Abstract
Investigating the causes of unethical behaviors in academia, such as scientific misconduct, has become a highly important research subject. The current performance measurement practices (e.g., equating research performance with the number of publications in top-tier journals) are frequently referred to as being responsible for scientists’ unethical behaviors. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders of the higher education system (e.g., professors and policy makers; N = 43) to analyze the influence of performance measurement on scientists’ behavior. We followed a three-step coding procedure and found (1) that the participants described a variety of positive behavioral consequences (e.g., higher productivity) but mainly negative behavioral consequences (e.g., questionable publishing practices) of current performance measurement practices in academia; (2) that scientists’ behavior can be described as gaming performance measurement (i.e., achieving performance goals by reducing performance quality and focusing on those tasks that are measured); and (3) that gaming performance measurement shares the same characteristics as deviant workplace behavior (i.e., a voluntary violation of organizational norms that harms the university). We discuss that gaming performance measurement has not been considered as a type of deviant workplace behavior in the previous literature. Furthermore, we draw from research on deviant workplace behavior and goal setting to discuss psychological processes that may underlie gaming performance measurement. Our results indicate the importance of connecting literature on deviant workplace behavior and goal setting to advance our understanding of gaming performance measurement.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Ackman (2002) Pay madness at Enron. Forbes. Source: https://www.forbes.com/2002/03/22/0322enronpay.html.
We downloaded information on the number of students at all higher education institutions in Germany from the website of the German Rector’s Conference (http://www.hs-kompass2.de/kompass/xml/download/hs_liste.txt). Because the university of corporate education was not included in this data set, we could not obtain reliable data on the number of students currently enrolled at this university. Therefore, the average numbers reported for the number of students do not include this university.
The results are simultaneously reported for all five groups of interviewees. There were no meaningful differences in the answers the participants provided.
From our review of frameworks we specifically exclude deviant workplace behavior (1) that causes harm to the organization but that is unrelated to an adaptation of core job tasks (e.g., stealing company goods) or (2) that causes harm to other members of the organization (e.g., sexual harassment).
References
Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Aguinis, H., Shapiro, D. L., Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Cummings, T. G. (2014). Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(4), 623–639.
Aguinis, H., Suárez-González, I., Lannelongue, G., & Joo, H. (2012). Scholarly impact revisited. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(2), 105–132.
Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance: An international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822–834.
Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the decline of science in England, and on some of its causes. London, U.K.: Fellowes.
Barsky, A. (2008). Understanding the ethical cost of organizational goal-setting: A review and theory development. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 63–81.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410–424.
Bolin, A., & Heatherly, L. (2001). Predictors of employee deviance: The relationship between bad attitudes and bad behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(3), 405–418.
Butler, N., Delaney, H., & Spoelstra, S. (2017). The gray zone: Questionable research practices in the business school. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16(1), 94–109.
Butler, N., & Spoelstra, S. (2012). Your excellency. Organization, 19(6), 891–903.
Campbell, D. J., & Furrer, D. M. (1995). Goal setting and competition as determinants of task performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4), 377–389.
Christian, J. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2014). The crucial role of turnover intentions in transforming moral disengagement into deviant behavior at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 193–208.
Chung, Y., & Jackson, S. E. (2013). The internal and external networks of knowledge-intensive teams: The role of task routineness. Journal of Management, 39(2), 442–468.
Clor-Proell, S. M., Kaplan, S. E., & Proell, C. A. (2015). The impact of budget goal difficulty and promotion availability on employee fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(4), 773–790.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 599–609.
Daft, R. L., Murphy, J., & Willmott, H. (2010). Organization theory and design. Andover: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241–1255.
De Bruijn, H. (2002). Performance measurement in the public sector: Strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(7), 578–594.
Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2005). Management as ideology: The case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), 217–235.
Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Everton, W. J., Jolton, J. A., & Mastrangelo, P. M. (2007). Be nice and fair or else: Understanding reasons for employees’ deviant behaviors. Journal of Management Development, 26(2), 117–131.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.
Freeman, R., Weinstein, E., Marincola, E., Rosenbaum, J., & Solomon, F. (2001). Competition and careers in biosciences. Science, 294(5550), 2293–2294.
Ghysels, E. (2000). Some econometric recipes for high-frequency data cooking. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 18(2), 154–163.
Glauber, J., Wollersheim, J., Sandner, P., & Welpe, I. M. (2015). The patenting activity of German universities. Journal of Business Economics, 85(7), 719–757.
Goebel, S., & Weißenberger, B. E. (2016). The dark side of tight financial control: Causes and remedies of dysfunctional employee behaviors. Schmalenbach Business Review, 17(1), 69–101.
Griffin, R. W., & Lopez, Y. P. (2005). “Bad behavior” in organizations: A review and typology for future research. Journal of Management, 31(6), 988–1005.
Gross, C. (2016). Scientific misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 693–711.
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30–42.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
Harmon, M. M. (2006). Business research and Chinese patriotic poetry: How competition for status distorts the priority between research and teaching in U.S. business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(2), 234–243.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89.
Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.
Hollinger, R., & Clark, J. (1982). Employee deviance: A response to the perceived quality of the work experience. Work and Occupations, 9(1), 97–114.
Honig, B., Lampel, J., Siegel, D., & Drnevich, P. (2017). Special section on ethics in management research: Norms, identity, and community in the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16(1), 84–93.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
Jaworski, B. J. (1988). Toward a theory of marketing control: Environmental context, control types, and consequences. The Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 23–39.
Jensen, M. C. (2003). Paying people to lie: The truth about the budgeting process. European Financial Management, 9(3), 379–406.
Johnsen, Å. (2005). What does 25 years of experience tell us about the state of performance measurement in public policy and management? Public Money and Management, 25(1), 9–17.
Kaplan, H. B. (1975). Self-attitudes and deviant behavior. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Keller, R. T. (2012). Predicting the performance and innovativeness of scientists and engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 225–233.
Klotz, A. C., & Buckley, M. R. (2013). A historical perspective of counterproductive work behavior targeting the organization. Journal of Management History, 19(1), 114–132.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Lasson, E. D., & Bass, A. R. (1997). Integrity testing and deviance: Construct validity issues and the role of situational factors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12(2), 121–146.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212–247.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for goal-setting research. European Psychologist, 12(4), 290–300.
Lewis, J. M. (2014). Research productivity and research system attitudes. Public Money and Management, 34(6), 417–424.
Litzky, B. E., Eddleston, K., & Kidder, D. L. (2006). The good, the bad, and the misguided: How managers inadvertently encourage deviant behaviors. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 91–103.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265–268.
Louw, K. R., Dunlop, P. D., Yeo, G. B., & Griffin, M. A. (2016). Mastery approach and performance approach: The differential prediction of organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance, beyond HEXACO personality. Motivation and Emotion, 40(4), 566–576.
Marcus, B., Schuler, H., Quell, P., & Hümpfner, G. (2002). Measuring counterproductivity: Development and initial validation of a German self-report questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1–2), 18–35.
Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1–2), 36–50.
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738.
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633–644.
Melo, A. I., Sarrico, C. S., & Radnor, Z. (2008). Research design for analysing the relationship between governance structures and performance management systems in universities. Reflecting Education, 4(2), 68–81.
Niven, K., & Healy, C. (2016). Susceptibility to the ‘dark side’ of goal-setting: Does moral justification influence the effect of goals on unethical behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 115–127.
Ordónez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). On good scholarship, goal setting, and scholars gone wild. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 82–87.
Osterloh, M. (2010). Governance by numbers. Does it really work in research? Analyse and Kritik, 32(2), 267–283.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2015). Ranking games. Evaluation Review, 39(1), 102–129.
Overman, S., Akkerman, A., & Torenvlied, R. (2016). Targets for honesty: How performance indicators shape integrity in Dutch higher education. Public Administration, 94(4), 1140–1154.
Pellert, A. (1999). Die Universität als Organisation: Die Kunst Experten zu managen. Vienna: Böhlau.
Peterson, D. K. (2002). Deviant workplace behavior and the organization’s ethical climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 47–61.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2015). Detrimental citizenship behaviour: A multilevel framework of antecedents and consequences. Management and Organization Review, 11(1), 69–99.
Polzer, J. T., & Neale, M. A. (1995). Constraints or catalysts? Reexamining goal setting within the context of negotiation. Human Performance, 8(1), 3–26.
Rabovsky, T. M. (2014). Using data to manage for performance at public universities. Public Administration Review, 74(2), 260–272.
Raelin, J. A. (1994). Three scales of professional deviance within organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(6), 483–501.
Ringelhan, S., Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. M. (2015). I like, I cite? Do Facebook likes predict the impact of scientific work? PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0134389.
Ringelhan, S., Wollersheim, J., Welpe, I. M., Fiedler, M., & Spörrle, M. (2013). Work motivation and job satisfaction as antecedents of research performance: Investigation of different mediation models. In A. Dilger (Ed.), Performance Management im Hochschulbereich (pp. 7–38). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.
Saini, A., & Krush, M. (2008). Anomie and the marketing function: The role of control mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 845–862.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 18(2), 179–183.
Schmoch, U., Schubert, T., Jansen, D., Heidler, R., & von Görtz, R. (2010). How to use indicators to measure scientific performance: A balanced approach. Research Evaluation, 19(1), 2–18.
Schubert, T. (2009). Empirical observations on New Public Management to increase efficiency in public research—Boon or bane? Research Policy, 38(8), 1225–1234.
Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2–3), 277–310.
Sousa, C. A. A., de Nijs, W. F., & Hendriks, P. H. J. (2010). Secrets of the beehive: Performance management in university research organizations. Human Relations, 63(9), 1439–1460.
Sovacool, B. K. (2008). Exploring scientific misconduct: Isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5(4), 271–282.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269–292.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460.
Steneck, N. H. (2003). The role of professional societies in promoting integrity in research. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(1), S239–S247.
Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.
Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688.
Thoms, P., Wolper, P., Scott, K. S., & Jones, D. (2001). The relationship between immediate turnover and employee theft in the restaurant industry. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(4), 561–577.
Tijdink, J. K., Verbeke, R., & Smulders, Y. M. (2014). Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(5), 64–71.
Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621–640.
van Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F. L. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(3), 267–281.
Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organization Science, 7(2), 151–165.
Walker, R. M., Brewer, G. A., Boyne, G. A., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2011). Market orientation and public service performance: New Public Management gone mad? Public Administration Review, 71(5), 707–717.
Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 622–632.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, to the participants of the study, and to Margit Osterloh, who provided very valuable feedback on the interview guideline. Additionally, the authors thank the student assistants who were involved in the transcription of the interviews and partly in the coding of the interviews, especially, Miriam Rosentritt, Carl Schade, and Falk Serbser. Further thanks go to the two anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Business Ethics and to the editor. Their constructive comments and suggestions, which enabled us to improve the manuscript, were extremely helpful and supportive.
Funding
This study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant No. FKZ 01PY13012).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Graf, L., Wendler, W.S., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J. et al. Wanting More, Getting Less: Gaming Performance Measurement as a Form of Deviant Workplace Behavior. J Bus Ethics 157, 753–773 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3688-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3688-y