Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Organi-cultural Deviance: Socialization of Individuals into
Deviant Corporate Culture
Christie Husted, Phd
Renée Gendron, MA1
SBM Consulting,
Casper, Wyoming
Vitae Dynamics Inc.,
Russell, Ontario
Abstract
In a series of theoretical papers based on a literature review, explanatory perspectives are provided
suggesting that social irresponsibility within the corporate context is a manifestation of socialized
deviance, likened to a gang and cult-like mentality. Socialized deviations from societal norms are
referred to by the current authors as “organi-cultural deviance”. This term has been used previously to
explain relational dynamics within organizations, giving rise to corporate wrong-doing and/or “social
irresponsibility”. The authors explore transferability of concepts and theories used in the study of
common crime and their application to the study of corporate crime. This paper explores theories
pertaining to socialization within organizations and how these processes of individual and group
socialization, within deviant corporate cultures, serve to invert Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs into a
theoretical “Hierarchical Funnel of Individual Needs”.
Keywords: Corporate Crime, Social Irresponsibility, Hierarchical Funnel of Individual Needs, OrganiCultural Deviance, Relational Dynamics, Socialization, Corporate Culture
1
Corresponding author: Renée Gendron (vitaedynamics@vitaedynamics.com)
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
This paper continues a series of explanatory and exploratory perspectives, using qualitative
analysis, literature review and synthesis of generalized sociological, psychological and criminological
theories, to describe the concept of organi-cultural deviance. This paper explores socialization within
organizations and how actions, characteristics and patterns of behavior may be indicators of deviant
corporate culture. The current authors propose an exploration of organizational processes with their
impact on individual and deviant corporate group behavior providing insight into understanding the
mechanisms behind the inversion of Maslow’s (1954) Hierarchy of Needs. In this paper, the authors
refer to the process of inverting Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as the “Hierarchical Funnel of Individual
Needs”.
Organi-Cultural Deviance Defined
Husted (2008) introduced the term “organi-cultural deviance” to explain the social, situational,
and environmental factors that give rise to corporate deviance. Organi-cultural deviance was used by
Husted to describe a corporate culture which has been socialized to engage in deviant acts. For the
purposes of this paper deviant acts are defined as criminal acts under existing legislation. The authors
expand the definition of “organi-cultural deviance” to include an individual or group behavior within a
specific organization that may lead to wrong-doing or increase the likelihood of occurrence of wrongdoing.
The term “corporate”, as used throughout this article, is defined as acts “done by or
characteristic of individuals acting together; ‘a joint identity’; ‘the collective mind’; ‘the corporate
good’" (Corporate, 2009). The term “corporate criminal” has been used to describe a myriad of deviant
acts in the course of business. For the purposes of this paper, the terms “white collar crime”, “deviant
corporate behavior,” and “corporate criminal” are used interchangeably. All three terms for this paper
pertain to illegal acts engaged in by a company.
Among the conclusions drawn from Gendron and Husted (2010) paper titled, Organi-cultural
Deviance Part I: Socialized Deviance in Corporate America, was that imbalances in control, authority
and power may increase the likelihood of corporate wrong-doing. Husted found that lack of
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
supervision, and/or an overabundance of supervision, sometimes referred to as “micro-managing” can
have detrimental effects on an organization's culture. Furthermore, micro-management was found to
coincide with the presence of “yes-men” (Conger, 1990). The term yes-men refers to lack of critical
thought, input of substance from group members or meaningful opportunities to engage in constructive
criticism of the leaders' actions, direction of the organization, processes and/or overall ethical
soundness of a situation.
Gendron and Husted (2010) believed the presence of too much supervision, and yes-men,
increases “group think”. Group think occurs when there is a failure to incorporate criticism, new ideas,
new information, or outside opinions into the decision making process (Chen, Lawson, & McIntosh,
1996, p. 582). There are eight symptoms of group think: i) illusion of invulnerability; ii) collective
rationalization; iii) illusion of morality; iv) excessive stereotyping; v) pressure for conformity; vi) selfcensorship; vii) illusion of unanimity; and viii) mind guards: some members appoint themselves to
protect the group from outside information, information which may cause damage to the group (Janis
& Mann, 1977).
Corporations engaging in organi-cultural deviance are believed to intentionally isolate
themselves from normal, healthy interactions, processes, and actions. They develop their own deviant
subculture with a strict system of rule enforcement. Moreover, the members of the deviant group are
socialized by their deviant corporate subculture into unquestioning allegiance and are coerced into
providing undivided time and attention to the group. The authors theorize that individuals entering
such deviant corporate cultures are stripped of their personal identity and pursuit of self actualization.
Individual identity is replaced with group identity and ultimate dependence upon the deviant
corporation for the individual’s basic needs (food, shelter, safety). We also describe this process of loss
of personal identity and resulting dependence on the group for basic needs as the “Hierarchical Funnel
of Individual Needs”.
Theories of Socialization
The authors argue that deviant socialization intentionally invites and deliberately excludes some
individuals for the express purposes of engaging in destructive behavior. The behavior may include the
creation of destructive workplace conflict, bullying, otherwise unproductive and non-constructive
behavior in the workplace, committing unethical acts, and/or crime.
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Henle (2005) described Gough’s (1987) role-taking theory of sociopathy. Gough described a
continuum with the asocial individual at one end, and the socialized individual at the other. According
to Gough, asocial individuals are low in social maturity and morality. Asocial individuals tend to resist
rules and regulations, are dissatisfied, and defensive. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) formulated a
theory of socialization that depicts six dimensions of organizational variation. New organizational
members can be subjected to experiences that are: i) collective or individual; ii) formal or informal; iii)
sequential or random; iv) fixed or variable; v) serial or disjunctive; and vi) investitive or divestitive
(Fogarty, 2000). ”Divestiture suggests that a recruit's inconsistent values perhaps acquired in previous
socialization, need to be identified and replaced with other belie[fs]” (Fogarty).
In addition to these six categories, Werner and DeSimone (2009) presented Schein’s three
dimensions of organizational roles. The first aspect of an organizational role is the degree to which the
organization is inclusionary. In other words, how likely is the new employee to be excluded from
existing social groups within the organization. The second category is called “functional” and pertains
to specific tasks required of the employee. The last category is “hierarchical” and pertains to the
relative position in the overall official power structure of the organization (Werner & DeSimone, 2009,
p. 251).
An individual new to the organization must learn their role within the organization as well as
the organization's specific culture. Miller (2009) referred to Stohl (1986), arguing that “socialization
occurs through the communication of ‘memorable messages’ – narratives and cultural truisms that stick
with employees as they continue in their employment” (Miller, 2009, p. 125).
In relation to the method of group based socialization, Nyberg, Buckley, Harvey, Novicevic, and
Wheeler (2007) argued “Employees who are socialized in groups will tend to have a very formal
interpretation of their role in the organization and will adhere to this interpretation even when the
environment changes” (p. 294).
Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory is largely based on behaviorism, in which positive and negative
reinforcements shape and mold the behaviors of individuals. Individuals learn, acquire or cease to
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
engage in specific behaviors depending on the specific nature of the rewards and sanctions given by
their social and physical environments (Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2001). Through interactions with
other individuals, certain patterns of cognition and behavior are reinforced or sanctioned. The more
people consider a specific behavior desirable, the more likely people are to engage in that behavior (p.
638).
The current authors suggest in both deviant and non-deviant organizations the individuals who
are inadequately socialized are weeded out of the organizations. This “weeding” process occurs when
the individual becomes dissatisfied and resigns for another job opportunity. The individual’s low
motivation and poor work performance can also result in termination by the employer. The
probationary period of employment (when effectively instituted) should determine the fit between the
individual and the organization.
Functionalism and Merton
Another institutional aspect related to organi-cultural deviance was argued by Robert Merton
(1938) in his discussion of Strain Theory. Merton argued that some deviant behavior occurred when an
individual accepted society's goals (becoming wealthy, owning specific possessions) but the individual
did not have the means to legitimately obtain society's accepted goals. In order to achieve desired
goals, the individual may turn to deviant behavior in order to obtain them (Ruggerio, 2005, p. 36).
Coleman (1987) believed white-collar criminals justify and neutralize their behavior in regards
to the concept of generalized others. However, Coleman turned his attention to political economy and
industrial capitalism (p. 414). According to Coleman, interactionists realized the importance of
financial self-interest as motivation for the white-collar criminal to engage in illegal acts. Coleman
claimed this realization necessitated the analysis of a possible link between structural and socialpsychological variables (p. 416). In his discussion on culture of competition, Coleman (1987)
suggested wealth and success are central goals of the human endeavour. He believed success was a
badge of intrinsic worth. Competition for personal wealth and power is considered positive in capitalist
society and is viewed as a builder of character. Coleman believed that a capitalist society views those
most capable and hardworking as the most powerful and prosperous. This belief fuels inequality by its
implication that those who are poor deserve their inferior position in society due to laziness (p. 416).
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Unable to lawfully obtain goals that are deemed appropriate or correct by the specific
organization or society writ-large, an individual or a group of individuals may engage in neutralization
strategies and begin to engage in deviant behaviors. Often more acts of deviance are required to
continue to meet the organization's or society's goals. In this process, the individual or group may
negate any concerns about their actions arguing that it is in fact “market forces at work”, that there are
“no real victims” in such transactions.
Strong pressure to conform to the organizational desire and societal pressure for profit, results
in some of the members of the organization engaging in deviant acts and processes to maintain the
illusion that the legitimate goal was being pursued. This leads individuals and organizations into a false
perception referred to as “illusion of control”. In 1975, Ellen Langer described illusion of control as a
cognitive bias giving the individual the unrealistic perception that they have the skill or power to
control situations that are in fact a matter of happenstance. The individual begins to engage in cognitive
bias and self-deception, believing that they have the ability to change their luck.
The current authors assume there are some circumstances in which the lawful pursuit of a goal
is not possible. That is, instead of resigning to the fact that the goal is unattainable through legitimate
means, the individual or group of individuals decide(s) to take risks and engage(s) in illegitimate
behaviors under the pressure to conform or perform to organizational and societal expectations. When
the individual is unable to meet organizational and/or societal expectations, the individual begins to
take risks and gambles believing they have the power to change future negative outcomes to their favor.
When the odds of an unfavorable outcome become more evident, the individual’s cognitive bias forbids
them from surrendering and forces the individual to continue to engage in acts in a desperate attempt to
rectify the situation and to tip the odds back into their favor. The inevitable result is a snowball effect,
with increased odds stacked against the individual in rectifying the situation.
Individual Indoctrination into Deviant Corporate Culture
Corporations are social environments and sub-cultures of larger society. This gives rise to the
current authors’ premise: individuals progress through stages of socialization into a deviant sub-culture.
In 1992, Wanous identified stages of socialization in the workplace. Korte (2007) summarized Wanous’
stages as follows: 1) confront the reality of the new job –newcomers adjust their expectations to the
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
reality of the job; 2) achieve role clarity-newcomers learn and negotiate the expectations and
requirements of their roles in the organization; 3) locate oneself in the organization-newcomers learn
how their work contributes to the work of the organization; 4) assess success-newcomers assess the
value of their contributions to the organization; and 5) during the stages of socialization, the individual
learns the language of the organization. These are the symbolic constructs of the organization’s culture.
Symbolic constructs are encompassed in sociological theory known as symbolic interactionism or what
is referred to as Interactionist Theory.
Husted suggested interactionist theory, strain theory and the culture of competition are
interrelated and are relative to the understanding of organi-cultural deviance. According to Coleman
(1987), interactionists evaluate “behavior in terms of the actor’s symbolic construction of the response
anticipated from others, the expectation of significant others and the generalized expectations of society
as a whole are critical elements in individual motivation” (p. 410). Culture of competition and Strain
Theory focuses on materialism and monetary gain as being of utmost importance in capitalist society.
Materialism and monetary gain are symbolic constructs. Each theory suggests these constructs motivate
individuals to behave in particular ways due to societal pressure Husted (2008, p. 25).
Theorists such as Goffman (1961) have studied the concept of total institution in regards to
social interactionism. Goffman in his 1961 work titled Ássylum found the individual’s “self” is
transformed through the following processes: i) role disposition; ii) programming and identity
trimming; iii) dispossession of property, name and identity; iv) imposition of degrading postures,
stances and deference patterns; v) contaminative exposure; vi) disruption of usual relation of individual
actor and his acts; and vii) restriction on self-determination, autonomy, and freedom of action.
The current authors expand Wanous’ (1992) stages of socialization and transfer the concepts of
socialization, described by Goffman (1961), into the context of corporate crime. That is, we propose
that organi-cultural deviance is a process of individual socialization into a deviant sub-culture.
Upon entering the organization, the individual attempts to learn the rules and behaviors specific
to the organization-the organization’s symbolic constructs. Individuals are attempting to establish
themselves and identify their role within the organization. The individual is hyper-vigilant in
complying with rules and regulations. The individual realizes the importance of first impressions,
giving a good impression and being a team player in order to establish their position within the
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
organization. During this stage, the individual is not aware of established norms, the corporate culture,
or organizational structure. The new member is introduced to the realm of possibility within the
organization that rule compliance and attainment of organizational and group expectation and goals
brings.
During the Probationary Stage (“Probationary Period”), individuals who have not met the
expectations or complied with the organization’s rules, policies and procedures have been weeded out
by this point.
Indoctrination Stage into the Deviant Sub-Culture
Having proven their “fit” within the organization, the individual is accepted as a new member of
the organization. The organization begins to give the individual more responsibility and status.
Generally, there is increased sense of loyalty, commitment, and job security between the organization
and its new member during this time.
We propose that deviant organizations socialize the individual to transact the deviant
organization’s goals during the Probationary Stage. As the individual successfully completes the
Probationary Stage and progresses through the Indoctrination Stage, the individual loses their
individual identity and has established unquestioning allegiance to the organization. The individual’s
initial altruistic intent is replaced with fulfilling the intent of the organization. Individual deviation or
questioning of the organization’s intentions is met with coercive means to regain individual compliance
and unquestioning obedience.
Individual loyalty to the organization is continuously tested. Tests require the individual to
engage in less than ethical acts. Tests increase in level in regards to potential risk and consequence, as
do the rewards. The individual is persuaded to engage in these unethical acts/tests by promises of
substantial benefit/reward. The individual engages in the “Pleasure/Pain” process and finds the reward
promised by the organization outweighs the risk of consequence. The risk of consequence is minimized
by the organization through justification of the individual’s actions. Secret keeping becomes a
reciprocal process and is used as blackmail leverage between the parties to maintain the cohesiveness
of the transactional relationship.
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
The individual has entered into the organization at what Goffman (1961) calls the Role
Dispossesion stage. During Role Dispossesion, the individual maintains many different and separate
roles both inside and outside of the organization. When an individual becomes an employee in a new
organization, they are seeking to add to their repertoire of roles. Ideally, their new role of employee and
the title the position carries, should not interfere with the other roles the individual possesses outside
the organization. This is not true in the deviant organization. The deviant corporate culture entices the
individual to join the group with promises of utopia-like relationships and vast rewards. However, the
individual’s personal identity begins to be stripped as the deviant organization begins to engage in the
process Goffman referred to as Programming and Identity Trimming.
Goffman’s (1961) Programming and Identity Trimming shares similarities with Lifton’s (1961)
Thought Reform. Lifton identified eight characteristics of thought reform, which the current authors
relate to socialization into the deviant corporate culture: i) Milieu Control- The individual becomes
isolated from the outside world. The individual is discouraged from expressing dissenting views that
are contradictory to the groups thoughts, beliefs or goals; ii) Mystical Manipulation-The group purports
to have an altruistic purpose appealing to the individual’s desire to attain self-actualization through
altruistic behavior; iii) Confession-The individual is encouraged to confide their anxieties, fears, past
and current questionable behaviors to group members; iv) Sanctification-The group entices the
individual to desire higher rewards. Transactional relationships are established. Reward is given when
the individual transacts the group’s wishes; v) Aura of Sacred Science-The rules of the group are
viewed as supreme governing rule. Dissenting views and non-compliance with these rules results in
punishment; vi) Loaded Language-Symbols, acronyms, organization specific terms are used to convey
meaning and messages. This language is reserved for members of the group and not accessible to the
outside world; vii) Doctrine over Person-The group becomes the ultimate authority. The good of the
group is the ultimate goal. Individuals are encouraged to sacrifice personal beliefs and values for the
good of the group. Outside criticism, rules, norms are condemned by the group; and viii) Dispensed
Existence-The individual’s dependence upon the group is engrained. Fear and threats are used to deter
the individual from leaving the group.
Like Lifton (1961), Goffman (1961) described Programming and Identity Trimming as
exclusion of the individual from their self-identity. The current authors see the deviant organization as
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
isolating the individual from his/her outside world, increasing the individual’s needs on the
organization to satisfy the individual’s needs of belongingness.
Individual Needs Hierarchy and Organi-cultural Deviance
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Group membership serves to satisfy the individual’s need for belongingness, understanding,
safety and physiological needs in Maslow’s (1954) Hierarchy of Needs. Abraham Maslow (1954)
identified the following Hierarchy of Needs: 1) physiological; 2) safety; 3) love, affection,
belongingness; 4) self-esteem; and 5) self-actualization (physiological being the most basic for
survival and self-actualization being the need individuals strive for but few attain). It is proposed the
lowest level needs must be met before the individual is able to advance to the next level. Organizations
fulfil different levels of the individual’s Needs Hierarchy.
Individuals are attracted to organizations who offer a means to satisfy the individual’s needs.
Whether it be higher wages, more benefits, better working conditions, the individual’s motivation to
enter the organization is their attempt to fill a real or perceived void in their personal hierarchy.
Corporate cultures have the ability fill the social need of identity, the personal need of belonging to a
group, as well as the financial need of earning a living.
Human beings are social animals, desiring socialization, participation, and engagement in
activities with other individuals. McCabe, Keibe Trevino and Butterfield (2001) argue that a group has
internal controls regarding behavior. The group will try to regulate its behavior and develop its own
norms (McCabe, Keibe Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001, p. 30). Henggler, Schoenwald, Borduin,
Rowland, and Cunningham (1998) argued that deviant peers have a mutually reinforcing effect. As one
peer is deviant, the other peers become increasingly deviant (pp.124-130).
Wetherall (1996) referred to Tajfel and Turner's finding on individual self-identification. Tajfel
and Turner found an individual’s motivation, judgements and perceptions are transformed when the
individual becomes a member of a group. Taijel and Turner believed individual identity is transformed
into social identity through the following processes: i) individual self-esteem becomes the result of the
fortune of the group; ii) opinions of others outside the group become less relevant to the individual; and
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
iii) the individual adjusts their personal identity to match the thoughts, behaviors and other attributes of
the group through a process called referent information influence (Wetherell, 1996, pp. 34-35).
The authors suggest the individual’s quest to attain higher levels in their needs hierarchy are
transformed into satisfying the needs of the organization. In essence, the authors propose deviant
organizations invert the individual’s needs hierarchy from Maslow’s Hierarchical Pyramid into a
“Hierarchical Funnel of Individual Needs”, though the process of organi-cultural deviance.
The Hierarchical Funnel of Individual Needs
Levels 5 & 4: Hierarchical Funnel of Needs-Facade of Honesty and Integrity
Altruism and Accomplishment Needs. The current authors believe it is the “facade of honesty
and integrity” which begins the inversion process of the individual’s needs hierarchy within the deviant
organization. The authors suggest individuals are lured to the organization with promises of selfbetterment or improving their current situation (desire for self-esteem, accomplishment, selfactualization). Lifton (1961) refers to this process as Mystical Manipulation. Lifton described the
process as an individual’s appeal to a group who purports to have altruistic purposes and intent. In the
case of Enron, former CEO Jeffrey Skilling made a practice of hiring new employees on the basis that
they would “think outside of the box” and they were “imaginative people”. Skilling also encouraged
rewarded risk taking and distrusted traditional management styles (Tolson & Bernstein, 2002, lines 52,
54-55). In an interview on the Enron scandal, Kirk Hanson said 'The board is at fault for permitting the
suspension of Enron's own code of conduct to permit the conflicts of interest inherent in the off-books
corporations controlled by Fastow' (Nakayama, 2002, ¶ 9).
The deviant organization begins to test the altruistic intent of the individual. The first test of
individual altruism is to sacrifice personal beliefs and values for the good of the group. This requires
the individual to engage in unquestioning obedience through a process Lifton referred to as Doctrine
over Person. In testimony in the Enron trial, former Chief Financial Officer of Enron, Andrew Fastow,
testified that Skilling was aware of illegal deals done to conceal losses and boost profits but did not
want know the details of the transactions (Associated Press, 2006, ¶ 2).
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Level 3: Hierarchical Funnel of Needs-Contempt for Others
Friends and Family Needs. The deviant organization is believed to take advantage of the
individual’s eagerness to learn by requiring “obedience and compliance” from the individual. The
individual is isolated from outside/dissenting views from sub-cultures, as the deviant organization
requires attention and devotion of time to the group (friendship, sense of belongingness needs). Lifton
used the term Milieu Control to describe the process by which the individual becomes isolated from the
outside world. In Milieu Control, the individual is discouraged from expressing dissenting views that
are contradictory to the group’s thoughts, beliefs or goals. This use of symbolic constructs is what
Lifton referred to as Loaded Language (symbols, acronyms, organization specific terms are used to
convey meaning and messages). This language is reserved for members of the group and not
accessible to the outside world and serves to further isolate and indoctrinate the individual into the
deviant corporate culture.
The group begins to transform the individual into a “yes person”, and discourages questioning
and dissenting opinion through coercive power, and a process Lifton referred to as Aura of Sacred
Science. In Aura of Sacred Science, the rules of the group are viewed as the supreme governing rule.
Dissenting views and non-compliance with these rules results in punishment.
In an interview concerning her book Willful Blindness, Margaret Heffernan said 'if the people at
Enron had raised questions very much earlier, they might still have an employer' (Ridgeway, 2011, ¶
19). The most high profile Enron whistle blower, former VP Sherron Watkins noted concerns about her
safety and noted that “Fastow was "vindictive" and she feared for her personal safety as well as her
family” (Pasha, 2006, ¶25).
Level 2: Hierarchical Funnel of Needs-Group Think, Cognitive Dissonance, Manipulation
Security and Employment Needs. The individual is discouraged from questionning authority,
roles, and rules during the probationary period as he/she is acutely aware that she/he is expendable. The
individual succumbs to “group think” under the threat of job loss. At first, the organization attempts to
justify or neutralize the activities. Once the individual begins to accept the neutralization and
justification, the individual begins to become enmeshed in observing or engaging in questionable
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
behaviors. The organization and its members use the individual’s knowledge or engagement in
questionable activity against them. “Do as we say and we won’t tell on you and you will be rewarded”
(security, resources). Confession - The individual is encouraged to confide their anxieties, fears, past
and current questionable behaviors to group members.
The deviant organization promises the individual great reward by transacting the group’s or
organization’s wishes. This serves to re-establish the individual’s thought that they can improve the
situation (illusion of control and desire for self-betterment). This is the organization’s “carrot and stick
approach”. With Sanctification, the group entices the individual to desire higher rewards. Transactional
relationships are established. Reward is given when the individual transacts the group’s wishes. They
make huge promises, but fail to deliver. The huge reward is just outside the individual’s reach. As the
individual becomes further entrenched in the deviant organization, the individual becomes increasingly
dependent upon the organization to maintain their security. Security comes in the form of protection
from prosecution and financial security. The individual begins to sacrifice their morals and ethics for
financial security.
Level 1: Hierarchical Funnel of Needs: Unwilling to Support
Food and Shelter Needs. The individual realizes satisfaction of their basic needs relies on their
continued employment in the deviant organization. As the degree or depth of organi-cultural deviance
increases, the individual devolves down the inverted Maslow pyramid. As employees notice
wrongdoing, unethical conduct or otherwise inappropriate conduct, the individual is increasingly put
under scrutiny and is often the target of retaliation. This is likened to Lifton’s (1961) description of
Dispensed Existence. The individual’s dependence upon the group is engrained. Fear and threats are
used to deter the individual from leaving the group. Thus, the dependence of the individual for social
survival, combined with real physical needs for survival (ability to earn money to purchase food and
housing) leaves the individual vulnerable. Showing any signs of opposition and/or whistle blowing
threatens their ability to meet their basic needs.
A consequence of the individual’s devolution down the Hierarchical Funnel of Individual Needs
is evident in Langan-Fox, Cooper and Klimoski’s (2007) comment “The severity of risk underlies why
Rothschild and Miethe (1999) report that over half of US employees who observe conduct they
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
consider being unethical or illegal in the workplace remain silent”. Thus the deviant organization has
claimed its victim, with the individual succumbing to organi-cultural deviance.
Conclusion
This paper reviewed the literature, synthesizing generally accepted psychological, sociological
and criminological theory to explain and explore the concept of organi-cultural deviance. The current
authors presented a theoretical perspective they coin the “Hierarchical Funnel of Individual Needs”, to
describe the process by which an individual is recruited to a deviant organization by the Façade of
Honesty and promises of self-betterment. As the individual is socialized into the deviant corporate
culture, the individual is stripped of their personal identity, and becomes increasingly dependent upon
the deviant organization to satisfy their most basic needs. Coercion, neutralization, justification,
illusion of control, symbolic construct, loaded language, alienation/isolation, group think, and
manipulation were discussed as factors in gaining compliance and garnering the individual’s
unquestioning loyalty in transacting the groups goals and deviant acts. The authors propose these
factors result in a cognitive bias, precipitating the individual to ignore or “blow the whistle” on deviant
acts. It is believed the fear of reprisal, fear of social isolation, fear of personal safety, fear of losing
their job and not being able to financially meet their their basic needs, results in the individual’s
impotence in taking action against deviant acts. The individual has sacrificed their morals, ethics and
value systems to satisfy their basic needs. The deviant organization has claimed its victim, by
regressing the individual down the Hierarchical Funnel of Individual Needs.
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
References
Associate Press. (2006). “Ex-Enron CFO said Skilling knew about fraud,” MSNBC Retrieved from
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11711094/40007981 (accessed May 1 2011).
Chen, Z., Lawson, R., & McIntosh, B. (1996), Groupthink: Deciding with the leader
and the Devil. Psychological Record, 46, 582.
Coleman, J. (1987). Toward an integrated theory of white-collar crime. American Journal of
Sociology, 93(2), 406-439.
Conger, J. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics. 19(2), 44.
Corporate. In The Free Online Dictionary by Farflex. The Free Online Dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/corporate (accessed May 15 2009)
Encyclopedia of Psychology. “Social Learning Theory,” Encyclopedia of Psychology April 6 2001.
Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0003/
ai_2699000323/
Fogarty, T. J. (2000). Socialization and organizational outcomes in large public accounting firms.
Journal of Managerial Issues. Retrieved November 30, 2010
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6703/is_1_12/ai_n28768865/
Gendron, R., & Husted, C. (May, 2010). Organi-cultural deviance. Paper presented at the
Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Goffman, E. (1961) Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New
York: Doubleday Anchor.
Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory: Administrator's guide. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Henggler, S., Schoenwald, S., Borduin, C., Rowland, M., & Cunningham, P. (1988). Multisystemic
treatment of antisocial behaviour in children and adolescents (124-130). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Henle. C.A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice
and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues. Retrieved December 3 2010,
http://www.allbusiness.com/management/987516-1.html
Husted, C. (2008). Systematic differentiation between dark and light leaders: Is a corporate criminal
profile possible? Capella University.
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and
commitment. New York: Free Press.
Korte, R. (2007) Learning and socialization in the workplace. The college of business at the
University of Texas. Tyler. Retrieved December 3 2010,
http://www.uttyler.edu/cbt/hrd/documents/korte%20colloquium.pdf
Langan-Fox J, Cooper C., & Klimoski, R. (2007). Research companion of the dysfunctional workplace.
Chetlenham Gloucester, England: Elgar Publishing.
Langer, E. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-328.
Lifton, R.J. (1961). Thought reform and the psychology of totalism. A study of brainwashing in China.
London: Gollancz.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
McCabe, D., Kiebe Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K. (2001), Dishonesty in academic environments: The
influence of peer reporting requirements. Journal of Higher Education, 29-45.
Merton, R. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672-82.
Miller, K. (2009). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (5th Edition). Boston,
MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Nakayama, A. (2002). Lessons from the Enron scandal. Markula Center for Applied Ethics.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/enronlessons.html (accessed May
1 2011).
Nyberg, T.L., Buckley M.R., Harvey, M.G., Novicevic, M.M., & Wheeler, A., (2007). Socializing
employees: Helping individuals develop appropriate expectations for both their work and the
organization. In R.M. Sims (ed.), Human resource management contemporary issues:
Challenges and opportunities. (287-302). United States: IAP-Information Age Publishing Inc.
Pasha, S. (2006). Enron's whistle blower details sinking ship, CNN. Retrieved from
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/15/news/newsmakers/enron/index.htm
Ridgeway, E. (2011). “Why it's easy to see no evil, speak no truth at work,” CNN Retreived from
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/03/01/business.blindness.heffernan/index.html
Rothschild, L., & Miethe, T.D. (1999). Whistle-blower disclosures and management relaliation: The
battle to control information about organizational corruption. Work and Occupaations, 26, 107128.
Perspectives
Volume 14 (Fall, 2011)
The American Association of Behavioral and Social Science (AABSS)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Ruggiero, V. (2010) Causation theories and concepts of organized criminal behavior. In F. Shanty and
P. Paban Mishra (eds.), Organized crime: An international encyclopedia. Santa Barbara CA:
ABC-CLIO Inc.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An investigative theory of intergroup conflict. In G.W. Austin and S.
Worchel (eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tolson, M., & Berstein, A. (2002). Skilling energized Enron but draws suspicion after its fall,
Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/enron/1249343.html
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.
Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, orientation and socialization
of newcomers (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Werner, J.M, & DeSimone, R.L. (2009). Human resource development (5th ed.). Mason, OH: SouthWest Cengage Learning.
Wetherell, M. (1996). Identities group and social issues. London: Sage Publications.