Giacalone and Greenberg observe that: “Despite the widespread occurrence of incidents of antisocial behavior in organizations, and guidance from related social science disciplines, it is curious that the topic of antisocial behavior has received little attention from management scholars” (p. ix). I concur and this is why, I believe, this book comes at the right time, offering a first systematic glance at those relatively uncharted paths of our disciplinary domain where we may find such behaviors as revenge, aggression, lying, stealing, sabotage, whistle‐blowing and litigating.
The book contains nine chapters written especially for this volume; while chapters 8 and 9 offer more generalized discussions, the others explore specific forms of organizational misconduct. Chapter 1, on the role of frustration as a trigger of antisocial work behavior, was written by Paul Spector, who has built on his earlier work on the subject and a meta‐analysis of other studies. Spector suggests that work‐related frustration is a motivator of such misbehaviors as aggression, hostility and sabotage. However, he stresses that experienced frustration is certainly not the only trigger for those behaviors; other factors, such as perceived control and delinquent personality, could be related to them as well. Based on the “frustration model”, the chapter offers several interventions: minimizing external frustrators by applying better management methods, reducing experienced frustration, enhancing feelings of control, and better employee screening.
Byes, Trip and Karma contributed an essay on the “Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations” (chapter 2). They preface the article by stating that revenge is not necessarily “antisocial”, because some forms of getting even or just the threat of revenge are actually constructive forces that often contribute to the process of conflict resolution, for example. Thus, they propose a broader framework in which revenge cognitions and behaviors are considered individual responses to perceptions of harm caused by others, violation of norms and expectations by the organization, etc. Focusing on the dynamics of revenge episodes, the authors articulate an interdisciplinary “thermodynamic” model. Since for most people revenge acts are associated with elements of heat and “boiling blood”, the imagery and terminology used are quite useful. The process is summarized like this (p. 20): a revenge episode begins when a hurtful event sparks revenge thoughts and emotions, which in turn create a heating‐up process that is also influenced by perception, attribution and motivation. If the heat comes to a boiling‐point, then there must be some release, which will be followed by a cooling‐down phase. One can either explode in rage or allow the heat to escape or dissipate naturally out of fatigue.
Aggression in the workplace is covered in chapter 3 written by Neuman and Baron. They suggest (p. 38) that “the word aggression is employed to describe many different behaviors, not all of which are antisocial in either their intentions or their effects”. Thus, they limit their conceptualization to those intentional acts that cause harm to others or to the organization. Neuman and Baron propose a three‐dimensional framework of workplace aggression: physical and verbal, active and passive, and direct and indirect. This framework allows for a rich view of both subtle and flagrant acts to be classified and – according to the authors – studied more systematically. The chapter provides some important information about the prevalence of workplace aggression, develops an integrated model of antecedents, occurrence and consequences of aggression as well as some practitioner‐oriented advice on its prevention and control. Showing some evidence that the new workplace is indeed becoming a meaner, more aggression‐stimulating environment, the authors include valuable suggestions for training, screening, discipline, and stress management. In particular they stress the importance of promoting employee perceptions concerning distributive justice and its proper maintenance.
Lying in organizations “as a key form of antisocial behavior” (p. 69), is covered in chapter 4 by Steven Grover. It is parsimoniously defined here as “attempts to deceive by giving information one knows to be false”. Grover argues that it is important to explore this form of behavior, because lying undermines organizational trust and thus may have dire consequences for organizational effectiveness. As with other forms of misbehavior, while other disciplines such as communication, clinical psychology, criminology, and social psychology have researched the phenomenon, OB and management are still lagging behind. Yet, there is ample evidence that there are many reasons at the person, job, and organization levels for members to lie at work and indeed they do. Grover provides an initial distinction between two classes of possible antecedents for organizational lying: role‐conflict and self‐interest. In a causal sense, while self‐interest is a trigger, lying intention is the necessary condition. Certainly this explanation is insufficient and, as the author suggests, we need more research to understand not only how these mechanisms interact, but how external factors such as organizational climate (chapter 9) and national culture may influence such processes.
Chapter 5 by Jerald Greenberg is devoted to employee theft, one of the author’s main areas of expertise. The chapter begins with a note concerning the prevalence and cost of this most common form of employee misconduct (broadly defined as any unauthorized appropriation of company property). By one account US businesses bear the enormous price tag of $200 billion due to theft. Importantly, employee theft is not limited to physical property, but refers also to company time, funds, information, secrets etc. The main question of course is why do members of organizations steal from their own employers? Assuming that the answer is as complex as the motivation to steal, Greenberg proposes the STEAL motive. He uses a two‐dimensional table to articulate the motivational types: actor’s intention (prosocial or antisocial) and target (employer or coworker). Hence the STEAL acronym: Support (adhere to group’s norm condoning theft); Thwart (violating group norm condoning theft); Even the score (desire to harm out of revenge); and ApprovaL (adhere to managerial norms condoning theft). The first two are group‐motivated, whilst the two others are employer‐motivated. To support the model, Greenberg cites some interesting and relevant research. In addition, the chapter elaborates practical implications concerning the management of the STEAL motive, whose principal goal is to weaken the underlying motivation to steal.
“Employee sabotage occurs when people currently employed in an organization engage in intentional behaviors that effectively damage that organization’s property, reputation, product or service” (p. 109). Since in the past interest in this phenomenon has been expressed either by security practitioners or by motivation researchers, the authors propose an approach that embraces both. The result is an interdisciplinary interpretation of sabotage behavior that leads toward “real world” data to be generated by managers: Is the event sabotage? Is the perpetrator an individual or a group? Is it an isolated event or a pattern? Was there provocation? Who is the target? What kind of damage was done, etc.? Such data could be useful for both understanding and controlling this form of misbehavior.
Back in 1985 Near and Miceli defined whistle‐blowers as people who “disclose illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action” (p. 5). Now Miceli and Near (chapter 7) suggest an additional view of whistle‐blowing as an antisocial behavior. For them this will be the case, if it is:
performed by a member of an organization;
directed toward an individual, group, or organization with whom he or she interacts; and
performed with the intention of harming them.
Thus the authors suggest three types of whistle‐blowing: the purely prosocially motivated, the purely antisocially motivated; and the mixed type. The rest of the chapter is devoted to propositions looking for positive or negative predictors of whistle‐blowing, predicting which type of whistle‐blower will suffer more or less retaliation, and predicting the type of whistle‐blowing that will be more effective.
Chapter 9 (by Boye and Jones), which looks at the relationship between organizational climate and “counterproductive behavior”, could have offered a fruitful direction. Since climate is defined as a shared perception about the organization, it affects behavior and misbehavior through its influence on members’ behavioral intentions. The question is how do organizations affect these collective perceptions? Boye and Jones suggest that counterproductive behavior may be controlled by the dissemination of such organizational values as honesty and ethics, introduction of antitheft policy and security measures, appropriate sanctions, and influence over group norms. Do these sound a bit trivial? They do. Unfortunately, this is the least valuable chapter in this collection, not only for lack of sound theory but also perhaps because it was prematurely published (e.g. the title is incorrect – it is climate not culture).
Finally, the collection offers chapter 8 that is quite different and intriguing. Allan Lind wrote about litigation and claiming in organizations, asking whether this is “antisocial behavior or quest for justice”? The chapter focuses on those legal claims by employees that can be regarded as unjustified or as “unnecessary litigation”. Its thrust is this: since people file lawsuits against their company only if they experience a strong feeling of being treated unfairly, in order to minimize unnecessary litigation the company should make workplace justice its primary criterion for organizational decisions. This logic, however, raises many questions. Are companies that maintain decent human resource systems more prone to litigation than companies that do not? Is not success in one litigation a cause for more litigation by others? Are litigation and claiming really antisocial behavior? How do lawyers contribute to this increasing practice? This chapter falls a bit short of dealing with these questions.
The editors define antisocial behavior in organizations as “any behavior that brings harm, or is intended to bring harm, to an organization, its employees, or stakeholders”. However, the term “antisocial” has a straightforward negative connotation which precludes misconduct that may be beneficial, such as in crisis problem solving, or that is unintentional, such as errors that may inflict serious damage. It also precludes misconduct that is motivated by a real sense of identification with a group or an organization. Similarly, other terms used here, such as “counterproductive” or “dysfunctional”, preclude acts that may benefit the organization, such as internal bootlegging for product innovation.
In summary, this book is about the organization roads less traveled by researchers, where one finds many forms of work‐related behavior that are both intriguing and familiar. Only in recent years have we seen a number of systematic contributions by OB writers beginning to rectify this oversight. Thus, this volume, despite several editorial shortcomings and perhaps a bad choice of title, joins this effort and adds to it quite significantly and convincingly.
