The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior

Abstract

In the literature of management and organization studies, the emphasis on the importance of human capital has increased with Neoclassical and later Modern management approaches after the Classical Period. The emphasis on the importance of human capital and human factor has increased with Neoclassical and later Modern management approaches after the Classical Period. With the understanding that the most important resource that organizations have is human, all kinds of positive and negative behaviors that the members of the organization will display in their workplaces appear as an important element for the business to continue its activities and gain competitive advantage. At this point, traditional organization and organizational behavior theories are shaped within the framework of rational human behavior. However, it is an undeniable fact that the behaviors exhibited by human nature will not always be positive and that negative attitudes will affect organizations and other individuals in different areas. Positivist organizational approaches, which deal with the behavior of organizational members in the context of cause-effect relationships, generally focus on the positive behaviors of employees. The dark side of organizational behavior, which is a reflection of irrational human behaviors and harms businesses with its negative consequences, has become one of the important research areas in recent years. It is important to determine how the irrational human factor, which traditional organizational behavior theories lack, can be directed in line with organizational goals. At this point, the necessity of considering all kinds of positive and negative behaviors exhibited by individuals with a holistic perspective emerges. The negative attitudes and behaviors in question represent the dark side of the organizational field. In this study, in which some basic concepts that make up the dark side of organizations are discussed, the antecedents, reasons, and reflections of the aforementioned behaviors in the organizational field are emphasized.

1. Introduction

When the organization and management literature is examined, it will be seen that it is full of concepts such as organizational citizenship behavior, positive organizational climate, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational identification. All these positive concepts are based on the assumption that human nature is compatible with external behavioral regulations and can be easily shaped. As Douglas McGregor mentioned in the X and Y theory, although some researchers claim the opposite, this positive view has continued. Organizational behavior researchers have had the goal of creating happy employees in the workplace, starting from the idea that “happy cows produce more milk.” For this reason, organizational behavior research has focused on the positive aspects of organizational life [1, 2, 3, 4]. At the same time, although some scholars have emphasized the dark side of organizational life, many researchers have focused on producing pragmatic tools for today’s managers. The positive aspects of organizational life still dominate in organizational behavior (OB) research [5, 6]. However, it is not possible to isolate employees who are part of organizational life from negative emotions such as jealousy, anger, enmity, hatred, and revenge. From this point of view, some academics draw attention to the fact that the dynamics that shape the dark side actors of organizations can further explain the perspectives and behavioral structures of employees. Another point that should not be overlooked is that this dark side that emerges in organizations is a double-sided coin consisting of employees and managers [7, 8]. It is sometimes the practices of the managers that bring the dark side of organizational behavior to light, and sometimes it can be caused by the personality traits of the employees. Sometimes, the inappropriate use of power by managers causes negative behaviors in organizations, while negatively affecting the interaction between managers and employees.

Weber confirmed the existence of Weberian pessimism about the negative consequences of the domination of organizations filled with legal rational authority on societies and Coleman [6] following this historical transformation. This transformation changes social relations and individuals interact not only with individuals but also with organizations and other organizations in their organizations as before. Coleman’s first prediction on this subject is that the structural transformation in question leads to both perceived and real loss of power for individuals. But the rise of these formal organizations has also opened up new possibilities for negative societal consequences, as error, abuse, and destruction have brought forth [9]. Surprisingly, however, the harmful actions caused by the dark side of organizations and the far-reaching social costs to the public have not been recognized as central to the field of sociologists, whose expertise is defined as organizations, professions, and work. Organizational sociologists have argued that formal organizations may deviate from the rationalist expectations of the Weberian model and that mainstream organizational theories are part of pathologies that harm organizational members [10, 11]. At the same time, organizational sociologists have been working on defining the dark side of organizations for a long time and have a lot of knowledge about how things go wrong in organizations. But without theories of organizational behavior, all of the socially organized conditions that produced harmful consequences remained obscure. All these reasons reveal the need to clarify the dark side of organizations with interdisciplinary studies.

The main source of interest in the dark side of organizational behavior is the negative consequences and destructive effects of the negative effects of the negative attitudes and behaviors of the human resources, which are vital for organizations, in the organization. Evaluating this emerging picture, it is thought that the dark side of organizations, which is a new and often overlooked phenomenon, should be included in the center of current organizational theory. This phenomenon will contribute to organizational theory in its new and analytical solutions to cope with the negativities it will create in organizations. At this point, considering the permeability between borders, it is important to evaluate an alternative critical perspective to the mainstream organizational theory together, in terms of determining the place of the dark sides of organizations in organizational behavior. Information about the dark side of organizations, within and between disciplines, can be considered in four categories.

• First, the contrasts and similarities in the studies on the subject are not clear. However, the theoretical framework for discussion has not been determined and there is no dialog necessary for intellectual development.

• Second, the importance of both the social origins and organizational consequences of harmful organizational behaviors has not been fully elucidated.

• Third, the sociological basis of policy implications for organizations, the public, and agents of social control is not yet developed.

• Finally, there is a broader theoretical background [9].

These different approaches are important arguments that can be used to understand, evaluate, and compare the dark side of organizations. Organizational theories and organizational behavior theories, which are shaped within the framework of rational human behaviors, have been deeply shaken by the dark side of organizational behavior, which is a reflection of irrational human behaviors [9]. This shift, which emerged at the baseline, needs to be handled carefully within the framework of its negative effects at the organizational level.

This study begins by examining the dark side of organizations and negative emotions among employees in the workplace. Emotions can have both positive and negative consequences in business. In the first systematic studies of the management literature, an emotion-free environment was constructed. With the devastating effects of the Great Depression, which emerged in the continuation of globalization and industrialization, the ignoring of emotions in the workplaces paid the price. After this initial shock was over, the intellectual movement sought to examine and explain emotions. Emotions have been classified by scientists in various ways, positive and negative. Thus, possible causes and consequences of positive and negative emotions were tried to be defined. Studies have proven that the psychological burden of negative emotions and events is at a higher level than expected. From this point of view, the organization in the background of the dark side of organizational behavior will be evaluated within the framework of theories, relations with variables, and solution proposals.

2. The dark side of organizational behavior

Throughout history, darkness and light have been used as metaphors to describe the conditions people live in, their state of consciousness, their deepest instinctual impulses, and the border between life and death. It is very ironic that this metaphor is being used today as a “dark side” metaphor to describe problems that are overlooked, suppressed, or ignored in the field of organization, along with traditional management studies. Organizations define the external economic environment as the source of emerging problems. What is overlooked here is the consequences of human behavior in organizations. From this point of view, it has enabled the redefinition of negative elements in mainstream organizational theory and behavior as external or externally driven. In the last two decades, it has been understood that the dark side has ceased to be an external phenomenon that affects organizational action, but rather defines the dark side within the boundaries of the organization [7].

Studies on the dark side of organizational behavior have evaluated the concept in the axis of systematic violence and aggression in the workplace. The scope of these alarming behaviors, which can be considered as abnormal and deviant, has expanded rapidly and gathered under the umbrella of dark side. This trend-oriented study by Griffin and O’Leary-Kelly [7] has been a turning point for behaviors that are expressed as the dark side of organizational behavior. This study focuses on functional or dysfunctional ambiguous and motivated behaviors that contribute to people and organizational processes [12]. Violence in the workplace, which is the mainstay of this perspective, includes concepts such as stress, aggression, sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, local violence that also affects the workplace, careerism, breach of psychological contract, incivility, and theft. It consists of situations where injustices are perpetuated, and the pursuit of wealth, power, or revenge leads people to unethical, illegal, despicable, or reprehensible behavior [7].

Many of the behaviors belonging to the dark side are difficult to understand and observe. For this reason, psychology, sociology, organizational behavior and so on have been investigated at different levels by different disciplines. The dark side of organizational behavior has become an inseparable part of the field by being theorized and in an increasing variety at the individual, group, and organizational level in recent years. Studies show that a wide variety of personal relationships in the workplace are compatible with the dark side framework from a negative point of view, but they are not named as such. At this point, it is seen that negative perspectives are closely related to dark side frameworks and there are studies that deal with different interpersonal relationships in the workplace [13]. While the individual oriented structures of the studies focus on dark side of leadership [14], deviant and counterproductive behaviors in the workplace [15, 16, 17, 18], workplace violence and aggression [19, 20], interpersonal [21, 22], maltreatment workplace incivility [23] are the subjects.

In studies of the dark side, Ackroyd and Thompson [24] tried to go beyond accepting these behaviors as misbehaviors, deviations, or oppositional resistance while reclassifying the relationships between deviant behaviors that occur in various ways from the traditional perspective. Vaughan [1], who tries to look at the dark side of organizational behavior from a different perspective, states that the dark side can be accepted as “non-compliance with routine” and this acceptance will bring along three basic negative consequences called error, abuse, and destruction. However, it is stated that such behaviors are a result of routine systems and that it is a predictable and repetitive process not only in organizations but also in all social systems. However, dark side behaviors are influenced by environmental and organizational factors. Environmental factors include innovation, competition, growth factors, and imitability, while organizational factors generally include structure, processes, and tasks. In addition, socio-cognitive factors should be considered in the evaluations of the dark side [9].

One of the studies with a different perspective is the study by Ackroyd and Thompson [24] in which they openly criticize mainstream organizational behavior approaches. Here is an individualistic understanding of rationality and the illusion of organizational behavior that “if something can be understood, it can be managed.” Vardi and Wiener’s emphasis on primarily concrete covers not only psychological analysis but also sociological approaches. The point here is that organizational politics stems from the conflict of “unequal power and structural resources,” collectively shared and opposing interests. This point of view is considered to be somewhat sharp, even extremist, for organizational behavior. Management processes and workplace rationalities are not just top-down. Resistance to undesirable practices hides the bad behaviors that occur in the organization in a very different way. However, their purpose in bringing this to light is to complicate understanding rather than merely improving performance.

When the dark side is evaluated not only at the organizational but also at the individual level, the acceptance that the darkness may be deeply rooted in the inner world of the individual can bring a different perspective to the subject. It is a reality that we do not want to accept the fact that repressed or hidden disturbing desires, motivations can lead individuals to lie, cheat, steal, bully, and even kill someone. This inner dark side that we try to deny is associated with organizational violence [22, 25]. The existence and impact of this institutional psychopathology has been explored especially since the 2002–2003 ethical crisis and the 2007–2008 financial crisis [26, 27, 28, 29]. Griffin and O’Leary-Kelly [7] want to illuminate the current dilemmas of organizations with their work without creating a simple contrast between dark and light. This desire is to provide a positive contribution to the improvement of organizational functioning and the experience of people working within organizations.

Later on, it was concluded that “the organizational aspects typically associated with the bright side are also on the dark side.” In this outcome, environmental factors include innovation, imitability, growth factors, and the ability or strength to compete for scarce resources, while organizational factors broadly encompass structure, processes, and tasks; it also considers socio-cognitive factors. The dark side is included in the light side as “structural bonds” at the environmental level. Three circles are mentioned together with the patterns and their origins [9]. These environments emerge in characteristic forms at the organizational and socio-cognitive level. Accordingly, it is thought that the sharing of concepts among the fields of interest and at the same time the reevaluation of the empirical emphasis between the fields will enrich the theoretical structure of the dark side. On this plane, dark-side behavior may be negative, abnormal, or even deviant from an organizational point of view, but they do not tend to stereotype or stigmatize behaviors, groups, and actors, recognizing that these behaviors may appear normal, rational when observed from different perspectives and with different tools [7]. It will enable organizational action to be taken to eliminate the causes of undesirable behavior belonging to the dark side and improve its consequences.

According to the results obtained from the studies conducted on the dark side, they organize their dark side behaviors into two broad categories, those that harm others and those that harm the organization, and each of these is further divided into two subcategories.

2.1 Behaviors toward harming others and self

Behaviors in this category are primarily and directly aimed at harming oneself or others. We can express these as two subheadings [7].

• Toward Others

• Psychological Violence (Verbal/Verbal)

• Physical Violence

• Sexual Harassment

• General Unsafe Work Behaviors

• Self-Oriented:

• Alcohol and Illegal Drug Use

• Smoking

• Private Unsafe Business Behaviors

• Suicide Attempt

2.2 The dark side of harmful behavior to the organization

In this category, negative behaviors aimed primarily at harming the organization itself are included, and harming human welfare is secondary. These are as follows:

• Behaviors Causing Certain Financial Costs:

• Inappropriate absenteeism and being late for work

• Theft against organizational property or property

• Damage to organization property or property

• Violating laws, rules, and regulations

• Disruptive behaviors

• Behaviors that do not cause definite financial costs:

• Political behavior

• Inappropriate impression management behaviors

• Violation of privacy

• Persistent poor performance

The dark side of organizational behavior is very comprehensive, and it has been seen in the literature that negative work behaviors are defined by various intertwined concepts. Gruys ([30]:40) stated in his literature review that he achieved over 250 anti-goal work behaviors. This result is important in terms of showing that the concept takes place in a very wide range. In this context, behaviors that are defined as the dark side of organizational behavior in the organizational behavior literature and that have negative consequences can be grouped under some headings. Definitions of some of these are given below.

Anti-Production Behaviors: These are conscious behaviors that have harmful effects on the organization and its members. These behaviors consist of active and passive actions and acts aimed at committing crimes. It includes active actions such as theft or aggression, and passive actions such as deliberately disobeying instructions or doing wrong work [31].

Mobbing: It can be defined as systematic, non-metric hostile communication by one or more people in the workplace against another employee [32].

Workplace Rudeness: Workplace incivility is defined as low-intensity deviant behavior with a goal-directed, ambiguous intention that goes against the norms of mutual respect in the work environment. Unpolite behavior is considered rude behavior that includes disrespect for others [33].

Cynical Behaviors: It is the negative attitude of the employee toward the organization. The belief that the organization lacks integrity is characterized by negative affect toward the organization, and a tendency to be condescending and critical toward the organization consistent with this belief and affect [34].

Sexual Harassment: Any undesirable verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that violates or influences the dignity of a person, especially by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating, embarrassing, and offensive environment [35].

Organizational Silence: Employee silence is the deliberate concealment of meaningful information, suggestions, questions, and concerns that can be used for the benefit of the organization [36]. Employee silence has direct (deprivation of information provided by the employee in solving operational problems, decrease in innovation, etc.) and indirect (such as stress and health problems in the employee) costs to the organization [37].

Careerism: Employees use methods such as establishing good relationships, advertising, and deceptive behaviors to pretend to be successful, instead of performance-based methods for career advancement. These employees have a tendency to harm the organization or its members when necessary [38].

Social Loafing Behavior: Social loafing is defined as the tendency of individuals to exert less effort when working in groups than when working individually [39].

Cyberloafing: It is defined as the employee’s use of the internet connection of the institution he/she works for personal purposes during business hours and is considered as a behavior of deviation from production [40].

Revenge Behaviors: It is expressed as punishment in return for the wrong behavior perceived by the employee. Revenge behavior is shown among the main causes of aggressive behavior [41].

Gossip and Rumor: It is an informal form of communication conveyed to another person or persons, regardless of whether it actually exists or not. Rumor or gossip can have positive or negative consequences [42].

Destructive Political Behaviors: Political behavior is the use of force to influence others in the organization, to secure personal or collective interests, or to avoid negative situations in the organization. While political behaviors have positive benefits for the organization in some cases, they also have negative consequences. For example, when a manager promotes a friend with lower qualifications than other candidates, this dysfunctional behavior will cost the organization [7].

3. Approaches to explain the dark side of organizational behavior

According to Griffin and O’Leary-Kelly [7], the dark side of organizational behavior is defined as the behaviors performed by an employee or group in the organization with the motivation to have negative consequences for them. The authors divide the motivation for the emergence of the dark side of behavior into two. The first is the desire for negative consequences of behavior to occur. These results are measurable (such as direct theft and making a non-optimal organizational decision due to an indirect personal situation/agenda). The second is that the individual or individuals have the intention or awareness to show the behavior because of the consequences of this behavior. In this context, it is necessary to separate simple human errors from such behavior. Vaughan [9] in his article on the dark side of organizations stated that examining the dark sides of organizations is to reveal the functional inadequacy of the institutional foundations of the society. He stated that his routine non-compliance, mistake, misconduct, and inadequate behavior are not abnormal, but the product of complex structures and processes. He emphasized that the dark side of behavior is systematically produced by the interconnection between environment, organizations, cognition, and choice, which includes both unintentional and willing outcomes. The author stated that behavior is rational in situational contexts and that the social context can break the link between rational choice and its consequences. That’s why organizations he claimed that it can produce unpredictable negative (negative) results that will cause deviation from determined goals, normative standards, and expectations.

The term dark side is actually a relative term. Even if it means a negative deviation from the targeted reference point, it is important what the deviation actually means here. For example, resistance to change can be “negative” even for those who advocate change. Because if change takes place, they may lose their jobs [10, 11, 43]. Therefore, the dark side of anything is relative and positional. To accommodate this relativity it was important that the study be as comprehensive as possible. To this end, the literature focuses on the connections between definitions and outcomes that can often be seen as counter to the core values, interests, or goals of the various stakeholders in the organization and its environment.

As it can be understood from the definition, the complicated structure of the dark side of organizational behavior and the ability to direct attitudes and behaviors require a wide range of evaluation of the field. Different theories and approaches are used to explain the complex structure created by these various fields.

In the reductionist approach, positivist organizational approaches, which rationally model organizations, and therefore organizational members, in the context of cause-effect relationship, left the studies on the dark side of the human factor that can act irrationally incomplete [9]. The stated shortcoming is related to the fact that studies in the field of organizational behavior generally center positive employee behaviors. However, it is important to understand the dark side of organizational behavior in order to integrate and direct employees from different personality traits and different cultures with organizational goals.

Theories and approaches explaining the dark side of organizational behavior vary due to the complex nature of the concept. In the literature review, it is seen that social commitment, expectation, empowerment, social learning, social information processing, frustration-aggression, emotional events and agency theories, and causal reasoning and stress-loading emotion model are used to explain the dark structure of organizational behavior.

1. Social Learning Theory: The theory developed by Bandura, individuals who receive positive/positive feedback for aggressive actions learn to exhibit aggressive behaviors. The theory attributes the causes of aggression to external factors rather than internal factors (instinct) and states that aggression is learned through direct experience and imitation, as in other behaviors [44].

2. Frustration-Aggression Theory: It accepts the theory’s definition of aggression as a reactive behavior, not instinctive. The basic premise of the theory is the assumption that when goal-directed behavior is inhibited, it will lead to aggression. The inhibition in question may come from the person’s environment, or it may occur as a result of contradictory wishes and tendencies within himself. Tendency to aggression is determined by the frequency and intensity of disruptive experiences [45]. Fox and Spector [46] found a positive relationship between anti-productive behaviors in organizations and organizational restraint (prevention of achieving personal and organizational goals).

3. Causal Reasoning Theory: The theory was developed by Martinko, Gundlach and Douglas [47]. They argue that counterproductive behaviors have two perspectives in common. These are beliefs about how individuals evaluate the quality of their outcomes (justice, equality, success, or failure) and attribution and attribution behaviors toward the causes of their outcomes. This is a two-stage cognitive process. Individuals evaluate their outputs in terms of their qualities, by making a kind of comparison. As a result of the evaluation, they perceive the situation as unbalanced, unjust, or unequal. This perception includes analyzing the causes of the situation and referring as a result. The main focus of the model is on what causes the outputs to be attributed, in terms of the nature and nature of anti-production behavior. If the person is referring to their own internal characteristics (such as lack of effort) when faced with a disappointing result, the individual will be more likely to blame himself. As a result of this reference, it will not engage in anti-production work behavior. However, depending on the individual’s internal attribution, negative feelings about himself (shame and guilt) may reveal behaviors such as depression, alcohol, drug use, absenteeism, and poor performance. If the individual makes external references to causing frustration, they will be much more likely to demonstrate some of their anti-productive behavior (aggression, violence, harassment, sabotage, theft, vandalism, fraud).

4. The Stressor-Emotion Model: The model is based on the frustration-aggression theory. It predicts that anti-productive behavior is a response to situations that provoke frustration and anger. In the model, counterproductive behaviors begin with a situation that causes stress at work (role ambiguity, role conflict, workload, interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, unfair practices, etc.). The individual perceives this situation as a stress factor and feels negative emotions (disability, anxiety, anger, etc.). These negative emotions are reflected as anti-production behavior. Stress factor is defined as an environmental situation that causes a negative emotional response in the individual. In addition, the model took perceived control and personality traits (trait anger and anxiety, narcissism, locus of control) as moderator/mediator variables. It has been stated that these mediator/regulatory variables have important contributions in demonstrating the anti-production behavior [47].

As can be seen, the complex structure of the dark side of organizational behavior has been tried to be explained within the framework of different theories. However, historical, sociological, psychological, and organizational studies have been systematically categorized in order to legitimize the theoretical framework regarding the dark side of organizations [7]. Similarly, a number of contemporary psychological studies on the dark side of organizational behavior have been brought together. In light of these studies, international trade [48] and social capital [49, 50] are among the external issues related to the dark side of organizational behavior. Other studies have been conducted on the dark side of management excellence [51], leadership [52], entrepreneurship [53, 54, 55, 56], management decisions [50, 57, 58]. Some of these studies focused on executive psychology [59, 60, 61] and leadership [14, 62, 63]. However, Linstead, Maréchal, Griffin [64], and Bella, King, Kailin [65] have made methodological contributions to revealing the dark side.

4. Antecedents of the dark side of organizational behavior

Many factors are effective in the negative attitudes and behaviors of employees in organizations. In this context, it is possible to categorize the antecedents of dark behavior in terms of personal characteristics and situational factors (organizational, social, and interpersonal factors). When the literature is examined, it has been revealed that employees with anger and anxiety orientation, revenge-oriented attitude, negative affect, low self-control, tendency to bad intentions, negative past experience, narcissistic, psychopathic, Machiavellian personality traits have a higher tendency to exhibit negative organizational behavior [66, 67, 68]. The sub-dimensions of the concept, which is defined as the dark triad in the organizational behavior literature, are grouped as Machiavellian, narcissistic, and psychopathic personality traits. In the meta-analysis study conducted to reveal the relationships between these personality traits and job performance and anti-production behavior. It has been found that employees with these three personality traits have high anti-production behavior and low job performance [68]. Similarly, Bushman [69] revealed that high self-esteem and high narcissism produce the highest level of aggression. In another study evaluating the relationship between organizational deviant behaviors and demographic variables, it was determined that generally male, single, young, newly employed, part-time workers, lower education level, and those working in low paid positions were more prone to organizational deviance behaviors [67, 70]. It is thought that individuals who exhibit dark behavior in organizations have some common characteristics. However, studies have shown that this is not true and the strong roles of contextual factors. It can be said that some personality traits make individuals more reactive, and individuals with this trait are more success-oriented in a certain organizational environment [71, 72].

The organizational factors that are generally effective in the emergence of negative organizational behaviors include perceived injustice, inequality, role ambiguity, role conflict, high workload, low autonomy, low job autonomy, lack of job security, interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, organizational structure, organizational culture and climate, organizational policy and processes, leadership style, working conditions, wage, promotion, and career opportunities [71, 73, 74].

Therefore, the situations that cause the perception of stress and frustration in the organization, together with other variables, may be a factor in the negative behavior of the employees toward the organization. In this context, they are listed below for a more concrete understanding of the subject.

The perception of injustice, which is one of the antecedents of the dark side of organizations, is important in terms of organizational results. Employees who perceive that they are exposed to injustice and unequal treatment by their organizations will want to eliminate this injustice. These reactions of employees generally reflect to third parties outside the employer-employee relationship (colleagues, customers, shareholders, general public), and over time, employees begin to behave reactively [75]. For this reason, while the focus of organizational justice research is organizational outcomes, contemporary studies seem to focus on employee responses, the dark side of injustice [76]. When employees are faced with injustice, their commitment decreases, their absenteeism increases, and their desire to quit their job arises. This situation can reach dimensions that can harm the organization with the decrease in performance. The perception of injustice also triggers the aggression behaviors of the employees with the feeling of revenge, and in a way, it is the response given to the organization against injustice through behaviors such as sabotage, opposing the business rules, and theft [77]. Apart from this, employees may show a tendency to rebuild justice by themselves in order to eliminate the perception of injustice. Accordingly, the tendency to show negative behaviors such as revenge, theft, and idleness increases [78, 79]. At the same time, injustice triggers organizational cynicism. While there is a negative relationship between organizational justice and cynical attitudes [79, 80, 81], he states that employees’ perceptions of injustice increase cynical feelings. It is one of the results of the study by Bateman, Sakono, and Fujita [82] that employees with a perception of unfairness are bored, skeptical, and insecure. Similarly, James [81] and Anderson [83] reveal in their study that organizational cynicism attitudes increase as the organizational justice perception of employees decreases. Organizational cynicism is a common way of expressing dissatisfaction toward their organization [84, 85, 86] and they stated that cynics harbor skepticism toward the organization and display frustration, dissatisfaction, and hatred toward the organization. In addition, academics stated that organizational cynicism is a situation variable and that organizational practices and policies can affect the attitudes of employees. According to cognitive behavioral theory and social exchange theory, employees’ negative perceptions of the organization will produce corresponding coping behaviors. Based on the principle of reciprocity, a hostile exchange of resources is not conducive to the relationship between members of the organization. For example, these attitudes may affect turnover intention and organizational commitment. As a result, organizational cynicism is detrimental to organizational performance and achievement of goals [87]. However, injustice is a factor that can be effective in the silence of employees. If the employees have the perception that the decision-making mechanisms and practices in the organization are fair, this perception is a motivating factor for the employees to eliminate the silence [88]. Studies conducted in this context are of a nature that reveals the existence of a relationship between silence and organizational justice [89, 90, 91]. In addition, Pinder [92] found in his study that employees became silent as a reaction against organizational injustice, and silence emerged as a resistance against injustice. However, the results of the research on silence reveal that the perception of high justice distracts the employees from the silence behavior [93]. Fair behavior of the management within the framework of ethical and moral principles will reduce the level of personal fears of the employees and will encourage them to talk about the problems in the organization.

However, there is a positive relationship between workplace incivility, which is the violation of the norm of mutual respect, avoidance orientation, and organizational climate [75]. When evaluating the subject within the framework of social and interpersonal factors, various elements such as stress and anxiety, resulting from factors like a lack of control, uncertain work conditions, economic conditions, family problems, alcohol and drug use, and social status, contribute to the emergence of dark behaviors [70, 73, 94, 95].

5. Consequences of the dark side of behavior in organizations

The dark side of behavior leads to violent behavior in the workplace. This violence can be psychological as well as physical violence in some cases. These can range from simple arguments to killing a colleague. The fact that violence caused by dark side behavior accounts for 10% of workplace deaths in the United States (2004) reveals the gravity of the situation. It is stated that the number of American workers exposed to physical movement such as hitting, pushing ect. is more than 2 million per year [96].

Negative consequences of dark behavior can be analyzed at three different levels: individual, organizational, and societal. In addition, as mentioned before, every behavior that affects the employee also affects the organization. Negative effects of dark behaviors on the employee; loss of motivation, decrease in performance, decrease in creativity, decrease in self-esteem, depression, irritability, anxiety, negative thoughts, burnout, excessive anger and stress [72]. This situation can cause physical and psychological diseases, smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, occupational accidents, disability, and suicides in employees [97]. Studies have found that there are serious deteriorations in the health of employees who are exposed to violence in the workplace caused by the dark side of organizational behavior. In addition, sleep disorders, musculoskeletal complaints, and post-traumatic stress disorder are observed [72].

Studies reveal that there are serious deteriorations1 in the health of employees who are exposed to workplace violence caused by the dark side of organizational, behavior. However, sleep disorders, musculoskeletal complaints, and post-traumatic stress disorder are seen [72]. It has been determined that the level of stress seen in those exposed to violence in the workplace is higher than the level of post-traumatic stress seen in recently divorced, war zone personnel, etc. [34, 98]. One of the important consequences of violence in business life is employee burnout. Burnout, which can be expressed as “the depletion of mental and physical energy in the individual,” affects not only his work life but also his whole life negatively by depersonalizing the individual physically and spiritually [99].

The dark side of organizational behavior causes negative results in employee relations, work order and work environment in the near and far periods of organizations. From an organizational point of view, it has direct and indirect effects. The direct costs include absenteeism and turnover, accidents, diseases, disabilities, death, and the development of safety systems. On the other hand, indirect costs are equally important and can lead to decrease in productivity, deterioration in product quality, loss of image in the institution, decrease in the number of customers, decrease in the actions that are beneficial to the organization such as organizational commitment, creativity, and organizational citizenship behaviors of the employees. Therefore, the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization is negatively affected [100, 101]. The negative effects of dark behavior on society include economic losses and socio-cultural effects such as increase in health expenses, loss of workforce, and disability. It has been revealed that negative behaviors in the workplace not only affect the physical and psychological health of employees, but also negatively affect family life and quality of life by creating work-family conflict. In this context, it can be said that the relational context of bad behavior in the workplace exceeds the boundaries of the organization and negatively affects the whole society [72].

Clarifying this dilemma that organizations are in will increase the organizational functionality and positive contributions of employees to the organization. At the same time, identifying and eliminating the causes of dark side behaviors is important in terms of carrying out organizational actions and improving results. Organizations today operate in an unpredictable and complex environment. This unpredictability and complexity constantly affects the employment relationship between the organization and employees, along with organizational changes. This situation negatively affects the attitudes and behaviors of employees, which is one of the important factors in achieving organizational success. Negative attitudes and behaviors of employees who are active in organizational success not only decrease organizational performance, but also cause reform resistance and harm the development of the organization.