Norm and Deviance-Seeking Personal Orientation Scale (NDPOS) Adapted to the Organisational Context

Guillaume Roland Michel Déprez; Adalgisa Battistelli; Mirko Antino

doi:10.5334/pb.462

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Types of Orientations, Specifics Dimensions, Construct Definitions, and Illustrative Personal Orientations.

Orientations	Dimensions	Definitions	Examples
Normativity		Individual propensity to develop an orientation to conform and/or following the norm, policies, or rules
	Conformity	Ensure that his/her personal orientation matches that of the group.	Tend to conform to other’s choice rather than have an opinion.
	Rule Adequacy	Ensure that his/her personal orientation matches the established rules.	Tend to follow the rules in any situation, even if it seems pointless.
Deviance		Individual propensity to develop an orientation to deviate from the norm, policies, or rules
	Performance seeking	Deviant personal orientation towards the search for efficiency and/or effectiveness.	Tend to break some rules, norms, or stereotypes to be more efficient.
	Proactivity seeking	Deviant personal orientation towards proactivity, prevention, and improvement of the surrounding context.	Tend to deviate from norms to prevent potential discomfort.

Table 2

Norm and Deviance-seeking Personal Orientation Scale Items and Factor Loadings (N = 311).

Items	Factor
	Normativity		Deviance
	Conformity	Rule Adequacy	Performance Seeking	Proactivity Seeking
To ensure tranquillity, I prefer to conform to the group’s point of view. Je préfère me conformer à l’avis du groupe pour assurer ma tranquillité.	.74	–.08	–.02	–.08
I prefer to conform to the group’s choice whether I have an opinion or not on a matter. Que j’ai ou non un avis sur n’importe quelle question je préfère me conformer au choix du groupe.	.54	.02	–.02	–.11
I try to avoid conflicts by conforming to the group J’essaie d’éviter des conflits possibles en me conformant au groupe.	.66	.11	–.00	.07
I try to abide to my supervisor’s ways of doing things even though I find them inadequate J’essaie d’utiliser des démarches définies par mon superviseur même si elles me paraissent inadaptées.	–.01	.74	.06	–.12
I will try to follow an organizational rule, even if it seems pointless. Si une règle organisationnelle me paraît inutile, je tente de l’appliquer tout de même.	.02	.66	–.15	–.00
I try to conform to organizational decisions even if I disagree with them. J’essaie de me conformer aux décisions organisationnelles même lorsque je suis en désaccord avec celles-ci.	.03	.67	–.07	.06
I tend to break some organizational rules, in order to be more efficient. J’ai tendance à transgresser certaines règles organisationnelles pour être plus efficace.	–.03	.05	.79	.00
I do not hesitate to break some organizational rules when I perceive that they hinder my performance. Je n’hésite pas à transgresser certaines règles organisationnelles lorsque j’estime qu’elles diminuent mon efficacité.	.02	–.04	.81	–.03
I tend to break organizational rules that I find pointless J’ai tendance à transgresser les règles organisationnelles qui me paraissent défaillantes.	–.01	–.24	.50	.11
If I think there is a better way of doing things compared to what the group proposed, I am not shy of sharing my ideas. Si j’estime que l’on peut agir différemment de ce qui est proposé par le groupe, j’essaie de le faire savoir.	–.03	.01	–.00	.86
I try to tell my supervisors when I see shortcomings in the directions he gives me. J’essaie de faire part à mon superviseur des défaillances que je perçois dans les consignes qu’il me donne.	–.01	–.02	–.00	.49
I try to bring new work practices that have not been used by my colleagues. J’essaie d’apporter de nouvelles pratiques de travail non utilisées par mes collègues.	.03	–.12	.11	.38
Eigenvalues	4.05	1.50	1.34	1.07
% variance explained	32.17	12.23	10.76	8.21

[i] Note: Primary loadings are in bold. All items were administered in French, English translations for communication purposes.

Table 3

Factor Correlation Matrix, Mean, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities (N = 311).

		M	SD	1	2	3	4
1.	Conformity	3.07	.78	(.71)
2.	Rule adequacy	2.95	.87	.50**	(.77)
3.	Performance seeking	2.98	.96	–.20**	–.40**	(.78)
4.	Proactivity seeking	3.76	.78	–.33**	–.26**	.25**	(.61)

[i] Note: ** p < .01; Number in parentheses are the Cronbach’s alpha scores.

Table 4

Fit statistic of the Initial and Alternative Models.

Model	χ²	df	RMSEA *(<.08)	RMSEA 90% CI	CFI *(>.9)	TLI *(>.9)	SRMR *(<.08)	AIC	BIC	Model comparison	ΔCFI	ΔTLI
Initial	95.091	48	.057	.040, .073	.965	.951	.038	8914.76	9070.87
Model (1)	231.14	51	.108	.094, .122	.865	.825	.077	9057.19	9202.16	1 versus initial	–.100	–.126
Model (2)	261.40	51	.116	.842, .796	.842	.796	.090	9098.12	9243.08	2 versus 1	–.023	–.029
Model (3)	383.69	53	.143	.130, .157	.752	.691	.105	9222.59	9360.12	3 versus 2	–.090	–.105
Model (4)	741.13	54	.205	.192, .218	.484	.369	.174	9648.67	9782.48	4 versus 3	–.268	–.322

[i] Note: N = 304. * p < .05; * cutoff.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the NDPOS, study 3; * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Table 5

Correlation among Deviant and Normative Orientation, and among Theoretical Correlate Behaviours.

		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1.	Deviant performance seeking	2.96	.98	(.91)
2.	Deviant proactivity seeking	3.28	.72	.70**	(.72)
3.	Normative conformity	2.64	.84	–.14*	–.16**	(.80)
4.	Normative rule adequacy	2.73	.83	–.41**	–.24**	.53**	(.77)
5.	Conformity	2.50	.84	–.19**	–.23**	.23**	.21**	(.78)
6.	Cognitive flexibility	3.87	.44	.10	.22**	–.20**	–.09	–.35**	(.70)
7.	PSRB efficiency	2.63	.94	.48**	.36**	–.03	–.27**	–.09	.12*	(.75)
8.	PSRB co-worker	3.13	.98	.38**	.28**	–.11*	–.27**	–.05	.10	.57**	(.84)
9.	PSRB customer	3.14	1.01	.45**	.34**	–.06	–.32**	–.08	.12*	.71**	.58**	(.82)
10.	CDB interpersonal	2.50	.80	.48**	.37**	–.09	–.26**	–.09	.03	.45**	.44**	.42**	(.67)
11.	CDB organizational	2.60	.82	.58**	.43**	–.18**	–.38**	–.10	.05	.49**	.44**	.48**	.78**	(.82)
12.	Supportive voice	3.37	.77	.11*	.26**	–.10	–.00	–.13*	.17**	.07	.06	.01	.18**	.15**	(.83)
13.	Constructive voice	3.42	.81	.18**	.39**	–.06	–.08	–.18**	.28**	.13*	.09	.08	.24**	.20**	.62**	(.88)
14.	Destructive voice	1.88	.69	.33**	.24**	–.06	–.24**	–.07	–.10	.19**	.22**	.15**	.47**	.44**	–.00	.15**	(.76)
15.	Defensive voice	1.85	.67	.10	.06	–.10	–.14*	–.09	–.12*	.00	.07	.02	.25**	.24**	.00	.08	.53**	(.73)

[i] Note: N = 304; The Cronbach’s alpha corresponds to the number in brackets; * p < .05, ** p < .01; CDB = constructive deviance behaviour, PSRB = prosocial rule breaking.