Corporate Deviance and American Bankruptcy - Essay Example

Corporate deviance and American bankruptcy Does the enormous increase of personal bankruptcy today suggest that "Americans have lost their sense of shame" as many government officials believe? Filing for bankruptcy was regarded as extremely shameful in traditional American society. However, filing for bankruptcy is no longer perceived to deviance. The shame and stigma is seemingly less compelling. Bankruptcy is increasingly becoming common and the stigma appears to have faded. The levels of bankruptcy have risen fivefold in two decades (Robinson & Murphy, 2009). Debt undertaking and consumerism affected the perceptions of the American society. This shifted the blame from the petitioner to other circumstances. The traditional Americans reviled borrowing money for consumption. The influence of the church was strong. The level of restraint from the people was perceived to be the strength of the government. The use of personal credit was considered unpopular (Kidwell & Martin, 2005). Therefore, failure to pay debt was viewed to be antagonizing (Mann, 2002). The savings among Americans started to decline as consumerism gained momentum. From 1960, there was more emphasis on fulfilling desires rather than meeting needs. Traditionally, American has viewed personal bankruptcy with contempt and a sense of negativity. In the past, persons petitioning for bankruptcy were imprisoned. The stigma towards bankruptcy has been fading and the public is developing sympathy for people filing for bankruptcy. The trend began in 1960 when dramatic rise in cases of bankruptcy was reported. The change of the public attitude has been attributed to declining morals and shame in the American society. A recent study noted that there has been significant shift from 1960s in terms of public perception towards the persons filing from bankruptcy. In the past, bankruptcy was perceived to the petitioners fault. It was rarely associated with external factors like family dissolution, economic conditions and medical disasters (Ménard et al, 2011). The public attributed bankruptcy to personal failure like overindulgence and overspending. This was against the traditionally established norms of honor (Kidwell & Martin, 2005). However, government officials, jurists and scholars acknowledge that the traditional perception of stigma has declined. The same was acknowledged by the popular culture report. Few people are expressing remorse for filing for bankruptcy. The petitioners are appearing to project a relaxed attitude. This has been acknowledged by judges and legislators. The stigma was perceived to be a deterrent measure for stigma (Robinson & Murphy, 2009). According to a study published by the New York Times indicated that that unlike the trend in the last 14 decades, the public were willing to shift the blame for bankruptcy. The public began accepting that financial failure from uncontrollable factors like systemic financial failure can lead to personal bankruptcy. There has been a perceived weakness in the enforcement of the bankruptcy norms and mechanisms. There is a fear of external sanctions of non-legal nature. The internalization of guilt and non-legal sanctions has continued to reduce (Ménard et al, 2011). This is because of the weaknesses of the trust relationships between the public and credit market. The decline of shaming or ostracizing of the bankrupts has changed the face and perception of bankruptcy (Ménard et al, 2011). The weak enforcement mechanism in United States has caused the people to imagine filing for bankruptcy should be taken to be normal (Thio & Calhoun, 2010). There has been an increase in the consumerism perception and debt undertaking (Mann, 2002). The norms of the society and continuing to evolve and people are becoming more tolerant and receptive to the bankrupts. The social devaluation for people deviating from social norms constituted the stigma. The social norms are non legal issues. The evolving norms have been inspired by the financial distress in the American society (Minkes, 2008). This has caused the change of perceptions and conduct. The attribution theory suggests that when the society attributed bankruptcy to individual failure, then the bankrupt is stigmatized with is manifested through neglect (Simon, 2012). However, if the society perceives that the bankruptcy is attributed to uncontrollable factors, then positive attitudes and sympathy is developed to the individuals in question. This can lead to the emergence of controllable and uncontrollable stigma (Kidwell & Martin, 2005). The rise of the civil rights in the early 1960s gave birth to decline in personal responsibilities. This is a tendency to shift blame to external causes. Filing for bankruptcy was traditionally perceived to be an indication of moral depravity, fraud and deceit (Minkes, 2008). This attitude was associated with the reasons for bankruptcy (Minkes, 2008). High inflation rates, unemployment, recession started raising the economic uncertainty in the United States. People started to experience stock market losses and foreclosures. The personal debt was soaring and the unforeseen hardships were affecting ordinary households. This changed the perception the society towards bankrupts. The retail industry in the United States advertised on the premise of fulfilling desires rather than saving (Clinard & Meier, 2011). The credit industry rose and consumerism increased (Gerhardt, 2009). This made debts to become acceptable socially. Therefore, the perception that it is shameful to be indebt gradually started to decrease (Minkes, 2008). The attitude toward bankruptcy was changed. Americas blamed bankruptcy to financial failures, Medicare and consumption. The accumulation of debt for genuine consumption purposes became acceptable by the masses. The legislations were altered to accommodate the evolving societal norms. Laws which are friendly to the petitioners were introduced. This included laws that targeted discrimination against people who has suffered bankruptcy. The law expected the society to be less judgmental to the people filing for bankruptcy (Kidwell & Martin, 2005). The media began to support the emerging societal norms (Carr, 2011). Celebrities and masses were filing for bankruptcy in large numbers. The media had made it easy for ordinary Americans to file for bankruptcy. The shift of blame is the most fundamental change that gave rise to societal change of perceptions 2. What are some of the impacts of corporate deviance? Can we possibly end corporate deviance? Reduce it? Defend your answer. Deviant workplace behavior is defined as a voluntary violation of organizational norms and wellbeing. It is seen as antisocial or counterproductive behavior (Mann, 2002). The behavior is divided in to positive and negative categories. It ranges from absenteeism, withdrawal and sexual harassment among others. In some instances in includes vandalism and corporate sabotage. The behavior is caused by multiple factors which include too much supervision, group think, and illusion of morality. The behavior has negative impacts in the organizational processes (Minkes, 2008). The deviant behavior leads to organizational sabotage and unhealthy interactions. The deviant behavior is associated with enormous costs (Chirayath et al, 2002). The deviant behaviors in the workplace cost the United States substantial amounts. Four every three four employees, one is reported to have stolen once from the employer. The incidences of workplace deviant behavior are soaring. About 96% of the total companies report incidences of deviant behavior. Studies show up to 75% of the workforce have concessionary engaged in a form of deviant behavior. These include computer fraud and theft. The employee theft alone is estimated to cost the United States economy over $50 billion per year. This amount can go up to $200 billion or drop to $6 billion annually depending of the reported cases. The victims of deviant behavior in the workplace are reported to suffer from stress or stress-related disorders. This leads of a decline in productivity (Mann, 2002). The behavior is known to cause high turnover rates and loss of work time. These realities have caused organizations to rethink their approach towards the behavior are look for preventive measures (Thio & Calhoun, 2010). Interpersonal deviant behavior is between individuals working in and organization. It involves acting rudely, physical aggression and belittling others (Chirayath et al, 2002). Organizational deviance involves individuals and the organization (Thio & Calhoun, 2010). It incorporates behaviors like theft, sabotage etc. these behaviors have a profound effect on the organization as a whole. The organizational climate in a workplace can be used to determine the nature of unethical behavior. The organizational climate entails shared perceptions and ethical issues that affect the organizational behaviors. Pressure for profit from the society and organization causes some of the employees to engage in deviant acts. This is done to maintain illusionary pursuit for the expected goals. This leads to illusion of control. This is an unrealistic perception arising from cognitive bias. The perception suggests that employees have power to control situations that happen by chance (Thio & Calhoun, 2010). The individuals within an organization begin to adopt a cognitive behavior driven by bias or deception. The employees believe that they have the power to alter their luck (Kidwell & Martin, 2005). When employees fail to meet the organizational standards or fail to acknowledge that the goals are unattainable, they turn to deviant conduct believing that they have the power to alter the societal or organizational expectations (Kidwell & Martin, 2005). This leads to a risk taking and gambling behavior in order to change the future negative outcomes of their behavior. Research shows that individuals progress through stages into the deviant behavior or culture. The workplace socialization causes people to learn the organizational language. This could the most appropriate state to uproot organizational or workplace deviant behavior. Workplace culture that leads to strain, power and materialism is likely to cause heightened pressure for deviance in a bid for survival (Simon, 2012). The workplace deviance can be viewed a mental conditioning that arises from organizational pressures and dynamics. The process of indoctrination of individuals to the organizational culture can shape the behavior of individuals. Job dissatisfaction has been blamed for employee unethical behavior. Counterproductive behavior is known to come from dissatisfaction among employees. This can result for replacement costs and low productivity. Organizational strategies can be used as a strategy to control behaviors. There is a correlation between work performance, attitude and job satisfaction (Thio & Calhoun, 2010). Most of the attitude behaviors are seen as a response to psychological frustrations arising from organizational activity. Studies show that team members are better placed to monitors and evaluate the behaviors of the peers. Organizations are using team building as a means of ensuring the causes of organizational or workplace deviance is minimized. Many organizations are becoming organic. This gives the employees room for improvement and self actualization in the process of carrying out organizational duties (Simon, 2012). Organic organizations are run at the level of employees. The management of the organization is duty bound to give the organization an atmosphere for performance. This is different from the traditional or conventional bureaucratic organizational systems. The top down organizational leadership is known to lock employees out of the decision making process leading to resentment among the lower cadre workers. This resentment results to corporate deviance and other counterproductive behavior. Organizational restructuring is necessary in the process addressing the employee corporate deviant behaviors. The deviant behavior is a product of multiple personal or societal factors (Thio & Calhoun, 2010). This makes it difficult to eradicate it. However, the behavior can be managed through organizational frameworks and training. The process must move from fulfilling the individual altruistic to organizational intents. Teamwork approach can be used to address belongingness and physiological needs. Organizational excellence calls for psychological and physical commitment from employees. A deviant person is a worker perceived to have moved outside group’s margins. Production deviance entails leaving earlier than required or taking excessive breaks (Thio & Calhoun, 2010). In some cases, the employees perform slowly and waste organizational resources. This can extend to property deviance that may include stealing or sabotaging equipment. Favoritism and unhealthy competitions are classified as political corporate deviance. Organizations can reduce the extent of deviance by ensuring the workplace relationships are reflected in the off duty interactive sessions. This may include showing concern to employee’s family especially in times of need. Corporate social responsibility plays a critical role in the formulation and shaping the employees attitudes towards the society and other workmates (Ménard et al, 2011). Research also indicates that interpersonal deviance leads to organizational deviance behavior. Therefore, employee attitudes, behavior and socialization play a central role in controlling corporate deviance. Workplace deviance should be seen as a response to dissatisfaction. The root cause of the behaviors needs to the addressed before it can be eradicated. Therefore, organizational management must deal with the root causes of these challenges rather than dealing with the superficial problems. Solving corporate deviance calls for involvement of multiple stakeholders. Employees perceive whilst blowing as negative workplace behavior. This depends on the circumstances and context. Some of the employees have defiant role models. Frustrations are said to cause workplace aggression. The psychological state of the employees can reduce or improve the efforts of eradicating the workplace deviance. Leaders engaging in errant behaviors are said to encourage the same to the junior workers (Thio & Calhoun, 2010). Organizational managers must set an excellence example to lower cadre employees. This includes being motivational and inspirational. Research indicates that workplace structure can lead to workplace deviance. The level of organization and intensity of the tasks can stretch employees capabilities are attitudes. Involving employees in strategic management and planning can lessen the intensity of the frustrations or deviant behavior. Organizations must have robust justice systems that promote equity and team play. Failing t punish employee deviant behavior encourages others to embrace it. The talent and reward management systems can be used to encourage professional and ethical behavior (Clinard & Meier, 2011). The position of authority can be used to influence employee behavior. Adapting specific organizational behavior or culture is one of the most effective ways of dealing with the issue. Positive workplace behaviors can lead to lessening the levels of corporate deviance. Creating and unitary organizational structure demands a clear philosophy and corporate strategy. This means that employees must understand the ethical values and the mission of the organization. Encouraging innovation and competitiveness is a long term strategy of eradicating corporate deviance. Organizations are expected to group the acceptable norms and behaviors within the workforce. Different cultural aspects in an organization need to be harmonized. This leads to an inclusive organizational climate that attracts less deviance. References Carr, T. A. (2011). How to survive and prosper after a financial misfortune: A complete guide to your legal rights after bankruptcy, foreclosure, repossession, and eviction. Ocala, Fla: Atlantic Pub. Group. Chirayath, V., Eslinger, K., & Zolt, E. (2002). The Role of the Business Person in the Fabric of Society. Journal of Business Ethics,, 41(1), 131-140. Clinard, M. B., & Meier, R. F. (2011). Sociology of deviant behavior. Belmont: CA: Wadsworth. Gerhardt, M. (2009). Consumer bankruptcy regimes and credit default in the US and Europe: A comparative study. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies. Kidwell, R. E., & Martin, C. L. (2005). Managing organizational deviance. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Mann, B. H. (2002). Republic of debtors: Bankruptcy in the age of American independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Minkes, J., & Minkes, A. L. (2008). Corporate and white-collar crime. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Ménard, 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-revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 43(4), 309-317. Robinson, M., & Murphy, D. (2009). Greed is good: Maximization and elite deviance in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Simon, D. (2012). Elite Deviance + Mysearchlab With Etext. Pearson College Div. Thio, A., & Calhoun, T. C. (2010). Readings in deviant behavior (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Read More