Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan 5:12:674066.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.674066. eCollection 2021.

Current Approaches, Typologies and Predictors of Deviant Work Behaviors: A Scoping Review of Reviews

Affiliations

Current Approaches, Typologies and Predictors of Deviant Work Behaviors: A Scoping Review of Reviews

Salvatore Zappalà et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

This study provides a scoping review of the recent conceptual developments about the deviant work behavior and counterproductive work behavior constructs. It also examines the specific types of deviant work behavior that have been more consistently investigated in the last decade, and whether they cover the interpersonal or organizational type of deviant behavior. In addition, individual, group, and organizational predictors of deviant work behaviors are examined. A scoping review of reviews was conducted on Scopus and Web of Science databases and 54 studies published from 2010 to June 2021 were taken into account. Results show that more recent conceptualizations are based on well established models in the literature and consider the hierarchical structure of these two constructs. Recent reviews examine the relationships of deviant work behavior with job performance and ethical behavior constructs, the multilevel nature of deviant work behavior, and the consequences for the actor of the deviance. The specific types of deviant work behavior more frequently reviewed in the last decade are workplace abuse, incivility, ostracism, bullying and sexual harassment, and abusive and destructive leadership; this evidence suggests a much greater attention to interpersonal, rather than organizational, forms of deviant work behavior. Regarding antecedents, results show the continuing prevalence of personality factors antecedents. Limitations of the study and theoretical and practical implications for the field are also provided.

Keywords: abusive supervision; counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs); cyberloafing; deviant workplace behaviors; incivility at work; work abuse; workplace deviance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
PRISMA flow diagram.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Retrieved articles clustered and mapped on the basis of topic. [Note: Numbers represent article codes reported in Table 1; the three categories (Approaches, Typology, and Predictors) are not mutually exclusive; for this reason total is greater than 54].

References

    1. Alias M., Rasdi R. M., Ismail M., Samah B. A. (2013). Predictors of workplace deviant behaviour: HRD agenda for Malaysian support personnel. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 37 161–182.
    1. Andersson L. M., Pearson C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24 452–471.
    1. Appelbaum S. H., Deguire K. J., Lay M. (2005). The relationship of ethical climate to deviant behaviour. Corp. Gov. 5 43–55. 10.1108/14720700510616587 - DOI
    1. Appelbaum S. H., Semerjian G., Mohan K. (2012). Workplace bullying: consequences, causes and controls (part one). Ind. Commer. Train. 44 203–210. 10.1108/00197851211231478 - DOI
    1. Arksey H., O’Malley L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Method. 8 19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616 - DOI

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources