Security experts suggest that problem behaviors are repetitive and related, e.g., people who pass bad checks are likely to steal (Weintraub, 1998). Individuals who associate closely with others who steal may themselves be more likely to steal (Paajanen, 1988). Indeed, gang operations are now infiltrating organizations and promoting merchandise pilferage (Negley, 1996). .
Employee Theft at the Social Level .
At this level, theft may be viewed as: (1) a behavioral response to unfair treatment by one's manager or other organizational representatives or the perceived violation of one's psychological contract with the company, or (2) compliance with informal group norms. The literature on workplace fairness considers both distributive and procedural forms of justice (Greenberg, 1990a), but the primary concern at the social level is with the procedural form. Distributive justice issues concern compensation and perceptions of pay and will be considered at the systemic level. Procedural justice refers not only to the formal procedures that are applied in the decision making process but also to the interpersonal treatment received by the employee from management (Greenberg, 1990a; Tyler & Bies;, 1990). For example, when a resource allocation decision is implemented inconsistently across employees or is based on inaccurate or biased information, and no formal avenue exists for correcting possible mistakes (i.e., no grievance process exists), an employee's sense of procedural injustice is stirred (Greenberg, 1997). .
When employees perceive that justice prevails, they are likely to be satisfied with and committed to the organization (Folger & Konovsky;, 1989). When employees perceive unjust treatment, however, dissatisfaction and lack of commitment emerge, as well as the likelihood for retaliatory behaviors (Skarlicki & Folger;, 1997). To have one's voice ignored or to be treated without respect or dignity, brings expressions of dissatisfaction either through words or actions (Greenberg, 1990a; Tyler & Bies;, 1990).
