Psychological contract Employees often create a set of expectations about their workplace; people tend to make psychological contracts with their organizations.
McNamara, known as a star and a whiz-kid, had been president of the Ford Deviance organizational behaviour Company for all of five weeks, so it took a bit of cajoling. A few years into his tenure, with Vietnam taking up ever more resources and political airtime, McNamara wanted to know from his top generals how to measure progress in the Deviance organizational behaviour.
He told General Westmoreland that he wanted to see a graph that would tell the defense secretary whether they were winning or losing McMaster, Westmoreland did as he was asked, although he produced two graphs: One graph showed the enemy body count. Under pressure to show progress and knowing that political fortunes of their masters, promotions for themselves and their comrades, decorations, rest- and recreation decisions, and resourcing all depended on itthose who did the accounting made sure that not a single dead enemy body was missed.
Soon, the lines between soldiers and civilians had blurred completely: Implausibly, the total number of enemy dead soon exceeded the known strength of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army combined. Civilian casualties mounted, the frustrations and incentives even leading to some massacres.
The other graph showed a measure of civilian sympathies for the US and against communism. Militias on the side of the Americans were invented on paper. Incidents of insurgent activity or hostile takeovers of hamlets were ignored.
It soon seemed that the entire countryside had become pacified. The progress charts demanded by McNamara had produced a monstrous auditing system Scott, It erased all meaningful difference and distinction: It could be counted, and that was all that counted.
And a pacified hamlet was a pacified hamlet—with all the cross-currents, fluidities and complexities of a shredded social order collapsed into a single number on a chart.
The political back tapestry, for instance as painted by McMaster in Dereliction of Dutywas one of civilian leaders who were obsessed with reputation and who had leaned further into military operational matters than turned out to be healthy. We can safely say that what gets measured, gets manipulated.
Do company leaders and board members—concerned with worker safety but also their own reputation and liability—who promote a hearts and minds campaign for safety, even know this ugly history? Behavioral safety programs tend to point the finger away from leadership.
Behavior-based safety, after all, allows leaders to say that safety problems are created by all those other people, that those other people, the workers, are the problem. Even when the workers have been given everything to do the right thing, their behaviors still get the organization in trouble.
Targeting the worker conveniently means that the manager, director or board is not the target. Behavior-based safety interventions typically center around observation of behaviors, and feedback to those performing them.
The four basic steps of a typical behavior-based program are: Define the correct behaviors that eliminate unsafe acts and injuries; Train all personnel in these behaviors; Measure that personnel are indeed behaving correctly; Reward worker compliance with these correct behaviors.
Hearts and minds programs offer a variety of ways to achieve these steps. Some involve penalties, demerits or disincentives for undesirable behaviors.Causes and Consequence Deviant Workplace Behavior Muafi. , , 15], see Figure 1.
Organizational deviance is a grouping of behaviors between the individual and the organization that involves things such as theft, sabotage, lateness, or putting little effort into work. Causes and Consequence Deviant Workplace Behavior Hypothesis. This study explores the organizational citizenship and workplace deviance behavior of hotel employees.
In particular, it examines the influence of service climate, ethical values, and . the prevalence of workplace deviance and its associated organizational costs necessitate a specific, systematic, theoretically focused program of study into this .
Deviance in the workplace can actually be a good thing, as long as it's positive, say University of Michigan Business School researchers. Traditionally, deviance has referred to intentional behaviors that depart from organizational norms in a negative way, thereby threatening the well-being of an.
In sociology, deviance describes an action or behavior that violates social norms, including a formally enacted rule (e.g., crime), as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways and mores).Although deviance may have a negative connotation, the violation of social norms is not always a negative action; positive deviation exists in some situations.