Positive Deviance and Continuous Change
How the interrelatedness of determinants influence positive deviant behavior during organizational change
H. van der Molen (2577402) Master Thesis
MSc. Business Administration: Change Management Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen Supervisor: Dr. O.P. Roemeling
Co-assessor: Dr. C. Reezigt Word-count: 10.371 words
17-06-2017
Abstract
Table of content
Introduction 2
Literature review 4
Positive Organizational Scholarship 4
Positive Organizational Change 6
Positive deviance 7 Conceptual framework 10 Research methodology 11 Research method 11 Research setting 12 Data collection 13 Data analysis 15 Results 15
Norm of referent group 15
Positive deviant behavior 17
Determinants of positive deviant behavior 18
Interrelatedness between determinants 19
Summary results 20
Discussion and conclusions 21
Research question and propositions 21
Practical implications 22
Limitations and further research 22
Conclusions 23
References 24
Appendix A – Interview protocol 27
Introduction
In organizational science focus has largely been on organizational outcomes and on overcoming barriers such as resistance. An underlying question is why some employees flourish while others do not. (Spreitzer & Cameron, 2012). With the emergence of the Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) perspective, an increasing number of studies have been conducted to explore the process of negative and positive organizational elements that lead to positive deviant behavior, flourishing employees and excellent performance (Cameron & Caza, 2004).
In the past, the focus of research has illuminated mostly negative aspects of behavioral processes; positive processes and dynamics in organizations, such as positive emotions, virtues and engagement have previously been largely omitted (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008). Over the past decade, the focus of research in organizational science has realigned to incorporate broader views and have, for instance, come to recognize resistance as a potentially useful resource (Ford, Ford and D’Amelio, 2008). In addition, POS can be used to re-evaluate and update models and theories to fit our modern organizational society, with its increased emphasis on social purpose in personal and work life (Nilsson, 2015). However, the constructs of POS itself need more research to become a mature and functional field of knowledge, to which this study aims to contribute (Vadera, Pratt and Mishra, 2016).
POS underlies a new change perspective, namely Positive Organizational Change (PosOrgCh) (Cameron & McNaughtan, 2014). PosOrgCh provides an alternative lens to evaluate and develop change approaches by exploring which organizational aspects should be developed further, rather than which aspects form a problem. Individual and organizational strengths are considered and opportunities to enhance energy and vitality in the organization are explored, i.e., how can positive change help an organization achieve excellence (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003).
Positive deviance has become one of the main constructs to empirically explore, test and solidify the POS and PosOrgCh theory (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004; Roberts, 2006). However, the process of gaining deeper understanding in the construct has been challenging. Since the early nineties, certain trends and events have influenced the progress in the development of the construct. Researchers have struggled to develop a unified definition and a clear positioning of positive deviance to related concepts, such as citizenship and relational coordination. As a result, the literature field has become scattered with extensive articles on sub-elements of positive deviance which are unrelated to each other (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004). In 2013, Vadera, Pratt and Mishra have addressed this issue by reviewing articles on positive deviance in the period 1988 to 2012 and integrating the findings in an overarching framework. Based on this framework the interrelatedness can be explored between the common determinants that influence the occurrence of positive deviant behavior (Vadera et al., 2013).
Over the past few years, research on positive deviance has focused on the application of positive deviance in other fields of study and as a practical strategy for organizational problems by discovering positive deviant solutions that already exist within organizations (e.g. Zbierowski, 2015, Herington & Fliert, 2017). However, more recently, Mertens, Recker, Kohlborn and Kummer (2016) have revised the theory development of positive deviance and have further conceptualized the construct, providing strategies to study positive deviance more thoroughly and to enable cross-examining of results. Therefore, in this current study, we intend to follow the strategy suggested by Mertens et al. (2016) whenever possible to stimulate further integration of findings.
Currently, it seems that only limited research is conducted on positive constructs during organizational change. However, authors such as Avey, Wernsing and Luthans (2008) promote the exploration of how changing situations and change projects influence the construct positive deviance. Furthermore, the shift from change as a disruptive, uncommon endeavor towards the need to be continuously change-ready and highly responsive towards internal and external forces (Nilsson, 2016; Tkaczyk, 2015), has increased the urgency to more thoroughly study the implications of organizational change on positive deviance.
enhancing our knowledge on these aspects, organizations can use these insights to better synchronize their organizational elements and better respond to internal and external pressures. Therefore, the specific goal of this study is to better understand these issues which leads to the following main research question: “How does the interrelatedness of determinants influence
positive deviance in a continuous change context?”
The outline of this paper is as follows. First, existing literature on the theories and concepts introduced in the introduction are reviewed. Next, the research methodology is presented, divided into research setting, data collection and data analysis. Then, the results are presented. Finally, a discussion and conclusion section will give insights in the lessons learned, provide implications for theory and practice of outcomes, and show the limitations and opportunities for further research based on this study. The study closes with a conclusion based on our findings.
Literature review
This current study is positioned in the discipline of Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS). As the POS perspective is relatively new, it is first introduced. Then the concepts under study will be elaborated upon to provide a thorough understanding of the current literature and the challenges that are still to be addressed. The chapter concludes with the theoretical framework that underlies the case study.
Positive Organizational Scholarship
Authors such as Camaron and Caza (2004) recognize that positive phenomena have been studied for decades, albeit very limited in relation to the total published articles. Furthermore, they argue that POS is not isolated yet can expand and enrich current theories. However, critics, such as Hackman (2009), claim the contrary both on the recognition of former research as in the grounding of research in history. Two explanations of this discrepancy can be found. First, we would argue that Hackman (2009) not fully applies the broad meaning of POS and the meaning of mutual integration of positive and negative phenomena. Hackman (2009) state that many authors on positive phenomena are driven by a need to find alternatives for dysfunction, for instance, job enrichment as a response to dysfunctional scientific management. However, the underlying mechanism of POS is to synchronize organizational and individual elements to achieve excellence (Calarco, 2011). There is a profound difference in using a positive element to disguise a dysfunction versus acknowledging the interplay of demanding and challenging circumstances, personal struggles and the occurrence of positive behavior to help overcome such struggles (Roberts, 2006). Second, in favor of the critics, the challenge to achieve a mature literature field is immense if not impossible, because POS touches every organizational aspect and on every organizational level. The combination of POS being an umbrella term (Roberts, 2006), the struggle to clearly define a unified definition and positioning of constructs, and the speed and energy with which authors have responded to the call for research has indeed led to a scattered, unstructured literature field in that time. However, in the last decade these issues have been addressed (e.g. Vadera et al., 2013).
Despite these challenges, authors have successfully used POS to re-evaluate existing concepts and have added new insights (e.g. Calarco, 2011, Hoffmann-Burdzińska & Rutkowska, 2015, Sharma & Sharma, 2015; Nilsson, 2015; Zbierowski, 2015l Stahl, Miska, Lee & De Luque, 2017). Nilsson (2015) has synthesized institutional work and POS which led to the insight that institutional patterns can be created to express and legitimize experiential surfacing and social goods. Zbierowski (2015) has used POS to focus specifically on the positive elements of antecedents and consequences of entrepreneurship. This approach led to a more broad, overarching perspective in which the well-being of and the overall human function where placed in the center.
Positive Organizational Change
One aspect of organizational science is change. The perspectives on and the need to adapt to increasing changing circumstances have evolved over time (Tkaczyk, 2015). Change is not an exception anymore, as it was treated before. Change should be an integrated element in organizations as they need to be continuously change-ready to survive in modern society (Tkaczyk, 2015). This inquires a different approach for studying change theories and change methods. For example, certain earlier change approaches follow a rational and linear approach, such as Lewin’s 3-step model (Tkaczyk, 2015). This model might be suitable for bounded change projects, however when an organization fully integrates change in its day-to-day activities, the applicability lowers. The continuous nature of integrated change prohibits ‘freezing’. Other approaches contain more possibilities to cope with organizational dynamics, e.g. by adopting an evolutionary approach as did Weick in his sensemaking model (Van der Ven & Poole, 1995). However, these approaches are still problem-focused and try to find solutions for the negative mechanisms that withhold organizations to reach their full potential, such as employees’ resistance and unwanted behaviors (Cameron & Caza, 2004).
In line with POS, a new change perspective emerged, namely Positive Organizational Change (PosOrgCh). A review by Cameron and McNaughtan (2014) showed that up to the year 2004, the articles on negative motivated, problem-focused change strongly dominated articles on positive motivated change (Cameron & McNaughtan, 2014). They also noted that the research on the latter has increased radically in the last decade, which illustrates the grown interest and the gained influence of this perspective. Furthermore, it revealed that the reason for the imbalance was a caused by deliberately ignoring certain variables and relationship, such as the effects of virtues in organizations, compassion and forgiveness and positive deviance, due to an extreme focus on organizational outputs such as profit (Cameron and McNaughtan, 2014).
PosOrgCh has implications for change theories, change approaches and change agents. For example, Tkaczyk (2015) argues that organizations “need to change the way they change.
They need to reinvent themselves and learn to remake themselves into more energized and design-driven enterprises” (p.536). Tkaczyk has contributed to this call by re-evaluating the
study, the focus is on the alternative lens PosOrgCh provides to update or expand existing theories and frameworks.
Authors have discovered a missing element in the study of PosOrgCh (e.g. Roberts, 2006; Nilsson, 2015). Current organizational theories and studies, including studies on POS and PosOrgCh are mostly synchronic, focusing on a specific point in time. However, following the line of thought of the PosOrgCh perspective, it seems more logic to have a diachronic approach (Nilsson, 2015). By including aspects on how organizations and its members evolve and develop over time, the dynamics of the interrelatedness of elements might be disclosed and more knowledge might be generated on how one element can set another element in motion (Roberts, 2006). This study aims to contribute to this shift in approach by explicitly including organizational history into the data gathering.
Positive deviance
As mentioned before, positive deviance is amongst the constructs that have been largely ignored in organizational studies. Nevertheless, it is one of the main constructs of POS and PosOrgCh as the ‘positive’ in POS refers to the study of positive deviance within organizations (Spreitzer & Cameron, 2012) and has gained a lot of empirical attention after the introduction of POS. To review this positive deviance thoroughly, the construct is evaluated in general first, followed by a more detailed analysis of the elements of positive deviance. Then, the framework from Vadera et al. (2013) is explained and the current knowledge on the introduced aspects. Lastly, positive deviance and change are synthesized and a conceptual framework is presented.
The construct ‘positive deviance’. The construct is used both as a theoretical construct and a practical strategy (Herington & Fliert, 2017). In this study, we take a theoretical perspective on the construct of positive deviance. A commonly accepted definition of positive deviance as a theoretical construct is: “Intentional behaviors that significantly depart from the
norms of a referent group in honorable ways” (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003, p. 841). An
example of positive deviant behavior is when a nurse that, to make sure a patient receives the right tube, puts out an urgent order without the obliged consent of the manager. However, these behaviors can only be marked as deviant when they go against current organizational rules, and these behaviors are prohibited even in emergence cases. This implies that both rule-breaking and proactive behavior can be classified as positive deviant behavior depending on the norm.
(Maarse, Mur-Veenman & Spreeuwenberg, 1997). In organizations with only few formal rules and where members are stimulated to violate these rules to find innovative solutions, behavior such as positive rule-breaking and being proactive is not considered to be deviant (Galprin, 2012).
The elements of positive deviance. The current research on positive deviance in the workplace is scattered as there are different elements of the construct that can be the interest of study. Mertens, Recker, Kohlborn and Kummer (2016) have analyzed the academic works and developed a framework to expose these elements and help structure the literature field (Figure 1). In this framework, it is argued that positive deviance can be evaluated by deviant behavior or by deviant outcomes, which both have their own implications for the way to study the construct. Furthermore, studies can be focusing on the determinants of the positive deviance, on the consequences of the positive deviance or on both. As the aim of this research is to contribute to the knowledge on the occurrence of positive deviant behavior, the focus is narrowed down to 1) determinants, that lead to 2) deviant behavior (see marked in Figure 1).
Figure 1 Framework for the study of positive deviance, retrieved from Mertens et al. (2016)
An integrated framework on the determinants of positive deviant behavior. Especially since the introduction of POS, many authors have contributed to gain a better understanding of the construct positive deviance (e.g. Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004; Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006). Two influential authors are Spreitzer and Sonenshein, who in 2004 presented a first categorization of determinants of positive deviant behavior, extracted from related theoretical constructs, such as perspective-taking and intrinsic motivation (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004). The authors listed the following determinants: sense of meaning, focus on the other, self-determination, personal efficacy and courage. Since then, extended research has been undertaken to further explore and test these findings and enhance the knowledge on determinants of positive deviant behavior. However, the alignment between the studies is concise. Therefore, Vadera, Pratt and Mishra (2013) performed literature review to evaluate the state of the literary field.
Vadera et al. (2013) argue that, although there already is considerable knowledge on individual positive deviant behaviors and its determinants, the scattered literature field has obstructed the study of common causes and processes. In their framework (Figure 2), Vaderea et al. (2013 have integrated both positive deviant behaviors as well as the determinants, to provide a framework that entail the common features of positive deviant behavior and its determinants. The determinants are categorized on organizational, supervisor, group- and individual/job-focused level.
The framework provides an important overview that can help to further explore common determinants of positive deviant behavior. One study that is of importance to further conceptualize the construct positive deviance has been conducted by Galperin (2012). The study focuses on the determinants of deviant behavior in the workplace, divided into individual, situational and cultural factors. The author showed a relation between individual factors and context, such as that people high on efficacy will persist longer than people low on self-efficacy despite constraining factors from the environment. Thus, Galperin (2012) provides insights in how the determinants of positive deviant behavior can interrelate. This fits with the explanation of Cameron et al. (2003), that the interplay between determinants and obstacles lead to better performance. Therefore, in our study the individual (I) and contextual (C) levels are combined with the determinants in the framework of Vadera et al. (see Figure 2).
The construct positive deviance and change. One aspect that the framework of Vadera et al. (2013) does not address is the impact of organizational change on the construct. In today’s world, organizations need to change constantly (Tkaczyk, 2015). Following the PosOrgCh-stream, change is a process in which events can trigger certain behaviors (Camaron & Caza, 2004; Galperin, 2012), which thus can provide useful insights in the occurrence of positive deviant behavior during continuous organizational change. In the change literature, recent studies do acknowledge that organizational processes are interdependent and iterative, such as demonstrated in The Choice Management-Change Management model (Burnes, 2014, 429). Hence, there is a need to increase our knowledge on the influence change has on constructs such as positive deviance.
Therefore, in this current study, a contribution will be made to explore this extra time/change dimension by explicitly focusing on the occurrence of positive deviant behavior during organizational change. By exploring how certain interrelated determinants stimulate the occurrence of positive deviant behavior, organizations obtain more insights in how to synthesize organizational aspects during change and acknowledge that behaviors are not fixed.
Conceptual framework
Figure 3 Conceptual framework
Research methodology
This section provides insights in the research method, research setting, data collection and data analysis. Within these paragraph, the research quality criteria are integrated.
Research method
In this study, the proposed strategy by Mertens et al. (2016) is followed. The authors state that the most suitable research method must be selected, based on the chosen conceptualization of the construct positive deviant. As explained in the literature review section, the purpose of this study is to gain deeper insights in the determinants of positive deviant behavior. Therefore, qualitative research is favorable because it allows the exploration of behavior in context (Yin, 2011; Mertens et al., 2016).
Although positive deviant behavior can be triggered by personal, group or contextual factors, the focus of this study is on how interrelatedness of determinants stimulate the occurrence of positive deviant behavior. Thus, the focus of this research is on the individual level.
Strategy for the study of positive deviant behavior. Vadera et al. (2013) provide overview in the common determinants of positive behavior to further explore how the determinants influence the occurrence of positive deviant behavior. That is the ‘what’ to study. In addition, the ‘how’ to study is addressed by Mertens et al. (2016) in their aim to enhance the possibilities to cross-examine results. In this study, the first two steps are relevant, namely
discovering positive deviant behavior and exploring the determinants of positive deviant behavior.
Mertens et al. (2016) state that to study positive deviance, the first step is to discover positive deviant behavior. When focusing solely on the determinants of positive behavior, this step can be accomplished by comparing certain behavior to the norm of a referent group. However, in their strategy, it remains unclear whether it is possible to have multiple referent groups or how to determine the referent group. In the literature, some authors take a managerial perspective and only refer to an organizational norm (e.g. Appelbaum, Iaconi and Matousek, 2007; Galperin & Burke, 2006), defined as “Expected behaviors, languages, principles and
postulations that allow the workplace to perform at a suitable pace” (Applebaum, Iaconi &
Matousek, 2007, 587). Others have conceptualized the norm as a reference group that can be the organization, the team, the department or the sector (e.g. Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003; Vadera et al., 2013) and state that certain referent groups can assess certain behavior differently than others. Thus, certain behavior can be deviant in relation to one referent group, while it is rated normal or even negative to other referent groups. Furthermore, the analysis of positive deviant behavior can focus on the individual level or at the organizational level (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003). To provide an appropriate case-site that fits the size of this research, the focus is on the individual level and the referent groups are selected within the organization of study.
When the positive deviant behavior is discovered, the next step provided by Mertens et al. (2016) is to explore the determinants of positive deviant behavior. The proposed strategy is to compare deviant behavior with non-deviant behavior and explore whether a certain determinant differs between these two groups. Following this strategy, finding how interrelationships between determinants influence the occurrence of positive deviant behavior, can be conducted in the same manner. Thus, by comparing how certain interrelationship differ between deviant and non-deviant positive behavior.
Research setting
The organization under study, a regional hospital in The Netherlands, has been selected based on the criteria described above. After having been initiated a few years ago, the organization is undergoing a massive transformation to become less bureaucratic. The middle-managers have undergone a period of change interventions and have been challenged to show more proactive behavior and grow with the organization towards a more innovative and adaptive style, which indicates a change in contextual determinants (Vadera et al., 2013). Therefore, this organization provides an interesting research location to explore the occurrence of positive deviant behavior and the explanatory mechanisms.
Data collection
The data collection is conducted in a structured and – when possible – protocolled manner, without losing the flexibility to act upon developing insights. In relation to the researcher’s characteristics, close communication with the supervisor and the professional from the research location is included in the planning to reduce bias (Van Aken, et al., 2012). Furthermore, a friendly stranger is consulted frequently to provide fresh insights (Miles and Huberman (1994). Moreover, standardization is used in the form of a specific interview protocol. The use of multiple instruments to collect data, will ensure a reduced instrument bias (Van Aken, et al., 2012). Primary data is collected by interviews of middle-managers and relevant-to-the-subject employees to enhance the knowledge on the norms of the referent group. Secondary data is collected through a selection of relevant documentation.
Role N Middle-manager 6 Former middle-manager 2 Employee 1 Top-manager / Change agent 1 Table 1 Interviewees
A qualitative, semi-structured interview style is applied, to stimulate participants to tell their story in their own words and to more deeply understand a participant’s perspective on a complex matter (Yin, 2011). Mertens et al. (2016) provide a methodology to gather data on positive deviant behavior based on which the interviews were structured. By using this in theory grounded strategy the validity of the protocol is enhanced (Van Aken, et al., 2012). The interview protocol is divided into five sections. In the first section the norm of the organization and the group of middle managers in general is explored. Then, the scope is narrowed down to the change in the whole organization and to the specific change for the middle management within this broader context. In the third section, possible perceived deviant behavior is discovered, by using the scale of Galperin (2012). Then, the discovered deviant behavior is evaluated by the three criteria, intentional, departure from the norm and honerable (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004). The last section of the interview is targeted at gaining a deeper understanding on the discovered positive deviant behavior, based on the framework of Vadera et al. (2013). The interview protocol is added as appendix A.
Precautions were taken to minimize deviation from ethical norms, such as letting participants sign a form of informed consent before conducting research and providing opportunity to read and respond to the transcripts.
Documentation: to confirm or contradict findings from interviews and notes, archival data is considered. Management documents that illustrate the formal change path where selected for this purpose. The documents where coded, based on deductive and inductive codes and added to the codebook (see Appendix B)
Observation: observation is used to confirm or contradict findings from interviews and notes. An unstructured observation method is used, with a focus on the norm in the organization.
Data analysis
Eisenhardt (1989) provides a process for analyzing the collected data that was followed in this analysis. This study is a single-case study. The analysis is performed by coding, based on deductive and inductive codes. To enhance the controllability (Van Aken, et al., 2012), the codebook is added to this paper (see appendix B). This has, in turn, led to conclusions based on the collected evidence.
Results
In this section, the results of the data collection and analysis are presented. The norm of the referent group will be identified, followed by a discovery of positive deviant behavior. Individual and contextual factors are explored, as well as the findings on the interrelatedness of the norm, contextual factors and individual factors. The mediating factor ‘time’ is integrated in every subsection. Finally, a short summary of the findings is provided.
Norm of referent group
The first step suggested by Mertens et al. (2016) in the study of positive deviant behavior is to identify the norm of the referent group. Our study indicates certain elements that have been constant over the years, though beyond these general characteristics, every interviewee struggled to pinpoint the current organizational and group norm. What stands out as a general feature is the willingness to help. As a middle-manager illustrated: “Well, it [the culture] is very
accessible. You can stroll into anyone’s office and everyone is prepared to help you.” [MM4].
Since the study includes the factor time, the findings also show the impact of the continuous organizational change on the perceived organizational and group norm. In the organizational history, external triggers have had a huge impact on the organizational design and the formal rules and regulations. As one middle-manager explains: “The hospital has had
very challenging phases. First financially, then there were quality problems, we were placed under tightened supervision by the health inspection bureaucracy. At that point, the internal compliance was tightened a lot.” [MM3]. “The norm was that within very narrow rules and regulations employees must do their work and absolutely don’t deviate from that” [NMM2].
And although “The current aim is to let the employees be professionals, take ownership for
their responsibilities and be proactive.” [MM3], still “many operational issues need to be approved by the board of directors” [MM4].
Another event that has had a profound impact on the perceived norm is the merger of two hospitals in 2009 and the fact that currently there are still two locations with their own culture and history. One middle-manager explained: “Location one is smaller than location two
and was more bottom-up with a slow decision making processes. […] Location two was very top-down in which it was not appreciated if employees showed proactive behavior.” [MM3].
Although every interviewee confirmed that the differences are less severe than at the time of the merger, they unanimously state that there are still to some extent differences per location. As one employee states: “I still see the two cultures, thus that there are certain habits in location
one and different habits in location two” [NMM1]. Another employee added: “We have employees who do their work in one location in one way and the same work at the other location in a different way. Sometimes it is even the same team! And when you ask why, they say: ‘well, because that is what they are used to here’.” [NMM3].
The last finding that illustrates the former, current and intend norm is related to features such as trust, openness and communication. There used to be a lack of integration between departments: “You depend on a lot of different disciplines within the hospital that all need to
work together around the patient. But strangely, everyone was very much on his own island and only cared about his own department and there was not much communication with the world behind their swinging door.” [MM2]. This issue is officially addressed during the
Management Development program. Documents show that the middle-managers have had education and personal development interventions. Middle-managers indeed express a change in the group norm: “Yes, I think that indeed we have changed a lot, ourselves as well, during
our best and we see that we need each other and we therefore involve each other more and more”. [MM2]. However, it seems this norm is partly still an intended norm and not perceived
as the current norm. As a middle-manager explains: “meanwhile we need to form a team that
involves each other and helps each other. We are aware that we need to change the norm and the intentions are corresponding this route, however reality is obdurate” [MM3].
Thus, to summarize the findings on the norm of the referent group, identifying a norm during continuous change is challenging. Habits, rules and regulations are still enforcing certain ‘old’ bureaucratic norms, while the intended, more flexible and responsive norm is finding its way through organizational designs, leadership styles and formal programs.
Positive deviant behavior
Once the main features of the referent group-norm were established, the next step during the data collection was to explore the occurrence of positive deviant behavior. All middle-managers have provided examples of such behavior. To guarantee the anonymity of the interviewees, we do not provide the real examples of positive deviant behavior, however the following examples are based on the data collected through interviews. The organizational norm was to strictly follow the rules and regulations, thus standing out of the crowd and showing proactive behavior was not appreciated. Middle-managers have found several ways to deviate from this norm to force solutions that they perceived as beneficial for the organization. For instance, no longer officially approving expenditures of employees and giving the employees mandate to organize their facility expenditures; creating a new role because that seemed to fit an organizational need; and standing firm in the norm that exclusion from decision making is not accepted anymore and no longer giving in to pressure from senior managers and physicians. However, at the same time the interviewees were not utterly convinced that their ‘positive deviant’ behavior was extraordinary. As one middle-manager reacted to the question of whether this middle-manager had ever broken any official rule: “I think of it as a game, I of
course do know the boundaries, the playground, and sometimes you find a creative way to, well, if I do it like this… […], but I would never really break any legal rule or anything” [MM2].
Another claimed: ”Yes, well, I’m not sure I really did something [extraordinary], I think it is
more a natural flow [that led to this behavior].” [MM6]. Moreover, because the organization
The essence of the findings is that positive deviant behavior does exist in relation to the former and current organizational and group norm. However, this behavior is in line with the intended organizational norm.
Determinants of positive deviant behavior
The framework of Vadera et al. (2013) provides an overview of the common determinants that influence the occurrence of positive deviant behavior. During the interviews the middle-managers were asked questions about the underlying reasons for the positive deviant behavior we had identified. The framework of Vadera et al. (2013) was not mentioned to the interviewees. Findings show that all determinants are found and that certain determinants have indeed formed a trigger for the middle-managers to engage in positive deviant behavior, such as positive job-attitudes, proactive behavior, efficacy of action and supervisor support and openness.
Especially the positive job-attitudes are evident in relation to initiate and deviate from the norm. One middle-manager shared: “For me the tipping point was the fact that I became
unhappy and I noticed that I didn’t have fun anymore. […] So, it is about the intrinsic motivation I had, as this is not what I want and I won’t accomplish what I want in this way.”
[MM6]. Or another employee that stated: “…but I do stay very optimistic and positive,
otherwise I wouldn’t be working here anymore” [NMM4]. Another middle-manager stated:
”And in that moment in time, I thought, I know what I want, what route I want to follow and I
am just going to do so.” [MM1]. This also links to the individual characteristic that was shared
by all interviewees, namely proactive behavior.
Additionally, the focus of the group you are a part of and whether this group identifies with the organizational vision. As a manager states” I believe the group
middle-managers now has been selected, that this small group contains only people that fully empathize with the organizational vision”. [MM3]. Before, this fit was less, as a middle-manager states: “Where in the structure, I think, yes, where in my opinion and as far as I can judge that, until two years back several people certainly were positioned at the wrong place in the organization. And the organization still suffers from that, I think.” [MM4]. Another determinant is what a
middle-manager gets in return: “Yes, as long as it gives me energy, then it gives a kick to go
on!”[MM2].
However, other determinants, such as extraversion were not valued as having a huge impact on the occurrence of positive deviant behavior. As an employee explains: “One can be
employees are behaving innovative as with introvert employees. However, this doesn’t mean that introvert or extravert behavior leads to less or more innovative behavior. People can be mistaken about that sometimes. [NMM2].
In conclusion, the findings confirm the perceived determinants included in the framework of Vadera et al. (2013). However, findings also indicate that certain behavior might be of more importance than others.
Interrelatedness between determinants
The focus of this study is to explore how the interrelatedness of the determinants identified by Vadera et al. (2013) influence the occurrence of positive deviant behavior. In our study, we follow the categorization of determinants suggested by Galperin (2012) into individual and contextual factors.
Results show that the underlying reason for middle-managers to show positive deviant behavior is to change the organizational context. A middle-manager states that: “So, that is our
aim [the best care for our patients]. And if things are obstructing us to reach that goal, yes, well, that triggers me, I think that is not okay”. [MM4]. However, the opposite is also apparent,
indicating that context shapes individual factors. This is illustrated by the following statement: “that I can also be a pessimist and then worry how the organization will be in the future. That
is my own pitfall, although it might have been formed by the organization.” [MM5]. This fits
with the remark of another employee, who states: “…then it might happen that I develop a
controlling aspect in my personality, because we are all formed by the context we are in.”
[NMM2].
The employees and their focus and capabilities have had a huge impact on the context, and therefore the efficacy of action. A middle-manager explains: “It was the time when a
controller was director and we almost went bankrupt at that time. This controller thought that this [controlling leadership style] was the right way.” [MM5]. Another middle-manager
confirms the importance of the right people at the right place: “Yes, I think that it largely
When integrating the factor time, the interaction between determinants can also stimulate repeating positive behavior: “Yes, you do need courage to stand out from the crowd.
And I must say, at first I found it extremely nerve-wracking, because I didn’t have much experience in deviating from the norm and thought, ooh, how will this turn out. But now I have done it several times and have actually learned to enjoy it. It is a celebration when I succeed and I then think, yes! I did it again”. [MM2].
Another noticeable finding is how organizational memory triggers a delay in aligning perceived reality with actual reality. Several quotes indicate this delay. For example: “what is
remarkable, is that sometimes it still is not believed that this situation is not the same anymore.”
[NMM2]. And “people need to learn that it is allowed, that it is okay to make mistakes and
learn from it, without being punished. So, yes, that is the phase we are in. Different departments at different points in the process so to say. Some people are ahead on others.” [MM4].
It also has something to do with changing habits. As a middle-manager states: “ It is
also searching for the right way. I used to be just practical, but now I have to think first and analyze whether I should first communicate my plans with the other middle-managers so they also know what is happening. […]. That is just changing habits.” [MM5].
What the focus on interrelatedness revealed was how all organizational elements interact with each other. A certain shift is apparent, in which all the elements of the framework become more aligned. Documents show how, starting with a strategy to deal with the challenges in the health sector, the whole organizational design is being re-evaluated. Starting with the staff, followed by the middle-managers, the processes within the organization, the rules and procedures and then the team leaders and so forth. While this is confirmed by the quotes from the interviewees, this process is not rational, as people need to trust the new reality.
Summary results
Figure 4 Framework
Discussion and conclusions
In this final section, the results are related to knowledge from the literature and the research question is answered. The implications of this study for practice are outlined, followed by an illustration of the limitations and suggestions for further research. Lastly, an overall conclusion is provided.
Research question and propositions
In this study, the framework of Vadera et al. (2013) is explored in a real-life case in order to better understand how the interrelation of determinants influence the occurrence of positive deviant behavior. Furthermore, the factor time has been included to explore how change characteristics influence the construct of positive deviant behavior. The research question is: “How does the interrelatedness of determinants influence positive deviant behavior in a
continuous change context?”
such as history and resources and the link with strategy, are included to create fit with the internal organizational elements. Thus, whether certain behavior is in line with the norm or is positive deviant behavior depends on the fit between individual factors, contextual factors and the current norm.
Research show different views on the constraining factors of positive deviant behavior (Galperin, 2012; Herington & Fliert, 2017). Focusing on the construct positive deviant behavior itself, the extent to which behavior can be labeled positive deviant behavior changes over time. Results show that in changing situations, the norm of the referent group becomes scattered and unclear. Over time, when the determinants become more aligned, the norm ultimately transforms into a desired state, which then diminishes the construct of positive deviant behavior while such behavior becomes the norm. However, the reason is not the lack of rules and regulations as Galperin (2012) has argued, it is caused by an internal and external fit of elements. However, future internal or external events can occur, which can cause this fit to loosen, or a better fit can become available in which a new norm can be intended (Tkaczyk, 2015).
Proposition 1: an improved fit between the norm of the referent group, the individual
and contextual determinants negatively influences the occurrence of positive deviant behavior because the deviant behavior becomes the norm.
Proposition 2: positive deviant behavior positively influences the fit between individual
and contextual determinants.
Practical implications
This study provides valuable insights into the importance of allowing and acknowledging change processes to form and establish within an organization. Positive deviant behavior can help alter a current norm towards a desired norm and help obtain a fit between internal and external organizational factors.
Limitations and further research
obtained by conducting multiple, in-depth interviews per middle-manager. Also, the generalizability of this study is low because of the limited number of interviews.
A suggestion for further research is to explore a combination of Vadera et al.’s framework (Vadera et al., 2013) and the congruence model (Nadler & Tushman, 1980) to integrate external and historical elements, such as history, resources and strategy. Furthermore, the strength of the relationships between the norm, individual and contextual factors can be tested trough quantitative research.
Conclusions
References
Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), pp. 48–70. Aken, J. v., Berends, H., & Bij, H. v. (2012). Problem solving in organizations – A
methodological handbook for business and management students. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Appelbaum, H., Iaconi, G.D. & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance: The international
journal of business in society, 7(5), pp. 586-598.
Bernstein, S.D. (2003). Positive Organizational Scholarship: Meet the Movement. An interview with Kim Cameron, Jane Dutton, and Robert Quin. Journal of management
inquiry, 12(3), 266-271.
Burke, W. W. (2011). A perspective on the field of organization development and change: The Zeigarnik effect. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 143-167.
Burnes, B. (2014). Managing change. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Calarco, M. M. (2011). The impact of positive practices on nurse work environments: Emerging applications of Positive Organizational Scholarship. Western Journal Of
Nursing Research, 33(3), 365-384.
Cameron, K.S., Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the Discipline of Positive Organizational Scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 731-739.
Cameron, K., & McNaughtan, J. (2014). Positive Organizational Change. Journal Of Applied
Behavioral Science, 50(4), 445-462.
Cohn, K.H. (2009). Changing Physician Behavior Through Involvement and Collaboration.
Journal of Healthcare Management, 54(2), 80-86.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W., D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: the rest of the story.
Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.
Galperin, B.L. (2012). Exploring the Nomological Network of Workplace Deviance: Developing and Validating a Measure of Constructive Deviance. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 42(12), 2988–3025.
Hackman, J.R. (2009). The perils of positivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30, 309– 319.
Herington, M.J., & Fliert, E. Van de. (2017). Positive Deviance in Theory and Practice: A Conceptual Review. Deviant behavior, 1-15.
Hoffmann-Burdzińska, K., & Rutkowska, M. (2015). Work life balance as a factor influencing well-being. Journal of Positive Management, 6(4), 87-101.
Huberman, A.M. & Miles, M.B. (1994). Qualitative analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage: London.
Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1-27.
Maarse, H., Mur-Veeman, I., & Spreeuwenberg, C. (1997). The Reform of Hospital Care in the Netherlands. Medical Care, 35(10), OS26-OS39.
Mertens, W., Recker J., Kohlborn, T., & Kummer, T-F. (2016). A Framework for the Study of Positive Deviance in Organizations. Deviant Behavior, 37(11), 1288-1307.
Nadler, D.A. & Tushman, M.L. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational behavior,
Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), 35-51.
Nilsson, W. (2015). Positive institutional work: exploring institutional work through the lens of positive organizational scholarship. Academy of Management Review, 40(3) 370-398. Olkkonen, M.-E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202-215.
Roberts, L.M. (2006). Shifting the lens on organizational life: the added value of positive scholarship. Academyof Management Review, 31(2) 292–305.
Quinn, R. E., Dutton, J. E., & Cameron, K. S. (2003). Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Sharma, S. K. & Sharma, S. (2015). Psychological Capital as a Predictor of Workplace
Behavior. Journal Of Management Research, 15(1), 60-70.
Stahl, G. K., Miska, C., Lee, H., & De Luque, M. S. (2017). The upside of cultural differences.
Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(1), 2-12.
Spreitzer, G.M. & Cameron, K.S. (2012). Applying a POS lens to bring out the best in organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 85–88.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2003). Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing. In Cameron, K., Dutton, J.E. & Quinn, R.E., Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline (pp. 207-224). San Francisco: Berrett Koehler Publisher.
Spreitzer, G.M., Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the Construct Definition of Positive Deviance.
American Behavioral Scientist 47(6),828-847.
Tarantino, D.T. (2005). Positive deviance as a tool for organizational change. Physician
Executive, 31(5), p62-63.
Tkaczyk, B. (2015). A Playbook for Positive Organizational Change: Energize, Redesign, and Gel. Strategic Change, 24(6), 527-540.
Vadera, A.K., Pratt, M.G. & Mishra, P. (2013). Constructive Deviance in Organizations: Integrating and Moving Forward. Journal of Management 39(5), 1221-1276.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of management review, 20(3), 510-540.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Zbierowski, P. (2015). Positive antecedents and consequences of entrepreneurship – theoretical
Appendix A – Interview protocol Beoogde maximale tijdsduur
Interviewdeel Beoogde tijdsduur
Deel 1 8 Minuten Deel 2 10 Minuten Deel 3 15 Minuten Deel 4 5 Minuten Samenvatting 2 Minuten Deel 5 20 Minuten Totaal 60 Minuten
Deel 1. Meer informatie over de norm - organisatie en groep.
Formeel
Vraag 1.1.
Beschrijf de formele structuur van de organisatie aan het begin van de verandering. Bijvoorbeeld de structuur, hoe beslissingen tot stand komen. Hoeveel tijd het kost om goedkeuring te krijgen en te geven. Of eigen initiatieven worden gestimuleerd.
Informeel
Vraag 1.2.
Hoe is het onderlinge informele contact binnen de organisatie en specifiek binnen het middenkader. Wordt het gedrag onderling bepaald door hiërarchische functies?
Vraag 1.3.
Zijn er veel informele leiders, is het mogelijk om binnen de formele structuur sneller goedkeuring te krijgen.
Deel 2. Meer informatie over het veranderingsproject. Organisatie breed en
specifiek op de groep middenkader.
Wat
Vraag 2.1.
Hoe
Vraag 2.2.
Wat is de stijl van veranderen. Is het anders dan eerdere veranderingen? In welk opzicht?
Deel 3. Onderzoeken of de geïnterviewde positief afwijkend gedrag heeft
geconstateerd bij zichzelf en/of zijn collega’s van het middenkader.
Vraag 3.1.
Heb je gedurende het veranderingstraject Innovatieve afwijkingen op organisatieniveau gedaan of gezien bij anderen?
• Heb je zelf creatieve oplossingen bedacht voor problemen;
• Heb je innovatieve manieren gezocht om alledaagse procedures te verbeteren; • Heb je weleens onconventionele manieren ingezet om doelen te bereiken;
• Heb je weleens problemen opgelost op manieren die anders zijn dan gebruikelijk binnen de organisatie?
Vraag 3.2.
Heb je gedurende het veranderingstraject organisatie uitdagende afwijkingen gedaan of gezien bij anderen?
• Heb je weleens officiële regels gebroken of procedures niet gevolgd om je functie goed uit te kunnen voeren, problemen op te lossen en/of een probleem van een klant op te lossen?
• Heb je weleens een regel omgebogen om de klant tevreden te stellen?
• Heb je weleens afgeweken van procedures die in jouw ogen dysfunctioneel zijn, om een probleem op telossen of om de kwaliteit van de dienstverlening te vergroten?
Vraag 3.3.
Interpersoonlijke afwijkingen
• Heb je weleens verkeerd gedrag van collega’s gerapporteerd om positieve organisationele verandering op gang te brengen?
• Heb je weleens directe opdrachten van je leidinggevende genegeerd en/of ter sprake gesteld om werkprocedures te verbeteren?
Deel 4. Toetsing van geconstateerd gedrag op criteria positive deviant
Vraag 4.1.
Was het bewust, gepland gedrag? Vraag 4.2.
Wijkt het af van de norm op organisatie- en/of groepsniveau? Vraag 4.3
Was het gedrag gebaseerd op positieve en eerwaardige intenties?
Samenvatting van geconstateerde positief afwijkende gedragingen.
Het vervolg van het interview zal zich concentreren op deze (1 of meerdere) positive deviants.
Deel 5. Dieper ingaan op de geconstateerde positieve afwijkende gedragingen.
Individuele, contextuele en culturele factoren
Vraag 5.1.
Kun je wat meer vertellen over hoe jij het persoonlijk beleefd hebt. Bijvoorbeeld, speelden intrinsieke motivatie, verantwoordelijkheidsgevoel en empowerment een rol. Was er moed voor nodig?
Vraag 5.2.
Welke interventies vanuit de organisatie speelden een rol? Vraag 5.3.
Appendix B – Codebook
category Code Definition Deductive
or inductive
Example Norm Team A team as a referent group based
on which it can be determined wheter behavior is positive deviant. (Spreizer & Sonenshein, 2004)
Deductive Meanwhile, we need to form a team that frequently sees each other and helps each other.
Norm Location A location as a referent group based on which it can be determined whether behavior is positive deviant. (Spreizer & Sonenshein, 2004)
Deductive One location was top-down while the other location was bottom-up.
Norm Organization An organization as a referent group based on which it can be determined whether behavior is positive deviant. (Spreizer & Sonenshein, 2004)
Deductive Because we are a small regional hospital, the lines of communications are short, everyone knows one another
Norm Healthcare A sector as a referent group based on which it can be determined whether behavior is positive deviant. (Spreizer & Sonenshein, 2004)
Deductive Within the healthcare sector many organizations need to transform to respond to the changing demands.
Norm Individual
norm
Individual norm as a referent 'group' based on which it can be determined whether behavior is positive deviant.
Inductive Look, this individual is not someone that opens up at the very first day.
Norm Formal /
informal
The difference between formal decision making and informal compliance norms and informal decision making.
31
Change Memory The notion that the perceived reality differs from the real reality, because of former habits, rules and regulations.
Inductive What is interestingly, is that sometimes it is still not believed that the situation is not the same anymore. Documents show how certain rules are changed positively, while observation show how employee still follow the old, controlling rules. Change History The patterns of past behavior,
activity and effectiveness of the organization that may affect current functioning. (Nadler & Tushman, 1980)
Deductive Once these controlling measures are introduced in times of financial problems. However, now we are a few years ahead and although the need for this tight control has reduced, the regulations are still there.
Inter-relatedness
Combination A relationship between elements (Galperin, 2012).
Deductive So, that is our aim [the best care for our patients]. And if things are obstructing us to reach that goal, yes, well, that triggers me, I think that is not okay
Determinant Individual Individual factors that facilitate
constructive and destructive deviance (Galperin, 2012).
Deductive But I do stay very optimistic and positive, otherwise I wouldn’t be working here anymore. Determinant Context Contextual factors that facilitate
constructive and destructive deviance (Galperin, 2012).
Deductive It was the time when a controller was director and we almost went bankrupt at that time. This controller thought that this
32
Determinant Context extern
Triggers from outside an organization that influences organizational elements.
Inductive The hospital has had very challenging phases. First financially, then there were quality problems, we were placed under tightened supervision by the health inspection bureaucracy Positive
deviant
Deviant behavior
Intentional behaviors that significantly depart from the norms of a referent group in honorable ways” (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003).
