A Meta-Analysis of Interpersonal and Organizational Workplace Deviance Research

By J. Mackey, Charn P. McAllister, B. P. Ellen, Jack E. Carson. Journal of Management, 2019

158 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Workplace deviance research has expanded rapidly over the past decade. Despite the expansive body of research available, we have an incomplete understanding of the measurement, magnitude, and direction of relationships within workplace deviance’s nomological network. We draw from 235 empirical samples of data (k = 235, N = 66,990) to conduct random-effects meta-analyses of interpersonal (k = 156, N = 42,239) and organizational (k = 206, N = 60,008) workplace deviance research so we can build the solid foundation necessary to advance the conversation in this literature. We use an exploratory meta-analytic approach and the horizontal contrasting method of theory elaboration to provide a nuanced understanding of the relationship between interpersonal and organizational deviance (ρ = .67, k = 110, N = 30,426) as well as determine the magnitude and generalizability (i.e., external validity) of relationships within their nomological networks. We find some evidence of differences (i.e., heterogeneity) in the measurement and magnitude of relationships across contexts. Overall, we conduct a state-of-the-art meta-analysis that leverages contemporary meta-analytic techniques and the extensive body of empirical workplace deviance research available to improve our understanding of the measurement of workplace deviance and relationships within its nomological network. Our study instigates new debates about the completeness of our understanding of workplace deviance and provides the empirical building blocks necessary for this literature to reach its unrealized potential.

Subfields: Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e68dc591cf553df7ec0de74e9f6e6e95dbb5eca5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Sociology and Political Science

  1. R. Amrhein
  2. Nichelle C. Carpenter
  3. Daniel S. Whitman

Citations in the corpus