The Dark Side of Organizational Theft Essay Example

employee theft. Various forms of theft contribute to company losses as workers engage in stealing from their employers. Time theft, for instance, refers to employees misusing or wasting work time by engaging in activities unrelated to their job duties (Parilla, et al., 1988).

This paper provides insight into the different types of theft and explores the underlying reasons for this misconduct. The article focuses on external theft, internal theft as the primary concern, and operational robbery.

External Theft

External theft is a common type of theft in organizations, but it has the least impact. Thieves who commit external theft often resort to violence to achieve their goals. Typically, external theft is carried out by individuals who have no affiliation with the company. In some cases, there may be an internal informant who assists the outsiders in their criminal activities (Sulsky, Marcus, ; MacDonald, 2016). These thieves rely on acts of vandalism to gain access to the company's properties, as there are usually no legal means for them to obtain the desired items.

The act described in the text is classified as destructive because it involves forcibly entering secured property. When it comes to destruction, external theft is particularly detrimental due to the lack of familiarity that outsiders have with the targeted location. Scientific research supports the notion that tension can drive individuals to engage in unintended actions (Sulsky, et al., 2016). As a result, thieves who are typically tense often find themselves involved in shootouts, especially if they possess firearms. This type of theft frequently results in fatalities, including security officers, robbers, and occasionally innocent bystanders who happen to be in the thieves' path during their escape.

Internal Theft

This category

of theft refers to unauthorized actions carried out by employees within the organization itself.

Often, theft within a company does not involve acts of vandalism. Typically, it is the junior staff who frequently pilfer readily available resources in their daily work (Sulsky, et al., 2016). However, senior members of the organization steal the most valuable items, resulting in both theft and a breach of trust. Nonetheless, instances of vandalism can still occur when employees are unable to access desired items and resort to planning and employing force to gain entry to the company's property (Sulsky, et al., 2016).

Despite it being common, the worst cases involve top executives engaging in the same acts. These individuals have access to a significant portion of the company's resources and are well aware of the immense responsibilities they hold (Sulsky, et al., 2016). It is the top executives who cause the most havoc through internal organizational theft. One executive alone can embezzle hundreds of millions or transfer ownership of properties from the organization to themselves.

The company is at risk of incurring significant losses due to high-ranking individuals who have access to all company files and are responsible for protecting valuable resources (Moorthy, Seetharaman, Jaffar, ; Foong, 2015). According to the criminal code of Canada, specifically section 334, theft can result in imprisonment for up to ten years if the offender is found guilty of an indictable offense (Sulsky, et al., 2016). However, this punishment only applies when the stolen property is an instrument of testimony or the value of the stolen items exceeds five thousand dollars. Thieves often underestimate the extent of their losses when engaging in such unlawful activities.

However, there

is a greater loss than gain to criminals (Moorthy, et al., 2015). Initially, they are cautious when committing their nefarious acts within a company. The severity of their punishment depends on the extent of the theft and more importantly, the value of the stolen items (Liu, ; Berry, 2013). Investigators also examine their motive and the technique employed in stealing the items.

According to Rhodes (2015), when people lose their lives in theft incidents, the thieves are likely to face harsh consequences. However, it is not just the actual criminals who suffer from their actions. Even those who witnessed the crime but did nothing or played a minor role in the theft experience negative effects (Liu ; Berry, 2013). Non-perpetrators often face psychological harassment and loss of trust from their colleagues. It has been observed that many companies that have experienced resource theft leading to bankruptcy have also dealt with this kind of theft.

This type of theft can be categorized into two main forms - fraud and vandalism. It is worth noting that vandalism extends beyond the organization's fixed assets, as there are instances where company properties in transit become susceptible to theft by opportunistic employees.

Operational Theft

This form of theft adversely impacts unsuspecting individuals. While resembling internal theft due to involving employees within the affected organization, it is not always the case that the employee is entirely innocent; they may intentionally commit the theft and mask it as a mere oversight.

Theft of money is most prevalent in areas where the thief can directly access currency. This type of theft is the simplest because other items would require specific handling. Jewelry and valuable metals are also vulnerable

to this kind of theft, as even a small piece can hold considerable value. The severity of operational theft may differ among departments within an organization, with some dealing with more valuable and compact items. Operational theft tends to rise as the manufacturing process approaches completion (Kennedy, 2016).

As the chain nears completion, the goods become more compact and their value increases. This type of theft is primarily carried out by the minor workers of the affected organization.

Dealing with Organizational Theft

Organizational theft is different from ordinary street theft, but it is still significant. Just like street theft is addressed by tightening security, organizations should also address theft in their system (Kennedy, 2016). To prevent internal theft and operational robbery, it is crucial for the group to closely monitor asset management and prevent anyone from taking advantage of resources for personal use.

The workers must be closely monitored while also being given sufficient privacy. It is important to carefully observe the workers as they exit their workplaces to prevent them from taking any materials from their workstations (Rhodes, 2015). To ensure safety against both external theft and internal theft characterized by vandalism, the organization should enhance its security measures and safety alarms (Moorthy, et al., 2015). When it comes to security checks on workers, there is no specific method as most of them are trusted with their individual workstations, making them responsible for anything within their workplace.

Even a security officer lacks the authority or privilege to dismiss that responsibility.

Conclusion

Companies suffer significant losses from theft cases, and despite extensive research on thieves undermining a company, reducing this type of theft is challenging. However, there are gaps in existing research

on this topic that need addressing.

Areas of further research

• Further investigation should be conducted into collaborative research, where security officers can contribute to preventing theft.
• The study should explore the psychological factors influencing employees to commit theft and their consideration of future earnings consequences. This study should be based on human psychology (Rhodes, 2015).
• More research needs to be done on how external thieves gather information and gain the courage to enter unfamiliar territories. This research should draw from criminology and studies on criminal activities (Rhodes, 2015).

References

• Kennedy, J. P. (2016). Shedding Light on Employee Theft’s Dark Figure: A Typology of Employee Theft Nonreporting Rationalizations. Organization Management Journal (Routledge), 13(1), 49-60. doi:10.1080/15416518.2015.1110513
• Liu, Y., & Berry, C. (2013).

The citation for the article titled "Identity, Moral, and Equity Perspectives on the Relationship Between Experienced Injustice and Time Theft" in the Journal of Business Ethics is as follows:

Moorthy, M. K., Seetharaman, A., Jaffar, N., and Foong, Y. P. (2012). Identity, Moral, and Equity Perspectives on the Relationship Between Experienced Injustice and Time Theft. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 73-83. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1554-5.

Parilla, P. F., Hollinger, R. C., and Clark, J. (2015) conducted a study titled "Employee Perceptions of Workplace Theft Behavior: A Study Among Supermarket Retail Employees in Malaysia" in Malaysia. The study was published in the journal "Ethics & Behavior." It is referenced by the doi: 10.1080/10508422.2014.917416.

The article "Organizational control of Deviant Behavior: the case of employee theft" by Pierce, L., Snow, D. C., & McAfee, A. (1988) is published in the Social Science Quarterly (University Of Texas Press). It is found in Volume 69(2), pages 261-280.

(2015). Cleaning House: The Impact of Information Technology Monitoring on Employee

Theft and Productivity. Management Science, 61(10), 2299-2319. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2103

B. (2004). Electricity theft: a comparative analysis. Energy Policy, 32(18), 2067-2076.
Sulsky, L., Marcus, J., & MacDonald, H. (2016). Examining Ethicality Judgements of Theft Behavior: The Role of Moral Relativism. Journal Of Business & Psychology, 31(3), 383-398.

The DOI of the article is

doi:10.1007/s10869-015-9418-5

.