WELL-BEING, JOB ENGAGEMENT AND WORKPLACE
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR: SELF-MONITORING AS A
MODERATOR
Kao-Man Chang
Graduate Institute of Human Resource Management. National Changhua University of
Education
2, Shi-Da Road, Changhua City 500, Taiwan
elevententhreester@gmail.com
Yu-Chen Wei
Graduate Institute of Human Resource Management. National Changhua University of
Education
2, Shi-Da Road, Changhua City 500, Taiwan
ycwei@cc.ncue.edu.tw
ABSTRACT
In the past decade, workplace deviance and counterproductive behaviors at work have
become the focus of an increasing number of research studies (Robinson & Bennett,
1995). As we known, workplace deviant behavior will influence the organizational
performance. For the reason, this research wants to know which factor would interact
with the work deviant behavior. First, the author predicted well-being and job
engagement would be negatively correlated with workplace deviant behavior. Second,
for well-being and workplace deviant behavior, job engagement plays a partial
mediator. Well-being would affect workplace deviant behavior directly. Furthermore,
the author proposed that self-monitoring moderated the relationship between
well-being and engagement. When the employee with high self-monitoring, the
association between well-being and engagement would be enhanced. This research
investigates the relationship between well-being, job engagement, workplace deviant
behavior and self-monitoring. Finally, the author highlighted future directions and
provided few suggestions to organizations.
Keywords: Well-being, Job Engagement, Self-monitoring, Workplace Deviant
Behavior
INTRODUCTION
In 2001, the news of Enron bankruptcy was a shock to the investors. Enron have been
1
the biggest power source company in America. It is hard to believe that operating the
cheating behavior among the chief and executive officer(CEO). This event caused
inestimable lose and made employee face the fact ofunemployment. As we know,
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) plays as an important role as task
performance does in determining employees’ overalljob performance (Motowidlo &
Van Scotter, 1994). Rotundo and Sackett (2002) also reported this finding about
workplace deviant behavior (WDB).Workplace deviance is defined as “voluntary
behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the
well-being of an organization, its members, or both” (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). For
example, if employees like slacking or taking an extended break, this will result in a
decline in performance of the business. Similarly, if employees are not getting along
well together due to interpersonal WDB, it may contribute to a negative interactive
base within a department, thus overall performance will suffer. As above , acting of
swindle is one of the workplace deviant behaviors. Employees who are targets of
workplace deviance are more likely to quit, have stress-related problems, decreased
productivity, low morale, lost work time (O'Leary-Kelley, Griffin, & Glew, 1996), or
low self-esteem, increased fear and insecurity at work and discomfort.
One of the “original” antecedents of employee deviance is frustration, and have
studied more than 25 years (Bennett & Robinson, 2003). Employee deviance is an
emotional response to the experience of frustrating job stressors (Chen & Spector,
1992). Job dissatisfaction is a kind of emotional responses. The research has
established that job dissatisfaction is related to measure of deviance in particular
(Bennett & Robinson, 2003). When employees are not satisfied about their job, they
would display more workplace deviant behavior. Another, the antecedent of the
workplace deviance behavior is organization justice, include distributive justice,
procedural justice and interactional justice (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999; Fox,
Spector, & Miles, 2001), personality (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999). Besides,
when workers experience poor health and well-being in the workplace, they may be
less productive, make lower quality decisions, be more prone to be absent from work
(Boyd, 1997), even make overall contributions consistently diminishing to the
organization (Price & Hooijberg, 1992). But there were rarely studies to identify the
relationship between well-being and workplace deviance behavior. Thus,
understanding the correlations of workplace deviance may facilitate organizations to
deal with this critical issue. In the present study, I predicted that well-being can
directly enhance job satisfaction and push employees to engage in their job, then
directly lessen the work deviant behavior.
Besides, the trend of “positive psychology” has been discussed hotly now. It focuses
on human strengths and optimal functioning rather instead of weaknesses and
2
malfunctioning. There was relatively little attention had been paid to concepts about
antipodes of burnout to date. For this purpose, this study would talk about the positive
side “engagement”. Maslach and Leiter (1997) assumed that “engagement” is
characterized by energy, involvement, and efficacy which are considered the direct
opposites of the three burnout dimensions. Employees who are engaged in their job
will have a sense of energetic and effective connection with their work. Furthermore,
they will be confidence of dealing completely with the demands of their job
(Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá, & Bakker, 2002).In this way, they will get
applause and deserve honor. This character of described that people of high
self-monitoring would display proper and expected behaviors to obtain others’ praise
(Snyder, 1974). Thus, the purpose of this study is to improve the job engagement by
means of using the self- monitoring and then avoid the workplace deviant behaviors.
For this reason, this study also investigated that self-monitoring moderates the
relationship between well-being and engagement.
Well-Being
Although psychologists explored human unhappiness in depth, the positive subjective
was ignored in past decades. Until 1974, the journal Social Indications Research was
founded and a large number of articles devoted to subjective well-being (SWB)
(Diener, 1984). These literatures of SWB are concerned with how and why people
experience their lives in positive ways, which includes both cognitive judgments and
affective reactions (Diener, 1984). He stressed on pleasant emotional experience. The
affective reaction stands for positive and negative affect, and the cognitive judgments
means life satisfaction.
In the past, many studies have used the affective dimension to measure well-being.
For example, we could use the traits of “negative affectivity” and “positive
affectivity” to describe the well-being of employees. Positive affectivity person
always felt energetic and enthusiastic, and interested in what they did. They would
possess the more experience of well-being. But the measurements of the cognitive
dimension were rare. For this reason, Diener developed the measurement of
‘Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS)’ in 1985. This measurement assessed by
person’s own judgments instead of judging by the researcher. One of the categories of
well-being and happiness definition, SWB has been labeled life satisfaction (Diener,
1984). This evaluation depends on the standard thought as the good life by the
respondent. There are three hallmarks of SWB. First, it’s subjective. This is the main
claim of developmenting SWLS. Second, SWB includes not only negative factors but
also positive measures. Finally, SWB measures a global assessment of all aspects of a
person’s life (Deiner, 1984).
3
Many studies have proposed that some personality related to well-being (Heaven,
1996; Lu & Shih, 1997; DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). They discussed that what kinds of
personalities would have the feeling of well-being easily. These personalities include
of the big five personality, social desirability, repressive defensiveness, trust,
emotional stability etc. Besides this, the investigation with the well-being and job
performance is interesting. Danna and Griffin (1999) pointed that work setting (e.g.,
health and safety hazards) and occupational stress (e.g., factors intrinsic to the job,
role in the organization, organizational structure and climate etc,) would be the
antecedent factors of well-being. He also proposed that well-being would lead to the
organizational consequence such as productivity and absenteeism. Cropanzand, James
and Konovsky (1993) and Wright and Hobfoll (2004) also supported this view. Thus,
well-being is not only influenced by the job but also affecting the job performance.
When workers experiencing poor health and well-being in the workplace may be less
productive, make lower quality decisions, be more prone to be absent from work
(Boyd, 1997), and Price and Hooijberg (1992) thought that employees would diminish
contributions to the organization. In this study, we use the SWB to express the
well-being, and examine that whether well-being promotes the job engagement and
produce the expected behavior of the organization.
Job Engagement
Engagement, an antipode of burnout, has been paid little attention. Kahn (1990)
defines personal engagement as “the harnessing of organization members” selves to
their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically,
cognitively, and emotionally during role performances. Maslach and Leiter (1997)
assumed that “engagement” is characterized by energy, involvement and efficacy.
They thought those that are opposites of the three burnout dimensions are: exhaustion,
cynicism and lack of professional efficacy. Many studies measured the score of
engagement by the opposite dimension of burnout. But some relationship between
burnout and engagement are confirmed definitely. Thus, Schaufeli, Salanova,
González-romá & Bakker (2002) defined engagement as a positive, fulfilling,
work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.
Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, even the
willingness to invest effort in work, and persistence in difficulties. Dedication
indicates a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. And
the last dimension absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and deeply
engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with
detaching oneself from work.
The concept of engagement, organizational commitment, and job involvement should
4
be differentiated. Saks (2006) points that organizational commitment refers to a
person’s attitude and attachment towards their organization, but engagement is not an
attitude; it is the degree to which an individual is attentive and absorbed in the
performance of their roles. And job involvement is the result of a cognitive judgment
about the need satisfying abilities of the job and is tied to one’s self-image (May,
Gilson, & Harter, 2004). Engagement has to do with how individuals employ
themselves in the performance of their job (Saks, 2006).
Past researches have found out some factors to predict the engagement (Saks, 2006).
First, job characteristic is positively related to job engagement. According to the
society exchange theory, individuals who are provided with colorful and challenging
jobs will feel necessary to respond with higher levels of engagement. Second,
perceived organizational support will be positively related to job engagement. If
employees who perceived organizational support, they become more engaged to their
job and organization. They would help the organization to reach its objectives as
payback. Third, perceptions of distributive justice will be positively related to job
engagement. Saks (2006) also concluded that job engagement will be positively
related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and OCB, and negatively
related intention to quit. The experience of engagement has been described as a
fulfilling, positive work-related experience and state of mind (Sonnentag, 2003) and
has been found to be related to good health and positive work affect (Sonnentag,
2003). Therefore, individuals will make effort to increase their productivity.
Self-Monitoring
Snyder (1974) points that the goal of self-monitoring may be (a) to communicate
accurately one’s true emotional state by means of an intensified expressive
presentation; (b) to communicate accurately an arbitrary emotional state which need
not be congruent with actual emotional experience; (c) to conceal adaptively an
inappropriate emotional state and appear unresponsive and unexpressive; (d) to
conceal adaptively an inappropriate emotional state and appear to be experiencing an
appropriate one; (e) to appear to be experiencing some emotion when one experiences
nothing and a no response is inappropriate. The extent of self-monitoring depends on
people can and do engage in expressive control. Self monitoring individuals should
most likely to monitor and control their expression in situations which contain reliable
cues to social appropriateness (Snyder, 1974). They care for social judgment and used
this cues to express behaviors and present themselves.
Individuals that are high in self-monitoring are thought to regulate their expressive
self-presentation for the sake of desired public appearances, and thus be highly
responsive to social and interpersonal cues of situational appropriate performances
5
(Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). They will have a variety of behavioral model to suit the
situation. In contrast with high self-monitors, individuals that are low in
self-monitoring are thought to functionally reflect their own enduring and momentary
inner states, including their attitudes, traits, and feelings (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986).
They live as if put-on images are falsehoods, as if only those public displays true to
the privately experienced self are principled (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). Their
behavioral expressions are always stable and predicted.
One variable that has been conceptualized as a potential moderator of the relationship
between personality and performance is self-monitoring (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000).
As we know, high self-monitors are motivated to engage in adjusting their behaviors
that will help them be accepted and/or gain status (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000;
Turnley & Bolino, 2001). Obviously, these people will help their co-workers
automatically and get rid of the evil practice. High self-monitors have more
interpersonal organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) than low self-monitors
(Blakery, Andrews, & Fuller, 2003). On the contrary, low self-monitors have
difficulty carrying off appearances and engaging in impression management (Turnley
& Bolino, 2001). They don’t care about the prestige or public opinion. Thus, they will
engage in discretionary behavior which is good for the organization unless they
identify with the faith.
Besides, high self-monitors are more likely than low self-monitors to resolve conflicts
through collaboration and compromise (Baron, 1989). This is because they have
excellent communication and social skills. They are also more likely to contact with
important constituents either internal or external to the group (Caldwell & O’Reilly,
1982) and to get more promotions (Kilduff & Day, 1994). This is evidence that people
use management of impression would be having a higher mean of promotion.
Workplace Deviant Behavior
Do you know how much does the organization use money to resolve workplace
deviant behavior? According to the survey, losses of goods and cash to worker theft
have reached an estimated $120 billion a year (Buss, 1993). This is just one of the
workplace deviant behaviors. No wonder the organization pay more attention recently
when the amount is too surprising.
Workplace deviance has been defined as voluntary behavior that violates significant
organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization or
its members, or both (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). This kind of voluntary behavior
such as theft, aggression, absenteeism, and violence etc. may be controlled by
organizational norms that include formal and informal policed rules which guided the
proper behaviors and protected the organization (Feldman, 1984). Bennett and
6
Robinson (2003) showed that the existence of three distinct research trends: (a)
studies in which deviance is conceptualized as a reaction to experiences at work, (b)
studies that examine deviance as a reflection of employees’ personality, and (c)
studies that investigate deviance as adaptation to the social context at work.
A few of researches have suggested a wide range of reasons why employees engage in
deviant behavior, ranging from negative job cognition (Lee & Allen, 2002),
perceiving injustice (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999 ; Fox, Spector, & Miles,
2001), negative affectivity (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999), hostile attribution,
trait anger, attitude revenge (Douglas & Martinko, 2001). These factors are positively
related to the workplace deviant behavior, but some moderators would cut down the
relationship as self- control, agreeableness, job autonomy (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk,
1999; Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001).
Robinson and Bennett (1995) used the multidimensional scaling technique to classify
the workplace deviant behavior. There were two types of deviances: whether the
deviance was directed or targeted at either the organization (organizational deviance)
or at members of the organization (interpersonal deviance). The first type,
organizational deviance refers to deviant behaviors targeting the organization such as
theft, sabotage, being late to work or leave early, or withdraw effort from work. The
second type, interpersonal deviance refers to deviant acts toward co-workers,
supervisors, and subordinates in the workplace. They may be expressing behaviors
like making fun of others, acting rudely, arguing, and physical aggression. Both are
destructive and lead to unfavorable outcomes. These two behaviors may occur
simultaneously or singly even sequentially. In their study, they also proposed adopting
different means to overcome the two kinds of deviant behaviors. Interpersonal
deviance may serve social functions for organization members such as building group
cohesiveness, and organizational deviance may build up signaling functions. To sum,
only if we find out the trigger, can we resolve the dysfunctional behaviors
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
Well-Being and Job Engagement
The balance between positive and negative emotions constructs how we view our life.
People with high positive affectivity are associated with zest for life, pleasurable
engagement, excitement, social activity, and extraversion. Contrariously, high
negative affectivity is associated with feeling upset, aversively aroused, nervous,
guilty, and tense. Furthermore, the relationship between negative affectivity and
intention to quit is positive significantly (Cropanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993).
Trait positive affectivity, assessed by measures of well-being and extraversion,
reflects general levels of energy and enthusiasm. People with high trait positive
7
affectivity will lead a full of happy life and high activity level (Danna & Griffin,
1999).Those positive employee emotions as joy and interest makes them enhanced
meaning of their work.
Engagement has three characters: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor refers to
high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, even the willingness to
invest effort in work, and persistence in difficulties. Dedication is a sense of
significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. So if employee is in the
well-being state, he will feel meaningful in his job. Then, he will devote himself to
working and improve the contribution to the organization. In one study involving
M.B.A. students, participants high on well-being were shown to be superior decision
makers, demonstrated better interpersonal behaviors, and received higher overall
performance ratings (Wright & Cropanzano, 2004). Therefore:
Hypothesis 1: The sense of well-being is positively related to job engagement.
Well-Being and Workplace Deviant Behavior
Extensive evidence indicates that employee well-being has a significant impact on the
performance and survival of organizations by affecting costs related to illness and
health care (Danna & Griffin, 1999). The psychological states of employees are
important factors in determining their behaviors and responses at work. Besides,
leaders, managers, supervisors, and employees alike believe that making employees
happier and healthier increases their effort, contributions, and productivity (Fisher,
2003).One research points that job satisfaction and intention to leave were more
strongly defined by positive affectivity than by negative affectivity, as were life
satisfaction and self-esteem (Kohan & O'Connor, 2002). People of positive affection
will be glad to devote himself to the work instead of doing any deviant behavior.
Heaven (1996) reported that negativite affectiviry was related to self reports of
interpersonal vandalism, violence, and theft. Because of it:
Hypothesis 2: Well-being is negatively related to workplace deviant behavior.
Job Engagement and Workplace Deviant Behavior
From the viewpoint of three characters of engagement, it points that employees are
full of zealousness, willing to spend time working, considering their job meaningful.
Obviously, there are more and more OCB displayed and deviant behaviors decreased.
Many studies have claimed that employee engagement predicts employee outcomes,
organizational success, and financial performance (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002).
Kahn (1990) held that an employee can be physically, emotionally or cognitively
engaged. Among the three dimensions, when employees perceived that they have
chances to improve and develop, they would be emotionally engaged. One of the
8
antecedent factors of workplace deviant behavior, perceived organizational
development, showed that it would reduce workplace deviant behavior. Consequently:
Hypothesis 3: Job engagement is negatively related to workplace deviant behavior.
Well-Being, Job Engagement and Workplace Deviant Behavior
As discussed above, In Wright and Cropanzano’s (2004) study, he indicated that
participants high on well-being were shown to be superior decision makers,
demonstrated better interpersonal behaviors, and received higher overall performance
ratings. Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) claimed that employee engagement
predicts employee outcomes, organizational success, and financial performance. In
this article we have argued that employee had a sense of well-being can affect job
engagement and then conduct appropriate behavior. Therefore, we expect that one
way well-being affect workplace deviant behavior is through their effect on job
engagement.
Hypothesis 4: Job engagement will partially mediate the relationship between
well-being and workplace deviant behavior.
Self-Monitoring and Job Engagement
Self-monitoring, a variable centrally concerned with individuals' “active construction
of public selves to achieve social ends” (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000).
A typical characteristic of high self-monitors is their ability to play on others’
expectations and to impress and entertain in order to get along and be liked (Snyder,
1974). High self-monitors use their social relations as a means for impression
management (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000).
From a self-monitoring perspective, individuals with high self-monitoring would
adjust their behavior to the demands of various situations. Other individuals with low
self-monitoring would demonstrate inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs. A study
pointed that self-monitoring is positively related to the interpersonal OCB. High
self-monitors were more likely to help co-workers and communicate with them to
improve individual and group performance (Blakery, Andrews, & Fuller, 2003). In
addition, high self-monitors (in comparison to low self-monitors) tend to be more
involved in their jobs and, have higher levels of cognitive ability, perform at higher
level (Day & Schleicher, 2006). It is perceived that high self-monitors make more
effort in working and pay much attention to his job. It perceived that:
Hypothesis 5: High self-monitors will display more job engagement than low
self-monitors.
Well-Being, Self-Monitoring and Job Engagement
9
We predicted that well-being is less likely to lead to the job engagement when the
employee with low self-monitoring than high self-monitoring. This will occur because
high self-monitors (in comparison to low self-monitors) tend to be more involved in
their jobs and, have higher levels of cognitive ability; perform at higher level (Day &
Schleicher, 2006). In a study of sales performance, high self-monitoring individuals
rely more on external situational factors to determine behavioral appropriateness and
spend more time and energy reviewing background information so that they
understand their audience more accurately (Dobbins, Long, Dedrick, & Clemons,
1990). This disposition makes their success possible. It also shows that high
self-monitoring individuals are enthusiastic about their job. Low self-monitors act
often rely on their inner feelings and attitudes. They will obey the rules unless they
identified the belief of their jobs.
In sum, high self-monitors can easily get organization support and workplace
friendship as a result of their proper behaviors. And we have known that positive
emotion will benefit the performance. What is more, Segrin and Taylor (2007) argued
that social skills are associated with greater life satisfaction, environmental mastery,
self-efficacy in social situations, hope, happiness, and quality of life. Consequently,
we expected to find that self-monitoring moderate the relation between well-being and
job engagement.
Hypothesis 6: Self-monitoring moderate the relation between well-being and job
engagement. The relationship between well-being and job engagement is greater for
high self-monitors than low self-monitors.
These objectives are schematically depicted in Figure 1:
Self-Monitoring
Well-Being
Job
Engagement
Workplace
Deviant Behavior
Figure 1. Hypothesized Model
METHOD
Sample
The sample for this study is high-technology companies among the first five hundred
manufacturing industries in Taiwan. The characteristics of this kind of industry are:
10
Stressful, tight paced, competitive, and team-oriented. We want to know that facing
such specific condition, how employees look upon their job and release their stress.
For this reason, we take high-technology as the target population. Questionnaires are
developed based on a thorough review of the literature and consultations with experts.
Questionnaires are distributed to a total 700 subdinates and their supervisors. With
each survey, a detailed explanation of how to respond to survey questions as well as a
return envelope was provided. The questionnaires are returned to the researches
directly through the mail or via coordinators that are responsible for each unit.
Measures
Well-Being. It was measured with the 5-item (e.g., “In most ways my life is close to
my ideal” and “The conditions of my life are excellent”) Satisfaction With Life Scale
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). This instrument contains items that
assess global and subjective satisfaction with life, and the participants indicated on a
7-point scale the extent to which the items best described (1= strongly agree, 7=
strongly disagree). Cronbach’s alpha was .87 (Segrin & Taylor, 2007).
Job Engagement. In the study, I assessed job engagement by Schaufeli, Salanova,
González-romá and Bakker (2002) 17 items. The respondents rated items on a 7-point
scale (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). The items are supposed to reflect three
underlying dimensions: Vigor (VI) (6 items; e.g., “When I get up in the morning, I
feel like going to work”), Dedication (DE) (5 items; e.g., “To me, my job is
challenging” and Absorption (AB) (6 items; e.g., “When I am working, I forget
everything else around me”). Cronbach’s alpha for the VI, DE, and AB scales,
respectively, were 0.79, 0.89, and 0.72 (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá, &
Bakker, 2002).
Self-Monitoring. An 18-item self-monitoring developed by Snyder and Gangestad
(1986) was used to measure self-monitoring. This is a reduced version of Snyder’s
(1974) original scale. Sample items include “I find it hard to imitate the behavior of
other people” and “At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say
things that others will like.” Response options are T (true) or F (false). Cronbach’s
alpha was up.70 (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986).
Workplace Deviant Behavior. Workplace deviance was assessed with Bennett and
Robinson’s (2000) measure, which comprised of 12 organizational deviance items
(e.g., “Taken property from work without permission”), and 7 interpersonal deviance
items (e.g., “Made fun of someone at work”). Participants rated the extent to which
they had participated in each behavior on a 5-point scale (1= never, 5= often).
Cronbach’s alpha were .81for the organizational deviance scale and .78 for the
interpersonal deviance scale (Benneett & Robinson, 2000)
11
Control Variables
Several studies proposed that perceived justice would affect the workplace deviant
(Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). Organizational
justice perceptions consist of three dimensions: Distributive justice, procedural justice
and interactional justice. The distributive and procedural justice was evidenced
definitely that it was negatively related to the workplace deviant behavior. Thus, the
author would control the variables. To the extent the author is able to control for the
factor of workplace deviant behavior, this study is able to demonstrate the clear
influence of well-being and job engagement on workplace deviant behavior.
These variables are assessed with Joy & Witt (1992) 3-items measure separately.
Sample items include “I have received fair performance evaluations,” “Most of my
job assignments have been fair” and “The treatment that I have generally received
here at this company has been fair” summed to assess the distributive justice. Another
three items (e.g., “I have considerable voice in determining my performance
evaluation,” “I have considerable voice in determining my job duties” and “I have
considerable voice in determining my job assignment”) summed to assess the
procedural justice. Both of them use a 5-point scale (1= definitely disagree, 5=
definitely agree). Cronbach’s alpha for distributive and procedural justice were .70
and .86 (Joy & Witt, 1992).
ANTICIPATED RESULT AND APPLICATION
The author predicted that well-being and job engagement would be negatively
correlated with workplace deviant behavior. In order to decrease the probability of the
workplace deviant behavior, organizations can make employees perceive well-being
and induce the engaged behavior. And for well-being and workplace deviant behavior,
job engagement will play a partial mediator. Well-being would affect workplace
deviant behavior directly. Providing the humanistic welfare and reasonable
compensation is one of the ways to increase well-being. Furthermore, self-monitoring
will moderate the relationship between well-being and engagement. The relationship
between well-being and job engagement is greater for high self-monitors than low
self-monitors. To the organizations, they can select this kind of people to be devoted
themselves to the jobs. The organizations can refer to the above propositions for the
management practices.
REFERENCE
Aquino, K. Lewis, M. U. & Bradfield, M. 1999. Justice constructs, negative
affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1073-1091.
12
Baron, R. A. 1989. Personality and Organizational Conflict: Effects of the Type A
Behavior Pattern and Self-Monitoring. Organizational Behavior & Human
Decision Processes, 44(2), 281-296.
Bennett, R. J. & Robinson, S. L. 2003. The past, present and future of
workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior:
The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 247–281). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blakery, G. L. Andrews, M. C. & Fuller, J. 2003. Are chameleons citizens? A
longitudinal study of the relationship between self-monitoring and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology,
18(2), 131-143.
Boyd, A. 1997. Employee traps-corruption in the workplace. Management Review,
86(8), 9-9.
Buss, D. 1993. Ways to curtail employee theft. Nation's Business, 81(4), 36-37.
Caldwell, D. F. & O’Reilly, C. A. 1982. Boundary spanning and individual
performance: The impact of self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Psychology,
67, 124–127.
Chen, P. Y. & Spector, P. E. 1992. Relationships of work stressors with aggression,
withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 65(3), 177-184.
Cropanzano, R. James, K. & Konovsky, M. A. 1993. Dispositional affectivity as a
predictor of work attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 14(6), 595-606.
Danna, K. & Griffin, R. W. 1999. Health and Well-Being in the Workplace: A
Review and Synthesis of the Literature. Journal of Management, 25(3),
357-384.
Day, D.V. & Schleicher, D, J. 2006. Journal of Personality, 74(3), 685-713.
DeNeve, K. M. & Cooper, H. 1998. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197-229.
Diener, E. 1984. Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575.
Diener, E. Emmons, R. A. Larsen, R. J. & Griffin, S. 1985. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
Dobbins, G. H. Long, W. S. Dedrick, E. J. & Clemons, T. C. 1990. The Role of
Self-Monitoring and Gender on Leader Emergence: A Laboratory and Field
Study. Journal of Management, 16(3), 609.
Douglas, S. C. & Martinko, M. J. 2001. Exploring the role of individual differences in
the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4),
547-559.
Feldman, D. C. 1984. The development and enforcement of group norms.
Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 47-53.
13
Fisher, C. D. 2003. Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are
correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 753–777.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E. & Miles, D. 2001. Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in
response to job stresssors and organizational justice: Some mediator and
moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
59(3), 291-309.
Gangastad, W. S. & Snyder, M. 2000. Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal.
Psychologically Bulletin, 126(4), 530-555.
Harper, D. 1990. Spotlight abuse-save profits. Industrial Distribution, 79, 47-51.
Harter, J. K. Schmidt, F. L. & Hayes, T. L. 2002. Business-unit level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes:
a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.
Heaven, C. L. 1996. Personality and self-reported delinquency: Analysis of the “Big
Five” personality dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences,
20(1), 47-54.
Joy, V.L. & Witt, L. A. 1992. Delay of gratification as a moderator of the
procedural justice-distributive justice relationship. Group & Organization
Management, 17(3), 297-308.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kilduff, M. & Day, D. V. 1994. Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of
self-monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal,
37(4), 1047-1060.
Kohan, A. & O'Connor, B. P. 2002. Police Officer Job Satisfaction in Relation to
Mood, Well-Being, and Alcohol Consumption. Journal of Psychology, 136(3),
307-318.
Lee, K. & Allen, N. J. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(1), 131-142.
Lu, L. & Shih, J. B. 1997. Personality and happiness: Is mental health a mediator?
Personality and Individual Differences, 22(2), 249-256.
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M. P. 1997. The Truth About Burnout (Jossey Bass,
San Francisco, CA)
May, D. R. Gilson, R. L. & Harter, L. M. 2004. The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human
spirit at work. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77,
11-37.
14
Motowidlo, S. J. & Van Scotter, J. R. 1994. Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79(4), 475-480.
O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. Griffin, R. W. & Glew, D. J. 1996. Organization-motivated
aggression: a research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21(1),
225-253.
Price, R. H. & Hooijberg, R. 1992. Organizational exit pressures and role stress:
Impact on mental health. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(7), 641-651.
Robinson, S. L. & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38(2), 555–572.
Rotundo, M. & Sackett, P. R. 2002. The relative importance of task, citizenship and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policycapturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66-80.
Saks, A. M. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Schaufeli, W. B. Salanova, M. González-romá, V. & Bakker, A. B. 2002. The
Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory
Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92.
Segrin, C. & Taylor, M. 2007. Positive interpersonal relationships mediate the
association between social skills and psychological well-being. Personality
and Individual Differences, 43, 637–646.
Skarlicki, D. P. Folger, R. & Tesluk, P. 1999. Personality as a moderator in the
relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management
Journal, 42(1), 100-108.
Snyder, M. 1974. Self-Monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
social Psychology, 30 (4), 526-537.
Snyder, M. & Ganestad, S. 1986. On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of
assessment matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51(1), 125-139.
Sonnentag, S. 2003. Recovery, Work Engagement, and Proactive Behavior: A new
look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(3), 518-528.
Turnley, W.H. & Bolino, M. C. 2001. Achieving desired images while avoiding
undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression
management. Journalof Applied Psychology, 86(2), 351–360.
Wright, T. A. & Cropanzano, R. 2004. The Role of Psychological Well-Being in Job
Performance: A Fresh Look at an Age-Old Quest. Organizational Dynamics,
15
33(4), 338-351.
Wright, T. A. & Hobfoll, S. E. 2004. Commitment, psychological well-being and job
performance: An examination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and
job burnout. Journal of Business & Management, 9(4), 389-406.
16