CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

The Prevalence of Charlatanism, Protestant Work Ethic, and Workplace Deviance of Employees in
an Organizational Setting
State 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 Organizational
Communication Seminar (CMM 454) under the direction of Dr. Jason S. Wrench.

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

The Prevalence of Charlatanism, Protestant Work Ethic, and Workplace Deviance of Employees in
an Organizational Setting
Abstract
Protestant 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 Ethic

The 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

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

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).

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

In 2013, researchers Townsend and Thompson conducted an investigation of teams and

teamwork in cooperative (e.g., group brainstorming and team decision-making) and mixedmotive (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

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

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

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

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).

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

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

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

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).

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

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

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

10

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).
Charlatanism
Charlatanism is a work ethic or practice that is certainly not admired in the professionalbusiness 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

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

11

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

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

12

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.

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

13

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.
Methods
The 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.

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

14

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

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

15

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.
Hypotheses
H1: 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 Findings
Overall, 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

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

16

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

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

17

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.
Participants
The 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.
Results
The 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<.005
The Pearson Product Moment Correlation was conducted to measure the
relationship between Protestant Work Ethic and Charlatanism. There was no
significant correlation between the Protestant Work Ethic and Charlatanism.
The sample multiple correlation coefficient was r (134), p>.05.
The Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was conducted to
measure the relationship between Charlatanism and Workplace Deviance.

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

18

There was no significant correlation between the two variables. The sample
multiple correlation coefficient was r (127) = .21, p>.05.
Limitations of Study
One 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.

Conclusion
People 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

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

19

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.

References
Bennett, R., & Robinson, S. (2000). Development Of A Measure Of Workplace Deviance.

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

20

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 nonwestern 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.

CHARLATANISM, PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE

21

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.