Theft, Daydreaming And Everything In Between: Most Of Us Are A Bit 'Deviant' At Work

(MENAFN- The Conversation) We usually think of workplace deviance as linked to“bad apples”–the troublemakers who egregiously slack off, steal from the company or openly clash with coworkers. But what if deviant behaviour was also more subtle–daydreaming, taking long coffee breaks or cracking an edgy joke in a meeting? It turns out most employees engage in quieter patterns of minor misbehaviours, and it's changing how we think about deviance on the job.

Traditionally, research has kept deviance in neat boxes: bad behaviours are either interpersonal (aimed at coworkers) or organisational (targeted against the company). But most employees don't fall into rigid categories of“good” or“bad”, nor do they engage only in one type of misbehaviour. Instead, many show a mix of minor, less disruptive behaviours that don't seem to fit the bad-apple narrative.

Breaking down misconduct

Our research explored different patterns or“classes” of workplace misbehaviours. We meta-analysed responses from more than 6,000 employees across 20 primary studies in the US and elsewhere, and conducted multiple follow-up studies across different countries and industries.

Using statistical modelling techniques, our analysis of previous studies found evidence for five unique classes of“deviants” at work, with several of these falling clearly outside the traditional good/bad or person/organisation dichotomies. We then conducted a second study with 553 participants that found similar evidence, and showed how behaviours linked to these classes related to job satisfaction, turnover intentions and other work outcomes.

Here's a breakdown of the five types of workplace“troublemakers” we identified in our follow-up studies :

Withdrawn workers (39% of the participants in the study)

You won't see these workers causing a big scene, but then again, you might not see them much at all. Far from classic troublemakers, these workers act out by withholding effort, coming in late and withdrawing from the action in sometimes remarkable ways. The prevalence of this class, which is not well captured in prior deviance research, supports the phenomenon of “quiet quitting” that was popularized in recent years.

Slacking jerks (9%)

This group exhibits the low productivity and withdrawal of the previous class, but with an edge. They avoid tasks, work slowly, take long breaks and are often rude to coworkers.

Stagnant workers (21%)

Disengaged but not overtly harmful, these employees daydream and occasionally show up late without causing obvious disruptions. They don't stand out on a typical day, but when things get rough you might notice they aren't pulling their weight. These workers can stifle efforts at organisational change and slowly erode a positive culture.

Elevated deviants (4%)

The classic“bad apples”, people in this group engage in all the various disruptive behaviours described above, likely due to high job dissatisfaction.

Minimal deviants (27%)

Members of this group avoid most deviant behaviour and are generally good citizens at work. Even if this percentage is inflated–social desirability bias , or the inclination people have to present themselves well, may have affected study participants' willingness to admit every act of deviance–its relatively modest size is still telling: a vast majority of workers in our sample say they are misbehaving in some way.

Our data show that workplace deviance isn't always about major rule-breaking; in fact, it rarely is! While serious actions like theft (e.g., stealing property or falsifying a receipt) and overt aggression are rare, smaller things like daydreaming, taking extra breaks and making snarky remarks happen rather frequently. These mundane forms of deviance can be written off because they fail to evoke visceral reactions from managers or peers. But they can also add up, eroding positive cultures in ways that aren't seen until a major event occurs.

What drives these behaviours?

People often act out at work because they feel wronged by a person or situation, or because they have deeper motivations, linked to their personality traits , that are more conducive to deviance. Our study backs up this idea and offers some additional clarity. As expected, when employees feel wronged–by a demanding boss, unhelpful coworkers or a lack of support from the organisation–they're more likely to push back with some type of misconduct. Having an abusive supervisor makes it more likely that employees will be members of the“elevated deviant” class, whereas experiencing ostracism makes membership in the“stagnant worker” class more likely.

One could argue about which comes first–being abused or being the abuser–but the pattern we found aligns with prior work that shows causality between injustice and deviance.

Looking beyond the work environment, we also found that certain personality traits can predict what type of“deviant” a worker is most likely to be. Agreeableness, for example, is associated with less overt deviance classes such as“stagnant workers” and“withdrawn workers”. Interestingly, while conscientiousness was predictive of belonging to the“minimal deviant” class, our data suggest that highly conscientious people do occasionally act out, usually with a mix of withdrawal and rudeness (like the“slacking jerks”).

In short, highly conscientious people have high expectations for their own and others' work, and they may sometimes react to stress or slights in ways that make their unmet expectations known.

Impacts on performance

Deviant behaviour impacts team performance and turnover. Our study shows that employees in the“minimal deviants” group generally perform well, are supportive of their teammates and are satisfied with their work, whereas those in high-deviance groups are often poorer performers who do not often behave supportively toward their coworkers. Yet, while our findings support the idea of a“bad apple” dragging down an entire team, deviance and its effects can be more complicated in some cases.

Consider the relatively mild deviance classes of“stagnant workers” and“withdrawn workers”, whose members express relatively high intentions to quit and, accordingly, perform lower than those of other classes. These employees may fly under the radar while silently eroding an organisation's potential.

Workers in the“slacking jerks” class exhibit contradictory behavioural patterns: they are willing to withdraw from some parts of their job and act out rudely toward some coworkers, while also maintaining relatively higher levels of performance and even going out of their way to help other colleagues. As a result, managers are frequently navigating grey zones: what trade-offs are palatable, and where is the line between reasonable expression and outright violation?

Our findings show that most employees engage in minor misdemeanors, like taking extra-long breaks or daydreaming, rather than major actions like theft. Many don't just dabble in one or two types of deviance, but exhibit complex patterns in their behaviour at work that can be reliably predicted by personality-based factors and situational attributes. Without careful attention, their minor acts, which often emerge as a response to burn-out or low morale, may go unnoticed or untreated, and can accumulate into big problems for organisations.

Beyond bad intentions

Our findings also challenge the belief that rule-breaking is driven by a few“bad apples” intent on causing trouble, and contribute to a growing line of inquiry that shifts from asking merely“who acts out at work?” to“why do people engage in these behaviours?” For many employees, minor slip-ups are likely less about causing harm and more about coping with everyday stress.

Motives for breaking rules can differ substantially. For instance, some workers who are withdrawn might be stepping back quietly to deal with health issues, while others stepping back may be evincing a low level of commitment. Understanding their different reasons could open the door to better ways of addressing their behaviours.

While deviance has traditionally been viewed as something rare, our study shows a more complicated picture. On the one hand, only 4% of respondents reported high levels of all forms of deviance, which, on the surface, would support the rarity of workplace deviance. However, on the other hand, only about a quarter (27%) of employees reported that they steer clear of deviance entirely. That leaves more than two thirds (69%) of employees exhibiting milder and more nuanced patterns of misbehavior.

This helps us understand deviance as a more common part of work life. It also complicates how managers think about, penalise and discourage it. Without levers that help employees reduce stress or make up for uncontrollable work factors (such as company-wide salary freezes), managers may feel pressure to accept some forms of deviance as“the cost of doing business” while remaining vigilant toward the most egregious and overt infractions.

MENAFN18032025000199003603ID1109326643