Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
The Role of Transformational Leadership as a Moderating
Variable for the Relationship of Justices and CounterProductive Work Behavior at the Public Organization
Dian Novrianti and Claudius Budi Santoso
This study aims at examining the influence of transformational leadership toward counterproductive work behavior in government institutions. This study perceives that concern of
counter-productive work behavior is frequently addressed to government institutions. It
happens because the institutions rely on bureaucracy system which work performance has
been based on the compliance with standard operating procedure, instead of social
interaction and work productivity. Meanwhile, procedural justice and interactional justice
enable to drive employee’ counter-productive work behavior (organizational and
interpersonal). However, consistency direction of both justices has been varied toward
counter-productive work behavior. This study suggests that situational factors, such as
transformational leadership would help to reveal that phenomenon. This study has 300
respondents from the regional government institutions in Yogyakarta Special Province,
Central Java, Indonesia. With hierarchical regression, this study produces results that
procedural justice and interactional justice significantly influence counter-productive work
behaviour in varied ways. Furthermore, transformational leadership is not significantly
moderating the influences of both justices toward counter-productive work behavior. This
study argues that local culture and bureaucracy strongly embeds in the institutions and then
enabling to influence the results.
Key words: counter-productive work behaviour (organization and interpersonal
relation), procedural justice, interactional justice, and transformational leadership
Field: Management
1. Background
Studies perceive that counter-productive work behaviors highly exist in public
sector organizations than private sector organization (Alias et al., 2012). However,
studies aiming at revealing factors leading to that behavior have been less emphasized,
in particular ini Indonesian government institutions.
By using the social exchange theory, this study argues that procedural justice
and interactional justice are factors influencing the emerging of the counter-productive
work behavior. can be caused by several factors, one of which is organizational justice.
Some previous studies state that both organizational justice have firm influence on
employee’ work attitude (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Masterson st al., 2000). A metaanalysis study conducted by Berry, Ones, & Sackett (2007); Cohen-Charash & Spector
(20001). Moreover, Dalal (2005) shows that procedural and interactional justice has
significant negative influence on counter-productive work behavior. On other side, some
studies have shown opposing direction on that matters (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield,
1999; Jones, 2009; O’Neill, Lewis, & Carswell, 2011). This study underlines that differed
directions of the influence of procedural and interactional justices toward counterproductive work behavior present.
___________________________________________
Dian Novrianti and Claudius Budi Santoso, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah
Mada, Indonesia, Email: bsantoso@ugm.ac.id
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
In responding that issue, this study addresses to the organizational factors might
control the relationship of both organizational justices and counter-productive work
behavior. This study argues that transformational leadership is able to role as a
moderating variable to influence the direction of procedural and interactional justices to
counter-productive work behavior.
In particular, this study investigates Indonesian
government institutions for that purpose.
2. Theoretical Framework
This study perceives that the social exchange theory enables to describe relationship of
employee’s work attitude and organizational treatment. This theory states that interaction
between employee and organization or leader is reciprocal and having mutual obligatory pattern.
Counter-Productive Work Behavior
This counter-productive work behavior has two dimensions, namely firstly, it is directed
to organization and secondly, this behavior is directed to supervisor or other employees (Bennet
& Robinson, 2000); Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007).
The Influence of procedural justice on the counter-productive work behavior
A number of meta analysis indicates that procedural justice significantly influences
negatively the counter-productive work behavior either intended to the organization or the other
individual’s interpersonal relationship (Berry, Ones, and Sackett, 2007; Cohen-Charash and
Spector; Dalal, 2005). In the perspective of social exchange, employees who perceive procedural
justice well will come up with obligation in themselves to repay such a thing by showing a
positive working performance that is beneficial for the organization or other members of the
organization.
H1; procedural justice has negative influence on the counter-productive work behavior (a)
intended to the organization and (b) to supervisor .
The Influence of interactional justice on the counter-productive work behavior
Some previous researches have examined that interactional justice has significant negative
influence on the counter-productive work behavior intended either to the organization or to
supervisor (Akremi, Vandenberghe, and Camerman, 2010; Devonish and Greenidge, 2010).
H2: Interactional justice has negative influence on the counter-productive work behavior (a)
intended for the organization or (b) for the supervisor’s interpersonal relationship.
The role of transformational leadership as a moderating variable
Transformational leader has a role to encourage employees to improve their work attitude
in order to be able to increase their levels of work productivity (Wang et al., 2005; Pillai,
Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999). By exercising transformational leadership, a leader has power
to lead the transformation of employees’ work attitude. In particular, Yao et al.,(2014) reveals a
transformational leader justice can play as a buffer or protector for the employees to reduce the
counter-productive work behavior, when employee experiences unfair organizational treatment.
H3: Transformational leadership moderate the influence of procedural justice on counterproductive work behavior (a) intended to the organization and (b) to supervisor’s interpersonal
relationship; also the transformational leadership moderates the influence of interactional justice
on counter-productive work behavior (c) intended to the organization and (d) to supervisor’s
interpersonal relationship. The negative influence of procedural and interactional justice on both
dimensions of counter-productive work behavior intended either to the organization or to
supervisor’s interpersonal relationship would be stronger when the transformational leadership is
high.
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
3. Research Method
Data Collection Method
The type of data employed is cross sectional data and the unit of analysis used is
individual level. Respondents in this study are employees (civil servants) working at the
Regional Government of the province of Yogyakarta.
Instrument Test
The instrument test in this research uses validity test, namely construct validity, using
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the reliability test using Cronbach alpha coefficient.
Data Analysis Technique
In testing the hypothesis, this study applies a method of hierarchical regression analysis.
4. Result and Discussion
Generally, the number of questionnaires distributed are 365 questionnaires, and out of the
total amount of questionnaires 346 questionnaires were returned (response rate of 94,7 %). Out
of the amount of the returned questionnaires, 337 of them can be managed. These research
respondents are civil servants who work at some governmental institutions in the Regional
Governmental Institution (PEMDA) of Yogyakarta province. In general, most of the respondents
in this study are men (55.8%) with 46-50 years of age (22.8%), and with strata one degree (58%)
and with tenure of 26-30 until currently.
The Result of Instrument Test
The coefficient value of Cronbach alpha on each measurement variable is 0,908 for
counter-productive work behavior variable intended for the organization; 0,833 for counterproductive work behavior intended to supervisor’s interpersonal relationship; and 0,923 for
transformational leadership variable.
Descriptive Statistic
The descriptive statistic in this research presents mean value, deviation standard, and correlation
coefficient among variable as shown on the following table 1:
Table 1
Mean, Deviation Standard, and Correlation Coefficient among
Variables
Variable
CPWBO
KO
CPWBSP
KIA
PJ
IJ
TL
M
2,1004
1,7847
3,8793
3,9215
4,0445
SD
PKKO
PKIA
0,5645
0,4812 0,798**
0,5817 - 0,662** - 0,616**
0,5773 - 0,617** - 0,651**
0,4942 - 0,698** - 0,642**
KP
KI
KT
- 0,754**
- 0,610** - 0,593**
** Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (2-tailed).
CPWBO
: Counter-productive work behavior Intended for the Organization
CPWBS
: Counter-productive work behavior intended to supervisor’s interpersonal relationship
PJ
: Procedural Justice
IJ
: Interactional Justice
TL
: Transformational Leadership
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
Table 1 presents that level of counter-productive work behavior is relatively low. The
result of correlation analysis displayed on table 1 indicates that procedural and interactional
justice has significant negative correlation towards counter-productive work behavior intended
for the organization (r= -0,662 and – 0,617; p < 0,01) as well as the counter-productive work
behavior intended to supervisor’s interpersonal relationship (r= - 0,616 and – 0,651; p < 0,01). It
indicates the presence of strong significant negative correlation between procedural and
interactional justice have been found.
The Result of Data Analysis
H1: The Influence of Procedural Justice on Counter-productive work behavior
Based on the regression analysis result, procedural justice significantly has negative
influence on both dimension of counter-productive work behavior, namely counter-productive
work behavior intended for the organization (β = - 0,457 t = - 7,530 ; p < 0,01) and counterproductive work behavior intended to supervisor’s interpersonal relationship ( β = - 0,291 t =
4,745 ; p < 0,01). This finding is in line with some previous research result, like the one
conducted by Akremi, Vandenberghe, and Camerman (2010); Berry, Ones, and Sackett (2007);
Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001); Devonish and Greenidge (2010). Besides, this research
result also indicates that when an employee perceives a low level of procedural justice, he/she
will be inclined to get involved more often in counter-productive work behavior that is harmful
to his/her organization than to the supervisor and manager.
In social exchange relationship, employee and organization utilize justice judgment to
determine whether they must behave cooperatively or non-cooperatively (Lind, 2001). The
application of formal organizational procedure in all processes of human resource allocation that
is considered uncommon and unbeneficial to the employees can result in the employees’ feeling
of being treated unfairly so that they can potentially behave non-cooperatively and get involved
in counter-productive work behavior. According to Akremi, Vandenberghe, and Camerman
(2010), the unjustice that is perceived by the employee can weaken the quality of social
exchange between the organization or the authorized figures that represent the organization and
the employees.
H2: The Influence of Interactional Justice on Counter-productive work behavior
Based on the result of regression analysis, hypothesis 2a and 2b are supported.
Interactional justice significantly has negative influence on both dimensions of counterproductive work behavior, that is, counter-productive work behavior intended for the
organization (β = - 0,272 t = - 4,492 ; p < 0,01) and counter-productive work behavior intended
to supervisor’s interpersonal relationship (β = - 0,431 t = - 7,039 ; p < 0,01). This finding is in
line with the previous studies (Akremi, Vandenberghe, and Camerman, 2010; Berry, Ones and
Sackett , 2007; Devonish and Greenidge, 2010).
This result explains that the employees perceive that the quality of treatment given by
their supervisors in each organization upon delivering information and maintaining daily
interpersonal relationship gets better, the employees’ tendency to get involved in counterproductive work behavior intended either to the organization or to the supervisor’s interpersonal
relationship will be lower. Besides, this result also indicates that when employees perceive a
lower level of interactional justice, they will show counter-productive work behavior.
Nadisic (2008) in Roy, Bastounis and Poussard-Minibas (2012) state that interactional
justice is critical factor triggering the presence of counter-productive work behavior. The
elements of interactional justice are in fact relevant with the daily working environment. Colquitt
et al., (2001) and Murphy et al.,(2003) mention that supervisors are assumed as responsible
persons to create interactional justice. In the perspective of social exchange, employees expect
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
their supervisors treat them fairly, honestly and politely. According to reciprocal norm,
employees, who feel that they have received a equal quality of interpersonal relationship will
show positive working behavior/attitude and then enable to reduce counter-productive work
behavior.
H3: The Role of Transformational Leadership Moderation
This results shows that hypothesis 3a, 3b, and 3c are supported, but hypothesis 3d is not
supported. Transformational leadership significantly moderates the influence of procedural
justice on both dimensions of counter-productive work behavior intended either for the
organization (β = - 1,712 t = - 3,121; p < 0,01) or for the supervisor’s interpersonal relationship
(β = - 1,528 t = - 2,553 ; p < 0,05). Also, transformational leadership significantly only
moderates the influence of interactional justice on the dimension of counter-productive work
behavior intended for the organization (β = - 1,1108 t = - 2,149 ; p < 0,05) and not the one
intended for the supervisor’s interpersonal relationship (β = - 0,681 t = - 1,210 ; p > 0,10).
Figure 1: Interaction of procedural justice and counter-productive
work behavior moderated by transformational leadership
Figure 2: Interaction of procedural justice and counter-productive
work behavior to organization moderated by transformational
leadership
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
Both figures demonstrate that the negative influence of procedural justice on both
dimensions of counter-productive work behavior and the negative influence of interactional
justice on counter-productive work behavior (intended to organization) will be stronger when
transformational leadership is high. The high transformational leadership is effective to
strengthen to decrease the level of counter-productive work behavior when the employees
recognizes procedural and interactional justice well. It is in line with social exchange theory
(Pillai, Schriesheim, and Williams, 1999; Tse, Huang, and Lam, 2013; Wang et al., 2005).
Meanwhile, one reason for transformational leadership has been failed to moderate the
influence of interactional justice to counter-productive work behavior to supervisor is due to the
impact of Indonesian collective culture embedding Javanese society, in particular showing
respect to seniority. Although both organizational justices are failed to commit in organization,
employees keep maintaining good personal relationship with their supervisors, rather than to
their organization. They prefer to avoid personal conflict with others, in particular with their
supervisors (Herdiyanto and Yuniarti, 2012).
5. Conclusion
This study shows that procedural and interactional justice has negative influence on both
dimensions of counter-productive work behavior intended for either the organization or the
supervisor’s interpersonal relationship. Transformational leadership has a role as moderation
variables for those relationships above. The negative influence of organizational justice on
counter-productive work behavior will be stronger, if the transformational leadership is high. The
influence of collective culture raise in this study, specially to encounter the moderating effect of
transformational leadership is not significantly supported for the relationship of interactional
justice and counter-productive work behavior which are not significantly supported
References
Akremi, A. E., Vandenberghe, C., dan Camerman, J. 2010. The role of justice and social
exchange relationships in workplace deviance: Test of mediated model. Human Relations,
63 (11): 1687-1717.
Alias, M., Rasdi, R. M., Ismail, M., dan Samah, B. A. 2012. Predictors of workplace deviant
behavior: HRD agenda for malaysian support personnel. European Journal of Training
and Development, 37 (2): 1-20.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., dan Bradfield, M. 1999. Justice constructs, negative
affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20 (7): 1073-1091.
Avolio, B., Bass, B. B., dan Jung, D. 1999. Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership
using the
multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Joumal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 72: 441-462. Baron,
R. M., dan Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.
Bass, B. M. 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18 (3): 19-31.
Bass, B. M. 1997. Does the transactional-transformational paradigm transcend organizational
and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 22: 130-142.
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
Bass, B. M., dan Avolio, B. J. 1995. MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for
research. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., dan Berson, Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88 (2): 207-218.
Bennet, R. J., dan Robinson, S. L., 2000. Development of a measure of workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3): 349-360.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., dan Sackett, P. R. 2007. Interpersonal deviance, organizational
deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92 (2): 410-424.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., dan Rubin, R. S. 2005. Changing attitudes about change:
Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (7): 733-753.
Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R., dan Wheatley, K. 2004. Social exchanges within
organizations and work outcomes: The importance of local and global relationship.
Group & Organization Management, 29 (3): 276-301.
Bruursema, K. 2004. Leadership style and the link with counterproductive work behavior
(cwb): An investigation using the job-stress / cwb model. Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of South Florida.
Chen, X., Eberly, M., Chiang, J., Farh, J., dan Cheng, B. 2014. Affective trust in chinese
leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of
Management, 40 (3): 796-819.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., dan Farh, J. L. 2004. Paternalistic
leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese
organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7: 89-117.
Cohen-Charash, Y., dan Spector, P. E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86 (2): 278-321.
Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of
a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3): 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., Conlon, D. E., dan Yee, K. N. 2001.
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational
justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3): 425-445.
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., dan Gilliland, S. W. 2007. The management of organizational
justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21 (4): 34-48.
Cropanzano, R., dan Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdiciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31 (6): 874-900.
Dalal, R. S. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship
behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90
(6): 1241-1255.
Dawson, J. F. 2014. Moderation in management research : What, why, when, and how.
Journal Business Psychology, 29: 1-19.
Devonish, D., dan Greenidge, D. 2010. The effect of organizational justice on contextual
performance, counterproductive work behavior, and task performance: Investigating the
moderating role of ability-based emotional intelligence. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 18 (1): 75-86.
Flint, D., Haley, L. M., dan McNally, J. J. 2012. Dimensionality of organizational justice
in a call center context. Psychological Reports, 110 (2): 677-693.
Greenberg, J. 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of
Management, 16 (2): 399-432.
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. 2010. Multivariate data analysis: A
global perspective. 7th ed., New Jersey: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Henle, C. A. 2005. Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between
organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17 (2): 247-263.
Herdiyanto, Y. K., dan Yuniarti, K. W. 2012. Budaya dan perdamaian: Harmoni dalam
kearifan lokal masyarakat Jawa menghadapi perubahan pasca gempa. Humanitas, 9
(1): 28-42.
Jones, D. A. 2009. Getting even with one’s supervisor and one’s organization: Relationship
among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 525-542.
Jung, D. I., Bass, B. M. dan Sosik, J. J. 1995. Bridging leadership and culture: A
theoretical consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic cultures.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 2 (4): 3-18.
Lind, E. A. 2001. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in
organizational relations. In J. Greenberg dan R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in
organizational justice (pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., dan Taylor, M. S. 2000. Integrating justice
and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work
relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4): 738–748.
Murphy, S. M., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., dan Erdogan, B. 2003. Understanding social
loafing: The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships. Human Relations,
56 (1): 61-84.
Niehoff, B. P., dan Moorman, R. H. 1993. Justice as a mediator of the relationship
between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 36: 527-556.
O’Neill, T. A., Lewis, R. J., dan Carswell, J. J. 2011. Employee personality, justice
perceptions, and the prediction of workplace deviance. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51: 595 - 600.
Peterson, D. K. 2002. Deviant workplace behavior and the organization’s ethical climate.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 17 (1): 47-61.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., dan Williams, E. S. 1999. Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal
of Management, 25 (6): 897-933.
Robinson, S. L., dan Bennet, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2): 555-572.
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S. dan Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Changing obligations and the
psychological Counterct: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37
(1): 137-152.
Roy, J. L., Bastounis, M., dan Minibas-Poussard, J. 2012. Interactional justice and
counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating role of negative emotions. Social
Behavior and Personality, 40 (8): 1341-1356.
Tse, H. H. M., Huang, X., dan Lam, W. 2013. Why does transformational leadership
matter for employee turnover? A multi-foci social exchange perspective. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24: 763-776.
Tyler, T. R. 1988. What is procedural justice?: Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness
of legal procedures. Law and Society Review, 22 (1): 103-136.
Vardi, Y., dan Wiener, Y. 1996. Misbehavior in organization: A motivational framework.
Organization Science, 7 (2): 151-165.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., dan Chen, Z. X. 2005. Leader-member
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and
followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy
of
Management Journal, 48 (3): 420-432.
Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., dan Colbert, A. E. 2011. Transformational leadership
and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research.
Group & Organization Management, 36 (2): 223-270.
Yao, Yan-Hong., Fan, Ying-Ying., Guo, Yong-Xing., dan Li, Yuan. 2014. Leadership, work
stress, and employee behavior. Chinese Management Studies, 8 (1): 109-126. Yukl, G. 2001.
Leadership in organizations. 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education