Internal terrorists: the terrorists inside organizations

Fleet, David D. Van; Fleet, Ella W. Van

doi:10.1108/02683940610713280

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The gang at work and intra-organizational ganging dynamics constructs may also be relevant to the psychology, psychodynamics, and political science literatures which have studied related "dark side" topics such as bullying (Waddell, 2007), psychotic organizations (Sievers, 1999), high toxicity leadership (Goldman, 2006), internal terrorists (Van Fleet & Van Fleet, 2006) and "guerilla groups" (Zawodny, 1962).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dark Side of Groups

Stein

Pinto

2011

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to develop our understanding of the gang aspects of work organizations. By applying a psychoanalytic lens, we formulate the ideas of the 'gang at work' and 'intra-organizational ganging dynamics', thereby initiating a research stream on the "dark side of groups". We illustrate our conceptual development by drawing on the Enron case thereby contributing unique group-level insights that complement other analyses of the phenomenon. We conclude by identifying areas for further research, and arguing that gang phenomena may also have been present among many of the key organizations at the centre of the credit crisis, such as Lehman Brothers. Key Words: psychodynamics, ganging, Enron The dark side of groups: A 'gang at work' in Enron 3Over the last few years management scholars have been increasingly focused on the "dark side" of various aspects of management and business. Interest areas in this stream include: "the dark side of organizational behaviour" (Griffin & O'Leary-Kelly, 2004), "the dark side of organizations" (Vaughan, 1999), the "dark side of leadership" (Conger, 1990), the "dark side of new organizational forms" (Victor & Stephens, 1994), the "dark side of internal capital markets" (Scharfstein & Stein, 2000), "the dark side of social capital" (Deuchar, 2008), and the "dark side of high self-esteem" (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). Although these interest areas are at various levels of analysis, the group-level is conspicuous by its absence. We contribute to this stream by focusing on the "dark side of groups", and drawing on the psychodynamics literature, develop two constructs, i.e., the gang at work and intra-organizational ganging, which we illustrate using Enron as a case study.Much has already been written about the 2001 Enron collapse (Boje, Rosile, Durant, & Luhman, 2004;Bryce, 2002;Cruver, 2002;Fox, 2003;Hamilton, 2006;McLean & Elkind, 2003;Levine, 2005;Partnoy, 2003;Stein, 2007;Swartz & Watkins, 2003), and this new study therefore requires some justification. First, as the biggest-ever corporate failure at that point in history, Enron is a case of considerable significance and complexity, and we believe the understanding of what transpired at Enron is by no means complete. Second, although a variety of perspectives have been applied to the Enron case, the group-level has been relatively neglected (see O'Connor, 2002 for an exception). We argue in this paper that this neglect is particularly unfortunate, and show how group-level aspects played a key role in Enron's demise. Third, we believe the lessons from Enron can be generalized to other 'dark side' situations including the 2008 credit crisis, and we provide here an indication of some of the parallels that exist between these scenarios.Our theorizing is built on the Kleinian psychoanalytic theory which distinguishes between work groups and gangs (Bion, 1961) and their corresponding group and gang states The dark side of groups: A 'gang at work' in Enron 4 of mind (Canham, 2002). We are therefore attempting...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dark Side of Groups

Stein

Pinto

2011

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Surprisingly, a large number of employees believe that taking goods from their companies for personal use is not considered theft (Appelbaum et al, 2006). Despite the fact that a large percentage of employees commit unethical behavior regardless of their position in their organizations, researchers have called for more research to precisely identify patterns among specific employee demographics (Van Fleet & Van Fleet, 2006).…”

Section: Significance Of Employee Theftmentioning

confidence: 99%

Employee Theft among College Students in the Workforce

Ruankaew¹

2019

IBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Employee theft costs organizations billions of dollars annually. Despite the severity of employee theft, previous research has not focused on the specific demographics of employees who commit this crime. The number of college students in the workforce has increased over the years; thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the serious problem of employee theft, particularly in relation to the college student population. A survey was used to collect data from college students to indicate employee theft activities among them. Employee theft activities were categorized as follows: time theft, property theft, embezzlement, pilferage, and data and trade secret theft. Survey responses from 92 students indicated that the majority committed time theft, followed by property theft, pilferage, data and trade secret theft, and embezzlement, respectively. This study adds valuable information for businesses and practitioners to understand the severity of employee theft among the increasing number of college students in the workforce.

show abstract

“…More recent and inimical variants include 'service sabotage' (Harris and Ogbonna 2006), in which the employee's (cf. 'service brand saboteur'; Wallace and de Chernatony 2008) behaviors are intentionally designed to affect service and are likely to affect firm profitability and growth as well, 'insider threat' (Pfleeger et al 2010), which refers to individuals with legitimate access to an organization's computer systems and networks, who behave in ways that put data, systems, organizations and even business viability at risk, and 'internal terrorists' (Van Fleet and Van Fleet 2006).…”

Section: Individualmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the Content Domain of Workplace Aggression: A Three‐level Aggressor–target Taxonomy

Pinto

2013

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workplace aggression (WPA) has been largely considered to be a phenomenon involving individuals. However, higher‐level entities, such as groups and organizations, can also be aggressors (and targets). This aspect of WPA has not been given much scholarly attention and, even in cases where it has been studied, it has not been considered to be part of the WPA stream. By considering aggressors and targets at all three levels of analysis, the author attempts simultaneously to expand and integrate the WPA stream, draw attention to WPA involving higher‐level entities, and provide a more organization‐oriented (rather than individual‐oriented) perspective on WPA. This novel comprehensive perspective is provided through a taxonomy of nine aggressor–target combinations of WPA which can be grouped into three multilevel categories of WPA, i.e. lateral level WPA, upward level WPA, and downward level WPA. Implications for theory, research and practice of these conceptualizations are discussed.

show abstract

Internal terrorists: the terrorists inside organizations

Cited by 17 publications

References 18 publications

The Dark Side of Groups

The Dark Side of Groups

Employee Theft among College Students in the Workforce

Expanding the Content Domain of Workplace Aggression: A Three‐level Aggressor–target Taxonomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About