Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17, No.

1, Fall 2002 (2002)

DEVIANT WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR AND

THE ORGANIZATIONS ETHICAL CLIMATE
Dane K. Peterson
Southwest Missouri State University

ABSTRACT: While a number of previous studies have investigated the effects of

personal characteristics and interpersonal factors on a specific type of deviant
behavior, the present study examined how organizational factors, or more specifically ethical climates within organizations, are related to various types of deviant behavior. The results provided evidence that certain types of ethical climates
were related to specific types of deviant behavior, suggesting that the causes for
deviant behavior might depend on the specific type of deviant behavior. It was
noted that the results of the present study have both theoretical relevance and
practical implications with respect to workplace deviance.
KEY WORDS: deviant workplace behavior; organizational climate; Ethical Climate Questionnaire.

There is growing interest among researchers and practitioners concerning negative workplace behaviors. The number of studies examining
such issues as fraud, vandalism, theft, lying, spreading malicious rumors, withholding effort, aggressive behavior, and sexual harassment
in the workplace is growing rapidly (Griffin, OLeary-Kelly, & Collins,
1998). The obvious impetus for the growing interest in counterproductive
behavior is the increasing prevalence of this type of behavior in the workplace and the enormous costs associated with such behavior. Several
studies have documented not only the financial impact, but also the social and psychological effects of negative workplace behavior on the organization (Hollinger & Clark, 1982, 1983; Murphy, 1993; Robinson &
Greenberg, 1998). Given the growing prevalence of detrimental behaviors and the associated costs, it would be extremely beneficial to organi-

Address correspondence to Dane K. Peterson, Professor of Quantitative Business Analysis, College of Business Administration, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65804; e-mail: dkp215f@mail.smsu.edu.
47
0889-3268/02/0900-0047/0 2002 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

48

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

zations to determine which variables contribute to such behavior, or at

least identify potential factors that can predict the occurrence of various
types of negative workplace behavior. This study examined the possibility of predicting various types of negative workplace behavior based on
an instrument used to assess the ethical climate of organizations.
DEVIANT WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR
Negative workplace behavior has been referred to as antisocial behavior (Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998), organizational misbehavior
(Vardi & Wiener, 1966), non-compliant behavior (Puffer, 1987), workplace deviance (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998) and dysfunctional workplace behavior (Griffin et al., 1998), to name a few. This paper focuses
on the construct of deviant workplace behavior as defined by Robinson
and Bennett (1995). Deviant workplace behavior has been the topic of
several investigations and this concept may arguably be considered the
most fully developed (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Robinson & Bennett,
1995; Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). That is, researchers have empirically developed a comprehensive typology of deviant workplace behaviors
and validated potential methods for measuring workplace deviance.
Workplace deviance has been defined as voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well
being of an organization, its members, or both (Robinson & Bennett,
1995). An empirically derived typology of workplace deviance has been
developed with the aid of a multidimensional scaling procedure. The results produced a two dimensional configuration of deviant workplace behaviors. One axis of the perceptual map was labeled the organizationalinterpersonal dimension. This dimension represented the target of the
deviant behavior. The dimension ranged from deviant behavior aimed at
the organization (e.g., sabotaging equipment) to deviant behavior primarily directed at a member of the organization (e.g., sexual harassment). The second dimension represented the severity of the deviant behavior. Deviant behavior on this dimension varied on a continuum from
minor forms of deviance (e.g., gossiping about fellow employees) to serious forms of deviant behavior (e.g., physical abuse). The perceptual configuration based on the two dimensions resulted in four quadrants, or four
classifications of deviant behavior. Robinson and Bennett (1995) referred
to the four classes of deviant behavior as (1) Production Deviance, (2) Political Deviance, (3) Property Deviance, and (4) Personal Aggression.
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO WORKPLACE DEVIANCE
Possible explanations for workplace deviance include individual factors, social and interpersonal factors, and organizational factors (Boye &

DANE K. PETERSON

49

Jones, 1997; Vardi & Wiener, 1996; Vardi, 2001). At the individual level,
several papers have examined the possibility that personality characteristics of the employee may provide an explanation for workplace deviance (Blasi, 1980). Despite numerous investigations in the area, there
has been very little if any support for a positive association between
personality and various forms of deviant behavior (Arbuthnot, Gordon, &
Jurkovic, 1987). It appears that personality variables alone are unlikely
to account a significant portion of the variance in predicting deviant
workplace behavior (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). Rather it is more
likely that deviant behavior may be best predicted based on a combination of personality variables and the nature of the workplace situation
(Trevino & Youngblood, 1990).
Also at the individual level, several studies have also investigated a
number of demographic variables. Studies have reported that some
forms of production deviance and property deviance are more likely to
involve employees who are young, new to their job, work part-time, and
have low-paying positions (Frank, 1989; Hollinger & Clark, 1983). However, these findings may be more likely to be a result of the nature of the
job than due to personal demographic characteristics (see Robinson &
Greenberg, 1998 for a review). The research on social and interpersonal
factors has been much more favorable. Research has shown that perceptions of unfair treatment, social norms, and the influence of work groups
can contribute to workplace deviance (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998; Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998).
With respect to the relationship between organizational factors and
workplace deviance, there has been very little, if any valid research in
this area (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). Except for studies involving inequity in pay (Greenberg, 1990; Hollinger & Clark, 1983), most articles
on the influence of organizational factors are merely anecdotal reports.
Thus, there would appear to be a need for research examining potential
organizational factors that may be related to deviant workplace behavior.

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE
Situational and organizational factors are known to influence the
behavior and attitudes of the employees (Trevino, 1986). One organizational factor that has been demonstrated to have a significant impact
on employee behavior is the organizational climate (Turnipseed, 1988).
Organizational climate has been defined as the shared perceptions of
organizational policies, practices, and procedures, both formal and informal (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). It has been argued that there are
many types of work climates, such as a climate for service, climate for
safety compliance, climate for innovation, etc. (Schneider & Rentsch,
1988). One of the many types of work climates that have been proposed

50

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

to exist within organizations is an ethical climate (Victor & Cullen,

1988). According to Victor and Cullen (1987), the ethical climate of an
organization refers to the shared perceptions of what is ethically correct
behavior and how ethical issues should be handled in the organization.
Several studies have demonstrated that the ethical climate of an organization significantly influences the ethical behavior of the employees
(Deshpande, George, & Joseph, 2000; Fritzsche, 2000; Trevino, Butterfield, & McCabe, 1998).
It has been suggested that the ethical climate of an organization
may be linked not only to the ethical behavior of employees, but also
to a range of behaviors including counterproductive behaviors such as
tardiness, absenteeism, and lax performance (Wimbush & Shepard,
1994). Thus, the ethical climate of an organization may be predictive
of both ethical behavior as well as the occurrence of deviant workplace
behaviors. Further support for this notion is that several of the behaviors
that are considered deviant may also be considered unethical (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). The distinction between the two types of behavior
is that ethics focuses on behavior that is right or wrong when judged in
terms of justice, law, or other societal guidelines determining the morality of behavior whereas deviance focuses on behavior that violates significant organizational norms. Since deviance is defined in terms of departure from organizational norms, this would seem to provide further
support for the possibility that deviant behavior in the workplace may
be predictable from the climate of the organization.

ETHICAL CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRE

To assess the ethical climate within organizations, Victor and Cullen
(1987) developed the Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ). The underlying assumption of the ECQ is that the ethical climate in organizations
can be classified into categories analogous to Kohlbergs (1981) ethical
standards (egoism, benevolence, and principle) and the referent group
that serves as a source of moral reasoning (individual, local, and cosmopolitan). The ethical standards reflect the three major classes of ethical
theory, egoism, utilitarianism, and deontology (Fritzsche & Becker, 1984).
They may be distinguished in terms of maximizing ones own self-interests (egoism), maximizing the interests of as many people as possible
(benevolence), or adherence to universal standards and beliefs (principle). The referent refers to the source from which individuals receive
their cues regarding what is considered ethically appropriate. The source
could be the employees self-determined ethical beliefs (individual), the
organizations standards and policies (local), or external to the individual
and organization, such as a professional association (cosmopolitan). The

DANE K. PETERSON

51

cross-classification of the three ethical standards with the three referents produces nine theoretical dimensions of an ethical work climate.
The most recent version of the ECQ was constructed by developing four
questions for each of the nine theoretical dimensions (Cullen, Victor, &
Bronson, 1993).
Four studies have reported the results of using the most recent version of the ECQ (Cullen et al., 1993; Trevino & Butterfield, 1998; Vaicys,
Barnett, & Brown, 1996; Wimbush, Shepard, & Markham, 1997). These
studies have analyzed data obtained from the ECQ with exploratory factor analysis procedures to identify and determine the number of ethical
climate dimensions in organizations. While there have been some similarities in the results of these studies, there have also been a number of
differences in the observed factor structure. For example, the number of
factors, or dimensions, extracted in the investigations varied from five
in one study (Wimbush et al., 1997) to seven dimensions in two other
studies (Cullen et al., 1993; Trevino et al., 1998). In addition, the labels
for the dimensions and how the items loaded on each dimension varied
across studies. As an illustration, Trevino et al. (1998) identified the following seven dimensions in their study; (1) Rulesthe perceived importance the organization places on complying with company rules and regulations, (2) Lawthe perceived importance the organization places on
complying with laws and professional standards, (3) Employee Focus
the perceived concern the organization has for the employees, (4) Community Focusthe perceived concern the organization has for customers,
the community, and public interest, (5) Personal Ethicsthe perceived
degree to which the organization lets individual employees decide what
is right and wrong, (6) Self Interestthe perceived degree to which individuals in the organization are primarily concerned about themselves or
protect their own interests, and (7) Efficiencythe perceived degree to
which efficiency is the primary concern of the organization.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study explored the possibility that deviant workplace behavior
might be predictable from the organizations ethical climate and that
certain ethical climate types might be related to the various classes of
deviant workplace behavior identified by Robinson and Bennett (1995).
The ECQ was used in the present study to assess the ethical climate of
the organizations. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedure was
used to determine which of the models based on the exploratory factor
analyses in previous studies provided the best fit for the data collected
in the current study. The factors identified on the basis of the CFA were

52

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

then used to predict the self-reported incidence of deviant workplace behavior.

While numerous studies have investigated potential causes of workplace deviance, very few of the studies have attempted to relate the potential causes with any type of classification scheme for the various types
of workplace deviance. Robinson and Bennett (1995) speculated that the
factors contributing to deviant behavior might vary depending on the
type of deviant behavior. Based on their classification scheme for workplace deviance, they suggested that situational or organizational factors
might be responsible for workplace deviance directed at the organization,
whereas personal characteristics of the individual committing the deviant
behavior may explain interpersonal deviance. Thus, it might be expected
that the organizations ethical climate is a better predictor of Production
and Property Deviance than Political Deviance and Personal Aggression.

METHOD
The Questionnaire
The survey included the 36 items of the ECQ (Cullen et al., 1993).
The instructions and procedure were identical to that described in previous studies (Cullen & Victor, 1987). Subjects indicated their responses
on a six point Likert scale from (0) Completely false to (5) Completely
true. Respondents were asked to respond to the items based on how it
really is in their company and not how they would prefer it to be.
Prior evidence suggests that if respondents are assured of anonymity, it is possible to assess workplace deviance through self-reports (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Thus, to assess the extent of workplace deviance,
20 items were initially selected, five from each of the four classifications
identified in the Robinson and Bennett (1995) study. The survey was
first pre-tested and then discussed with a group of 28 MBA students,
most of who had experience working full-time in a professional position.
Some modifications were made to the questionnaire and it was pretested a second time with a second group of 23 MBA students. Based on
the results of the two pre-tests, some of the items were modified, while
others were removed based on the expectation for extremely low frequency of self reported occurrences of the deviant behavior in question.
The final survey included 12 deviant items, three from each of the four
classifications. The items chosen for this study are displayed in Table 1.
The respondents were asked to check each behavior they engaged in at
work during the previous year.
To obtain a sample of business professionals from a number of diverse functional areas and organizations, the sampling frame in the

DANE K. PETERSON

53

Table 1
Deviant Work Behaviors
Production Deviance
1. Worked on a personal matter instead of worked for your employer
2. Taken an additional or a longer break than is acceptable at your place of work
3. Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked
Political Deviance
4. Showed favoritism for a fellow employee or subordinate employee
5. Blamed someone else or let someone else take the blame for your mistake
6. Repeated gossip about a co-worker
Property Deviance
7. Padded an expense account to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business expenses
8. Accepted a gift/favor in exchange for preferential treatment
9. Taken property from work without permission
Personal Aggression
10. Cursed at someone at work
11. Made an ethnic or sexually harassing remark or joke at work
12. Made someone feel physically intimidated either through threats or carelessness at
work

present study consisted of names on a computerized list of alumni from

a large mid-western state university. The random selection option was
used to randomly select 700 names of alumni who graduated with an
undergraduate degree from the college of business between the years
1983 and 1995. A cover letter, the survey, and a self-addressed postage
paid envelope were mailed to the individuals randomly selected for the
study. A total of 184 useable questionnaires were received for a return
rate of 26.3%, a response rate that approximates similar studies of this
nature.

RESULTS
A maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis was performed
on the data to determine which of the four previously obtained models
best fit the data. In the analysis, no cross loadings were allowed. Latent
factors were allowed to intercorrelate freely and factor variances were
set equal to one. The results for various measures of goodness of fit are
presented in Table 2.
Recent rules of thumb suggest that a combination of fit criteria
should be used when making a decision whether or not to reject a model.
For example, it has been suggested that a RSMR value greater than .09
and a Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) less than .96 would be an indication
that a model can be rejected as not providing an adequate fit to the data

54

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Table 2
Summary of Fit Tests for Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models
Study

NFI

TLI

GFI

AGFI

RMSR

RMSEA

Cullen
Trevino
Vaicys
Wimbush

.682
.821
.763
.589

.779
.928
.883
.712

.781
.882
.836
.728

.733
.842
.797
.690

.111
.070
.074
.102

.074
.046
.055
.075

NFINormalized Fit Index, TLITucker Lewis Index, GFIGoodness of Fit Index,

AGFIAdjusted Goodness of Fit Index, RMSRRoot Mean Square Residual, RMSEA
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

(Hu & Bentler, 1999). Based on these criteria, the empirically obtained
models in the Cullen and Wimbush study can be rejected as not providing an adequate fit to the data obtained in the present study. Only the
models reported by Trevino and Vaicys provide close approximations to
the present data. It has been suggested that an indication of good fit
would be a value of at least .95 for the TLI and a RMSEA value of no
more than .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). As can be seen in Table 2, none of
the models satisfies both of these criteria. Of the four models, it appears
that Trevinos model provides the best fit, although the fit would probably best be described as in the reasonable to moderately acceptable
range. Thus, Trevinos model was used to derive factor-based scores to
examine the relationship between ethical climate and deviant workplace
behavior.
To investigate the relationship between the various ethical climates
and deviant workplace behaviors, twelve separate forward logistic regression analyses were performed on the data. The dependent measure
was the dummy coded results for the twelve deviant behaviors. The
seven independent variables in each regression analysis were the factorbased scores for the seven ethical climate dimensions identified in the
Trevino study. The results of the twelve forward logistics regression
analyses are presented in Table 3.
The first row of Table 3 illustrates the percent of respondents that
indicated they engaged in each of the twelve deviant behaviors during
the last year. For the most part, the data appears to be similar to the
results reported by Bennett and Robinson (2000). The percentage of respondents engaging in each of the deviant behaviors ranged from 25.4%
for cursing at someone at work to 61.7% for repeated gossip about a
co-worker. The results would seem to confirm the notion that deviant
behavior is not an unusual or a rare event in the modern workplace.
Each column represents the results of one of the 12 forward logistics
regression analyses. The values in rows two through eight represent the

.783
46.0

1.70

.241

56.8

.728
26.3

.478

.508

52.0

.674
24.9

.541
1.79

32.0

.641
12.0

.512

52.0

.658
14.0

.483

45.6

.663
24.2

.332

61.7

Political Items

.679
27.9

42.4
.527
.459

.663
6.10

40.0
.610

.592
.674
21.8

.492

44.8

Property Items

25.4

10

72.8
43.6

.277
.462

46.4

11

12

70.6
6.69

.569

32.0

Personal Items

Percent observed behavior is the proportion of respondents engaging in the deviant behavior.
Values represent adjusted log odds ratios. If no value is present in a cell, the dimension did not enter the forward logistics regression
model.
Percent correct represents the percent of respondents correctly classified by the logistics regression model.
The chi-square test statistic is for the logistics regression model and is significant (p < .05) for all items except number 10.

Observed Behavior (Percent)

Rules
Law
Employee Focus
Community Focus
Personal Ethics
Self Interest
Efficiency
Percent Correct
Chi-square

Items

Production

Table 3
Forward Logistics Regression Results for the Twelve Deviant Workplace Behaviors

DANE K. PETERSON
55

56

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

logistics regression odds ratios. Values appear in rows two through eight
only for the ethical climate dimensions that entered the forward logistics
regression analysis at the .05 level of significance. An odds ratio greater
than 1 indicates that the odds of engaging in the deviant behavior increase as the score on the ethical climate dimension increases, while an
odds ratio less than 1 indicates that the odds of engaging in the deviant
behavior decreases as the score on the ethical climate increases. Thus
for the first item (worked on a personal matter instead of worked for
your employer), the significant predictors were Employee Focus and Selfinterest. The results suggest that an organization with a high concern
for the employees (a high value for the Employee Focus dimension) is
less likely to experience incidences of employees working on personal
matters during company time. Conversely, an organization with a climate in which the employees are primarily concerned about themselves
(Self-interest dimension) is more likely to have problems associated with
employees working on personal matters during company time. The next
to last row in Table 3 indicates the percentage of correctly classified responses to the items based on the logistic regression model. Thus the
first model correctly classified 78.3 percent of the 184 responses given by
the subjects on the first item. The regression model chi-square test statistic is displayed in the last row. All reported chi-square values that are
displayed in Table 3 are significant.
As can be seen in the first three columns of Table 3, the Employee
Focus, Personal Ethics, and Self-interest dimensions were each significant predictors for two of the three Production Deviance items. This may
suggest that companies are likely to experience deviant production behavior if the ethical climate of the organization is high in terms of emphasis on employees looking out for themselves, and low on both organizational concern for the employees and failure to stress individual ethics.
The only ethical climate dimension that entered the logistics regression model for the three items representing Political Deviance (Columns
3 through 6) was Employee Focus. Thus, it would appear that companies
that show high concern for the employees are less likely to experience
deviant political behavior. For Property Deviance, both the Rules and
Laws ethical dimensions entered as significant predictors for two of the
three items. This suggests that ethical climates that stress adherence to
company rules along with adherence to professional standards and the
law are less likely to experience Property Deviance. The Efficiency climate was also found to be a significant predictor of taking company
property without permission.
The final category of deviant behavior, Personal Aggression, did not
show any clear pattern with respect to its relationship with the ethical
climate dimensions. None of the ethical climates were significant predictors of cursing at someone at work. Both the Law and Employee Focus

DANE K. PETERSON

57

dimensions entered the model as significant predictors of ethnic or sexually harassing remarks, while Personal Ethics was the only significant
predictor of physical intimidation.

DISCUSSION
The results clearly demonstrate that deviant workplace behavior
can be partially predicted from the ethical climate of an organization.
Form a theoretical perspective, the results provided some mixed results
regarding how consistently the ethical climate dimensions predicted deviant behaviors that were selected from the same category. While some
classifications of deviant behavior were consistently related to the same
ethical climate dimensions, the data did not show a clear pattern with
respect to the ethical climates and deviant behaviors in other classifications.
The clearest relationship was between Political Deviance and the
Employee Focus dimension. The Employee Focus dimension was significantly related to all three items in this category and was the only dimension that significantly predicted Political Deviance. Political Deviance is
considered a minor form of deviance directed at members of the organization, such as favoritism, gossiping, and blaming co-workers. An Employee Focus climate is one in which the employees perceive that the
organization is very concerned about the welfare of everyone in the organization. This implies that organizations that foster a climate of caring
for the individual employees is less likely to experience problems associated with Political Deviance.
A second classification in which the data provided some consistent
results for each item within the category was in terms of Property Deviance. Property Deviance is characterized as a serious form of deviant
behavior directed at the organization. Property Deviance typically involves direct costs to the organization such as stealing from the company, damaging company property, or padding expense accounts. Deviant property behavior was primarily predictable from the Rule and Law
dimensions. Rules pertain to the degree to which employees perceive the
organization stressing the need to adhere to the companys policy and
regulations, whereas the Law dimension is more concerned with adherence to norms outside the organization, such as a professional code of
conduct. The results of the present study indicate that organizations
with a low perceived emphasis on adherence to company rules and laws
would be more likely to experience deviant behavior related to misuse of
organizational property. In addition, a climate emphasizing high efficiency was significantly related to one of the deviant behaviors selected
as a representation of this classification. All three dimensions, Rules,

58

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Law, and Efficiency, would seem to be related in that they suggest an

adherence to procedures for conducting organizational business. While it
is obvious that a strong organizational emphasis on obeying regulations
cannot guarantee the absence of deviant behavior related to property
misuse, the results strongly suggest these ethical climates provide an
atmosphere for reducing this deviant behavior.
The significant predictors of Production Deviance included the Personal Ethics dimension, Self-interest dimension, and again the Employee
Focus dimension. Production Deviance is classified as a minor form of
deviance directed at the organization. The Self-interest dimension was
the only dimension that had a direct or positive relationship with deviant
behavior. This implies that in organizations in which individual members are primarily concerned for themselves are more likely to experience problems associated with Production Deviance. On the other hand,
organizations that appear to place an emphasis on each employee deciding what is right and what is wrong (Personal Ethics), along with a high
level of concern for the employees (Employee Focus) are less likely to
experience production deviance.
The final category, Personal Aggression, provided the least consistent results. Personal Aggression represents a serious form of deviance
directed at members of the organization. While one behavior in this category was unpredictable from any of the dimensions, the best predictors
of the remaining two items represented different types of ethical climates. The Law and Employee Focus dimensions were the best predictor
of engaging in ethnic and sexually harassing remarks, while Personal
Ethics was the best predictor of physically intimidating co-workers.
None of the seven ethical climate dimensions were significant predictors
of the deviant behavior cursed at someone at work. Thus, there was a
lack of consistency in this category. It would seem plausible that organizational climate may have less of an impact on the prevalence of personal aggression. Possibly deviant behavior in this category is best be
explained by factors related to characteristics of the individual committing the act (Robinson & Bennett, 1995).
While previous studies have shown that the ECQ is a valid predictor
of unethical behavior, the present study demonstrates that the instrument is also predictive of deviant behavior. The ethical dimensions were
predictive of many types of behaviors examined in this study providing
support for the notion that the climate of the organization can have a
significant impact on deviant workplace behavior. In addition, which
ethical climate dimensions best predicted the deviant behavior appeared
in many cases to depend on the type of deviant behavior. For minor
forms of deviance (Production and Political), the dimensions representing a caring and sincere interest for the well being of each employee
(Employee Focus) was predictive of five of the six items. Conversely, for

DANE K. PETERSON

59

serious forms of deviant behavior (Property and Personal), a dimension

associated with requiring employees to adhere to the codes and regulations of their profession or government (Law) was predictive of three
of the six items. Thus, the results support the notion that the factors
contributing to deviant workplace behavior may depend on the type or
classification of deviant behavior as proposed by Robinson and Bennett
(1995). However, based on the percentage of correct classifications, the
results did not provide much support for the notion that deviant behavior
directed at the organization was more predictable from the ECQ than
deviant behavior aimed at members of the organization. Thus, organizational factors may be just as predictive of some types of deviant behavior
aimed at individuals as deviant behavior aimed at the organization.
From a managerial perspective, the ECQ appears to provide a useful
means to assess an organizations ethical climate, which may provide
some indication as to the types of deviant workplace behavior that may
occur within that organization. To assist management in developing a
more conducive moral climate, Vidaver-Cohen (1998) has proposed a
framework that offers some helpful guidelines. For example, VidaverCohen proposed that an organizations climate could be influenced
through the wording of mission statements by emphasizing an employee
focus or concern for employees. Strategy formulation could emphasize
the need to look out for the welfare of employees. In addition, the behavior exhibited by those in power could establish an important role in providing employees with a model for acceptable behavior in the organization. Similarly the cultural processes, which include formal socialization
practices and rituals, may influence the organizations ethical climate.
These may be established through such programs as management training or new employee orientations. Other possibilities are also addressed
by Vidaver-Cohen (1998).
In summary, the present study provides needed research on the relationship between organizational variables and deviant workplace behavior. Rather than focusing on factors associated with a single deviant
behavior as in many previous studies, the present study examined how
various types of deviant workplace behavior were related to different
ethical climate dimensions within the organization. In addition, this paper demonstrated that the factors contributing to deviant workplace behavior might depend on the type or classification of deviant behavior.
REFERENCES
Arbuthnot, J., Gordon, D. A., & Jurkovic, G. J. (1987). Personality. In H. C. Quay (Ed.),
Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency, pp. 139183. New York: Wiley.
Bennett, R. J. & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349360.

60

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 145.
Boye, M. W. & Jones, J. (1997). Organizational culture and employee counter-productivity.
In R. A. Giacalone and J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, pp.
172184. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J. W. (1993). The ethical climate questionnaire: An
assessment of its development and validity. Psychological Reports, 73, 667674.
Deshpande, S. P., George, E., & Joseph, J. (2000). Ethical climates and managerial success
in Russian organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 211217.
Frank, R. F. (1989). How passion pays: Finding opportunities in honesty. Business and
Society Review, Summer, 2028.
Fritzsche, D. J. (2000). Ethical climates and the ethical dimension of decision-making.
Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 125140.
Fritzsche, D. J. & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy.
Academy of Management Journal, 27, 166175.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden
cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561568.
Griffin, R. W., OLeary-Kelly, A., & Collins, J. (1998). Dysfunctional work behaviors in
organizations. Trends in Organizational Behavior, 5, 6582.
Hollinger, R. C. & Clark, J. P. (1982). Formal and informal social controls of employee
deviance. Sociological Quarterly, 23, 333343.
Hollinger, R. C. & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by Employees. Lexington MA: D. C. Heath.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
Kohlberg, L. K. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development. New York: Harper & Row.
Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the Workplace. Belmont, CA: Brooks & Cole.
Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance
among commission sales people. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 615621.
Reichers, A. E. & Schneider B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In
B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, pp. 539. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Robinson, S. L. & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555572.
Robinson, S. L. & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. Trends in Organizational
Behavior, 5, 130.
Robinson, S. L. & OLeary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: the influence of
work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658672.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601617.
Trevino, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. I. (1998). The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8,
447476.
Trevino, L. K. & Youngblood, S. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of
ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 37838.
Turnipseed, D. L. (1988). An integrated, interactive model of organizational climate, culture, and effectiveness. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 9, 1721.
Vaicys, C., Barnett, T., & Brown, G. (1996). An analysis of the factor structure of the ethical
climate questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 79, 115120.
Vardi, Y. (2001). The effects of organizational and ethical climates on misconduct at work.
Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 325337.
Vardi, Y. & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework.
Organizational Science, 7, 151165.
Victor, B. & Cullen, J. B. (1987). A theory and measure of ethical climate in organizations.
Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 9, 5171.
Victor, B. & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 33, 101125.

DANE K. PETERSON

61

Vidaver-Cohen, D. (1998). Moral climate in business firms: A conceptual framework for

analysis and change. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 12111226.
Wimbush, J. C. & Shepard, J. M. (1994). Toward an understanding of ethical climate: Its
relationship to ethical behavior and supervisory influence. Journal of Business Ethics,
13, 637647.
Wimbush, J. C., Shepard, J. M., & Markham, J. (1997). An examination of the relationship
between ethical climate and ethical behavior from multiple levels of analysis. Journal
of Business Ethics, 16, 17051716.