Lit Review.docx

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE 18

The Prevalence of Charlatanism, Protestant Work Ethic, and Workplace Deviance of Employees in an Organizational SettingState University of New York at New Paltz

Author note:Jacqueline Dugas, Lauren Cervi, and Lindsay Calhoun are all undergraduate students at SUNY New Paltz.This research was conducted as part of the course requirement for OrganizationalCommunication Seminar (CMM 454) under the direction of Dr. Jason S. Wrench.

The Prevalence of Charlatanism, Protestant Work Ethic, and Workplace Deviance of Employees in an Organizational SettingAbstractProtestant work ethic is used to describe someone who is hardworking and diligent in the work place. Employees who believe in this type of work ethic usually value their work as well as avoiding stepping on anyones toes and do not really believe in deceit or foul play to get ahead within their organization (Townsend, 2014). Charlatanism on the other hand is on the opposite end of the spectrum. Charlatans care more about their perceived performance rather than their actual performance. They are worried more about looking like they are working hard than putting forth their best effort and making valuable contributions to the company or organization (Parnell & Singer, 2001). Workplace deviance is also on the negative end of the spectrum because this is when there is a want to cause harm to an organization or workplace (Brunet, Menard & Savoie). Understanding and recognizing these different types of behaviors is important for an organization, especially someone who deals with new or potential employees. Ideally you want to hire someone who has a Protestant work ethic or at least someone who has similar values. The goal of our research is to test our hypotheses and understand the relationship between these three different work ethics or workplace behavior.

Protestant Work EthicThe topic of this investigation is Protestant work ethic and how it relates to Charlatanism and workplace deviance. People who endorse the Protestant work ethic value the ideas of delayed gratification, frugality, and ant-leisure and believe that if an individual works hard enough he/she will be successful (Townsend, 2014). The idea of the Protestant work ethic stems from the nineteenth century Protestants and the idea that hard work enabled a person to express their love and devotion to God and that a person should not rest until they reached Heaven. At this time hard labor was needed to survive in America and it was seen not as a burden or just a way to survive but as a privilege and a delight and the calling that enabled individuals to serve God (Porter, 2010). People with Protestant work ethic believe that those who are unsuccessful or have failed at a job have not tried hard enough and that society would improve if people had less leisure time (Townsend, 2014). Today contemporary society has stripped the idea of Protestant work ethic from its religious affiliations and it is more loosely defined as individuals beliefs about hard work and success (Townsend, 2014, p.5). However, Protestant work ethic is still prevalent, but not exclusive, to societies founded on Protestantism (Townsend, 2014). Protestant work ethic and the economic growth of Western Countries are related. Sociologist Max Weber has argued that Protestantism was one of the reasons why capitalism succeeded in the West. According to Weber, Protestantism is the basis for Capitalism and the idea that people could express their love and devotion to God through work stimulated labor productivity (Weber, 1958). Today, Protestant work ethic is still widely prevalent in many Western Societies. In the United States, Protestant work ethic is the underlying ideology beneath the concept of the American Dream, or the belief that those who work hard in the United States are able to work their way up the social and economic hierarchy (Porter, 2010). Both the American Dream and the Protestant work ethic share the same status ideology, or the same ideas that explain the difference in status between groups and individuals in a society and explains how one can rise in status within that society (Major, 2007). This status ideology implies that positions of groups or individuals in the social and economic hierarchy are a direct result of how hard they work and how much effort they put forth and therefore their positions in society are deserved. This ideology makes people believe that the status difference between individuals and groups is justified, which can lead to discrimination against economic and social groups who are of a lower status because others believe they deserve this lower status (Townsend, 2014). Because of this mindset levels of Protestant work ethic endorsement are often higher in societies where there is a greater difference in power between those of low statues and those of high status (Townsend, 2014).In 2013, researchers Townsend and Thompson conducted an investigation of teams and teamwork in cooperative (e.g., group brainstorming and team decision-making) and mixed-motive (e.g., negotiation) contexts (Townsend, 2014, p. 4 ) and how belief in Protestant work ethic might affect their performance. Keeping in mind the aforementioned ideology of Protestant work ethic the researchers decided that three of its key features would affect teams and team work including motivation and persistence, increased perceptions of personal control, and justification of status differences (Townsend p.4 2014). The hypothesis of this investigation was that high levels of Protestant work ethic would benefit cooperative teams and have more varied effects on mixed-motive teams. The idea behind this hypothesis was that a group of strong minded, success driven people working towards one goal would be more effective than this group of people working towards different goals. This hypothesis was supported,among cooperative teams, those high in PWE will have members who are more motivated, possess greater self-efficiency, and share an ideology that explains status differences as fair. Thus, members will be more task-focused, persistent, and cohesivein mixed motive teams, PWE may have both positive and negative effects. High PWE may offer rewards in terms of higher team motivation and task focus. However, it may also convey drawbacks if high PWE teams behave too aggressively and or take unwise risks due to increased perceptions of personal control and greater focus on success and equity (Townsend p. 19 2014).The study also mentions that in certain cooperative team conditions Protestant work ethic could be a problem if team members are asked to relinquish control. In such a case members might lose motivation as a result of having their sense of control reduced. This study is an excellent example of how Protestant work ethic is relevant to todays society and how those who endorse it can affect a working environment.Although the Protestant work ethic is still very relevant in the United States and other Protestant based countries, it is not exclusive to these societies. In a study researchers Domurat and Wasiela investigate if work values traditionally associated with Confucianism might be found in non-Asian countries, and in turn with Protestantism in Asian Countries (Domurat 2012). The researchers hypothesized that Koreans would exhibit a higher level of Protestant work ethic than Poles because Korean society has grown much more individualistic than it has been in the past due to a switch from seniority-based salary systems to performance based salary systems. This hypothesis proved to be true. This study also gives other examples of non-westernized countries where Protestant work ethic is present, for instance PWE beliefs were found to be present in Japanese Society, Barbados adolescents turned out to have higher PWE scores than adolescents from developed countries, and Turkish managers were characterized by higher level of PWE values than were Protestant and Catholic ones (Domurat p. 2 2012).Dormurat and Wasiela also hypothesized that entrepreneurs would exhibit higher levels of PWE than non-entrpreneurs because people with PWE are very devoted to their work and have a strong desire to achieve and high standards for their work.The researchers state that a portrait of a person with high level of PWE corresponds to a portrait of an entrepreneur (Dormurat p. 6 2012). This hypothesis was not fully supported however as the study found no significant effect of occupational status on Protestant work ethic and the only differences found between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs were that entrepreneurs had higher scores on self-control and and higher scores on the anti-leisure scale.The current investigation shows how Protestant work ethic can affect the working environment in contemporary society and how it is spreading to countries that are not considered westernized or based on Protestantism.Workplace Deviance Workplace deviance a behavior that violates the codes of conduct and/or norms of the organization in which the act is committed. Several studies have attempted to understand the prevalence of deviant behavior between employees and the reasons behind them, as well as how it can impact the well-being of different sectors within an organization. According to Menard, Brunet, and Savoie, workplace deviance is growing at a rate faster than any other crime type United States and in Canada, and as such investigations are crucial to find a solution to this epidemic (Menard, Brunet, & Savoie, 2011). In a study that investigated the relationship between personality and organizational variables, 284 employees were surveyed. The survey measured physical and psychological violence, aiming to gather useful data as predictors to prevent a wide range of interpersonal workplace deviance (Menard, et. al, 2011). Interpersonal workplace deviance is understood as any antisocial behavior toward a member of the organization, but according to researchers Neuman and Baron, the majority of antisocial behavior is verbal, passive and indirect. But in order to solve employee deviance, it is important to determine what contributes to these behaviors, if and how much the workplace or ones personality is to blame (Menard, et al, 2011). Researchers most often look to the Big Five Personality Traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, to determine internal predictors of workplace deviance (ONeill & Hastings, 2011). The more conscientious an employee is, the less likely he or she is to violate the organizations norms and policies (Garcia, Lu, Wang, Kiazad, & Restubog, 2014). Other predictors that researchers have examined are organizational justice, organizational commitment, and workplace frustration. Organizational justice is directly correlated with the perceived fairness of procedures and the outcomes of those procedures. When employees feel that there is a lack of fair treatment on the organizations part, often times they will retaliate (Menard,et al, 2011). Organizational commitment, which ties an employee to a specific target (social and nonsocial) and to the process relevant to that target, is very complex. Studies have shown that when an employees high level of commitment to an organization is matched with unfair treatment by the organization, dissatisfaction occurs and hence the potential for deviance. Feeling trapped by an organization is another factor that can lead to negative behavior (Menard et. al, 2011). The third predictor, workplace frustration (usually anger-type reactions and hostility) results from events that impede or prevent the attainment of goals in organizational settings. Studies have shown that frustration positively correlates with minor retorts or major outbursts (Menard et al, 2011). Menard et. al found that men and managers were more prone to show physical violence than women and employees (2011). Researchers first hypothesis was confirmed: organizational justice, commitment, and workplace frustration were significant predictors of deviance. The second hypothesis that ones personality in part determines whether they were physically violent or not, was also confirmed. Results also alluded to age playing a big role in ones psychological violence, with younger employees displaying more of this deviant behavior in general (Menard, et al, 2011). While this study is instrumental in further understanding the reasons for deviance and with this, establishing ways to counteract them, because the surveys themselves were based on the employees self-concepts, the chances that they answered dishonestly is very possible. Therefore, definitive answers cannot come of the studies results, though it certainly sheds more light on organizational deviance (Menard et. al, 2011). In order to better understand the reasons behind workplace deviance, it is important to look at the social context of an aggressive act. Studies have shown that being the victim of an aggressive act is the biggest predictor of deviance within the workplace, but the severity of retaliation, or lack thereof, is determined by the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim (Bozeman, et. al, 2000). In particular, a supervisors mistreatment of his or her employees can often times leads to a negative response by the subordinates (Garcia, et al, 2014). Bozeman et. al. researched how power, both formal (derived from the individuals organizational position) and referent (derived from their social position at work), and task interdependence work together to influence when and how experienced aggression translates into perpetrator-targeted deviance (2000). Their surveys sampled a total of 299 people, all of whom had to briefly describe an incident in which they encountered workplace aggression within the last six months. The results provides support that the perpetrators power and interdependence with their victim determines if and when the victim retaliates. The more power the perpetrator has in the organization, the less likely the victim will take retaliatory measures. (Bozeman et. al, 2000). It is also important to note, however, that the level of neuroticism in the subordinates also plays a big role in whether or not they will engage in retaliation (Garcia et. al, 2011). As the interdependence of a bully and his or her victim increases, the chances of retaliation decreases. This information, established in the study by Bozeman et. al. was one of the first insights researchers had into the conditions under which the victim might feel reluctant to engage in deviant behavior toward the perpetrator (Bozeman et. al, 2000). While there are limitations to this data, due to it being self-reported by participants, the findings will be very beneficial in expanding workplace deviance theories and in preventing future aggression and retaliation between co-workers (Bozeman, Hershcovis, Parker & Reich, 15). Most employees who engage in workplace deviance are willing to admit their wrongful acts, which is surprising, considering that the potential for dishonesty and misrepresentation is higher in self-reporting surveys. This is due to the trouble people have of admitting and accepting their involvement in unethical behaviors (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Bennett and Robinson strived to gain empirical data and assess a wide variety of workplace deviant behaviors in their surveys, which consisted of three phases, the first of which consisted of a total of 70 participants who were asked to describe two situations in which co-workers engaged in deviant behavior (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). The second study took 226 professionals and surveyed them, using a 7-point Likert scale, by having respondents indicate the extent to which respondents engaged in a list of 58 deviant workplace behavior items. The scale anchors were as follows: 1 (never), 1 (once a year), 3 (twice a year), 4 (several times a year), 5 (monthly), 6 (weekly), and 7 (daily) (Bennett & Robinson, 351). What was surprising about the outcomes of this survey was particularly the prevalence of workplace deviance, and the willingness of respondents to admit to this. Another interesting connection made was the respondents age in relationship to deviant behavior. Younger respondents were more likely to engage in workplace deviance than those who had been in the workforce for several years (Bennett & Robinson, 351). Prior to this study, researchers tended to isolate only a few forms of deviant behavior, such as sexual harassment, theft and sabotage. By looking at a broader scale of workplace deviance, there can be a more thorough understanding of what takes place and just how prevalent it is. With the data collected in this study, researchers can hone in on certain typically overlooked offences, i.e. making an obscene comment at work, which 61 percent of respondents admitted to doing (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Assessing a wide range of deviant behaviors through anonymous surveys opens the doors for a multitude of new, practical investigations as well as insight into the growth of this organizational phenomenon, which costs organizations an estimated US $200 billion dollars each year (Garcia et. al, 2014).CharlatanismCharlatanism is a work ethic or practice that is certainly not admired in the professional-business world. Charlatans have been known to be very destructive to the medical, psychological and the organizational world. A charlatan is someone falsely claiming to have special knowledge or skills, they are known as frauds, swindlers, or quacks (Merriam-Webster). In order to avoid these phonies, it is important to know and understand the predictors and identifiers of charlatan behavior as well as understanding how harmful these people can be too serious or legitimate practitioners or professions. Charlatans can be very harmful and damaging to some profession and are particularly frustrating to those who take their practice seriously. Charlatans can make those who know what they are talking about look bad or unprofessional or create a bad name for the profession as a whole. There is a particular issue of charlatanism in the medical and psychology professions. Fox (1996) wrote about the struggles real practitioners face when dealing with charlatans within the profession. Fox goes on to talk about the phonies in psychology and the mistakes or erroneous claims they make that are simply unproven or untrue, giving the rest of the profession a bad name. Charlatans are damaging to the world of psychology because the few that dont know what they are talking about but pretend they do, will have people believing things that are not valid. It makes it harder for psychologists who actually know what they are talking about to explain the reality of a situation if charlatans have blurred the reality (Fox, 1996). Another opinion by E.M. Einterz (1992), writing about the medical world, noted the need to get rid of charlatans, especially in third world or less privileged countries. He talks about his experiences and what he has seen and discusses the difference between charlatans and actual healers. Charlatans like to put on a show; they rely on trickery rather than actual scientific methods. Einterz talks about pharmacies and doctors that are selling or prescribing all these treatments and procedures that are really unnecessary. Not only is this affecting the patients but the trust and confidence in the medical professions is being weakened (Einterz, 1992). Since charlatans can be so destructive to a profession or organization it is important to be able to identify and predict charlatan behaviors. Though this can be a difficult task, various investigators have provided guidelines and studies that show how one can detect a charlatan. In 2007, three researchers began a study to attempt to predict charlatan behavior. More specifically, they wanted to focus on variables such as trust in management, organizational commitment, turnover intention, supervisory support, job performance and other job characteristics. Their goal was to find the correlation between those variables and which ones were most significant in predicting charlatan behavior. The researchers found that the most significant predictors of charlatan behavior were trust in management and continuance commitment. According to the results there was a negative relationship between charlatan behavior and trust in management, meaning, when there was less trust in management, there was more charlatan behaviors exhibited. There was also a direct relationship with continuance commitment. Continuance commitment means that the individual stays with the organization because he/she is convinced that he/she cannot afford to leave since it would be costly to do so. The employee might not be able to find an equally paying job given the experience and/or qualifications (Gbadamosi, Ndaba & Oni, 2007, p. 756). These results show that the more charlatan behavior seen in the organization, the more continuance commitment there is among the people. Other significant variables were supervisory support, employee participation and goal clarity. Like trust in management these were inversely correlated with charlatan behavior and proved to be potentially important factors when predicting charlatanism. This was a very compelling study because it provided key factors for predicting charlatan behavior, which can help organizations manage it as well as notice these signifiers in potential employees. When hiring someone new, a company generally wants someone who will make significant contributions and improvements; whereas, an organizational charlatan is someone who seeks to improve their perceived performance at the expense of their actual performance, according to Parnell and Singer (2001). Parnell and Singer also developed the Organizational Charlatan Scale, which they wanted to create to measure an individuals behaviors associated with perceived performance levels as opposed to those associated with actual performance levels. Parnell and Singer (2001) focused on impression management in order to gain a better understanding of organizational charlatanism. Impression management is when one focuses more on their perceived performance and positive impressions to other individuals. This is an important factor in identifying organizational charlatans because that is one of the main distinctions between poor performers, who simply carry out a task with minimum effort, and organizational charlatans. Poor performers lack motivation to impress others, whereas charlatans actually care what the people around them think of them and they want them to think they are working hard. Impression management is difficult to recognize and control therefore the investigators wanted to attempt to create a scale to help identify charlatan behavior. Their goal was to develop a list of items, which reflected the Organizational Charlatan construct (p.444). Once they developed a list of items that they felt were relevant, they put them together to create the scale to help employers and researchers determine charlatan behavior. MethodsThe focus of our research was on a nondiscriminatory sample of over 200 currently employed individuals residing in the U.S. Each respondent was made aware that their identity would remain strictly anonymous and that their responses were secure and strictly confidential. We sent invitations with the survey link attached to potential respondents through e-mail. To generate greater awareness, we also posted the URL and a brief background of the surveys purpose onto our LinkedIn and Facebook accounts. The survey can be found solely on the website Qualtrics, which is a highly secure and reputable resource. To gain an understanding of the prevalence of and feelings toward Protestant work ethic, workplace deviance, and Charlatanism, three qualitative surveys were used, each with questions specific to one of the three topics.For Protestant work ethic, we distributed a survey developed by Mirels and Garrett in 1971, consisting of 19 questions. A 7-point Likert scale (1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (Somewhat disagree), 4 (Neutral), 5 (Somewhat agree), 6 (Agree), 7 (Strongly agree) was utilized for the survey. The ultimate goal of asking employees the 19 questions was to evaluate the value people have of hard work, and what, if any, doors this traditionally exemplary work ethic will open for them. Questions range from optimistic statements such as, Anyone who is able and willing to work hard has a good chance of succeeding, to pessimistic stances, such as People spend too much time in unprofitable amusements (Mirels & Garrett, 41).To evaluate the general attitude toward and prevalence of workplace deviance, we distributed a survey that was created by Bennett and Robinson in 2000. This 28-question quantitative survey also used a 7-point Likert Scale; 1 (never), 2 (Once a year), 3 (Twice a year), 4 (Several times a year), 5 (Monthly), 6 (Weekly), 7 (Daily). The goal of these questions was to gain some insight into the ways in which people commit workplace deviance and how often they do it. The types of deviance included in the survey were acting rudely toward co-workers, spreading gossip, stealing company property, falsifying documents, using profane language, and other similar offences (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). What was not included was sexual harassment, which many women are succumbed to in the U.S., but it was not on the original questionnaire taken from Bennett and Robinson. Furthermore, sexual harassment is a serious form of deviance that people have difficulty admitting to, thus we omitted it. In the case of Charlatanism, we distributed a survey developed by Parnell and Singer in 2001. The goal of this survey is to understand how people perceive the importance of their physical presentation in the workforce. Again, we utilized the Likert Scale, this time with five points (1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neither Agree or Disagree), 4 (Agree), 5 (Strongly Agree). The questions of this survey are more straightforward and less loaded than those of the Protestant work ethic and workplace deviance scales. Examples are, I try to dress better when Im going to be seen by key organizational decision makers, and Its more important to look busy than to be busy. While the contexts of these two statements differ, the underlying question for both is what the perceived difference ones appearance can make toward improving their status in an organization.HypothesesH1: People who are more likely to engage in workplace deviance and have beliefs consistent with Charlatanism, are less likely to have a strong Protestant work ethic.H2: A person with a strong Protestant work ethic will have little to no engagement in workplace deviance and Charlatanism.Discussion of Study FindingsOverall, each variable in our study (Protestant work ethic, work place deviance and Charlatanism) had a high reliability. However, the relationships we found between the variables were not all significant. There was a significant and negative relationship between Protestant work ethic and work place deviance. This was what was predicted from the beginning, that those who have values similar to the Protestant work ethic would have very few if any similarities with the behaviors of work place deviance. People who believe that working hard and being loyal to the company or business will succeed and do well in the work place will not be destructive or belligerent towards the company. When it comes to managers and employers, it is very important for them to look for people who have the qualities that come with a Protestant work ethic because these people will work hard and want the best for the company and or team. One thing that was not expected was that there was no significant relationship between Charlatanism and the other two variables, work place deviance and Protestant work ethic. It seemed that there would be a positive relationship with Charlatanism and work place deviance and/or and negative relationship with Charlatanism and Protestant work ethic but this was not the case. One reason could be that the Organizational Charlatanism Scale that we used is possibly under-developed. It is a fairly new scale and there is not a significant amount of research done using it, which might affect the results and be a reason why the findings on this variable were not significant. Since there was no significant correlation our hypothesis regarding the relationships between Charlatanism and Protestant work ethic and Charlatanism and work place deviance were incorrect. The other reason why there may not be a significant correlation is because of the difference between the actual behaviors in all three variables. People who exhibit the behaviors of charlatanism care more about their perceived performance rather than their actual performance. They believe it is more important to look like they are working hard and seem like they are making actual contributions to the company rather than putting forth their best effort and making valuable contributions to the company or organization (Parnell & Singer, 2001). While work place deviance is also not beneficial to a company, the behaviors are different than those of charlatans. People who follow a pattern of workplace deviance not only do not care about the progression of the company but also will sometimes go out of their way to be destructive or counter-productive for the company. (Brunet, Menard & Savoie, 2011) This may be another reason why here was no significant correlation between Charlatanism and work place deviance or Protestant work ethic, because they are not exactly opposite behaviors.ParticipantsThe current study consisted of 151 participants consisting of 40 males, 26.49% of the population, and 89 females, 58,94% of the population and 22 unidentified, 14.57% of the population. The mean age was 27.14 (SD=11.30) with a range from 18 to 80 years of age.ResultsThe Pearson Prodcut Moment Correlation was conducted o measure the relationship between Workplace Deviance and Protestant Work Ethic. There was a significant negative correlation between these two variables, with a sample multiple correlation coefficient of r (112), =-.52, p.05.The Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was conducted to measure the relationship between Charlatanism and Workplace Deviance. There was no significant correlation between the two variables. The sample multiple correlation coefficient was r (127) = .21, p>.05.Limitations of StudyOne limitations of the study was that the survey was based on participants self-reports of workplace deviance, therefore there was the possibility of dishonesty and selective memory. Due to the small sample size of 151 participants, there was not enough data collected to generalize the relationships between each of the three variables. There was also a lack of prior research conducted on Charlatanism, thus the survey we used was short and vague in comparison to the other surveys. There were twice as many women as men who participated, and sometimes there can be differing experiences and biases related to gender, potentially influencing their beliefs and behaviors, making it unrepresentative of the general population.

ConclusionPeople with high levels of Protestant work ethic are generally valued in the work place due to their belief in hard work and diligence. People who believe in this ethic usually hold their work to high standards and do not believe in cutting corners or deception to get ahead within their organization (Townsend, 2014). People with high levels of Charlatanism and workplace deviance, on the other hand, believe in a different set of ethics. Charlatans care more about their perceived performance rather than their actual performance. They are worried more about looking like they are working hard than putting forth their best effort and making valuable contributions to the company or organization (Parnell & Singer, 2001). Workplace deviance is also on the negative end of the spectrum, because this is when there is a want to cause harm to an organization or workplace (Brunet, Menard, & Savoie ). This study set out to understand the relationship between these three different workplace ethics and examine the levels of Charlatanism and workplace deviance in people who claim to have high levels of Protestant Work Ethic. We found that there is no significant relationship between Charlatanism and the other two topics of research, however there is a negative relationship between workplace deviance and Protestant work ethic. Further research can focus on the reason behind these relationships and the effects of workers who might have high levels of Protestant work ethic and Charlatanism and workplace deviance and Charlatanism.

ReferencesBennett, R., & Robinson, S. (2000). Development Of A Measure Of Workplace Deviance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360. "Charlatan." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. Domurat, Artur, and Wasiela, Anna. Confucian and Protestant Work Ethics Among Polish and Korean Employees and Small Business Owners. Journal of Intercultural Communication. (2012). Web.Einterz, E. (1992). The poor need no more charlatans. Lancet, 339(8796), 795. Fox, R. E. (1996). Charlatanism, scientism, and psychology's social contract. American Psychologist, 51(8), 777.Garcia, P. M., Wang, L., Lu, V., Kiazad, K., & Restubog, S. D. (2014). When victims become culprits: The role of subordinates neuroticism in the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Personality & Individual Differences, Gbadamosi, G., Ndaba, J., & Oni, F. (2007). Predicting charlatan behaviour in a non- western setting: Lack of trust or absence of commitment? The Journal of Management Development, 26(8), 753-769.Goode, W. J. (1960). Encroachment, charlatanism, and the emerging profession: Psychology, sociology, and medicine. American Sociological Review, 25(6), 902-914.Bozeman, J., Hershcovis, M., Reich, T., & Parker, S., (2012). The relationship between workplace aggression and target deviant behaviour: The moderating roles of power and task interdependence. Work & Stress, 26(1), 1-20. Major, Brenda, Cheryl R. Kaiser, Laurie T. O'brien, and Shannon K. Mccoy. "Perceived Discrimination as Worldview Threat or Worldview Confirmation: Implications for Self-esteem." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92.6 (2007): 1068-086. Web.Mnard, J., Brunet, L., & Savoie, A. (2011). Interpersonal Workplace Deviance: Why Do Offenders Act Out? A Comparative Look on Personality and Organisational Variables. Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science, 43(4), 309-317. ONeill, T. A., & Hastings, S. E. (2011). Explaining workplace deviance behavior with more than just the Big Five. Personality & Individual Differences, 50(2), 268-273. Parnell, J. A., & Singer, M. G. (2001). The organizational charlatan scale: Developing an instrument to measure false performance. Journal Of Management Development, 20(5), 441.Porter, Gayle. "Work Ethic and Ethical Work: Distortions in the American Dream." Journal of Business Ethics 96.4 (2010): 535-50. Web. Townsend, S. S. M., and L. L. Thompson. "Implications of the Protestant Work Ethic for Cooperative and Mixed-motive Teams." Organizational Psychology Review 4.1 (2014): 4-26. Web.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner, 1958. Print.