Boiling frogs: Reconsidering the impact of deviance targets, severity, and frequency in teams

Baur, John E.; Bradley, Bret; Bonner, Robert L.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.035

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using meta-analytic techniques, Berry et al [79] found that deviance could be reliably measured by observer reports, such as supervisor or subordinate recordings of the type we employed; however, because employees may engage in deviant behaviors in hidden or cloaked ways, it may not be possible to record the full range of examples of deviance through our narrative examples. As Bauer, et al [80] noted, it is likely that lower-severity deviance behaviors, which are easier to conceal, may therefore be underreported through narrative observations.…”

Section: Limitations and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Deviance has been defined by Robinson and Bennett [4: p. 556], as "voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in doing so threatens the well-being of the organization, its members, or both." Deviant behavior can operate at the interpersonal level, in which individuals engage in inappropriate interactions with each other (e.g., gossip, incivility, or other mistreatment) or, more broadly, in their work-related roles, where members of the organization skirt rules, ignore restrictions, or willingly subvert expected standards of behavior [5]. The impact of deviant behavior is significant; studies reported that 95% of organizations documented some form of employee deviance, with the net effect costing billions annually [6; 7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Corruption of Project Governance Through Normalization of Deviance

Davis

Pinto

2024

IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizational mistakes and accidents have a long history in practice and have been studied extensively in the engineering and organizational literature. One of the primary causes of persistent organizational error is the existence of deviance; i.e., behavior violating organizational norms. We examined the behaviors and motivations of project team members in situations where deviant behaviors had been accepted and normalized as part of project operations. We used NVivo content analysis to classify the narratives of 52 project professionals as they related to Normalization of Deviance (NoD) situations, their perceived causes, and subsequent outcomes for their organizations. Our findings suggest that NoD occurs in three primary dimensions: project processes, relationships, and outcomes. We discuss the implications of these findings for project organization performance improvement and avoiding NoD situations. MANAGERIAL RELEVANCE STATEMENTNormalization of deviance (NoD) is defined as a state whereby people within the organization become so accustomed to deviant behavior that they no longer even view it as deviant, despite the fact that these practices exceed their own rules for the elementary safety. In practical terms, it represents behaviors that can lead to a number of significant problems with project development and delivery, as cultural failures and flawed governance permit and normalize the patterns of destructive actions by key stakeholders that are counter-productive to organizational expectations. Our goal was to offer real-world examples and highlight areas where NoD in projects occur so that organizations can recognize the underlying conditions as well the warning signs in order to avoid their negative impact. Project performance will be IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Corruption of Project Governance Through Normalization of Deviance

Davis

Pinto

2024

IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, (un)fairness and negative affect in teams have also been linked to deviant climates (O’Boyle et al, 2011; Priesemuth et al, 2013; Thornton & Rupp, 2016). Although deviance climates are rarely treated as predictors, some studies show that these environments are capable of damaging team processes and team performance (Baur et al, 2022; Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Lam et al, 2011; Wellen & Neale, 2006).…”

Section: Toxic Work Climates: a Review Of Underlying Facet-specific C...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides bonding and relational mechanisms, our review extends prior teams research by demonstrating that toxic climates also influence outcomes via additional affective responses such as deonance, negative affect, and stress/strain mechanisms (Griffin, 2010; Houshmand et al, 2012; Liu et al, 2020; Sharifirad, 2016; Thornton & Rupp, 2016). Toxic climates directly affect employees’ emotions, frustrations, and psychosomatic conditions including shame, exhaustion, depression, and depletion (Bamberger & Bacharach, 2006; Baur et al, 2022; Farh & Chen, 2014; Gao & Liu, 2022; Herr et al, 2018; Houshmand et al, 2012; Kabat-Farr et al, 2018; Kessler et al, 2008; Razinskas & Hoegl, 2020). In turn, all of these affective reactions impact employees’ actions and work attitudes.…”

Section: Bringing It All Together: Building An Overarching Theoretica...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxic work climates: An integrative review and development of a new construct and theoretical framework.

Priesemuth,

Schminke

2024

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research and the media demonstrate the profound impact hostile work environments have on organizations and their members. Often, the term "toxic work climate" is used to describe patterns of aggressive behaviors that harm individuals and manifest in the broader workplace. However, despite these common references, scholars still know relatively little about what a toxic work climate actually entails, the processes by which they emerge, and their influence on organizational outcomes. The research domain is complex. Within the organizational literature alone, toxic work climates have been described as those that harbor abusive bosses, aggressive employees, and those that show signs of bullying or incivility. Our aim in this integrative conceptual review is to add precision and focus to this multidisciplinary and fragmented literature. Grounding our efforts in multilevel theories, we first introduce an overarching definition of the toxic work climate construct and review research on existing hostile climate types that can appropriately be consolidated under this new heading. We then develop a new theoretical model that outlines the dominant causes and mechanisms by which toxic work climates form, and the main pathways by which they influence employees, teams, and organizations. Finally, we provide a unified path forward for advancing theory, research, and practice, including advice on how toxic climates might be combated in years to come.

show abstract

“…According to social information-processing theory, direct observation of activity can provide cues about acceptable behavior in a work environment (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978; cf. Baur et al. , 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multigroup SEM analysis of the antecedents and moderating influence of culture on workplace deviance behavior

Narayanan

Moon

2022

CCSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAntecedents and outcomes of workplace deviance have been studied over the past few decades but there is still a lack of research from an organizational climate, witness and cultural point of view. Theoretical considerations for the present research are based on the social cognitive theory perspective where the authors expect employees's involvement in workplace destructive deviance would depend on their organizational climate perception, witness behavior and cultural orientation.Design/methodology/approachA total of 987 participants from India (N = 404) and USA (N = 583) completed an online questionnaire, and multi-group structural equation modeling analysis was conducted to test the hypothesized model.FindingsAcross cultural groups, higher collectivism is associated with lower engagement in workplace deviance. Furthermore, employees' higher intervening witness behavior is associated with lower destructive deviant behaviors when employees showed higher endorsement of collectivism in India (not USA). However, employees' higher self-serving witness behavior is associated with higher destructive deviant behaviors. Interestingly, employees with higher endorsement of individualism associated with organizational climate are more likely to engage in destructive deviance.Originality/valueThe main originality of this study is to further increase the understanding of the relationship between organizational climate, witness behavior (self-serving and intervening behavior) and workplace deviance (organizational and interpersonal destructive deviance) considering the role of employees' cultural orientation (individualism vs collectivism).

show abstract

Boiling frogs: Reconsidering the impact of deviance targets, severity, and frequency in teams

Cited by 7 publications

References 84 publications

The Corruption of Project Governance Through Normalization of Deviance

The Corruption of Project Governance Through Normalization of Deviance

Toxic work climates: An integrative review and development of a new construct and theoretical framework.

A multigroup SEM analysis of the antecedents and moderating influence of culture on workplace deviance behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About