Lit Review.docx
CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE
18
The Prevalence of Charlatanism, Protestant Work Ethic, and
Workplace Deviance of Employees in an Organizational SettingState
University of New York at New Paltz
Author note:Jacqueline Dugas, Lauren Cervi, and Lindsay Calhoun
are all undergraduate students at SUNY New Paltz.This research was
conducted as part of the course requirement for
OrganizationalCommunication Seminar (CMM 454) under the direction
of Dr. Jason S. Wrench.
The Prevalence of Charlatanism, Protestant Work Ethic, and
Workplace Deviance of Employees in an Organizational
SettingAbstractProtestant work ethic is used to describe someone
who is hardworking and diligent in the work place. Employees who
believe in this type of work ethic usually value their work as well
as avoiding stepping on anyones toes and do not really believe in
deceit or foul play to get ahead within their organization
(Townsend, 2014). Charlatanism on the other hand is on the opposite
end of the spectrum. Charlatans care more about their perceived
performance rather than their actual performance. They are worried
more about looking like they are working hard than putting forth
their best effort and making valuable contributions to the company
or organization (Parnell & Singer, 2001). Workplace deviance is
also on the negative end of the spectrum because this is when there
is a want to cause harm to an organization or workplace (Brunet,
Menard & Savoie). Understanding and recognizing these different
types of behaviors is important for an organization, especially
someone who deals with new or potential employees. Ideally you want
to hire someone who has a Protestant work ethic or at least someone
who has similar values. The goal of our research is to test our
hypotheses and understand the relationship between these three
different work ethics or workplace behavior.
Protestant Work EthicThe topic of this investigation is
Protestant work ethic and how it relates to Charlatanism and
workplace deviance. People who endorse the Protestant work ethic
value the ideas of delayed gratification, frugality, and
ant-leisure and believe that if an individual works hard enough
he/she will be successful (Townsend, 2014). The idea of the
Protestant work ethic stems from the nineteenth century Protestants
and the idea that hard work enabled a person to express their love
and devotion to God and that a person should not rest until they
reached Heaven. At this time hard labor was needed to survive in
America and it was seen not as a burden or just a way to survive
but as a privilege and a delight and the calling that enabled
individuals to serve God (Porter, 2010). People with Protestant
work ethic believe that those who are unsuccessful or have failed
at a job have not tried hard enough and that society would improve
if people had less leisure time (Townsend, 2014). Today
contemporary society has stripped the idea of Protestant work ethic
from its religious affiliations and it is more loosely defined as
individuals beliefs about hard work and success (Townsend, 2014,
p.5). However, Protestant work ethic is still prevalent, but not
exclusive, to societies founded on Protestantism (Townsend, 2014).
Protestant work ethic and the economic growth of Western Countries
are related. Sociologist Max Weber has argued that Protestantism
was one of the reasons why capitalism succeeded in the West.
According to Weber, Protestantism is the basis for Capitalism and
the idea that people could express their love and devotion to God
through work stimulated labor productivity (Weber, 1958). Today,
Protestant work ethic is still widely prevalent in many Western
Societies. In the United States, Protestant work ethic is the
underlying ideology beneath the concept of the American Dream, or
the belief that those who work hard in the United States are able
to work their way up the social and economic hierarchy (Porter,
2010). Both the American Dream and the Protestant work ethic share
the same status ideology, or the same ideas that explain the
difference in status between groups and individuals in a society
and explains how one can rise in status within that society (Major,
2007). This status ideology implies that positions of groups or
individuals in the social and economic hierarchy are a direct
result of how hard they work and how much effort they put forth and
therefore their positions in society are deserved. This ideology
makes people believe that the status difference between individuals
and groups is justified, which can lead to discrimination against
economic and social groups who are of a lower status because others
believe they deserve this lower status (Townsend, 2014). Because of
this mindset levels of Protestant work ethic endorsement are often
higher in societies where there is a greater difference in power
between those of low statues and those of high status (Townsend,
2014).In 2013, researchers Townsend and Thompson conducted an
investigation of teams and teamwork in cooperative (e.g., group
brainstorming and team decision-making) and mixed-motive (e.g.,
negotiation) contexts (Townsend, 2014, p. 4 ) and how belief in
Protestant work ethic might affect their performance. Keeping in
mind the aforementioned ideology of Protestant work ethic the
researchers decided that three of its key features would affect
teams and team work including motivation and persistence, increased
perceptions of personal control, and justification of status
differences (Townsend p.4 2014). The hypothesis of this
investigation was that high levels of Protestant work ethic would
benefit cooperative teams and have more varied effects on
mixed-motive teams. The idea behind this hypothesis was that a
group of strong minded, success driven people working towards one
goal would be more effective than this group of people working
towards different goals. This hypothesis was supported,among
cooperative teams, those high in PWE will have members who are more
motivated, possess greater self-efficiency, and share an ideology
that explains status differences as fair. Thus, members will be
more task-focused, persistent, and cohesivein mixed motive teams,
PWE may have both positive and negative effects. High PWE may offer
rewards in terms of higher team motivation and task focus. However,
it may also convey drawbacks if high PWE teams behave too
aggressively and or take unwise risks due to increased perceptions
of personal control and greater focus on success and equity
(Townsend p. 19 2014).The study also mentions that in certain
cooperative team conditions Protestant work ethic could be a
problem if team members are asked to relinquish control. In such a
case members might lose motivation as a result of having their
sense of control reduced. This study is an excellent example of how
Protestant work ethic is relevant to todays society and how those
who endorse it can affect a working environment.Although the
Protestant work ethic is still very relevant in the United States
and other Protestant based countries, it is not exclusive to these
societies. In a study researchers Domurat and Wasiela investigate
if work values traditionally associated with Confucianism might be
found in non-Asian countries, and in turn with Protestantism in
Asian Countries (Domurat 2012). The researchers hypothesized that
Koreans would exhibit a higher level of Protestant work ethic than
Poles because Korean society has grown much more individualistic
than it has been in the past due to a switch from seniority-based
salary systems to performance based salary systems. This hypothesis
proved to be true. This study also gives other examples of
non-westernized countries where Protestant work ethic is present,
for instance PWE beliefs were found to be present in Japanese
Society, Barbados adolescents turned out to have higher PWE scores
than adolescents from developed countries, and Turkish managers
were characterized by higher level of PWE values than were
Protestant and Catholic ones (Domurat p. 2 2012).Dormurat and
Wasiela also hypothesized that entrepreneurs would exhibit higher
levels of PWE than non-entrpreneurs because people with PWE are
very devoted to their work and have a strong desire to achieve and
high standards for their work.The researchers state that a portrait
of a person with high level of PWE corresponds to a portrait of an
entrepreneur (Dormurat p. 6 2012). This hypothesis was not fully
supported however as the study found no significant effect of
occupational status on Protestant work ethic and the only
differences found between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs were
that entrepreneurs had higher scores on self-control and and higher
scores on the anti-leisure scale.The current investigation shows
how Protestant work ethic can affect the working environment in
contemporary society and how it is spreading to countries that are
not considered westernized or based on Protestantism.Workplace
Deviance Workplace deviance a behavior that violates the codes of
conduct and/or norms of the organization in which the act is
committed. Several studies have attempted to understand the
prevalence of deviant behavior between employees and the reasons
behind them, as well as how it can impact the well-being of
different sectors within an organization. According to Menard,
Brunet, and Savoie, workplace deviance is growing at a rate faster
than any other crime type United States and in Canada, and as such
investigations are crucial to find a solution to this epidemic
(Menard, Brunet, & Savoie, 2011). In a study that investigated
the relationship between personality and organizational variables,
284 employees were surveyed. The survey measured physical and
psychological violence, aiming to gather useful data as predictors
to prevent a wide range of interpersonal workplace deviance
(Menard, et. al, 2011). Interpersonal workplace deviance is
understood as any antisocial behavior toward a member of the
organization, but according to researchers Neuman and Baron, the
majority of antisocial behavior is verbal, passive and indirect.
But in order to solve employee deviance, it is important to
determine what contributes to these behaviors, if and how much the
workplace or ones personality is to blame (Menard, et al, 2011).
Researchers most often look to the Big Five Personality Traits:
openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism, to determine internal predictors of workplace deviance
(ONeill & Hastings, 2011). The more conscientious an employee
is, the less likely he or she is to violate the organizations norms
and policies (Garcia, Lu, Wang, Kiazad, & Restubog, 2014).
Other predictors that researchers have examined are organizational
justice, organizational commitment, and workplace frustration.
Organizational justice is directly correlated with the perceived
fairness of procedures and the outcomes of those procedures. When
employees feel that there is a lack of fair treatment on the
organizations part, often times they will retaliate (Menard,et al,
2011). Organizational commitment, which ties an employee to a
specific target (social and nonsocial) and to the process relevant
to that target, is very complex. Studies have shown that when an
employees high level of commitment to an organization is matched
with unfair treatment by the organization, dissatisfaction occurs
and hence the potential for deviance. Feeling trapped by an
organization is another factor that can lead to negative behavior
(Menard et. al, 2011). The third predictor, workplace frustration
(usually anger-type reactions and hostility) results from events
that impede or prevent the attainment of goals in organizational
settings. Studies have shown that frustration positively correlates
with minor retorts or major outbursts (Menard et al, 2011). Menard
et. al found that men and managers were more prone to show physical
violence than women and employees (2011). Researchers first
hypothesis was confirmed: organizational justice, commitment, and
workplace frustration were significant predictors of deviance. The
second hypothesis that ones personality in part determines whether
they were physically violent or not, was also confirmed. Results
also alluded to age playing a big role in ones psychological
violence, with younger employees displaying more of this deviant
behavior in general (Menard, et al, 2011). While this study is
instrumental in further understanding the reasons for deviance and
with this, establishing ways to counteract them, because the
surveys themselves were based on the employees self-concepts, the
chances that they answered dishonestly is very possible. Therefore,
definitive answers cannot come of the studies results, though it
certainly sheds more light on organizational deviance (Menard et.
al, 2011). In order to better understand the reasons behind
workplace deviance, it is important to look at the social context
of an aggressive act. Studies have shown that being the victim of
an aggressive act is the biggest predictor of deviance within the
workplace, but the severity of retaliation, or lack thereof, is
determined by the relationship between the perpetrator and the
victim (Bozeman, et. al, 2000). In particular, a supervisors
mistreatment of his or her employees can often times leads to a
negative response by the subordinates (Garcia, et al, 2014).
Bozeman et. al. researched how power, both formal (derived from the
individuals organizational position) and referent (derived from
their social position at work), and task interdependence work
together to influence when and how experienced aggression
translates into perpetrator-targeted deviance (2000). Their surveys
sampled a total of 299 people, all of whom had to briefly describe
an incident in which they encountered workplace aggression within
the last six months. The results provides support that the
perpetrators power and interdependence with their victim determines
if and when the victim retaliates. The more power the perpetrator
has in the organization, the less likely the victim will take
retaliatory measures. (Bozeman et. al, 2000). It is also important
to note, however, that the level of neuroticism in the subordinates
also plays a big role in whether or not they will engage in
retaliation (Garcia et. al, 2011). As the interdependence of a
bully and his or her victim increases, the chances of retaliation
decreases. This information, established in the study by Bozeman
et. al. was one of the first insights researchers had into the
conditions under which the victim might feel reluctant to engage in
deviant behavior toward the perpetrator (Bozeman et. al, 2000).
While there are limitations to this data, due to it being
self-reported by participants, the findings will be very beneficial
in expanding workplace deviance theories and in preventing future
aggression and retaliation between co-workers (Bozeman, Hershcovis,
Parker & Reich, 15). Most employees who engage in workplace
deviance are willing to admit their wrongful acts, which is
surprising, considering that the potential for dishonesty and
misrepresentation is higher in self-reporting surveys. This is due
to the trouble people have of admitting and accepting their
involvement in unethical behaviors (Bennett & Robinson, 2000).
Bennett and Robinson strived to gain empirical data and assess a
wide variety of workplace deviant behaviors in their surveys, which
consisted of three phases, the first of which consisted of a total
of 70 participants who were asked to describe two situations in
which co-workers engaged in deviant behavior (Bennett &
Robinson, 2000). The second study took 226 professionals and
surveyed them, using a 7-point Likert scale, by having respondents
indicate the extent to which respondents engaged in a list of 58
deviant workplace behavior items. The scale anchors were as
follows: 1 (never), 1 (once a year), 3 (twice a year), 4 (several
times a year), 5 (monthly), 6 (weekly), and 7 (daily) (Bennett
& Robinson, 351). What was surprising about the outcomes of
this survey was particularly the prevalence of workplace deviance,
and the willingness of respondents to admit to this. Another
interesting connection made was the respondents age in relationship
to deviant behavior. Younger respondents were more likely to engage
in workplace deviance than those who had been in the workforce for
several years (Bennett & Robinson, 351). Prior to this study,
researchers tended to isolate only a few forms of deviant behavior,
such as sexual harassment, theft and sabotage. By looking at a
broader scale of workplace deviance, there can be a more thorough
understanding of what takes place and just how prevalent it is.
With the data collected in this study, researchers can hone in on
certain typically overlooked offences, i.e. making an obscene
comment at work, which 61 percent of respondents admitted to doing
(Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Assessing a wide range of deviant
behaviors through anonymous surveys opens the doors for a multitude
of new, practical investigations as well as insight into the growth
of this organizational phenomenon, which costs organizations an
estimated US $200 billion dollars each year (Garcia et. al,
2014).CharlatanismCharlatanism is a work ethic or practice that is
certainly not admired in the professional-business world.
Charlatans have been known to be very destructive to the medical,
psychological and the organizational world. A charlatan is someone
falsely claiming to have special knowledge or skills, they are
known as frauds, swindlers, or quacks (Merriam-Webster). In order
to avoid these phonies, it is important to know and understand the
predictors and identifiers of charlatan behavior as well as
understanding how harmful these people can be too serious or
legitimate practitioners or professions. Charlatans can be very
harmful and damaging to some profession and are particularly
frustrating to those who take their practice seriously. Charlatans
can make those who know what they are talking about look bad or
unprofessional or create a bad name for the profession as a whole.
There is a particular issue of charlatanism in the medical and
psychology professions. Fox (1996) wrote about the struggles real
practitioners face when dealing with charlatans within the
profession. Fox goes on to talk about the phonies in psychology and
the mistakes or erroneous claims they make that are simply unproven
or untrue, giving the rest of the profession a bad name. Charlatans
are damaging to the world of psychology because the few that dont
know what they are talking about but pretend they do, will have
people believing things that are not valid. It makes it harder for
psychologists who actually know what they are talking about to
explain the reality of a situation if charlatans have blurred the
reality (Fox, 1996). Another opinion by E.M. Einterz (1992),
writing about the medical world, noted the need to get rid of
charlatans, especially in third world or less privileged countries.
He talks about his experiences and what he has seen and discusses
the difference between charlatans and actual healers. Charlatans
like to put on a show; they rely on trickery rather than actual
scientific methods. Einterz talks about pharmacies and doctors that
are selling or prescribing all these treatments and procedures that
are really unnecessary. Not only is this affecting the patients but
the trust and confidence in the medical professions is being
weakened (Einterz, 1992). Since charlatans can be so destructive to
a profession or organization it is important to be able to identify
and predict charlatan behaviors. Though this can be a difficult
task, various investigators have provided guidelines and studies
that show how one can detect a charlatan. In 2007, three
researchers began a study to attempt to predict charlatan behavior.
More specifically, they wanted to focus on variables such as trust
in management, organizational commitment, turnover intention,
supervisory support, job performance and other job characteristics.
Their goal was to find the correlation between those variables and
which ones were most significant in predicting charlatan behavior.
The researchers found that the most significant predictors of
charlatan behavior were trust in management and continuance
commitment. According to the results there was a negative
relationship between charlatan behavior and trust in management,
meaning, when there was less trust in management, there was more
charlatan behaviors exhibited. There was also a direct relationship
with continuance commitment. Continuance commitment means that the
individual stays with the organization because he/she is convinced
that he/she cannot afford to leave since it would be costly to do
so. The employee might not be able to find an equally paying job
given the experience and/or qualifications (Gbadamosi, Ndaba &
Oni, 2007, p. 756). These results show that the more charlatan
behavior seen in the organization, the more continuance commitment
there is among the people. Other significant variables were
supervisory support, employee participation and goal clarity. Like
trust in management these were inversely correlated with charlatan
behavior and proved to be potentially important factors when
predicting charlatanism. This was a very compelling study because
it provided key factors for predicting charlatan behavior, which
can help organizations manage it as well as notice these signifiers
in potential employees. When hiring someone new, a company
generally wants someone who will make significant contributions and
improvements; whereas, an organizational charlatan is someone who
seeks to improve their perceived performance at the expense of
their actual performance, according to Parnell and Singer (2001).
Parnell and Singer also developed the Organizational Charlatan
Scale, which they wanted to create to measure an individuals
behaviors associated with perceived performance levels as opposed
to those associated with actual performance levels. Parnell and
Singer (2001) focused on impression management in order to gain a
better understanding of organizational charlatanism. Impression
management is when one focuses more on their perceived performance
and positive impressions to other individuals. This is an important
factor in identifying organizational charlatans because that is one
of the main distinctions between poor performers, who simply carry
out a task with minimum effort, and organizational charlatans. Poor
performers lack motivation to impress others, whereas charlatans
actually care what the people around them think of them and they
want them to think they are working hard. Impression management is
difficult to recognize and control therefore the investigators
wanted to attempt to create a scale to help identify charlatan
behavior. Their goal was to develop a list of items, which
reflected the Organizational Charlatan construct (p.444). Once they
developed a list of items that they felt were relevant, they put
them together to create the scale to help employers and researchers
determine charlatan behavior. MethodsThe focus of our research was
on a nondiscriminatory sample of over 200 currently employed
individuals residing in the U.S. Each respondent was made aware
that their identity would remain strictly anonymous and that their
responses were secure and strictly confidential. We sent
invitations with the survey link attached to potential respondents
through e-mail. To generate greater awareness, we also posted the
URL and a brief background of the surveys purpose onto our LinkedIn
and Facebook accounts. The survey can be found solely on the
website Qualtrics, which is a highly secure and reputable resource.
To gain an understanding of the prevalence of and feelings toward
Protestant work ethic, workplace deviance, and Charlatanism, three
qualitative surveys were used, each with questions specific to one
of the three topics.For Protestant work ethic, we distributed a
survey developed by Mirels and Garrett in 1971, consisting of 19
questions. A 7-point Likert scale (1 (Strongly disagree), 2
(disagree), 3 (Somewhat disagree), 4 (Neutral), 5 (Somewhat agree),
6 (Agree), 7 (Strongly agree) was utilized for the survey. The
ultimate goal of asking employees the 19 questions was to evaluate
the value people have of hard work, and what, if any, doors this
traditionally exemplary work ethic will open for them. Questions
range from optimistic statements such as, Anyone who is able and
willing to work hard has a good chance of succeeding, to
pessimistic stances, such as People spend too much time in
unprofitable amusements (Mirels & Garrett, 41).To evaluate the
general attitude toward and prevalence of workplace deviance, we
distributed a survey that was created by Bennett and Robinson in
2000. This 28-question quantitative survey also used a 7-point
Likert Scale; 1 (never), 2 (Once a year), 3 (Twice a year), 4
(Several times a year), 5 (Monthly), 6 (Weekly), 7 (Daily). The
goal of these questions was to gain some insight into the ways in
which people commit workplace deviance and how often they do it.
The types of deviance included in the survey were acting rudely
toward co-workers, spreading gossip, stealing company property,
falsifying documents, using profane language, and other similar
offences (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). What was not included was
sexual harassment, which many women are succumbed to in the U.S.,
but it was not on the original questionnaire taken from Bennett and
Robinson. Furthermore, sexual harassment is a serious form of
deviance that people have difficulty admitting to, thus we omitted
it. In the case of Charlatanism, we distributed a survey developed
by Parnell and Singer in 2001. The goal of this survey is to
understand how people perceive the importance of their physical
presentation in the workforce. Again, we utilized the Likert Scale,
this time with five points (1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3
(Neither Agree or Disagree), 4 (Agree), 5 (Strongly Agree). The
questions of this survey are more straightforward and less loaded
than those of the Protestant work ethic and workplace deviance
scales. Examples are, I try to dress better when Im going to be
seen by key organizational decision makers, and Its more important
to look busy than to be busy. While the contexts of these two
statements differ, the underlying question for both is what the
perceived difference ones appearance can make toward improving
their status in an organization.HypothesesH1: People who are more
likely to engage in workplace deviance and have beliefs consistent
with Charlatanism, are less likely to have a strong Protestant work
ethic.H2: A person with a strong Protestant work ethic will have
little to no engagement in workplace deviance and
Charlatanism.Discussion of Study FindingsOverall, each variable in
our study (Protestant work ethic, work place deviance and
Charlatanism) had a high reliability. However, the relationships we
found between the variables were not all significant. There was a
significant and negative relationship between Protestant work ethic
and work place deviance. This was what was predicted from the
beginning, that those who have values similar to the Protestant
work ethic would have very few if any similarities with the
behaviors of work place deviance. People who believe that working
hard and being loyal to the company or business will succeed and do
well in the work place will not be destructive or belligerent
towards the company. When it comes to managers and employers, it is
very important for them to look for people who have the qualities
that come with a Protestant work ethic because these people will
work hard and want the best for the company and or team. One thing
that was not expected was that there was no significant
relationship between Charlatanism and the other two variables, work
place deviance and Protestant work ethic. It seemed that there
would be a positive relationship with Charlatanism and work place
deviance and/or and negative relationship with Charlatanism and
Protestant work ethic but this was not the case. One reason could
be that the Organizational Charlatanism Scale that we used is
possibly under-developed. It is a fairly new scale and there is not
a significant amount of research done using it, which might affect
the results and be a reason why the findings on this variable were
not significant. Since there was no significant correlation our
hypothesis regarding the relationships between Charlatanism and
Protestant work ethic and Charlatanism and work place deviance were
incorrect. The other reason why there may not be a significant
correlation is because of the difference between the actual
behaviors in all three variables. People who exhibit the behaviors
of charlatanism care more about their perceived performance rather
than their actual performance. They believe it is more important to
look like they are working hard and seem like they are making
actual contributions to the company rather than putting forth their
best effort and making valuable contributions to the company or
organization (Parnell & Singer, 2001). While work place
deviance is also not beneficial to a company, the behaviors are
different than those of charlatans. People who follow a pattern of
workplace deviance not only do not care about the progression of
the company but also will sometimes go out of their way to be
destructive or counter-productive for the company. (Brunet, Menard
& Savoie, 2011) This may be another reason why here was no
significant correlation between Charlatanism and work place
deviance or Protestant work ethic, because they are not exactly
opposite behaviors.ParticipantsThe current study consisted of 151
participants consisting of 40 males, 26.49% of the population, and
89 females, 58,94% of the population and 22 unidentified, 14.57% of
the population. The mean age was 27.14 (SD=11.30) with a range from
18 to 80 years of age.ResultsThe Pearson Prodcut Moment Correlation
was conducted o measure the relationship between Workplace Deviance
and Protestant Work Ethic. There was a significant negative
correlation between these two variables, with a sample multiple
correlation coefficient of r (112), =-.52, p.05.The Pearson Product
Moment Correlation Coefficient was conducted to measure the
relationship between Charlatanism and Workplace Deviance. There was
no significant correlation between the two variables. The sample
multiple correlation coefficient was r (127) = .21,
p>.05.Limitations of StudyOne limitations of the study was that
the survey was based on participants self-reports of workplace
deviance, therefore there was the possibility of dishonesty and
selective memory. Due to the small sample size of 151 participants,
there was not enough data collected to generalize the relationships
between each of the three variables. There was also a lack of prior
research conducted on Charlatanism, thus the survey we used was
short and vague in comparison to the other surveys. There were
twice as many women as men who participated, and sometimes there
can be differing experiences and biases related to gender,
potentially influencing their beliefs and behaviors, making it
unrepresentative of the general population.
ConclusionPeople with high levels of Protestant work ethic are
generally valued in the work place due to their belief in hard work
and diligence. People who believe in this ethic usually hold their
work to high standards and do not believe in cutting corners or
deception to get ahead within their organization (Townsend, 2014).
People with high levels of Charlatanism and workplace deviance, on
the other hand, believe in a different set of ethics. Charlatans
care more about their perceived performance rather than their
actual performance. They are worried more about looking like they
are working hard than putting forth their best effort and making
valuable contributions to the company or organization (Parnell
& Singer, 2001). Workplace deviance is also on the negative end
of the spectrum, because this is when there is a want to cause harm
to an organization or workplace (Brunet, Menard, & Savoie ).
This study set out to understand the relationship between these
three different workplace ethics and examine the levels of
Charlatanism and workplace deviance in people who claim to have
high levels of Protestant Work Ethic. We found that there is no
significant relationship between Charlatanism and the other two
topics of research, however there is a negative relationship
between workplace deviance and Protestant work ethic. Further
research can focus on the reason behind these relationships and the
effects of workers who might have high levels of Protestant work
ethic and Charlatanism and workplace deviance and Charlatanism.
ReferencesBennett, R., & Robinson, S. (2000). Development Of
A Measure Of Workplace Deviance.Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(3), 349-360. "Charlatan." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster,
n.d. Web. Domurat, Artur, and Wasiela, Anna. Confucian and
Protestant Work Ethics Among Polish and Korean Employees and Small
Business Owners. Journal of Intercultural Communication. (2012).
Web.Einterz, E. (1992). The poor need no more charlatans. Lancet,
339(8796), 795. Fox, R. E. (1996). Charlatanism, scientism, and
psychology's social contract. American Psychologist, 51(8),
777.Garcia, P. M., Wang, L., Lu, V., Kiazad, K., & Restubog, S.
D. (2014). When victims become culprits: The role of subordinates
neuroticism in the relationship between abusive supervision and
workplace deviance. Personality & Individual Differences,
Gbadamosi, G., Ndaba, J., & Oni, F. (2007). Predicting
charlatan behaviour in a non- western setting: Lack of trust or
absence of commitment? The Journal of Management Development,
26(8), 753-769.Goode, W. J. (1960). Encroachment, charlatanism, and
the emerging profession: Psychology, sociology, and medicine.
American Sociological Review, 25(6), 902-914.Bozeman, J.,
Hershcovis, M., Reich, T., & Parker, S., (2012). The
relationship between workplace aggression and target deviant
behaviour: The moderating roles of power and task interdependence.
Work & Stress, 26(1), 1-20. Major, Brenda, Cheryl R. Kaiser,
Laurie T. O'brien, and Shannon K. Mccoy. "Perceived Discrimination
as Worldview Threat or Worldview Confirmation: Implications for
Self-esteem." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92.6
(2007): 1068-086. Web.Mnard, J., Brunet, L., & Savoie, A.
(2011). Interpersonal Workplace Deviance: Why Do Offenders Act Out?
A Comparative Look on Personality and Organisational Variables.
Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science, 43(4), 309-317. ONeill, T.
A., & Hastings, S. E. (2011). Explaining workplace deviance
behavior with more than just the Big Five. Personality &
Individual Differences, 50(2), 268-273. Parnell, J. A., &
Singer, M. G. (2001). The organizational charlatan scale:
Developing an instrument to measure false performance. Journal Of
Management Development, 20(5), 441.Porter, Gayle. "Work Ethic and
Ethical Work: Distortions in the American Dream." Journal of
Business Ethics 96.4 (2010): 535-50. Web. Townsend, S. S. M., and
L. L. Thompson. "Implications of the Protestant Work Ethic for
Cooperative and Mixed-motive Teams." Organizational Psychology
Review 4.1 (2014): 4-26. Web.
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
New York: Scribner, 1958. Print.