Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The source of aggression
The source of aggression
What are the signs of aggression
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The source of aggression
Examples of production deviance comprise of activities such as leaving early from work, taking excessive breaks, delaying production, wasting resources, sabotaging tools and office properties, accepting kickbacks, lying about hours worked, and stealing from the organization (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). According to the authors, interpersonal deviance, on the other hand, consists of behaviours that affect the well-being of other workers within the organization. Political deviance, such as gossip, favouritism, blaming others, unnecessary competitiveness are examples for minor deviance, while personal aggression, such as sexual harassment, abuse, bullying, stealing from colleagues and endangering co-workers are examples for serious deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995).
Deviant workplace behaviour has been conceptualized in several ways with antisocial behaviour considered as being one of these. Robinson and Greenberg (1998) state that there exists no universally agreed upon description or conceptualization of deviant workplace behaviour. however, prominent amongst studies on the subject relate deviant workplace behaviour to such as: antisocial
…show more content…
According to Giacalone and Greenberg (1997), antisocial behaviour is based on personal, political, as well as property exchanges and less so on production, with the exception of sabotage (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997). Antisocial behaviour includes aggression, discrimination, theft, interpersonal violence, sabotage, harassment, lying, revenge and whistleblowing (Kidwell & Martin, 2005). In order to predict deviant behaviours in the organizations, Hollinger (1986) suggests the importance of personal characteristics and perceptions and attitudes of employees about their organizations or
Langton, Nancy, Stephen Robbins, and Timothy Judge.Organizational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies, Applications. Fifth Canadian Edition. Toronto: Pearson Canada, 2009. 141, 574-84. Print.
"...social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction creates deviance, and by applying those roles to particular people and labelling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by other of rules and sanctions to an 'offender.' The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label." Becker (1963)
Deviant behavior is sociologically defined as, when someone departs from the “norms”. Most of the time when someone says deviance they think against the law or acting out in a negative behavior. To sociologists it can be both positive and negative. While most crimes are deviant, they are not always. Norms can be classified into two categories, mores and folkways. Mores are informal rules that are not written; when mores are broken, they can have serious punishments and sanctions. Folkways are informal rules that are just expected to be followed, but have no real repercussions.
Sociologists suggest deviance is a violation of any societal norm. Yet some have suggested deviance is a socially outmoded concept based on a Durkheim’s model of social solidarity. Therefore suggesting now it is obsolete, there is no longer a use for it in a (post) modern progressive and diverse society like Australia. According to Roach Anleu (2004) Colin Sumner was one such claimant. Sumner suggested that the sociological concept of deviance and any coherent theoretical development stagnated in mid 1970s, as no agreement on how deviance should be set never happened, therefore there was never an answer to the question, “deviant from what”? Secondly, Sumner states there is no explanation for why deviance is the chosen subject of research, instead of the norms that specify deviance. He believed it only made sense to examine deviance within the framework of social disapproval. Sumner also believed the relationships between deviance, crime, and difference to be unclear. Lastly he thought that the search for a general concept to encompass such a assorted range of activities, problems and situations was misguided because there can be no behavioural unity for such a diverse range of practices. Sumner (1994) suggested that the focus should analysis how deviant categories are constructed and managed by the power relationships that are continually changing. (Sumner 1994), (Roach Anleu 2014) Roach Anleu (2014) describe norms as reflecting some level of consensus and can be laws, rules, regulations, standards, or unspoken expectations. However, within large communities, there can be individuals, and groups whose behaviour is perceived as deviant according to the accepted norms. Those individuals and or groups may not necessarily be consider...
There exists conflicting theories among sociologists in the area of determining why a person is considered to be a deviant, and the reasons behind why he or she has committed a deviant act. From a positivistic perspective, deviance is based on biological or social determinism. Alternatively, from a constructionist perspective, deviance is created and assigned by society. Both perspectives seek to give a theory for why a person may become known as deviant. Although they both view similar acts as deviant, the basic differences between positivists and constructionists theories are clear.
People involved in a deviant career also goes through "career cycles- entree, upward mobility, peaks, aging, burn out, and getting out". Also "Patterns for deviant careers are more flexible and varied". As for deviant acts there are different types of deviant acts. These acts consist of individual deviant acts, cooperative acts, and then there is a conflict that may occur.
To first understand and study deviant behavior one must have a clear definition of what “deviant” means. Merriam-Webster defines deviant as “departing from some accepted standard of what is normal”. In the sociological study of deviant behavior, there are two distinct schools of thought on why deviant behavior occurs. The first school of thought on deviant behavior is Constructionist, also related to social Determinism. Constructionist is a theory of finding deviant behavior that says deviant behavior is not inherently the same and is defined by the social context. This theory places the cause of deviant behavior on society and the definition of “normal” as to why select behaviors are deemed deviant. The other school of thought is the Positivist
In season 2, episode 14 a character, named Todd Packer, left a “surprise” on the carpet of Michael Scott’s office. The thing he left was not clearly specified, but it is most likely some sort of bodily waste. This is deviant because people do not normally leave things like that on a friends carpet, especially as a joke. Another example would be in season 6, episode 25 the audience found out that Donna, Michael’s girlfriend, was cheating on her husband with Michael. When Michael found out, he did not break off the relationship. He continued to allow her to cheat on her husband with him. This is clearly deviant because the social norm states that cheating is bad. When Michael found out she was cheating, he decided not to end it, which is the thing most people would have done. And third example of deviance in The Office is in season 9, episode 14 a member of the warehouse vandalized Pam’s mural. This is considered deviant because vandalism is deemed wrong. Pam put a lot of hard work into her mural, and it was ruined by the warehouse worker. There are many more deviant acts in this
Sociologist utilizes several perspectives to explain individual motivations of deviance with an emphasis on biological, psychiatric, psychoanalytic, and psychological terms. The emergence of these ideals temporarily displaced social disorganization theory, which stresses a rapidly changing environment as the cause of deviant behavior. Social pathology seeks to explain deviance by evaluating conditions or circumstances, uniquely, affecting the individual. Sociological theories recognize the existense of social conditions that produce deviant behavior and how society identifies it.
Deviance is defined as actions or behaviors that violate socials norms. In turn the concept of deviance is dependent on the social observation and perception. “By it’s very nature, the constructionism through which people define and interpret actions or appearances is always “social.” ”(Henry, 2009 , p. 6) One’s perception of a situation may be completely different from another depending on cultural and social factors. The way someone talks, walks, dresses, and holds themselves are all factors that attribute to how someone perceives another. In some cases what is socially or normally acceptable to one person is deviant in another’s eyes. For this reason there is a lot of gray area involving the topic of deviance because actions and behaviors are so diversely interpreted.
Deviance is amongst other things a consequence of the response of others to a persons act. Students of deviance can not assume that they are dealing with a homogenous category. When they study people who have been labelled deviant (Howard Becker)
When an individual breaks the societal rules of conduct, they are said to be involved in deviant behaviors. However, due to the dynamism of the societies, what may be regarded as a deviant act in one society could be regarded as normal within another society. This brings out the issue that deviance may be viewed as relative to both time and location with regard to the differences in societies. Out of this understanding, deviance is viewed as the violation of social norms out of any acts, thoughts, or attitudes that the particular society regards as violation of its values or rules (Long Russ). A deviant conduct is against the definitions of the good and bad conduct as agreed upon by members of a social system. Such behaviors are in a negated direction and bear enough magnitude to surpass the acceptance and accommodation limit of the particular community.
Kolb, D. A., Osland, J. S., Rubin, I. M., & Turner, M. E. (2007). The Organizational Behavior
Cyberloafing is a prevalent and costly problem for all organizations and has raised social concerns, and in several consequences an illegal or unethical behavior arise in incipient forms of deviant behaviors. Many researchers have defined workplace deviant behavior in different terms, such as workplace incivility (Estes, 2008), counterproductive behavior (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), organizational misbehavior (Thompson & Ackroyd, 1999), dysfunctional behavior (Jaworski & Young, 1992), and cyber loafing (Lim, 2002). The lack of self-control and procrastination (Lavoie & Pychyl, 2001) perceived internet service accessibility, environmental conditions and individual behavioral styles and when employees feel that they are not being treated well, they tend to engage in cyberloafing behaviors (Lim, Teo, & Loo, 2002; Manrique de Lara et al., 2006). In this research, the researcher has included cyber loafing as part of production deviant because the consequences of this activity many times leads to decrease employee and organizational productivity (Blanchard & Henle,
Workplace harassment is unwelcome actions that are based on a person’s race, religion, color, and sex, and gender, country of origin, age, ethnicity or disability. The targets of the harassment are people who are usually perceived as “weaker” or “inferior” by the person who is harassing them. Companies and employers can also be guilty of workplace harassment if they utilize discriminatory practices against persons based on ethnicity, country of origin, religion, race, color, age, disability, or sex. These discriminatory practices have been illegal since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Civil Rights Act of 1964), and have been amended to be more inclusive of other people who experience discrimination by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (The Civil Rights Act of 1991), and most recently, President Obama’s signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Stolberg, 2009).