Various scholars have attempted to explain delinquent behavior. Among the more influential explanations, I find to be argumentative, is normative conflict theory within group norms. Normative conflict theories can be described as having a legal reasoning, in man and law, along with modern forms of life. My concept of normative conflict is functional: it turns on the functions of norms. On the goals or purposes which underlie norms. I argue that ‘normative conflict’ is a broad notion which isolates a generic occurrence within legal systems. For example, one can take normative conflict by viewing it as having loyalty, or being rebellious. However, it is not conformity. It is not unreceptive to comply with the status quo (Hill, 1987). However, “It is the realization that America was born of revolt, succeeded on dissent, became great through experimentation” (Hill et al. , 1987). The dissenting inner self stands with the merriment of things as they might become deviant and that is what rescues social equality from a quiet passing behind closed doors (Hill et al,. , 1987). It is interesting when you compare others theories related to the subject, and compare the arguments of other social psychological and sociological viewpoints on deviance. Hill (1987) declared that dissent is a mark of faithfulness to a group, that rebels an act to improve their groups and by means of such have the wellbeing of their groups at heart (Hill et al. , 1987). However, the social science work tends to accept (at least tacitly) that it is people who are faintly recognized with their groups, who care the least and who are the most likely to stray from group norms. To put it bluntly according to a sociologist who began his classic book on (deviance) by stating that “the subject-is knavery, skullduggery, cheating, unfairness, crime, sneakiness, malingering, cutting corners, immorality, dishonesty, betrayal, graft, corruption, wickedness, and sin” (p. 1; Hill et al. , 1987). These are certainly not what one would expect to occur within ones group, but it happens.
It is obvious that strongly identified group affiliates do, on occasion, choose to turn from their groups if they believe what they perceived to be true and that the act of being defiant is helpful for the group (Hill et al. , 1987). It could also be said that deviance in service of a group is a fairly contemporary notion. As such, rebellion may simply be a current social value, encouraged in particular by western philosophers and politically aware commentators (Hill et al. , 1987). People can be accused of deviating in a stage or a society in which it was cool or suitable to do so under cultural circumstances. When you observe leaders in our past such as: “Martin Luther King Jr. , Thomas Beckett, Aleksandra Solzhenitsyn, Socrates, Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, and even the Dixie Chicks” (Hill et al. , 1987), none of these people were considered, or accused of deviating in a time or being uninterested in their groups. The possibility for both individuality and traditionalism among weak identifiers facing little normative conflict shows that specific outlines of identification and normative conflict are not essentially associated with a single form of response. As discussed, conflict against group norms is projected to be most expected when levels of shared proof of identity and normative conflict are together high. Disagreement is by no means an unavoidable assumption in these circumstances.
However, a great possibility in studying these concepts has documented the negative reactions of groups to normative actions by their members (Hill et al. , 1987). It has been determined that there is a solid tendency for others to be more banned than those that are being rebellious. For example, a study on arebellious group member has revealed that in-group affiliates who deviate from group rules are observed more negatively than supporters of an out-group acting in exactly the same manner” (Hill et al. , 1987). There are different types of individuals in different situations that have often shown less respect for the group, this is based on the costs versus paybacks by means of how they burden them (Hill et al. , 1987). It has been noted that individuals who dissent do so because they care about the group and that dissent is intended as an act of loyalty rather than treachery (Hill et al. , 1987). Ithas also been realized that when an individual will sometimes dissent from the group when he/she believe that a norm is harmful to the collective and that they hope by doing so will bring about change to the group and its norms (Hill et al. , 1987). “For every dissenter who can be extolled as a virtuous, force for positive change” for example, Martin Luther King Jr. , You also have some one that can be call a dissenter who can legitimately be damned as an impetus for evil. For example, Adolph Hitler.
We can also view normative conflict model of certain group dissent to identify deviance from an organizational rule, which are quite common, and have harmful effects on individual group members and the overall organization (Gut worth & Dahling, 2008). It is now argued that normative conflict is being described as being deviance, because it is becoming part of the norm in corporate and social groups. Having a deviant behavior is not often harmful, yet it is a lasting effect on people within the company or organization. “Deviance, which involves volitional rule-breaking behavior conducted with honorable intentions to benefit the organization, or its stakeholders” (Gutworth et al. , 2008). Normative conflict is unavoidable in an organizational, or in a corporate board room. Individuals with aneffective commitment within agroup setting, or acommitted employee, who’s committed to the company may be the deciding factor on one having constructive versus destructive deviantbehavior in an association(Gutworth et al. , 2008). When businesses start realizing that this is happening within their corporate offices, because managers that are supervising their employees and having to resolve, or address issues related to destructive deviance, the issue relies under the umbrella of normative conflict. Never the less, managers that realize certain employee’s behavior is being radical and their behavior is out of the norm. By identifying which type of deviance is occurring and having the ability to resolve the matter appropriately (Gutworth et al. , 2008).
Constructive deviance has stayed theoretically notable from other positive behaviors, such as organizational citizenship, corporate social responsibility, whistle-blowers, and creativity-innovation (Applebaum, Iaconi and Matousek, 2007; Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004). According to some researchers to date, the normative conflict model has focus its attention on applying the typical normative conflict theory to informal social groups. For example, a set of studies were conducted testing a model using an informal group of college students. This study assess college students; and their level of identification to their university and then ask them to recall a negative consequence to a pro-alcohol norm issue at their school (Packer and chasteen, 2010). The results found that the students who had the most extremely identifiable episode with the university; was the ones that had the desire to descent and address their concerns to the other members of the group (Packer and chasten, 2010). A skirmish between a particular group character and other phases of self can cause a number of intrapersonal academic strategies. For example, (raising a superordinate identity), which serves as a resolution; to the inconsistencies via understanding because of the identity involve.
More importantly, however, the motivation to reconcile differentaspects of oneself, may go on occasion, go beyond cognitive strategies and triggers, that are active behavioral in attemptto release themselves, by changing identity. Identity is shared with others successfully may require acts of dissent (Horsey, 2006; Postmeset al. , 2006; reicher, 2004; reicher and Hopkins, 1996). Even though support for the normative conflict theory is often found in social group settings, there is limited studies related to this type of model and if it can be applied to formal organizational settings.