Workplace deviance behaviour has resulted in 20% of business failure and annual loss of $6-$200 billion in US organizations and it was found that 33% to 75% of employees engage in deviant activities like withdrawal, theft, production deviance, abuse of co-workers etc., (Coffin, 2003; Diefendorff & Mehta, 2007). In addition, several researchers have concentrated on constructive deviance that would benefit the organizations. Thus, deviance has been a topic of interest for many researchers. However, previous research on deviance behaviour has concentrated predominantly in the USA despite proof that Indian organizations are indeed affected by workplace deviance (Pradhan & Pradhan, 2014) and on destructive or constructive deviance. In addition, from the deviance perspective, surprisingly no study so far has examined the presence and effects of individualism and collectivism within the same culture at the individual level. To contribute towards the extant deviance literature and to fill in the aforementioned gaps, this PhD thesis develops and tests a model using social cognitive theory as a lens to determine the relationship between environment, personality and behavioural outcomes of an individual. It incorporates workplace destructive and constructive deviance in the same study with individualistic and collectivistic orientation of individuals as moderators in India and the USA. What is the relationship of organizational and individual determinants with workplace destructive and constructive deviance when individual cultural orientation acts as a moderator? For this purpose, this research first determines the various factors that will be considered in the model by reviewing previous research done on workplace deviance. It was found that organizational climate, though it contributes to deviance behaviour in the workplace, has not yet been extensively researched so, climate was one of the factors examined in the research. In addition and despite its importance, an individual witness perspective towards deviance is still in its infancy. What are the behavioural responses of an individual while being a witness to supervisor, organizational, co-worker involvement in workplace destructive deviance? Therefore, the present study extended, developed and validated a construct to define and measure the witness behaviour towards workplace deviance behaviour using the theory of planned behaviour as its theoretical lens. This construct formed the second factor to be included in the model. This research makes use of the multi-strategy research paradigm that consists of two main studies: Study 2, 3 and 4 involves the development and validation of the witness behaviour towards workplace deviance scale; Study 5 involves the development and testing of a theoretical framework. Study 2 to 4 made use of a mixed methods strategy and inductive approach where the results from analysing the qualitative one-to-one interviews conducted in India and the USA formed the basis of scale construction. The scale, after undergoing rigorous analysis by using the quantitative data collected from India and the USA, resulted in a two-dimensional self-serving and intervening behaviour 9-item measure that proved to be a universal construct. It was then validated for construct, discriminant and predictive validity to classify it within the nomological network. It was found to sit closer to the phenomenon of voluntary behaviours, thus contributing to deviance and scale development literature. Study 5 involved the development of a conceptual framework that was tested with the quantitative data collected from India and the USA. The results provided support that when an individual has high organizational climate experience as well as more self-serving and less intervening behaviour, he/she would be involved in more constructive and destructive deviance behaviour providing support that organizations should focus on these factors and a clear distinction should be made between negative and positive deviance accepted within the organization. The results also provided support that individualistic and collectivistic orientation of an individual did moderate the effect of organizational climate, self-serving and intervening behaviour with destructive and constructive deviance. Therefore, an individual's orientation to individualism and collectivism would influence the relationship of organizational climate and witness behaviour towards workplace deviance so that organizations may benefit from implementing the study findings and suggestions. This would then prevent individuals from becoming involved in destructive deviance and enhance their involvement in constructive deviance.

Le but de cette recherche était d'examiner la relation entre la déviance constructive (Galperin, 2012 ; Warren, 2003 ; Vadera, Pratt, & Mishra, 2013), la proactivité (Grant & Ashford, 2008 ; Parker & Collins, 2010) et leur rôle dans le processus de changement et d'innovation (CI) en contexte organisationnel (Potočnik & Anderson, 2016). Nous avons tout d'abord examiné la littérature portant sur la déviance et la proactivité. Nous avons ensuite concentré notre attention sur la création d'une échelle d'attitudes normatives et déviantes (NDAS) pour traiter l'aspect dynamique de la déviance. Ensuite, nous avons exploré la nature du construit de déviance et ainsi traité la relation aux CI. Nous avons proposé l'existence de deux facteurs d'ordre supérieur: le constructive dark side et constructive bright side. Ensuite, nous avons testé la relation entre ces facteurs et des conséquences communes (engagement affectif, bien-être, détresse et intention de départ). Nous avons recruté des travailleurs français par le biais de questionnaires pour tester nos hypothèses. Nous avons donc utilisé, créé ou traduit des échelles de mesures des comportements de déviance constructive (Galperin, 2012), d'innovation (Janseen, 2000), de prise en main (Morisson & Phelps, 1998) ou la NDAS... Nous avons également procédé, dans certains cas, à plusieurs recueils de données espacées dans le temps. Dans la plupart des cas, des analyses de modélisation d'équations structurelles ont été utilisées. Les résultats et les limites sont discutés dans chaque chapitre des articles. Ces résultats aident à clarifier le construit de déviance constructive et sa relation avec la proactivité dans la littérature de CI. / The aim of this research was to examine the relation between constructive deviance (Galperin, 2012; Warren, 2003; Vadera, Pratt, & Mishra, 2013), proactivity (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker & Collins, 2010) and their role in change and innovation (CI) processes in organizational context (Potočnik & Anderson, 2016). After we examined the deviance and proactive literature related to work and organizational psychology, we focused our attention on the creation of a normative and deviant attitudinal scale (NDAS) to deal with the dynamic aspect of deviance. Then, we explored the nomological network of deviance and treated its relationship with CI related-constructs. We, therefore, proposed the existence of two higher-order factors named constructive dark-side and constructive bright-side. Latterly, we tested for a second time the relation between these second-order factors and common outcomes (affective commitment, well-being, distress, and turnover intent). We used research by questionnaire to test our entire hypothesis on French workers. For this, we used, created and/or translated scales of constructive deviant behaviours (Galperin, 2012), NDAS, innovative work behaviour (Janseen, 2000) or taking charge (Morisson & Phelps, 1998)... We also proceeded, in some cases, with measurements at different times to provide better analysis. In most cases, structural equation modelling analyses were performed. Results and limitations are discussed in each article chapters (chapters 2, 3, & 4). These results help to clarify the nomological network of constructive deviance and its relationship with proactivity in the CI literature. To our knowledge, this study is one of the first to follow this path and test it.

No description available.

Cette recherche visait à mieux appréhender la déviance constructive selon Galperin (2003). Ce construit se chevauchant avec d’autres comportements hors prescrit en milieux organisationnels, comportements de citoyenneté organisationnelle (CCO, Organ, 1988) et de déviance destructive (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), nous avons choisi de les étudier également. Nous avons d'abord examiné la littérature relative à ces comportements. Puis, nous avons étudié différents déterminants attitudinaux et de perception de situation de travail pouvant leur être associés, ainsi que leurs éventuelles relations avec l’épuisement professionnel. Rappelant différents modèles de stress, nous nous sommes intéressés à la Théorie de la Conservation des Ressources (Hobfoll, 1988), dans sa proposition de lecture salutogénique de la santé au travail. Notre revue de littérature s’est achevée par l’étude de la valorisation perçue des CCO et de la déviance constructive. Notre étude 1 (151 salariés en poste en relation avec du public) explore la façon dont exigences (tensions de rôles perçues), ressources (sentiment d’efficacité personnelle, autonomie dans le travail perçue) et implications professionnelles(organisationnelle affective et dans le métier) déterminent les comportements de citoyenneté organisationnelle orientée vers les individus et de déviance (destructive et constructive), et dont ces comportements déterminent, à leur tour, l’apparition d’un épuisement professionnel.Les études 2 et 3 interrogent la perception de l’incidence de CCO et de déviance constructive sur l’évaluation produite en provenance des supérieurs hiérarchiques (étude 2, 194 salariés) et des collègues de travail (étude 3, 168 salariés) et l’effet du mode de direction organisationnel sur celle-ci. Les résultats de ces études quantitatives sont discutés, limites et perspectives présentées par chapitre. Une discussion générale propose, pour finir, d’en dégager les enseignements clés. / The aim of this study was to appraise the constructive deviance according to Galperin (2003). As this construct has in common non prescribed behaviors in organizational environments, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB, Organ, 1988) and destructive workplace deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), we found interesting to study them as well. Then we focused on different attitudinal determinants and perception of workplace situations which could be compared to it, and their hypothetical relationship with the burn out. Recalling different stress models, we examined the Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 1988), and particularly his salutogenic perspective of health at work. We achieved our review with the study of the perceived value of the OCB and constructive deviance. Our first study (151 workers related to public) explores how job demands (perceived role tensions), resources (feeling of job selfefficacy, perceived autonomy) and professional commitment (organizational affective and occupational) determine organizational citizenship behaviors directed towards individuals and workplace deviance (destructive and constructive), and how the behaviors determine in turn burn out. Through study 2 and 3, we examined the perception of the incidence of OCB and constructive deviance on the appraisal of the managers (study 2, 194 workers), coworkers (study 3, 168 workers) and the effect of the organization on it. The results, limits and perspectives are discussed in each chapter. The key learnings are highlighted in the general discussion.