Various scholars have attempted to explain delinquent behavior. Among the most influential explanations, which I find argumentative, is the theory of normative conflict within group norms. Normative theories of conflict can be described as having legal reasoning, in man and law, along with modern forms of life. My concept of normative conflict is functional: it activates the functions of norms. On the objectives or purposes that underlie the rules. I argue that “normative conflict” is a broad notion that isolates a generic event within legal systems. For example, one can view normative conflict as loyal or rebellious. However, it is not conformity. It is not insensitive to conform to the status quo (Hill, 1987). However, “it is the realization that America was born of revolt, succeeded through dissent, became great through experimentation” (Hill et al., 1987). The dissenting inner self witnesses the playfulness of things that might become deviant and this is what saves social equality from a quiet passage behind closed doors (Hill et al., 1987). It is interesting to compare other theories related to the topic and compare the arguments of other socio-psychological and sociological points of view on deviance. Hill (1987) stated that dissent is a sign of loyalty to a group, rebelling and acting to improve one's group and through this has the well-being of one's group at heart (Hill et al., 1987). However, social science work tends to accept (at least tacitly) that it is the people who are weakly recognized in their groups who care the least and who are most likely to deviate 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, cheating, deception, injustice, crime, cunning, simulation, shortcuts, immorality, dishonesty, betrayal, corruption, corruption, wickedness, and sin” (p. 1; Hill et al., 1987). These are certainly not what you would expect to happen within a group, but it happens. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayIt is obvious that affiliates of strongly identified groups will sometimes choose to distance themselves from their groups if they believe that what they perceive is true and that the act of defiance is beneficial to the group (Hill et al., 1987) . One might even say that deviance in the service of a group is a fairly contemporary notion. As such, rebellion may simply be a current social value, encouraged particularly by Western philosophers and politically aware commentators (Hill et al., 1987). People can be accused of deviating in a stage or society where it was nice or appropriate to do so in cultural circumstances. When you look at leaders from 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 they were considered, or accused, of deviating at a given time or of being disinterested in their groups. The possibility of both individuality and traditionalism among weak identifiers facing little normative conflict shows that the specific contours of identification and normative conflict are not essentially associated with a single form of response. As discussed, conflict against group norms is expected to be more predictable when levels of shared evidence of identity and normative conflict are together high. Disagreement is by no means an inevitable prerequisite in these circumstances.However, a major possibility in the study of these concepts has documented the negative reactions of groups to the normative actions of their members (Hill et al., 1987). It has been established that there is a solid tendency for others to be more banished than those who rebel. For example, a study of rebel group members revealed that ingroup affiliates who deviate from group rules are viewed more negatively than outgroup supporters who act in exactly the same way” (Hill et al., 1987 ). There are different types of individuals in different situations who often have shown less respect for the group, this is based on costs versus reimbursements by way 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 understood as an act of loyalty rather than betrayal (Hill et al., 1987). It is also understood that when an individual sometimes dissents from the group when he believes that a norm is harmful to the community and hopes that by doing so he can bring about a change in the group and its norms (Hill et al., 1987). “For every dissident who can be extolled as a virtuous force for positive change,” for example, Martin Luther King Jr., there is also someone who can be called a dissident who can legitimately be damned as an impulse to evil. For example, Adolph Hitler. We can also visualize the normative conflict pattern of some group dissent to identify deviance from an organizational rule, which is quite common and has detrimental effects on individual group members and the overall organization (Gut worth & Dahling, 2008). . Normative conflict is now argued to be described as deviance because it is becoming part of the norm in business and social groups. Engaging in deviant behavior is often not harmful, but it has a lasting effect on people within the company or organization. “Deviance, which involves voluntary rule-breaking behavior conducted with honorable intentions for the benefit of the organization or its stakeholders” (Gutworth et al., 2008). Regulatory conflict is inevitable in an organization or corporate boardroom. Individuals with effective commitment within a group context, or a committed employee, who is committed to the company, can be the deciding factor in whether constructive or destructive deviant behavior occurs in an association (Gutworth et al., 2008). As companies begin to realize that this is happening within their corporate offices, as managers supervise their employees and must resolve or address issues related to destructive deviance, the issue comes under the umbrella of regulatory conflict. However, managers who realize that some employees' behavior is radical and their behavior is out of the norm. Identifying what type of deviance is occurring and having the ability to resolve the issue appropriately (Gutworth et al., 2008). Constructive deviance has remained theoretically notable compared to other positive behaviors, such as organizational citizenship, corporate social responsibility, whistleblowing, and creativity-innovation (Applebaum, Iaconi, & Matousek, 2007; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004). According to some researchers, to date, the normative conflict model has focused its attention on the application of typical normative conflict theory to informal social groups. For example, a number of studies have been conducted testing a model using an informal group of college students. This study evaluates college students; and their level of identification to their university and then ask them to recall a negative consequence.