VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY

NGUYEN DANH VIET

EFFECT OF ORGANIZATIONAL
FACTORS ON EMPLOYEE DEVIANT
BEHAVIORS: EVIDENCE FROM SERVICE
SECTOR COMPANIES IN VIETNAM

MASTER’S THESIS

Hanoi, 2020
 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY

NGUYEN DANH VIET

EFFECT OF ORGANIZATIONAL
FACTORS ON EMPLOYEE DEVIANT
BEHAVIORS: EVIDENCE FROM SERVICE
SECTOR COMPANIES IN VIETNAM

MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

CODE: 8340101.01

RESEARCH SUPERVISORS:
Dr. TRAN THI BICH HANH
Prof. Dr. DANIEL ARTURO HELLER

Hanoi, 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1
1.1. Background of the study ...................................................................................1
1.2. Research questions and research objectives .....................................................3
1.3. Organization of the thesis .................................................................................3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................5
2.1. A theoretical background on unethical behavior...........................................5
2.2. Workplace Deviance .........................................................................................6
2.2. Organizational factors .....................................................................................10
2.3. Hypothesizes development .............................................................................12
2.3.1. Code of conduct and deviant behaviors ...................................................12
2.3.2. Social norms and deviant behaviors .........................................................13
2.3.3. Unethical leadership and deviant behaviors .............................................14
2.3.4. Performance pressure and deviant behaviors ...........................................16
2.3.5. Likelihood of Detection and deviant behaviors .......................................18
2.3.6. Internal Virtual Community Participation as a moderator in the
relationship between organizational factor and employee deviance behaviors .19
2.4. Research model ...............................................................................................21
CHAPTER 3: METHOD ..........................................................................................23
3.1. Sample ............................................................................................................23
3.2. Procedure and Data Analysis ..........................................................................24
3.3. Measures .........................................................................................................26
3.3.1. Deviance behaviors ..................................................................................26
3.3.2. Code of conduct........................................................................................26
3.3.3. Social norms .............................................................................................26
3.3.4. Unethical leadership .................................................................................26
3.3.5. Performance pressure ...............................................................................27
3.3.6. Likelihood of Detection............................................................................27
3.3.7. Internal Virtual Community Participation................................................27
CHAPTER 4. RESULT ............................................................................................28
4.1. Reliability test .................................................................................................28
4.2. Exploratory factor analysis .............................................................................29
4.3. Regression analysis .........................................................................................31
4.4. Moderating Effect ...........................................................................................34
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ....................................................................................37
 5.1. Conclusion ......................................................................................................37
5.2. Implications ....................................................................................................39
5.3. Limitations and future research direction .......................................................42
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................44
APPENDIXES ..............................................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The academic life in VJU was exciting with friends and supportive people around.
To complete this essay, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor
Dr. Tran Thi Bich Hanh, and co-supervisor, Prof. Daniel Arturo Heller. Their tireless
support has been a massive motivator for me to complete this study.
I sincerely thank all VJU staff for providing me an opportunity to do the research and
review it.
Finally, I wish all my friends and my teachers have a lot of joy in their way.
Yours sincerely,
Nguyen Danh Viet
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research is to point out the organization factors that affect the
deviant behaviors and the impact of Internal Virtual Community Participation in
those relationships from service organizations in Vietnam.
The study focuses on two types of employee’s deviant behaviors: interpersonal
deviance and organizational deviance. Self-report data was collected among 174
employees of some Vietnam services company through an online survey.
Correlational and moderated regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses.
The results show that Likelihood of detection (L) is the most critical factor that
impacts both Interpersonal and Organizational Deviance, which is followed by Code
of Conduct (C), Social Norms (S), Unethical Leadership (U). According to the
research results, the minimum impactful factor toward Interpersonal Deviance (ID)
is Code of Conduct (C), and the least impactful factor toward Organizational
Deviance (OD) is Unethical Leadership (U). And Performance Pressure (P) fails to
support the hypothesis. Finally, the moderating effect is not significant. Future
research directions and practical implications for organizational settings are
addressed in the last chapter.
Keywords: Unethical behaviors, workplace deviances, business ethics,
organizational factors, internal virtual communication participation.
LIST OF TABLES

8
Table 2.1. Measures of misconduct behaviors…………………………….
17
Table 2.3. Literature on outcomes of unethical leadership on employee….
17
Table 2.4. Summarizes some studies on the influence of Unethical
leadership to subordinate behaviors………………………………………..
26
Table 3.1. Demographic data…………………………………………….
30
Table 4.1. Coefficient α reliabilities result……………………………….
31
Table 4.2. KMO and Bartlett’s Test………………………………………
32
Table 4.3. Rotated Component Matrix (N = 174)…………………………
33
Table 4.4. Correlation and descriptive result…………………………….
34
Table 4.5. Coefficients for the sample for Deviant behaviors toward
Interpersonal misconduct
35
Table 4.6. Coefficients for the sample for Deviant behaviors toward
Organizational misconduct
35
Table 4.7. Conditional indirect effect of Unethical Leadership (U) on
Interpersonal Deviance (ID) at Internal Virtual Community Participation
(V).
38
Table 4.8. Moderating effect………………………………………………
LIST OF FIGURES

10
Figure 2.1. Typology of deviant behaviors at workplace…………………
11
Figure 2.2. Categories of influences on individual decision-making process
24
Figure 2.3. Research model ………………………………………………
36
Figure 4.1. Research moderation model…………………………………..
36
Figure 4.2. Statistical diagram of moderating effect………………………
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

No. Abbreviated characters Detail

1 C Code of Conduct
2 ID Interpersonal Deviance
3 IVCP Internal Virtual Community Participation
4 OD Organizational Deviance
5 P Performance Pressure
6 S Social Norms
7 U Unethical leadership
8 WD Workplace Deviance
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the study

In the early years of the 21st century witnessed a series of scandals in the unethical
behaviors’ issue. Many of the biggest corporations is a typical example of the collapse
of the company after those scandals came to light. Some giants like WorldCom, Tyco,
and Lehman Brothers collapsed after those scandals were leaked out.
The financial loss is noticeable; the value of securities instantly falls dramatically.
The stock market response is almost immediately after the scandal events are revealed.
According to a statistic of 23 primary cases of business scandals (see: appendix C)
links with corporate governance problems in the period 2000 - 2010, the total market
capitalization loss estimated by $751 billion, of which 16 cases in total 23 were
confirmed linking to fraud (accounting for 70% case) and total company's market
capitalization decreased by $369 billion (da Silveira, 2012). More recently, there was
a scandal of formal chairman of Nissan, Carlos Ghosn. Nissan has been in turmoil
after Carlos Ghosn was detained in Tokyo. The first time in 11 consecutive years,
Nissan recorded a full-year $ 6.2 billion loss in its 2020 financial report. Those issue
of ethics at the workplace is an attractive topic to be concerned, especially for deviant
behavior. Misconduct behavior clearly has many adverse outcomes for an
organization as also confirmed by researchers; Workplace deviance like many other
unethical behaviors seems to have a further impact on customers (Babin, Boles, &
Robin, 2000; Gilbert, 2003). Deviant workplace behaviors become a problem that
many businesses have noticed because of its consequences for branding, firm
performance, which in turn will increase financial risk and cost (Thomas,
Schermerhorn, & Dienhart, 2011; Henle, 2005) . In the long-term period, negative
effects result from this behavior will damage the competitive strength of the firms.
Therefore, businesses need to have a full awareness of this issue. Vietnam's economy
is growing; the lessons drawn from the predecessor is a way to shorten the
development gap. Considering the context of Vietnam's economy, this research focus
on the service sector is appropriate. The service sector has made an important
contribution to the economy in terms of product creation and employment. Due to the
shift from a production economy to a service-providing economy, the service sector

1
has increasingly accounted for a higher share of the Vietnamese economy. According
to the Vietnamese Ministry of Social Labor, by 2018, the service sector will bring 3.6
million new jobs and accounted for 41% GDP contribution. In consideration of
ethical issues, this study explores the effect of organizational factors toward deviant
outcomes in the context of service firms. The increase in foreign investment and
following is the fierce competition in both domestic and international markets, which
motivates the Vietnam businesses to improve their competitiveness. Improving the
corporate environment is also a part of the organization’s sustainable development.
The Government of Vietnam currently has highly responsive in improving the
business environment and national competitiveness. The Government released
Resolution No. 02/NQ-CP on responsibilities to enhance the business climate and the
national competitiveness Accompanying with these goals, businesses and
organizations also need to actively participate in the process of improving their
working environment, thereby promoting labor productivity and competitiveness.
In addition, advancements in information technology have changed the way people
interact with others. In a complex project environment, teams member face multi-
dimensional communication problems that can ultimately lead to project breakdown.
Team Performance varies in Face-to-Face environment versus groups working
remotely in a computer-mediated communication environment. A virtual community
is considered a cost-effective tool and ability to boots the connections among
members in the community. But there has not much research into the process of
participating in these virtual communities that affecting the relationships among team
members and affecting the process of making unethical decisions. This thesis
discusses the applicability of Virtual community and in a virtual space. It also offers
the concept of Virtual community commitment as a primary outcome of participation
in a community. Using self-report, this research applies a deductive method to
examine the role of the firm “ethical infrastructure” contain: ethical Code of conduct,
norms, Likelihood of detection, performance pressure, and unethical leadership to the
deviant behaviors at workplace. By underlines the importance of understanding those
firm ethical infrastructure factors, we could explain which factors motivate or
minimizes destructive behaviors. Indeed, the ultimate result cut down the financial
losses, social and psychological expenses for the firm. Additionally, this research test

2
if higher levels of participation in an Internal virtual community translate to higher
levels of members' perceived ethical outcomes, in turn, lower their unethical
behaviors. How participation behavior in an online community evolves to attachment
towards ethical behaviors?

1.2. Research questions and research objectives

Through all of the rational, this thesis derives the research questions:
1. What are the vital organizational factors that have an effect on the deviant
behaviors of employees in service organizations in Vietnam?
2. Does Internal Virtual Community Participation (IVCP) moderates the effect
of Organizational factors on the workplace deviant behaviors of the employee?

To answer the research questions above, the author proposes research objectives:

1. Identifying the vital factors that impact the deviant behaviors of employees at
service organizations in Vietnam.
2. Evaluating the moderating effect of Internal virtual community participation
on the relationship between organizational factors and employee’s deviant
behaviors.
3. The research result will support decision-makers in concentrating on critical
factors while considering the outcome of deviant behaviors.
The scope of this study: This study wants to evaluate a relationship between
organizational factors to employee's standard deviated behavior.
The survey was conducted in Vietnam, and data were collected from 2019/04/11 to
04/30. Respondents were those who are working in the service sector in Vietnam.

1.3. Organization of the thesis

Chapter 1 introduces the reason for choosing this research and presents a review of
the research’s framework.
Chapter 2 will systemize the literature on organizational factors and unethical
behaviors and also Workplace deviance behaviors. Research’s hypothesis was
proposed through a literature review.
Chapter 3 addresses the initial process for collecting input data and the process of
building all scales based on the Literature review chapter.

3
Data analysis and test of research results are conducted in Chapter 4.
The last chapter concludes the research results through these results, evaluating the
overall objective of the topic, proposing suggestions for future research.

4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. A theoretical background on unethical behavior

There has been much research about the factors influencing the decision making
unethical behaviors. The first part of chapter two will review some of the theoretical
foundations to analyze the factors that affect unethical behaviors in general and
deviant behavior in particular.
Social learning theory: Bandura highlights the importance of perceiving and copying
the attitudes and behaviors of others. Bandura (1977) showed that “Most human
behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one
forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded
information serves as a guide for action.” Individual behavior can be built upon
learning through observation or instruction. A critical factor in Social Learning
Theory is the notion of a reciprocal relationship. This concept affirms that the
environment shapes an individual's behavior and is also affected by the individual's
behavior . Three components: environment, behavior, and individuals cognitive all
together jointly reinforce each other.
Rational Choice Theory: This theory states that individuals are rational decision-
makers and behave according to the potential risks and potential returns inherent in a
decision (Michaels & Miethe, 1989). Each individual evaluates the degree of reward
and punishment. They will weigh the benefits and costs of their behaviors to decide
which action to take (Buckley, Wiese, & Harvey, 1998).
Deterrence Theory: This theory shows that dishonest acts will be significantly
reduced if the members perceive a considerable deterrence for their wrongdoing. The
higher the detection possibility, the lower the frequency of unethical behaviors.
Social Bond Theory: This theory predicted that an individual detached from social
connections is the cause of emerging misconduct behaviors. In a group or community,
the behavior is considered "Normal" when all the members accept and comply. When
the behavior deviates from the general path, the community will create a pressure to
bring it back into compliance path; if that behavior continues, the group will boycotts
and outcast of community. If an individual feels isolated and lose social connection,

5
he or she will tend to take actions that are not socially acceptable, or in other words,
deviant behaviors.
Self-Protection mechanism: Shu, Gino, & Bazerman (2011) define cheating as an act
that gains a particular benefit for her or himself but ignores the rules and norms; this
behavior may harm others' interests. Moreover, this is not an accidental action but
intentional action. In order to ensure their interests, actors may disregard the rules to
maximize their interests. Performance pressure is assessed as a salient threat to
employees' interests, creating a counter-reaction to protect themselves from losses
(Wang & Murnighan, 2011). The Performance pressure imposes on employees a
target when the target cannot be performed, or the pressure is too high, the Self-
protection mechanism is activated to protect their interests.
Virtual community: A virtual community is a social group of people with common
interests that communicate with each other with the help of information and
communication technologies. Using technology, this community creates a virtual
bridge that connects people through a virtual world. Howard Rheingold, who set a
foundation for virtual community research, shows that Virtual community creates an
environment in which “speeded-up social evolution”(Rheingold, 2000). Virtual
communities have and will continue to have a dramatic impact on communication.
Some virtual communities encourage the improvement of the ethical environment,
empowering in-group reformation, and restriction for violating group standards.
Moreover, some virtual communities spread activities that harm the interests of its
members or outsiders. Virtual communities have and will remain to have a
considerable influence on perceive of individual toward ethical or unethical behaviors.
Some virtual communities encourage the improvement of the ethical environment,
empowering in-group reformation, and restriction for violating group standards.
Moreover, some virtual communities spread activities that harm the interests of its
members or outsiders (Parsell, 2008).

2.2. Workplace Deviance

Workplace deviance or counterproductive work behaviors, also called workplace

incivility or antisocial work behaviors, affects almost all businesses (Case, 2000;
Coffin, 2003), many antecedent studies suggesting that the more than half of
employees have involved in at least one type of deviant behavior (Slora, 1989; Harper,
6
1990; Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Harris & Ogbonna, 2002). Deviant behaviors cost
the organization, that has been measured to be rather remarkable, with approximation
being in millions US Dollar for US companies annually (Case, 2000; Harris &
Ogbonna, 2006; Murphy, 1993). Deviant behaviors at the workplace are defined by
Robinson and Bennett, 1995 as “voluntary behavior that violates significant
organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its
members, or both.”
In the field of organizational behavior, a lot of behaviors are classified as
organizational misconduct. Many researchers have independent evaluations and give
different names for these behaviors, but they all have the same characteristics,
somehow damages the benefits of the organization by series negative action
(Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002; Sackett & Devore, 2012). Numerous
construct is similar, overlap, and sub-labels have reproduced. Table 2.1 summarizes
several studies of deviance-related behaviors.
Ethical behavior is defined by social science in order to understand the behavior of
each individual that is judged base on the widely-accepted moral standards of the
whole community. That standard is a benchmark for every member of a community.
This concept completely coincides with the idea of Bennett & Robinson (2003) about
deviance behavior, that “assumes some kind of norm or rule violation. With deviance,
the rule or norm is regularly considered to be an organizational rule, and in many
cases, organizational norms harmonize with social norms” (Greenberg, 1990).
Therefore, the research of counter-normative behavior may also be considered similar
to these fields of study.
In summarize, this definition of misconduct can be outlined as follows: “Voluntary
employee behaviors that are viewed by the organization as contrary to its legitimate
interests, violate significant organizational norms, and threaten the well-being of the
organization or its members. Also includes interpersonal (e.g., violence, gossip) and
organizational target (e.g., working slowly, damaging company property) dimensions”
(Berry, Carpenter, & Barratt, 2012)

7
 Table 2.1. Measures of misconduct behaviors
Researcher Name Survey design Items
(Bennett & Workplace Self-report 12 items of interpersonal
Robinson, Deviance Scale deviance
2000) 7 items of Organizational
deviance
(Robinson & Antisocial Self-report 9 items of individual
O’Leary- behavior and 9 items Group
Kelly, 1998) antisocial behaviors
(Ball, Trevino, Anti-citizenship Interview 12 items work-related
& Sims Jr, behavior output including defiance,
1994) physical avoidance of or
escape from work,
hostility, resistance to
authority, individual, and
revenge.
(Fox et al., Counterproductive Self-report 45 items in five
2001); Work Behavior dimensions of deviance:
(Spector, Checklist abuse, sabotage,
2006) production, theft, and
withdrawal
Aquino et al. Workplace Self-report 15-items measure of
(1999) deviance organizational and
interpersonal deviance.
Stewart et al. Workplace other-report 15-items
(2009) Deviance scale

According to research by Robinson & Bennett (1995), workplace deviance is divided

into two dimensions (see figure 2.1). One measurement is based on the intensity of
the behavior, and the other is based on the target of the behavior. They apply multi-
dimensional scaling analysis the typology of workplace deviance as follows:
Intensity: This dimension refers to the severity of misconduct behavior from mirror
to serious. Personal aggression and Poverty deviance which considers as a serious
8
violation act and thus is seen as more likely damaging to the company and its
members. The minor form includes such behaviors as social loafing, absenteeism, or
showing favoritism.
Target: This dimension determines whether the action is directed toward the
organization or its member.

Figure 2.1: Typology of deviant behaviors at the workplace

Source: Robinson & Bennett, 1995

Table 2.1 summarizes the types of workplace deviance according to the theory of
Bennet and Robinson. The forms of deviant behavior are expressed in many different
ways and levels.

9
2.2. Organizational factors

The popular approach here is to consider recent theory and empirical research that
addresses the influence of individual cognition and organizational context on the
cognitive process of decision-making. (see Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2. Categories of influences on the individual decision-making process

Source: Trevino et al, p. 953

Trevino and colleagues suggest the approach analyze recent both empirical and
theoretical study that addresses individual and contextual have an impact on
processes of ethical decision-making of individual (see Figure 2.2). Rest (1986)
introduced the four-component analysis, including four stages: “moral awareness,
moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral behavior.” This mechanism is more
likely in the field of psychological, rather than the organizational area of study
(Treviño et al., 2006). Therefore, within the scope of this study, my thesis is designed
to focus on the problem of misconduct behaviors, which is influenced by
organizational factor, and subtract individual factors.
Due to pressure from legal and regulation, many large companies have applied
various efforts to implement policies and programs to promote ethical behavior

10
among company members (Weaver et al., 1999). These “ethical infrastructures”
(Tenbrunsel et al., 2003) “contain both formal and informal elements: ethics codes
and policies, communications, training, monitoring systems, sanctions, and rewards
on the formal side, and attention to ethical climates and organizational cultures on the
informal side.”
Many factors in the organizational environment have been shown to be related to
ethical behaviors in the organization. There is a clear link between work pressure
related to unethical behavior (Robertson & Rymon, 2001). “Unmet organizationally
defined goals also contribute to unethical behavior, even in the case of goals that
involve no tangible economic benefits, and especially in situations when individuals
are just slightly removed from the achievement of a goal” (Schweitzer et al., 2004).
Studies also indicate a role-conflict is also a cause for immoral behavior. Grover
(1993, 2008) study discovered the behavior of nurses dealing with role-conflicts by
turning to unethical acts. Lying was an example.
In addition, Weaver et al. (2005) pointed out that many elements of one’s role person
can make others consider it as a moral standard, and standardized its and applied to
their behaviors.
In order to better understand these complex mechanisms, this thesis will take a closer
look at some aspects of the organization's factors in the next sections. The limitation
of this study will only focus on analyzing the following factors: Code of conduct,
Likelihood of detection, Social norm, Unethical leadership, and Performance
pressure.

11
2.3. Hypothesizes development

2.3.1. Code of conduct and deviant behaviors

A business code of ethics and conducts can be defined in M. S. Schwartz (2002) study
as “a written, distinct, formal document which consists of moral standards which help
guide employees or corporate behavior” Business codes of ethics and conduct, also
called codes of conduct are official tools to govern the behavior of the individual in
a company, Codes of conduct, and ethics are important to the professional
organization. Business codes of conduct present critical direction that is used to
monitor subordinates’ actions and many business firms build these codes of ethics as
a general tool to guide employee behavior (Benson, 1989). Codes of conduct can
affect workers’ actions with respect to moral issues (Treviño & Nelson, 2011; Weaver,
1995).
A good code of conduct will be a reliable instrumental in encouraging employees to
act ethically. “Corporations can be held legally responsible for the actions of their
employees, and managers enact codes to guide individual behavior and to protect the
corporation from any potentially illegal or unethical behavior by employees” (Adams,
Tashchian, & Shore, 2001).
Loe, Ferrell, & Mansfield (2013) determined 17 practical academic works that
analyzed the connection between ethical codes of conduct and moral outcomes. Most
obtained experimental results indicate positive relationships. In addition, 19
empirical studies of M. Schwartz (2001) confirm the relationship between them. But
only nine results showed positive relations. Studies show that the Code of conduct
alone often does not has significant results on individual behaviors. In the study of
Trevino et al., (1999) compared the informal elements such as cultural and leadership
with the role of typical elements of ethics infrastructures, such as corporate codes of
conduct and ethics, the impact of Code seems to be minimal. “Reasons for the gap
between practice and policy was grounded in 5 reasons, suggested by Webley, S &
Werner, A (2008) including (1) Inadequate codes of ethics; (2) Lack of embedding;
(3) Lack of commitment of top management; (4) Pressure to meet targets; (5) Fear of
retaliation.”
Although the correlation has been confirmed in many academic studies, there is still
a lot of skepticism about the degree of relationship between the Code of conduct tool
12
and individual behavior (Valentine & Barnett, 2003). Likewise, M. Schwartz (2001)
considers the exact connection between ethical codes and individual behavior as a
black box. Recognizing the possible dispute between the individuals’ and
organization’s ethical standards could be one approach for opening this box. Likewise,
M. Schwartz (2001) identified that Ethical Code has two major influences on
employee behavior: (1) formalizing behavior and (2) changing corporate culture.
The presence of ethical codes emphasizes the moral orientation of the organization
Fritz et al. (1999). That means the leadership interest in the ethical environment of
the company. Especially a moral code also has symbolic meaning for the company’s
image. It also contributes to the brand of the organization. the absence of a moral
code will send a message to employees that top management does not really care
about the morality and therefore, employees do not need to pay too much attention to
complying with vague standards (Adams et al., 2001)
In considering all the reviews, the hypotheses will be:
Hypothesis 1a: The Code of conduct has a negative impact on employee interpersonal
deviance behaviors.
Hypothesis 1b: The Code of conduct has a negative impact on employee
organizational deviance behaviors.

2.3.2. Social norms and deviant behaviors

All organizations have a social standard—a standard accepted by all members, and
orient the behavior of members in that organization. Norm also has an impact on
individual behavior. Different organizations and communities have different ethical
standards. As a community member, the norms will be invisible or tangible put
pressure on individuals, which oriented their attitudes and behaviors that do not
violate the group’s standards. Along with formal institutions like rules or formal
business code, Social norms are an important tool for social control, norms create a
compliance environment for people to socialize in the society in which they connect
(Druzin, 2015).
Back to the definition of deviant behaviors by Appelbaum, R. P et al. (2009):
“nonconformity to a set of organization norms that are accepted by a significant
number of people in a community or society.” Such behavior that deviates from a
certain standard was classified as deviance. From this definition, it is understandable
13
that an organization with strong institutions to ensure compliance with social norms
will reduce misconduct.
As mentioned above, social norms affect the behavior of individuals in working
behavior. Deng (2013) investigated the influence of social norms on moral buying
intention and presumed that organization and individual norms positively impacted
consumers’ ethical buying intentions.
In the study of tax compliance, Bobek, Hageman, & Kelliher (2013) pointed out that
the norm also positively affects the behavior of complying with tax regulations. So,
within the entrepreneurial venture. Norms of ethical practice in the organization's
context would enhance employees’ ethical actions, thereby reducing their wrongful
intentions.
In consider all the reviews, the hypotheses will be:
Hypothesis 2a: Social norms has a negative impact on employees’ interpersonal
deviance behaviors.
Hypothesis 2b: Social norms has a negative impact on employees’ organizational
deviance behaviors.

2.3.3. Unethical leadership and deviant behaviors

Jones,1991) defined :“Unethical behavior involves acts that are illegal and/or are
morally inappropriate to larger society” (Jones, 1991). Many research has revealed a
diversity of unethical leader acts. Numerous terms have developed in the literature,
such as toxic leadership (Frost, 2004), abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), tyrannical
leadership (B. Ashforth, 1994), and supervisor undermining (Duffy, Ganster, &
Pagon, 2002). These studies show that leaders are offensive, oppressive,
machiavellian, calculatingly undermining, and manipulative behaviors, their actions
are regarded as intentional and dangerous, and it is the source of action against the
benefit of companies (Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007). Hence, all of these
behaviors are considers as unethical.
The unethical behaviors of the leaders have a more significant influence and are
serious. In the case of seeking performance goals, a leader can encourage fraud and
unethical acts of employees. A leader can indirectly participate in a sinful action by
neglecting, rewarding, or ignoring the mistakes of subordinates (Brief, Buttram, &
Dukerich, 2001; B. E. Ashforth & Anand, 2003);. In the Sims & Brinkmann, (2002)
14
study, the results indicate that the leader who reward short-term results, the
destructive and Machiavellian behavior model, does not take actions to punish
wrongdoing behaviors, even create opportunities for individuals who have like-
minded misconduct.
Table 2.3. The literature on outcomes of unethical leadership on employees.
Authors Contents
Imposing wrongful behavior to staff, in order to get
(Baker & Faulkner,
away from sanction by “plausible deniability.”
2006)
Leaders who exploit unethical behavior of their staffs
(Pinto, Leana, & Pil,
perform unethical acts.
2008)
Leaders who participate in, facilitate, or promote
(Brown, Treviño, &
unethical behaviors do not display ethical leadership.
Harrison, 2005)
Employees involved in some dishonest behaviors to
(Umphress, Bingham,
increase performance or support the company.
& Mitchell, 2010)

In addition, the influence of Unethical leadership is quite obvious in the behavior of

employees (See table 2.4).
Table 2.4 Summarizes some studies on the influence of Unethical leadership to
subordinate behaviors.
Authors Subordinate influence
Negatively affects subordinates’ attitudes
(Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2008)
Task and extra-role play
(Harris et al.,2007; Zellers et al., 2002)
Defensive behaviors
(Tepper et al., 2001),
Personal life
(Ferguson et al., 2009)
Deviant and unethical work behavior among
(Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007)
employees

In conclusion, unethical leadership was defined as “behaviors conducted and

decisions made by organizational leaders that are illegal and/or violate moral

15
standards and those that impose processes and structures that promote unethical
conduct by followers” (Brown & Mitchell, 2017).
Like studies on ethical behavior, social learning theory is a popular model to explain
motivations that promote unethical behavior. This theory was developed by Bandura,
(1978). Many theories extended later, such as social information processing theory
by (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), and script theory by Gioia, (2013).
According to this theory, employees learn behaviors from the influencer, whether it’s
good or bad behavior. Subordinate often considers a key person as a role model to
learn and considers it a standard for their behavior.
Brief, Buttram, & Dukerich, (2001) point out that leaders with some legitimate,
powerful tools and sanctions ability can impose the subordinates involved in
unethical behavior. Many studies validate these discussions and show that unethical
leadership contributes a foundation of behaviors that affect the subordinate decision-
making process (Baumhart, 1961; Brenner & Molander, 1977; Detert, Treviño, &
Sweitzer, 2008).
The damage of leadership behavior is obvious in literature and practice. Enron and
WorldCom are an excellent example of how some leading individuals can ruin the
operation of a large corporation. Detert et al. (2008) pointed out that misleading
behaviors such as low productivity, risen absenteeism, misrepresentation of health
care expenses cost U.S. companies billions of dollars a year.
In addition, the effect of unethical leadership clearly has an impact on the behavior
of employees, and in consider all the reviews, the hypotheses will be:
Hypothesis 3a: Unethical leadership has a positive impact on interpersonal deviance
Hypothesis 3b: Unethical leadership has a positive impact on organizational deviance

2.3.4. Performance pressure and deviant behaviors

The pressure is the subjective experience of “any factor or combination of factors that
increase the importance of performing well” (Baumeister, 1984, p. 610). Many
research described performance pressure as a factor in the process of creating stress
( Lazarus, 2016; Gutnick, et al., 2012). Work-related pressure also has an effect on
the attitudes of individuals; when employees recognize a job-performance gap, they
have the intention to raise their dedication to fill the gap (Gardner, 2012).

16
Much research has theorized that several factors within the bound of workplace
increase self-interested tendencies that encourage unethical acts (Moore &
Loewenstein, 2004; Linda K. Trevino, Den Nieuwenboer, & Kish-Gephart, 2014).
Wang & Murnighan (2011) suggested that companies could generate self-interested
and wrongful conduct by heightening workers’ need for self-defense.
Self-protection makes employees overshadow the moral sense of their actions. These
discussions imply that work environment may likely be incidentally motivating
workplace cheating; fraudulent acts create great financial and reputable consequences
for the organization.
There are many studies on Self-Protection Mechanisms to explain misconduct.
“Unethical conduct is likely to occur if the work environment promotes self-interest
and, particularly, employees’ need for self-protection” (Wang & Murnighan, 2011).
The basic principle of personal interests is an incentive to protect themselves.
Cheating or fraud is used to protect itself and tried to get as many benefits for them
as possible. Williamson, 1984 pointed out that individuals are dominated by self-
interest obtain a “take advantage of the other person before they take advantage of
you” mindset. The mechanisms to protect themselves from threats to their own
interests that is human instinct (B. Schwartz, 1986).
“The relationship of employees with their companies is an exchange relationship, in
which employees are obligated to contribute excellent performance, in return, the
company returns the benefits by paying wages, insurance, and welfare” (Cropanzano
& Mitchell, 2005).
Requiring employees to work with high performance is legitimate for the employer.
In a positive way, work pressure encourages employees to work harder, and be more
creative, to create a competitive and favorable environment for the organization
(Rousseau, 2002; Sitkin et al., 2011). Yet, as organizations expand requirements to
boost performance, workers may feel extreme pressure as they recognize that
enhancing their performance is needed, because of employers justify that the
exchange relationship is more than enough for these pressures. And workers will have
reactions to fill those gaps by cheating (Bernerth, Walker, & Harris, 2016).
Mitchell et al. (2018) manifested the Indirect influence of job pressure on incivility.
Incivility is considered as “interpersonal deviance, representing a subtle breach of

17
social etiquette and norms of appropriate interaction” (Robinson, 2008). In this study,
Performance pressure has a positive impact on incivility behaviors.
Hypothesis 4a: Performance pressure has a positive impact on employees’
organizational deviance behaviors.
Hypothesis 4b: Performance pressure has a positive impact on employees’
organizational deviance behaviors.

2.3.5. Likelihood of Detection and deviant behaviors

Number of research has stated that if an organization has a high level of the
Likelihood of being caught and the severity of the penalty for the violation, unethical
behaviors in general or deviant behaviors, in particular, will be inhibited or deterred.
The risk of detection was varied inversely the cheating behaviors (Leming, 1980;
Steininger et al., 1964; Tittle & Rowe, 2012). Andenaes (2006) recommended that
sanctions are likely to be permanently featured for subjective norms or policies that
lack ethical support. In addition, the threat of being caught and punished also was a
vital inhibition in misconduct action among undergraduate students (Tittle & Rowe,
2012).
Rewards and penalties have proven to have an impact on moral conduct. Michaels
and Miethe (1989) found that the perceived severity of punishment was inversely
correlated with unethical acts. Many scientific studies have shown rewards and
incentives as a motivation to increase unethical behavior. (Trevino & Youngblood,
1990; Ashkanasy et al., 2006; Tenbrunsel, 1998; Hegarty & Sims, 1978;).
Every individual act as if comparing costs against benefits to arrive at action that
maximizes their advantage. This is the basic concept of Rational Choice Theory, also
known as Rational Action theory or Choice Theory. This theory states that “everyone
is rational, behaving and making decisions incompliant with the relationship between
the uncertainty outcome and benefit of a situation.” (Michaels & Miethe, 1989).
If employees are awarded being observed by everyone in the organization, they tend
to comply with the rules of the company and enhance their job performance. If the
individual is aware of being caught and punished, they will adjust their behavior in
conformity with the company’s regulations. Strict monitoring systems will have the
effect of correcting employee ethical decisions in a positive direction, whereas the
ineffective monitoring policy increases the incentive for misconduct. This approach
18
of Rational Choice Theory to researching unethical behavior was first proposed by
economists and approached the issue by examining the perceived probabilities and
magnitudes of both rewards and punishments (Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Piliavin,
Gartner, Thornton, & Matsueda, 2006). This theory states that individuals are rational
decision-makers and behave according to the potential risks and potential returns
inherent in a decision. The decision to engage in unethical behavior is a cost/benefit
function, which is rationally determined by the individual, who weighs the positive
and negative aspects that could transpire from making a decision. Vitro & Schoer,
(1972) found that cheating occurred most often when there was a low probability of
test success and low risk of detection.
Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 5a: Likelihood of detection has a negative impact on employees’
organizational deviance behaviors.
Hypothesis 5b: Likelihood of detection has a negative impact on employees’
organizational deviance behaviors.

2.3.6. Internal Virtual Community Participation as a moderator in the

relationship between organizational factor and employee deviance behaviors

Virtual communication

Teamwork has changed with the support of technology. Online communication help
members communicate with each other regardless of time and geographical location
instead of face-to-face, email replaced hard-paper, e-stamp, or electronic signatures
significantly reduced ton of paperwork. At first glance, those paperwork does not
seem significant, but these are the things that obstruct the work progress. However,
it is an indispensable step in the work process, revolution in working methods in
Industry 4.0 era also does not remove these procedures but only improves and
compress it with the help of technology. Today an online discussion forum, acts as
the “hub” in the centralized communication network; simultaneously, through chats
and tweets and more, it acts as an “electronic router” that links members of
decentralized networks on an as-needed and always-available basis. The
communication that happens through computer-mediated technologies (i.e., Email,
Audio/Video Conferencing, etc.) is called computer-mediated Communication. This

19
technology allows and empowers the team’s productivity by virtual communication
networks where members can always be online with one another and linked with a
central database. Teamwork can do in both physical and virtual with computer-
mediated communication software. Beside the traditional communication methods,
gradually, companies begin to switch to new ways of communication such as online
meetings, working online, flexible working hours, or decision approving by
email.“The application of this type of communication is more entrenched in a virtual
environment because this is the only source available to geographically dispersed
teams for the exchange of information.”

The role of interaction contribution behavior

Obviously, the attitude and behavior of each individual at work have an impact on
the process of awareness of ethical behaviors, and the Zey-Ferrell & Ferrell (1982)
research indicates that with the frequency and strength of interaction with peers
making that impact stronger. This discovery establishes the foundation for efforts to
understand moral practice with regard to social networks at work (Brass, Butterfield,
& Skaggs, 1998). The environment that has a certain level of collaboration, trust,
intimacy, and understanding between each other will have a high level of interaction,
and each party will have appropriate conduct and trust to the other. A constant level
of interaction and trust will strengthen the relationship between the parties. This
makes each individual consider to behave ethically because the payoff will be much
higher than in the case of the connection is weak. Trust grows slow and takes time.
The quality of the relationship will increase the cost and disincentive of misconduct
behaviors (Granovetter, 1973).
Dholakia et al. (2004) found that virtual community is “moderator influencing the
reasons why members participate, and the strengths of their impacts on group norms
and social identity. The finding that social benefits, such as maintaining interpersonal
connectivity and social enhancement by actively involved in a virtual community.”
From these assessments, individuals who actively participate in the team online
community will be expected to lessen their destructive behaviors.
Hypothesis: Internal Virtual Community Participation has a moderating effect on the
relationship between Organizational Factor and Deviance at the workplace. The

20
impact of the Organization factors effect will be stronger when the Internal Virtual
Community Participation is strong rather than weak.

21
2.4. Research model

The conceptual framework in this research provided a basis for understanding the
influence of some organizational factors on the misconduct behaviors of employees
inorganizationn, in the context of Vietnam service company.
The independent variable that the study takes into account is the organizational factor,
including Code of conduct, Social norms, Likelihood of detection, Unethical
leadership, and Performance pressure.
The dependent variable is two dimensions of deviance behaviors: Interpersonal and
Organizational Deviance.
The variable chosen as the moderator for the relationship between the behavior and
organizational factors is the Internal Virtual Community Participation. Does the study
examine whether the Internal Virtual Community Participation has a role in
enhancing the influence of organizational factors on employee behavior?
Base on all the review, my research model as shown in Figure 2.3 below.

Code of Conduct H1 -

Social Norms H2 -
Interpersonal
Deviance
H3 -
Likelihood of

H4 Organizational
Unethical
Deviance
H5
Perfomance

Organization Factors H6 Deviance at workplace

Internal Virtual
Community Participation

Figure 2.3. Research model

22
CHAPTER 3: METHOD

3.1. Sample

The sample was collected mostly from the students of the Master course in Vietnam
Japan University (VJU) and VNU University of Economics and Business (UEB) and
Foreign Trade University (FTU). Participation was voluntary and random.
The potential participants were directed toward graduate students. This target group
was expected to have work experience and Three target universities were economic
schools, in turn, students at this school will tend to work in the service company, that
close to this research area. The survey was designed for those who had experience in
the service sector, who did not have work experience were denied participating in
this survey.
This research was grounded on graduate students, despite the Kohlberg (1984) theory
stated that “people who better understand complex and nuanced issues will display
more sophisticated levels of moral reasoning”. Researchers often hypothesize
positive relations between the level of education and ethical decision. But many
empirical studies showed that the results did not support Kohlberg’s theory. Many
studies fail to find a link between education and ethical judgments (Serwinek, 1992;
Swaidan, Vitell, & Rawwas, 2003), while others report negative relationships (Chiu,
2011). Therefore, this research wants to focus on the diversity in the service sector
rather than the educational structure of the participants.
Out of the 177 questionnaires was collected, 174 were valid. Participants consisted
of 174 employees currently working in a service organization in Vietnam. Twenty-
one percent of employees worked as Audit or Accounting positions, while both Sales;
Finance & Banking account for 13% respondent each. There are more than 12 types
of services companies, and among respondents 63% were female. Their ages ranged
from 18 to above 45 years.

23
 Table 3.1. Demographic data
Items Number Ratio
Male 65 37%
Gender
Female 109 63%
18-25 26 15%
Age 26-35 141 81%
Others 7 4%
Audit and Accounting 37 21%
Finance & Banking 23 13%
Sale 23 13%
Career
Education 16 9%
Foreign Trade 10 6%
Others 65 38%

3.2. Procedure and Data Analysis

The original measure constructs were designed in English, which was translated into
Vietnamese. The Vietnamese survey version was tested by 12 VJU-MBA and 3 VJU-
MPP students independently. Participants were asked about the accuracy and
understandability of the translation compared to the original. Finally, the
questionnaires were used to conduct a survey. The survey is shown in appendix B.
C. Skooglund, (1992) recommends that the survey’s participant fell more confident
when reporting electronically. They may possibly be more enthusiastic about sharing
sensitive moral issues virtually than face-to-face basic. According to Tourangeau &
Yan (2007) suggest that self-reports of illegal behavior can best be obtained by web,
mail surveys rather than interviewer are presented physically. Most scales for
deviation behaviors use self-report questionnaires, including Workplace Deviance
scale (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), Antisocial Behavior scale (Robinson & O’Leary-
Kelly, 1998), Counterproductive workplace behavior (Berry et at., 2012) and
Counterproductive work behavior checklist (Spector, 2006).
This research survey was set up online through Google Form. The link address to
online survey is “https://forms.gle/9LQzKC81wfcF3che9”.

24
Participation in the survey is voluntary. Respondents will have to answer all the
questions in 3 parts. Section 1 is about demographic factors, and section 2 is an
assessment of the organizational factors of the place where the person works, and the
last section questions about deviant behaviors. The total completion time is about 5
minutes. Participants completed the questionnaire either via an online link or via a
QR code, and its easily scan by their mobile phone. All of the surveys were completed
online, and participants were secured their private information. The respondents were
recommended to complete the survey outside their organization or at home. This
helps respondents reduce their concerns about possible negative consequences.

25
3.3. Measures

The questionnaire was constituted based on two main parts. The first part collected
information on the respondent’s organization factors, including type of industry, the
Code of ethics, norms, monitoring, performance pressure, and leadership of the
company. Those factors used a five-point scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree), throughout the questionnaires.
In the second part, the participants were asked their frequency of unwanted behaviors
has appeared that she or he has been at the workplace. Before answering questions,
participants were informed of the terms that ensure their information only be used for
this research purpose. No sensitive personal information was collected to ensure the
respondents’ anonymity. The questionnaire includes questions for which there are
no right or wrong answers. This approach to asking questions makes respondents feel
more comfortable answering sensitive questions (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

3.3.1. Deviance behaviors

I measured workplace deviance behaviors using a 19-items from Bennett & Robinson
(2000). This measure consisted of two subscales scored on a 5-point frequency scale
(1 = never, 5 = always), one focusing the destructive behavior toward the organization,
and the second one toward individuals at the workplace.

3.3.2. Code of conduct

This measure is adapted from the research of Lin et al., 2016. The 4-items were
formed by the explanation of Wotruba et al. (2001) and Schwartz (2005).

3.3.3. Social norms

Construct the measure of 4-items of Social norms were adapted from Lin et al. (2018)
that was investigating the impacts of Organizational Factors, including Social norm
on misconduct behavior in the context of Chinese firms.

3.3.4. Unethical leadership

I choose 5-items of Tepper, (2000) Abusive Supervision measure.

26
3.3.5. Performance pressure

Performance pressure was adapted from (Mitchell et al., 2018) including 4-items
measure.

3.3.6. Likelihood of Detection

The measurement of Likelihood of Detection were adapted from Bobek et al., (2013)
which explore the influence of social norms on tax compliance behaviors that fit to
this research.

3.3.7. Internal Virtual Community Participation

This scale is newly developed base on 2 scales “Participation behaviors” (Bagozzi

& Dholakia, 2002) and “Member interaction” and “Activity involvement” scale (Tsai,
Huang, & Chiu, 2012).

27
CHAPTER 4. RESULT

4.1. Reliability test

The research of (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011) showing that “Cronbach’s alpha is a
popular test for the reliability of the scale. Internal consistency explains the extent to
which all the items in a test measure the same concept or construct and hence it is
connected to the inner relatedness of the items within the test”. An adequate
Cronbach’s alpha score should be higher than 0.7 (George, 1999). But in some
exceptions, Santos (1999) showed that some Cronbach’s alpha could be accepted less
than 0.7; This research, all Cronbach’s alpha ratio are higher than 0.7 (see table 4.1);
Therefore, we moved to the next exploratory factor analysis.
Table 4.1. Coefficient α reliabilities result
Variable Code Items Cronbach’s Alpha
ID 7 0.846
Interpersonal deviant behavior
OD 12 0.859
Organizational deviant behavior
C 4 0.884
Code of Conduct
S 4 0.907
Social Norms
U 5 0.899
Unethical leadership
P 4 0.757
Performance Pressure
L 3 0.748
Likelihood of Detection
V 3 0.929
Internal Virtual Community Participation

28
4.2. Exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA hereafter) is a statistical approach evaluating two

critical values of scale as convergent validity and discriminant validity.
EFA shorten a set of observable variables to a more significant set of observable
factors. This modification bases on the linear relationship of observable factors with
the original observed variables.
A study conducted by Decoster & Hall, (1998) reported that the main objectives of
an EFA are to specify (1) the number of familiar components impacts on a set of
measurements; (2) the intensity of the interrelation between every factor and observed
variable. Conditions for analyzing exploratory factors must satisfy the following
requirements: Factor loading is greater than 0.5 and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
coefficient is between 1 and 0.5; KMO coefficient is an indication used to consider
the appropriateness of factor analysis. The value of KMO coefficient is more
considerable means that analysis is more appropriate.
KMO value of all 5 factors of Organizational factors and Moderating factor are bigger
than 0.5 at 0.000 Significant level. Therefore, the validity of independent variables
for EFA is confirmed. For the dependent variable, those scales contain a total of 19
items and no item of this scale is not reliable to be removed.

29
 Table 4.3. Rotated Component Matrix (N = 174)

Factor Loadings
Variable
1 2 3 4 5 6
C2 0.837
C3 0.837
Code of conduct
C4 0.814
C1 0.665
S1 0.855
S3 0.849
Social norms
S2 0.800
S4 0.753
U3 0.902
U4 0.874
Unethical leadership U2 0.827
U1 0.825
U5 0.724
P3 0.793
P1 0.732
Performance pressure
P4 0.687
P2 0.645
L3 0.744
Likelihood of detection L2 0.644
L1 0.591
V2 0.946
Internal virtual
V1 0.921
community participation
V3 0.892

Correlations of the all independent and moderator for organizational behaviors are
shown in Table 4.3. EFA analysis applying varimax rotation was conducted to
explore the basic structure of all situational factors. Table 4.3 displayed the factor
loading of Varimax rotated of principal component.
30
4.3. Regression analysis

Single linear regression analysis was applied for this thesis by SPSS ver20. The
influence of independent variables was determined by single linear regressions using
all the variables defined in chapter 2. The result of the model was shown in table 4.1
to 4.5. All the descriptive statistic data among the all variables are presented in Table
4.4.
Table 4.4: Correlation and descriptive result
Coefficients for the sample for Deviant behaviors toward Interpersonal misconduct
(DI)
DI C S U P L
Pearson Correlation DI 1
C -.229 1
S -.280 .577 1
U .376 -.267 -.141 1
P .014 .251 .277 .194 1
L -.400 .547 .522 -.252 .331 1
Sig. (1-tailed) DI
C .001
S .000 .000
U .000 .000 .032
P .425 .000 .000 .005
L .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N DI 174 174 174 174 174 174

31
Coefficients for the sample for Deviant behaviors toward Organizational misconduct
(DO)
DO C S U P L
Pearson Correlation DO 1
C -.458 1
S -.355 .577 1
U .329 -.267 -.141 1
P -.107 .251 .277 .194 1
L -.533 .547 .522 -.252 .331 1
Sig. (1-tailed) DO
C .000
S .000 .000
U .000 .000 .032
P .079 .000 .000 .005
L .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N DO 174 174 174 174 174 174

The data analysis results support all the hypotheses except H4. Specifically, codes of
conduct and social norms and, Likelihood of detection have negative impact on
employee’s decisions about misconduct behaviors. Furthermore, Unethical
leadership positively influence employees’ intentions to conduct unethically. All the
data analysis results are showed in Table 4.5 and 4.6.
The path coefficient between Code of conduct and both type of deviance “(b = - 0.229,
p = 0.002 and b = - 0.458, p = 0.000) is negative and significant. Thus, Hypothesis 1
is supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that social norm is negatively related to
workplace deviance. We also found support for this hypothesis at both level of
deviance(b = - 0.280 p = 0.000, b = - 0.355, p = 0.000 for interpersonal and
organization level respectively).” Hypothesis 3 forecasted that Unethical leadership
is positively related to deviant behaviors. H3a and H3b were also supported.

32
 Table 4.5: Coefficients for the sample for Deviant behaviors toward Interpersonal
misconduct (DI)
H Constructs Coeff. Std. Coeff. t-value Sig. Note
Code of Conduct - 0. 113 - 0.229 - 3.081 .001 Support
H1a
Social norms - 0.171 - 0.280 - 3.824 .000 Support
H2a
Unethical leadership 0.226 0.376 5.325 .000 Support
H3a
Performance Pressure 0.010 0.014 0.188 .425 Reject
H4a
Likelihood of Detection -0.265 - 0.4 - 5.721 .000 Support
H5a

Table 4.6: Coefficients for the sample for Deviant behaviors toward Organizational
misconduct (DO)

Constructs Coeff. Std. Coeff. t-value Sig. Note

H
Code of Conduct - 0.289 - 0.458 - 6.751 0.000 Support
H1b
Social norms - 0.235 - 0.355 - 4.985 0.000 Support
H2b
Unethical leadership 0.215 0.329 4.568 0.000 Support
H3b
Performance Pressure - 0.084 - 0.107 - 1.417 0.079 Reject
H4b
Likelihood of Detection - 0.383 - 0.533 - 8.257 0.000 Support
H5b

Next, I tested Hypotheses 6. H6 predicted that Internal virtual community

participation variable moderate the relationship between independent factors and
employee misconduct.

33
4.4. Moderating Effect

The moderating effect was tested by SPSS macro PROCESS version 3.3 by Hayes
(2013). A simple model of the impact of the variable W to regulate the influence of
X to Y is described in Fig 4.1

A B

M
Figure 4.1. Research moderation model
The effect of A on variable B is moderated by M if its size, sign, or strength depends
on or can be predicted by M. In that case, M is said to be a moderator of A’s effect
on B, or that M and A interact in their influence on B. The moderator variable changes
the intensity or even the direction of the relationship between the two variables in the
model.
The effects are redesigned in Fig 4.2 and the linear equation below.

A
b1

M b2 B
b3
A*M

Figure 4.2. Statistical diagram of moderating effect

𝐵 = 𝑏0 + 𝑏1 𝐴 + 𝑏2 𝑀 + 𝑏3 𝐴𝑀

The resulting equation is the simple linear moderation model, described conceptually
in Figure 4.1 and in the form of a statistical Figure 4.2. This approach, widely
attributed to Saunders, (1956) provides a simple means of modeling data in which
A’s effect on B is dependent on M or conditional, as well as an approach to testing
hypotheses about moderation.

34
When running regression, the dependent variable is B, the three independent variables
are A, M, A*M, then we consider sig. of A*M, if sig. < 5%, we conclude that the M
variable regulates the relationship between A and B. The direction of the regulatory
relationship is disclosed by coefficient b3 of the A*M. If the coefficient b3 > 0, and
A > 0, then when the variable M increases, the relation between variables X and Y is
stronger.
I tested the moderated indirect effects. Table 4.7 outlines the results of calculation.
The indirect correlation from Internal Virtual Community Participation to
Interpersonal Deviance varied not significantly.
Table 4.7. Conditional indirect effect of Unethical Leadership (U) on Interpersonal
Deviance (ID) at Internal Virtual Community Participation (V).

Model Coeff. se t p Support or not

Constant 𝑏0 1.4771 0.0384 38.4258 0.0000
U 𝑏1 0.2207 0.043 5.1336 0.0000
V 𝑏2 0.0195 0.0357 0.5467 0.5853
U*V 𝑏3 0.0397 0.0405 0.9804 0.3283 No

35
 Table 4.8. Moderating effect

Moderating effect of IVCP to Support

Coeff. se t p
relationship of… or not

Code of conduct to ID 0.0166 0.0384 0.4305 0.6673 Rejected

Social norms to ID -0.0013 0.0470 -0.0271 0.9784 Rejected

Unethical leadership to ID 0.0397 0.0405 0.9804 0.3283 Rejected

Performance Pressure to ID 0.0573 0.0459 1.2484 0.2136 Rejected

Likelihood of detection to ID 0.0499 0.0456 1.0938 0.2756 Rejected

Code of conduct to OD -0.0010 0.0381 -0.0263 0.9791 Rejected

Social norms to OD -0.0053 0.0497 -0.1063 0.9154 Rejected

Unethical leadership to OD -0.0024 0.0448 -0.0531 0.9577 Rejected

Performance Pressure to OD 0.0524 0.0496 1.0569 0.2920 Rejected

Likelihood of detection to OD 0.0309 0.0462 0.6702 0.5036 Rejected

When testing the effects of the rest of the variables, getting results is not a significant
correlation. Consequently, all the Hypothesis 6 was not supported. There is no Direct
and Indirect effect of Internal Virtual Community Participation toward the
relationship of every organization factors and Deviant Behaviors.

36
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

5.1. Conclusion

This thesis employs the general approach address the contextual influences of
behavioral ethic outcome by integrating Codes of conduct, Social norm, Unethical
leadership, Performance pressure and Likelihood of detection as factors in studying
employees’ deviant behaviors. Codes of conduct, Social norm, Likelihood of
detection and Unethical leadership have been confirmed to have effect on an
employee’s attitude toward workplace deviance. These factors captured in forming
an employee’s perception of unethical action have valuable suggestions for
researchers and practical implementation.
According to the results, most of the hypotheses are supported, except for
Performance pressure factor and all moderating effect are rejected. Likelihood of
detection plays the most important role on both aspects of workplace deviance.
Followed by Unethical leadership has a second impact on Interpersonal deviance but
has the weakest influence on Organizational deviance. Both Code of conducts and
Social norms have the least effect on Interpersonal deviance, but they have a bigger
role than Unethical leadership in affecting on Organizational deviant outcomes.
Unfortunately, this research result suggests that Performance pressure effect is not
supported. Moreover, the moderating role of virtual participation is not reflected in
this thesis result.
Likelihood of detection has the most critical effect on perception of the employee
toward deviance. This finding is acceptable because it matches the previous literature,
the risk of detection has a negative effect on misconduct behaviors (Leming, 1980;
Steininger et al., 1964; Tittle & Rowe, 2012; Tittle & Rowe, 2012). The results
revealed an adverse correlation between the risks of being caught and the probability
of becoming involved in unethical conduct as the probability of being caught and
punished increased, the Likelihood of engaging in misconduct behavior tended to a
minimum probability. In other words, employees fear of their peers’ or supervisor’s
uncovering of their bad conducts. Bad-conduct persons really consider outcomes and
penalties. This finding is very important. In my study, this is the critical point in the
factors that influence wrong intentions. However, in the research result of Lin et al.,

37
(2018) the role of Likelihood of detection was not supported, Lin et al., (2018)
conclusions indicated that: “The Likelihood of detection of employees is not related
to their attitude toward ethical behavior. This may show that employees do not fear
their supervisor's or peers' detection of their performance.” This finding helps to
strengthen the theoretical basis for further studies.
This research confirms the connection between unethical leadership and workplace
deviance. The results were consistent with the hypothesis, a strong and positive
relationship be found between these two factors. When employees perceived
unethical behavior acts among their leaders, their misconduct was enhanced through
social learning mechanism (Brief, Buttram, & Dukerich, 2001; B. E. Ashforth &
Anand, 2003; Sims & Brinkmann, 2002). The results also indicated that the
mechanism of social learning theory has a stronger impact on interpersonal deviant
outcomes than Organizational deviant outcomes. This is consistent with assessments
of Baumhart (1961); Brenner & Molander (1977); Detert, Treviño, & Sweitzer
(2008) that all indicate that unethical leadership a foundation of behaviors that affect
the subordinate decision-making process.
The results indicates that the effect of two factors Code of conduct and social norm
is quite similar. Both of them have the same impactful direction and intensity on the
reduction of deviances. However, there is a different intensity impact between the
positive and negative factor to Interpersonal Deviance and Organizational Deviance
is different. As follows: (1) For Organizational Deviant outcomes, all four influential
factors have a certain influence impact, there is no big difference. (2) For
Interpersonal Deviant outcomes, there is a clear difference. Along with Likelihood of
detection, Unethical leadership has more vital impact on Interpersonal Deviance than
Code of conduct and Social norms.
Overall, the Code of conduct is a tool that manages to reduce Unethical behaviors.
According to this study, it is possible to reduce the Organizational deviant behavior
more than Individual deviant behaviors. An organization with a good Code of conduct
could control unethical behaviors more efficiently. These results are similar to
Kaptein & Schwartz, (2008); Treviño & Nelson, (2011) study on the role of a Code
of conduct in building a corporate ethical environment.

38
Together with the Code of conduct, Social norms affect an employee’s decisions
about Organizational and Individual bad conduct decisions. Result consistents with
the role of norms in social control (Druzin, 2015). Social norms creates an
environment where people conform to common standards while eliminating behavior
considered not “normal.” (Hackman, 1992).
Unfortunately, the pressure factor does not prove a role in this research result. In the
modern competitive business environment, Pressure is an indispensable tool in the
workplace. Managers love deadlines and always require employees to increase
productivity. In turn, employees also set Pressure on themselves to get the job done.
A pressure at appropriate levels, consistent between the capacity of the staff and the
needs of the manager will do the work progressed smoothly, enhancing labor
productivity. The Pressure was regarded as acceptable by both employee and
employer. It may keep workers wide awake, fire with enthusiasm, and able to keep
work excellent performance.
Looking back on the Vietnamese labor productivity, in recent years, worker
productivity in Vietnam has continuously increased. Labor productivity of 2015
increased by 6.4% compared to 2014, of which 2006-2015 productivity averagely
grew 3.9%, and from 2006 to 2010 increased 3.4% per year, in 2011-2015, increased
4.3% per year (Vietnam National Productivity Institute, 2015). However, it is a fact
that labor productivity in Vietnam is not high. Following the General Statistic Office
(2018) labor productivity of Vietnamese employees is relatively low when compared
to other neighbor countries in the region, this figure is pretty modest, for example, by
the 2011 purchasing power parity calculation, Vietnam’s productivity was $9894;
equivalent only 7.0% of Singapore’s, 18% of Malaysia’s, 57% of Philippine’s, and
87% of Lao’s. Comparing Performance pressure relatively with other factors in
Vietnam's situation, It is possible that the work pressure is not enough to create
unethical tendency bias among the employees.
The limitations of research may also be a reason for the failure of the hypothesis.
Details will be discussed in the following sections.

39
5.2. Implications

Theoretical Implications

This small research provides theoretical contributions to explain the link between the
Code of conduct, Social norm, Likelihood of detection, Unethical leadership, and
Deviant outcomes. The research results on the impact of Social norm, Likelihood of
detection, and Unethical leadership in line with past reviews of the literature. And the
role of Code of conduct was confirmed that has a negative impact on deviance. Since
a small number of studies have examined this relationship within the service firm in
Vietnam, our main contribution lies in pointing the role of company ethical
infrastructures in the perceived of the employee toward unethical behaviors in general
and workplace deviance in particular.
Next, the study shows in detail the environmental factors and the degree of relative
influence between these factors on behavior. Simultaneous evaluation of positive and
negative factors leads to a more multi-dimensional result. These factors may be
encountered in an Ethical Climate that was developed by Victor and Cullen (1987),
but this research wants to categorize smaller and more specific elements in the
organization environment. This makes the research results more meaningful and
practical for the administrator.
This research also assesses the different influences between those factors to both
aspects of deviant. Very few studies clearly distinguish two dimensions of workplace
deviance.
This research has not shown the moderating role of “Internal virtual community
participation” in the research model. The direct and indirect correlation of the
moderator variable was not confirmed in this study. This result can be used as an
example or a reference for extended studies of deviant behavior.
Furthermore, this study contributes to the academic on the situation-based
perspective by exploring the risk condition. Lin et al. (2018) study fails to assess the
impact of the probability of detection on the perception of unethical decision-making.
This study shows that risk of detection has a significant impact on the reduction of
misconduct behaviors.

40
Practical implication

Besides theoretical contribution, this research also draws some practical implications.
First, the study confirmed the role of environmental factors in employee deviant
behavior. Managers need to consider building a good business environment and good
corporate culture.
Second, the finding indicates that deviant behaviors are most affected by Likelihood
of detection factors. In other words, sanction and risk of being caught are significantly
in decreasing the frequency of behaviors in organization. This finding recommends
for administering should have focus attention on the monitoring system. It is an
important concern in attempting to control misconduct behaviors.
Third, the study results confirm the role of Code of conduct and Social norms in
reducing Deviant behaviors. The manager should also be aware of the role of these
tools. Like the statement above, Code of conduct is a foundation for corporate ethics.
Developing a code of ethics is essential for a professional organization. In order for
the Code of conduct and Social norm has functioned properly, the leader or influencer
plays a vital role in leading the organization in the right direction.
Lastly, about the dark side of organizational factors, obviously, the unethical leader
will destroy the corporate moral environment. Research results indicate, “Unethical
Leadership is associated with the high level of deviance directed at others.” Therefore,
a suggestion for the experiment from this research is paying more attention to the role
of leaders for minimizing deviance behavior towards individuals.

41
5.3. Limitations and future research direction

The main focus only on organizational antecedents of the deviant employee. Future
research should broaden the model by embodying more factors based on employees’
perceptions of ethical decision-making. The selection of organization management
factors itself is a limitation of the thesis. The factors in terms of behavioral
psychology or human nature, have not been considered in this study. Meanwhile, a
mainstream trend in unethical behavior research has emerging directions with the
assessment that deviation behaviors are encouraged by psychological factors rather
than corporate control tools (Ariely, 2012)
This research was conducted in a relatively limited observation sample. More than
170 samples were taken, a quantity sufficient for data analysis. An excellent study
has the larger the number of representative samples, the better the representative of
the sample, and less the research bias.
In addition, the majority participants are pursuing higher education, this sample may
not represent all employees in the field of service area.
Self-report is a limitation. Answering the self-report survey employee’s responses
may be affected by fear of retaliation, social desirability, and uncertainty (Randall &
Fernandes, 2013). Employees can get protective when they share about “ethical”
issues. Subjects relate to deviant behaviors were considered a sensitive topic. A topic
or problem is viewed as sensitive when it “raises concerns about disapproval or other
consequences ... for reporting truthfully” (Tourangeau & Smith, 1996).
Finally, research on unethical topic has the constraint of low base rate in the data pool.
Future research needs to be designed in a long enough time and with a large sample
to mitigate this problem.
The limitations of this study may be the cause of the inconsistency between
experiment and theoretical basis. Open the direction for future research on the role of
those factors.
At any time, research on misconduct should always be done thoughtfully and
adequately. It is always present in any organization. In the 21st century, technology
changes the way of communication, and information is transmitted faster than ever
before, this affects many aspects of society, and human behavior is no exception. This
study has not been successful in assessing the role of a “. Internal Virtual Community
42
Participation” factor in enhancing or inhibiting non-normative behaviors. A more
comprehensive and detailed assessment of this mediator element is needed. Future-
research room is open up for further studies.

43
REFERENCES

Adams, J. S., Tashchian, A., & Shore, T. H. (2001). Codes of ethics as signals for
ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026576421399
Andenaes, J. (2006). The General Preventive Effects of Punishment. University of
Pennsylvania Law Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/3310845
Appelbaum, R. P., Carr, D., Duneir, M., & Giddens, A. (2009). Conformity,
Deviance, and Crime. In Introduction to Sociology (p. 173). New York: NY:
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Ariely, D. (2012). The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone –
Especially Ourselves. Harper.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty Tyranny in Organizations. Human Relations.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700701
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). THE NORMALIZATION OF
CORRUPTION IN ORGANIZATIONS. Research in Organizational Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25001-2
Ashkanasy, N. M., Windsor, C. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Bad Apples in Bad
Barrels Revisited: Cognitive Moral Development, Just World Beliefs, Rewards,
and Ethical Decision-Making. Business Ethics Quarterly.
https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200616447
Babin, B. J., Boles, J. S., & Robin, D. P. (2000). Representing the perceived ethical
work climate among marketing employees. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300283004
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2002). Intentional social action in virtual
communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10006
Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (2006). The Social Organization of Conspiracy:
Illegal Networks in the Heavy Electrical Equipment Industry. American
Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095954
Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims Jr, H. P. (1994). Just and Unjust Punishment:
Influences on Subordinate Behaviour and Citizenship. Academy of

44
 Management Journal.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Oxford, England: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-
6402(78)90002-4
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and
paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.46.3.610
Baumhart, R. c. (1961). How ethical are businessmen? Harvard Business Review,
39, pp. 6–8.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present, and future of workplace
deviance research. In Organizational behavior: The state of the science, 2nd
ed.
Benson, G. C. S. (1989). Codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00381721
Bernerth, J. B., Walker, H. J., & Harris, S. G. (2016). Rethinking the benefits and
pitfalls of leader–member exchange: A reciprocity versus self-protection
perspective. Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715594214
Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of
counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over
self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
97, pp. 613–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026739
Bobek, D. D., Hageman, A. M., & Kelliher, C. F. (2013). Analyzing the Role of
Social Norms in Tax Compliance Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3),
451–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1390-7
Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical
behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.192955

45
Brenner, S. N., & Molander, E. A. (1977). Is the Ethics of Business Changing?
Harvard Business Review.
Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. (2001). Collective corruption in the
corporate world: Toward a process model. In Groups at Work: Theory and
Research.
Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2017). Exploring New Avenues for Future
Research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(October 2010), 583–616.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A
social learning perspective for construct development and testing.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
Buckley, M. R., Wiese, D., & Harvey, M. (1998). Identifying Factors Which May
Influence Unethical Behavior. Teaching Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009705418567
C. Skooglund. (1992). Ethics in the Face of Competitive Pressures. Business Ethics
Resource.
Chiu, R. K. (2011). Ethical Intention: Role Judgment and Whistleblowing the
Moderating Examining of Locus of Control. Journal of Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022911215204
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An
Interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
da Silveira, A. D. M. (2012). Corporate Scandals of the 21st Century: Limitations of
Mainstream Corporate Governance Literature and the Need for a New
Behavioral Approach. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2181705
Decoster, J., & Hall, G. P. (1998). Overview of Factor Analysis. In Practice.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2685875
Deng, X. (2013). Factors Influencing Ethical Purchase Intentions of Consumers in
China. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.10.1693
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral Disengagement in

46
 Ethical Decision Making: A Study of Antecedents and Outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of
consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual
communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241–263.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.004
Druzin, B. H. (2015). Using Social Norms as a Substitute for Law. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2600012
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the
workplace. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069350
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior
(CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator
and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational
Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803
Frost, P. J. (2004). Handling toxic emotions: New challenges for leaders and their
organization. Organizational Dynamics.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.01.001
Gardner, H. K. (2012). Performance pressure as a double-edged sword: Enhancing
team motivation but undermining the use of team knowledge. Administrative
Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212446454
George, D. (1999). Mallery; P.(2003). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple
Guide and Reference 11.0 Update. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Gilbert, J. (2003). A Matter of Trust. Sales and Marketing Management, 155(3),
30–35.
Gioia, D. A. (2013). Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed
opportunities. In Citation Classics from The Journal of Business Ethics:
Celebrating the First Thirty Years of Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
94-007-4126-3_34
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strenght of weak ties. American Journal of
Sociology.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a response to underemployment inequity:
the hidden costs of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology.

47
Grover, S. L. (1993). Why Professionals Lie: The Impact of Professional Role
Conflict on Reporting Accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1033
Grover, S. L. (2008). Lying, Deceit, and Subterfuge: A Model of Dishonesty in the
Workplace. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.3.478
Gutnick, D., Walter, F., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, G. K. W. (2012). Creative
performance under pressure: An integrative conceptual framework.
Organizational Psychology Review.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386612447626
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group Influences on Individuals in Organizations. In
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdl064
Harper, D. C. (1990). Spotlight Abuse - Save Profits. Industrial Distribution.
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2002). Exploring Service Sabotage: The Antecedents,
Types and Consequences of Frontline, Deviant, Antiservice Behaviors. Journal
of Service Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670502004003001
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional
Process Analysis. In Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P. (1978). Some determinants of unethical decision
behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.63.4.451
Henle, C. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between
organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues.
Hill, J. P., & Kochendorfer, R. A. (1969). Knowledge of peer success and risk of
detection as determinants of cheating. Developmental Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027330
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An
Issue-Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4278958
Kaptein, M., & Schwartz, M. S. (2008). The effectiveness of business codes: A
critical examination of existing studies and the development of an integrated

48
 research model. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
006-9305-0
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development. The Psychology of Moral
Develoment.
Lazarus, R. S. (2016). How Emotions Influence Performance in Competitive Sports.
The Sport Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.14.3.229
Leming, J. S. (1980). Cheating behavior, subject variables, and components of the
internal-external scale under high and low risk conditions. Journal of
Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1980.10885288
Lin, X., Clay, P. F., Hajli, N., & Dadgar, M. (2018). Investigating the Impacts of
Organizational Factors on Employees’ Unethical Behavior Within
Organization in the Context of Chinese Firms. Journal of Business Ethics,
150(3), 779–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3209-4
Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2013). A review of empirical studies
assessing ethical decision making in business. In Citation Classics from The
Journal of Business Ethics: Celebrating the First Thirty Years of Publication.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4126-3_13
Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an Integrative
Theory of Counterproductive Workplace Behavior: A Causal Reasoning
Perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00192
Michaels, J. W., & Miethe, T. D. (1989). Applying Theories of Deviance to
Academic Cheating. Social Science Quarterly.
Mitchell, M. S., Greenbaum, R. L., Vogel, R. M., Mawritz, M. B., & Keating, D. J.
(2018). Can You Handle the Pressure? The Effect of Performance Pressure on
Stress Appraisals, Self-regulation, and Behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 62(2), 531–552. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0646
Moore, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Self-interest, automaticity, and the
psychology of conflict of interest. Social Justice Research.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SORE.0000027409.88372.b4
Parsell, M. (2008). Pernicious virtual communities: Identity, polarisation and the
Web 2.0. Ethics and Information Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-

49
 008-9153-y
Piliavin, I., Gartner, R., Thornton, C., & Matsueda, R. L. (2006). Crime,
Deterrence, and Rational Choice. American Sociological Review.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2095480
Pinto, J., Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2008). Corrupt organizations or organizations
of corrupt individuals? two types of organization-level corruption. Academy of
Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.32465726
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the
Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (2013). The social desirability response bias in
ethics research. In Citation Classics from The Journal of Business Ethics:
Celebrating the First Thirty Years of Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
94-007-4126-3_9
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. In Moral
development: Advances in research and theory.
Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community. Homesteading on the Electronic
Frontier (Revised Edition). High Noon on the Electronic Frontier Conceptual
Issues Iin Cyberspace. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000001
Robertson, D. C., & Rymon, T. (2001). Purchasing Agents’ Deceptive Behavior: A
Randomized Response Technique Study. Business Ethics Quarterly.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3857849
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors : A multdimensiona. Academy of Management Journal.
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The
influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of
Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/256963
Rousseau, D. M. (2002). ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR IN THE NEW
ORGANIZATIONAL ERA. Annual Review of Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.515
Sackett, P. R., & Devore, C. J. (2012). Counterproductive Behaviors at Work. In

50
 Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology: Personnel
Psychology handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology:
Personnel psychology. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608320.n9
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to
job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly.
Santos, J. R. A. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of
scales. Journal of Extension.
Saunders, D. R. (1956). Moderator Variables in Prediction. Educational and
Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316445601600205
Schwartz, B. (1986). The battle for human nature. New York, NY: Norton.
Schwartz, M. (2001). The nature of the relationship between corporate codes of
ethics and behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010787607771
Schwartz, M. S. (2002). A code of ethics for corporate code of ethics. Journal of
Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021393904930
Schwartz, M. S. (2005). Effective Corporate Codes of Ethics: Perceptions of Code
Users. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-2169-2
Schweitzer, M. E., Ordóñez, L., & Douma, B. (2004). Goal setting as a motivator of
unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159591
Serwinek, P. J. (1992). Demographic & related differences in ethical views among
small businesses. Journal of Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881448
Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience:
When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211398138
Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2002). Leaders as moral role models: The case of
John Gutfreund at Salomon Brothers. Journal of Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013826126058
Sitkin, S., See, K., Miller, C., Lawless, M., & Carton, A. (2011). The paradox of
stretch goals: Organizations in pursuit of the seemingly impossible. Academy of

51
 Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.61031811
Slora, K. B. (1989). An empirical approach to determining employee deviance base
rates. Journal of Business and Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01016441
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban
legend? Organizational Research Methods.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284955
Steininger, M., Johnson, R. E., & Kirts, D. K. (1964). Cheating on college
examinations as a function of situationally aroused anxiety and hostility.
Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042396
Stewart, S. M., Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Woehr, D. J., & McIntyre, M. D.
(2009). In the Eyes of the Beholder: A Non-Self-Report Measure of Workplace
Deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012605
Swaidan, Z., Vitell, S. J., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (2003). Consumer Ethics:
Determinants of Ethical Beliefs of African Americans. Journal of Business
Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025068902771
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha.
International Journal of Medical Education.
https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation
in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation. Academy of
Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/256911
Tenbrunsel, A. E., Smith-Crowe, K., & Umphress, E. E. (2003). Building houses on
rocks: The role of the ethical infrastructure in organizations. Social Justice
Research. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025992813613
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of
Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive
supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates’
psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159918
Thomas, T., Schermerhorn, J. R., & Dienhart, J. W. (2011). Strategic leadership of

52
 ethical behavior in business. Academy of Management Executive.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2004.13837425
Tittle, C. R., & Rowe, A. R. (2012). Moral Appeal, Sanction Threat, and Deviance:
An Experimental Test. Social Problems. https://doi.org/10.2307/799710
Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact of
Data Collection Mode, Question Format, and Question Context. Public
Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1086/297751
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive Questions in Surveys. Psychological
Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859
Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2011). MANAGING BUSINESS ETHICS:
Straight Talk About How To Do It Right. In Vasa.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in
organizations: A review. In Journal of Management (Vol. 32).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258
Trevino, Linda K., Den Nieuwenboer, N., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)Ethical
Behavior in Organizations. In SSRN. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-
113011-143745
Trevino, Linda Klebe, & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad Apples in Bad Barrels: A
Causal Analysis of Ethical Decision-Making Behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.4.378
Tsai, H. T., Huang, H. C., & Chiu, Y. L. (2012). Brand community participation in
Taiwan: Examining the roles of individual-, group-, and relationship-level
antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 676–684.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.011
Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in
the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational
identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019214
Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2003). Ethics code awareness, perceived ethical
values, and organizational commitment. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2003.10749009
Vietnam National Productivity Institute. (2015). Vietnam productivity report.

53
 Hanoi.
Vitro, F. T., & Schoer, L. A. (1972). The effects of probability of test success, test
importance, and risk of detection on the incidence of cheating. Journal of
School Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(72)90062-3
Wang, L., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). On greed. Academy of Management Annals.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.588822
Weaver, G. R. (1995). Does ethics code design matter? Effects of ethics code
rationales and sanctions on recipients’ justice perceptions and content recall.
Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872099
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled
corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures,
and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256975
Wotruba, T. R., Chonko, L. B., & Loe, T. W. (2001). The impact of ethics code
familiarity on manager behavior. Journal of Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011925009588
Zey-Ferrell, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1982). Role-Set Configuration and Opportunity as
Predictors of Unethical Behavior in Organizations. Human Relations.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678203500707

54
APPENDIX

APPENDIX A: Workplace deviance measure

Constructs Measure
Organizational Taken property from work without permission
Deviance
Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working

Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on
business expenses
Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your
workplace

Come in late to work without permission

Littered your work environment

Neglected to follow your boss’s instructions

Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked

Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized

person

Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on job

Put little effort into your work

Dragged out of work in order to get overtime

Interpersonal Made fun of someone at work

Deviance
Said something hurtful to someone at work

Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark at work

Cursed at someone at work

Played a mean prank on someone at work

Acted rudely toward someone at work

Publicly embarrassed someone at work

APPENDIX B: Independent variables scale

Construct Measure

My company has standards, rules, and policies that describe good

conduct
Code of
The codes of conduct are strong in the company
conduct
The codes of conduct in our company are well known
Our company shares the codes of conduct with employees
Ridicules me
Tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid.
Unethical
Puts me down in front of others.
Leadership
Makes negative comments about me to others
Tells me I’m incompetent
My supervisor is likely to gauge my job performance
Likelihood
My department is likely to evaluate my work behavior
of detection
My colleagues are likely to weigh my performance
The pressures for performance in my workplace are high.
Performance I feel tremendous pressure to produce results.
pressure If I don’t produce at high levels, my job will be at risk.
I would characterize my workplace as a result-driven environment.
My supervisor thinks I should act consistently with our codes of
conduct
My colleagues think that I should act consistently with our codes
Social of conduct
norms The top management thinks that I should act consistently with our
codes of conduct
My significant other thinks that I should act consistently with our
codes of conduct.
 Every day I chat online with virtual community members in my
work-group.
Internal I spend time chatting online with virtual community members in
Virtual my work-group.
Community I frequently interact with other online community members in my
Participation work-group.
I actively participate in the online community’s activities in my
work-group.
APPENDIX C
List of 23 primary business scandals links with corporate governance problems in
the period 2000 - 2010.
Company Country Year Estimated losses Did it involve fraud?
1 AIG USA 2008 239 Unclear
2 WorldCom USA 2002 186 Yes
3 Madoff USA 2008 65 Yes
4 Enron USA 2001 60 Yes
5 Lehman Brothers USA 2008 60 Unclear
6 BP UK 2010 45 No
7 Société́ Générale France 2008 20 Yes
8 Bear Sterns USA 2008 20 Unclear
9 Vivendi France 2002 13 Unclear
10 Livedoor Japan 2005 7 Yes
11 Olympus Japan 2010 7 Yes
12 Refco USA 2005 4 Yes
13 Parmalat Italy 2003 3 Yes
14 Siemens Germany 2007 3 Yes
15 Aracruz Brazil 2008 3 No
16 Satyam India 2009 3 Yes
17 Adelphia USA 2002 2.5 Yes
18 Panamericano Brazil 2009 2.5 Yes
19 Xerox USA 2001 2 Yes
20 Royal Ahold Netherlands 2003 2 Yes
21 Sadia Brazil 2008 2 No
22 Tyco USA 2002 1 Yes
23 Royal Dutch Shell Netherlands/UK 2004 1 Yes
Total 751

Source: (da Silveira, 2012, p27)