Paper: Belief, Truth, and Positive Organizational Deviance

Deviant behavior is an integral part of all healthy societies. Deviance also offers society members an opportunity to rededicate themselves to their social controls. Deviant behavior actually helps teach society's rules by providing illustrations of violation. Deviance might be functional to a group in that it causes the group's members to close ranks, prompts the group to organize to limit future deviance acts, helps clarify for the group what it really does believe in, and teaches normal behavior by providing examples of rule violation. Finally, in some situations, tolerance of deviant behavior acts to a safety valve and actually prevents more serious instances of nonconformity.

Many pivotal managerial principles and practices are exemplified in the Case Study, Outrage at Eastern. In this particular story a manager, Charles Jackson, is faced with many difficult decisions regarding problems concerning one of his workers at Eastern Plating. One of Jackson’s workers named Marty Reid is accused of molestation of his stepdaughter. His allegations are made public in a recent writing in the “Evening Beacon”, the daily paper of the 10,000 town’s population. Reid also has his wife going against him as well, which automatically makes him guilty to the majority of the town. When Jackson reads the paper he immediately understands what he might be faced with in the next upcoming days of

Students involved in clubs, fraternities, sororities, and organizations experience hazing. In fact, 55% those college students involved in clubs, teams and organizations experience hazing. Hazing is any action taken or any situation created intentionally that causes embarrassment, harassment or ridicule and risk emotional, or physical harm to members of a group or team, whether new or not, regardless of the person’s willingness to participate. Hazing can occur in high school, intercollegiate, or even professionally. As an individual, you have to know what is hazing. What is going over the edge? Am I doing anything illegal? Or is this causing emotional or physical distress or stress to myself or to others? Hazing, even though its tradition,

There exists conflicting theories among sociologists in the area of determining why a person is considered to be a deviant, and the reasons behind why he or she has committed a deviant act. From a positivistic perspective, deviance is based on biological or social determinism. Alternatively, from a constructionist perspective, deviance is created and assigned by society. Both perspectives seek to give a theory for why a person may become known as deviant. Although they both view similar acts as deviant, the basic differences between positivists and constructionists theories are clear.

Hazing as we know it today is most commonly to initiate members into a fraternity, sorority, or club of some sort. Hazing’s roots go into Ancient Greece when Plato first observed the occurrence and wrote about it in one of his works. The first sign of the term “hazing” appeared in the 16th century, when veteran soldiers would harass new sailors whenever the weather would create a haze. The integration of hazing in American society occurred in the 19th century after the Civil War. Before the war, university fraternities were a place to exchange ideas which most students did not find too engaging. After the war, the meaning of university fraternities had evolved to strengthen bonds with one another. The war put not optimal events and situations, which made soldiers strengthen bonds between one another. Fraternities would often replicate the traumatic events that occurred during the war to strengthen bonds between the recruits and the organization. The fraternities would base hazing rituals on stories their fathers or grandfathers who had participated in the war. Three hazing related deaths occurred in the

The contingency theory (Browning, 2007, p. 190) suggests that leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context. This means effective leaders in this era have the ability to distill their complex messages into accessible ones. In other words, an effective leader is aware of his/ her client’s informational needs and values and thus, creates information to suit their needs. Therefore, leaders tend to regulate and control expressive activity in and around the workplace from legal, managerial, and ethical perspectives (Barry B, 2007). This trend tends to work for organizations that try to cover massive change by creating as little impact on their employees as possible without doing anything ethically wrong in their business.

A cross-cultural examination of certain deviant acts surface interesting observations of both the root of function of deviance in that given society. This observation will illustrate how the ways in which deviance is viewed in a specific culture is not universal. The author also touches upon how the “concept of normal” is equated with the “concept of good”; therefore, by consequence, anything remotely outside this pre-established box is viewed in a negative manner (Benedict 1934:4). The category of deviance is employed by society as a strategic means of reducing diversity, maintaining order and above else, upholding the social norm. Individuals who threaten this system are immediately labeled as evil wrongdoers who are then treated differently on every level. A further scholar, Erikson, compares the social system to a “nucleus, “which” draws the behavior of actors toward [itself] within range of basic norms,” (Erikson 1962: 309). This analogy provides powerful imagery of how the social system functions and the reason for why deviance is seen as such a threatening act. He further draws a comparison between the law and the norm arguing that both are reinforced by consistently being “used as a basis for judgment,” (Erikson 1962: 310). The entanglement of

An organization’s culture is based off the shared values and beliefs that are shaped by the organization and its managers. It is this culture that dictates the manner in which employees are to conduct themselves within the organization. Therefore, a culture that creates an environment that influences the employees to act unethically will allow them to do so without thinking of the outcome of their

A corporation is an artificial person established by the law. It nurses the same rights as humans contrariwise; they are not equally responsible for their actions. A corporation cannot face the same charges a human would: if illegal actions took place. Bakan illustrates the traits of a corporation to closely resemble the traits of a psychopathic individual human being. These traits are, but not limited to: “1) unconcern for others, 2) incapable of maintaining relationships, 3) disregard for others safety/health, 4) repeated lying, 5) incapable of experiencing guilt, and 6) failure to conform to social norms.” Therefore, executive’s means for earning high returns for shareholders can be seen as a trait of a psychopath. Yet, the corporation’s attributes are not based on the qualities of the executives outside of their careers. As Bakan would say, “the people who run corporations are, for the most part, good people, moral people.”

Belief in inherent morality- Professionally expert people alleged what they know was ethically wrong, they ignored their own sense of responsibility by trusting their fellow members who allowed misconduct was right. The pressure of groupthink is very powerful in corporate organization, and it forces people toward uniformity of norms, often at the expense of their own personal values.

Defining deviance as behaviour, which violates consensual social norms, also raises the questions of whose norms? Why are some norms more important than others? And why do some norms appear to serve the interests of capitalist governments and the powerful? .

Formal organizations who are increasingly getting involved with white-collar crime, are aimed at achieving organizational goals. Organizational culture is embodied with the structures of the organization in its wake

David O. Friedrichs provided more accurate definition of occupational deviance because the term seems to be applied to activities drifted away from the original meaning of White Collar crime. It’s blended with the term conventional crime. Edwin Sutherland introduced the concept of white-collar crime in 1939. There were conceptual confusions with the term occupational crime, occupational deviance, and workplace crime because these terms are combined with white-collar crime. Friedrichs (2002) defined occupational deviances as “characterized as activity undertaken for one’s own gain, or to cope with workplace stress, and not for the benefit of one’s employer or organization” (p.249).

A corporation is an artificial person established by the law. It nurses the same rights as humans contrariwise; they are not equally responsible for their actions. A corporation cannot face the same charges a human would, if illegal actions took place. Bakan illustrates the traits of a corporation to closely resemble the traits of a psychopathic individual human being. These traits are, but not limited to: “1) unconcern for others, 2) incapable of maintaining relationships, 3) disregard for others safety/health, 4) repeated lying, 5) incapable of experiencing guilt, and 6) failure to conform to social norms.” Therefore, executive’s means for earning high returns for shareholders can be seen as a trait of a psychopath. Yet, the corporation’s attributes are not based on the qualities of the executives outside of their careers. As Bakan would say, “the people who run corporations are, for the most part, good people, moral people.”

There are stories around the world about corruption and unethical leadership; these stories often make headlines in newspapers, magazines, and televised news programming. There is an abundance of immorality in the workplace; at the scale is at, it should be considered a plague. It runs rampant in all forms of business, in white collar crime and blue collar crime. White collar crime itself is the practice and history of unethical and inauthentic leadership in the professional world. Thus, while the direct and superficial focus is authentic leadership and behavioral integrity, the