Contemporary business environment is marked by various challenges of diversity, flat organizational structures, re-engineering, downsizing, enhanced quality and productivity, budget cuts and use of contract employees (Everton et al., 2007). These challenges result into perception of inequity and injustice, low self-esteem and increased stress among the existing workforce. This in turn instigates the employees to indulge in corporate outrage behavior also known as destructive deviance (Berry et al., 2007). Destructive deviance is significant violation of the organizational norms that threatens the well-being of an organization and its employees (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Literature has evidenced that workplace deviance is not a new concept; in fact, employees engaging in deviant behavior have been studied since the mid-1900s and have become a popular research subject once more due to its pervasiveness and associated costs (Berry et al., 2007; Cohen-Charash and Mueller, 2007; Dilchert et al., 2007). Literature on workplace deviance has yielded considerable insights into its antecedents and consequences. However, with growth in the area of workplace deviance, numerous gaps have surfaced in the literature. One such gap exclusively focuses on the parallel analysis of the antecedents of destructive deviance. According to Griffin and Lopez (2005), there is a strong need for research that addresses various antecedents and consequences of workplace deviance in a comprehensive manner. Thus, it is crucial for researchers to have an altogether clear understanding of the antecedents of destructive deviance, as it profoundly adds to the financial, psychological and social costs of an organization (Bodankin and Tziner, 2009; Appelbaum et al., 2007; Henle et al., 2005). Literature has evidenced that approximately 95 per cent organizations encounter deviant behavior out of which 75 per cent accounts for stealing and harsh behavior at workplace (Appelbaum et al., 2007; Henle, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2005). Rana and Punia (2016) observed similar findings with respect to the predominance of workplace deviance that ranges from 8 to 60 per cent among the employees in the Indian corporate sector. Given these enormous figures, it is very crucial for researchers to identify the correlates of workplace deviance (Hastings and Finegan, 2011). If proper research is done, then organizations can start taking steps toward preventing workplace deviance, thus saving billions of dollars per year (Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Moreover, pervasiveness of deviant behavior in Indian organizations makes it more compelling to analyze the determinants of deviant behavior (Rana and Punia, 2016; Smithikrai, 2008). The reasons for this intensifying deviant behavior among the employees in Indian organizations can be attributed to numerous reasons. First, Indian organizations rank high on the cultural dimension of power distance and collectivism and low on gender egalitarianism. Power distance implies centralization of decisionmaking and indicates strict hierarchy in workplace, which act as a constraint rather than a facilitator for employees. Collectivism refers to strong dependence and affinity between the employees within teams and groups. Indian organizations resort to bias while treating different employees, which stimulates destructive deviance.