Huiras_Uggen_McMorris_TSQ_00

Huiras_Uggen_McMorris_TSQ_00 - CAREER JOBS, SURVIVAL JOBS,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–19. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
Background image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 16
Background image of page 17

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 18
Background image of page 19
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: CAREER JOBS, SURVIVAL JOBS, AND EMPLOYEE DEVIANCE: A Social Investment Model of Workplace Misconduct Jessica Huiras Christopher Uggen University of Minnesota Barbara McMorris lowa State University We examine the relationship between career stakes. or the fit benveen workers' current jobs and their long-term career plans. and employee deviance. Most prior reeeamh has focused on the link between job satisfaction and deviance. but career stakes may be a more salient and theoretically relevant measure of workers‘ inVestments in their present positions. particularly in young adulthood. We hypothesize that people whose current jobs match their long-term career goals have made a social investment with their employers that inhibits deviant behavior. We analyze data from the Youth Development Study (YDS), a longitudinal community sample of individuals now in their mid-Mention. Our results show that career stakes and job satisfaction oxen independent effects on worker misconduct even whim prior levels of general deviance and workplace deviance are statistically controlled. Finding a career and establishing Oneself in the workfowe is a defining part of the tran- sition to adulthood. Entry into a “career job" may be a turning point (Elder 1985; Sampson and Laub 1993) that alters long-term trajectories of deviant behavior. In contrast, work in more marginal “survival” jobs may have weaker effects on crime and deviance (Allan and Steffensmeier 1989; Crutchfield 1989; Crutchfield and Pitchford 1997', Uggen 1999). This article examines the relationship betiveen career stakes in the current job and employee deviance among a representative community sample of young adults. We conceptualize careersmkesasanmdicamofsocialmvesnnemmatmdmesdwiancebymcmasing infermal social control and strengthening workers’ holdings in their jobs. Organizations also maintain a stake or investment in their workers, providing varying degrees of training, benefits, and job security. As employers rely more heavily on non- DireuallcorteepondencetoaniatopherUggen.Deparm1entoiSociclogy. unmwmmmmm.m~ 19th Avenue South. Lemmas. MN 55455-0412: email: uggeneaflmmcLummedu mmm,vm4l,mzmm WOMMWWWM. ummmmhmmmm: mummawm rmmmmmmmmmamm WNW-0253 246. THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 41INO. 2121300 unionized (Western 1995). PER-time (Pitts 1998), and temporary (Parker 1994) workers andadoptnewmanagementappmacbesflkelymafi’ectwcrkercomnnmtmodson l996).cbanges inratesofemployeemiscondrmmaymfltflsfltdyofceroastakesand their relation to workplace deviance is thus timely. in light of recent manic transforma- tions. increasingly. researchers concerned with business ethics (Greenberg 199?: Murphy 1993: fievino and Ymmfiblood 1990) and organizational theory (Edelman and Suchman 1997: Powell 1996) have turned their attention to deviance and law in the workplace. Studying workplace-misconduct may also conuilmte knowledge about adult offending mthegeneralpopuhdon.kelafiwmthewealmofnafionaflympmsenmfivedamonsefl- reported juvenile delinquency, comparafively little is known about the “secret deviance“ (Becker 1963. p. 20) ofadults who have evaded formal criminaljustice sanctioning. Most shtdies of adult crime and deviance have relied on official statistics (e.g.. Finland-Olson and Kelly 1993) or officially defined offender groups (eg. Shove: 1996; Tracy and Kempf-lleonard 1996). Yet criminologixls have long understwd that my forms of law violation are nearly ubiquitous in the general population (Wallerstein and Wyle 1947). “reworkplaceisanespccially important aeti'ingl’orthesmdy ofadttitcrimeaoddevi- once. Employee misconduct is probably responsible for business failures and higher con- sumer costs. afi‘ecting all industries from fast-food chains (I-Iolliager. Slots. and Terris 1992) to general hospitals (Hollinger 1936). Some studies estimate that over two-thirds of workers are involved in some form ofemployee thelt (Corner 1985; Green 1997; Henry 1981; Homing 1970; Murphy 1993; Slora 1989; Zeitlin 19'?!) or “production deviance.” suchas unnecessaryuseofaick leaveorworking underdteinfluenoeofalcoholordrugs (HoHinger and Clark 1983!); Mangione and Quinn 1915). Yet employee deviance remains an “invisible social problem“ (Harris and Benson 1993). in part because it is rarely detemedandofiennotsancfionedwhenitisdiacovemdaipmananndGraw 1988; Pat-ills. Hoflinger. and Clark 1983: Robin 1970). For criminologists, the high incidence of emphyeendsconduamongfiegeoerflpopulafionisbommgandwmdtyofgreatu research attention (Slora 1989). For organizational remembers. employee misconduct rep resents a problem of worker prodlmivity and organizational control. This investigation linkstheories ofcrime withtbesociology ofworkaodorganizations by positingasocial inveshnentmodelofworkplacedeviamx basedoncareerstaltes orcommitment WORM DEVIANCE Pdmreaeamhhasidenfifiedsevualpmmalcharadaisficsandjobmtdifionsfifiue correlatedwithemployeedevianoe(aeeRobinsonantheenberg 1998forarecentreview ofthiaieaearoh). For example, males generallyreponcommining significantlymeacta ofcmployee thefi and other deviance titan females Mansion and Quinn 1975; Ruggiero. GreenbeIger.andSteinberg l982).1nfact.someatudieshavefoundthatmencommi1 almommiceasmuchdevianoeawwkaswomenmanisandflenmlwa;flouhtgerand Claritl933a). Age is also correlated with employee misconduct. with younger workers more likely thaooldawmkerswcngageinwockphcedcviaaoemangiomandQuinnlWS;Robm 1969). Richard C. Hollinger (1986) fotmd age to be the most significant predictor of involvement in general employee deviance. Studies of particular industries and occupa- domhavealsomwaledsmngageefl'eas.Forexampk.yoangerempbyeesreported greaterinvolvemem in theft from nan-sing homes than oldercnrployces (Harris and Benson Career lobe, Survival Jobs, and Employee Deviance 247 1998). Workers under the age of Monty-one with little job tenure were also more likely to steal than older. more experienced employees in a study of fast-food workers (Hollinger et a1. 1992). Greater employee deviance among young people may be due to their tfispmportionate representation in marginal work (Greenberg and Berlin; 1996) or "survival" jobs. At the aggregate level. Emilie Anderson Allan and Darrell .l. Stefi‘ensmeier (1989) showed that the quality and availability of employment affect rates of arrest among young adults. Inter- preting similar results in an individual-level study of employee theft. James Tucker (1989) arguedthmPeopleworhngmslm-mmpoaifionsaremomfikelymmmthey have little time to develop a relationship with the employer. This view is comment with researchshowingthatageandjobtenure afiectjohsatisfactionandothersubjective appraisals of the quality ofemployment (Quinn and Staines 1909). Job satisfaction is the most frequently identified link connecting job conditions and workplace misconduct (Hawkins 1934; Hollinger 1986;HollingerandC1arlr 1932a; 1983a: Mangione and Quinn 1975: Murphy 1993; Sieh 1987). totem C. Hollinger and John Clark (1932a) reported that ageoeral measure ofjob satisfaction. as well as a multidimen- sional construct. isa suongpredictorofemployeedeviance. anothersnrdyformd thatnontlaievesweretwiceasliketyasthievestoreportfltattheywere“verysatisfied” with their jobs (Harris and Benson 1998). In surveys asking why some employees never steal.bothtnanagersandtheirsubordinates attributeddifierenoesinemployeethefitodif- feroltces in job satisfaction ('I'erris and Jones 1982). Just as job satisfaction may reduce workplace deviance. may exacerbate it. A classic theoretical statement by Theodore D. Kemper (1966] argues thatcmployees dissatisfied with workload increases and organizational failure to recognize merit may retaliate through "recip‘ocal deviance“ at work. Consistent with Kemper. a number of studies haveshown thatperceived'tnequity {andtheneutralizationofguiltthat follows) leads to greaterdeviance among workers (Greenberg 199D; Hollinger 1991) and students (Greenberg 1993; see also Trevino and Youngblood 1990). Worker dissatisfaction and per- ceptions of distributive injustice (Greenberg and Scott 1996) may directly motivate employee deviance or disrupt the group norms and informal social controls that regulate it (Hollinger and Clark 1932b; Homing 1970; Mars 1974: [982; Robinson and O‘Leary- Kelly 1998). Both satisfaction and dissatisfaction are therefore likely to affect employee misconduct. Apart from job saoafamion, however, the weer commitment of employees is likely to havemmdependmtefiectonwmkphcedeviance.Ahhoughworkers‘wurstakesm lheircurrentjobs have yet to be operationalized inextanl research, numerous studies sog- gestdtattheymybeacnficaldetmminantofwmtplacemiswndunMostexisfing reaearch has focused on organizational commitment, that is. loyalty to and with the employing organization (Hollinger and Clark 19831:; Murphy 1993). For exam- ple. an investigation of retail stores, hospitals. and manufacturing firms characterized involvementinpropertydevianceasamnctioncfmemngthofmeemptoyee'sfimre commitment to continuing employment in one's present work organization“ (Hollinger 1986, p. 70). Another study reported. "a decline in company loyalty and long-term com- mittnentcanbeexpectedtoleadtoanincreaseinemployeethefl” (lipmananndGraw 1988. p. 52). Alunughpastmsmchsuggesmmaeueerstflesarefinkedmemplcyeedevim,m invesfigafionmmfirhasdimdynrasmedthefitbemuntespondenm'mremjohsm 248 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 41INo. mono their ultimate career goals. Richard C. Hollinger, Karen B. Store. and William Teri-is (1992. p. 178). for example. attributed high levels of employee deviance in the fast-food industry toemptoyees notviewing theirjobsascareers. buttheirstudy usedproxy measuresof “Meanwhasageandwnmejhequesfiomaneimusedbykobenflmtmfield and Susan R. Pitchford (1997). Hollinga' (1986). and Hollingcr and Clark (1982a) all asked some variant of employees’ intention to quit their present job. Since people may be seeking new employment for reasons independent of career stakes (e.g. for better pay or becausedieyhavedisagreementswith coworkers).amore refined indicatorisneededto distinguish career stakes from job satisfaction and the expected duration of employment. CAREER JOBS AND SURVIVAL JOBS IN A SOCIAL INVESTMENT MODEI. OF EMPLOYEE DEVIANCE Wedeflnecareerstakesasthedegreeofcommihnenttoone‘scmrentjobasaiong-nerm employment trajectory. When employees envision careers in their present jobs. the em- ployment relation is likely characterized by “personal commitment” in addition to the “moon's! commitment” binding workers to jobs [Johnson 1991: Ulmer 1994). Career wmmimentmlvesmafiialecficflprwessbywhkhsodflorganizafiondmm dncestalceaincontinuingIinesofactioninthefunne,andinwhichactorsexpefiencethese stakes in decision-making processes" (Ulrner 1994. p. 133; see also Becker 1960; Murphy 1993).Socialinvestrnentind1efofloofcaieerstaltes maybeespecially importanttbr youngadulmasflreymakemeuansifimwamflthoodmdjointhefiifl-finwwwkforce. Specifically, we hypothesize that the fit between current jobs and long-term career goals afiectstbelikelihoodofdeviantand confonningactionaonthejoo. A comede ofcareer stakes as asocial hivesnnentis consistent with both informal social control and rational choice theories of crime. According to informal control theories (Sampson and Len]: 1990: 1993). individuals‘ investments or “stakes in conformity" (Toby 1957) induce compliance with societal norms. In partiwtar. Robert J. Sampson and John H. Laub (1993) note that job stability (a combined measure of employment status. tenure. and work habits) and connnitment to occupational goals (based on ocwpational. educational. and economic aSpirations) decrease criminal ofi‘ending in young adulthood. mfom.aditectineasureofcamstakesin thecin-rentjobis suggestcdbytheliternnne oncfimeanddeviancemomgenerany.aswdlaabyreseuchonworkplaeedevim. Criminologists report that work-based stakes in conformity directly influence deterrence from sparse abuse (Sherman and Smith 1992). desistance from crime (Sampson and [nub 1993; Shaver 1996). and exits from homelessness (Hagan and McCarthy 199?). To the extent that individuals‘ current jobs are congruent with their long-term career goals. they mmofivuedmavoiddevianeegenuallyandmooaformwwmiplwemlesmparfiunu Cmeersmkesinmecunemjobcanmusbeconcepmafizedwdthinamongeneralecov nomic or choice perspective. The more valuable the job to the worker, the less likely the workuiaijpardiuitbyeugaginginwmkphoennwondummthehnguageofgame theory. those with career stakes in their current job are "repeat players" (Montgomery 1993). accumulating firm-specific human capital they would not wish to risk. Conversely, Qutchfield (1939) and Crutchfield and Pitchford (199T) “Elle that low-quality jobs in the secondarysectoroftheeconomyprovidelittleincenfivetoavoidcrime.hfachreympm thatsecondarysecmrworkersaremorelikelytoengage incrime.butsectorefiectsare mediated by the expected duration ofernployment. Career Jobs, Survivailobs, and Employee Deviance 249 According In Crutchfield’s labor stratification argument, when jobs have an established career line, an “implicit contract" (Clutchfield and Pitchford 199?, p. 9‘; England and Far- ltas 1986) motivates both employers and employees to continue their relationship so as to realizeprofrts fromtlreircommtm invesunentinfimspecific suggests that a wruprehensive social investment model would consider the actions and intentions of employing organizations as well as individual workers. To the extent that firms invest in workersbyproviding continuingtrainingandhigh mgemdbemfitlevelatheycreatethe typeof“careerjobs"likelytoincreaseflreindividualcareerstakesheldbytbeirworkers. Inoontrasttoourmeasures ofindividual career stakes.ourorganizationdataaretoolim- ited to provide a critical test of employer efiects, although the analysis to follow will present some evidence bearing on these arguments. Careerstaltes are associated with social-structural processes (such as labormarket seg- mentation). social-psychological characteristics (such as the worker‘s afiecfive state). objective job characteristics (such as wage and benefit levels), and other subjective job appraisals (such as employee satisfaction). Our analytic strategy is designed to disentangle theseefiectsandtoadjustesfimatesofcareersrakesinfiieeurrentjob forpriordevisnt behavior. Because workers invested in their current jobs may possess higher levels of command traits. such as self-control (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990] or cognitive moral development (Trevino and Youngblood 1990} that drive both career stakes and employee deviance, we adjust the effects of job appraisals for prior levels of employee deviance and general deviance. DATA, MEASURES, ANDANALYTIC STRATEGY Data We analyze data from theYomh Development Study (YDS). an ongoing prospective longi~ ordinal survey dratbegan in 1988. Onethousandadoleacentsin St. Paul, Minnesota. public schools completed annual self-administered questionnaires in grades nine through twelve. In subsequent years. YDS stafi‘ mailed questionnaires to the respondents. The sample is representative ofthegeneralpopulation ofstudenminSL Paulpuhljc schools intermsof race. family composition. median household income. education. and occupational level (Finch. Shattahnn1 Mortimer. and Ryu 1991). Respondents provided information on career smkesandemployeedefianmmsweflasmspecfivedevianoedamdufingmemnflt wave of the study in 1993. About 70 percent of the original sunrey participants arisvtvered employee deviance items at wave ten {when most respondents were 24-25 years old). a response rate thatcompares favorably with the most comprehensive self-report surveys of occupational deviance (Green 1991;1-Iollingerand Clark 1983b). Matures Employee Deviance We constructed and validated anine-irem employee deviance index using factor-and item analyses.1‘hebe.haviorscorrtptisingotnindexarelistedin’lhble LParticipamsrepmedthe fiequencyofengagingineachhehaviorduringmepastyearusingreeponsecategoriesof 0. l.2,3—4.and50rmefimes.Wesummedtbefiequenciestocrcateanindexmnging from 0—25. with a. standardized Cronbach's alpha of .63. The most prevalent activities 250 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 41.040. mono TABLE 1. PREVALENCE, INCIDENCE, AND FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR EMPLOYEE DEVIANCE IN PAST YEAR {N = 764) Percentage Mean Standard Factor ReportingAct Incidence Deviation loading —-——-—-—-_-_.—_—____, Gottoworklsle witlrnuregoodreason 51.0 1.33 1.57 .467 Called in sick when not sick 47.9 .98 1.73 .4641 Gave away goods or services 327 .95 1.50 .389 Claimed to have worked me hours than really did 9.7 22 .75 .358 Tool: things from employer or coworker 9.] .29 .70 .640 Ben drunk or high at work 7.2 .20 .79 .620 Liedtogetorkeepjob 5.8 .10 .45 .433 Misused or tool: money 2.5 05 .38 .478 Purpuaely damaged W“? 1.1 04 .34 .559 were “production deviance“ (Hollieger and Clark 198313) such as tardiness (51 percent). calling in sick when not sick (48 percent). and giving my goods and services (33 percent). measumofworkplaoedevianceisdrusmominclusivefltanindimmusedin studies of white-collar crime (see Robin I974) but consistent with research on occupa~ tional deviance more generally (Green 1997; Hollinger and Clark 19832: Ruggiero et al. 1982). One factor accounted for about 25 percent of the explained variance. suggesting substantial measurement error in the suns-native index. Nevertheless. these levels are com- parabletothoaefoundinsnrdies ofdelinquencyandotherdeviant behavior. [ntheirfactor analysis of various problem behaviors. John P. Donovan and Richard lessor (1985}. for examplempomdexphinedvmiammgingfiommmdepmdingondngmder mdageofdmsmnkabtheemtdrstouresdmuesmnflamedhymmmemm, www.mywwldhkelybemdemaesuldngincmmmmofhypm Becausepreviousmseuehandmfaamanalysismdioatedmnemployeedevimoe may be multidimensional (a second factor explained 14 percent of the variance for a total ofalmost‘lflpereentexplained variance betweenthetwofsctors).weaisotestedaltemaae specificafimsofundependentvafiable.Weueatedmoccupafionalcdmeindesm excluded lessserioushehaviorsandanindexdratincluded onlythreethefiitemstoexam- toe the mbustmss of the findings across different domains of employee deviance. Although serious theft. substance use, fraud. and embezzlement were less prevalent behaviors. they were closely consisted with otherforms of employee deviance in our fac- toranalysis.Wepresentrosults fortheoverall aggregateindexbecauseoursocialinvest- ment model predicts flratcareerstaltes should afi‘eet worlquaoedeviancegenerally.rather than afieoting only workplace thefl. pmdncfion deviance. orsome other construct. Career Stakes in the Current Job We expect low levels of employee deviance when respondents‘ current jobs match their long-tenncamflgoflsmsrefinkedwdleircareergmlsfiheYDSsuweyaakedeach respondent. “How is your present job related to your long-term career goals?" Table 2 Carey jobs, Survfm‘ Jobs, and Employee Deviance 251 itwillpmbablyoontimnasakmg-tcnncarm(mded 2);flpmvidssskfl]sorbmwledgethatwiflpmparcmeformyfumwo¢(ooded mud itisnotfinkedmmykmgmmobjocfimwodedmfimmoughflanmy unavafidresponsecawgofies.wcmmreumkgsasamndnumvafiabk(wimmn equalml.04mdakewnessequalm.06).Wemusasmmmehmcamgmy. “providingskills andknowledge.“ reflects aparfialcareermke. although we alsoreport msulflfiommoddsthmmhxflflsassumpfimandmtthethmmegoficsnsdbcm. TABLE 2. DESCRIPle STATISTICS ON INDEPENDENT VARIABLES . Sundard Variable Description Coding Moaan'udon Subjecfivewm‘kmimdcs Care: stakes How is your pummjob maimed 0-2 1.04 .‘IB mmhngmmgodx? Job satisfaction All filings considered. how 1-6 4.45 1.03 satisfiedmyouwilhyourjob asawholfl Objeodveworkomdifiom Income filmywmdduwghpdd Hundreds“ $8.35 $6.22 anploymcntduringpasl dollars mwackx Audiority Doyousuperviseoflmwm-km U=No. 29% onyourjob? 1=Yes Pflmarysecmr Pfimaryvmsooondaryor O-No. T21: mmmalmm 1=Yes Ismeremymfinuingmiujng 0=No. 73% urinal-notioan 1=Yos curmljob? Tun-nova- Didrespmdennepm 0=No. 56% mm? luYas lnslmncebmfitx Doynuhuvehealthirmrm 0=No. 58% dumghyonranphyu‘? 1=Yes Primal:th Genuulindex Mughighschooldidyw...? 0—10 2.65 2.31 Emphyoedefimoe Drninghighachooldidyw...? 0-9 2.14 1.79 Humancapiul Edmalion Highest levelofedmation l-Blmury 4.07 [.64 completed 8=meessioml dogmat- H‘LD. Mile ScR-repnrtedsexofmspmdem O-Fomle 43% l-Mal: Nonwhine Self-reported race ofmspondanl 0 = White 33% =Non‘white -mmmmmwmdmmwmmummm (1985-1991). 32 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 41INO. 2:21:00 job Satisfaction Wealsoassessmeeffeotsofjobsafisfacdonbecauseofitsimmmpfiorsmdiesof employee deviance (Harris and Benson 1998; Hawkins 1984; Hollinger 1986: Hollinger and Clark 1982a: 1983a; Sieh 1987). The six response categories ranged from 1. extremely dissatisfied. to 6, extremely satisfied. in answer to the question, “All things con- sidered.howsatisfiedareyouwithyourjohasawholeTThbleZshowsthatthemean satisfaction score is about 4.5. which represents a response midway between somewhat and very satisfied. We expect job satisfaction to be negatively associated with employee defianmandposidvdyasamhwdndmcmeamkesinmemntjohNeverdmlcssfire two subjective job appraisals capture difi'erent dimensions of the employment relation, and we therefore expect them to exert independent efiects on employee deviance. Objecrr‘ve Work Conditions Our income measure is based on respondents’ self-reported earnings (before taxes and including tips) during the two weeks before survey completion (in hundreds of dollars). Prior research has shown that low wages are associated with work-place theft (c.g.. Mars 1973: Ruggiero et al. 1982). We therefore anticipated that highe- inoome would exert a negative effect on employee deviance. since higher values suggest more desirable jobs. Author-tryout workplaoepoweraswell astheopportunirytocommit deviance. As Susan F. Shapiro (1990. p. 358) notes. organizational position is “related to the distribution of positions of trust. which in turn. provide oppormnities for abuse." The authority measure indicates whether the respondent supervises other workers. coded 1 for-yes and 0 for no. Approximately 29 percent ofrespondents were employed in an authority position. Labor Market Sector We follow Crutchfield(1989)andc.‘rutchfield and PitchfordflQW) in between primm‘y and secondary labor market segments.1 We use Crutchfield‘s {1939) occupational classification scheme but distinguish among manufacturing industry workers following E. M. Bock. Patrick M. Horan. and Charles M. 1blbert (1978) and Arthur Sakamoto and Meichu D. Chen (1991). In tl'teprirnary aeuorwe mcludcwm'kers in professional. technical, managerial. sales. administrative supptm, precision production, skilled crafts. transporta- tion, and primary manufacturing (such as metal. machinery. and professional equipment). as well as self-employed business owriers with employees. The secondary sector is com» poeedofmosewmldngmretafltadeandsuvioengficulmfmeshyandfishaies helpers and laborers. equipment cleaners. secondary manufacturing (such as lumber. food. and clothing). and self-employed persons with no employees. Employer-provided Training and Benefits Thesocial myesnnenlthatworkersmaloemdieemploymtmlafionismflectedinsuhjec- dve job dimensions. such as career stakes. Employers also provide more tangible perqui- sitestiiatmay instiflcareeroomminnentinworkersWemcasmebothdiepresenceof (tar-oer Jobs, Survival Jobs, and Employee Dewar-Ice 2.53 employer-provided continuing training and employer-provided Emilia insurance benefits. Becausejobsubiliryislikelytninfluenoecareeroomndnnentand workplaoedeviance. we alsoincludeanindirnhnofjob moverinthepfioryearinourfuflmulfivariatemodel. HighnaimngmdbenefitleveisandlowtmnovamdroughtmhcreaseMgMonal commitment (Lincoln and Kalleberg 1990). Although our primary concern is with em- ployees‘ rather than employer characteristics, we include these indica- tors inoormulflvariate analysiswiaolatetheindividual effects ofwcu'kercareerstakes from oontexmal organization and industry effects. High School General Deviance Ourindexofgeneral deviance dminghighschool ranges from 040 ndtllameanonJ and a standardized Cronbach‘s alpha of .76. This index represents eleven dichotomous (yearno) responses whether the respondent had engaged in the follmving behav» ioraduringhighschool: (l)driventwentymilesormoreo\rerdiespeedlimit, (2Jdrivena car or motor vehicle after having too much to drink, (3) made prank phone calls. (4) van- dalizedpropertythatdidnorbelongtolhemdfi) stolen aomedfingworthlessthanfifiydol— lars. (6) stolen something worth more dran fifty dollars, (7) sold or gave alcohol to youth undermeageofrwemy-one,(8)usedorn'iedrousesomeoneelse'schecksorcreditcards without permission. (9) been in a physical fight or fist fight. (10) broken into a home. store. building. or vehicle to steal something. and [1]) taken money or valuables from someone byforce.Wedidnmamemptmgaugeinddenceorfiequencyofofiendingfmthehigh schoolperiod. in lightofthe gtealerteliabiljty andvaiidity of“ever" varietyun for this earlier period (Hindelang. Hitachi, and Weis 1981). High School Employee Deviance TheYDS data also contain inforrnmion about workplace deviance during high school. The quesfionswer‘eidenficalmdioaeoomprisingdwdependemnriable butwilhdicbotomous (yesr'nohes-ponsechoioeswfacilimerecall [Hindelangetal 1981).Wethusconstrucned anindexfnrhighacboolernployeedevianoe usingawmtofthesameninebebaviu‘s. Sooresontbisindexrangedfi-omO—Qwidrameanofzjandastandardizedfionbach's alphaof.72.Whendwpastyear'semployeedevianeewasplaoedonacommonmeuic with the high school index. high school scores were significantly higher (2.1 versus 1.? aersonavemgehhananidentical summative index formepaalyear. Human Capital and Asaibed Characferr'sflcs Wefiectofcaroumkesmaybespmimduewthegmaterhummcapimlofwmiers whoholdcueersmkesindwnwnentjoba.Wemsumhnmancapimlbythehigbest level of education completed. unordered variable ranging fromelementary or juniorhigh school (coded 1)loprofesaionaidegreeorPh.D.(ooded8).1hemesnof4-.l isam-oxi- materequaltohavingwmpletedanasaociaredegrec.Wealsoirrcludesexandraoeinonr mulfivafimemodelammeseasuibedchuacwfiaficsmaybeasaodawdudlhhothwmk wodifimsmdemployeedefiance.Asindicamdm1hhle2,woximatelyhdfofme reslzrrzrmienraaremaleandsthirdarer'ronrlrrl'rite.3 251 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 41 No. 2mm Analytic Strategy Wefimesfimmeaepmmbivmimemgtessimsfmtheefi‘mofcmeermkesmdjobsm- isfacfionmemployeedefianeemdthenmpuemeseefl’eemfimgfimmfiumamnl- tipleregressionequation mnminingbothcm'eerstakesandjobssfisfscfion. Next, weadd hummcapitalmsuibedchammsficmandobjeefivewmkwndifiommmemdelwim bomeueasmkesmdjobsafisfacflouWemmesfimmeefiemofaflflnabovefacm and the two measures Inflation-deviance. By statistically controlling forlagged levels of employee deviance.thjsmodel isavm-isnt of staticsooreregxesaion (Finkel 1995)! This analyficsuotegypmvidesasnungmofmesodflinvesmthypmhesisbecausen movestheefi‘eemofmbledjfimneesmossmdjfidualainpmpensitymwmmit employudeviame.Wealaoincludeamsumofpfimgemrfldefianw.sinoememeaw ingofwmkisfikelymehangehmeenhighschoolanddumiWandyfimm— pafionddefianeemynmndequawlywnuolforpleexisfingdevimtpmpensifies. RESULTS mundanemdafionbetweenureermkeamdnmtjobandjobsafisfaedmisfifi (not shown). and both an: stung predictors of employee deviance'Ibaseesx the indepen- deflefiecmofmesewfixbles.“flrstregressemployeedevianeeoneareeratakesandjob satisfaction separately inmndels l and 20f Table 3. respectively. In model I of Table 3. the coefficient of —.925 implies that respondents repnm‘ng the mongest career stake (2) hadaboulz x (-.925)orl.85 fewuaaaofemployeedevianeeintlwpastyemlhanfllose lackingscareerstakeintheircunentjob(0}.1‘hejobsafisfacfionefiectinmode128ug- geatstlmtlhoae leperfingthe him: level of satisfaction (6) haVcaboul5 X(-.779)tl1e unstandatdiaed regression coefficienthij satisfaction, crappmximalely 3.9 feweracm ofemployee devianeethanthosereporfingmelowest level ofsatisfaetion (I). Model 3 in‘Ihble3 showsthatjobsafisfactionandcamersmkeshaveindepcndent efieas.hntheseefiecnuesomewhmwdneedwhenbothmincludedmmessmeequa- fionMoteevermachmndmdermrroaebynboutU peteentoverthebivafiatemodelsdue tn the interemmlafionofsatisfacfion and career stakes. Nevertheless. both explaan variablesrelnain statistically significantatflie .01 level. hmode14.objecfiwworkmndifiomhnmancapimmdascnbedehamcmfiesm addedmduamimwhemetmeefleuofmmkeaisspufimdmmpteemnngdjflu- enoeainjobantwotkersflhelevelofcamerstakeainthecmremjobmainsasignlficsnt predimhnisslighflymdueulmmagmmdewhmwnnomufwthesenfiables.he- dictably. males report significantly more ads of employee deviance than females. Ram. educafiommdimomamnmflgnifiuntpredimsafemployudevianmnetofmemher independent variables Somewhat mprisingly.supervisorswilhamhmity atworqunrt meworkplwedevimeenetofmeotberindependentvafinbhs.amhfionahipdmflso holdsnlmebivafiatecase.Almwghunexpeaed,misfindingismismwimpowa- control theory (Hagan. Gillie. and Simpson 1985‘. Hagan, Simpson. andGillis 193?. p. T98).whichmggeatslhetthoseudthworkploceauthmity havemorefreedomlaodeviaee anduelessaubjecttosocinl oontrol.Alta'nafively,thiafindjngmay simplyrefieetsupervi- m'greateroppommwtooommitceminaets (Goufiedsonandlfirschi 1990.9. 192; Shapiro [990). Careerlobs, SquaHobs, and Emmoyee Deviance 255 TABlE 3. PREDICTORS OF EMHOYE! DEVIANCE AT AGES 24-25 (UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS) l 2 3 4 5 —-——._.—_.—__—_—__ Subjective wm-k mimics Career stakes (0—2) #325" — .661" -.603“ -.532" (.196) (.219) (.234) (.214) Job safisfacfion (1—6) ~319“ - .552“ - .592" ".5 IS" (.149) (.166) (.168) (.154) Objective work conditions Inmmn (hundreds nfdullats) III}? -.013 (.030) (.027) Authority (supervisor = l) 1.0?“ .994” (.342) (.314) Pi'imaxyaecmrmrimry- l) —.411 —.‘292 (370) (-340) Continuing training (mining = 1) .335 .028 (A363) (-335) 'I‘mmvermnmvex - I) .272 .144 (.3 IS) (.292) ham benefitstils= I) —.09? .I0'? (.350) (.321) Pfior devimce Germ-3| Index (0-10) .301" (.078) Employee deviance index (0-9) .629" {-099} Human capital Education (143) —.058 .019 (.097) (-039) I .l l I . _ Bible (vs. female) 1.18" .505 (.316) (.300) Nonwhiae (vs. white) .21? .516 (.387) (.356) Intercept 5.16 7.64 7.31 6.84 4.38 (.254) (.619) (.684) (.895) (.850) Number 0! cases 678 663 663 642 639 R1 .032 .040 .053 .098 .345 Wei-I'mth 'p>.05."p>.01(mufledm). Whydoesasubjecfivemofcmersmkesbehnvesodifl’uendyfiomwhumighl arguablybeoonsidezednnobjecfive measumoflhesameconoept‘POneexphnafion ism mmwmmeabsmeofmsmkesmoppomnifiesfmdflimfimm commitment that would inhibit it. We therefore Ieslad for an inmmtiou between cal-ea: Makesandmmodtyposiflm.mmoughmemodwwmmonlynmgimflysignifium 256 THE SOCIOLOGECAL QUARTERUI’ Vol.41INo. 212000 Authority No Authority Number of Act: No Stake Partial Stake Career Stake Career Stake FIGURE 1. ACTS OF EMPLOYEE DEVIANCE, CAREER STAKES, AND AUTHORITY POSITION (p = .125). the results showed the higher: levels of occupational deviance among those lacking career states but holding authority positions. Figure l elaborates the relations among workplace deviance. authority, and career stakes. Those in authority positions who do not hold a career stake in their current job report an average of 6.3 deviant acts. relative to only 3.5 acts for those with a career stake. For these lacking Workplace authority. we also observe the him levels of deviance among those without a stake in their current job. Career stakes thus reduce deviance among workers with and without workplace authority. Aside from authority. however. none of the other objective work conditions significantly afiect employee deviance. Even when career stakes and satisfaction are excluded from the model. none of these predictorsw-continuing training. turnover. benefits and income—are significant predictors of workplace deviance (analysis not shown). Only the indicator for primary sector approaches statistical signifi- cance in the bivariate case (p = .085) and. as expected. career stakes and satisfaction mediate its effects (see also Crutchfield and Pitchford 1991).! Finally. high school general deviance and high school work deviance are added in model 5. The standardized betas (not shown} suggest that these are the strongest effects overall and dramatically increase the explained variation in employee deviance from .098 to .245. Nevertheless. the effects of both career stakes in the current job and job satisfac- tion remain strong and Significant in the final model. Moreover. the effcas ofthese subjec- tive work attitudes are comparable in magnitude in model 5: a one standard deviation increase in career stakes reduces employee deviance by about 0.4 acts and a one standard deviation increase in job satisfaction reduces employee deviance by approximately 0.5 acts. net of prior deviance and the other independent variables.“ Authority again emerges as a positive predictor in Model 5. with those in supervisory positions committing about one more deviant act in the past year than those not in supervi- sory positions. Note that after oontmlling for prior deviance. the sex effect is dramatically reduced: males in their mid-twenties do not commit significantly more acts of employee Career loos, Survival jobs, and Employee Deviance 25? deviance than females. once levels of high school deviance are controlled} Race. level of education.and incomeremainum'elatedtoworlcplacemisconductinunfinal model. Although the effects of primary labor market sector are not significant in the multivari- atemodelsin'lhble 3. it msybethecasethatjohcharscteristics. suchascareercomrnit— meat. interact withlabormarketsectorsothattheirefi‘cctsareonlyobservedinthe primary (orcom)aed.or.Wedserefomdisaggregstedthesamplcandesfimamdomfinal model separately for each sector. In comparing the two equations. however. we could not reject the null hypothesis that every regression coefi‘icient in the primary sector was equal witsmuespondingesumssemmcswondarymctmdmbommdwunflandmdized careerstakescoefficientwassppmimately —-.5.asinmodel§of‘l‘sble3forthecombined sample. Thus. the same social investment model cfemplcyee deviance appears to apply to both sectors. 'lbexsminetherobusmessofthese findings. wealsoestimated models ofnmre serious employee nusccnduct {in which the deviance outcome excluded tardiness and calling in sick when not sick) and a three-item index of employee theft. In both cases. the effects of aflmkvafiabkswaewmhuamwedflmoughmsmkesandjobmfisficdonmn- tinned to be strong negative predictors ofemployce deviance (tables available from authors). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Ompfimaryfindingisthatsocialuwesunentinthefcnnofcaroerstakesmduces employee deviance in a model that includes stringent controls for prior deviance. Even after controlling for prior workplace misconduct and other job attributes. a change from no camsmkeswhighcueersmkesisassociatedwithareducfionofonefitflmof employee deviance per year. Moreover, job satisfaction had a similarly strong and robust efl‘ect on employee misconduct. suggesting that career stakes and job satisfaction arc inde- pendent predictcrs of workplace misconduct. Our social investment model of employee deviance combines elements of informal social control and rational choice theories. We link these theories with a social-psycholog- icsl mechanism—career stakes in the eta-rentjob. The results show that employees who view their work as“careerjohs" rather-than “smvivaljobs” haveastrong staltein confor- mity (My 1957: Hollisger 1936) that reduces employee deviance. By avoiding deviance atwmhtheymaintainmeirinvesunentindieirchosencareerJnaddiflon.weflndthat employees who are satisfied with are likely to conform to work rules. Satisfac- tion may also signal a stake in uniformity. although it is more likely to represent an afl‘eo tive dimension of the employment relation rather than the strategic social investment indicatedbycareerstaltes. Nevertheless.moresatisfiedworkerscommitfeweractsof wmiphcedeviamehuksasafisficdworkms.afindhgconmswntwidrpfimresesrchm worker misconduct and recidivism among criminal offenders ('Uggen 1999). Thedataonly partially suppontheconceptioncfcareerstaltes as an implicit contract between worker and employer. We find that employees are motivated to follow the rules of the watplaceinordertorcalireflieir investruentandcontinue along dieirchosencareer u'ajwtories. In turn. employers should he motivated to provide satisfying work with an established career line to induce productivity and inhibit deviance. Both workers and employers would thereby benefit from this social investment or contact. Nevertheless. we found little support for the efiectiveness of employer-provided training or health insurance benefits in reducing worker misconduct. Although we observed a marginally significant 258 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 41fNo. 2-9000 associafimhmememployeedcviancemdhbormmasm.thweefiecmmmdi- medbycaneroommiunentandjobsaflsfaofion. Ourfindingsbeamedimcflymemployoes‘atfiumandhehaviorsfl'mnoncmploy- ers'intentionsandacfions.Neverflmlcss.wortplaoe dovianocisoleady analogousme prublemxofabmmdsmunmm.andomammdiedbyuganizafimxlmd mpafimflmeammnm.mismchraimquesfionswimimpmnmimpfloafim fwoqaflzafimflmhandflwsodologyofmflandomupafiom.Dopost-Fordim mamgmenlappmchesthmgomisemempomwmkasauchasmquafitymm mummofworkplaocdcfim?0tganiufim-levdmchisnmym themamhmcficsmhibhdevm.pqhapsbyh1masingmecmmkes mdorganizafionnloomnfitrmmofwmkus. Attheaggrcgatclevel.oursmialimcnmmtmodelpmdim&mmofwmkplm deviamcshouldbeaffectedbyflaerelnfivc avaflabflityofcmrhbsrelafivetosurvival jobs.Repeamdcross—secfionflmscarchismoesmwmwchhymmdwdaa- mwmmmmmmmrmmmmdwmmmn. Asu-iesofrepeamdcross-sectiom] mcystnckingdlangesinsafisfwfionmommiumnl. and workplace deviance—such as a replication of the Quality of Employment series (QuinnandStaims I979) withlheaddition of adeviancemodule—would provide pxcel- lentdazaforsuchtests.F‘mally.mes-nafiunalmoompmfivemmhisneededwdcter- mine winter observed national differences in job satisfaction and organizational mmmiuneut (LinoolnandKaflcbcangQO) afl‘ecl levels ofcmployee deviance. An unanticipated result, waxwork-place authority provides acoun- terpointmourmninfindingsaMtcmeusmkesandjobsafisfncfim:flaminaurhorityan: flkelymhowgreamrcmmakesinflwhcumntjobshnflsohmmoppmmfityfm dcvianccandlessmmtability.Inehbomfingmjsrelafionship.mdisoovetedflntw swkcsmduocdcviamamongdaosewiflimdwimmtmtbafity.mmmosewhuhnd Mafiwmmwtmsmksshmehmjobsmpomdthehigmmofdeflm. Wemggestedthaldflspmofmultsiscomistentwiflllohnflagm‘spow-cmml fluoryfl-Iagan et a1. 1985: 1987)nswel}aswithmcoppormmty nuchanismspecifiedby MichacIR. GottfredsonandTravis Himchi (1990)and5hapim (1990). How might we arbimbemegnmesediflemginmdous ofaulhnrity emu-.15? Gomfiedsonandflhschiummmguemmsdecflonminhumfinmeumend ofmeoccupationalsuucwremfikelytoplmpeoplewimmlafivclylowcrhnlmlpmpen- sitieshlautlwdty posifions.mymuefuem“mesofaimemguuployedwhiw mflmwmkmshmfldbelowmmmedmmomofpeopleinmmmpefim with sinfilaropptmnilies“ (1990. p. 191). It is unlikely Lhntdiscrepmics in oppormnities foroommmformsofworkplmdeviancc,suchaswdiness.subm use.orlhefi.ue aficimflymmammfadnposifiwmmeflmmmmm mommadudimomworkplmdmimindexbyoppwumificswimmmme Goufiuism-Pfimchihypoflwsisdocsnmappcumfitmeefidememnmdmhblcl 'l‘hepowu'mnuolimexprmlionofthe authority cfl'act (Haganetal. 1985; I9S’Dis monumentwimmresultsj'bemmmpfimofpower-mnuoltheoryisM'm mofpowermdmeabsemeofconuoluWWndifiomoffieedomflmpermit commonformsofdelinquency” (Hagmeul. 1985.9. 111'4). Unlikeour social investment modclmdannlysismowwenfiagmmdhiswlkaguesmidaedlhcefiecmofmml wartplweauflmitymdwdefinqueutbehavimofhcirchfldren.€onmymmostm ficsofaim.powu~oonuolmmpredidsgnam“mmmndcflnqu’(flagmetfl. Career Jobs, Survival jobs. and Employee Deviance 159 1985.1).1161)amongthesonsofowuersandsupervisorsdrananxmgthesonsofworlcing- class fathers. We found greater “common workplace deviance” among the authority hold- ers themselves. consistent with a power-control interpretation of employee misconduct. Althoughoursocial investmenrmodelemphasizes informal conuolsinflreformofcareer stakes—and hence the control portion of power-control dreorymneither our concepnral mdelnororuempiricaldataareinconslstentwiththe majorassumptions ofpower-control theory. Elaboration of a power-control theory of workplace deviance is thus a potentially fruitful direction for frame research. Our findings also have implications for other general theories of adult deviance and crimeoutsidetheworkplace.We fomtdthatsocialinvesurtentintheformofcareersurkes reduced deviance among a general sample of young adults. These results parallel other studies of stability and change in deviant careers (Crutchfield and Pitchford 199?; Hagan and McCarthy 199?; Sampson and laub1990). Our conception ofcarcer stakes is conso- nant with “occupational connnitmcnt” (Sampson and Laub 1993. p. 156). the “stability that goes With good work” (Crutchfield and Pitchford 1997. p. 112). and social embedded- ness in employment (Hagan and McCarthy 1997. p. 232). In each case. some variant of career stakes or commitment affects deviant behavior. Future research could explore the effectsofcareerstakesandjOb sarisfactionamongoldercohortstoseewhetherthesesuh- jective work attitudes continue to affect employee deviance in later life stages. There are several limitations to the current study. First. our results are based on a single community sample ofa cohort of young adults. The effects ofcareer stakes may difi'er in other labor markets or life-course stages. Second, We have no independent verification of the validity and reliability of our retrospective self-reported deviance Despite thiscaveacthaeis little reasontosuspectthatthepastyear‘s deviancewouldheunderre- portedrelativetoreportsofthesameitems forthehighschoolperiod.1hird.highratesof job turnover among the young adult population complicate efi’orts to tie specific jobs to specific ofi‘enses. Nevertheless. we included a turnover indicator in our models and any unmeasured variation in turnover would likely bias estimates ofjoh attributes downward rather than upward. resulting in more conservative tests of our hypotheses. Finally. our dichotomous measures of Islam market sector. turnover. and employee benefits and training may not Capone important variations in these factors that could afi‘ect employee deviance. Despite these limitations. this research supports a social invesunent model of employee deviance among a general sample. When individuals' current jobs match their long-term career goals, they hold a stake in workplace conformity that inhibits deviant behavior. Although we found little evidence that benefit levels and worker training affect employee deviance. we would not argue that organizations can afiord to ignore such considerations in their hiring and human resources practices. If firms offer high-tumover. low-wage work dratlackshenefits andjobsecmity. few oftheiremployeesare likelytodevelopcareer stakes in their jobs. To workplace deviance. then. employers should offer satis- firingworkwithestahlishedcareerlinesandideufifypotenfial employeesonthehasisof their long-term career interests as well as their education and work experience. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Tlusresearehwassuppomdhygrantsfi'omtheNafionallnsfimmofMenmlHedth (“Work Experience and Mental Health: A Panel Study of Youth." ME 42843) and the Uni- versity of Minnesota (UROP Program). We thank leylan. Mortimer for providing the data 260 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 413N013!!!) aswellasencouragemtinevery mgeofflaisresearch. WealsothunkSabrimOesteu-le. Melissa Thompson. Janna Cheney. and the anonymous ISQ reviewers for assistance and helpful comments. NOTES 1. Aboutfivepermofrhempondemsmpfied“don'tknow"mthecmmkesquesfion.% codafltese“don'tknows'nslmfingammkeinflnircumljohsflgmafingthemwifl: mpondemwbommmehcmmjobsmmfinkdwdnkhumijfiveflmm cleaflydomtmgrflzelheirjobsnspmvidingamkeinwnfmmity. 2.3mmwmkmsinmaflmdeandmiwmmmyhavemwnifiesmmmh themweiuitlallydistinglflshed betweenuervicejohsandotherseoonduymenmlmeDue to a low numberofmpoodenm working in the [nommicelmib modal-y sector (31 of 739 respondents).weoombinetheseoondnrywimmemicdrenilsecmforouranalysianmninitial trichotomja.weeknified‘lllmoemoftheworkmasplimmsecmrJBpememasservioeorrmfl. m4peroentasotherseoorndary.1hus,forfl1edichotomous[adjourn-.atotalofflpementofthe writingrespondentsareelamifiedassewndm'yseeroremploym. 3. Approximately I3 peroerllofmepurfieipanlsueAsioupememmAfi-iM American.4 pucenlanfim,IpemenlareAmefiounIudian.md6pemeulomerm. 4. Beenuaethepasbyearemployeedevinuoeindexnflemlneidememdhishmhoolanployee dwimeisamuanetwovariablmdomtshmaoommonmeuic.Whoaweesfimawdmodelsin whichbofinemployeedwiunoemeammswemphoedmamnnnmm-poimmk.wmn wmauhmfivelysimjlurtollmaempmtedbelow. 5. Wmsidemdesfimafingnmmmlequafionmdelmnwuddpmfifimmeduwefiemof unployerbenefilxnndmmdevimefromflnirindhuxefiemthroughwwmmjob satisfaction.Hemmewefmmdlinkmhfionbemeeuduuuployervuiahkswddwimoejaw- evenwepresmtmemultiplemgmssiununalysismhermndummlmdel. 6. Weslwesdmaledmodebluwluchwmmkeswmdjcmimdmnduglevuhbkmd modelswizlasepunmmdimorvuiahleslor“hjghmke"md“parfiflmke"hemhmw mauhswmveryconsistonlwmllhoserepmhdinThblelRelafivomflmsewhosemtjoba wmmeMkIW-mmwfifimmmmmflmmmLlfewer mmdfimwfihparfiflmkesmdfifmminmequfionlhuwmmequimt whomehownlnmodeliof‘l'ablel 1'.Toexphmpouafialgmdadiflmmmmeefiecnofwindependemvmfihhs.wedm estimated models formale-sandfemalessepamtely.Althmghtlwrewenfewmmiuuysigmflmt sendifl‘emnoea.flneffemofmermkeswassfifllflysmxerforfemaleamddleefieaofaudm iry positionwu slighuymngerformlles. 8. We used (law's (1960) test for global equivalence: F a [SSMTUML 'lssmom +55m2)]/(K+ 1) wherelhembscripulundzmdexflnmosepumeaamples.mlndicamflieoomblnedm- ple.andKlsIheuumberofindependenrvuriahie3inoneequaljon. REFERENCES Allan. Emilie Amlersou. and Darrell l. Stefi‘easmeler. 1989. "Youth. Undermuploymnl. and Prop- erty Crime: Difieremial Elfecm of Job Availability and Job Quality on Juvenile and Young Adult Arrest Rates." American Sociological Review 54:107—123. Career labs. Survival Jobs, and Employee Deviance 261 Beck. E. M.. Pan-id: M. Heron. and Charles M. Tblbert II. 1978. “Stratification in a Dual Economy: A Sectoral Model of Earnings Determination.” Alum-icon Sociological Review 43:104—120. Becker. Howard. 1960. "Notes on the Concept of Commitment.” American Jamaal of Sociology 66:32-40. — — —. 1963. Drusilla": Studio: in the Sociology ochvlonce. Glencoe. lL: Free Press. (Ill-low. G. C. l960. "Tests of Equality between Subsets of Coefficients in No Linear Regression Models." Econortmrice 28:591—605. Comer. Michael J. 1985. Corporate Fraud. moon: MoSraw-Hill. Ctutchdeld. Robert D. 1989. "Labor Stratification and Violent Crime.“ Social Forces 63:489—5 l2. Crutchfleld. Robert 1).. and Susan R. Pitchford. 199?. “Work and Crime: The Efl'ecta of Labor Stratification." Social Force: 7693—! 18. Donovan. John E. and Ritzhard lessor. 1985. “Structure of Problem Behavior in Adolescence and Young Adulthood." Jamal of comma; and Clinical Psychology 53:390—904. Edelman. Lauren B.. and Mark C. Suchman. 1997. "The Legal Environments of Organizations.“ Annual Review of Sociology 23:479~515. Eklnnd-Dlaon, Sheldon. and William R. Kelly. 1993. Justice under Pressure: rl Comm of Recidivism Plateau mag Four Succeanve Boole Collar-ta. New York: Spring-Wing. Elder. Glen H. 1935. "Perspectives on :he Life Cm.” Pp. 23-49 In Life Cottch Dynamics. edited by Glen H. Elder. ltlnca. NY: Cornell University Press. England. Paula. and George Farkaa. I996. Households. Employment and Gender: A Social. Eco morale and Democh Hem New York: Aldine dc Gruyler. Finch. Michael D.. Michael J. Shannhan, Jeylan T. Mortimer. and Sccngryeol Ryn. 1991. “Work Experience and Control Orientation in Adolescence." Amricon Sociological Review 56:591—- 61]. Finkel. Steven E. [995. Causal Anabel: with Panel Dam. 'Hnuaand Oaks. CA: Sage. Gottfredaon. Michael R. and Travis Hirschi. [990. A General Theory ofCrlme. Stanford. CA: Stan» ford University Press. Gwen. Gary S. 1997. Occupational Crone. 2d ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Greenbetg. Jerald. I990. "Employee “rhea aa a Reaction to Underpaymem lnequity: The Hidden Cost of Pay Cuts.” Journal oprplicd Psychology 'l5:561-568. -—--——. £993. “Stealing in the Name of Justice: Informational and Interpersonal Moderator: of Theft Reactions to Underpaymt lucquity." Organizational Behavior and Harm Decision Proccsm 54:131-103. ———. 1991'. "Ihc STEAL Motive: Managing the Social Determinants of Fmployce Theft." Pp. 85-403 in mistrial Behavior in Organizations. edited by R. A. Giacalone and Jerald Green- berg. Thouaaod Oaka. CA: Sage. Greenberg. Jerald. and Kimberly S. Scott. I996. “Why DoWorkers Bite the Hands that Focd‘I‘hern? Employee Theft as a Social Exchange Process.” Pp. Ill-156 inflame-ll in 0:30:11er Behavior. edited by B. M. Straw and L. L. Cummings. Greenwich. ('1': JAI Press. Greenberg. Liane and Julian Darling. [996. “Employee Then." Pp. 49-64 in fiends irI Crawlin- rionol Behofior. vol. 3. edited by C. L. Cooper and D. M. Rousseau. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hagan. John. A. R. Gillia. and John Simpson. 1935. “The Class Structure of Gender and Delin- quency: Toward a Power-Control Theory of Common Delinquent Behavior.” American Jour- nolofSociology 90:1151—1ITB. Hagan. John. and Bill McCarthy. 199?. Mean Streets: Your}! Crone and Homelessness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hagan. John. John Simpson. and A. R. Gillia. 1981. “Class in the Household: A Power-Control Tho- ory of Gender and Delinquency.” America Journal of Sociology 92988-816. Ham's. Diana K.. and Michael]... Benson. 1998. “Nursing Home Theft: The Hidden Problem." .lom rial onging Smdt‘ea 12:51-61 262 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 41lNo. mono Hawkins. Richard. I934. "Employee Thefi in the Restaurant Trade: Forms of Ripping Off by Wale era at Work.” Deviant: Behavior 5:41—69. Henry.5ltlart. I931.Canlflaveirin Cash? [nanometre-age} Books. Hindelang. Michael L."l'rav'ts l-lirschi. and Joseph G. Weis. I98]. Measurbrg Delhqmcy. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage. Hodaon. Randy. I996. “Dignity in the Workplace under Participative Management: Alienation and Freedom Revisited.“ American Sociological Review 6| :‘l I9—‘l38. Hollinger. Richard C. 1986. “Acts against the Wornplace: Social Bonding and wployee Deviance." Deviant Behavior 1:53-45. ~—- —. I991. "Neutralizing in the Workplace: An Empirical Analysis of Proper-ry Theft and Pro- duction Deviance.” Deviant Behavior 12:169-202. Hollinger. Richard, and John Clark. 1982a. “Employee Deviance: A Reqnnse to the Perceived Quality of the Work Experience." Work and Occupation; 9:91—1l4. ——~. l932h. “Fennel and Informal Social Controls of Employee Deviance." The Sociological Qumerly 23:333-343. — ———. 1983a. “Deterrence in the Workplace: Perceived Certainty. Perceived Severity. and Employee Theft." Social Forces 62:393-418. ———. 1983b. Mby W5. Lexington. MA: Lexington Books. Hailinger. Richard (2.. Karen E. Store. and William This. [992. “Deviance in the Fest-Food Restaw rant: Cor-relates of Employee Theft. Altruism. and Counterproductivity.” Deviam Behavior 13:155—184. Homing. Donald N. M. 1910. “Bluefiollar Theft Comepfiona of Property. Attitudes toward Pilfer— ing. and Work Group Norms in a Modern industrial Plant." Pp. 46-64 in Crime: marl Bureaucracy. edited by E. O. Srm‘gel and H. L. Rose. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Johnson. Michael P. I991. “Comitment to Personal Relationships" Pp. lIT—I“ in Advance: in Personal Relarionrlllpr. vol. 3, edited by W. Jones and D. Phrhnan. London: Kingsley. Kemper. Theodore D. I966. "Representative Roles and the Legitimation of Deviance.“ Social Pmb lam 13:288-498. Lincoln. James R.. and Arne L. Kalleberg. 1990. Dillon, Control. and Comlnecnr: A Study of librl: Organization and work Wines in the United Slater and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lipman. Mark. and W. R. McGraw. 1988. “Employee Then: A $40 Billion Industry.” Annals ofrhe American Academy ofPolirieal and Social Science: 493:5 [-59. Mangione. Thomas W., and Robert P. Quinn. 1975. “Job Satisfaction. Cranmer-productive Behavior. and Drug Use at Work." Journal oprplled hydrology 60:!14—“6. Mars. Gerald. I903. "Hotel Pilferage: A Case Study in Occupational Theh." Pp. ZED-210 in The Sociology ofrlre We. edited by M. Waiter. London: Allen and Unwin. ———. 1974. “Dock Pilfa-age: A Case Study in Occupational Thefi.” Pp. 209—228 in Deviance and Serial Control. edited by P. Rock and M. McIntosh. London: ‘Iaviatock. — -— —. 1982. Chester at lWork: Arr Anthropology of Wkplace Crime. London: Allen and Unwin. Montgomery. James D. I998. "lbward a Role-Theoretic Conception of Embeddedness.” American Journal afSociongy [04102425. Murphy. Kevin R. I993. Honesty in the “brkplace. Pacific Grove. ca.- Buntleole. Par-illa. Peter E. Richard C. Hollinger. and John H Clark. 1988. “Organizational Control of Deviant Behavior: The Case of Employee Theft.“ Social Science Qwerly 69:261-280. Parker. Robert E. 1994. Flesh fiddler: and “one Bodies: The ibuporary Help industry audio- librkers. New Brunswick. NJ: Rutgers University Pfess. Pitts. Melinda K. 1998. “Demand for Part-time Workers in the U5. Ecornmy: Why is the Dim-im— tion moss Industries Uneven?“ Social Science Research 2737408. Powell, Walter W. E996. “Fields of Pramice: Connections between Law and Organizations." Law and Social Inquiry 21:959—966. Careerlobs, Sunrivallobs, and Employee Deviance 263 Quinn. Robert P.. and Graham L Slaines. 1979. The l9??? Quality of Employinenr Survey. Ann Arbor: University of Robin. Gerald D. [969. “Employees as Ofi'enders." Joantal ofRerear-clr on Crime and Delinquency 6:!7-33. ———. I970. "FbeCorporatcanrlJndicial DispositionolEmployceThieves.”Pp. 119-142 inCrinier mammalian byE O.Smigelandi-LL Ross. NewYorkszoamrulReinhoid. — — —. 1914. “Whimilar Crime and Employee Thea." Crime and Delinquency 20:251—262. Rnbirison, Sandra l... and Jerald Grecnbcrg. I998. “Earqaloycea BebaVing Badly: Dinnnsiona. Determi- nantaandDiletrtmnintbeSmdyofWorltplaneDeviance.”Pp. ifimin'll'endtin Wm! Behavior. vol. 5.ed'rtedbyD. M. RmsseanandCLqum. NewYtntlohnWileylndSom Robinson. Sandra L.. and Anne M. O'Laary-Kelly. 1998. "Monkey See. Monkey Do: The Influence of Wink Groups on the Antisocial Behavior of Employees.“ Academy ofManagenmu Journal “$58412. Ruggiero. Mary. Ellen Greenherxer. and Laurence D. Steinberg. 1982. “Occupational Deviance among Adolescent Workers." Youth and Society [3:423—448. Sakamoto. Arthur. and Meichu D. Chen. I99I. “inequality and Attainment in a Dual labor Mamet." American Sociological Review 56:299-308. Sampson. Rona-51.. and John H. Laub. 1990. "Crime and Deviance over the Life Course: The Salienoe of Adult Social Bonds.” American Sociological Review 55:609421“. ———. I993. cwmmm:mmwnmgmmmgnwemm: Harvard University Press. Shapiro. Susan P. 1990. "Collar-ins the Crime. Not the Criminal: Reconsidering the Concept of White-collar Grim" American Sociological Review 55:346-365. Sherman. Lamnoe W.. and Douglas A. Smith. I992. “more. Punishment. and Stake in Conformity: Legal and informal Control of Domestic Violence." American Sociological Review 57m. Shaver. Neil. [996. Grew Pretenders: Pursuits and Career: of Emit-rear Thieves. Boulder. CO: Whetview Press. Sieh. Edward W. I931. “Garment Workers: Perceptions of lnequity and Employee Theft.” British Journal of Criminology 27:174490. Slora. Karen E. 1939. "An Empirical Approach to Determining Employee Deviance Base Rates.“ Journal offlmlncu‘ and Psychology 4:199—219. Tcrrie. William. and John Jones. 1982. "Psychological Factors Reiamed to Employeea' Theft in the Convenience Store lnduauy." Psychological Report: 5t:12l9-1233. "lbby. Jackson. l95'l. “Social Disorganizan'on and Stake in Conformity: Complementary Factors in the Behavior of Hoodlum." Journal of Criminal Law. Criminology: and Pbiioe Science 48:12—11 'I‘racy. Paul E... and Kimberly Kempf—Leonard 1996. Continuity and Discontinuiry in Criminal Careers. New York: Plenum Press. Trevino. Linda Klebe. and Satan A. Youngblood. l990. “Bad Apples in Bad Bamls: A Cmsal Anal- ysis of Ethical Decisiommalting Behavior." Journal oprplr‘ed Psychology 355784385. hacker. Jam. 1939. "Employee Theft as Social Control." Deviant Behavior 10:319—334. Uggen. Christopher. 1999. “Ex—ofi‘enders and the Conformist Alternative: A lob mality Model of Work and Crime.“SociolProblem.r4-6: I2'l—15i. Ulmer. Jeffery T. 1994. "Revisiting Stebbins: Labeling and Cummitrnent to Deviance." The Socio- logical Quarterly 35:135—I5'l. Wallerstein. James A.. and Clement l. Wyle. I947. "Our law-abiding Law Breakers." Probation 15:107—1 l2. Western. Bruce. [995. “A Comparative Study of Marking-class Disorganization: Union Decline in Eighteen Advanced Capitalist Countries.“ Anlerinait Sociological Review 60:179—201. Zeitiin. Lawrence R. I97]. “A Little larceny Can Do a lot for Employee Morale." Prychology Today lune. 1:51.22. 24. 26. 64. ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/19/2010 for the course SOC 4111 taught by Professor Uggen during the Spring '10 term at University of Minnesota Crookston.

Page1 / 19

Huiras_Uggen_McMorris_TSQ_00 - CAREER JOBS, SURVIVAL JOBS,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 19. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online