
MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING STUDY
SANDRA L. ROBINSON
New York University
REBECCA J. BENNETT
University of Toledo
In this study, we developed a typology of deviant workplace behaviors
using multidimensional scaling techniques. Results suggest that deviant
workplace behaviors vary along two dimensions: minor versus serious,
and interpersonal versus organizational. On the basis of these two di-
mensions, employee deviance appears to fall into four distinct catego-
ries: production deviance, property deviance, political deviance, and
personal aggression. Theoretical and empirical implications are dis-
cussed.
Had I a hundred tongues, a hundred mouths, a voice of iron and a chest
of brass, I could not tell all the forms of crime.
Virgil, Aeneid
Employee deviance and delinquency produce organizational losses es-
timated to range from $6 to $200 billion annually (Murphy, 1993). Of all
employees, 33 to 75 percent have engaged in some of the following behav-
iors: theft, computer fraud, embezzlement, vandalism, sabotage, and absen-
teeism (Harper, 1990). Almost daily, there are media reports of workplace
deviance, whether it be corruption among police officers, violence in the
post office, or illegal activity on Wall Street.
The prevalence of workplace deviance and its associated organizational
costs necessitates a specific, systematic, theoretically focused program of
study into this behavior. To date, relatively little empirical research has
directly addressed the darker side of employee behavior (Vardi & Wiener,
1992). The organization behavior literature has shown a disproportionate
emphasis on desirable phenomena such as organizational citizenship behav-
ior (e.g.. Organ, 1988), commitment (e.g., Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982),
and adaptation (e.g., Hulin, 1991).
An Academic Challenge Grant from the University of Toledo supported this study. We
gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Daniel Lopuch and Timothy Murphy. We also thank
Karen Jehn, for her advice and assistance during the various stages of the project, and Blake
Ashforth, Aela Boyum, Dafna Eylon, Daniel Farrell, and Elizabeth Morrison, for their comments
on earlier drafts of this article.
555
^^^ Academy of Management Journal April
Some research has addressed behaviors that could be considered devi-
ant, although they have not been conceptualized as such: absenteeism (e g
Goodman & Atkins, 1984), withdrawal (e.g., Gupta & Jenkins, 1980), with-
holding effort (e.g., Kidwell & Bennett, 1993), and behaviors that lead to
procedural or distributive injustice or both (e.g., Sheppard, Lewicki, & Min-
ton, 1992). However, these research efforts have not focused on the deviant
nature of the behaviors themselves. Thus, although such research may ex-
amine the same behaviors as the study of employee deviance and be useful
for understanding it, workplace deviance needs to be examined as a distinct
and important organizational phenomenon in its own right.
Of the few studies examining workplace deviance, most have been iso-
lated attempts to answer specific questions about particular types of deviant
acts. For example, studies have looked exclusively at theft (Greenberg, 1990
1993; Hollinger & Clark, 1982), sexual harassment (Gutek, 1985), and uneth-
ical decision making (Trevino & Youngblood, 1990). Researchers have yet to
develop a comprehensive theory or set of theories regarding workplace de-
viance. For empirical work to advance an area of knowledge, studies that
build upon one another are needed (Robertson, 1993). The development of
employee deviance theories will direct the currently scattered research ef-
forts and enable researchers to establish complementary research agendas In
sum, a systematic, theory-directed study of deviance will ultimately increase
understanding of workplace deviance.
WORKPLACE DEVIANCE
Definition
Employee deviance is defined here as voluntary behavior that violates
significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of
an organization, its members, or both. Employee deviance is voluntary in
that employees either lack the motivation to conform to normative expecta-
tions of the social context or become motivated to violate those expectations
(Kaplan, 1975). Organizational norms, or those prescribed by formal and
informal organizational policies, rules, and procedures, are specified here
because deviance must be defined in terms of the standards of a specified
social group rather than in reference to a system of absolute moral standards
(Kaplan, 1975). We focused on the violation of norms espoused by the dom-
inant administrative coalitions of organizations rather than the norms of
work groups or subcultures.
The study of workplace deviance is distinct from the study of ethics in
that the former focuses on behavior that violates organizational norms
whereas the latter focuses on behavior that is right or wrong when judged in
terms of justice, law, or other societal guidelines determining the morality of
behavior (Lewis, 1985). Thus, although a particular behavior can be both
deviant and unethical, the two qualities are not inevitably linked. For ex-
ample, dumping toxic waste in a river is not deviant if it conforms with the
policies of one's organization. However, most people would probably agree
1995
Robinson and Bennett 557
that this act is unethical. Conversely, reporting this dumping to authorities
may be an ethical act, but it would also be a deviant act in this particular
example if it violated organizational norms.
Deviant behavior also has the potential to harm an organization, its
members, or both. The term deviant is usually reserved for acts that violate
significant norms (Cohen, 1966) and result in an "unacceptable violation . . .
believed to threaten society's well-being" (Best & Luckenbill, 1982: 4). Con-
sistent with this focus, our definition of workplace deviance focuses on
violations of norms that threaten the well-being of an organization. Hence,
employee deviance excludes minor infractions of social norms, such as
wearing a suit of the wrong style to the office, that are not usually or directly
harmful to most organizations.^
A Typology
A typology of employee deviance is a useful starting point for develop-
ing a systematic, theory-based study of employee deviance. We saw such a
typology as enabling us to develop broader, more comprehensive theories of
deviance (Rich, 1992) and as giving parsimony and order to the diverse set
of behaviors that comprise workplace deviance, helping us to identify the
relationships between these different deviant behaviors, and enabling us to
make connections between the different findings of studies that have ad-
dressed specific types of deviant behavior. We also viewed a typology as
useful for developing broader measures of employee deviance and thus as
enabling empirical tests of our theories of deviance. Aggregated measures are
more reliable and valid than specific measures (Rushton, Brainerd, & Press-
ley, 1983) and also overcome the low base rate problems commonly associ-
ated with measuring deviant behaviors (Hulin & Rousseau, 1980).
Few attempts have been made to classify employee deviance. Redeker
(1989) developed a list of punishable offenses in organizations but did not
integrate the different behaviors into any meaningful pattern. Wheeler
(1976), examining how arbitrators should punish rule-breaking behavior,
classified forms of organizational rule-breaking into serious offenses and
nonserious offenses. HoUinger and Clark (1982) categorized employee devi-
ance into property deviance, or acquiring or damaging property belonging to
one's employer, and production deviance, or violating organizational norms
regarding the quantity and quality of work performed. Mangione and Quinn
(1974) suggested two similar categories of deviance: counterproductive be-
havior, defined as purposely damaging employers' property, and doing little,
defined as producing output of poor quality or low quantity.
These categorical schemes of workplace deviance provide a useful start-
ing point for creating an integrative framework of deviant behaviors. How-
^ It should be noted that although many behaviors might meet one of our definitional
criteria, we focused only on behaviors that met all three criteria and were likely to be deviant
in most organizational contexts.
^^^ Academy of Management Journal April
ever, these typologies also raise several questions. First, are the typologies
comprehensive? They capture acts against organizations, such as theft and
slowed production, but they do not seem to be able to account for deviant
acts of an interpersonal nature, such as physical aggression and sexual ha-
rassment. An accurate typology of employee deviance should take into ac-
count not only behavior directed at organizations, but also that directed at
individuals. Second, how are the different deviant behaviors, or the catego-
ries themselves, related to one another? It would be useful to have a typology
that identified the dimensions underlying these categories. And finally are
the typologies valid? Although it is quite conceivable that these typologies
are all somewhat accurate classifications of employee deviance, they were
not inductively or empirically derived and have not yet been empirically
In this study, we sought to answer the above questions by developing an
inductively and empirically derived typology of workplace deviance using
multidimensional scaling (MDS) techniques (Kruskal & Wish, 1978) The
product was intended to be a comprehensive classification of' deviant be-
haviors highlighting the similarities and differences between deviant behav-
iors as well as their underlying dimensions.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Multidimensional scaling is a useful tool for producing inductive but
empirically derived, typologies. MDS techniques enable a researcher to pro-
duce a typology using the perceptions of a diverse set of individuals who are
blind to the purpose of a given study. Hence, MDS-based typologies are less
prone to researchers' biases than typologies developed through other meth-
ods. MDS involves several distinct phases of data collection and analyses
The procedures followed for each phase in this study and the results of each
phase are discussed below.
Phase 1
Sample. We recruited 70 respondents, 27 men and 43 women, from four
sources m Toledo, Ohio: a university office (n = 7), a technical staff office
withm an industrial company (n = 10), a neighborhood (n = 38) and an
evening master's in business administration (M.B.A.) class (n = 15) All
respondents worked full-time. Their average age was 37 years (s.d. = 14 69)
and their average number of years of work experience was 15.69 (s.d. ='
l ^ t J. UJ.
Procedures. Respondents were asked to describe two incidents of
someone at work engaging in something considered to be deviant at their
workplace, i.e., something that is considered to be wrong." We provided this
colloquial definition of employee deviance instead of our theoretical defi-
nition because it was easier to understand. We also asked respondents to
define deviance in their own words. Over 81 percent made specific reference
1995
Robinson and Bennett 559
to violation of norms or rules, consistent with our definition. Both the de-
scriptions and the definitions were in writing.
Next, the second author and a research assistant independently re-
phrased the descriptions the respondents provided to simplify them, to re-
move redundant words and phrases (most were a paragraph or longer), and
to ensure that the descriptions were relatively generic and applicable across
organizations and occupations. Descriptions repeating another description
were then removed. The final pool of statements described 45 deviant work-
place behaviors; the Appendix lists these behaviors.
We also had 12 judges, professors of management, independently assess
how well each behavior fit our definition of employee deviance. They rated
each behavior (yes or no) in terms of whether it was voluntary, potentially
harmful to organizations, and likely to violate the norms of most organiza-
tions. The judges unanimously agreed that most of the behaviors fit our
definition of deviance.
Phase 2
Sample. There were 180 respondents, 86 men and 94 women, all of
whom were part-time evening students in an M.B.A. program at a midwest-
ern university. All the respondents worked full-time. Their average age was
29 years (s.d. = 12.57) and their average number of years of work experience
was 11.12 (s.d. = 11.06).
Procedures. We gave each respondent a survey containing the list ot 45
deviant workplace behaviors and a brief description of a target behavior,
which appeared at the top of the first page. The respondents rated each
deviant behavior in terms of its similarity to or difference from the target
behavior, using a nine-point Likert-type scale (1 = very similar, 9 = very
different). We also asked respondents to specify the criteria they used to
distinguish between the target behavior and each of the deviant behaviors.
Although MDS often involves having respondents compare every pos-
sible pair of stimuli [n(n - l)/2], we asked our respondents to make only a
subset of the 990 possible comparisons because having them address the full
set would have been too cognitively taxing and likely to have resulted in
fatigue, errors, and respondent attrition. A valid means by which to over-
come the problems associated with comparing a large number of stimuli is to
have respondents make a subset of comparisons (Thompson, 1983).
To determine the visual configuration and underlying dimensions of the
deviant behaviors, we used the ALSCAL program (Young & Lewykcyj, 1979).
This program derives spatial configurations of objects on the basis of the
perceived differences between the objects. The greater the perceived differ-
ence between the objects, the greater the distance between them in the spa-
tial configuration. We first created a dissimilarities matrix by computing the
perceived differences between the pairs of deviant behavior descriptions
(Kruskal & Wish, 1978). We then employed Torgeson's (1952) metric MDS
analysis to create five different visual configurations of these deviant behav-
ior descriptions, ranging from one dimension to five dimensions. An analogy
^^'^ Academy of Management Journal April
for this program is that it is like having a computer draw several maps of
various dimensions for a set of cities by relying on only information about
the distances between the cities. The resulting maps could be one-
dimensional in that they would be placed along a single line- two-
dimensional like a typical road map; three-dimensional like a globe with
bas-relief reflecting elevation; and so forth. We used Kruskal's (1964) stress
index to determine which map configuration explained the most variance
This stress index indicates how well data fit a particular configuration- the
higher the stress, the poorer the fit.
Results. We conducted a scree test by plotting the stress indexes for all
five map configurations (Cattell, 1986). The plot of stress indexes produces
a curve. The appropriate configuration is determined on the basis of where
(at which configuration) the stress index values begin to level off to form an
almost horizontal slope. The one-dimensional solution had a stress index of
.494. For the two-dimensional solution, the index made a considerable drop
to .27 suggesting a better fit with the data. The amount of reduced stress
leveled off for the three-, four-, and five-dimensional solutions with values
of .199, .159, and .137, respectively. Hence, the scree results suggested that
the two-dimensional solution provided the most parsimonious and accurate
description of the data. Figure 1 shows the two-dimensional configuration.
Phase 3
Procedures. We derived a list of potential labels or attributes to describe
the dimensions from the criteria that respondents said they used in phase 2
to compare the deviant behaviors and the target behavior. We selected the
SIX most frequently cited criteria before looking at the two-dimensional so-
lution. Four judges, senior candidates for doctorates in management, rated
how well each attribute described each deviant behavior. Working indepen-
dently and blind to the purpose of the study, they used five-point bipolar
scales with the following attribute anchors: unintentional/intentional not
serious/serious, not harmful to company/harmful to company, not harmful to
individuals/harmful to individuals, very unethical/ethical, and covert/overt.
Results. The judges' ratings were averaged for each attribute-behavior
comparison. We used muhiple regression analysis to assess relationships
between the attributes and the two-dimensional configuration The labels
chosen were based on examination of the multiple correlation coefficients
f-values, and beta weights from the regression analysis (Kruskal & Wish
1978). Table 1 provides those statistics.
Dimension 1. Relationships between the attributes and the first dimen-
sion suggested a label reflecting the seriousness or harmfulness of the devi-
ant acts. The attributes that explained the most variance for dimension 1
were not serious/serious ( = .66, p < .001) and very unethical/ ethical ( =
- .67, p < .001). Also significantly related to dimension 1 were not harmful
to conipany/harmful to company ( = .42, p < .001) and not harmful to
individuals/harmful to individuals ( = .27, p < .05). Thus, one end of this
1995
Robinson and Bennett 561
dimension reflected deviant behaviors that were not serious, not harmful to
the company, and not harmful to the individuals targeted, and the other end
reflected deviant behaviors that were serious, harmful to the company, and
harmful to the individuals targeted. Consequently, we labeled this first di-
mension "minor versus serious deviance."
Other attributes were also related to this dimension in ways consistent
with the minor-versus-serious label. Covert/overt was negatively related to
the not serious/serious attribute (r = - .36, p < .01) and positively related to
the very unethical/ethical attribute (r = .47, p < .01). This relationship is not
surprising given that harmful behavior is typically more covert than innoc-
uous behavior. Similarly, the unintentional/intentional attribute was posi-
tively related to the not serious/serious attribute (r = .57, p < .01) and
negatively related to the unethical/ethical attribute (r = - .60, p < .01). This
relationship is consistent with the fact that behavior is perceived to be in-
tentional to the extent that it is considered harmful (Hamilton, 1980). Ex-
amination of the two-dimensional configuration (Figure 1) also supports use
of the label minor versus serious deviance. The less serious, less harmful
deviant behaviors fell on the negative end of this dimension, and the more
harmful or serious deviant behaviors fell on the positive end of this dimen-
sion. J
Dimension 2. The relationships between the attributes and the second
dimension suggested a label reflecting the extent to which deviant behaviors
are interpersonal and harmful to individuals rather than non-interpersonal
and harmful to organizations. The attribute not harmful to company/harmful
to company was positively related to dimension 2 ( = .30, p < .05), and the
attribute not harmful to individuals/harmful to individuals was negatively
related to dimension 2 ( = - .84, p < .001). The covert/overt attribute was
also negatively related to this dimension ( = - . 74, p < .001). This rela-
tionship makes sense given that interpersonal behaviors are more likely to be
overt than covert since at least one other person is usually present in the
context of interpersonal behavior. Hence, one end of this dimension re-
flected behaviors that were harmful to individuals, not harmful to the organ-
ization, and overt, and the other end reflected behaviors that were harmful
to the organization, not harmful to individuals, and covert. Consequently,
we chose the label "interpersonal versus organizational deviance" for di-
mension 2. Observation of the two-dimensional configuration (Figure 1) sup-
ports use of this label. Deviant behaviors that fell on the negative end of this
dimension were overt, interpersonal behaviors, directly harmful to individ-
uals and deviant behaviors that fell on the positive end of this dimension
were non-interpersonal behaviors that were directly harmful to organiza-
tions. . 1 f
Quadrant labels. A closer inspection of the two-dimensional configu-
ration suggests that deviant acts not only vary along two dimensions but can
also be classified into four categories. Figure 2 exhibits these categories.
The quadrant containing serious and organizationally harmful deviance
was labeled "property deviance." This quadrant is consistent with Man-
562
Academy of Management Journal April
FIGURE 1
Two-Dimensional Configuration of Deviant Behaviors
Employee making personal
calls or mailings

Boss leaving early or Employee wasting com-

leaving his work for pany resources
employee to do Employee com- *
ing in late or
leaving early
Employee taking excessive breaks Employee leaving job in
p , , . Employee calling in sick when not ""^"^
bmployee working unnecessary overtime .
Employee hiding in back Employee intentionally working slow
0.5 -^ room to read newspaper *
Employee endan-
gering self
Employee talking with co-
worker instead of working
Employee acting foolish in front of customer
* Employee starting negativi
rumors about company
0 -
- 0. 5-
-
- 1 . 5 -
Employee gossiping Employee blaming co-worker for mistakes
about manager ,
Boss asking employee to work beyond job description
Employee gossiping about co-worker
Boss blaming employee for own mistakes
Employee competing in nonbeneficial way
Boss showing favoritism
Boss gossiping about employees
- 2 -
1995 Robinson and Bennett 563
FIGURE 1 (continued)
Employee misusing Employee stealing
discount privilege Employee accepting company equipment and merchandise
Employee lying kickbacks .
u u 1 J Employee steahng money from cash
ahout hours worked * '^ -' ,
drawer
Employee going Employee intentionally
against hoss's decision making errors Employee sabotaging
, merchandise

Employee overcharging for Employee misusing

services for own profit expense account

Employee covering up mistakes
, Employee stealing customer's possessions
Employee sabotaging equipment
Boss refusing to give employee earned
benefits or pay

Employee physically abusing customer

Employee stealing co-worker's possessions
Employee verbally abusing customer
Employee endangering co-workers
by reckless behavior
Boss unjustifiably firing employee
Boss sexually harassing employee
, ,, , . * Employee sexually harassing co-worker
Boss verbally abusing ^ ' '
employee
Boss following rules to letter of law
0.5 1 1-5
564
Academy of Management Journal
April
I
3
a
a
3
C35 O
CM m
CM
1

CO
1
*

05
CO
1

CO
CO
I I
a
5
g
1
1
S
3
I I
CO CM o ^ CO ^
i -i t-H CO 00 O ^s
o
I
I I
S:
CO
CO
2
4
0
8
*
CO
3
8
*
'^
CO
1
4
*
3
8
CO
CO
l
d
u
a
o
m
p
a
n
i
n
d
i
v
*
8
5
*
2
5
in
lO
*
tr.
1
0
CO
CO
1995
Robinson and Bennett 565
gione and Quinn's (1974) counterproductive behavior and Hollinger and
Clark's property deviance, which they defined as "those instances where
employees acquire or damage the tangible property or assets of the work
organization without authorization" (1982; 333). The quadrant reflecting
relatively minor but still organizationally harmful deviant acts was labeled
"production deviance." This quadrant is similar to Mangione and Quinn's
(1974) doing little or nothing and Hollinger and Clark's production devi-
FIGURE 2
Typology of Deviant Workplace Behavior"
ORCANIZATIONAL
i
Production Deviance
Leaving early
Taking excessive breaks
Intentionally working slow
Wasting resources
Political Deviance
Showing favoritism
Cossiping about co-workers
Blaming co-workers
Competing nonbeneficially
\
Property Deviance
Sabotaging equipment
Accepting kickbacks
Lying about hours worked
Stealing from company
Personal Aggression
Sexual harassment
Verbal abuse
Stealing from co-workers
Endangering co-workers
SERIOUS
INTERPERSONAL
'These lists are not exhaustive. We provide a set of the most typical behaviors for each
category for illustrative purposes only.
566 Academy of Management Journal April
ance, which they defined as "behaviors that violate the formally proscribed
norms delineating the minimal quality and quantity of work to be accom-
plished" (1982: 333). The third quadrant contained minor and interperson-
ally harmful deviant behavior. We labeled this quadrant "political devi-
ance," defining the behavior as engagement in social interaction that puts
other individuals at a personal or political disadvantage. The final quadrant,
containing serious and interpersonally harmful deviant behavior, was la-
beled "personal aggression," which we defined as behaving in an aggressive
or hostile manner toward other individuals.
The four quadrants appeared to represent four distinct but related types
of deviance. To garner empirical support for our post hoc interpretations of
these categories, we had four judges who were blind to the study and its
results independently code the behaviors. These judges, who were not the
same as the judges used in phase 3, were doctoral students in management.
They coded each behavior into one of four categories on the basis of the
labels and definitions provided. Kappas were calculated for each of the four
categories to measure the degree of interrater reliability. Overall, the kappas,
which ranged from 74 to 89 percent, indicated high agreement between our
typology and the raters' categorization of the behaviors. These results lend
validity to our interpretation of the quadrant labels and their meanings.
DISCUSSION
The study reported here integrated numerous deviant workplace behav-
iors into a parsimonious framework. The results suggest that workplace de-
viance varies along two dimensions and can be classified into four types.
The typology derived here makes a contribution to the literature by empir-
ically validating Wheeler's (1976) distinction between serious and nonseri-
ous workplace offenses as well as Mangione and Quinn's (1974) and
Hollinger and Clark's (1982) typologies, which distinguish between produc-
tion and property deviance.
A more significant Contribution of this study is that it builds upon these
previous categorical schemes and produces a more accurate and compre-
hensive typology of workplace deviance. First, our typology identifies the
underlying dimensions of deviance and thus clarifies not only the different
categories of deviance but also how these categories are related to one an-
other. Second, the typology incorporates two previously neglected forms of
employee deviance, political deviance and personal aggression. To date, the
limited literature on workplace deviance has focused primarily on produc-
tion and property deviance (acts directed at organizations), ignoring inter-
personal forms of deviance. As this study demonstrates, numerous behaviors
directed at individuals, including verbal abuse, physical assault, and polit-
ical behavior, are also perceived as deviant. These findings suggest that
workplace deviance research should address social as well as organization-
directed forms of deviance. This refocusing is important in light of growing
concerns about reducing social injustice, discrimination, and interpersonal
violence in workplaces.
1995 Robinson and Bennett 567
This typology should prove useful in the development of general theo-
ries of workplace deviance. First, it creates meaningful patterns out of the
wide range of deviant behaviors and enables researchers to look at the gamut
of deviant behaviors as a parsimonious whole. Second, it identifies the re-
lationships between these behaviors as well as their underlying constructs.
This framework paves the way for creating an integrated theory or theories
encompassing the behaviors found within each quadrant or across quad-
rants. Rather than continue to expend efforts on separate, unconnected, and
potentially redundant studies of specific deviant acts, researchers can begin
to develop and test theoretical models of the basic forms of deviant behavior,
such as production deviance and personal aggression. Such theories will
direct research attention and enable systematic exploration of this phenom-
enon and cumulation of findings.
The results of this study have implications for theories addressing the
antecedents of workplace deviance. Opinions on the causes of deviance
abound; some have argued that deviance results from individual attributes,
such as low moral standards (Merriam, 1977), and others have argued for
situational explanations of deviance, such as organizational inequities
(Greenberg, 1990) and group norms (Siehl, 1987). This study suggests that
different variables may explain different types of workplace deviance. For
example, organizational variables might be more likely to influence devi-
ance directed at harming organizations, and individual variables may be
more likely to explain interpersonal forms of deviance.
The results of this study may also have implications for theories ad-
dressing the outcomes of workplace deviance. Deviance may be dysfunc-
tional and threatening to the well-being of a social system (Best & Luckenbill,
1982), but it may have several positive outcomes as well: providing a safety
valve, alerting group members to their common interests, and providing
warning signals to organizations. This study, which clarifies the different
types of workplace deviance, suggests that different forms of deviance may
have different consequences. For example, interpersonal deviance may serve
social functions for organization membersbuilding group cohesiveness,
for exampleand organization-directed deviance may be more likely to
serve signaling functions for organizations.
This typology, which incorporates a wide range of behaviors from var-
ious domains of organizational behavior, is also valuable in that it connects
these previously unrelated domains of study. For example, the employee
deviance literature, which has focused almost exclusively on organization-
directed forms of deviance such as sabotage and theft, has remained largely
separate from the growing literature on discrimination and sexual harass-
ment in the workplace (Kahn & Robbins, 1985; Levinger, 1987), which ad-
dresses some behaviors that could be considered interpersonal forms of de-
viance. Our typology may provide a bridge between these two currently
unrelated bodies of research by cohceptually integrating organizational and
interpersonal deviance. Similarly, this typology may offer a conceptual
bridge between the traditional study of absenteeism and withdrawal (re-
568 Academy of Management Journal April
fleeted in production deviance) and other, thus far unrelated behaviors that
we also identified as forms of production deviance, such as wasting com-
pany resources and intentionally working slowly.
These findings also have managerial implications. Procedural justice
research has shown that employees perceive consistent punishment as fair
(Bennett, 1993); that is, punishment is perceived to be fair to the extent that
similar behaviors are punished similarly and to the extent that it matches the
seriousness of the offense committed (Wheeler, 1976). This study reveals
employees' perceptions of the similarity between potentially punishable be-
haviors and their perceptions of the seriousness of these behaviors. The
procedural justice findings, combined with the results of this study, suggest
that managers who are seeking to be fair should apply similar types of pun-
ishments to deviant acts that are physically close to one another in the
spatial configuration, such as intentionally making errors and engaging in
sabotage. Managers should also match the severity of punishment to the
perceived seriousness of a deviant act; for instance, employees accepting
kickbacks and employees intentionally making errors should receive simi-
lar, severe punishments, whereas employees intentionally working slowly
should receive less severe punishments.
Although this study focused on deviant workplace behavior rather than
on unethical behavior, it does suggest that the study of ethics may benefit
from an analogous multidimensional scaling study of unethical behavior.
Robertson (1993), discussing ethics research, offered a number of recommen-
dations. Specifically, she recommended that researchers clarify their oper-
ational definition of ethics, emphasize behavior as the key dependent vari-
able, focus on theory development, and build broader predictive models of
behavior. An MDS study like the one employed here would begin to address
these exact issues.
To summarize, the present study makes a variety of theoretical and
practical contributions. Its findings empirically validate previous categorical
schemes of deviance and extend those typologies by identifying the thus far
neglected interpersonal forms of deviance. Further, this typology should
prove useful for developing much-needed general theories of workplace de-
viance, particularly theories concerning the antecedents and outcomes of
forms of workplace deviance. It should also aid in creating aggregated mea-
sures of workplace deviance to be used to test those theories. More broadly,
the typology generated here may provide a valuable conceptual bridge to
previously unrelated domains of study and serve as a model for related
domains of study, such as organizational ethics. Finally, this typology has
practical implications, suggesting guidelines for ways in which managers
can fairly allocate punishments for deviant behavior.
Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, it was not tech-
nically or conceptually feasible to use an exhaustive list of deviant behav-
iors. The purpose of our study was to develop a typology from which we
could classify most deviant behaviors (not only those used to create the
typology). That goal was accomplished. Second, although we attempted to
1995 Robinson and Bennett 569
reduce researcher biases, they were not eliminated. Our biases may, for
example, have entered the study when we selected and rephrased the be-
havioral descriptions to be used in the analysis. However, we only shortened
descriptions, changing no content, and we removed only descriptions of
already included behaviors. Second, we may have also been biased in our
selection of the attributes used in interpreting the dimensions. However, we
selected only the most frequently used attributes, prior to looking at the
configuration. Further, since we based the interpretation of the dimensions
on a large set of attributes, the inclusion or exclusion of an additional at-
tribute is unlikely to have altered this interpretation. And finally, in deriving
the names and meanings of the quadrants, we relied on our post hoc inter-
pretation of the clusters. We attempted to offset the potential bias in this
interpretation by validating our results with the judgments of independent
and blind judges. In sum, we made a conscious effort to reduce the influence
of our biases in the development of this inductively derived typology.
We hope this study will bring attention to the darker side of organiza-
tional behavior. It is our intention that this study serve as a springboard for
additional empirical research into workplace deviance. Some future re-
search directions include the development of aggregated measures of devi-
ance based on the "four p' s" (property deviance, production deviance, po-
litical deviance, and personal aggression) and the development of predictive
models of deviance that take into account the wide range of deviant behav-
iors. Management research has developed a fairly comprehensive under-
standing of extrarole, prosocial, organizational citizenship behavior (e.g..
Organ, 1988) but has largely neglected subrole, antisocial, deviant behavior.
Researchers and practitioners need to understand not only behavior that is
beneficial to organizations, but also behavior that is detrimental to them.
REFERENCES
Bennett, R. 1993. Reactions to fair punishment for unethical behavior. Working paper. Uni-
versity of Toledo, Toledo, OH.
Best, J., & Luckenbill, D. F. 1982. Organizing deviance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cattell, R. B. 1986. The meaning and strategic use of factor analysis. In R. B. Cattell & J. R.
Nesselroade (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2d ed.): 131-203.
New York: Plenum.
Cohen, A. K. 1966. Deviance and social control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goodman, P., & Atkins, R. 1984. Absenteeism: New approaches to understanding, measuring
and managing employee absence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Creenberg, J. 1990. Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of
pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 561-568.
Greenberg, J. 1993. Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators
of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 54: 81-103.
Gupta, N., & Jenkins, G. 1980. The structure of withdrawal: Relationships among estrange-
ment, tardiness, absenteeism and turnover. Springfield, VA: National Technical Informa-
tion Service.
^'^^ Academy of Management Journal April
Cutek, B. A. 1985. Sex in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harper, D. 1990. Spotlight abuseSave profits. Industrial Distribution, 79: 47-51.
Hamilton, V. L. 1980. Intuitive psychologist or intuitive lawyer? Alternative models of the
attribution process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 767-772.
Hollinger, R. C, & Clark, J. P. 1982. Formal and informal social controls of employee deviance
Sociological Quarterly, 23: 333-343.
Hulin, C. 1991. Adaptation, persistence and commitment in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette &
I. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organizational psychology, vol. 2 (2d ed )
445-505. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hulin, C, & Rousseau, D. 1980. Analyzing infrequent events: Once you find them, your troubles
begin. In K. H. Roberts & L. Burstein (Eds.), Issues in aggregation: 65-75. San Francisco-
Jossey-Bass.
Kahn, E. D., & Robbins, L. (Eds.). 1985. Sex discrimination in academe. Journal of Social
Issues, 41(4): 135-154.
Kaplan, H. B. 1975. Self-attitudes and deviant behavior. Pacific Palisades, CA: Coodyear.
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: 429-456.
Kruskal, K. B. 1964. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a non-metric
hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29: 1-27.
Kruskal, K. B., & Wish, M. 1978. Multi-dimensional scaling. Sage University paper series on
Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-011. Beverly Hills and London: Sage.
Lewis, P. V. 1985. Defining "business ethics": Like nailing jello to a wall. Journal of Business
Ethics, 4: 377-383.
Levinger, G. (Ed.). 1987. Black employment opportunities: Macro and micro perspectives Tour-
nai of Social Issues, 43(1): 1-4.
Mangione, T. W., & Quinn, R. P. 1974. Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and drug
use at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1: 114-116.
Merriam, D. 1977. Employee theft. Criminal Justice Abstracts, 9: 380-386.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. M., & Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee-organizational linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Murphy, K. R. 1993. Honesty in the workplace. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Redeker, J. R. 1989. Employee discipline. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
Rich, P. 1992. The organizational taxonomy: Definition and design. Academy of Management
Beview, 17: 758-781.
Robertson, D. C. 1993. Empiricism in business ethics: Suggested research directions. Journal of
Business Ethics, 12: 585-599.
Rushton, J. P Brainerd, C. J., & Pressley, M. 1983. Behavioral development and construct va-
lidity: The principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94: 18-38.
Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. 1992. Organizational Justice: The search for
faimess m the workplace. New York: Lexington Books.
Siehl, E. W. 1987. Garment workers: Perceptions of inequity and employee theft. British Jour-
nal of Criminology, 27{2]: 174-190.
Thompson, P. 1983. Some missing data patterns for multidimensional scaling. Applied Psy-
chological Measurement, 7: 45-55.
Robinson and Bennett 571
Torgeson, W. S. 1952. Multidimensional scaling: Theory and method. Psychometrica, 17: 401-
419.
Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. 1990. Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical
decision making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 378-385.
Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y., 1992. Organizational misbehavior [OMB): A calculative-normative
model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas.
Wheeler, H. N. 1976. Punishment theory and industrial discipline. Industrial Relations, 15:
235-243.
Young, F. W., & Lewyckyj, R. 1979. ALSCAL-4: User's guide. Chapel Hill, NC: Data Analysis
and Theory Associates.
APPENDIX
Deviant Behavior Descriptions Used in the
Multidimensional Scaling Analysis
Employee stealing customer's possessions.
Boss verbally abusing employee.
Employee sabotaging equipment.
Employee coming to work late or leaving early.
Employee lying about hours worked.
Employee gossiping about manager.
Employee starting negative rumors about company.
Boss sexually harassing employee.
Employee physically abusing customer.
Employee taking excessive breaks.
Employee sabotaging merchandise.
Employee overcharging on services to profit him- or herself.
Employee intentionally making errors.
Employee covering up mistakes.
Employee leaving job in progress with no directions so the job is done wrong.
Boss following rules to the letter of the law.
Employee gossiping about co-worker.
Employee intentionally working slowly.
Boss unjustifiably firing employee.
Employee sexually harassing co-worker.
Employee accepting kickbacks.
Employee endangering him- or herself by not following safety procedures.
Boss leaving early and leaving his/her work for employees to do.
Employee hiding in hack room to read the newspaper.
Employee stealing company equipment/merchandise.
Employee acting foolish in front of customers.
Employee verbally abusing customers.
Employee working unnecessary overtime.
Employee calling in sick when not.
Boss showing favoritism to certain employees.
Boss gossiping about employees.
Employee talking with co-worker instead of working.
Employee stealing money from cash drawer.
Employee misusing discount privilege.
Employee wasting company resources by turning up the heat and opening the windows.
Employee blaming co-worker for mistakes.
Employee misusing expense account.
Employee going against boss's decision.
^^2 Academy of Management Journal April
Employees competing with co-workers in a nonbeneficial way.
Boss blaming employees for his/her mistakes.
Boss refusing to give employee his/her earned benefits or pay.
Employee making personal long distance calls or mailing personal packages from work.
Employee endangering co-workers by reckless behavior.
Employee stealing co-worker's possessions.
Boss asking employee to work beyond job description.
Sandra L. Robinson is an assistant professor of management at the Stern School of
Business, New York University. She received a Ph.D. degree in organizational behavior
from Northwestern University. Her current research interests include workplace devi-
ance, psychological contracts, employee voice, and employees' behavioral responses to
dissatisfaction.
Rebecca J. Bennett is an assistant professor of management at the University of Toledo.
She received her Ph.D. degree in organizational behavior from Northwestern Univer-
sity. Her current research interests include workplace deviance, employees' behavioral
reactions to unfair punishment, and the relationship between organizational citizen-
ship behavior and workplace deviance.
Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.