Organizational Misbehavior

Organizational Misbehavior I: Misbehavior by Organizations

This area is not concerned with failure to conform to managerial norms (e.g., an organization's failure to follow an expected strategy) but with the failure of organizations to comply with the law and general moral codes. Until recently, this field has not been much studied. There has been some important initial work, but despite the issue's growing significance, academics have been slow to respond.

There are good reasons misbehavior by organizations has not been widely studied. One problem is that organizations make and enforce their own rules, and the framework of law typically supports them. Since they make the rules and the law is supportive, it is difficult to see organizations, and corporations especially, as likely to be deviant. Indeed, organizational [Page 1143]misconduct is widely assumed not to occur. Thus, where misconduct by organizations does occur, it can be well hidden and is often (very effectively) denied.

Misconduct by organizations is, however, quite common, as numerous sources attest, especially the journalistic record. The reasons for this misconduct are not difficult to work out. Because corporations primarily meet sectional interests (shareholders and, increasingly, top executives) and serve the community interest only indirectly, there is a tendency for them to be self-interested. Misbehavior is made likely by the high motivation to achieve results (at almost any cost). Following the seminal work of Maurice Punch, however, corporations are now regarded as crimogenic; that is, because of the combination of high levels of self-interest, abundant resources, and few checks, corporations are disposed to misbehavior and even crime. Such tendencies also persist because organizations have systemic properties that cause them to retain similar patterns over time, despite the replacement of personnel. Hence, there is a paradoxical quality to misbehavior by organizations: It is recognized to be both aberrant and normal at the same time.

Bringing misbehavior by organizations to light is dangerous, especially for an employee, because retaliation is common. Revealing corporate misbehavior is called whistle-blowing. The label correctly implies that unless attention is drawn to it, misbehavior will, very likely, not be either noticed or sanctioned. Despite their altruism, whistle-blowers often suffer greatly for their actions.

Organizational Misbehavior II: Misbehavior in Organizations

A second area of academic concern is for misbehavior by employees in organizations and what they do in disregarding the rules and expectations of their employing organizations. This area has long attracted a high level of research and attention. However, the field remains fragmented.

This fragmentation is partly because misbehavior at work is complex and merges into other things. There is a continuum of seriousness of noncompliance, from overt resistance (with connotations of outright rejection of authority) through misbehavior (as self-conscious but venal and periodic rule breaking) to dissent (which implies merely linguistic or normative disagreement). Misbehavior also takes a variety of directions, from that aimed at readjusting the exchange of work for wages (the effort bargain) to disagreements over the use of time (from absenteeism to time wasting), appropriation of products (theft, pilferage), destruction of property (vandalism), and subversions of organizational policies (cynicism, satire, detachment).

...