PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the impact on organizations of both negative deviant workplace behaviors – those that violate organizational norms, policies or internal rules – and positive deviant workplace behaviors – those that honorably violate them. The reasons why people engage in such behaviors are explored, along with some of the reasons why organizations allow such behaviors to thrive within their walls. A typology of positive workplace behavior is determined and is compared with other pro‐social behaviors such as: whistleblowing, corporate social responsibility, organizational citizenship behavior and innovation. Possible solutions to overcome problems associated with negative deviant behavior in the workplace are examined, along with how to promote positive deviant behavior in the workplace.Design/methodology/approachA literature review on current positive and negative deviant workplace behavior was conducted.FindingsRegardless of whether negative deviance is overt or implicit, it has negative consequences for the entity and its affiliates. The estimated impact of the widespread theft by employees on the US economy has been reported to be $50 billion annually. Toxic organizations depend on employees that are dishonest and deceitful in order to be successful. Furthermore, it is found that psychological empowerment is likely to be a key enabler of positive deviance.Originality/valueIt is proposed that the survival of an organization in the face of negative deviant employees is possible with a remodeling of an organization's norms, attitudes and social values to a specific organizational culture centered on important ethical core values; by addressing value differences between employee subcultures, and more frequent background checks when hiring. Adhering tightly to organizational norms may preclude positive deviant behaviors that would be beneficial to the organization, and thus employee psychological empowerment is recommended.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to gather current (2011) arguments and counterarguments in support of the classic change management model proposed by John P. Kotter in his 1996 book Leading Change. His work was based on his personal business and research experience, and did not reference any outside sources that has questioned its value. A current perspective on a limited tested model aims to be a focus of this paper. Design/methodology/approach -The literature on change management was reviewed for each of the eight steps defined in Kotter's model, to review how much support each of these steps had, individually and collectively, in 15 years of literature. Findings -The review found support for most of the steps, although no formal studies were found covering the entire spectrum and structure of the model. Kotter's change management model appears to derive its popularity more from its direct and usable format than from any scientific consensus on the results. However the model has several limitations, that are identified, impacting upon its universal acceptance and popularity. Research limitations/implications -Further studies should examine the validity of Kotter's model as a whole. More importantly, change management research should form a greater link with stakeholders in order to translate current research into a format usable by practitioners. Practical implications -No evidence was found against Kotter's change management model and it remains a recommendable reference. This paper attempts to "test" the "how-to-do-change management" with empirical and practitioner literature that was not evident in the original text. The model would be most useful as an implementation planning tool, but complementary tools should also be used during the implementation process to adapt to contextual factors or obstacles. Originality/value -Based upon a thorough review, this is the first formal review of Kotter's change management model, 15 years after its introduction.

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to perform a literature review of the existing body of empirically‐based studies relating to the causes and implications of how the ethical climate of a company ultimately affects the incidence of workplace deviance.Design/methodology/approachThe article examines the issue of ethical contexts and climates within organizations, as measured by the Ethical Climate Questionnaire developed in 1987 by Victor and Cullen , and their implications in the daily work lives of participants. The causes of unethical behaviour, including the presence of counter norms, the environment in which a firm operates, and organizational commitment, as well as the manifestation of this behaviour in the form of workplace deviance, are reviewed. Finally, current trends in preventing workplace deviance are investigated, including promoting a strong culture of ethics, and the use of “toxic handlers”, individuals who take it upon themselves to handle the frustrations of fellow employees.FindingsClearly, unethical and deviant behaviour problems are of great concern to organizations, which must take steps to solve them, at the same time as fostering strong positive ethical cultures. Feels that further studies are needed using more definitive and qualitative measurements to learn more about these behaviours.Originality/valueThis article would be useful to those who wish to obtain an overview of the current literature, specifically readers who do not specialize in the subject area.

It is commonly asserted that qualitative research in the organizational sciences lacks the rigor and objectivity of the quantitative approach. Case studies, while commonly used for educational purposes, have been viewed in a less favorable light in terms of research. This paper suggests that case studies represent an important research track in organizational science, not only as a method of generating hypotheses for quantitative studies, but for generating and testing theory. The paper will develop arguments in support of case study research, will highlight particular issues and constraints relating to case study research, and will offer recommendations for the use of this method. Empirical research advances only when it is accompanied by logical thinking, and not when it is treated as a mechanistic endeavor-Richard Yin, 1984.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.