Loyal rebels? A test of the normative conflict model of constructive deviance

• Author: Jason J. Dahling,Melissa B. Gutworth
• Date: 01 October 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2194
• Published date: 01 October 2017

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Loyal rebels? A test of the normative conflict model of

constructive deviance

Jason J. Dahling

1

|Melissa B. Gutworth

2

1

Department of Psychology, The College of

New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey, U.S.A.

2

Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State

University, Montclair, New Jersey, U.S.A.

Correspondence

Jason J. Dahling, Department of Psychology,

The College of New Jersey, 2000 Pennington

Rd, Ewing, NJ 08628, U.S.A.

Email: dahling@tcnj.edu

Summary

Constructive deviance is a voluntary behavior that violates organizational rules but is conducted

with honorable intentions to benefit the organization or its stakeholders. Despite emerging

interest in this behavior, the antecedents of constructive deviance remain unclear, with particular

ambiguity concerning the relationship between organizational identity and constructive deviance.

In this article, we address this ambiguity with the normative conflict model, which posits that

organizational identity drives constructive deviance in the workplace only when people perceive

normative conflict with organizational rules. In Studies 1a and 1b, we develop and validate a

measure of normative conflict. In Study 2, we conduct a preliminary test of the model with

employed students and find that identity is positively related to constructive deviance only when

normative conflict is high. In Study 3, we replicate and extend the model to show that the

moderating effect of normative conflict is mediated by experienced psychological discomfort

and that organizational identity is positively related to constructive deviance among working

adults only when discomfort is high. In total, our findings demonstrate the utility of the normative

conflict model for explaining when constructive deviance is mostly likely to occur in the

workplace.

KEYWORDS

dissent, organizational deviance, organizational rules,resistance, social identity

1|INTRODUCTION

Employees sometimes challenge and break workplace rules not

because they are disloyal but because they are passionate enough to

dissent against practices that they see as stagnant, ineffective, or even

dangerous to those around them. This behavior is referred to as con-

structive deviance, which involves voluntary actions that violate orga-

nizational norms, but are conducted with honorable intentions to

benefit the organization and its stakeholders (e.g., Mainemelis, 2010;

Morrison, 2006; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003; Vardi & Weitz, 2004;

Warren, 2003). Historically, organizational researchers focused only

on understanding destructive deviance, which is conducted with the

goal of harming the organization or benefitting oneself (e.g., Robinson

& Bennett, 1995). However, researchers have more recently started to

study constructive deviance because it has the potential to trigger

beneficial change, increase productivity, and promote innovation in

the workplace.

Despite the value of understanding and responsibly channeling

constructive deviance in groups (Jetten & Hornsey, 2014), we know

surprisingly little about its antecedents in the workplace, and a variety

of contradictory findings have recently emerged in the literature

(Vadera, Pratt, & Mishra, 2013). One of the most interesting

ambiguities concerns the relationship between organizational identity

and constructive deviance. As Vadera et al. (2013) observed, some

studies document that identity is positively related to constructive

deviance (Mellahi, Budhwar, & Li, 2010; Olkkonen & Lipponen,

2006). Other studies, however, have found a negative or null relation-

ship between organizational identity and constructive deviance (Burris,

Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008; Sims & Keenan, 1998; J. Zhou & George,

2001). Further, it is still theoretically unclear why and when highly

identified employees would engage in constructive deviance instead

of loyal conformity. If employees care strongly about the organization,

why would they willingly break rules instead of channeling their effort

into the best, rule‐abiding performance they can provide?

Note: Both authors contributed equally to this work and authorship order is

alphabetical. We thank Russell Johnson and Shaun Wiley for their constructive

feedback on earlier drafts of this article. We also thank José Cortina and Adam

Grant for helpful conversations about our analysis strategy.

Received: 4 July 2015 Revised: 14 March 2017 Accepted: 16 March 2017

DOI: 10.1002/job.2194

J Organ Behav. 2017;38:1167–1182. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 1167

To clarify the relationship between organizational identity and

constructive deviance, we draw on a recent theory of group dissent

called the normative conflict model (Packer, 2008; Packer, 2011).

This model explains that the effects of organizational identity on

deviance depend on the extent to which group members perceive

normative conflict, which occurs when members perceive a

discrepancy between the group’s actual, practiced norms and some

better, alternative standard for behavior. The model posits that

identity predicts conformity when normative conflict is low but that

identity predicts dissent instead when normative conflict is high.

This interaction occurs because strongly identified group members

who feel normative conflict exhibit dissent intended to help the

group improve. Consequently, the model may offer insight into

constructive deviance: We predict that organizational identity is only

predictive of constructive deviance when people also feel high

normative conflict.

Our research on the normative conflict model makes several

contributions. First and foremost, we advance research on construc-

tive deviance by resolving an emergent discrepancy in the literature

concerning its relationship with social identity (Vadera et al., 2013).

This is an important theoretical contribution because we know little

about why constructive deviance occurs, and the contradictory

findings concerning the relationship between organizational identity

and constructive deviance points to a need to understand the

boundary conditions that change the nature of this relationship (Busse,

Kach, & Wagner, 2016).

Second, we introduce the normative conflict model to the

organizational behavior literature, which is a promising framework for

understanding identity‐driven behavior in the workplace. Research

on the normative conflict model to date is focused on informal or

opinion‐based social groups (e.g., Packer & Chasteen, 2010; Täuber &

Sassenberg, 2012), but we show that the model has utility for

predicting behavior in the workplace, where the stakes for engaging

in deviant behavior are higher. Managers in the workplace heavily

weigh deviant behavior when judging performance and making

personnel decisions (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002), and employees may

face sanctions or lose their jobs for deviating in ways that are

suppressed by the organization (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007). The

steeper consequences of constructive deviance at work accordingly

allow for a strong test of the theory in a formal setting where

rules are more rigidly enforced and dissent is met with greater hostility

(X. Zhou, 1993).

Last, we extend the normative conflict model in this research

by elaborating on the psychological experience of normative

conflict. One limitation of the normative conflict model is relatively

little consideration of why normative conflict motivates action;

implicit in the normative conflict model is the idea that normative

conflict is a distressing experience (Packer, 2008). Consequently,

we integrate the normative conflict model with cognitive

dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), which offers additional insight

into why people experience psychological distress in the presence

of normative conflict and subsequently act on it. We therefore

make an important theoretical extension to the normative conflict

model to better explain why normative conflict can trigger deviant

behavior.

1.1 |Constructive deviance in the workplace

When considering rule‐breaking behavior, organizations mainly focus

on destructive deviance, which is voluntary behavior that knowingly

deviates from organizational norms in ways that threaten the

organization or its stakeholders (Robinson & Bennett, 1995).

Destructive deviance is threatening because it is committed with the

intention to either harm others or benefit the self (Vardi & Weitz,

2004). For example, behaviors such as merchandise theft conducted

in the interest of personal gain, or verbal aggression intended to

hurt a coworker’s feelings, would be categorized as instances of

destructive deviance.

Constructive deviance similarly involves willful deviation from

organizational norms, but the deviation is intended to benefit the

organization or its stakeholders (Morrison, 2006; Spreitzer &

Sonenshein, 2004; Warren, 2003). Because the standards for judging

deviance can be highly subjective, Warren (2003) submitted that

deviance is only constructive if employees reject organizational norms

in favor of hypernorms (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994), which are defined

as “globally held beliefs and values”that encompass basic principles

and satisfy fundamental human needs (Warren, 2003, p. 628). Because

hypernorms typically stem from the values and practices of large,

inclusive social groups and societies, they serve as a “higher authority”

that reflect the needs and priorities of people both inside and outside

of the organization. Relevant hypernorms that are used to judge

behavior may vary across different nations, industries, organizations,

and even roles. However, Warren (2003) suggested that the standards

and ethical codes of relevant, large, and inclusive organizations can

serve as a likely source of hypernorms. For example, the American

Psychological Association’s Ethical Code and Code of Conduct

articulate hypernorms about protecting the privacy of clients. A

psychologist could opt to constructively deviate to follow these

hypernorms if she felt that her organization or workgroup’s norms

failed to adequately protect the confidential information divulged by

clients. Thus, deviance that rejects local norms and practices, but

complies with hypernorms, is constructive because it serves a

greater good.

Consequently, constructive deviance is formally defined as

behavior that (a) benefits the reference group, (b) deviates from

reference group norms, and (c) conforms to broader hypernorms

(Vadera et al., 2013). A specific example of the distinction between

destructive and constructive deviance can be seen in a typical

customer service context. If a regular customer of a restaurant

presents an expired gift certificate, an employee can decide to follow

procedure and refuse it, or break rules and accept it. The decision to

break rules can occur due to different motivations. In this example,

the rule‐breaking behavior would be considered destructive deviance

if the employee opts to accept the gift certificate because it benefits

himself (e.g., through a larger tip) or because he hopes it will hurt the

organization to lose money. On the other hand, the rule‐breaking

behavior would be considered constructive deviance if the employee

opts to accept the gift certificate to help the customer and organiza-

tion (e.g., this customer is important and would take his business

elsewhere if refused, costing the organization more in the long run).

In the latter case, the employee is still willingly deviating from an

1168 DAHLING AND GUTWORTH