ABSTRACT

This article discusses the findings of an exploratory study into the nature and influencing factors of
front-line employee deviant behaviour in service encounters in two hospitality industries. A dual
perspective approach was used that involved employees and customer perceptions. Interviews were
conducted with service managers and front-line employees from hospitality and adventure tourism
organizations in New Zealand. Data from customers was obtained from written scenarios and
customer feedback. Based on the outcomes of this study and related literature, a definition of service
deviance and a typology to describe four different types of deviant behaviour are proposed. The
findings of the study also indicate that the customer's attitude and behaviour is a key factor that
influences front-line employees to engage in acts of deviance. The implications of the findings for
service organizations and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords: service encounter; deviant behaviour; front-line employees; customers; hospitality

industry

The service encounter is at the heart of the service provided by an organization to the customer
(Chapman & Lovell 2006). In fact it is pivotal to the customer's assessment of an organization's
service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry 1985; Bitner, Booms & Tetreault 1990; Harris &
Ogbonna 2006). Most of the research on the service encounter has focused on front-line
employee behaviours that promote customer satisfaction (Browning 2003; Bettencourt & Brown
1997; Schneider & Bowen 1995). The reality is that the encounter between the front-line employee
and customer can frequently be a negative and even distressing experience. A more thorough
understanding of the service encounter therefore requires that we examine the darker side of the
service encounter and understand how and why employees engage in deviant behaviour in the
service encounter (Harris & Ogbonna 2002). front-line employee deviant behaviour is particularly
detrimental to service organizations as it will not only influence the customers' satisfaction with the
service but also whether or not they will continue to use the services of the organization (Harris &
Ogbonna 2006). Research conducted by Harris and Ogbonna (2002) points to deviance in the
service encounter being a pervasive problem. Eighty-five per cent of the front-line employees
interviewed admitted to engaging in deviant behaviour, ninety per cent said deviant behaviour was
an everyday occurrence and one hundred per cent had witnessed a form of deviant behaviour.

This article presents findings from an exploratory study conducted in service organizations based in
a resort town in New Zealand. The study forms the first stage of a research programme
into deviant behaviour in the service encounter. The objectives of the study were to identify the
nature of front-line employee deviant behaviour in the service encounter and the factors that could
influence employees to engage in such acts of deviance. This research aims to contribute to the
growing body of research which studies deviance within the employee customer interface (Harris &
Ogbonna 2002, 2006; Reynolds & Harris 2006; Rupp & Spencer 2006).

THE NATURE OF THE SERVICE ENCOUNTER

In developing an understanding of deviant behaviour in the service encounter, it is important that we

understand the nature of the encounter itself and the particular pressures that are faced by the
employee. The service encounter is a once off, never to be repeated interaction between strangers -
a special form of human interaction that is co-created by employee and customer with each playing
defined roles (Czepiel, Solomon, Suprenant & Gutman 1985; Grandey & Brauburger 2002).
Employees engage in a service performance controlling both their conscious communications and
unconscious signs and cues (Doorne & Ateljevic 2005). This performance takes place in what
Goffman (1959) terms front-of-house (FOH) while the back-ofhouse (BOH) is the space where
employees can relax and take time out from the demands of performing (Boon 2007). front-line
employees are paid to smile and create a welcoming and warm atmosphere irrespective of what
they are really feeling, the pressure of the job or the way the customer is treating them. Hochchild
(1983) refers to this commercialisation of emotions as emotional labour where employees are
required to regulate their emotions to provide a satisfying service experience for customers.
Employees are required to express organizationally desired emotions according to an emotional
script or set of 'display rules' (Ashforth & Humphrey 1993: 89). Adherence to the display rules is
seen as a necessary way of regulating the emotional interchange between the employee and
customer so the customer can have a warm and friendly service experience (Schneider & Bowen
1985). For many employees, performing emotional labour may not be a problem. However for those
front-line employees who are performing emotional labour over a long time and who have to deal
with abusive customers or who feel uncomfortable expressing the required emotions, there could be
negative consequences. These could include job dissatisfaction, emotional exhaustion, alienation,
emotive dissonance and engaging in deviant behaviour (Mulki, Jaramillo & Locander 2006; Ashforth
& Humphrey 1993; Hochschild 1983). Employees can resort to withdrawal behaviours such as
slowing down or performing their job in a mediocre way or even more aggressive behaviours such
as inflicting physical discomfort on an abusive customer. Harris and Ogbonna (2002 2006) and
Reynolds and Harris (2006) are at pains to point out that dealing with abusive customers can have
long-term psychological consequences for front-line employees such as sustained feelings of
degradation and stress disorders, short-term emotional effects and behavioural and physical
consequences. Short-term emotional effects include affecting the mood or temper of the employee
and also lead to the employee feigning emotional display often to pacify an angry or drunk customer.
Behavioural consequences include employees seeking revenge on the customer and the physical
consequences are the physical abuse employees might have to endure from customers. front-line
employee deviant behaviour could therefore be seen as a consequence of the pressures of the
encounter itself and in particular the behaviour of the customer (Rupp & Spencer 2006; Grandey,
Dickter & Sin 2004).

DEFINING DEVIANT BEHAVIOR IN THE WORKPLACE

This section of the article will discuss the nature of workplace deviance with a focus on the research
of Robinson and Bennett (1995, 2000) and that of Harris and Ogbonna (2002, 2006) into service
sabotage. The study into workplace deviance (Robinson & Bennett 1995) and related fields of
antisocial behaviour (Giacolone & Greenberg 1997), counterproductive behaviour (Sackett 2002),
dysfunctional behaviour and organizational misbehaviour (Vardi & Weitz 2003) commonly
characterise deviant behaviour as being perpetrated by insiders (the employees) to intentionally
harm or potentially cause harm to individuals within the organization or to the organization itself (the
targets) violating organizational or social norms. The action itself can be aimed directly at the target
or indirectly through a third party, be active (inflicting harm) or passive. It can also take a physical or
verbal form. Robinson and Bennett (1995: 556) define deviance in the workplace as
'voluntary behaviour that violates significant norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an
organization, its members or both'. Voluntary behaviour would mean that the employee is not
motivated to conform and/or is motivated to act against accepted organizational norms.
Organizational norms are defined by basic moral standards, traditional community standards and
formal and informal organizational polices and rules (Bennett & Robinson 2000).

There are two types of workplace deviance as identified by Bennett and Robinson (2000):
organizational deviance (OD) which is non personal and is directed at harming the organization; and
interpersonal deviance (ID) which is interpersonal and harmful to individuals. Behaviours within each
of these types of deviance range from relatively minor acts to more severe and serious acts. The
crossing of these two dimensions, namely the target of the deviant act (individual or organization)
and the severity of the act (minor to serious) results in four quadrants of deviant behaviour - political
deviance, personal aggression, production deviance and property deviance. Organizational acts of
deviance can be relatively minor acts targeted at harming the organization (production deviance)
and seriously harmful acts targeted at the organization (property deviance). Production deviance
involves employees doing the bare minimum and includes employees calling in sick, being late and
letting co-workers carry the work load. Bennett and Naumann (2005) describe this form of deviance
in terms of employees withholding effort. They propose that it can take the form of shirking, job
neglect, social loafing and free riding where both individual and organizational performance can be
reduced. As a more severe form of organizational deviance, property deviance involves employees
engaging in acts of sabotage, stealing company property, accepting kickbacks and disclosing
confidential company information (Robinson & Bennett 1997). Interpersonal acts of deviance can
also be minor (political deviance) or serious acts of deviance (personal aggression). Political
deviance is defined as acts that reflect 'engagement in social interaction that puts individuals at a
personal or political disadvantage' (Robinson & Bennett 1995: 566) and covers behaviours such as
gossiping, spreading rumours and management showing favouritism towards specific employees. A
field of research that has emerged in the study of the more minor interpersonal types of deviance is
workplace incivility defined by Anderson and Pearson (1999: 457) as 'low intensity behaviour with
ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect'.
The behaviours include being rude and impolite to others and may or may not reflect an intent to
harm. Anderson and Pearson (1999) proposed that incivility is an interactive event that can escalate
or spiral through a process of exchange between parties into more severe forms of aggression.
Personal aggression covers hostile behaviours such as sexual harassment, threats to physically
harm co-workers and publicly belittling subordinates. These behaviours are also considered forms of
interpersonal mistreatment with a distinction being made between more general mistreatment such
as bullying and sexual mistreatment such as sexual harassment (Lim & Cortina 2005).

Harris and Ogbonna (2002) have proposed a matrix describing what they term service
sabotage behaviours. They define service sabotage as 'organizational member behaviours that are
intentionally designed to negatively affect service' (168). They found that front-line
employee deviant behaviour varies along two dimensions: covert - overt behaviours and what they
termed customary or routinised to sporadic or intermittent behaviours. Customary behaviours are
those which are tolerated by the culture of the organization and often passed on through informal
socialisation processes while sporadic behaviours are less common and more aligned with what we
would consider to be sabotage behaviours. They propose four main behaviourial types defined by
these dimensions. Customary-private sabotage includes behaviours such as slowing down service
and taking revenge on the customer as a response to what employees perceive as unfair demands
placed on them by managers or customers. Customary- public service sabotage
are behaviours performed in front of an audience of co-workers such as publicly belittling or
patronising the customers and sticking to rules and procedures to negatively affect service delivery.
Sporadic-private service sabotage involves behaviours that go against accepted norms both formal
and informal, and sabotage the service without the knowledge of the target. The target for such acts
can be customers (spitting in their food), co-workers (providing inaccurate information) or just
anyone who happens to be there at the time (kicking someone's bags down the stairs). The
latter behaviour is often driven by employees feeling a general frustration with work and their
personal situation. For example, spitting in customers' food or adding dirt to food. The last type
of deviant behaviour they identified was sporadicpublic sabotage which included overt,
uncommon behaviours such as damaging property, harming customers and may also involve a
whole group of employees and even managers targeting a customer as a publicly shared joke. What
is disturbing about Harris and Ogbonna's (2002) research is the fact that service sabotage was
frequently engaged in by employees - even those which involved serious misconduct.

The research discussed up to this point has thus focused on the negative effects
of deviant behaviour. There is a school of thought that deviance can also play a constructive role in
organizations termed 'constructive deviance'. Galperin (2003: 158) defines constructive deviance as
'voluntary behaviour that violates significant organizational norms and is so doing contributes to the
well-being of an organization, its members, or both'. He proposes that constructive deviance can
reflect innovative and challenging behaviours that are directed at the organization and
interpersonal behaviours targeted at individuals that may include not following the supervisor's
instructions or reporting theft by co-workers. Constructive deviance aims at enhancing the well-being
of the organization even if it means violating organizational norms or damaging interpersonal
relationships. The question is 'Could deviant behaviour by frontline employees in the service
encounter actually be favourable for some customers and the organization?' For example, an
employee who deals aggressively with a customer who is jeopardising the safety of other
customers? While certain front-line employee behaviours could be construed as deviant by the
targeted customer, it may assist other customers and the organization itself.

ANTECEDENTS OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR IN THE WORKPLACE

In order to better manage the growing occurrence of deviant behaviour in the service encounter it is
important to understand why front-line employees would engage in such acts of deviance. Research
into the antecedents of workplace deviance focuses on individual or personal factors and
organizational and job related factors (Kidwell & Martin 2005). This section will discuss some of the
research in these areas, including research that focuses specifically on the service encounter and
the role of the customer in influencing front-line employee deviant behaviour.

Research has explored the impact of a wide range of individual factors such as gender, age,
personality traits and employee perceptions of injustice on the incidence of workplace deviance
(Martinko, Gundlach & Douglas 2002). In the service context, younger employees and males tend to
be more inclined to engage in overt acts of deviance (Harris & Ogbonna 2002) while younger
employees will overuse display rules by faking and engaging inauthentic behaviour (Grandey,
Dickter & Sin 2004). High-risk taking orientation, extroversion and the need for social approval has
also been linked to service sabotage (Harris & Ogbonna 2002; 2006). However, Robinson and
Greenberg (1998: 13) point out that no clear picture emerges of a 'deviant personality type' and that
personality traits seem to only account for a small percentage of the variance in
predicting deviant behaviour. Grover (1997) suggests taking an interactionist perspective on
personality which explains behaviour resulting from an interaction of personality differences and
work situation variables. He found that people with low levels of moral development were more likely
to lie as a function of role conflict. It seems also that personality traits can moderate the relationship
between perceptions of situations and whether an employee behaves deviantly. Employees with
high levels of agreeableness do not engage in deviant acts despite negative perceptions of justice
and organizational support (Penney, Spector & Fox 2003; Colbert et al 2004).

There has however been a considerable amount of research indicating that when employees'
perceive they are being treated unfairly at work, they are more likely to engage in stealing
(Greenberg 1997, 2002), in sabotage (Giacalone & Greenberg 1997), lying (Grover 1997) or
revenge (Tripp & Bies 1997). Significant associations have also been found between experienced
frustration and withdrawal behaviour, aggression, hostility, theft and sabotage (Spector 1997).

Various organizational and job factors have been found to be associated with front-line
employee deviant behaviour. Yagil (2001) found that front-line employees are more likely to force
customers to comply if the service culture is weak. An organization with a weak service culture lacks
the passion for service and is not customer focused. It is characterised by unsupportive
management and company policies and procedures that make it difficult for customer contact staff to
carry out their job (Schneider & Bowen 1995). Alternatively, Yagil (2001) found that employees felt
less inclined to engage in hard tactics with customers where the service culture was strong and
actively reinforced by management. Harris and Ogbonna (2002) found that culture control
interventions in fact reduced the level of service sabotage and the likelihood that
such behaviour could become the norm.
Employees perceptions of inequity and unfairness in the design and implementation of human
resource management (HRM) practices such as selection, performance management and pay
systems makes it more likely that they will engage deviant behaviour as could the conditions of the
job, such as prolonged contact with customers and a deviant workgroup sub cultures (Robinson &
Greenberg 1998; Harris & Ogbonna 2002, 2006). Perceived autonomy and discretion to make
decisions about their work has also been linked to employees defying organizational expectations for
acceptable conduct and engaging in acts of interpersonal deviance (Bennett 1998; Vardi & Weitz
2003: Penney et al 2003). Constraints within the workplace such as insufficient job information, no
assistance from supervisors and co-workers and time pressures can also lead employees to engage
in both interpersonal and organizational deviance (Penney et al 2003).

An antecedent factor that is currently receiving more attention in research is that of the attitude
and behaviour of the customer. Due to the popular adherence of organizations to a marketing or
customer orientation, front-line employees are faced with the untenable reality of dealing with
customers who believe they can behave as badly as they want to as the customer always comes
first (Reynolds & Harris 2006). As indicated earlier one of the consequences
of deviant customer behaviour identified by Harris and Ogbonna (2002) was employees taking
revenge on customers particularly when they felt justified in doing so. Revenge was a way that front-
line employees attempted to equalise the playing field - the customer behaved badly so I will behave
badly back to the customer. They cite examples such as insulting the customer when they have
been insulted and spitting in their food. In a later study, Reynolds and Harris (2006) identified
categories of behaviours that front-line employees engage in to prepare themselves to deal
with deviant customers and coping strategies to deal with the deviant customer during and post the
incident of deviant customer behaviour. These behaviours include what would be
considered deviant behaviours such as consuming drugs before an incident, ignoring, bribing,
exploiting sexual attractiveness and manipulating the servicescape during an incident and gaining
revenge later. This research indicates that employee deviant behaviour could be considered to be a
consequence of customer deviant behaviour. This is supported by the findings of Rupp and Spencer
(2006) where employees found it more difficult to comply with display rules when treated unfairly by
customers. What is evident from their research and that of Grandey et al (2004) is that dealing with
difficult and abusive customers requires employees to manage both their own emotions and those of
the customer. Employees who are unfairly treated by customers report higher levels of anger and
unhappiness which leads them to engage in emotional labour, and who find perceived aggressive
customer behaviour to be highly stressful (Rupp & Spencer 2006; Grandey et al 2004). The
consequence for employees is emotional exhaustion and burnout. Interventions to assist employees
to cope with the negative consequences of emotional labour include selecting for individuals whose
natural emotional and expressive style matches the requirements of the 'display rules' and training
employees to manage their emotional responses when dealing with the customer (Grandey &
Brauburger 2002; Menon & Dube 2004). Research by Hartel, Gough and Hartel (2006) also
indicates that creating a positive emotional workgroup climate impacts on the job satisfaction of the
employee and might be a way to support front-line employees as they deal on an ongoing basis with
difficult customers. Organizations can also provide employees with the resources and autonomy to
respond appropriately to difficult and abusive customers and the opportunity to take a respite from
the front-line to recharge their emotional batteries (Grandey & Brauburger 2002; Noon & Blyton
1997).

While we recognise that personal, organizational and customer factors discussed up to this point can
increase the likelihood that employees will act deviantly, it does not necessarily mean that all
employees will do so. Robinson and Bennett (1997) stress that certain constraints or controls might
prohibit the employee from exhibiting such behaviour. External constraints such as practical
availability of an action, the likelihood of being caught and punished and peer sanctions might
moderate the relationship between the 'provocation' and the behaviour (Robinson & Bennett 1997:
17). Internal constraints such as an employee's level of organizational commitment, social and moral
beliefs can also regulate behaviour. Thus the purpose of this paper is to explore which of these
factors influence deviant behaviour in service encounters within hospitality industries.

METHODOLOGY

This section of the article presents the data collection and data analysis procedures used in the
study. The objectives of this research study were to:

* Identify types of front-line employee deviant behaviour in the service encounter;

* Identify factors that could influence front-line employees to engage in deviant behaviour in the
service encounter.

Sample

Four adventure tourism and two hospitality organizations were approached through a contact who
was a member of an informal group of business owners/directors and also through the local
business association of a resort town in New Zealand. Reynolds and Harris (2006) emphasise that
the frequency and closeness of contact with a customer in the hospitality industry makes it an
appropriate site for field research into behaviour in the service encounter. This would also be the
case for adventure tourism where front-line employees are in direct contact with customers, often at
quite a personal level. Both these service industries and the resort town in which this study was
conducted are key to the tourism industry in New Zealand and attract thousands of visitors each
year (Morris 2008; The Ministry of Tourism 2008). All the participating organizations are considered
above average performers in the industry in New Zealand. Five of the organizations would be
considered small to medium size businesses with employee numbers ranging from ten to 140
including full-time and seasonal staff (Cameron & Massey 1999). The sixth organization is a unit of a
national chain of hotels.

A combination of purposive and convenience sampling (Leedy & Ormrod 2001) was used where 35
service managers and front-line employees were selected to be interviewed by the Human Resource
Manager or owner of the organization. The sample came from the shift that happened to be on duty
when the researcher was present. This assisted in reducing the possible bias of favoured employees
being chosen for interview. It was requested that those selected represent a cross-section of age,
gender and years of experience in service jobs and would be articulate and forthcoming with
information. Miles and Huberman (1984: 235) state that ensuring representativeness of the sample
and accessing data from better informed and articulate 'informants' are tactics to increase the validity
of the findings. Table 1 below provides details of the sample obtained. Service managers were
business owners, senior executives and team leaders while front-line employees occupied a variety
of jobs including receptionist, waiting staff, drivers, cable car operators, beach controllers and retail
assistants.

The customer sample consisted of 22 management students and staff from a School of Business at
a New Zealand university (Refer to Table 1). In addition, 133 examples of
employee deviant behaviour were obtained from comments provided by customers on interactions
with staff from customer feedback forms and e mails obtained from three of the organizations
participating in the research. The customer feedback had been received six months to two years
prior to the study. The customer feedback forms did not ask specifically
for deviant behaviour engaged in by front-line employees. They rather focussed on asking the
customer to rate various aspects of their experience including the service provided by the front-line
employees. The emails received from customers were complaints about how they had been dealt
with by employees. The customers of these three organizations who provided customer feedback for
the research are primarily international visitors (70%) but also include national visitors (30%). They
represent all age groups and include families, young backpackers, tour groups and corporate
customers.

Procedure

Given the exploratory nature of the research study, a semi-structured interview format was followed
when interviewing the service managers and front-line employees (Patton 1990). Each interview
took between 45 minutes to one hour to complete and the interviews were conducted during two
visits of one week each to the resort town by the researcher. A minimum of one full day was spent at
each organization and during one visit the researcher stayed in the participating hotel. This, together
with a thorough briefing of the interviewees outlined below, aimed to reduce the biases stemming
from the researcher's effect on the site and also allowed behaviour observation while becoming
more familiar with the context within which the behavior took place (Miles & Huberman 1984).

Interviewees were given a written brief before the interview took place to introduce them to the
researcher, the objectives of the study, their role in the interview and procedures to ensure
confidentiality of the data. This information was repeated at the beginning of each interview. As part
of the ethical procedure, interviewees were asked to agree to participate in the study after being
assured that the information they provided would be kept confidential and that their anonymity was
guaranteed. This was important due to the sensitive nature of the issues to be discussed and to
encourage interviewees to share their experiences more freely. Similar tactics were used by Scott
(2002), Ogbonna and Harris (2002) and Reynolds and Harris (2006) in their research into lying,
service sabotage and frontline tactics for dealing with deviant customer behaviour respectively. The
employees were also asked to provide details of their gender, age range, job title and length of time
worked both in the current job and in the service sector.

The following questions were asked during the interview:

1. Please describe to me a situation where you observed a front-line employee behaving in a

negative or deviant way towards a customer. Negative or deviant behaviour would not contribute to a
customer's perception of service quality. I am interested in exactly what the front-line employee said
and did. The example you give me can come from your current organization or a previous one you
have previously worked in the last three years in the hospitality/tourism industry.

2. What specific behaviours would you describe as negative or anti social behaviour in a service

interaction/encounter? What factors (organizational, customer or person themselves) do you think
leads to this behaviour?

These questions allowed for standardisation across the interviews but also were general enough to
provide an opportunity for the respondent to provide rich and detailed information (Patton 1990).
They also ensured that the topic was adequately explored in each interview and assisted in across
case data analysis (Miles & Huberman 1984). Initial interviews indicated that the factors emerging
were related to the organization itself, the customer, the situation and the employee. This was then
probed in subsequent interviews to ensure that these factors were adequately explored. In order to
ensure accuracy of the data, as advocated by Patton (1990), all interviews were audio-recorded and
transcribed.

The critical incident technique used to collect data in this research is particularly useful where limited
documentation exists of specific categories and also provides a rich source of information from the
perspective of the participants (Bitner et al 1990; Bennett & Robinson 2003; Harris & Ogbonna 2002;
Reynolds & Harris 2006). The participants were asked to report on others' behaviour in order to
reduce their sensitivity to reporting their own deviant behaviour. Bennett and Robinson (2003)
propose that reporting on others has the advantage of reducing common method bias and eliciting
more honest and accurate assessment of behaviour. The limitation of this technique is that it may
reveal more about the underlying attitudes of the respondent. What constituted negative
or deviant behaviour was explained in easy-to-understand language. Robinson and Bennett (1995)
suggested that a colloquial rather than a more theoretical definition is easier for participants to
understand. The situation needed to have taken place during the past three years as it is easier to
remember the details of more recent events and details were important in this study.

Customers were also briefed in the same manner before completing a questionnaire. The same
questions were asked as in the interview except they were asked to write a description of an
incident. Written scenarios were also used by Robinson and Bennett (1995) when gathering data on
workplace deviance. Probing questions were also included as to whether they considered the factors
influencing the behaviour to be organizational, situational, customer or personal factors. They also
provided demographic details related to their gender, age and nationality.

The data analysis took a grounded theory approach using inductive analysis to allow the natural
variations in patterns and themes to emerge from the interview itself, from the interview
transcriptions, the interview notes, the completed questionnaires from the customers and the
customer feedback provided by the organizations (Patton 1990; Strauss 1987). The unit of analysis
was the specific deviant behaviour incident and the list of deviant behaviours and influencing factors
provided by both the employees and customers. Following steps of pattern coding described by
Miles and Huberman (1984) the data was initially organized under descriptive codes agreed
between the researcher and research assistant based on an initial, independent analysis of the data.
The codes were directly related to the research questions, ie what are deviant behaviours and why
do these deviant behaviours take place? The coding was done by respondent, across cases both
within each organization and each customer sample, and then across all the organizations and the
whole customer sample. This allowed conduct of a second level of analysis of patterns and themes
that, with reference to workplace deviance literature, provided the basis for a proposed typology to
explain further the different types of deviant behaviour and the categories of antecedent factors.
Patton (1990) suggests that typologies allow the analyst to elucidate the findings and in the case of
this study provides direction for further research. The typology and categories were tested for
completeness following steps 1 and 2 suggested by Patton (1990: 404).

RESULTS

The analysis of the data reveals specific types of deviant behaviour that front-line employees engage
in the service encounter. Factors within the organization, the attitude and the behaviour of the
customer and factors related to the employee also emerge as impacting on the occurrence
of deviant behaviour in the service encounter. These findings will be presented with quotes from the
transcript of the interviews and written scenarios to illustrate consistent themes and views presented
by participants in the research.

The types of front-line employee devi- ant behaviour in the service encounter

The deviant behaviour engaged in by front-line employees' intentionally targets the customer with

the impact of the deviant acts most likely felt by the organization through loss of the customer's
patronage and loyalty to the organization. This finding is not surprising considering the interpersonal
nature of the service encounter and confirms Jelenik's (2005) contention that research into
workplace deviance does not adequately account for the boundary-spanning nature of front-line
employees' work, ie customer interaction. Deviant behaviours in the service encounter vary along
two dimensions: targeting the customer directly or indirectly and similar to a dimension identified by
Robinson and Bennett (1995), vary from minor to serious acts in terms of impact on the customer.
The behaviours directed at the customer tended to be overt in nature while those which have a more
indirect impact on the customer tended to be covert in nature. These two dimensions define four
quadrants of behaviour as outlined in Figure 1.

Quadrant one contains minor behaviours that indirectly target the customer, ie avoid contact and
interaction with the customer. They could be aligned with Robinson and Bennett's (1995) label of
production deviance but with a more specific focus on the withdrawal of customer
service behaviours accomplished through the withholding of action (Bennett & Naumann 2005).
They are also similar to the behaviours identified by Harris and Ogbonna (2002) under Customary-
Public service sabotage which aims at affecting the speed of service. However, unlike those
identified by Harris and Ogbonna (2002), the behaviours highlighted in this research were not
intentionally public. Four key behaviours were identified by participants: providing minimal or no
service to the customer, providing only the minimum information to the customer, ignoring the
customer and not acknowledging the customer.

She did not even say hi when I entered ...she did not offer if I wanted any assistance (Customer,
female, 21-30 year age range)

No one will give you a simple glance to say we will be with you (Customer service supervisor,
Adventure tourism, male, 31-40 year age range, 15 years service experience)

As is indicated in Figure 1, 43% of the behaviours identified by the sample fell into this quadrant
which makes it the most frequently identified type of behaviour. Fifty-nine per cent of
the deviant behaviours identified by the customer fell into this quadrant, 32% by managers and 24%
by employees. The fact that managers and employees did not identify these types of behaviours as
much as customers raises the issue that, while they may not think of these behaviours as
problematic, the customer does.

The second quadrant contains minor deviant behaviours targeted directly at the customer consistent

with Anderson and Pearson's (1999) workplace incivility. They are also similar
to behaviours categorized by Harris and Ogbonna (2002) as Customary-Public service sabotage but
again they were not highlighted as intentionally public. Behaviours identified were being rude,
sarcastic and patronising to the customer, being abrupt and snapping at the customer, interrupting
and cutting the conversation short and not smiling or maintaining eye contact with the customer.

It's not my problem, go away and deal with it, get on with it, tough luck (Customer service supervisor,
adventure tourism, male, 31-40 years age range, 10 years service experience)

I was told rudely to move and that if I wanted to sit there I would have to pay extra for my meal...she
raised her voice (Customer, female, 16-20 years age range)

You just kind of talking to them but staring off somewhere else (Reception supervisor, adventure
tourism, male, 31-40 year age range, 15 years service experience)

Thirty-nine per cent of the behaviours identified by the sample fell into this quadrant which made it
the second most frequently mentioned behaviour. Thirty-six per cent of the behaviours identified by
the customer fell into this quadrant, 47% by managers and 40% by employees. This therefore seems
a category of behaviour that is equally identified across all three subgroups of the sample.

The third quadrant contains serious behaviours which indirectly target the customer and are covert in
nature. They took place outside the service encounter but are the result of the frontline employee's
experience of the customer in the service encounter. Behaviours identified were acts of sabotage
against the customer, such as spitting in their food, stealing from the customer, labeling the
customer and swearing about the customer in the BOH area such as a back office or in the kitchen.
Examples of theft and sabotage:

Ask housekeeping to move the article left behind to another room and report a day later so less able
to be traced and therefore more likely you can get the item after a period of time (Front of house
manager, hospitality, male, 31-40 year range, 9 years service experience)

Sabotage difficult guests - get housekeeping to turn the alarm on for two o'clock in the morning
(Front desk receptionist, hospitality, male, 21-30 year age range, 2.5 years service experience)

As illustrated by the quotes above, both theft and sabotage behaviours could be done in

collaboration with others. This is not dissimilar to the findings of Neuman and Baron (1997) that
indirect aggression can be delivered through an intermediary. While these behaviours could be
considered a form of Property Deviance (Robinson & Bennett 1995), they seem more consistent with
revenge behaviours as employees seek to cause discomfort or to punish the difficult, argumentative
and abusive customers who have harmed them (Aquino, Tripp and Bies,2001, Harris & Ogbonna
2002).

They want the best room give them the worst room but the customer really doesn't know better
(Front desk receptionist, hospitality, female, 51-60 year age range, 12 months service experience)

Examples of labeling and swearing:

We make fun of peoples' accents; we did refer to them as the Fat Family; had fun at their expense
but not to their face (Receptionist, hospitality, female, 51-60 year age range, 2 years service
experience)

That's what we're saying amongst ourselves (eg racist stuff ) - you just kind of lose it a bit and say
something nasty about that person or Koreans, or Asians, behind the scenes (Bus driver, adventure
tourism, male, 51-60 year age range, 22 years service experience)

Five per cent of the behaviours identified by the sample fell into this quadrant. No customers
identified behaviours in this quadrant, but 6 % were identified by managers and 11% by employees.
The fact that customers did not identify these behaviours lends support to the covert nature of
these behaviours and that they are unaware that they are being targeted with these behaviours.
They also may not have had as much opportunity to witness these behaviours as employees would.

The fourth quadrant contains behaviours in line with Robinson and Bennett's (1995) label of personal
aggression. They are overt behaviours directed at the customer and can cause serious harm to the
customer. These serious behaviours can be verbal: belittling and verbally abusing the customer or
non verbal: using confrontational body language and physically abusing the customer. They also
include safety negligence.

I witnessed a drunk restaurant owner brawling with a diner, punching, biting, rolling out of the
premises and onto the sidewalk. Swearing, spitting, throwing plates of food (Customer, male, 41-50
year range)

Sometimes the verbal or non verbal behaviours can contradict each other. Several service
managers reported observing front-line employees using aggressive and confrontational body
language while still being verbally polite to customers. The deviant behaviour seemed to be seeping
out despite the best efforts of the employee to provide good customer service or maybe that is a way
to act deviantly without falling foul of management. The confrontational body language could also be
indicative of the strain of engaging in emotional labour - engaging in surface acting while grappling
with feelings of anger and frustration which manifest through the body language. Thirteen per cent of
the behaviours identified by the sample fell into this quadrant. Five per cent of
the behaviours identified by the customer fell into this quadrant, 15% were identified by managers
and 25 % by employees. This could be the result of both managers and employees having the
opportunity to witness and in fact themselves engage in these behaviours.

There was also evidence of front-line employees engaging in forms of constructive deviance. For
example, front-line employees providing minimal service to a demanding customer in busy times
might be their way of providing better service to all the customers and in fact is probably seen by
other customers as expedient and providing them the opportunity of being served. The organization
will also benefit in the respect that all customers are being attended to efficiently. Employees in this
study reported that there is a fine line between acting assertively and deviantly towards the
customer. Often they would use assertive behaviour to deal with a difficult and abusive customer
particularly when the customer was disturbing or annoying other customers or breaking safety rules.
This raises the issue of behaviour which is perceived as deviant by the targeted customer may in
fact be seen as constructive deviance by the employee and other parties such as other customers
and management.

The factors that influence front-line employees to engage in deviant behaviour in the service
encounter

Deviant behaviour in the service encounter seems to be influenced by a range of organizational and

personal factors and in addition the attitude and behaviour of the customer. Organizational factors
relate to organizational culture, leadership, management systems and procedures and job
conditions. Customer factors relate to the attitude and behaviour of the customer in the service
encounter and personal factors cover the demographic variables such as gender, age, work
experience and the personal circumstances of the employee such as financial or personal issues.
Figure 2 provides details of the themes that emerged related to each of these factors.

The main influencing factor identified by both service managers and front-line employees was the
attitude and behaviour of customers which sparked off deviant behaviour from the front-line
employees. They identified that customers can project a superior attitude and be rude,
argumentative and make unrealistic demands.

They treat you like a minion, like you don't have a brain (Restaurant waiter, hospitality, female, 21-30
year range, 3 years service experience)

Some plonker demanding completely unjustifiable wants or needs, and you have to try and be nice
to them. (Bus driver, adventure tourism, male, 51-60 year age range, 22 years service experience)

The customer can also be physically and verbally aggressive.

The guest swore first and then the night manager swore back at him after that and things went
downhill from there. The person concerned came across the front desk and then actually reached
across and pulled the staff member back over the front desk, out into the lobby again, so it ended
very badly (Front of house manager, hospitality, male, 31-40 year age range, 9 years service
experience).

While 'blaming' the customer may be explained through the individual's tendency to attribute
responsibility for their unacceptable behaviour to an external source, the research by Rupp and
Spencer (2006), Yagil (2001) and Menon and Dube (2004) supports this finding that
customer behaviour does impact on the behaviour of front-line employees and their ability to adhere
to organizationally sanctioned display rules.
The findings of this study also indicate that employees will reciprocate the
customer's behavior towards them. This reciprocal behaviour could be explained through the
phenomenon of emotional contagion where an individual's emotional state is affected by the
feedback from the other party in the interaction and over time the two parties can converge
emotionally (Dallimore, Sparks & Butcher 2007).

It is very easy to almost mirror it back instead of turning it around and giving them something to think
about (Souvenir shop manager, adventure tourism, female, 31-40 year age range, 13 years service
experience)

Dallimore et al (2007) found that front-line employees were likely to imitate the anger of the
customers by responding with more negative than positive non-verbal expressions. It could also be
explained as possible acts of employee revenge. front-line employees could be retaliating against
customers for being abused.

If customer comes in with the wrong (attitude), you tend to get what you give (Owner/ manager,
hospitality, female, 51-60 year age range, 18 years service experience)

Another factor about customers that initiates front-line employee deviant behaviour is the customer's
nationality.

Certain nationalities are a lot better or worse at it (treating you like a complete idiot) (Restaurant
manager, hospitality, 31-40 year range, 15 years service experience)

Certain nationalities are considered difficult and abusive and several examples were provided in the
interviews where customers were on the receiving end of unpleasant behaviour from employees just
because they belong to a specific national group. Employees seem to be responding to a customer
on the basis of their group membership. This stereotyping behaviour could lead to active
discrimination against certain customers which could have implications for service organizations.

At the organizational level inadequate leadership reflected in a lack of explicit service values and
managers engaging in deviant behaviour themselves were highlighted as reasons why frontline
employees are likely to engage in deviant behaviour. Insufficient organizational support for
employees and customers such as ineffective and inflexible operating procedures and policies and
inadequate communication to customers, increased both the employee's and the customer's
frustration. Customers' tend to respond to this frustration by being rude and aggressive towards the
employee so 'sparking' deviant behaviour from the front-line employees.

She was so angry when I had to ask her if she was pregnant. If there had been a sign up I wouldn't
have had to ask her (Reservations, adventure tourism, male, 21-30 year range, 11 months
experience)

The cycle of deviance begins and often escalates particularly if the organizational systems and
procedures did not allow the situation to be resolved expediently. Employees report that having the
power to resolve situations on the spot without involving management allows them to behave in a
more helpful way towards the customer even in the most difficult of situations. This supports
Bennett's (1998) proposal that providing employees with greater legitimate control over their work
environment makes them less inclined to resort to undesirable strategies such
as deviant behaviour to manage their situation. Factors such as time pressure and a series of
previous difficult customers also exacerbated the situation resulting in employees being rude and
verbally abusive towards the customer.
Two themes that emerged in regard to HRM practices were selecting the 'wrong' type of person to
carry out service work and not providing enough training to prepare front-line employees to deal with
customers.

Example of comments on selection:

She didn't really belong here and I guess in customer service (Restaurant supervisor, adventure
tourism, female, 21-30 year range, 3 years service experience)

Don't have the right feel... it's in the psyche? it's a lacking of the true understanding of what she's
there for - service, quality (Owner/manager, hospitality, female, 51-60 year age range, 18 years
service experience)

Example of a comment on training:

Apparently untrained in the basics of customer service (Customer, male, 51-60 year age range)

Personal factors that emerged as contributing to employees engaging in deviant behaviour were the

nationality of the employee, limited experience in service work and the personal circumstances of
the employee. Service managers and employees in this study reported that employees from some
nationality groups could come across as abrupt and rude towards the customer and could be
inflexible and unaccommodating to the unique needs of the customer. Limited experience in service
work also seems to contribute to employees not having adequate strategies to deal with difficult
customers. Finally the personal circumstances of the employee were mentioned frequently by both
the service managers and employees who were interviewed in this study. Difficult personal
circumstances range from just too much partying the night before to relationship break ups and
financial difficulties. This has implications for management in terms of being aware of these
circumstances and responding accordingly to reduce the impact on the quality of service provided to
the customer.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

This study provides an emerging understanding of the types of deviant behaviour front-line

employees' use towards to the customer in a hospitality service encounter and the factors that
influence such behaviour. Themes also emerge that are consistent with other studies
into deviant and counter productive behaviour in the workplace including Robinson and Bennett's
(1995) typology of workplace deviance and Harris and Ogbonna's (2002) typology of service
sabotage. The results of this study however focus primarily on the customer as the target of
the deviant behaviour offering a broad set of behaviours that reflect the complexity and dynamic
nature of the interaction between employee and customer.

Based on the findings of this study and related literature, it is proposed that the term service
deviance describes voluntary behaviour engaged in by front-line employees both within and as a
consequence of the service encounter and that violates organizational norms and in so doing
threatens the well-being of the organization and the customers. It varies on two dimensions directly
or indirectly targeting the customer and has minor or serious consequences for the customer. This
leads to the proposal that there are four types of service deviance engaged in by front-line
employees: direct/minor, direct/serious, indirect/ minor and indirect/serious. This typology builds on
those suggested by Robinson and Bennett (1995) and Harris and Ogbonna (2002) and incorporates
the findings of Anderson and Pearson (1999) and Tripp and Bies (1997). The most frequently
mentioned behaviours were those which have a more minor impact on the customer. This confirms
Harris and Ogbonna's (2002) findings that while deviant behaviour takes place frequently in the
service encounter, the more serious behaviours that significantly violate organizational norms and
often global norms such as honesty and not harming others are less likely to take place. However,
even these more minor deviant behaviours can have a significant impact on the customer's
satisfaction with the service provided and decision to continue to make use of the services provided
by the organization. The fact that these behaviours can also be covert or overt builds on our
understanding that deviant behavior does not necessarily have to be perceived as such by the
customer or the organization. As Harris and Ogbonna (2002) found deviant behaviour can at times
go unnoticed by both customer and organization. However even if it is covert such as stealing or not
providing adequate information to the customer it can have a negative effect on both the
organization and the customer.

Results of this study also indicate that frontline employee deviant behavior can be constructive

benefiting other customers and the organization itself. This points to a fine dividing line between
constructive and destructive behaviour emphasising the importance of
understanding behaviour within the context of the whole service experience rather than from one
perspective or point of view.

In terms of why front-line employees may engage in deviant behaviour, the attitude and behaviour of
the customer emerges as a key influencing factor with the behaviour of the employee often matching
and reciprocating that of the customer. This emphasises again the dyadic nature of the service
encounter and that as employee and customer can co create a positive experience so they can co
create a more negative and potentially harmful experience for both of them. While recognising the
impact of customer attitude and behaviour on that of the employee does not remove the
responsibility the employee has for behaving deviantly, it does support Reynold and Harris's (2006:
97) contention that front-line employees are facing 'endemic customer misbehavior' and that the
customer is not always right and may frequently act in deviant ways. Research into the area of
dysfunctional customer behaviour is now recognising the importance of considering this factor when
understanding the outcome of the service encounter (Harris & Reynolds 2004).

A weak service culture, inadequate leadership bordering on deviance itself, inflexible and
unsupportive polices, insufficient communication to customers, ineffective selection and training plus
the personal circumstances of the employee are key factors that need to be considered when
understanding why front-line employees can behave deviantly towards the customer. The impact of
the behaviours of the leaders of the organization cannot be over emphasised. The actions of
managers shape the norms of behaviour within the organization - negative and positive (Dunn &
Schweitzer 2005). It is important to create a supportive service climate for employees to engage
constructively with customers (Schneider et al 2005). This means not only managers supporting
service quality through their everyday actions with both staff and customers but also by instituting
management procedures and HRM practices that support the delivery of quality service to
customers (Browning 2003).

While there was no clear evidence in this research of specific personality factors influencing
employees to engage in deviant behaviour, limited experience in service work and also the personal
circumstances of the employee can impact on their behaviour in their encounter with the customer.
This has implications for organizations which will be discussed under the Conclusion and Limitations
section of this article.

A closer examination of why these factors might influence employees to engage

in deviant behaviour towards customers brings to mind the work of Schneider and Bowen (1995)
who point out that just as customer's have the need for security, esteem and fairness and justice so
do front-line employees. The need for security is to feel secure and unthreatened physically,
psychologically and economically. Esteem is employees' need for their self esteem to be upheld and
enhanced while justice is the need to be treated fairly. The antecedent factors highlighted by this
study, particularly those under the organization and customer categories, could thwart the
gratification of these needs and as such not only reduce employees' motivation to engage in service
oriented behaviour but increase the likelihood of them engaging in deviant behaviour. This is
supported by research finding that links the incidence of deviant or counterproductive behaviour with
core self evaluations (Martinko el. 2002) and perceptions of unfairness and interpersonal
mistreatment (Greenberg 2002; Aquino, Tripp & Bies 2001; Tripp & Bies 1997; Giacalone &
Greenberg 1997; Grover 1997). front-line employees who day in and day out face difficult and
abusive customers, inflexible organization policies and procedures and insufficient support from their
managers could well see their need for security, esteem and justice threatened. Service
organizations need to audit and consequently attend to the factors that are eroding these
fundamental needs of their frontline employees if they are to more effectively manage the incident
of deviant behaviour in the service encounter.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

The findings of this exploratory research have practical implications for service organizations and
also provide the basis for further research. The limitations to this exploratory study suggest caution
be taken when generalising the findings. The small size of the manager and employee sample
accessed from one geographic location and only two service industries does limit the ability to
generalise the results across service industries. However having six different organizations across
hospitality and adventure tourism participate in the research did provide access to different
organizational sites and while small, the sample did represent a mix of gender, age, experience level
and nationality. It would also have been preferable to have had a larger sample of customers which
were more representative of the customer profile of the participating organizations. The customer
feedback forms and emails obtained from the participating organizations did however provide some
access to this type of customer.

In terms of how the data was collected, requiring respondents to report on others behaviour and
factors that they believed might influence that behaviour may have caused a bias in the results. In
particular, there is the possibility of attribution errors occurring when respondents identified personal
factors that influenced the front-line employee's behaviour. This may account for the type of data
captured for this factor in this study. Future research could use more objective measures for the
personal factors, such as personality, that require front-line employees or others such as peers,
customers or supervisors to report on the presence of these factors. frontline employees could also
be asked to choose to report directly on their own or others deviant behaviour in the interviews - a
method used by Scott (2003) or to write descriptions of their own deviant behaviour in a survey - a
method used by Robinson and Bennett (1995). They found that respondents were forthcoming about
their own deviant behaviour when answering anonymous surveys. Lastly, the reliability of the second
level of data analysis could have been improved by accessing the opinions of a second observer
and a sample of people who operate in front-line service jobs (Patton 1990).

Despite these limitations the findings have potential significance for service organizations in their
efforts to remain competitive by delivering ongoing quality service to their customers. At an
organizational level there is need to create a climate of service that upholds clear service values and
appropriate ethical behaviour from both the leadership and employees. Managers need to support
their employees by ensuring that policies and systems are in place to expedite employees dealing
with difficult customer situations. Organizations could provide forums for employees to talk through
the frustrations they are experiencing in their daily contact with customers and management needs
to listen to their concerns and suggestions to deal with difficult customer situations. It is important for
management to create and sustain a positive emotional climate at both the individual employee and
workgroup level as this does impact on the job satisfaction of the employee (Hartel et al 2006).
Training provided to front-line employees needs to not only provide basic customer skills but
strategies to deal with very difficult and abusive customers and the emotions inherent in such
interactions (Menon & Dube 2004; Grandey & Bruburger 2002). Mentoring from more experienced
employees and supervisors could also assist less experienced employees to develop effective
strategies to handle difficult customers.

At a customer level service organizations need to manage customer expectations

and behaviour more effectively. front-line employees need to be supported with clear communication
to customers on the policies, procedures and what customers can expect for their money. Coye
(2004) maintains that organizations need to not only create a desire on the part of the customer for
the service but also insure that the customer has clear expectations of what the organization can
deliver. Ultimately, service organizations should recognise that customers play a key role in
determining the outcome of the service interaction. It is therefore important to provide clarity on the
role they play in the delivery of the service and to educate and providing them with information so
they can participate constructively in the service process (Schneider & Bowen 1995; Menon & Dube
2004).

Future research needs to build on the findings of the exploratory study through further interviews in
other service industries such as retail and from organizations from other locations in Australasia. The
differences between the behaviours highlighted by service managers, front-line employees and
customers could be explored more thoroughly to gain a better understanding of their different
perspectives. Further investigation would also be worthwhile into the relationship between the
antecedent factors identified in this study and the incidence of service deviance in service
organizations. Of particular interest could be the relationship between employees' perception of the
service climate and the organization's management of customers and their engagement in service
deviance. Specific deviant customer behaviours could also be related to specific types of service
deviance as could personal factors such as the age, gender and experience in service work. The
mediating role of self esteem and perceptions of justice and personal security could also be explored
as could the moderating role of a positive emotional work group climate on employee's engagement
in service deviance.

In conclusion, this exploratory study contributes to our understanding of front-line

employee deviant behaviour in the interaction between employee and customer by providing further
insights into the nature of front-line employee deviance and the factors that could contribute to
such behaviour. It also is an important catalyst for more detailed and comprehensive research in an
area that has as yet not been extensively studied in management and which has significant
implications for service organizations.
References
References

Anderson LM and Pearson CM (1999) Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace.
Academy of Management Review, 24: 452-471.

Aquino K, Tripp TM and Bies R J (2001) Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice and
types of offence as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation and avoidance in organizations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 653-668.

Ashforth BE and Humphrey RH (1993) Emotional labour in services: The influence of identity.
Academy of Management Review, 19: 88-115.

Bennett N and Naumann SE (2005) Withholding effort at work. In Kidwell R and Martin C (Eds)
Managing Organisational Deviance. Sage, London.

Bennett RJ (1998) Perceived powerlessness as a cause of employee deviance. In Griffin, RW,

O'Leary-Kelly A and Collins JM (Eds), Dysfunctional Behaviour in Organisations: Violent
and deviant behaviour. Vol. 23. JAI, Stamford CT.

Bennett RJ and Robinson SL (2000) Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 85: 349-572.

Bennett RJ, Robinson SL and Bennett RJ (2003) The past, present and future of workplace
deviance research. In Greenberg J (Ed) Organisational Behaviour. The state of the science.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.

Bettencourt L and Brown SW (1997) Contact employees' relationships among workplace fairness,
job satisfaction and prosocial serviceorientated behaviours. Journal of Retailing, 73: 39-62.

Bitner MJ, Booms BM and Tetreault MS (1990) The service encounter: diagnosing favourable and
unfavourable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54: 71-84.

Boon B (2007) Working within the front-of-house /back-of-house boundary: room attendants in the
hotel guest room space Journal of Management & Organisation, 13: 160-174.

Browning V (2003) An Investigation into the Link between Human Resource Management Practices
and Service-orientated Behaviour in South African Service Organisations. PhD thesis submitted to
the Graduate School of Business, Faculty of Commerce, University of Cape Town.

Cameron A and Massey C (1999) Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A New Zealand
perspective. Addison Wesley Longman, Auckland.

Chapman JA and Lovell G (2006) The competency model of hospitality service: Why it doesn't
deliver. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18: 18-38.

Colbert AE, Mount MK, Harter JK, Witt LA and Barrick MR (2004) Interactive effects of personality
and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89:
599-609.

Coye RW (2004) Managing customer expectations in the service encounter. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 15: 54-71.
Czepiel JA, Solomon MK, Surprenant CF and Gutman EG (1985) Service encounters. An overview.
In Czepiel JA, Solomon MK and Surprenant CF, The Service Encounter. Managing
employee/customer interaction in service business. Lexington Books, Mass. Ch1: 3-15.

Dallimore KS, Sparks BA and Butcher K (2007) The influence of angry customer outbursts on
service providers' facial displays and affective states. Journal of Service Research, 10: 78-92.

Doorne S and Ateljevic I (2005) Tourism performance as metaphor: Enacting backpacker travel in
the Fiji islands. In Jaworski A and Pritchard A (Eds) Discourse, Communication and Tourism.
Channel View Publications, Clevedon, UK.

Dunn J and Schweitzer ME (2005) Why good employees make unethical decisions. The role of
reward systems, organisational culture and managerial oversight. In Kidwell R and Martin C (Eds)
Managing Organisational Deviance. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA.

Galperin BL (2003) Can workplace deviance be constructive? In Sagie A, Stashevsky S and

Koslowsky M (Eds) Misbehaviour and Dysfunctional Attitudes in Organisations. Palgrave Macmillan,
New York.

Giacalone RA and Greenberg J (1997) Antisocial Behaviour in Organisations. Sage, Thousand

Oaks.

Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor, New York.

Grandey AA and Brauburger AL (2002) The emotion regulation behind the customer service smile.
In Lord RG, Klimoski RJ and Kanfer R, Emotions in the Workplace. Understanding the structure and
role of emotions in organisational behaviour. Jossey-Bass CA.

Grandey AA, Dickter DN and Sin H-P (2004) The customer is not always right: customer aggression
and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 25: 397-418.

Greenberg J (1997) The STEAL motive: managing the social determinants of employee theft. In
Giacalone RA and Greenberg J (Eds) Antisocial Behaviour in Organisations. Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.

Greenberg J (2002) Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants of
employee theft. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 89: 985-1003.

Grover S (1997) Lying in organisations. Theory, research, and future directions. In Giacalone RA
and Greenberg J (Eds) Antisocial Behaviour in Organisations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Harris LC and Ogbonna E (2002) Exploring Service Sabotage: The antecedents, types and
consequences of front-line, deviant antiservice behaviours. Journal of Service Research, 4: 163-183.

Harris LC and Ogbonna E (2006) Service Sabotage: A study of antecedents and consequences.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34: 543-550.

Harris LC and Reynolds KL (2004) Jaycustomer behaviour: an exploration of types and motives in

the hospitality industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 18: 339-357.
Hartel C, Gough H and Hartel G (2006) Service providers' use of emotional competencies and
perceived workgroup emotional climate to predict customer and provider satisfaction with service
encounters. International Journal of Work Organisations and Emotion, 1: 232-254.

Hochschild AR (1983) The Managed Heart: The commercialization of human feeling. University of
California Press, Berkley CA.

Leedy PD and Ormrod JE (2001) Practical Research Planning and Design. 7th edn. Macmillan, New
York.

Jelenik RL (2005) Uncovering the Enemy Within: Examining salesperson deviance and its
determinants. PhD thesis submitted to the University of Connecticut.

Kidwell R and Martin C (Eds) (2005) Managing Organisational Deviance. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Lim S and Cortina LM (2005) Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: the interface and impact
of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 483-496.

Martinko M, Gundlach M and Douglas S (2002) Towards an integrative theory of

counterproductive behaviour. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10: 36-50.

Menon K and Dube L (2004) Service provider responses to anxious and angry customers: different
challenges, different payoffs. Journal of Retailing, 80: 229-237.

Miles MB and Huberman AM (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis. A sourcebook of new methods. Sage,
Thousand Oaks CA.

Mulki JP, Jaramillo F and Locander WB (2006) Emotional exhaustion and organisational deviance:
can the right job and a leader's style make a difference? Journal of Business Research, 59: 1222-
1230.