Abstract
Purpose
The objective of this study was to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the existing literature on organizational deviance to assess how far this concept has progressed since its introduction in the domain of organizational behavior.
Design/methodology/approach
This study employs bibliometric methodologies (citation analysis, co-citation analysis and co-occurrence of author keywords) using VOSviewer. The Scopus database was used, as it is the largest database of scholarly literature.
Findings
The findings indicate the character and direction of organizational research over the past two decades. Organizational deviance due to psychological contract breach, organizational deviance in the context of organizational cynicism and organizational deviance in the context of psychological capital are the three major themes in the literature on organizational deviance. In addition, the study highlights the most significant authors, journals, institutions and nations in the field of value co-creation research as well as potential future research areas in this area.
Research limitations/implications
The use of a single database and the inability to contextualize the citation structure of papers revealed by the review are limitations of this study.
Originality/value
This study examines the structure of the literature on organizational deviance and charts the field's evolution over time.
Keywords
Citation
Abas, B. (2024), "Mapping of organizational deviance research during the last two decades: a bibliometric approach", IIM Ranchi Journal of Management Studies, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IRJMS-08-2023-0069
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Basit Abas
License
Published in IIM Ranchi Journal of Management Studies. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Recent research on organizational behavior has concentrated on organizational deviance and its effects on benefits, job efficiency and employee well-being (Costa & Neves, 2017). Deviant behavior research has been conducted to better understand the impact of deviant behavior on psychological, social and economic costs. To resolve these concerns, the idea of organizational deviance has grown in popularity among scholars, with a rapid increase in the number of papers and journals devoted to this subject in the last decade. The roots of deviant behavior can be found in structural functionalism, followed by sociological categories such as symbolic interaction and conflict theory (Ormerod, 2020). Structural functionalists are involved in how different aspects of culture combine to shape a whole. The word “deviance” has been used in psychology and criminology literature to describe people who do not obey or adhere to social norms (Cohen, 1966; Kabiri, Choi, Kruis, Shadmanfaat, & Lee, 2021). Deviance in the workplace is defined as a wilful breach of norms and regulations that endangers the organization's and its members’ well-being (Agwa, 2018; Mortimer, Fazal-e-Hasan, & Strebel, 2021; Sarpong, Appiah, Bi, & Botchie, 2018). For example, theft, fraud, sabotage, spreading rumors, frequent absenteeism and vandalism could pose a financial threat to the firm (Bugdol, 2018; Tiwari & Jha, 2021). It can take the shape of political deviance when workers are always blaming each other and when there is a lot of violence, bullying, etc. (Ahmad & Omar, 2013). The widely recognized definition of workplace deviance is discretionary behavior that violates organizational rules and poses a danger to the organization's employees or both (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Malik & Malik, 2021). Organizational deviance may have both financial and social consequences (Hashish, 2020). Individual behavior is considered deviant when it violates an organization's customs, policies or internal regulations in a manner that threatens the organization's or its members' well-being (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Treated employees often exhibit negative reactions, which extend beyond deviant behavior to include emotional influences. This reaction has a positive association with both supervisory and nondirected deviance (Iqbal & Rasheed, 2019; Tiwari & Jha, 2021). The causes of organizational deviance are varied, encompassing unethical behavior, immoral thoughts and disregard for authority (Chib & Shukla, 2019). In some studies, authoritative leadership has been found to have a direct impact on deviant employee behavior (Qi et al., 2020; Zaman, Florez-Perez, Khwaja, Abbasi, & Qureshi, 2021).
Employee theft cost US businesses an average of US$113m in 2016 (Security Newswire, 2017). People employed in organizations that are eager to defy normative presuppositions of the social frame of reference are more likely to engage in workplace deviance (Colquitt et al., 2013; Thrasher, Krenn, & Marchiondo, 2020). Although most emphasis has been placed on the darkside, we can say on the negative side of deviance compared to the positive side of deviance. Constructive deviance is a voluntary action that breaks corporate rules but is done with good intentions to help the company or its stakeholders (Dahling, Gabriel, & MacGowan, 2017). Employees who indulge in nonconforming behaviors, such as innovation champions or corporate entrepreneurs, may help companies innovate and gain competitiveness. Unauthorized behaviors that aid in the achievement of organizational goals are examples of constructive deviant behaviors. Innovative role behaviors, noncompliance with dysfunctional orders and undermining inept supervisors are examples of such behaviors (Ashforth & Mael, 1998). A substantial body of literature on this topic views deviance as inherently negative and has overlooked its potential positive aspects (Cohen & Ehrlich, 2019). On the other hand, deviating from norms could prove to be a blessing in disguise for the business (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003). Interpersonal constructive deviance and organizational constructive deviance are the two main types of constructive deviant behavior (Bodankin & Tziner, 2009). Interpersonal constructive deviance is aimed at a specific person, such as a coworker, subordinate or superior and includes deviant actions such as defiance against a supervisor to increase organizational efficiency. Organizational constructive deviance is aimed at a company and may question or even violate the company's policies, processes and procedures (Bodankin & Tziner, 2009).
To address the potential flaws, we propose a bibliometric approach and follow an established body of research (Rodríguez & Ruíz-Navarro, 2004) to provide a comprehensive overview of the intellectual origins and contributors of the organizational deviance literature by quantifying landmark papers (and authors) and putting them into a visual clustering of main topics and their changes over time, a crucial feature of bibliometric studies (White & McCain, 1998). As a result, we hope to gain a deeper understanding of the dynamic and nonlinear effects of deviant workplace behavior. Most notions about organizational deviance emphasize negative consequences (Kidwell and Martin, 2004). As a result, this study conducts a thorough bibliometric review of the literature on organizational deviance to address the following research questions:
How has the organizational deviance literature evolved over the last two decades and what are the most referenced studies?
Which publications, researchers, nations and institutions have had the greatest impact on the advancement of the field?
What are the rising trends in organizational deviance and how do they influence future research evolution?
2. Literature review
2.1 Organizational deviance
Organizational deviance undergoes metamorphosis because of a constantly evolving competitive climate and emerging management patterns. Any activity or behavior that violates implemented organizational rules or norms (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Previous research has focused on a variety of deviant behaviors including coercive management, organizational ostracism, ineffective and extra-role conduct, digital job simulation, lateness and misconduct (Fidrmuc, Kapounek, & Siddiqui, 2017). Authors have referred in the past to “antisocial” (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), “insidious” (Greenberg, 2011), “counterproductive” (Sackett, 2002) and “dysfunctional behavior” (Griffin, O’Leary-Kelly, & Collins, 1998) or “organizational misbehavior” (Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999; Richards, 2008; Vardi and Weitz, 2003; Vardi & Weitz, 2003) and “workplace incivility” (Schilpzand, De Pater, & Erez, 2016) in conceptualizing deviance at the workplace. Variations in terminology indicate differences in the authors' conceptualization's emphasis and breadth.
“Employee deviance as voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both” (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance are two types of workplace deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Interpersonal deviance involves actions directed at individuals, such as stealing from colleagues or being hostile to others (Abas, Vo-Thanh, Bukhari, Villivalam, & Senbeto, 2023). In contrast, organizational deviance involves behaviors aimed at the organization, including theft, disobedience and lateness. This behavior contravenes the socially acceptable norms of organizational stakeholders and is not motivated by intentionality (Warren, 2005).
2.2 Overview of bibliometric analysis
Bibliometric analysis is the application of quantitative methodologies to bibliometric data (e.g. citations and units of publication) (Broadus, 1987). Bibliometrics is a field of study in the library and information sciences. When a large corpus of literature must be evaluated to discover essential features and emergent topics, bibliometric analysis is a useful tool (Abas, Iqbal, Bukhari, Villivalam, & Khan, 2024; Baker et al., 2020, 2021). Bibliometric analysis has established itself as a valid subject of research, with applications in a wide range of scientific fields (Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015), including management (Zupic & Cater, 2015). Bibliometric analysis revealed links between articles based on the frequency with which they are cited and co-cited by others (Apriliyanti and Alon, 2017; Punjani, Kumar, & Kadam, 2019). Bibliometric studies potentially enable an objective comprehension of the literature in an area by assessing quantitatively a vast volume of research (hundreds or thousands of articles at once) (Bonilla, Merigó, & Torres-Abad, 2015). This allows researchers to work with vast amounts of bibliographic data while minimizing any possible bias (Burton, Kumar, & Pandey, 2020; Donthu, Kumar, & Pattnaik, 2020). We can review the existing study fields and possible future research avenues for further investigation, the influence of a group of researchers and a specific paper or find particularly important papers within a certain field of research using bibliometric analysis. Performance analysis and science mapping are the two components of bibliographic analysis (Cobo et al., 2011). The performance analysis examines how individuals, institutions and countries perform, in addition to contributing to a certain study subject. On the other hand, science mapping is used to portray the dynamic aspects of scientific activities and advancement. In recent years, bibliometric analysis has exploded prominence in business and management research (Khan et al., 2021), and its growing popularity can be attributed to the progression, affordability and ease of access of bibliometric software such as Gephi, Leximancer, VOSviewer and scientific databases such as Scopus and Web of Science as well as to the cross-disciplinary pollination of bibliometric research methods from data science to business and management research.
3. Methodology
As shown by previous studies in accounting, communications, sociology and psychology, bibliometric reviews have proved to be critical in evaluating the success of social science research. Bibliometric analysis is a useful technique for identifying the most quoted authors, keywords and publications in which they were written (Bhutta et al., 2021). Bibliometrics is a quantitative study of physical publishing units such as journals, articles and other publications (OECD, 2002; Verma, Tripathi, & Narayana, 2022). Bibliometric network analysis is a well-established tool in academia for quantifying research literature networks (Farrukh, Meng, Wu, & Nawaz, 2020), but it is particularly useful in strategies and organizational theory as well as adjacent disciplines, which are objective reviews of the existing literature carried out by looking at a specific corpus of research (Farrukh, Meng, Raza, & Wu, 2023). Bibliometric analysis looks at publication patterns and relationships that identify idea growth, rapidly innovative fields of study, research gaps and data on and characteristics of existing literature and new advancements (Iqbal, Farrukh, & Bhaumik, 2024). The bibliographic data in this study were represented using bibliometric indicators (Farrukh, Raza, Ansari, & Bhutta, 2022), which include the total number of publications and citations (Farrukh, Raza, Javed, & Lee, 2021). Typically, the number of publications is used to gauge productivity, while the number of citations is used to gauge influence. (Gao et al., 2021). Several steps were followed in our study, beginning with the definition of the field under investigation, followed by the selection of a database for searching existing research, the definition and adjustment of search criteria, the organization and compilation of bibliographic information categories and finally, the analysis of the data (Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016). In addition, this study considers several citation thresholds to determine the number of articles that meet a particular criterion (Rafiq, Dastane, & Mushtaq, 2023). Scopus, the largest database of scholarly literature (Norris & Oppenheim, 2007), provided bibliographic data for these documents, which has 60% more coverage than the Web of Science (Norris & Oppenheim, 2007; Comerio & Strozzi, 2019). Therefore, in this investigation, we chose to employ Scopus. This is a multidisciplinary database of over 77 m records, 70,000 institutional profiles and 16 m author profiles (Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Physical Sciences and Health Sciences) (Scopus database, Elsevier).“Organizational and Workplace Deviance” are important search terms. With the “or” notation, a combination of these search words was employed. We obtained 874 documents from the original search. Non-English articles, conference papers, editorials, erratums, conference reviews, retracted papers, notes, short surveys and book chapters were excluded from analysis. As a result, the number of articles decreased to 782. We used VOSviewer's bibliometric tools to analyze citations, authorship, sources, geographic distribution and keywords to perform descriptive data analysis and network analysis (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010).
Different methods can be used in bibliometric studies to derive knowledge from the data obtained (Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016). The authorship review identifies the most prominent writers in a discipline, that is, the field's driving academics. Assessing the publication year helps one watch the field's progression and determine whether it is increasing or shrinking. Furthermore, evaluating the knowledge base (i.e. the reference list of each studied work) allows the discovery of commonalities and relations. Many bibliometric studies (Ferreira, 2011; Marques, Reis, & Gomes, 2018; Rodríguez & Ruíz-Navarro, 2004; Reis, Carvalho, & Ferreira, 2015; Shahzad et al., 2020) used the sample's information base to conduct citation and co-citation analyses. To produce a relevant corpus of articles for analysis, we placed the search profile in the scope mentioned in Table 1. The sample consisted of 782 papers. The bibliometric data of the papers were exported into an Excel spreadsheet. Journal titles, author details (names and affiliations), article titles, keywords and citation counts were all included.
4. Empirical results and their discussion
4.1 Analysis of research institutes
First, we examine the contributions of several research organizations to articles on organizational deviance. As shown in Table 2, the United States tops the list and has seven academic institutes, followed by India, which has one research institute; Canada, which also has one institute and Israel, which is also the same as its predecessor. While Australia, the UK, China, Germany, and Malaysia are among the top ten nations, they do not appear in this list. The highest-ranked research organization in terms of publications is Drexel University in the United States, with five publications, followed by the University of Michigan, United States, Department of Psychology, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, United States, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India, Kellogg School of Management, Northwest University and the United States with four publications. The US has contributed to this field since its inception.
4.2 Annual trend of organizational deviance related publications
We collected 874 research publications from the Scopus database between 2000 and 2021. Out of 874, only 782 publications, that is, research articles and only those documents that were written in English were evaluated for empirical analysis. The flow of publications concerning the number of papers available each year is depicted in Figure 1. The years 2019 and 2020 had the highest number of articles, with 81 and 81 articles, respectively. Until 2010, very few studies were published each year. The number of articles published has increased since 2011. This is because, in this dynamic era, it is important to understand the psychology of workers at work and increase focus on the impact of deviance in organizations.
4.3 Distribution of journals
Table 3 illustrates the 18 most productive journals, accounting for 204 (26%) of all research papers. With 35 publications (4.5 %) of research documents, the Journal of Applied Psychology has established itself as a leading research platform in the field of organizational deviance. The Journal of Business Ethics placed second (33; 4.2 %), while the Journal of Organizational Behavior placed third (33; 4.2 %) (16; 2 %) In addition, Deviant Behavior was ranked fourth, followed by Human Relations, which was ranked fifth. The top two research categories, according to our evaluation, were applied to psychology and business ethics.
4.4 Geographic distribution
Next, we examine each country's publishing trends. There were 92 nations and territories that contributed to the research articles in total. The top 20 nations with the highest number of research publications are listed in the table below. The United States of America has contributed the most research articles, with 377 documents accounting for 48.2% of the total publications, followed by Canada (63, 8%), Australia (58, 7.4%), the UK (51, 6.5%) and India (42, 5.3%). During this period, the United States of America possessed intellectual dominance and focused purely on organizational deviance. Finally, affluent economies make the greatest contribution to understanding the severity of organizational deviance (See Figure 2 and Table 4).
4.5 Authorship analysis
We conducted an authorship study similar to other bibliometric studies (e.g. Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Sorianom, 2016) and found the most prolific authors. The number of publications on the subject by any writer in the study was counted as part of the authorship examination. When an author produces a large number of articles on a given subject, he or she is considered a significant author and by evaluating authors with the most publications, this section provides information on individual research contributions. Malik P., working as an assistant professor at Birla Institute of Management Technology (India), is a top contributing author with nine publications, according to statistical data. Mitchell, M. S., Bennett, R. J., Mayer, D. M. and Brown, D. J. are the most cited authors. Malik P. has the highest number of publications, which strengthens her position as a prominent expert in the field of organizational deviance literature. See Table 5.
4.6 Most cited papers with the authors and year distribution
This section presents the top 15 most-cited papers with at least 300 citations (see Table). Number of citations received. Only 1.91 % of the publications have garnered 300 or more citations, with “Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational context's (Hoggy & Terry, 2000) receiving the most citations (2,070). The authors created a conceptual framework for comprehending social identity in this article and then investigated this idea from the perspective of organizational context logic. The development of a measure of workplace deviance” is the second most-cited article (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). The authors of this article define workplace deviance by analyzing the roles of employees and organizations. Both publications have acquired a large number of citations in the deviant literature since they primarily deal with the conceptualization and definition of the concepts of social conditions and behavior at work, respectively (see Table 6).
5. Structure
Co-citation and graphical representation were used to analyze the intellectual structure.
5.1 Co-citation analysis
By finding relevant clusters linked to a certain issue, co-citation analysis allows for the mapping of major research streams. Another approach used in this study to account for the linking structures of cited papers was co-citation analysis. Co-citation analysis is a study of how frequently two publications are mentioned in the same utterance. A total of 32,199 authors were identified based on a review of 782 articles. For a complete study, this collection was narrowed to authors with at least 30 citations, yielding 322 articles. Co-citation analysis was used to identify the names of the most co-cited authors, as shown by the nodes in the figure. According to the examination of co-citations with a co-citation score of 800, Robbinson, L. is the most co-cited author on the topic of organizational deviance, followed by Bennet, J. (678), Spector, P. E. (544), Greenberg (316) and Aquino, K. (294). The network of co-cited authors is shown in Figure 3 by cluster. In the field of organizational deviance, these clusters indicate authors who are frequently cited. The co-citation analysis of journals is depicted in Figure 4. The network of co-cited journals within each category was represented by six clusters. The Journal of Applied Psychology is at the top of the list with the most co-citations, as evidenced by the larger node co-citation score of 3,159. This indicates that this journal has been referenced 3,159 times in conjunction with other journals in the field of organizational deviance. The Journal of Applied Psychology is followed by the Academy of Management Journal (1,409), Journal of Management (813), Journal of Organizational Behavior (812) and Academy of Management Review (741).
5.2 Co-occurrence of keywords
This analysis examined the most frequently used keywords in publications and may aid in determining the highlights of studies. The co-occurrence of author keywords is depicted in Figure 5. The analyses revealed that keywords like “workplace deviance,” “Deviance,” “Positive deviance” and “Abusive Supervision” are among the most often used terms in the available literature on organizational deviance throughout the last two decades.
6. Organizational deviance tendencies that are gaining traction
Three major domains emerged as prominent themes in the literature on organizational deviance. In this section, we explore the emerging concepts from the literature.
6.1 Workplace deviance because of psychological contract breach
Workplace deviance, also known as counterproductive work behavior, is defined as voluntary actions taken by members of an organization with the intent of causing harm to the organization and its stakeholders (Abas et al., 2023; Marcus, Taylor, Hastings, Sturm, & Weigelt, 2016). As a result, deviance can take many different manifestations (Baharom, Sharfuddin, & Iqbal, 2017), ranging from minor infractions, such as spreading rumors and humiliating coworkers, to more serious offenses, such as theft and sabotage (Singh, 2019). Deviant behavior, such as deceptive or abusive behavior by employees or customers in the workplace, is frequently conceptualized in research as a form of relative risk that is likely to have negative consequences, such as disrupting operational efficiency, jeopardizing employee well-being, tarnishing brand reputation, value and jeopardizing the experience for customers, thereby jeopardizing revenue and profits (Hua & Yang, 2017; Gursoy, Cai, & Anaya, 2017). Employees' proactive service performance diminishes when they are exposed to an unpleasant environment (such as workplace gossip or bullying) (Tian, Song, Kwan, & Li, 2019) or increases emotional exhaustion (Anasori, Bayighomog, & Tanova, 2020). Employees who are involved in their organization's purpose, values and strategies see much overlap and congruence between their values and the organization's mission, values and tactics (Tavares, Knippenberg, & van and van Dick, 2016). Psychological contracts are both culturally and subjectively determined (In Rousseau & Schalk, 2000) rather than being lawful (Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007). When an employer or employee fails to fulfill his or her commitments, as viewed by others in a working relationship, a psychological contract is broken (Bal, De Lange, Jansen, & Van Der Velde, 2013). Employees respond to a breach of psychological contract by the organization in several negative ways, as anticipated by social exchange theory (Zhao et al., 2007). The psychological contract's fulfillment or violation is also influenced by human resource management (HRM) policies, which influence employee engagement and other work-related outcomes (Kraak, Lunardo, Herrbach, & Durrieu, 2017).
6.2 Organizational deviance in the context of organizational cynicism
Various writers have characterized unpleasant workplace behavior in various ways (Griffin & Lopez, 2005; Kidwell & Martin, 2004). Organizational cynicism is a feeling of discontent with the organization's administration in which employees believe that management lacks honesty, fairness and openness (Ozler & Atalay, 2011). Additional studies have examined other aspects of organizational cynicism, such as an unfriendly attitude, a lack of honesty by the organization, disruption, discontent and despair about the organization (Nair & Kamalanabhan, 2010). Many studies have systematically investigated organizational cynicism as a phenomenon that affects attitudes, beliefs and behaviors (Abraham, 2000; Andersson, & Bateman, 1997). Organizational cynicism has a moderate association between abusive supervisory conduct and workplace deviance; as organizational cynicism rises, so does workplace deviance (Ali, Sair, Mehta, Naqvi, & Saleem, 2020).
6.3 Organizational deviance in context psychological capital
Organizational deviance can be defined as employees' voluntary behavior not authorized by organizational norms, and it may even harm employees, organizations or both (James, Miles, & Mullins, 2011). Employees' deviant behavior is typical of today's organizations. Scholars employ terminology such as counterproductive work behavior to describe such deviant behavior (Sackett & DeVore, 2001). PsyCap is a multifaceted psychological resource that encompasses efficacy, hope, optimism and resilience (Luthans, Youssef-Morgan, & Avolio, 2015). Psychological capital can be used to study and implement positive human resource traits and psychological capacities that may be assessed, developed and successfully managed in today's workplace to improve performance (Luthans, James, Bruce, Norman, & Combs, 2006).
7. Discussion and theoretical implications
This research can be conducted in various ways. First, we discuss the evolution of organizational deviance in terms of publications and contributions from various stakeholders. Second, we identified the most common study topic. The key subject clusters as well as the research fronts, are presented in the third These observations, together with an understanding of prevalent approaches, will aid academics in navigating the issue of workplace deviance. This study intends to provide a complete bibliometric analysis of workplace deviance and organizational deviance from 2000 to 2021 using the Scopus database. The following are some of our significant findings: The topic of organizational deviance studies has grown rapidly in recent years, with a steady increase in research papers indicating that the subject is gaining momentum. The researchers conducted a complete bibliometric study to analyze the field's advancement in 782 publications published between 2000 and June 2021. To address the predetermined research questions of this study, a bibliometric investigation involving the methodologies of citation analysis, co-citation analysis and co-occurrence of author keywords was conducted. Our study has important academic and management ramifications. In terms of academic consequences, this study offers some key insights into the area of organizational deviance contributors as well as the most influential papers, journals and institutions that have affected the subject. These findings are similar to those reported by Alves, Fernandes, and Raposo (2016) on these same topics. In addition, our research highlights the field's progressive evolution over time and contributes to the theory by identifying major research themes arising from the literature on workplace deviance. These research topics confirm some of the primary results of Galvagno and Dalli (2014). From a management perspective, our study attempts to provide a complete understanding of the notion of organizational deviance, allowing managers to appreciate the complexities of the concept before using it as a strategic intervention.
8. Managerial implications
The findings of this study will aid managers in recognizing the fundamental notions of workplace deviance as a strategy, allowing them to consider it as part of a strategic intervention for their organizations. Furthermore, our results will aid researchers in gaining a better grasp of research trends and achievements in the area, and this study will assist managers in accessing sources that may provide them with significant practical insights into this field. Identifying clusters helps create a comprehensive body of knowledge that enables practitioners to better understand deviant workplace behaviors, ultimately benefiting them when addressing such issues. The study reveals three prominent themes, namely “Workplace deviance resulting from a breach of psychological contract,” “Organizational deviance in the context of organizational cynicism” and “Organizational deviance in the context of psychological capital.” These themes provide valuable insights for practitioners, particularly those seeking to develop persuasive strategies to control deviant behaviors. This could serve as a starting point for policy interventions aimed at promoting a zero-tolerance approach to uncivil behaviors in the workplace. This research includes a thorough analysis of keywords related to deviant behavior, such as incivility, destructive leadership and misconduct. These keywords suggest that deviant behavior has a significant impact on employee behavior and can lead to a negative and counterproductive mindset that affects both employees and the organization. To address this issue, management should consider implementing employee training programs that focus on psychological well-being and developing a program to manually outline appropriate workplace behavior.
9. Conclusion, limitations and future research avenues
This is one of the few studies that attempt a comprehensive review of the literature on workplace and organizational deviance. Despite the research's high quality, relevance and scope, a few limitations must be noted. The most serious flaw of this study is its reliance on a single database for data collection and analysis. Although most bibliometric studies in the literature employ a single database for analysis to avoid duplication, excluding additional databases (such as Scopus and Google Scholar) leads to the omission of potentially important publications. It is also worth noting that this information was obtained from the Scopus database. As a result, the limitations of the database may also apply to this study. Another drawback is the contextualization of the citation structure of the articles. Although this study vividly depicts the type of citation structure in the literature on value co-creation, the context and aim of the citation structure cannot be discerned from this investigation. Developed countries, particularly the United States of America, had the most publications, followed by Canada, Australia and the UK. Other developing countries, such as India, China and Malaysia, have performed well, but there is still a disparity between the United States of America and the rest of the world. The top 18 journals provided 26% of all publications, with the most productive journals being the Journal of Applied Psychology and the Journal of Business Ethics. In general, the most productive institution in the United States of America is Drexel University, followed by the University of Michigan in the United States of America. It is worth mentioning that the United States of America has seven of the top ten most productive institutions. According to statistics, Malik P, an assistant professor at the Birla Institute of Management Technology in India, is the top contributing author with nine publications. Mitchell, M.M., Bennett, R.J. and Mayer, D.M. The most-referenced writer was Brown D.J., Malik P., and she had the most publications, confirming her status as a leading expert in the field of organizational deviance research.
As previously stated, a robust research framework for board diversity is required. Although some conceptual studies are available (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), more work is needed to explain the impact of board diversity and to build conceptual frameworks. The majority of studies on workplace deviance have typically focused on a single country. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the principles identified in such studies may not be universally applicable due to differences in institutional and socioeconomic factors between countries. Therefore, future studies should consider conducting cross-country and multi-country studies to provide more comprehensive insights into workplace deviance.
Figures
Search syntax and general information
| Search Syntax: Title -ABS-KEY (“Organizational Deviance” AND “Interpersonal Deviance” OR “Workplace Deviance” AND (LIMIT TO DOCTYPE, “Article”) AND LIMIT TO (LANGUAGE, “English”) | |
|---|---|
| Criteria | Quantity |
| Articles | 782 |
| Journal | 204 |
| Authors | 707 |
| Institutions | 456 |
| Countries | 92 |
| Cited references | 29,820 |
Source(s): Author’s own creation
Showing top research institutes in terms of documents and citations
| ID | Organization/Country | Documents | Citations | ACPD* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Drexel University, United States | 5 | 297 | 59.4 |
| 2 | University of Michigan, United States | 4 | 191 | 47.8 |
| 3 | Department of psychology, Wright State University, Dayton, oh, United States | 4 | 37 | 9.3 |
| 4 | Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India | 4 | 17 | 4.3 |
| 5 | Kellogg school of Management, North Western University, United States | 3 | 522 | 174 |
| 6 | University of Tampa, 401 w. Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, fl 33606, United States | 3 | 237 | 79 |
| 7 | York University, 4700 Keele st., North York, ont., Canada | 3 | 237 | 79 |
| 8 | University of Georgia, United States | 3 | 93 | 31 |
| 9 | School of Behavioral Sciences and Business administration, Netanya university college, Israel | 3 | 81 | 27 |
| 10 | University of central Florida, Orlando, fl, United States | 3 | 53 | 17.7 |
Note(s): * Average citation per document
Source(s): Author’s own creation
Showing top journals in terms of papers and citation
| ID | Source | Documents | Citations | ACPD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Journal of Applied Psychology | 35 | 6,374 | 182.1 |
| 2 | Journal of Business Ethics | 33 | 751 | 22.8 |
| 3 | Journal of Organizational Behavior | 16 | 2,394 | 149.6 |
| 4 | Deviant Behavior | 14 | 85 | 6.1 |
| 5 | Human Relations | 10 | 458 | 45.8 |
| 6 | Journal of Management | 10 | 630 | 63 |
| 7 | Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services | 10 | 95 | 9.5 |
| 8 | Personality and Individual Differences | 10 | 179 | 17.9 |
| 9 | International Journal of Organizational Analysis | 9 | 25 | 2.8 |
| 10 | International Journal of Human Resource Management | 8 | 370 | 46.3 |
| 11 | Journal of Business Research | 8 | 220 | 27.5 |
| 12 | Journal of Managerial Psychology | 7 | 133 | 19 |
| 13 | Management Research Review | 7 | 60 | 8.6 |
| 14 | Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes | 7 | 1,540 | 220 |
| 15 | Academy of Management Review | 6 | 2,819 | 469.8 |
| 16 | Journal of Business and Psychology | 6 | 315 | 52.5 |
| 17 | Leadership Quarterly | 5 | 906 | 181.2 |
Source(s): Author’s own creation
Depicts the geographic distribution
| ID | Country | Documents | Citations | ACPD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States of America | 377 | 15,710 | 41 |
| 2 | Canada | 63 | 5,852 | 92 |
| 3 | Australia | 58 | 1,258 | 21.68 |
| 4 | UK | 51 | 1,329 | 26.05 |
| 5 | India | 42 | 271 | 6.45 |
| 6 | China | 36 | 581 | 16.1 |
| 7 | Germany | 31 | 347 | 11.1 |
| 8 | Malaysia | 21 | 89 | 4.2 |
| 9 | France | 20 | 208 | 10.4 |
| 10 | Israel | 19 | 438 | 23.05 |
| 11 | Spain | 17 | 368 | 21.6 |
| 12 | Pakistan | 15 | 75 | 5 |
| 13 | The Netherlands | 14 | 441 | 31.5 |
| 14 | Turkey | 14 | 119 | 8.5 |
| 15 | Taiwan | 13 | 397 | 30.5 |
| 16 | Hong Kong | 11 | 329 | 29.9 |
| 17 | Singapore | 11 | 939 | 85.3 |
| 18 | South Korea | 11 | 107 | 9.7 |
| 19 | Switzerland | 11 | 71 | 6.45 |
| 20 | Italy | 8 | 17 | 2.12 |
Source(s): Author’s own creation
Most influential authors in terms of highest number of documents
| ID | Author | Documents | Citations | ACPD | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Malik P. | 9 | 21 | 2 | 1.15 |
| 2 | Bennett R.J. | 8 | 1625 | 203 | 1.02 |
| 3 | Kura K.M. | 8 | 41 | 5 | 1.02 |
| 4 | Mayer D.M. | 8 | 1130 | 141 | 1.02 |
| 5 | Shamsudin F.M. | 8 | 45 | 6 | 1.02 |
| 6 | Tziner A. | 7 | 101 | 14 | 0.89 |
| 7 | Zoghbi-Manrique-De-Lara | 7 | 98 | 14 | 0.89 |
| 8 | Mitchell M.S. | 7 | 1741 | 249 | 0.89 |
| 9 | Chauhan A. | 7 | 41 | 6 | 0.89 |
| 10 | Brown D.J. | 6 | 760 | 126 | 0.76 |
Source(s): Author’s own creation
Most cited papers with the authors and year distribution
| ID | Authors | Title | Year | Source title | TC | C/Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J. | Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts | 2000 | Academy of Management Review | 2,070 | 98.5 |
| 2 | Bennett, R.J., Robinson, S.L. | Development of a measure of workplace deviance | 2000 | Journal of Applied Psychology | 1,354 | 64.4 |
| 3 | Garland, D. | The limits of the sovereign state: Strategies of crime control in contemporary society | 1996 | British Journal of Criminology | 1,302 | 52 |
| 4 | Lee, K., Allen, N.J. | Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the role of affect and cognitions | 2002 | Journal of applied psychology | 976 | 51.3 |
| 5 | Mayer, D.M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., Salvador, R.(B.) | How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model | 2009 | Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes | 743 | 61.9 |
| 6 | Berry, C.M., Ones, D.S., Sackett, P.R. | Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis | 2007 | Journal of Applied Psychology | 699 | 49.9 |
| 7 | Mitchell, M.S., Ambrose, M.L. | Abusive Supervision and Workplace Deviance and the Moderating Effects of Negative Reciprocity Beliefs | 2007 | Journal of Applied Psychology | 635 | 45.3 |
| 8 | Avey, J.B., Reichard, R.J., Luthans, F., Mhatre, K.H. | Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors and performance | 2011 | Human Resource Development Quarterly | 587 | 58.7 |
| 9 | Fox, S., Spector, P.E. | A model of work frustration-aggression | 1999 | Journal of Organizational Behavior | 511 | 23.2 |
| 10 | Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.S., Luthans, F. | Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors | 2008 | Journal of Applied Behavioral Science | 438 | 33.6 |
| 11 | Lim, V.K.G. | The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyber loafing, neutralizing and organizational justice | 2002 | Journal of Organizational Behavior | 367 | 19.3 |
| 12 | Judge, T.A., LePine, J.A., Rich, B.L. | Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership and task and contextual performance | 2006 | Journal of Applied Psychology | 359 | 23.9 |
| 13 | Ambrose, M.L., Seabright, M.A., Schminke, M. | Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice | 2002 | Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes | 343 | 18.05 |
| 14 | Hershcovis, M.S., Barling, J. | Toward a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators | 2010 | Journal of Organizational Behavior | 341 | 31 |
| 15 | Pearson, C.M., Porath, C.L. | On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again | 2005 | Academy of Management Executive | 321 | 20.06 |
Declarations: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.
Funding: No funding was available.
References
Abas, B., Vo-Thanh, T., Bukhari, S., Villivalam, S., & Senbeto, D. L. (2023). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance and socio-emotional factors at work: The role of socio-demographic traits. International Journal of Social Economics. doi: 10.1108/ijse-04-2023-0304.
Abas, B., Iqbal, S., Bukhari, S., Villivalam, S., & Khan, M. (2024). A retrospective of workplace deviance in hospitality: A two-tier literature review. Vision, 0(0). doi: 10.1177/09722629231220990.
Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism bases and consequences. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(3), 269–292.
Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, P. (1999). Organizational deviant behavior. London: Sage.
Agwa, A. M. F. (2018). Workplace deviance behavior. Leadership, 25.
Ahmad, A., & Omar, Z. (2013). Abusive supervision and deviant workplace behavior: The mediating role of work-family conflict. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 124–130.
Albort-Morant, G., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of the international impact of business incubators. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1775–1779. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.054.
Ali, S. A., Sair, S. A., Mehta, A. M., Naqvi, F. N., & Saleem, H. (2020). Impact of organizational cynicism and abusive supervisor behavior on work place deviance. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 1–10.
Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(5), 449–469. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199709)18:5<449::aid-job808>3.0.co;2-o.
Apriliyanti, I. D., & Alon, I. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of absorptive capacity. International Business Review, 26(5), 896–907. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.02.007.
Alves, H., Fernandes, C., & Raposo, M. (2016). Value co-creation: Concept and contexts of application and study. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1626–1633. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.029.
Anasori, E., Bayighomog, S. W., & Tanova, C. (2020). Workplace bullying, psychological distress, resilience, mindfulness, and emotional exhaustion. The Service Industries Journal, 40(1-2), 65–89. doi: 10.1080/02642069.2019.1589456.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1998). The power of resistance: Sustaining valued identities. in R. M. Kramer, & M. A. Neale (Eds), Power and Influence in Organizations (pp. 89–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baharom, M. N., Sharfuddin, M. D. K. B., & Iqbal, J. (2017). A systematic review on the deviant workplace behavior. Review of Public Administration and Management, 5(3), 1–8. doi: 10.4172/2315-7844.1000231.
Baker, H. K., Pandey, N., Kumar, S., & Haldar, A. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of board diversity: Current status, development, and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 108, 232–246. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.025.
Baker, H. K., Kumar, S., & Pandey, N. (2021). Five decades of the journal of consumer affairs: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 55(1), 293–331. doi: 10.1111/joca.12347.
Bal, P. M., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G., & Van Der Velde, M. E. (2013). A longitudinal study of agerelated differences in reactions to psychological contract breach. Applied Psychology, 62(1), 157–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00524.x.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.85.3.349.
Bhutta, U., Martins, N., Mata, N., Raza, A., Dantas, R. M., Correia, A. B., & Rafiq, M. (2021). Intellectual structure and evolution of accounting conservatism research: Past trends and future research suggestions. International Journal of Financial Studies Article, 9(3), 35. doi: 10.3390/ijfs9030035.
Bodankin, M., & Tziner, A. (2009). Constructive deviance, destructive deviance and personality: How do they interrelate?. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 11, 549–564.
Bonilla, C. A., Merigó, J. M., & Torres-Abad, C. (2015). Economics in Latin America: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105(2), 1239–1252. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1747-7.
Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics, 12(5-6), 373–379. doi: 10.1007/bf02016680.
Bugdol, M. (2018). Discipline and the selected manifestations of employee behaviour. In A Different Approach to Work Discipline (pp. 135–187). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Burton, B., Kumar, S., & Pandey, N. (2020). Twenty-five years of the European journal of finance (ejf): A retrospective analysis. The European Journal of Finance, 26(18), 1817–1841. doi: 10.1080/1351847X.2020.1754873.
Chib, D. S., & Shukla, D. M. (2019). Study on identification of antecedent factors of employee deviance behavior at workplace. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 170–177.
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping SoftwareTools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. doi: 10.1002/asi.21525.
Cohen, A. K. (1966). Deviance and control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Fassel.
Cohen, A., & Ehrlich, S. (2019). Exchange variables, organizational culture and their relationship with constructive deviance. Management Research Review, 42(12), 1423–1446. doi: 10.1108/mrr-09-2018-0354.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199–236. doi: 10.1037/a0031757.
Comerio, N., & Strozzi, F. (2019). Tourism and its economic impact: A literature review using bibliometric tools. Tourism Economics, 25(1), 109–131. doi: 10.1177/1354816618793762.
Costa, S., & Neves, P. (2017). Job insecurity and work outcomes: The role of psychological contract breach and positive psychological capital. Journal of Work and Stress, 31(4), 1–20. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2017.1330781, 2017.
Dahling, J. J., Gabriel, A. S., & MacGowan, R. (2017). Understanding typologies of feedback environment perceptions: A latent profile investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 101, 133–148. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.007.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Forty-five years of journal of business research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.039.
Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1645z.
Farrukh, M., Meng, F., Wu, Y., & Nawaz, K. (2020). Twenty-eight years of business strategy and the environment research: A bibliometric analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2572–2582. doi: 10.1002/bse.2521.
Farrukh, M., Raza, A., Javed, S., & Lee, J. W. C. (2021). Twenty years of green innovation research: Trends and way forward. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print). doi: 10.1108/WJEMSD-06-2020-0068.
Farrukh, M., Raza, A., Ansari, N. Y., & Bhutta, U. S. (2022). A bibliometric reflection on the history of green human resource management research. Management Research Review, 45(6), 781–800. doi: 10.1108/MRR-09-2020-0585.
Farrukh, M., Meng, F., Raza, A., & Wu, Y. (2023). Innovative work behaviour: The what, where, who, how and when. Personnel Review, 51(1), 74–98. doi: 10.1108/PR-11-2020-0854.
Ferreira, M. (2011). A bibliometric study on Ghoshal’s managing across borders. Multinational Business Review, 19(4), 357–375. doi: 10.1108/15253831111190180.
Fidrmuc, J., Kapounek, S., & Siddiqui, M. (2017). Which institutions are important for firms performance?: Evidence from Bayesian model averaging analysis. Panoeconomicus, 64(4), 383–400. doi: 10.2298/pan151015031f.
Galvagno, M., & Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: A systematic literature review. Managing Service Quality, 24(6), 643–683. doi: 10.1108/msq-09-2013-0187.
Gao, P., Meng, F., Mata, M. N., Martins, J. M., Iqbal, S., Correia, A. B., … Farrukh, M. (2021). Trends and future research in electronic marketing: A bibliometric analysis of twenty years. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(5), 1667–1679. doi: 10.3390/jtaer16050094.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Sage.
Greenberg, J. (2011). Insidious workplace behavior. Routledge.
Griffin, R. W., & Lopez, Y. P. (2005). “Bad behavior” in organizations: A review and typology for future research. Journal of Management, 31(6), 988–1005. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279942.
Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-Kelly, A., & Collins, J. (1998). Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations. in C. L. Cooper, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds), Trends in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 65–82). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gursoy, D., Cai, R. R., & Anaya, G. J. (2017). Developing a typology of disruptive customer behaviors: Influence of customer misbehavior on service experience of by-standing customers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(9), 2341–2360. doi: 10.1108/ijchm-08-2016-0454.
Hashish, E. A. A. (2020). Nurses’ perception of organizational justice and its relationship to their workplace deviance. Nursing Ethics, 27(1), 273–288. doi: 10.1177/0969733019834978.
Hoggy, M., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational context. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121. doi: 10.2307/259266.
Hua, N., & Yang, Y. (2017). Systematic effects of crime on hotel operating performance. Tourism Management, 60, 257–269. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.11.022.
Iqbal, S., & Rasheed, M. (2019). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: The moderating role of power distance. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 334–357.
Iqbal, S., Farrukh, M., & Bhaumik, A. (2024). A retrospective of women entrepreneurship research and future research directions. Vision, 09722629231219617. doi: 10.1177/09722629231219617.
James, M. S. L., Miles, A. K., & Mullins, T. (2011). The interactive effects of spirituality and trait cynicism on citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 8(2), 165–182. doi: 10.1080/14766086.2011.581814.
Kabiri, S., Choi, J., Kruis, N., Shadmanfaat, S. M., & Lee, J. (2021). Social concern as a means of understanding the risk of workplace deviance. Deviant Behavior, 43(8), 1–20. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2021.1942328.
Khan, M. A., Pattnaik, D., Ashraf, R., Ali, I., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2021). Value of special issues in the journal of business research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 125, 295–313. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.015.
Kidwell, R. E., & Martin, C. L. (2004). Managing organizational deviance. Sage Publications.
Kraak, J. M., Lunardo, R., Herrbach, O., & Durrieu, F. (2017). Promises to employees matter, self-identity too: Effects of psychological contract breach and older worker identity on violation and turnover intentions. Journal of Business Research, 70, 108–117. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.015.
Luthans, F. A., James, B. A., Bruce, J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 387–393. doi: 10.1002/job.373.
Luthans, F., Youssef-Morgan, C. M., & Avolio, B. (2015). Psychological capital and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.
Malik, P., & Malik, P. (2021). Investigating the impact of knowledge sharing system on workplace deviance: A moderated mediated process model in Indian IT sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(8), 2088–2114. doi: 10.1108/jkm-07-2020-0567.
Marcus, B., Taylor, O. A., Hastings, S. E., Sturm, A., & Weigelt, O. (2016). The structure of counterproductive work behaviour: A review, a structural meta-analysis, and a primary study. Journal of Management, 42(1), 203–233. doi: 10.1177/0149206313503019.
Marques, T., Reis, N., & Gomes, J. F. (2018). Responsible leadership research: A bibliometric review. Brazilian Administration Review, 15(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1590/1807-7692bar2018170112.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92(4), 1159–1168. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159.
Mortimer, G., Fazal-e-Hasan, S. M., & Strebel, J. (2021). Examining the consequences of customer-oriented deviance in retail. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102315. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102315.
Nair, P., & Kamalanabhan, T. J. (2010). The impact of cynicism on ethical intentions of Indian managers: The moderating role of seniority. Journal of Business Ethics, 3, 155–159.
Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 161–169. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2006.12.001.
OECD (2002). OECD glossary of statistical terms—bibliometrics defnition. Available from: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=198 (accessed 6 July 2017).
Ormerod, R. (2020). The history and ideas of sociological functionalism: Talcott Parsons, modern sociological theory, and the relevance for OR. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 71(12), 1873–1899. doi: 10.1080/01605682.2019.1640590.
Punjani, K. K., Kumar, V. R., & Kadam, S. (2019). Trends of puffery in advertising-a bibliometric analysis. Benchmarking: An International Journal, Forthcoming Ramos, 26(8), 2468–2485. doi: 10.1108/bij-01-2019-0022.
QiLiu, L. B., & Mao, K. (2020). Emerald insight. doi: 10.1108/NBRI-03-2018-0019.
Rafiq, M., Dastane, O., & Mushtaq, R. (2023). Waste reduction as ethical behaviour: A bibliometric analysis and development of future agenda. Journal of Global Responsibility, 14(3), 360–379. doi: 10.1108/jgr-09-2022-0098.
Reis, N. R., Carvalho, F., & Ferreira, J. V. (2015). An overview of three decades of mergers and acquisitions research. Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management, 14(2), 51–71. doi: 10.5585/ijsm.v14i2.2222, Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981–1004.
Richards, J. (2008). The many approaches to organisational misbehaviour: A review, map and research agenda. Employee Relations, 30(6), 653–678. doi: 10.1108/01425450810910046.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572. doi: 10.2307/256693.
Rodríguez, A., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research. A Bibliometric Study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000.
Rousseau, D. M., & Schalk, R. (2000). Psychological Contracts in Employment: Cross-National Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, California, CA: Sage.
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1‐2), 5–11. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00189.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (pp. 145–164). SAGE Publications.
Sarpong, D., Appiah, G., Bi, J., & Botchie, D. (2018). In direct breach of managerial edicts: A practice approach to creative deviance in professional service firms. R&D Management, 48(5), 580–590. doi: 10.1111/radm.12315.
Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(S1), S57–S88. doi: 10.1002/job.1976.
Security Newswire (2017). Employee theft cost US businesses $113 million in loss. Available from: https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/88265-employee-theft-cost-us-businesses-113-million-in-losses (accessed January 2021).
Shahzad, I. A., Fahed, A. A., Farrukh, M., & Yasmin, N. (2020). Twenty five years of the Asian Academy of Management Journal (AAMJ): Intellectual structure mapping and bibliometric review. Asian Academy of Management Journal.
Singh, R. (2019). Engagement as a moderator on the embeddedness-deviance relationship. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(4), 1004–1016. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-08-2018-1512.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2003). Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds), Positive organizational scholarship: foundations of a newdiscipline (pp. 207–224). San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler.
Tavares, S., Knippenberg, D. L., & van and van Dick, R. (2016). Organisational identification and ‘currencies of exchange’: Integrating social identity and social exchange perspectives. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(1), 34–45. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12329.
Thrasher, G. R., Krenn, D. K., & Marchiondo, L. A. (2020). Are counter-productive workplace behaviors and workplace deviance parallel constructs? A meta-analytic test of a common practice. Occupational Health Science, 4(3), 239–270. doi: 10.1007/s41542-020-00065-2.
Tian, Q. T., Song, Y., Kwan, H. K., & Li, X. (2019). Workplace gossip and frontline employees’ proactive service performance. The Service Industries Journal, 39(1), 25–42. doi: 10.1080/02642069.2018.1435642.
Tiwari, M., & Jha, R. (2021). Narcissism, toxic work culture and abusive supervision: A double-edged sword escalating organizational deviance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(1), 99–114. doi: 10.1108/ijoa-05-2020-2187.
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2003). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management. Psychology Press.
Verma, U. K., Tripathi, R., & Narayana, A. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of workplace deviance from 2004 to 2020. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(11), 3474–3494.
Warren, D. E. (2005). Managing noncompliance in the workplace. Managing organizational deviance (pp. 131–156). SAGE Publications.
White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(19980401)49:4<327::aid-asi4>3.0.co;2-4.
Zaman, U., Florez-Perez, L., Khwaja, M. G., Abbasi, S., & Qureshi, M. G. (2021). Exploring the critical nexus between authoritarian leadership, project team member's silence and multi-dimensional success in a state-owned mega construction project. International Journal of Project Management, 39(8), 873–886. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.10.007.
Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 647–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x.
Zupic, I., & Cater, ˇ T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. doi: 10.1177/1094428114562629.
Further reading
Elsevier Scopus Database (n.d.). Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/content
Goldie, D., Linick, M., Jabbar, H., & Lubienski, C. (2014). Using bibliometric and social media analyses to explore the “echo chamber” hypothesis. Educational Policy, 28(2), 281–305. doi: 10.1177/0895904813515330.
Hsiek, H. H., & Wang, Y. D. (2016). Linking perceived ethical climate to organizational deviance: The cognitive affective and attitudinal mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3600–3608. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.001.
Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family support help?. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 95–111. doi: 10.1037/a0021726.
Luo, Li, R. Y. M., Crabbe, M. J. C., & Pu, R. (2021). Economic development and construction safety research: A bibliometrics approach. Safety Science, 145, 105519. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105519.
Özler, D. E., & Atalay, C. G. (2011). A research to determine the relationship between organizational cynicism and burnout levels of employees in health sector. Business and Management Review, 1, 26–38.
Robinson, S. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 658–672. doi: 10.5465/256963.
Singh, S., Dhir, S., Das, V. M., & Sharma, A. (2020). Bibliometric overview of the technological forecasting and social change journal: Analysis from 1970 to 2018. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154, 119963. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119963.
Svensson, G. (2010). SSCI and its impact factors: A ‘prisoner’s dilemma. European Journal of Marketing, 44(1/2), 23–33. doi: 10.1108/03090561011008583.