WORKPLACE DEVIANCE REVIEW – A PHILOSOPHICAL STANCE

Purpose of the study: The research aimed to compile extensive literature on workplace deviance typology. Methodology: The research comprises a systematic literature review. The review helps to understand the extensive work on workplace deviance (1983-2019). The articles were shortlisted based on PRISMA, preferred reporting items for systematic reviews, to provide a clear picture. Based on 75 shortlisted articles from financial times (FT) – 50. The shortlisted articles comprise four clusters, i.e., antecedents, consequences, mediators, and moderators. Main Findings: The research found the need to explore future research based on a social constructivist lens. Applications of this study: The research provides a way forward to extend research in workplace deviance. Research developed a framework to guide future research on the new relationships of workplace deviance. Hence, empirical work on these relationships can offer new insights into construct dimensionality, methodology, and philosophy. Novelty/Originality of this study: After highlighting the key contributions of the previous researchers, the research attempted to articulate the ontology of workplace deviance by suggesting the need to investigate it through a different philosophical lens. Researchers then identified various gaps to be addressed in the future.


INTRODUCTION
Workplace deviance (WD) can be defined as a "voluntary behaviour that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both" (Robinson & Bennett, 1995, p. 556) With the turn of a century and the emergence of WD typology by Robinson and Bennett (1995), the interest in the constructs increases (Mackey et al., 2019). To provide a comprehensive picture of the WD research, the present research aims to articulate the ontology of WD typology.
Researchers have primarily emphasized the sources and outcomes of the WD. The mutual theme of these researchers has remained on studying the rule-breaking, norm violation, the elements and reasons behind individual norm-deviating behaviours (Malik & Lenka, 2018). The studies that intend to conceptualize the concept of 'deviance' as behavioural acts inconsistent with societal groups have been defined under the functionalist approach (Dennis & Martin, 2005). Alternatively, Bryant and Higgins (2010) pointed out the importance of an interactionist lens for exploring deviance in organizations. They viewed the role of social interactions as imperative for individuals, as these interactions provide meanings and facilitate them to interpret these interactions. The Individuals perceive these interactions differently and interpret them in their way. Therefore, Bryant and Higgins (2010) highlighted that interactionist perspective as relevant in expanding the theory of WD. Despite the significance of investigating the 'social construction of bad behaviours' within the organization (Arshad & Malik, 2020), the lack of attention regarding what makes WD socially constructed (Bennett & Robinson, 2003) persists. The research is divided into the following sections. Firstly, it provides an overview of the concept of WD and its definitional concern. Secondly, the methodology to analyse the literature is presented, followed by the discussion on four emergent clusters. Finally, the research delineates the future direction, limitation, and conclusion.

LITERATURE REVIEW Definition
The concept of deviant behaviours has been associated with behavioural aspects of individuals, perceived as undesirable organizational behaviours in the past. Examples of such behaviours are absenteeism, theft, harassment, physical aggression, or sabotage (Robinson, 2008, p. 143). The definition later included the harmful behaviours, ranging from minor to severe behaviours, intent to harm either the individual or organization. The definition excludes behaviours such as wearing a casual dress at work, etc. (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), i.e. the behaviours which do not mean to harm anyone.
Two distinct and widely discussed manifestations of WD in literature are production deviance and employee theft, such as property deviance (Hollinger, 1986). Many scholars have attempted to classify the deviance at the workplace (Hollinger & Clark, 1982;Mangione & Quinn, 1975). These attempts have served as a foundation for developing an The consensus has yet to be made, but the core idea is to harm the organization, other peers, or both. The widely used and operationalized definition of WD is "voluntary behaviour that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both" (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Therefore, the two dimensions, i.e. organizational deviance (OD) and interpersonal deviance (ID) reflect the overall construct. 'OD' reflects behaviours that intend to harm an organization's interest, i.e. extending over time, shrinking working hours, stealing from an organization, or lying about hours worked. 'ID' reflects behaviours that intend to harm other individuals at work. These behaviours include verbal abuse, sexual harassment, blaming or gossiping about co-workers, etc. (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007).

Operationalization of construct
Numerous behaviours such as sabotage, absenteeism, theft, frustration, aggression have been used in literature to refer to WD. These behaviours, when combined for operationalizing WD, caused the concern of low variances, skewed distribution (Hanisch & Hulin, 1991) on the one hand, and correlational issues among attitude and behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977) on the other. Considering these issues, Bennet and Robinson (2003) evolved the concept from mere depiction of individual behaviour to the broad conceptualization involving the behaviours committed by the organizational members.  Bennett and Robinson's (2000) scale. Therefore, suggesting census on using Bennett and Robinson (2000) for operationalizing their construct.
The research aims to answer the following research questions: RQ 1 : Which antecedents, mediators, moderators, and consequences determine workplace deviance? RQ 2 : Which philosophical lens can extend workplace deviance research in the future?

METHODOLOGY
The systematic review allows commenting on the ontology of WD. Given its transparency to enhance the worth of the review process, a systematic review is frequently adopted by business and management research scholars (Bouncken et al., 2015).
The literature for the present study was identified using electronic databases and search engines, including Scopus. The field of WD is extensive and comprises a vast range of data sources. To deal with reliability and validity issues, the research used Scopus as a search engine (Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016). The search terms used were deviance, deviant behaviours, workplace deviance, organizational deviance, and interpersonal deviance. These terms were explicitly used to cater to the development of Robinson and Bennett's typology. A total of 542 articles were found after putting inverted commas. (e.g. "deviant behaviour") which was reduced to 445 after the removal of duplicates. Articles further reduced to 400 after restricting the search for 'journal articles' specifically deals with deviant behaviours in organizational/work contexts (see Figure 1).

Selection of articles
The search results were from Scopus exported through bibliographic management software Endnote to Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excel was used to save data under numerous headers, including author name, document title, year, source title, and abstract. The researchers used Scopus to search related studies to avoid any potential elimination of the research articles (Podsakoff et al., 2012). To consolidate the research on WD and ensure reliability in the results, articles were shortlisted from Financial Times (FT) 50 journals (related to management, HR, and organizational behaviour). From

RESULTS
The literature has primarily evidenced the studies from the functionalist approach (Bryant & Higgins, 2010). A functionalist approach builds upon the interrelationship of society, which accounts for societal influence (Mooney et al., 2007). This approach highlights the societal aspects impacting the social world, WD scholars have widely used this approach. It shows an influence from the large social groups and institutions.   Several studies adopted quantitative approaches, while only two studies used experiments and manipulation. Contrarily, qualitative analysis was scarce as only one of 45 studies conducted interviews. This evidence shows that a significant portion of research on WD typology has used survey instruments. The lack of qualitative studies is dominantly evident from the results. Furthermore, concerning the research designs, the literature opted for '360-degree feedback' or crosssectional data (with data collected at one, two, or three-point in time). The survey participants were employees, managers, executives, students, and professionals from different industries, suggesting that most of the research in the area of WD has used either individuals or dyads as their unit of analysis.
Based on the systematic review, the research can divide the literature into 4 clusters. The following section discusses antecedents, consequences, mediators, and moderators of the literature to date.

Antecedents of workplace deviance
In cluster 1, the antecedents that determine individuals' tendency toward WD are analysed. (Figure 3).

Mediators of workplace deviance
Cluster 2 describes variables that have emerged as a mediating mechanism between WD and other consequences ( Figure  3). Dominant themes which emerged as a mediating role in literature are cognitive and affective states, emotions

Moderators of workplace deviance
Cluster 3 provides the boundary conditions which influence the effects of antecedents on WD (Figure 3). The boundary conditions that either strengthen or weaken the intersection of WD with other constructs include cognitive and affective states, emotions management, individual differences, employee perceptions, and moral perspectives.

Consequences of workplace deviance
Cluster 4 addresses the outcomes of WD (Figure 3). Only a few studies have investigated the consequential side of WD (Eissa et al., 2020). One of the studies concerns the deviant organizational behaviours resulting from the normalization of deviance within the local community (Earle et al., 2010). As normalization is a complicated construct to measure, Earle and colleagues used a proxy of arrears to evidenced deviance in organizations resulted from the community at large. In a recent study, Mawritz et al. (2017) described the role of self-regulatory resources impairment as an intervening variable impacting subordinate deviance and abusive supervision. Abusive leadership is also an outcome of followers' inappropriate responses, such as deviation from norms. The review shows less research on the consequences of WD.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The literature on WD has emerged over the years to extend the theory. Division of the literature among four clusters has led us to identify the gaps in the field of WD. Therefore, the following section presents the research gaps in the literature to guide future research for both scholars and practitioners. The framework developed from future directions is in Figure  4.

Multidimensional construct
Robinson and Bennett's (1995) typology paves the way for developing a two-dimensional scale for WD (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). These dimensions include OD and ID, consisting of seven items and nine items each respectively is a widely used instrument to date. Gruys (2003) assessed the multidimensionality of the construct through co-occurrence of data analysis and confirmed that deviant behaviours comprise two dimensions. Despite this, research on WD is primarily operationalized collectively to assess WD under the label of deviant behaviours, WD, or production deviance. Few studies have measured the construct as two-dimensional (Mackey et al., 2019). Hence, the research identifies that to make a distinction between ID and OD. This distinction will also facilitate exploring WD consequences. The metaanalysis provided evidence of the WD scale as two-dimensional (Berry et al., 2007). The meta-analysis recommends these two as viable for their two-dimensional operationalization. Therefore, it allows future researchers to explore the relationships of ID and OD through different antecedents. For instance, interpersonal level and organizational level constructs can be searched for and empirically analysed.

Methodological advancements
Rigour is portrayed as an essential element in 'evaluating the methodological rigor of existing survey-based research' (Malhotra & Grover, 1998). Dominant research in WD relies on quantitative methods; therefore, future researchers must give high weight to rigour in quantitative survey-based studies. Unit of analysis has been initiated as one of the significant attributes in formulating a research question (Malhotra & Grover, 1998). In this regard, the dominantly used unit of analysis in WD was individuals (60% of studies), where some studies employed subordinate-supervisor dyads (22% of studies). The remaining studies either used secondary data, interviews or developed a conceptual framework. These results suggest the need to analyse future studies from the organization and team/group as a unit of analysis. Future studies should focus on peer-rated or supervisor-rated responses to enhance the quality of responses. Using this will eliminate common method bias and self-desirability issues. Besides, most of the studies have used cross-sectional data, suggesting the need to conduct longitudinal studies. Longitudinal studies can guide the research in remarkable ways by developing policies and an understanding that either WD is a long-term personality trait or a situational state among individuals. Robinson and Bennett (1995) developed the typology by classifying the deviant behaviours into four categories i) Property deviance, production deviance, political deviance, and personal aggression. These categories state deviance as behaviour attempting to damage property acts in opposition to defined norms or behaves aggressively. All these provide evidence of WD as ontologically social and not actual. WD can also be specified as an ideal state due to its conception as an outcome emerging from a discourse. WD is an outcome of discourse; therefore, previously constructed evidence could mediate the link between WD and its consequences. For instance, when an individual observes that others are deviating from the work norms within the organization, the observation in itself makes the evidence real for the person in a sense that it can affect the behaviour of others as well. The previous argument suggests that the truths and meanings do not exist out there in the world; instead, they are outcomes of interaction among the subjects within the world (Chia, 2002). The subjects/individuals construct their meaning which varies even for the same phenomenon. These behaviours are the outcome of social interactions and human consciousness. The individual's perceptions ascertain their varying behaviours. This variation is due to organizational culture and prospects, such as relationships with peers or supervisors. Therefore, the research raises the need to consider WD that is not actual and comes under social constructivist epistemology.

Social constructivist perspective in the domain of workplace deviance
The research argues that the WD is a socially constructed phenomenon. Hence there is a need to scrutinize the concept from the structuralist and post-structuralist perspectives. Considering the nature of the concept as socially created rather than objective will provide a richer picture for its understanding (Bennett & Robinson, 2003, p. 266). The prevalence of deviant behaviours in local community results in occurrences of such events at the organizational level has been empirically evident (Earle et al., 2010), providing a construct as 'socially constructive' in nature.
Keeping the importance of social construction in mind, the role of a context or culture is significant. These factors play a dominant role in understanding the overall structure separate from the organizational reality and ideas (Deleuze, 1953). The role of corporate culture and climate is also highlighting by several scholars (Aleksic et al., 2019; Narayanan & Murphy, 2017; Salajeghe et al., 2016). Reality provides the edge for individuals to build a worldview that may shape their attitude and behaviours. Accordingly, organizational culture is a strong determinant of one's behaviour where the perception of an individual's and organizational norms specifies the individual's behaviour (Peng et al., 2016). Saussure (1959), a prominent figure of the linguistic turn, proposed that it is not the individuals who create language, instead, it's the sense that allows them to construct language. Therefore, the meanings given to each behaviour do not develop or build on certain norms instead are based on the culture of the organization. The perceptions of employees are grounded on these beliefs, which are formed from the social underpinnings and environment. This argument justifies that the context, i.e. culture and environment, are significant predictors and could create and program an individual's action. Therefore, the research suggests that functionalist and interactionist approaches are insufficient to analyse deviant behaviours. Further, the social constructivist perspective also plays its role in driving deviant behaviour within the organizations.
Future researchers should incorporate the less explored methods to investigate the phenomenon of deviant acts. The qualitative studies are rare or almost scarce in this area, suggesting the urge to fulfil this gap. The researchers can address the scarcity of qualitative studies by conducting case studies of sectors, such as banks, where property deviance is more prevalent. Participatory research is another form to explore the in-depth understanding of the phenomenon and to reflect upon it. Thus, qualitative research will contribute to the OB and management literature to identify the world view of the employees who get engaged in such behaviours. With this, researchers can build an informed policy recommendation through conducting participatory research.
The researchers believe that the WD is not actual and comes under social constructivist epistemology. The use of social constructivism to study the cultural prospect of the organization resulting in WD, another approach is ethnographic studies. Qualitative researchers can conduct a plethora of research in this area, considering the lack of investigation from the social constructivist lens.

Framework for future research
The literature has depicted a rich picture of WD antecedents, where the research is sparse regarding its consequential side. Mawritz  Considering the need to clarify the association between personality and both ID and OD (Colbert et al., 2004), the study proposes a considerable need to develop a framework for outcomes of WD.
The research further aims to provide an outline concerning the consequences of WD. Future studies can use either onedimensional or two-dimensional constructs. It is among the first few studies postulating the need to explore another side of the picture. Besides, the construct of WD can be separately analysed to dig out its association with various consequences. Examples of variables include; interpersonal facilitation, interpersonal trust, on one hand, organizational commitment, and creativity on the other. In their recent work, Mawritz et al. (2017) empirically identified subordinate's deviance as a factor behind instigating dispositional personality among leaders such as abusive supervision. The framework in figure 4 provides future directions. The framework holds the potential to underline the collective impact of WD on an interpersonal level or the organizational level.
Understanding WD and its relationship with other constructs can guide organizations and scholars in recognizing the means to reduce the psychological and financial costs of deviant behaviours (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). OD can be associated with the organizational level outcomes through a moderating role of contextual variables. For instance, organizational identification, organizational support, organizational climate, the cultural difference (collectivist/individualist), and the organization's ethical environment can act as moderators between the OD and organization-level outcomes such as commitment and creativity. ID and interpersonal level outcomes such as interpersonal facilitation, interpersonal trust, and satisfaction; can be influenced through moderators. These moderators include; support from colleagues, peer feedback, cultural differences (collectivist/ individualist), task-interdependence/ autonomy, and individual ethical values.
Employees may tend to adversely impact their workplace by harming the organization (i.e., organizational deviance). The employee's behavioural outcomes are their reaction determined based on exchange relations, as suggested by the social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964). The theory delineates that employees tend to reciprocate the behaviours at work with an efficient attitude and performance (Cropanzano et al., 2017). The model further portrays the mediating role of cognitive, affective state, and regulatory mechanisms (i.e., ID and OD). The likelihood to positively reciprocate on perceiving ID of leaders may lead to negative or positive consequences at the interpersonal and individual levels. At the interpersonal level of deviance, employees can further harm their workplace by showing a low level of interpersonal facilitation and trust. Contrarily, relational cohesion theory recommends that recurring exchanges in organizations embed their employees with their workplace that develops a sense of unity among them. Survey-based or ethnographic studies can solve these ambiguities in the future. At the organizational level, the coping mechanism mediates the choices and affects an individual's feelings. These feelings as better or worse (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985) guides an individual to remain committed or quit the organization.
The framework suggests the several outcomes of ID and OD. The employees would either likely reciprocate through showing the destructive attitude at the interpersonal level of deviance, organizational level, or both. The research assumes that the conceptual model of the present study holds substantial exploratory power for other behavioural, psychological, and attitudinal consequences connected to WD. The model can also guide the impact of WD at a multilevel (i.e., organizational and interpersonal).

CONCLUSION
The research contributes to the existing body of knowledge in management and organizational behaviour. The research makes several contributions. First, to the researcher's knowledge, this is among the first systematic literature review deeply investigated WD typology by Robinson and Bennett (1995). Second, the literature overview has provided a comprehensive insight for the scholars to review the research conducted to date. Third, the study has offered ontological and epistemological clarity on workplace deviance. These philosophical underpinnings can extend the literature by social constructivism lens. Thus, the research aims to articulate a need to consider the social constructivist lens of WD. Hence, clarity in the ontological grounds will allow the organizations to identify why few violations result in questioning few individuals as deviant while not others. Lastly, research has explored several gaps in the literature related to methodological concerns, construct dimensionality, philosophical underpinnings, and conceptual framework. The research is a step to synthesize the prominent workplace deviance literature to envisage the future of the field.

LIMITATION AND IMPLICATIONS
Despite several notable contributions in the study, there might exist some weaknesses. The researchers have explained inclusion criteria for articles and journals in the methodology section; still, the researchers can be criticized for the subjectivity. The researchers intend to overview top-tier journals owing to their wide acceptability. This resulted in the elimination of other journals. Also, the research consists of a bibliographic review and subjective interpretation of data. Other researchers may interpret the themes differently. Additionally, the developed framework lacks insufficient proposition development, suggesting the need to propose conceptual frameworks in the future. Future researchers can also empirically test the outlined constructs from the framework to fully explore the construct. The testing based on different theories may provide implications for the managers and practitioners. The research suggests industry and sector-based research. Besides, suitable methodologies such as participatory or ethnographic studies could explore novel questions in the field. Therefore, future researchers should incorporate interviews and case studies to provide a big picture to the practitioners for resolving WD in their organizations.