Dysfunctional organizationculture

The role of leadership in motivatingdysfunctional work behaviors

David D. Van FleetSchool of Global Management and Leadership,

Arizona State University at the West Campus, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, and

Ricky W. GriffinDepartment of Management, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University,

College Station, Texas, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to expand and extend previous work on the role oforganizations in influencing deviant or dysfunctional behavior in those organizations.

Design/methodology/approach – Conclusions from previous work on the role of individuals andorganizations in influencing dysfunctional behavior is used to lead to a discussion of the interactionsbetween those two especially through organizational culture and leadership.

Findings – Amodel is developed that more carefully identifies how all of these factors come together,resulting in no, little, some, or a lot of dysfunctional behavior.

Research limitations/implications – The model developed here can be employed to improveunderstanding of the role of organization culture and leadership in motivating dysfunctional workbehaviors. Both the individual and the organization constructs utilized in the framework need morecomplete conceptual development. In each instance, a more complex and integrative analysis ofdiverse literatures needs to be undertaken. Clear messages regarding individual tendencies towardviolent behaviors are embedded in the literatures from such diverse areas as psychology, psychiatry,criminal justice, medicine, sociology, organizational behavior, biology, social psychology, andanthropology. A comprehensive review and synthesis could theoretically yield far more insights thancurrently exist.

Practical implications – The proposed manifestations of dysfunctional behavior are most likely tooccur as the result of the interactive relationship between an individual displaying a relatively highpredisposition for violent behavior and an organization with a relatively high propensity to elicitviolence. Clearly, a better understanding of the characteristics of such an organization would assistpracticing managers in reducing the likelihood of occurrence of dysfunctional behavior.

Originality/value – This paper fills a gap in the literature about the role of organizations ininfluencing dysfunctional behavior by delineating more fully the role of organizational culture andleadership.

Keywords Employee behaviour, Organizational culture, Social interaction, Leadership

Paper type Conceptual paper

Dysfunctional behavior falls within the broader category of antisocial behavior, whichis described as “any behavior that brings harm, or is intended to bring harm, to anorganization, its employees, or stakeholders” (Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997, p. vii).Dysfunctional/antisocial behavior, then, may range from low levels ofinappropriateness (e.g. inappropriate attire, alcohol use, smoking, inappropriate

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP21,8

698

Journal of Managerial PsychologyVol. 21 No. 8, 2006pp. 698-708q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0268-3946DOI 10.1108/02683940610713244

behaviors, loud talking or radio playing, and tardiness) all the way to sabotage orviolent behavior directed toward one or more individuals or the organization as awhole.

Scholars who study dysfunctional work behavior typically have focused most oftheir attention on the specific individual-level behaviors that might potentiallycomprise this domain. Such behaviors include but are not limited to workplacedeviance, theft, aggression, violence, dishonesty, terrorism, sabotage, and anassortment of other dysfunctional behaviors as reflected in the various papers foundin this issue. Most of these scholars, however, tend to ignore or downplay the role oforganizational factors in instigating dysfunctional behaviors.

Organizations should be profoundly interested in preventing dysfunctionalworkplace behavior, particularly violence, because such behaviors can be verycostly or damaging to the organization. Indeed, the organization could face legal actionif a violent incident occurs and they can’t prove that they took steps to prevent it. Suchlegal action could include worker’s compensation claims, OSHA rule violation charges,or even civil liability for negligent hiring. Other costs to an organization includeimmediate and direct costs of workplace violence – injury or death; clean-up, repair,and replacement; hiring and training of new personnel; increased insurance premiums;lost wages; and the like. There are also less immediate and more difficult to measurecosts, including decreased efficiency, productivity, and quality; interruption ofbusiness operations; and decreased reputation and credibility of the organization.

This paper will develop the argument that organizational cultures vary in theirfunctionality in terms of contributing to or detracting from organizational performanceand effectiveness. A dysfunctional organization culture is defined as one thatconstrains or limits individual- and group-level capabilities and/or that actuallyencourages and rewards mediocre individual- and group-level performance. The paperwill also develop the argument that an organization’s leadership is likely to help createand perpetuate such cultures. Implications for future theory and research will beidentified.

The role of the individualIn general, theorists and researchers who study behavior in organizations direct theirattention at how various individual and/or group behaviors benefit and enhanceorganizations and the antecedent conditions associated with those beneficialbehaviors. The theories and models that have been developed, therefore, tend tofocus on how processes and factors within organizations affect variables such as jobsatisfaction, employee motivation, performance, and organizational commitment.Their approaches to the study of leadership typically examine at the group level howthe organization might improve leadership effectiveness and the leader’s ability tomotivate workers so as to achieve high levels of performance and goal attainment. Thedependent variables of interest, then, are usually things like cohesiveness, performancenorms, communication patterns, and group-level performance as well as individualresponses to a group or team context.

These theories and models generally assume that as cause-and-effect relationshipsamong key variables are identified, managers and organizations will be able toincrease desired individual and organizational outcomes by manipulating the causesassociated with those outcomes. A basic assumption of job characteristics research, for

Dysfunctionalorganization

culture

699

example, is that if researchers can identify specific job dimensions or attributes thatlead to employee motivation and high performance, managers can then redesign thosejobs to increase those dimensions or attributes. This, then, would improve employeemotivation and performance.

Newer studies of organizational behavior, on the other hand, are investigatingbehaviors that are considerably less functional in that they relate to negativeconsequences or involve direct costs to the individuals who make up organizations aswell as to the organizations themselves. These behaviors have been called the dark sideof organizational behavior (Griffin and O’Leary-Kelly, 2004). While the work of Griffinand O’Leary-Kelly concentrated on violent behavior, it may be readily extended toinclude all forms of dysfunctional or antisocial behavior in organizations. Clearly, theseforms of behavior should be controlled, minimized, or eliminated altogether(O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1996).

Consider, for example, an extreme form of such dark side behavior – murder.Murder in the workplace is among the major causes of employee deaths, and womenare often affected to a greater degree than are men. Indeed, ten percent of all workplacefatalities in 2004 were homicides (US Department of Labor, 2005). So prevalent has itbecome that workplace homicide has been identified as the fastest growing form ofmurder in the USA (Filipczak, 1993). Less extreme dark-side behaviors may involvephysical assault through such actions as pushing or shoving, slapping or hitting, orrap. One study estimated more than two million US workers are physically attacked atwork each year (Northwestern National Life Insurance Company, 1993). Whileindividuals frequently may incur the greatest costs from such behaviors, theorganization may incur costs as well – decreased productivity, medical and legalexpenses, lost work time, lowered quality, and a damaged culture and public image.

It has been proposed that all individuals enter organizations with some potentialpredisposition to exhibit violent behaviors (Griffin and Lopez, 2004; Denenberg andBraverman, 1999). That predisposition can range from very low to very high. Thegreater the predisposition, the greater the likelihood that the individual will, at somepoint, display violent behavior. Most scholars in this area focus on individuals with avery high predisposition for violent behavior. The backgrounds and personalities ofthose individuals with a high predisposition for violent behavior are frequently thefocus of attention so that such individuals can be identified by the organization in aneffort to prevent or minimize violence.

Examining the fundamental underpinnings of predispositions toward violencerequires surveying several literatures, particularly biology, psychology, and sociology.A detailed study of those literatures is beyond the scope of this paper, but some generalobservations are in order. In particular, genetic and biological factors and personalityshould be considered.

The argument for the influence of genetic and biological factors is dependent on anexamination of the individual’s mental health. The origins of violent and aggressivebehaviors have been linked to endocrine influences and brain structures (Brennan,1998). The limbic system, biochemistry, genetics, levels of dopamine and serotonin,and mental illness has also been suggested as causally related to violent behavior(Arboleda-Florez et al., 1998; Brennan, 1998). Attempts to establish a link between suchfactors and aggressive behavior, however, have received only mixed results (Brennan,1998).

JMP21,8

700

Another area of research with implications for understanding an individual’spredisposition for dysfunctional behavior involves determinants and personalityfactors. Determinants such as social influences, including family background, andsituations are known to greatly impact the exhibition of individual behavior to varyingdegrees, but those influences are dependent on the individual’s personality (Neumanand Baron, 1998). On the other hand, various personality factors may more directlyserve as dispositions for violent behavior (Berkowitz, 1993). Those factors includepersonality types that are emotionally reactive, that display under-controlledaggression (those who lack the restraint and have weak inhibitions againstaggression), and in the extreme sense, those personality types that can be described asfinding pleasure in hurting or causing discomfort in others (Berkowitz, 1993).

Type A behavior patterns, self-monitoring behavior, and hostile attributional biasmay also be involved (Neuman and Baron, 1998). A hostile attributional bias refers to apersonality factor where the individual has a tendency to perceive others as behavingaggressively towards him/her, thus resulting in retaliatory behavior from within theindividual (Neuman and Baron, 1998). Type A individuals are frequently described asimpatient, irritable, and controlling (Neuman and Baron, 1998). Compared with Type Bpersonalities, the A’s may more frequently become angry and lose their tempers,display aggressive behaviors, and experience higher frequencies of conflict (Neumanand Baron, 1998).

Thus, genetic and biological factors, personality, values, experiences, and motivesare all likely to affect an individual’s predisposition to display dysfunctional behavior.Since most individuals rarely display extreme levels of dysfunctional behavior, thispredisposition may be quite low in most people. Being low does not meant that it doesnot exist, however. One cannot confirm that a trait or predisposition does not existsimply because it rarely or never manifests itself. Rather, the argument forpredisposition becomes more compelling where individuals do exhibit extreme levelsof dysfunctional behavior. In virtually all cases, for instance, detailed backgroundreviews of violent individuals uncover earlier warning signs such as cruelty towardanimals, interpersonal hostility, interests in weapons, proneness to making verbalthreats, and so forth. Thus, there is a reasonable basis for the suggestion that everyperson has a predisposition to display dysfunctional behavior under certaincircumstances.

The role of the organizationWhile most research in the area of dysfunctional behavior has focused on theindividual, it seems quite likely that the organization also plays a pivotal role. For onething, the organization is important in that it provides a setting in which the individualmay display dysfunctional behavior. The individual spends most of his waking hoursat the job site, thus increasing the timeframe within which he is displaying hisbehavior. An organization provides people toward whom the individual may find iteasier to display this behavior, rather than toward the family members he loves. Andthe work setting provides all kinds of stimulants that could provoke individuals whoalready have a high propensity toward dysfunctional behavior.

For another, even though few scholars have considered the context of dysfunctionalbehavior, it seems reasonable to suggest that organizational factors are often cited asthe catalyst for dysfunctional events. For instance, pressure and stress in the

Dysfunctionalorganization

culture

701

organization, styles or patterns of supervision, and how termination and demotion arehandled by the organization are often cited as triggers for violence. Recently, theorganization’s compensation or reward structure, social pressures to conform, thepresence of negative and untrusting attitudes, unclear performance feedback,perceived unfair treatment, and violations of trust have been identified asorganizational factors leading to deviant behavior (Litzky et al., 2006).

Organizational factors that are most influential are its history; the values and visionof its leaders; the shared experiences, beliefs, stories, and rituals of its employees; thereward and incentive system; and organizational norms about performance andbehavior, all of which contribute to an organization’s culture (Trice, 1988; Trice andBeyer, 1993). Indeed, an organization’s culture has been shown to be an importantinfluence on both positive and negative consequences within organizations (Guerraet al., 2005).

The organization’s culture develops over time and becomes a powerful force forshaping the behavior of those in the organization and for newcomers to theorganization. It interacts with characteristics of individuals to create a propensity toelicit dysfunctional behavior. The organization itself has some theoretic propensity toelicit dysfunctional behavior. Similar to the individual’s predisposition to displaydysfunctional behavior, the propensity of an organization’s culture to elicitdysfunctional behaviors can range from very low to very high. This propensitydescribes the range of potential influence that an organization can have in contributingto and eliciting dysfunctional behavior from individuals who are members of thatorganization.

The organization can contribute to displays of dysfunctional behavior in one of twoways, by “creating social conditions that promote violence by generating aggressiveinclinations” or by “lowering restraints against violent actions” (Berkowitz, 1993,p. 281). Even when the individual predisposition is high, the actual display ofdysfunctional behavior is “most likely to occur when cognitively based inhibitoryrestraints are minimal” (Berkowitz, 1993; Carlson et al., 1990, p. 622). The organizationcan therefore become an important contributing factor to whether or not violentdisplays of behavior are expressed by the individual, especially when, for example, thethreat of punishment from the organization is minimal or absent (Berkowitz, 1993).

Organizational influences conceivably can also be enhanced through social realityconstruction processes as described by the social information processing approach toorganizations (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). Social information processing suggests thatan individual’s behavior in a social environment is guided by the displays of behaviorfrom others within their environment on information about values, norms,expectations, and behavior outcomes (Glomb and Liao, 2003). The individual learns,then, by observing what others do and what they can or cannot “get away with”. Thestructure, values, norms, and procedures of an organization, therefore, are vital fordetermining how individuals might respond to organization related situations. Inparticular, Schein (2004) suggests that an organization’s culture identifies what thingsmembers of the organization should pay attention to, how they react emotionally, andwhat actions they should take.

Etzioni (1975) suggests that organizational cultures, then, can be ones in whichmembers of the organization identify with the organization. They tend to be committedto the organization’s goals and need little direct supervision as there is consensus about

JMP21,8

702

what needs to be done and why. But organizational cultures can involve less-consensusand be more transactional in nature. In these cultures, individuals participate only solong as the exchange system is perceived as rewarding their behaviors. On the otherhand, in yet other cultures members are alienated and defensive. They view the leadersas enemies and are antagonistic toward the leaders and the organization. Clearly, theselatter forms of organizational cultures are the ones more likely to elicit violence.

Characteristics of the organization, and particularly its culture, subsequently affectits propensity to elicit dysfunctional behavior. Organizational cultures that constrainor limit individual – and group-level capabilities and/or that actually encourage andreward mediocre individual – and group-level performance are termed dysfunctionalorganizational cultures, and the organizations are hence referred to as dysfunctionalorganizations.

Interactions between the individual and the organizationAssuming that the constructs of individual predispositions for dysfunctional behaviorand organizational propensities to elicit dysfunctional behaviors are, in fact, validconstructs, it then becomes possible to relate them to one another as in Figure 1. In thefigure, individual predisposition to engage in dysfunctional behavior is represented onthe vertical axis; organizational propensity to elicit dysfunctional behavior isrepresented on the horizontal axis. Moreover, each is presented as a dichotomousconstruct broken down into high and low levels. The resulting configuration yieldsfour possible situations.

Situation 1 exists when there is a high (or strong) predisposition on the part of anindividual to engage in dysfunctional behavior but there is a low propensity on the partof the organization to elicit such behavior. We propose that in this case there will be amoderate incidence of dysfunctional behavior derived primarily from the individual’spredisposition. Likewise, situation 3, determined by a low propensity for the individualto engage in dysfunctional behavior but in which there is a high propensity by theorganization to elicit such behavior, is also likely to result in a moderate incidence of

Figure 1.A framework ofperson-situationdeterminants of

dysfunctional behavior inorganizations

Dysfunctionalorganization

culture

703

dysfunctional behavior this time resulting more from the organizational influencesthan those of the individual.

Situation 2 represents the situation with the highest incidence of dysfunctionalbehavior. This volatile situation reflects the combination of a high predisposition fordysfunctional behavior coupled with a high organizational propensity to elicit violentbehavior. In sharp contrast, if individual predisposition for dysfunctional behavior andorganizational propensity to elicit dysfunctional behavior are both low, as in situation4, the lowest incidence of dysfunctional behavior will be present.

The role of leadersOrganization culture evolves from myriad sources, including the organization’shistory, its pattern of successes and failures, its founder, and its policies and practices.Leaders, however, are perhaps the most powerful determinant of organization culture.For example, leaders are the ones who set the tone of the organization, define its valuesand norms, and create and maintain a persona of what the organization is like.

Hence, if the position is taken that a culture with a high propensity to elicitdysfunctional behavior by its members is itself a dysfunctional culture, it seemsinstructive to examine how that culture developed. As previously noted, leaders mostlikely play a major role. For example, if a top manager is commonly known to beuntruthful, if a leader does not respect the rights of others, or if the leader puts profitsbefore all else, others in the organization will likely recognize the signals. As thesignals get institutionalized throughout the firm, its culture will become increasinglydysfunctional. In this way, the leader’s values are “taught” to others and shape theirbehavior in the organization.

What leaders pay attention to sends powerful messages throughout theorganization. What do leaders seem to notice, what comments do they make, whatdo they seem to reward and punish? What agendas do they set for meetings? How dothey react to problems and/or change? Is there a code of ethics and is it actuallyfollowed? How is budgeting handled – top down or bottom up? Who gets promoted orreceives special privileges? These are all important actions by which leaders influencean organization’s culture and the behavior of those in the organization.

Culture and leadership style are major influences on individuals (Lok and Crawford,2004). An organization’s culture is shaped by its leaders, but it also shapes the behaviorof its leaders (Brown and Thornborrow, 1996). Characteristics of organizations havebeen shown to influence the ethics or integrity of executives (Tourigny et al., 2003), andqualities of leaders have been shown to be critical in the development of anorganization’s culture (Ribiere and Sitar, 2003). Dysfunctional organizations generallyfail to achieve their goals and frequently are notable for poor leaders. Dysfunctions intop management have been shown to prohibit groups from effectively accomplishingtheir tasks (Paul et al., 2002). Kets de Vries (2004, 1991) suggests that an organizationcan become dysfunctional because its culture reflects the dysfunctions of top managers(see also Kersten, 2005).

Smith (2000) suggests that dysfunctional organizational cultures are likely to resultwhen leaders have poor “people” skills. With a long emphasis on productivity,efficiency, and the “bottom line,” many organizational leaders have not developedstrong interpersonal skills and, indeed, may instead have begun to abuse theirauthority in dealing with subordinates. Skills in handling change and stress, as well as

JMP21,8

704

in dealing with conflict and aggression, communication, motivation and timemanagement have all been relegated to minor roles. Under these conditions, then,leaders may unintentionally contribute to the development of dysfunctionalorganizational cultures.

Burton (2002) has taken this a step further and identified several behaviorsassociated with leaders who create dysfunctional organizational climates. She suggeststhat such leaders engage in threatening behaviors toward subordinates; displayemotional or verbal abuse and bullying; are likely to harass subordinates in one way oranother; and may even use physical assault against subordinates.

The social information processing approach clearly demonstrates the stronginfluence that leaders have as role models. The leader sets the tone for his or herfollowers through his or her own visible behavior that communicates assumptions andvalues to others as well as through informal messages (Lewine, 1995). But role modelscan be models of the wrong kind. For instance, bad examples are set for others byabusive or bullying leaders; those who quickly assign blame and don’t set priorities;those who make the same errors over and over; those who claim that they “don’t know”or have bad information; leaders who worry about “my watch” rather than long-termorganizational effectiveness; those who think that apologizing is all that is necessary to“make things right;” and those who cook the books, pad their expense accounts, andbehave unethically if not illegally. It should come as no surprise that in organizationswhose leaders display those behaviors, dysfunctional behavior will occur morefrequently than in organizations whose leaders display more reasonable and ethicalbehavior themselves.

Directions for theory and researchThe use of the framework presented here can potentially improve our understanding ofthe role of organization culture and leadership in motivating dysfunctional workbehaviors. However, much work remains to be done. Specifically, new theorydevelopment work and empirical research are both fully necessary.

For one thing, both the individual and the organization constructs utilized in theframework need more complete conceptual development. In each instance, for example,a more complex and integrative analysis of diverse literatures needs to be undertaken.Clear messages regarding individual tendencies toward violent behaviors areembedded in the literatures from such diverse areas as psychology, psychiatry,criminal justice, medicine, sociology, organizational behavior, biology, socialpsychology, and anthropology. A comprehensive review and synthesis couldtheoretically yield far more insights than currently exist.

Similarly, dysfunctional perspectives on both organizational culture and leadershipcan obviously be elevated through a focused and in-depth review and analysis. Thesame literatures noted above, with the addition of organization theory, could yield rich,substantive, and sophisticated frameworks and models of these constructs.

We also propose that manifestations of violent behavior are most likely to occur asthe result of the interactive relationship between an individual displaying a relativelyhigh predisposition for violent behavior and an organization with a relatively highpropensity to elicit violence. Theoretically, then, more complete understandings of thevarious core constructs could then lead to better and more intricate predictions ofinteractions and other interrelationships among those constructs.

Dysfunctionalorganization

culture

705

The model developed here suggests that an individual in an organization with adysfunctional culture will either leave the organization, stay with the organization andnot display dysfunctional or violent behavior, or will display such behavior perhapstriggered by a stimulus event (i.e. a public reprimand, demotion, or termination).Theoretical advancements could also provide meaningful understandings as to whichof these is more likely and under what conditions. Indeed, each of the cells in theproposed model merits careful attention to specify the individual and organizationconditions underlying it.

More carefully derived categorizations or classifications may also provide greaterinsight into the nature of triggering events for dysfunctional behavior, particularlythose associated with leader behavior. Research is clearly needed to determine whethercertain kinds of triggers are more or less likely to stimulate various kinds ofdysfunctional behaviors than are others.

Beyond the array of theoretical imperatives, there are also numerous empiricalissues that warrant attention. Unfortunately, these concepts are sufficiently sensitivethat “standard” research methods may be applicable. For instance, longitudinalresearch could help further our understanding of the role that organizational responsesto dysfunctional behavior plays in the organization’s subsequent propensity to elicitsuch behaviors. It could also be possible to determine and develop protocols fororganizations to follow when dysfunctional behavior occurs, so as to decrease thepotential for future episodes.

However, few organizations would be amenable to hosting a cross-sectional surveyor experimental intervention targeted at the key underlying research questions eitherimplied here or to be developed through more rigorous theoretical explication. As aresult, researchers will need to be especially creative in their pursuit of answers. Forexample, methodologies such as retrospective accounts, direct observation, and otherqualitative approaches may need to be employed. Hopefully, however, the results willbe more than worth the complications from using nontraditional approaches.

ConclusionsMost of the work on dysfunctional work behavior has concentrated on individual-levelbehaviors. The organization as a contributor to dysfunctional behaviors has seldombeen more than just mentioned. Our work suggests that organizational cultures maycontribute to or detract from dysfunctional behavior in a variety of ways. Since leadersare an important determinant of organizational culture, we have argued that theytherefore play an important role in motivating dysfunctional work behaviors.Hopefully, the concepts and model presented here will stimulate empirical research toverify or refute our ideas and to further the understanding of the role thatorganizations and organizational leaders play with regard to dysfunctional behavior inorganizations.

References

Arboleda-Florez, J., Holley, H. and Crisanti, A. (1998), “Understanding causal paths betweenmental illness and violence”, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Vol. 33,pp. S38-S46.

Berkowitz, L. (1993), Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control, Temple UniversityPress, Philadelphia, PA.

JMP21,8

706

Brennan, W. (1998), “Aggression and violence: examining the theories”, Nursing Standard,Vol. 12, pp. 36-8.

Brown, A.D. and Thornborrow, W.T. (1996), “Do organizations get the followers they deserve?”,Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-11.

Burton, J. (2002), “The leadership factor”, Accident Prevention, January/February, pp. 22-6.

Carlson, M., Marcus-Newhall, A. and Miller, N. (1990), “Effects of situational aggression cues:a quantitative review”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 622-33.

Denenberg, R.V. and Braverman, M. (1999), The Violence Prone Workplace, Cornell UniversityPress, Ithaca, NY.

Etzioni, A. (1975), Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, Revised edition, MacmillanPublishing Company, New York, NY.

Filipczak, B. (1993), “Armed and dangerous at work”, Training, July, pp. 39-43.

Giacalone, R.A. and Greenberg, J. (1997),Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks CA.

Glomb, T.M. and Liao, H. (2003), “Interpersonal aggression in work groups: social influence,reciprocal, and individual effects”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 486-96.

Griffin, R.W. and Lopez, Y.P. (2004), “Toward a model of the person-situation determinants ofdeviant behavior in organizations”, paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of theAcademy of Management, New Orleans, LA, 6-11 August 2004.

Griffin, R.W. and O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (Eds) (2004), The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Guerra, J., Martinez, I., Munduate, L. and Medina, F. (2005), “A contingency perspective on thestudy of the consequences of conflict types: the role of organizational culture”, EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-76.

Kersten, A. (2005), “Using sense-making methodology for making sense of insanity”, paperpresented at a non-divisional workshop held at the meeting of the InternationalCommunication Association, New York City.

Kets de Vries, M. (1991), Organizations on the Couch: Clinical Perspectives on OrganizationalBehavior and Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Kets de Vries, M. (2004), “Dysfunctional leadership”, Encyclopedia of Leadership, Berkshire/Sage,Great Barrington, MA.

Lewine, N.C. (1995), “Leader-follower dysfunction: follower responses and organizationalconsequences”, doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Litzky, B.E., Eddleston, K.A. and Kidder, D.L. (2006), “The good, the bad, and the misguided:how managers inadvertently encourage deviant behaviors”, The Academy of ManagementPerspectives, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 91-103.

Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2004), “The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on jobsatisfaction and organisational commitment: a cross-national comparison”, The Journal ofManagement Development, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 321-38.

Neuman, J.H. and Baron, R.A. (1998), “Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evidenceconcerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 24, pp. 391-419.

Northwestern National Life Insurance Company (1993), Fear and Violence in the Workplace,Northwestern National Life Insurance Company, Minneapolis, MN.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. and Glew, D.J. (1996), “Organization-motivated aggression: a researchframework”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 225-53.

Dysfunctionalorganization

culture

707

Paul, J., Strbiak, C.A. and Landrum, N.E. (2002), “Psychoanalytic diagnosis of top managementteam dysfunction”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 381-93.

Ribiere, V.M. and Sitar, A. (2003), “Critical role of leadership in nurturing aknowledge-supporting culture”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 1No. 1, pp. 39-48.

Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978), “A social information processing approach to job attitudesand task design”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 224-53.

Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,CA.

Smith, G. (2000), Work Rage: Identify the Problems, Implement the Solutions, Harper Business,Toronto.

Tourigny, L., Dougan, W.L., Washburn, J. and Clements, C. (2003), “Explaining executiveintegrity: governance, charisma, personality and agency”, Management Decision, Vol. 41No. 10, pp. 1035-49.

Trice, H.M. (1988), “Rites and ceremonials in organizational culture”, in Bacharach, S.B. andMitchell, S.M. (Eds), Perspectives on Organizational Sociology: Theory and Research, Vol. 4,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Trice, H.M. and Beyer, J.M. (1993), Cultures of Work Organizations, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

US Department of Labor (2005), Bureau of Labor Statistics, in cooperation with State, New YorkCity, District of Columbia, and Federal agencies, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries,Table 1: Fatal occupational injuries by event or exposure, 1999-2004.

About the authorsDr David D. Van Fleet’s work focuses on management history, leadership, strategy, andworkplace violence and terrorism. He has authored or co-authored over 200 presentations andpublications. He is a past editor of the Journal of Management and the current editor of theJournal of Behavioral and Applied Management. He is a Fellow of both the Academy ofManagement and the Southern Management Association and is listed inWho’s Who in America(5th ed.) and Who’s Who Among America’s Teachers (Vol. V). Dr Van Fleet can be contacted at:ddvf@ asu.edu

Dr Griffin’s research interests include workplace violence, employee health and well-being inthe workplace, and workplace culture. In addition to his research and publications, Dr Griffin hasalso written several textbooks. He has served as editor of the Journal of Management and as anofficer in two regional and two professional divisions of the Academy of Management. He is aFellow of both the Academy of Management and the Southern Management Association.

JMP21,8

708

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints