Transferring Broken Windows to Organizational Life in the Context of Destructive Deviance Behaviors

Öz

The aim of this study is to determine the effect of the organizational broken windows theory on destructive deviance behavior. Adopting a quantitative research design, the sample comprises employees from small, medium, and large-scale enterprises operating in Yozgat, Turkey. Data were collected from 567 participants accessed through convenience sampling via an online survey. The analysis of the gathered data was conducted using partial least squares path analysis (PLS-SEM), with the SmartPLS statistical software. Findings from the research data indicate a positive and significant effect of organizational broken windows on destructive deviance behavior. Examination of the R2 values of the model revealed that the organizational broken windows theory explains 34% of the variance in destructive deviance behavior. The results suggest that unaddressed broken windows in organizations may lead to destructive deviance behaviors over time.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Organizational Broken Windows Theory
• Destructive Deviant Behavior
• Partial Least Squares

Yıkıcı Sapma Davranışları Bağlamında Kırık Camların Örgütsel Yaşama Aktarılması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, örgütsel kırık camların yıkıcı sapma davranışı üzerindeki etkisinin belirlenmesidir. Nicel araştırma deseninin benimsendiği çalışmada örneklemi, Yozgat ilinde faaliyet gösteren küçük, orta ve büyük ölçekli işletmelerdeki çalışanlar oluşturmaktadır. Kolayda örnekleme yöntemiyle ulaşılan 567 kişiden çevrimiçi anket yoluyla veriler toplanmıştır. Toplanan verilerin analiz edilmesinde kısmi en küçük kareler yol analizi (PLS-SEM) tercih edilmiş olup Smart-PLS istatistik programı kullanılarak analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma verilerinden elde edilen bulgulara göre örgütsel kırık camların yıkıcı sapma davranışı üzerinde pozitif yönlü ve anlamlı etkisinin olduğu görülmüştür. Oluşturulan modelin R2 değerleri incelendiğinde örgütsel kırık camların yıkıcı sapma davranışını %34 oranında açıkladığı belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, örgütlerdeki müdahale edilmeyen kırık camların zamanla yıkıcı sapma davranışlarına yol açacağını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Örgütsel Kırık Camlar Teorisi
• Yıkıcı Sapma Davranışı
• Kısmi En Küçük Kareler

Kaynakça

1. Alhasnawi, H., & Abbas, A. (2021). Narcissistic leadership and workplace deviance: A moderated mediation model of organizational aggression and workplace hostility. Organizacija, 54(4), 334-349. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2021-0023
2. Altıntaş, M. (2023). Kırık camlar teorisinin erdemli raporlama (whistleblowing) davranışına etkisi: Yükseköğretim çalışanları üzerinde bir uygulama. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(1), 240-257. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1002630
3. Austrup, S. (2011). The person behind the “broken window”: The influence of the environment and personality on undesired behavior. Master's thesis. University of Twente Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences Faculty.
4. Avcı, N. (2008). Konaklama İşletmelerinde Örgütsel Öğrenme, İş Tutumları ve Örgütsel Sapma Arasındaki İlişkinin Analizi. Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
5. Bektaş, M., Erkal, P., & Çetin, D. T. (2019). Kırık camlar teorisinin işletmelere uyarlanması: Ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(3), 586-617.
6. Bennett, R., & Robinson, S. (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
7. Bennett, R., & Stamper, C. (2001). Corporate citizenship and deviancy: A study of work behavior. In C. Galbraith & M. Ryan (Eds.), International Research in the Business Disciplines: Strategies and Organizations in Transition (pp. 265-284). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
8. Biçer, C. (2022). Broken windows effect in organizations: A focus on counterproductive work behaviors that lead to employee burnout and employee turnover and solutions. Tarsus Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 28-45.

9. Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x
10. Bodankin, M., & Tziner, A. (2009). Constructive deviance, destructive deviance and personality: How do they interrelate? The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC Journal, 11(26), 549-564.
11. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
12. Chen, Y., Wang, X., Benitez, J., Luo, X., & Li, D. (2022). Does techno-invasion lead to employees’ deviant behaviors? Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(2), 454-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2022.2063557
13. Chukwuma, J., Ede, M., Chukwuma, I., Izueke, E., Ejikeme, J., Madukwe, C., & Ogbochie, A. (2024). Perceptions of organizational value and unethical/ deviant behaviors among lecturers in Archeology and Religion and Cultural Studies: An intervention study. Medicine, 103(3), 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000036964
14. Coşkun, R., Altunışık, R., & Yıldırım, E. (2019). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Sakarya Yayıncılık.
15. Crawford, W., Lamarre, E., Kacmar, K., & Harris, K. (2019). Organizational politics and deviance: Exploring the role of political skill. Human Performance, 32(2), 92-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2019.1597100
16. Ece, S. (2023). Örgütlerde kırık camlar. International EUropean Journal of Managerial Research, 7(13), 11-23.
17. Galperin, B. (2002). Determinants of deviance in the workplace: An empirical examination of Canada and Mexico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
18. Gao, Q., Xu, J., Tao, Z., Liu, L., & Wu, C. (2020). Exploration and analysis on the psychological capital of entrepreneurship and the deviant innovation behavior of employees. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1880), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01880
19. Gau, J., Corsaro, N., & Brunson, R. (2014). Revisiting broken windows theory: A test of the mediation impact of social mechanisms on the disorder–fear relationship. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 579-588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.10.002
20. Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference (Vol. 1). New York: Back Bay Books.
21. Gündüz, E. (2021). Oyunlaştırmanın örgütsel öğrenmedeki rolü: Yapıcı sapkın işyeri davranışının düzenleyici etkisi. Bilim-Teknoloji-Yenilik Ekosistemi Dergisi, 2(1), 1-10.
22. Hair, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624
23. Harcourt, B. E., & Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken windows: New evidence from New York City and a five city social experiment. University of Chicago Law School. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2473&context=journal_articles
24. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
25. İyigün, N. Ö., & Çetin, C. (2012). Psikolojik kontratın örgütsel sapma üzerindeki etkisi: İlaç sektöründe bir araştırma. Öneri Dergisi, 10(37), 15-29.
26. Kaplan, H. (1975). Self-attitudes and deviant behavior: New directions for theory and research. Youth and Society, 14(2), 185-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X8201400200
27. Kelling, G. L., & Wilson, J. Q. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3). https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/
28. Keuschnigg, M., & Wolbring, T. (2015). Disorder, social capital, and norm violation: Three field experiments on the broken windows thesis. Rationality and Society, 27(1), 96-126.
29. Khattak, M., & Abukhait, R. (2023). Impact of perceived organizational injustice on deviant behaviors: Moderating impact of self-control. Current Psychology, 43, 10862-10870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05160-5
30. Levine, M. (2010). Broken windows, broken business: How the smallest remedies reap the biggest rewards. New York: Warner Business Books.
31. Malik, P., & Lenka, U. (2022). Testing the mediating role of POS between perceived AMO framework and deviant behaviours in the Indian IT sector. European Journal of International Management, 19(2), 198-216.
32. Meshkova, N., & Enikolopov, S. (2020). Creativity and deviance: The present state of the issue in psychology. Psychology and Law, 10(3), 86–107. https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2020100307
33. Meydan, C. H., & Şeşen, H. (2015). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları (2. baskı). Detay Yayıncılık.
34. Nalçacıgil, E. (2020). Contributions to the organizational administration of the broken windows theory. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 6(62), 2149-2157. http://dx.doi.org/10.26449/sssj.2328
35. Robinson, S., & Bennett, R. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572. https://doi.org/10.2307/256693
36. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Henseler, J., & Hair, J. F. (2014). On the emancipation of PLS-SEM: A commentary on Rigdon (2012). Long Range Planning, 47(3), 154-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.02.007
37. Şenol, L. (2022). Örgütsel kırık camların üretim karşıtı iş davranışları üzerine etkisi: Hizmet sektöründe bir araştırma. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 8(97), 1518-1526.
38. Tanyolaç, C. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of workplace deviance: A literature review with suggestions for future studies. Anadolu İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 4(1), 35-48.
39. Temir, E. (2020). Kırık camlar teorisinin kurum kültürüne uyarlanabilirliği. Kastamonu İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4, 133-144.
40. Tiwari, M., & Jha, R. (2022). Narcissism, toxic work culture and abusive supervision: A double-edged sword escalating organizational deviance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(1), 99-114. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-05-2020-2187
41. Torgler, B., Frey, B., & Wilson, C. (2009). Environmental and pro-social norms: Evidence on littering. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(1), 1-39.
42. Türkiye İş Kurumu. (2023). İşgücü piyasası araştırması Yozgat ili 2022 yılı sonuç raporu. Erişim adresi: https://media.iskur.gov.tr/66936/yozgat.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 10.01.2023.
43. Vedantam, S., Benderev, C., Boyle, T., Klahr, R., Penman, M., & Schmidt, J. (2016, Kasım 1). How a theory of crime and policing was born, and went terribly wrong. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/500104506/broken-windows-policing-and-the-origins-of-stop-and-frisk-and-how-it-went-wrong.
44. Weil, D. (2012). “Broken windows,” vulnerable workers, and the future of worker representation. The Forum, 10(1), 1-21.
45. Williams, M. (2019). “Broken windows theory in workplace management & business strategy.” Retrieved October 22, 2024, from https://www.rancord.org/broken-windows-theory-business-management-strategy
46. Wu, M., Zhu, Y., He, Q., Zhang, L., & Lu, J. (2022). The influence of differential leadership on employees’ deviant innovation behavior: An outsider subordinate perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.996331
47. Yazıcı, N. (2018). Hile üçgeni: Fırsatların önlenmesinde kırık camlar teorisi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi, 53(3), 843-851.
48. Yıldız, E. (2021). SmartPLS ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: Reflektif ve formatif yapılar. Seçkin Yayınları.
49. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 17, 237–307).