Towards Developing A Theoretical Model On The Determinants Of Workplace Deviance
Among Support Personnel In The Malaysian Public Service Organisations
Refereed Paper
Alias, Mazni; Mohd Rasdi, Roziah
ABSTRACT
Introduction
In today’s workplace, employees’ deviance has been noted as one of the most serious problems facing
organisations (Bennett & Robinson, 2003; Henle, 2005). It is an extensively and growing phenomenon
which is costly to individuals, workplaces, and organisations (Kelly, 2006). Aquino, Galperin and Bennett
(2006) pointed out that deviance is continuously increasing especially in the public sectors. Griffin and
Lopez (2004) noted that all individuals who enter work organisations have the potential to exhibit this
destructive behavior. However, Abdul Rahman (2008) found that it is more prevalent among the support
personnel. His finding is also in agreement with Gilligan’s (1996) conception that employees who have
lower status are more prone to exhibit deviant behaviors.
Support personnel play an important role in assisting management or authorities to maintain and enhance
the quality of services in their localities. It may assist public sector entities in achieving their objectives
effectively, efficiently, economically, and ethically by providing good services to the public. However, in
Malaysia, the issue of deviant behaviors among support personnel in public service organisations has
been frequently reported in the media (Abdul Rahman, 2008; Awanis, 2006). Substance abuse and
corruption are forms of workplace deviance that have become a serious misconduct among support
personnel (Abdul Rahman, 2008). Despite the voluminous coverage of workplace deviance in the media,
there are few empirical evidences and scientific studies conducted on determinants of workplace
deviance among support personnel. In addition, Abdul Rahman (2008) discovered that there were no
statistics or data for other forms of deviance that took place in the Malaysian public sector organisations.
Workplace deviance has also been linked with job satisfaction. Past researchers have consistently found
correlations between deviant behaviors and employees’ evaluations of the quality of their work
experiences (Herschovis, Turner, Barling, Arnold, Dupre, Inness, LeBlanc, Sivanathan, 2007; Hollinger &
Clark, 1982). Subsequently, many studies have tested the correlation between workplace deviance and
job satisfaction (Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Marcus & Wagner, 2007; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006). The
logic behind this is that less satisfied employees may be more motivated to commit acts of deviance than
employees who are more satisfied.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical model on the determinants of workplace deviance
among support personnel in the Malaysian public service organisations.
Methodology
This study is based on reviews of past studies on workplace deviance. To conduct a literature search,
several keywords were identified, for example workplace deviance, job satisfaction, support personnel,
social exchange theory, cognitive social theory, negative affectivity, conscientiousness, agreeableness,
emotional intelligence, organisational climate, organisational justice, perceived organisational support,
trust in organisation, work stress, and powerlessness. Several electronic databases available in the
university’s library such as Springer, Proquest, SAGE, Emerald, EBSCOHost, Science Direct, and
Blackwell Synergy were used to search for supporting materials and resources.
1
In this study, workplace deviance is operationalised as any intentional action and voluntary behavior by
employees of the organisation which violate significant organisational norms and standards of proper
conduct that threatens the well being of an organisation, its members, or both. Job satisfaction is
operationalised as employee’s feelings or perceptions on his/her job and job-related experience.
Findings
In our reviews, we found three potential groups of determinants of workplace deviance among support
personnel. They are personality-related factors, organisational-related factors, and work-related factors.
Personality-related factors comprise of variables such as negative affectivity, conscientiousness,
agreeableness, emotional intelligence; organisational-related factors include organisational climate,
organisational justice, and perceived organisational support; and work-related factors incorporate
variables such as work stress and powerlessness. These variables were found to have positive and
significant relationships with workplace deviance. We established job satisfaction as a mediating variable
between the three potential groups of determinants and the criterion variable due to its function in
mediating the theorized relationships. Crede et al. (2007) suggested that individual-related factors,
organisational-related factors, and work-related factors may affect employee’s level of job satisfaction and
in turn, influences a variety of workplace behaviors such as workplace deviance. George and Jones
(2008) highlighted that several basic factors that may affect the level of a person’s job satisfaction are
work situation, personality, values, and social influence in the organisation. Furthermore, we found that
most workplace deviance studies have employed an interactionist perspective (i.e. looking at the
interactions between person and environment only) and placed less emphasis on other perspective such
as using job satisfaction as mediating variable to workplace deviance (Mount, Illies & Johnson, 2006).
The phenomenon of workplace deviance can be explained by the Cognitive Social Theory and Social
Exchange Theory. These theories highlight on the interaction between persons and situations, which
would influence how individuals interpret and respond to situations and how they behave. Social
Exchange Theory posits that job satisfaction acts as a mediator between personality-related factors,
organisational-related factors, work-related factors and workplace deviance. Individuals who are
dissatisfied will engage in behavior that harms the organisation, other employees or both, and vice-versa.
Research limitations
Based on the literature review, we found several variables that were positively and significantly related to
workplace deviance, and therefore, limit our search to these highly correlated variables only. They are
negative affectivity, conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional intelligence, organisational climate,
organisational justice, perceived organisational support, work stress, and powerlessness. Based on the
reviews, we believe that these selected variables will predict workplace deviance among support
personnel in the Malaysian public service organisations. This paper also provides theoretical and practical
implications on human resource development.
Practical implications
For this study, personality-related, organisational-related and work-related factors play an important
explanatory role contributing to workplace deviance. Practically, the findings of this study are expected to
assist human resources personnel in playing more effective roles in managing, reducing, and preventing
workplace deviance. The result of this study will add to the body of knowledge especially on workplace
deviance in the Malaysian public sector context. By understanding the determinants that influence
workplace deviance, the Human Resource Development personnel would also be in a better position to
plan and implement effective policies as well as practices towards reducing the prevalence of workplace
deviance.
Keywords: workplace deviance, job satisfaction, public sector organisations, Malaysia, support
personnel
Introduction
2
Appelbaum, Iaconi and Matousek (2008) noted that constructive or positive deviant behaviors include
behaviors that employers do not authorize, but assist the organisation in reaching its financial and
economic objectives. The behaviors such as innovative and creativity, noncompliance with dysfunctional
directives, and criticizing incompetent superiors contribute to the organisation’s competitive advantage, as
well as to societal well being (Appelbaum et al., 2008; Galperin, 2002; Krau, 2008). On the other hand,
destructive deviant behavior involves sexual harassment, vandalism, rumor spreading or otherwise, it has
negative consequences for the entity and its affiliates. For this study, the following discussion in this
paper will only focus on destructive deviance because it covers a wide range of volitional behaviors that
harm a work organisation or stakeholders, such as clients, employees, and supervisors (Spector & Fox,
2005).
Workplace deviant behavior is an occupational crime that may vary along a continuum of severity, from
minor acts to major acts (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Some examples of destructive deviant behaviors
are destroying organisational property, purposely doing work incorrectly, taking unauthorized work
breaks, hitting a coworker, insulting others, yelling at someone, talking loudly on the phone about
personal matters during work hours, not sharing information, making accusations about lack of knowledge
or undermining an employee’s credibility in front of others, shouting, gossiping and snapping at coworkers
to arrest other’s attention (Hutton, 2006; Johnson & Indvik, 2001; Pearson, 1999). Further examples of
intense form of workplace deviant behaviors include physical aggression and violence (Dietz, Robinson,
Folger, Baron, & Schulz, 2003).
Workplace deviance affects interactions between each unit of human resources which results to
organisational failure. Human resources will not feel the need to work as a team and cooperate
cohesively. Disrespect, distrust and dissatisfaction will prevail in the organisational culture and employees
will get used to very unfriendly and unforgiving organisational cultures (Shim, 2009). Competent
employee who cannot adapt to such culture will resign and those who remain feel unhappy and
unsatisfied (Johnson & Invik, 2001). For organisation, this condition is harmful and destructive (Hallowell,
1999). Shim (2009) pointed out that even though some of the forms of deviant behaviors are mild, but the
outcomes to organisation and individuals can be very severe.
According to Griffin and Lopez (2005) and Richard (2008), there are lack of reviews on workplace deviant
literature by researchers and theorists. Workplace deviance research has been neglected because the
top management has no interest in studying this destructive behavior and even less interested in
revealing the findings to the public (Vardi & Weitz, 2004). It is believed that this approach relates back to
the origins of management theory and attentions that have been focused on increasing production and
motivation (Richards, 2008). Richards further added that there are various arrays of models, research
and practical advice that emphasize the creation of positive behavior and omit a vast range of
organisational activity that could be considered negative deviant. Negative behavior research has also
been neglected because there is a general belief that it has no important role or contribution to
organisational success. However, recently researchers (e.g. Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Cohen
Charash & Mueller, 2007; Dilchert, Ones, Davis, & Rostow, 2007) revisited the study of negative behavior
which is based on the impression that destructive behavior proliferates in the modern work organisation
and that contemporary negative behavior extends from minor employee aberrations all the way up to
serious management deviant behavior, such as the high-profile scandal with Enron in 2002 (Kidwell &
Martin, 2005; Richards, 2008; Sagie, Stashevsky & Koslowsky, 2003). This behavior is considered to be
one of the most serious internal problems that organisations had faced.
Workplace deviance contributes implications to economic, psychological and sociological implications
(Appelbaum, Iaconi, Moutosek, 2006; Abdul Rahman & Aizat, 2008; Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Griffin & Lopez,
2004; Goh, 2009; Greenberg, 2010; Henle, 2005) such as decreased productivity, high turnover,
absenteeism, stress-related problems, employee morale, and employee’s performance, loss of
productivity, damage to the organisation's reputation, and even loss of customers may result.
Furthermore, employees who have been the victim or target of this destructive behavior, such as verbal
harassment, incivility, have a greater tendency to resign, experience low morale, develop stress-related
3
problems and well being of human resource (O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996; Bowling and Gruy,
2010). It also has been found to have negative consequences for the mental and physical health of
victims (Bowling & Beehr, 2006) which significantly impact the development of human resources in the
organisations. For example, in an In an empirical study by Hutchinson, Wilkes, and Vickers (2008)
indicates that nurses who experienced workplace mistreatment (one of the form of deviant behavior)
showed harmful, fearful and extremely unpleasant emotions and they reported problems of hurt, fear, loss
of self-esteem, anxiety, sleeplessness, depression, demoralization, elevated blood pressure, panic
attacks, feelings of vulnerability, and suicide of colleagues. It substantially impact organisations globally.
For example, the United States (U.S) suffers about $4.2 billion from workplace violence, $200 billion
annually due to employee theft, and $5.3 billion from internet surfing during working hours (Jacobson,
2009). U.S. organisations lost $20 billion to $40 billion a year due to stealing and shoplifting done by
employees (Moorthy, Seetharaman, Somasundaram & Gopalan, 2009). Goh (2009) revealed that
absenteeism and employee theft diminished productivity which caused United States a total loss of three
hundred billion dollars annually. Approximately in one year, 1.5 million Americans become workplace
victims of violence while on the job and cost organisations more than $4.2 billion (Bensimon, 1997).
Similarly, organisations in Australia face lose of approximately $2.1 million for each incident (KPMG
Forensic, 2004). Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2005) accounted that in Thailand, of all the 101 Thai
companies surveyed, 51 percent had fallen victim to fraud in 2003 until 2005. The survey respondents
also claimed that fraud has caused a decline in staff morale in 60 percent of Thai and Asia–Pacific
companies. In short, workplace deviance is a common problem affecting organisations throughout the
world and bringing negative implications to employees, employers, and society.
In the West, researchers posit that workplace deviance has become a rising trend in public organisations
(Lewis, 2004; Mayhew & McCarthy, 2005). Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, and Cooper (2003) pointed out that in
most countries, there seems to be a tendency for workplace deviance to occur more often in the public
sector. For example, a survey of public sector employees in the United States revealed that 71 percent of
respondents reported at least some experience of incivility during the previous five years, and six percent
reported experiencing such behavior several times (Cortina, Magley, Williams & Langhout, 2001).
Piirainen, Elo, Hirvonen, Kauppinen, Ketola, Laitinen, Lindstrom, Reijula, Riala, Viluksela, and Virtanen
(2000) and Salin (2001) highlighted that more bullying and deviant behavior exists in the public sector
than the private sector.
In Malaysia, the government took several measures in improving existing policies on employee’s behavior
and strengthens information and service delivery through enhancing the capacity of district administration
in the public sector. Realizing that values and ethics are critical for the provision of "quality" service, the
Malaysian government launched several programmes to inculcate desirable values, such as honesty,
discipline, integrity, dedication, accountability, trustworthiness and efficiency among the public personnel
(Ahmad Sarji, 1996). The administrative reforms were guided by the underlying philosophy of quality with
emphasis on administrative improvements, enhancement of information technology, improvement of
information, and service delivery. As in the private sector, the public sector also recognized the fact that it
operates in an era where the customer is paramount. The Malaysian Public Service goal is to create an
organisational culture where quality and productivity improvement is seen as a way of life and a 'mind set'
that permeates the entire department or Ministry (Ahmad Sarji, 1996). However, workplace deviance
among Malaysian public service organisations have been given a great deal of discussion in the public
media concerning cases such as bribery, tardiness, dishonesty, poor work attitude, fraudulence,
underperformance, fake medical claims, substance abuse, and corruption (Abdul Rahman & Aizat, 2008;
Abdul Rahman, 2008; Awanis, 2006). Awanis (2006) revealed in her research that taking longer breaks
than acceptable, spending longer time fantasizing, saying something hurtful, and making fun of someone
at work stand out to be the common forms of deviant behavior in three government agencies in the
northern part of Malaysia. It has been stressed by the Chief Secretary of the Malaysian government, Tan
Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan (2009) that numbers of disciplinary cases involving government employees are
on the rise. For example, there were 3383 deviance cases in 2008 compared to 2159 in 2007. According
to the Malaysian Ministry of Human Resources (2009), absenteeism has become the most common
behavior among the employees in the public service organisations. Overall, various forms of workplace
deviance cases involving employees in the Malaysian public service organisations indicate an increase of
4
36.2 percent compared to the previous year (Utusan, 2009). The National Government Ethics Survey
conducted in the United States in the year 2008 indicates that 25 percent of all government employees
work in a surrounding that is prone to workplace deviance (Curtis, 2008).
Due to the above problems that exist in the Malaysian public service organisations, the government
continuously call attention for the need of government employees to preserve the confidence that the
public has in them through the inculcation of constructive principles to support ethical values and sustain
honesty. Values such as loyalty, attentiveness, accountability, helpfulness, respect, and gratitude are
emphasized. Nevertheless, various concerns have been continuously raised on the performance of the
Malaysian public service organisation personnel (Awanis, 2006). For example, Siddique (2007) claimed
that the Malaysian public service organisations have long been criticized for its rigidity, lack of motivation,
ineffective responsibility, and poor performance among the government personnel. Annually, the Public
Complaints Bureau receives three thousand to four thousand complaints which indicate the symptom that
the public is not happy with the working attitudes and the competency of the Malaysian public service
personnel (Siddique, 2007). Some of the complaints are on inefficiency, politicization of administration,
disciplinary problems, poor quality of services, lack of professionalism, cronyism at various levels, and
poor enforcement of work ethical values (Gomez & Jomo, 1999; Salleh, 2007; Sidiqque, 2007). In fact, a
comparative survey among twelve Asian countries detailed in the Global Competitiveness Report
revealed that the Malaysian public service organisations were ranked lowest in terms of competency
(Siddique, 2007).
Cases of workplace deviance continue to be reported in daily published media but research in
determining workplace deviance in the Malaysian public service organisation is still scarce (Awanis,
2006). Given the huge amounts of resources and productivity lost each year as a result of deviant
workplace behaviors, maximizing the prediction of workplace deviance is an important priority for
research and practice (Hastings & Finegan, in press).Along this line, research on workplace deviance in
Asian countries is limited, while most studies on these perspectives have been much centered in North
America and Europe (Abdul Rahman, 2008; Faridahwati, 2006; Smithikrai, 2008). Therefore, literature
from these regions will be mainly used in the review.
Workplace deviance is pervasive and brings harmful consequences. Awanis (2006) and Abdul Rahman
(2008) suggested that more systematic studies on this subject are required to understand the
determinants of workplace deviance especially in the Malaysian context. It is essential that competent
personnel of the Malaysian public service organisations enhance organisational efficiency which will
directly enhance the services provided to the public, as well as the national financial system (Spector,
2007). Although the Malaysian public service organisations have improved in many respective areas due
to innovation, creativity, and transformation in the public governance, the existence of workplace
deviance in the organisations may creates difficulties for the Malaysian public service to improve their
services (Siddique, 2007). Malaysia’s key goal is to be a developed country by the year 2020 but the
existence of workplace deviance contributes significant key challenges to reach this goal. Hence, due to
the impact of workplace deviance in the Malaysian public service organisations, understanding on the
determinants of workplace deviance is essential.
Objective of the Study
The objective of this paper is to develop a theoretical model on the determinants of workplace deviance
among support personnel in the Malaysian Public Service organisations. Given the vast amount of
studies and models produced by the western researchers, we noted lack of workplace deviance studies
that have been conducted by the local researchers. Deviance is a kind of negative behaviors that
influence individual, group and organisational functioning. Therefore, greater attention should be given by
the HRD personnel to straighten out such behaviors for organisations to successfully achieve its mission
and vision.
Arguments on the Determinants of Workplace Deviance
5
Empirical findings from industrial/organisational psychology research reflect that personality can be an
important predictor of a general range of workplace deviance (Berry, Ones & Sackett, 2007; Bechtoldt,
Welk, Hartig & Zapf, 2008; Marcus, Lee & Ashton, 2007; Ng & Feldman, 2008; Spector & Fox, 2005). On
the other hand, other researchers found that situational variables (Greenberg, 1990; Skarlicki & Folger,
1997) are likely to contribute to this destructive behavior. Later, researchers examined both situational
and personality variables on workplace deviance (e.g. Awanis, 2006; Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt &
Barrick, 2004; Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Henle, 2005; Salgado, 2002) and reveal that workplace
deviance cannot be attributed to personality variables or situational variables alone. In the West, many
researchers have looked into the interaction between individual-related variables and situational-related
variables (e.g. Andreoli & Lefkowitz, 2009; Cullen & Sackett, 2003; Diefendorff & Mehta, 2007; Fox,
Spector & Miles, 2001; Spector & Fox, 2002; Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh & Kessler, 2006).
Despite many studies that have looked into various factors that contribute to workplace deviance,
Jacobson (2009) argued that researchers failed to fully capture the determinants of workplace deviance.
For example, in the Asian context, not many studies have looked into the prevalence of workplace
deviance (Smithikrai, 2008). Also, researches have looked into positioning individual-related factors and
organisational-related factors (e.g. Abdul Rahman, 2008, Awanis, 2008; Bayram, Gursakal & Bilgel, 2009;
Jacobson, 2009) rather than work-related factors.
Most workplace deviance studies have employed the interactionist perspective (i.e. looking at the
interactions between individual-related factors and situational-related factors only) and placed less
emphasis on other perspective such as using job satisfaction as a mediating variable to workplace
deviance (Mount et al., 2006). Mount et al., (2006) believe that an individual’s attitudinal reactions to their
job and work experiences (job satisfaction) play a central motivational role in explaining employees’
engagement in workplace deviance. Mount et al.’s (2006) existing model posits that relevant personality
traits have relationships with workplace deviance. However, they commented that their model is
underspecified and suggested that perceptual variables such as organisational-related variables and
work-related variables could be relevant to enhance the understanding of workplace deviance.
Therefore, this study will expand Mount et al.‘s (2006) model and add in organisational-related variables
and work-related variables. In this study, workplace deviance is defined as any intentional action and
voluntary behavior by employees of the organisation which violate significant organisational norms and
standards of proper conduct that threatens the organisation’s members. We use this definition because it
fits to the context of workplace behavior and comprehensively postulated categories of deviance (i.e.
production deviance, property deviance, political deviance and personal aggression).
The paper is organized as follows: we begin by reviewing the definitions of various terminologies of
workplace deviance. Secondly, we describe the social exchange theory, the cognitive social theory, and
the strain theory as the theoretical background that relates to the three key determinants of workplace
deviance. Thirdly, we review research on associations between the three key determinants and
workplace deviance. Fourthly, we propose job satisfaction as the mediating variable and finally we
conclude by formulating a theoretical framework of workplace deviance based on our reviews.
Additionally, HRD implications will be offered. The reviews are based on extensive literature search
published all over the world, including workplace deviance studies in Malaysia. We first identified the key
words “workplace deviance”, “job satisfaction”, “Malaysian public service organisation”, “social exchange
theory”, “cognitive social theory” and “strain theory”. Several electronic databases available in the
university’s library such as Emerald, EBSCOHost, Science Direct, Springer, Proquest, SAGE, and
Blackwell Synergy were used to search for supporting materials and resources. We found that a majority
of the studies came from the United Kingdom and European countries.
Workplace Deviance Theories
In this study, we use the Cognitive Social Theory, the Social Exchange Theory, and the Strain Theory to
support our theoretical framework. We employ the Social Exchange Theory (Andersson & Pearson, 1999,
Glomb & Liao, 2003; Harris, Kacmar & Zivanuska, 2007; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007) to explain the
complex phenomenon of workplace deviance among the support personnel in the Malaysian public
service organisations. Social exchange theory describes the reciprocity that occurs between the context
6
and the individual (Jacobson, 2009). This theory posits that individuals in the organisations will react
positively or negatively towards behavior to that are seen to be instigated by the organisations (e.g. unfair
treatment from superiors) (Crede, Chernyshenko, Stark, Dalal & Bashur, 2007). From a social exchange
perspective, an unfavorable or unsupportive work environment may be reciprocated with workplace
deviance (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt & Barrick, 2004). Social exchange theory also predicts that
individuals who perceive that they are receiving unfavorable treatment from their organisations are more
likely to feel angry, vengeful, and dissatisfied (Mount et al., 2006). Previous researchers (e.g. Andersson
& Pearson, 1999; Glomb & Liao, 2003; Harris, Kacmar & Zivanuska, 2007; Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007)
have also adopted this theory to explain the phenomenon of workplace deviance. Subsequently,
Jacobson (2009) highlighted that by utilizing the social exchange theory in explaining workplace deviance
may well lead to a far more parsimonious theory. Hence, we include the concept of organisational-related
factors to determine workplace deviance because organisational context is important and needed within
the workplace deviance research stream (Bennett, Aquino, Reed & Thau, 2005).
Cognitive Social Theory accentuates the need to regard the interaction between individual-related factors
and organisational-related factors (Henle, 2005; Mischel, 1973). Cognitive Social theory indicates that
personality influences how an individual infer and react to diverse situations in an organisation. Individual
and situation interactions will take place and these rely on a person’s interpretation of the organisation
context. Judge and Kristof-Brown (2004) and Jacobson (2009) stressed that individual differences can no
longer afford to ignore context, specifically, the organisational environment as the central context. This
theory provides a higher understanding of the phenomenon of workplace deviance by positing that
individual-related factors influence workplace deviance.
We also incorporated Agnew’s (2001) General Strain Theory in our theoretical framework because it has
been the most significant recent contribution to negative behaviors of individuals. The main idea of this
theory is straightforward; Individuals who always worry and experience stress often become upset and
sometimes tend to act offensively. These individuals are likely to commit a crime to reduce or escape
from their stress. For example, an employee may assault his or her colleagues or engage in workplace
deviance to reduce their stress. The theory contends that individuals exposed to strain may cope with it in
various ways and a deviance adaptation is more likely (Agnew, 2006). Essentially, the General Strain
Theory conceives violence as a form of deviant version of force created by depressing emotions. In fact,
the stressor-emotion model of workplace deviance which is based on integrating human occupational
stress suggests workplace deviance is a response to emotion-arousing situations in organisations
(Spector & Fox, 2005). The stressor-emotion model states that it is not only anger that is associated with
workplace deviance behavior but many forms of negative emotions played a causal role in unfolding
behavior at work. Hart and Cooper (2001) further elaborated that stress is caused primarily by adverse
work-related factors.
Specifically in this current study, we utilize the Social Exchange Theory, the Cognitive Social Theory, and
the General Strain Theory to determine organisational-related variables, individual-related variables, and
work-related variables which may lead to a far more parsimonious theory of workplace deviance
behaviors.
Definitions of Workplace Deviance
Workplace deviance is an umbrella covering a wide range of behaviors that could hurt or intentionally
harm the stakeholders of the organisation (Spector & Fox, 2005). Workplace deviance has been studied
under different distinct terminologies such as retaliation (Skarlicki & Foldger, 1997), aggression (Douglas
& Martinko, 2001; Kelloway, Barling, & Hurrell, 2009), counter productivity (Fox et al., 2005), revenge
(Bies et al., 1997), dysfunctional behavior, organisational misbehavior (Vardi & Weitz, 2003),
unconventional practices at work (Analoui & Kakabadse, 1992), non compliant behavior (Puffer, 1987),
and general antisocial behavior (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997). Although many studies have been done
in this subject, there has been a lack of consensus on workplace deviance terminologies (Bennett &
Robinson, 2000). To conclude, there is no clear definition of this construct (Jacobson, 2009). However,
for this current study, workplace deviance will be operationalized as any intentional action and voluntary
7
behavior by employees of the organisation which violate significant organisational norms and standards
of proper conduct that threatens the well being of an organisation, its members, or both.
Workplace deviance can be exemplified by behaviors such as fraud, low performance, misuse of
organisation time, web surfing during office hours, drug abuse, and various types of mobbing and
harassment (Kidwell & Martin, 2004). Workplace deviance spans a major behavioral range from severe to
minor issues, such as working on a personal matter during work hours or taking a longer than acceptable
lunch break, to criminal acts, such as theft, sexual harassment, violence (Wellen, 2004), cyber loafing
(Lim, 2002), and abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000).
Bennett and Robinson (2000) emphasized that workplace deviance can be directed towards the
organisation or individuals. The first type is interpersonal deviance which could harm individuals while the
second type is organisational deviance that is directed to the organisation itself. Also, Bennett and
Robinson’s research contribute to a two dimensional chart which organizes workplace deviance behavior
into four quadrants labeled as in Table 1: production deviance, property deviance, political deviance, and
personal aggression. Based on our reviews, we have added several forms of workplace deviant
behaviors which we find suitable for each of the categories in the table. The amount of research into
deviance and discussion of the topic have grown substantially during the past 10 years and among the
most prominent areas of study that relate to deviance behavior are antisocial behavior, counterproductive
behavior, dysfunctional behavior, and organisational misbehavior (see Table 2). Spector and Fox (2002)
pointed out that despite the conceptual differences among these constructs they are measured in the
same way.
Table 1: Categories of Workplace Deviance
Organisational Deviance





Interpersonal deviance




Minor
Production Deviance
Intentionally working slow

Taking excessive breaks

Chatting with co-workers about
non-work topics

Day dreaming while on the job
Arriving for work late

Political Deviance
Making fun of co-workers

Acting rudely toward others

Blaming co-workers for mistakes
made on the job

Disobeying supervisor’s

instructions

Adapted from Brown (2008) pp. 3
8
Major
Property Deviance
Stealing from company
Dragging out work to get
overtime
Making photocopies at work for
personal use without receiving
permission
Taking office supplies or
equipment home without
permission
Personal Aggression
Cursing at co-workers
Saying hurtful things to coworkers
Humiliating co-workers
Bullying or Stalking co-workers
Assaulting with injury
Table 2: Various Terminologies of Workplace Deviance
Construct
Author
Definition
Deviance Behavior
Robinson &
Voluntary behaviors
Bennett
that break significant
(1995)
organisational norms
and threaten the wellbeing of the
organisation and/or its
members.
Antisocial Behavior
Giacolone &
Greenberg
(1997)
Actions that bring harm
or are intended to bring
harm, to an
organisation, its
employees, and/or the
organisation’s
stakeholders
Counterproductive
Sackett
Any intentional behavior
Behavior
(2002)
on the part of an
organisation member
that is viewed by the
organisation as contrary
to its legitimate interests
Dysfunctional
Griffin,
Actions by employees
Behavior
O’Learyor groups of employees
Kelly, &
that have negative
Kelly& Collins consequence for an
(1998)
individual, a group,
and/or the organisation
itself.
Organisational
Vardi & Weitz Acts that violate core
Misbehavior
(2004) and
organisational and/or
Vardi &
societal norms,
Weiner
intentional workplace
(1996).
acts that violate rules
pertaining to such
behaviors
Source: Adapted from Kidwell and Martin (2010, pp. 6)
Examples
Production deviance (damaging
quantity and quality for work), property
deviance (abusing or stealing company
property), political deviance (badmouthing others, spreading rumors),
and personal aggression (being hostile
or violent toward others)
Aggression, theft, discrimination,
interpersonal violence, sabotage,
harassment, lying, revenge, and whistle
blowing, focused mainly on personal
and property interactions.
Refers to elements of job performance
such as theft, destruction of property,
misuse of information, unsafe behavior,
poor attendance and poor quality work.
Violent and deviant (aggression,
physical, verbal assault, terrorism) and
nonviolent and dysfunctional (alcohol
and drug use, revenge, absence, theft).
Intending to benefit the self and the
organisation and intended to inflict
damage, wasting time, absenteeism,
turnover, crime, and sexual
harassment.
Individual-related Factors
Person or individual factors are constant constructs that imitate personality traits, thoughts, and inherited
predispositions (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Scheuer, 2010). Despite overwhelming evidence that
individual-related factors are useful determinants of workplace deviance, little empirical studies have been
done on the relationship between individual-related factors and workplace deviance (Smithikrai, 2008). In
brief, there is a lack of understanding of why personality traits or individual-related factors should be
predictors of various forms of negative behavior. Additionally, Browning (2008) noted that there was no
clear picture emerges of personality traits in predicting the two components of workplace deviance i.e.,
interpersonal deviance and organisational deviance. Hence, future research should be aimed at
describing further the underlying linkage between personality traits and the destructive behaviors
(Smithikrai, 2008) since it almost goes without saying that personality plays a critical role in workplace
deviance.
9
However, despite the arguments on the lack of study on individual-related factors and workplace
deviance, we found great empirical support from industrial/organisational psychology research which
conjectured that individual differences are likely to have an important prediction on a general range of
workplace deviance (e.g. Berry et al., 2006; Bing, Stewart, Davison, Green, McIntyre & James, 2007;
Burton & Hoobler, 2007; Bechtoldt, Welk, Hartig & Zapf, 2008; Hollinger & Langton, 2006; Martinko,
Gundlach & Doughlas, 2002; Ng & Feldman, 2008; Spector & Fox, 2005; Scheuer, 2010). This is further
supported by an empirical study by Douglas and Martinko (2001) who found that individual-related factors
such as attribution style and self-control contribute 60 percent of the variance in aggression at workplace
(an intense form of workplace deviance). As summarized by Sakett and Devor (2002), the resulting
countless individual studies in their meta-analyses have established that personality traits are useful
determinants of various forms of workplace deviance.
Mount et al., (2006) theorized that individuals’ personality traits or individual differences are likely to
predict workplace deviance because as human beings, they are aware of their choices on whether to act
in various forms of negative behaviors. There are various individual differences and personality
characteristics constructs which are theoretically relevant for precipitating act of workplace deviance.
However, this current study limits its focus to three individual factors (negative affectivity,
conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional intelligence) as they are most likely to influence
individuals’ intentions to engage in aggressive or deviance behavior (Burton, Mitchell & Lee, 2005; Burton
& Hoobler, 2007; Glomb & Liao, 2003;Tepper, 2007; Schuer, 2010).
Negative Affectivity and Workplace Deviance
Negative affectivity indicates the extent to which persons perceive levels of distressing emotions such as
anger, hostility, fear, and anxiety. Individuals with high negative affectivity are more likely to perceive
negative events (i.e. triggers) and to contribute to workplace deviance attributions (Martinko et al., 2002).
They might perceive negative outcomes that others might find to be only just mildly negative (Martinko et
al., 2002). Specifically, a person who is high in negative affectivity may in fact be perceived negatively by
his or her co-workers, and because of this, actually experience higher levels of deviant behavior
compared to those who are low on negative affectivity (Milam, Spitzmueller, & Penney, 2009; Steve,
Olga, Ashely, & Jennifer, 2010). Weiss and Cropanzano (1996, p. 37) further elaborated that individuals
with high negative affectivity are “predisposed to react more strongly to negative events when they
happen to occur”. Therefore, researchers have revealed that individuals high on negative affectivity are
more likely to have a hostile attribution style which may lead to workplace deviance (Burnfield , Clark,
Dusendorff, & Jex, 2004; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Homant & Kennedy, 2003).
Negative affectivity has been a subject of interest to researchers due to its negative influence on
employees and organisations. Although little research has tested this proposition, it has been shown that
negative affectivity is positively related to reports of destructive behavior such as workplace incivility
(Burnfield et al., 2004; Lee, Ashton, & Shin, 2001), work avoidance, work sabotage, abusive behavior,
threats, overt attitudes (Goh, 2007), and other forms of workplace harassment (Bowling & Beehr, 2006).
Studies found that individuals who have high negative affectivity are more probable to engage in
workplace deviance acts compared to low negative affectivity individuals (Goh, 2007). Goh (2007) opined
that individuals with high negative affectivity are more likely to feel anxiety when they interact with other
people and perceived situations as annoying, frustrating, and provocative. Negative affectivity has also
been established to be related to a variety of workplace deviance such as work avoidance, work
sabotage, abusive behavior, threats, and overt attitudes (Goh, 2007).
Conscientiousness and Workplace deviance
Conscientiousness is another personality characteristic that has been shown to be relevant in influencing
workplace deviance (Berry et al., 2007; Dalal, 2005; Salgado, 2002; Sackett, Berry, Wiemann, & Laczo,
2006). Salgado (2003) highlighted that conscientiousness is negatively related to workplace deviance
such as absenteeism, dishonesty, and destructive behaviors. Individuals high in conscientiousness are
expected to be industrious, orderly, reliable, decisive, and self-disciplined (Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark,
10
& Goldberg, 2005). Past researchers highlighted that individuals high in conscientiousness are also
presumed to be hardworking, punctual, diligent, and dedicated to the efficient completion of their work
tasks (Kamdar & Van Dyne 2007; McCrae, 2005) and are often high performers in organisations
(Chandler, 2008; Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). This had led employees with this personality to be involved
in expending their effort to help their organisation. Conscientiousness also includes elements of selfcontrol and persistence in behavior toward achieving long range goals (Stake & Eisele, 2010). On the
other hand, low-conscientious employees are irresponsible and untrustworthy, and, by default, will avoid
hard work. Thus, low-conscientious employees are likely to display diligence and committed only when
their superiors provide an encouraging and conducive workplace. Smithkai (2008) found that
conscientiousness is one of the personality attributes that exerted a significant effect on workplace
deviance. His result is consistent with other researcher’s findings (e.g. Salgado, 2003; Wanek, Sackett, &
Ones, 2003). Hence, from the reviews, conscientiousness consistently has demonstrated significant
relationships with workplace deviance.
Agreeableness and Workplace Deviance
Agreeableness is also considered as a prominent form of motivational facet that strongly determines
workplace deviance (Berry et al., 2007; Bukhari & Ali, 2009; Salgado, 2002). Research has associated
that individuals with low agreeableness tend to be antagonistic, annoying, mistrustful and have a low
regard for others, lack emotional expression and interpersonal skills. In turn, they are disliked and
regarded as inferior by others. A person low in agreeableness also tends to be unpredictable,
argumentative, tend toward nepotisms, cynicism (Costa, McCrae, & Dembroski, 1992; Goldberg, 1990),
distant, and lack of feelings (Talley, Valentine, & Benjamin, 2006). On a similar vein, researchers have
noted that individuals with this type of personality tend to be more emotional and have difficulties to calm
down when they are under pressure (Buss & Plomin, 1984; Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999). In a fairly
recent study, Smithkai (2008) clarified that conscientiousness was negatively correlated with workplace
deviance among a sample of six hundred and twelve respondents from the government and a private
telecommunication firm. Therefore, it is not surprising that the trait of agreeableness may produce an
unfavorable attitude which may in turn make an individual engage in destructive behavior in the
organisation (Krohn, Lizotte, & Hall, 2007).
Emotional Intelligence and Workplace Deviance
Emotional intelligence may also provide answers related to workplace deviance. Several studies have
included discussions concerning the impact of emotional intelligence on personal competencies, social
competencies, ethical behaviors, and the ability to lead (Emmerling & Goleman, 2003; Goleman,
Boyatzis, & McKee, 2001; Sivanathan & Fekken, 2002; Svyantek & Rahim, 2002). Brown (2003)
described emotional intelligence as the ability to control emotions and drive behavioral responses that will
result in positive outcomes. It can also be defined as ‘the set of abilities (verbal and nonverbal) that
enable a person to generate, recognize, express, understand, and evaluate their own, and other’s
emotions in order to guide thinking and action that successfully cope with environmental demands and
pressures (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004, p. 72).
Logically, an individual with high emotional intelligence is inclined to be a better performer, implement
ethical values at the workplace, and tends to be a better corporate employee towards his or her
organisation (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). Research has also implicated that people with high levels
of emotional intelligence engage less in aggressive behavior (Petrides, Frederickson & Furnham, 2004)
than those with low emotional intelligence. For example, Deshpende, Joseph, and Shu’s (2005) study
among one hundred and eighteen Chinese respondents revealed that individuals with low emotional
intelligence were significantly less likely to blame others for errors, falsifying reports, and padding in
company expenses (various forms of workplace deviance). His result also highlighted that people with low
emotional intelligence have lower ethical principles and found that those respondents with high emotional
intelligence perceived workplace deviance more unethically than those with low emotional intelligence.
Consistently, Aznira (2006) explored the relationship between emotional intelligence and workplace
deviance among academics in a selected university and found that there was a negative significant
11
relationship between emotional intelligence and workplace deviance. Directly this indicated that low trait
of emotional intelligence may be a prominent factor in a various forms of workplace deviance. Thus,
based on these reviews, we predict:
H1: Individual-related factors (negative affectivity, conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional
intelligence) have significant relationships with workplace deviance.
Organisational-related Factors
Past researchers have tested that certain organisational-related factors make organisations more
vulnerable to workplace deviance by employees (Abdul Rahman, 2008; Fox, Spector & Miles, 2001;
Faridahwati, 2003; Greenberg, 1990; Henle, 2005; Robinson & Bennett, 1998; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997).
For this study, we use organisational climate, organisational justice, perceived organisational support,
and trust in management as predictors of workplace deviance.
Organisational Climate and Workplace Deviance
Despite the emerging line of research devoted to understanding workplace deviance, relatively few
studies have investigated how organisational climate perceptions might influence workplace deviance
(Spector, Coulter, Stockwell, & Matz, 2007; Scheuer, 2010). According to Scheur (2010), climate
perceptions are believed to be the functional link between the person and objective characteristics of the
work environment such as formal and informal policies, procedures, and practices. It is plausible,
therefore, that an organisation may have a perceived climate that contribute to the negative attitudes and
behaviors amongst its employees (Spector et al., 2007). For example, a strong relationship between
climate and workplace deviance was elucidated by Burton (2002). Burton (2002) identified that several
dysfunctional behaviors have relationships with leaders’ attitude in the organisations. She suggested that
such leaders who employ negative acts towards their subordinates in one way or another have the
possibility to be violent against their subordinates. Vardi (2001) determined the effects of organisational
climate on misconduct at work among one hundred and fifty employees from various departments of a
metal product company in Northern Israel. He found that there was a significant relationship between the
two variables. Hence, we expected that the more the organisational climate is perceived as socially and
emotionally supportive, the lower will be the level of workplace deviance.
Organisational Justice and Workplace Deviance
The relationship between injustice perceptions and workplace deviance has been well documented (e.g.
Ambrose, Seabright & Schminke, 2002; Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999; Bennett & Robinson, 2002;
Berry, Ones, & Sackett., 2007; Conlon, Meyer, & Nowakowski, 2005; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;
Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Greenberg, 1990; Greenberg, 2001; Hosmer & Kiewitz,
2005; Jones & Skarlick, 2005; O’Brien and Vandello, 2005; Trevino & Weiver, 2001). Empirical studies by
Ambrose et al., (2002), Jones and Skarlicki (2005) and Trevino and Weaver (2005) indicated that
perceived injustice is a strong predictor of sabotage (i.e., damaging or disruptive behaviors) and other
harmful behaviors by employees. Organisational injustice speaks to an individual’s perception that they
have not been treated fairly by the organisation, management or co-workers (Greenberg, 2004). It is
categorized into three sub dimension, namely procedural justice, distributive justice and interactional
justice (Ambrose et al., 2002; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002). Procedural justice considers the
fairness of the processes and procedures put in place by the supervisor or organisation. It refers to how
an individual is treated during a process or event such as during termination or reorganisation or day-today activities (Cropanzano et al., 2002). Distributive justice refers to whether the individual feels that the
gains and rewards handed out by the organisation are being fairly distributed (Aquino et al., 1999). If the
individual feels that he or she is not being compensated properly, this will lead to feelings of perceived
distributive injustice or inequity. Interactional justice refers to the daily contact and socialization between
an employee and his or her superiors and co-workers (Henle, 2005). For example, if employees are
mistreated by their superiors, the employees will perceive interactional injustice to occur (Mitchell &
Ambrose, 2007).
12
Past researchers have highlighted whether various types of injustice differentially predict certain forms of
various negative behaviors at the workplace (Bennett & Robinson, 2003), such as theft (Greenberg,
2002). Ambrose and Arnaud (2005) stated that the primary focus in organisational justice research was to
examine the unique variance accounted for by each type of justice (e.g., distributional, procedural and
interactional justice) in order to demonstrate the utility of understanding different types of justice. In
addition, numerous studies have evaluated the relationships among the different types of organisational
justice and forms of workplace deviance (Ambrose et al., 2002; Aquino, Galperin, & Bennett, 2004).
However, Ambrose and Arnaud (2005) argued that focusing on the unique variance may obscure the
overall impact of fairness on the outcome variable. Other researchers also have called for more attention
to be given to overall fairness (Greenberg, 2001). Greenberg (2001, p.21) asserted that when individuals
develop perceptions of justice, they are making a "holistic judgment in which they respond to whatever
information is both available and salient". For example, victims of injustice will not necessarily worry about
whether there are two or more types of justice, but rather, they will react to the general experience of
injustice (Shapiro, 2001). Thus, we believe that overall organisational justice is an important construct in
explaining employees’ engagement in workplace deviance.
Perceived Organisational Support and Workplace Deviance
In addition to organisational justice, perceived organisational support has also been has been found to be
related to workplace deviance (Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2009). Perceived organisational support refers to
employees’ global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organisation values their contributions and
cares about their well-being (Dawson, 1996). Rhoades, Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, and
Rhoades (2001) refer to perceived organisational support as employees’ global beliefs regarding the
extent to which the employees feel that the organisation values their contributions and concern about
their well-being. According to Eder and Eisenberger (2004), perceived organisational support would
increase employees’ obligation to assist the organisation in achieving its goals especially when the
individual’s position and responsibilities keep changing and these individuals are looking to the
organisation for assistance and direction.
However, when perceived organisational support is absent or the employees find that the organisation is
making it difficult for them to uphold their tasks, resentment and despair builds. Logically, it is also
possible that the perceived lack of organisational support will cause employees to act deviantly. For
example, Salas (2009) revealed that employees who feel that their organisation is not supportive were
more likely to engage in destructive behavior. Similarly, perceived organisational support was found to be
negatively associated with supervisor-rated production deviance (Stamper & Masterson, 2002), and
interpersonal deviance at work (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004). Various past researchers
have provided evidence that perceived organisational support has found to affect workplace deviance
(Colbert et al., 2004; Eder & Eisenberger, 2006; Sady, Spitzmuller, & Witt, 2008; Thau, Aquino, &
Portvleit, 2006).
Trust in Management and Workplace Deviance
Trust in management is also a factor in judging the probability of employees engaging in workplace
deviance (Kramer & Cook, 2004). Trust in management refers to a subordinate’s trust in the management
of an organisation at different levels of its hierarchy, not necessarily his/her immediate manager
(Ozyilmaz, 2010). Additionally, trust in management has been found to be another determinant of a
subordinate’s workplace intentions and behaviors (Ozyilmaz, 2010). Researchers revealed that if an
organisation can support trust and loyalty by recognizing individuals contribution and assist them to
develop, they are willing to assist the organisation to achieve its vision and mission (Wayne, Shore,
Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002; Liao, Joshi, & Chuand, 2004). A lack of trust, on the other hand, generates
workplace deviance (Aquino & Bayron, 2002) and is financially counterproductive for the organisation
(Bensimon, 1997). Lower levels of trust are also linked to a variety of consequences including lost
productivity, inefficiency, reduced profits, damaged social identities, diminished effectiveness, and
unhealthy organisations and lives (Ellis & Shockley-Zalabak, 1999; Kramer & Cook, 2004). Similarly,
13
Thau, Crossley, Bennett, and Sczesny’s (2007) study demonstrates that there was negative relationship
between trust in senior management and workplace deviance.
Due to their very nature, the impact of organisational variables to workplace deviance is significant and
pervasive. Thus, we propose;
H2:
Organisational-related factors (organisational climate, organisational justice, perceived
organisational support and trust in management) have significant relationships with workplace deviance.
Work-related factors
Over the past few years, researchers have expanded their efforts in determining the causes of workplace
deviance and results indicated clearly that work-related factors are important in the prediction of
workplace deviance (e.g. Abdul Raman, 2008; Appelberg, Bennett, & Robinson, 2000; Einarsen, Raknes,
& Matthiesen,1994; Faridahwati, 2003; Hickman, 2005; Romanov, Honlasalo, & Koskenvuo, 1991). We
suggested that the related concept of work stress and powerless may have some influence on workplace
deviance. Work stress and powerlessness affect employee behavior and may become the sources for
frustration, annoyance, irritation, impatience and intolerance. Such emotional states, in turn lead to
employee burnout, and increase the probability for employees’ intentions to act deviantly. This is further
supported by Fergusson (2007) who stated that employee feelings of powerlessness and stress are
significant predictors of workplace deviance. Hence, we suggested that work-related factors have some
bearing on the deviant behavior of employees and it is likely to indicate that work stress and
powerlessness are more likely to contribute towards destructive behavior.
Work Stress and Workplace Deviance
Work stress influence employee behavior and it may be the basis for anger, frustration, annoyance,
irritation, exasperation, and intolerance. Such emotional states, in turn, may lead to various forms of
improper conduct. Similarly, Spector et al., (2007) highlighted that individuals react to stressful job
condition that produces negative emotions and this will cause them to develop negative behaviors. Added
with the transformation in the organisations brought on by information technology, organisational
reengineering and various redesign options, this significantly contribute to high levels of work stress
(Perrewe et al., 2000). Past researchers claimed that work stress may lead to various forms of improper
behavior such as aggression and violence (Martinko et al., 2005; Vardi & Weitz, 2004) or to occasions of
alcohol use and abuse (Matano et al., 2000) and proclivity to commit violence (an extreme form of
deviance) (Chappell & Martino, 2006). Other workplace deviance behaviors that have been associated
with work stress are harassment, interpersonal conflicts, revenge, and theft (Appelberg et al., 1991; Bies
& Tripp, 2005; Einarsen et al., 1994; Greenberg, 1997; Matano, Futa, Wanat, Mussman, & Leung, 2000).
Anecdotally, stress has been cited as the major cause for of various forms of workplace deviance in the
West. However in the Malaysian context, sparse research has looked into the relationship between work
stress and workplace deviance (Ahmad Nizan, 2006).
Powerlessness and Workplace Deviance
To date, few studies have suggested powerlessness as a possible cause of workplace deviance (Allen &
Greenberg, 1980; Ambrose, Seabright & Schminke, 2002; Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Spector, 2007;
Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Powerlessness stems from deficient in freedom or autonomy (Bennett, 1998).
According to McCardle (2007), individuals who perceive powerlessness feel that they have less legitimate
power to obtain the results they expect and under such condition, they are more likely to retreat to
deviance as a means of expressing their negative emotions and/or to regain a sense of control.
Powerlessness literature has explored and predicted human activities that are motivated by the
fundamental need of people to control and influence their social environment as well as the process
through which their desired outcomes are attained and maintained. The feelings of powerlessness may
contribute to depression which in turn, may motivate deviance and aggressiveness. For example,
14
Ambrose, Seabright and Schminke (2002), highlighted that employees will sabotage because they want
to attain control. Similarly, Spector (2007) pointed out that employees who believe they have little control
at their job are more likely to engage in negative acts. Perceived powerlessness discourages employees
from utilizing the legitimate means to regain power and resources. As such, deviance becomes one of the
resorts to assert influence over their environment and over the perceived powerful party (McCardle,
2007). Therefore, we believe that a low level of work stress and powerlessness is likely to increase the
tendency of workplace deviance.
Thus we hypothesize that:
H3: Work-related factors (work stress and powerlessness) have significant relationships with workplace
deviance.
In summary, this section identified the key determinants to workplace deviance which can be categorized
as:
1. Organisational-related factors
2. Individual-related factors
3. Work-related factors
Job Satisfaction as a Mediating Variable
In this study, we proposed to establish job satisfaction as the mediating variable between the three
potential groups of determinants and the criterion variable. Mount et al. (2006) and Chandler (2008)
highlighted that unfavorable workplace environment will contribute to dissatisfaction and lower subjective
well-being. In fact, past researchers have identified that employees with this negative feeling will engage
in deviant workplace activities and retaliate against the organisation. Crede et al. (2007) suggested that
research on job satisfaction have resulted in a sound understanding of how individual-related factors,
organisational-related factors, and work-related factors affect employee’s level of job satisfaction and, in
turn, influences a variety of workplace behaviors such as workplace deviance. Therefore, we incorporated
job satisfaction as a mediator of the relationship between individual related factors, organisational related
factors and work-related factors and workplace deviance behaviors. Personality-related factors comprise
of variables such as negative affectivity, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional intelligence;
organisational-related factors include organisational climate, organisational justice, and perceived
organisational support; and work-related factors incorporate variables such as work stress and
powerlessness. Hence, our reviews support the theoretical framework of workplace deviance among
support personnel in the Malaysian public service organisations in Figure 1.
15
Individual-related factors
Conscientiousness
Negative Affectivity
Agreeableness
Emotional Intelligence
Organisational-related
factors
Organisational Climate
Organisational Justice
Perceived Organisational
Support
Trust in organisation
Job
Satisfaction
Workplace
Deviance
Work-related factors
Work stress
Powerlessness
Figure 1: Theoretical framework for determining the prevalence’s of Workplace Deviance in the
Malaysian Public Service organisations.
Conclusions and Implications of HRD Theory and Practice
Negative workplace deviance affects various HRD functions. It affects human resources and
organisational performance (Shim, 2009). This destructive behavior interfere the creation of a civil and
respectful workplace culture. Some of the consequences indicated in the literature are organisational
failure to sustain in the global economy (e.g., Gonthier, 2002; Pearson et al., 2000; Pearson & Porath,
2005) and having higher turnover of employees (e.g., Tepper, 2000). However, this field has been largely
overlooked by the field of HRD (Shim, 2009). Due to the lack of research concerning HRD and workplace
deviance, consequently, created insufficient understanding of deviant-related organisational issues and
their relationship with HRD. Also, fail to achieve a holistic understanding of the nature and causes of
deviance behaviors which lead to incapability of recognizing the right solutions to cater such behaviors.
HRD professionals play an important role to facilitate the creation of a conducive and proactive work
culture and environment among the human resource in the organisation. Hence, this call for a timely and
consistent effort to be made by both HRD scholars and practitioners in understanding and examining
issues related to workplace deviance. According to Shim (2009), HRD primary focus is on performance
improvement, therefore HRD is in a critical position to identify issues that may affect organisational
performance and development. Workplace deviance can develop impairment to good organisational
foundation. Workplace deviance should be investigated and considered seriously in HRD. Deviant
behavior should be carefully observed and managed in HRD because it ruins cohesiveness and
interpersonal relationship by provoking retaliatory spirit in organisations. It implies possible negative
relationships not only between peers but also in leader-member and member-organisation relationships
(Gonthier, 2002). In addition, members in the organisation will have low intimacy and the motivation to
share knowledge in organisation which affected HRD.
The significance of this study may also be viewed in terms of the contribution of the findings to both
theory and practice. Theoretically, the present study offers a refinement and expansion of the
development from Mount et al., (2006) model which posits that personality traits (i.e. agreeableness and
16
conscientiousness) have relationships with interpersonal and organisational deviance through the
mediating effect of job satisfaction. This study will enhance Mount et al.’s (2006) model by integrating
other related variables such as organisational-related variables, individual-related variables, and workrelated variables to enable the interrelationships be more fully understood. Practically, the findings of this
study are expected to assist human resources personnel in playing more effective roles in managing,
reducing and preventing workplace deviance. The result of this study will also add to the body of
knowledge especially on workplace deviance in the Malaysian public service context. By understanding
the determinants that influence workplace deviance, the Human Resource Development personnel would
also be in a better position to plan and implement effective policies as well as practices towards reducing
the prevalence of workplace deviance.
We further conclude that the frequency and severity of workplace deviance have had a significant effect
on the financial toll of an organisation. Because of the pervasive and costly nature of workplace deviance,
deviant behavior is clearly categorized by researchers as a violation to both societal and organisational
values. Currently, it has become one of the most complex and difficult issues facing the Malaysian public
service organisations. Therefore, workplace deviance must be addressed to maintain the confidence of
the public, and preserve the integrity and performance of the Malaysian Public Service organisation
personnel.
References
Allen, V., & Greenberger, D. B. (1980). Destruction and perceived control. In A. Baum, & J.
Singer
(Eds.), Advances in environmental psychology (pp. 85-89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Appelberg, K., Romanov, K., Honlasalo, M., & Koskenvuo, M. (1991). Interpersonal conflicts at work
and psychosocial characteristics of employees. Social Science Medicine, 32(9), 1051–1056.
Analoui, F. (1995). Workplace sabotage: Its styles, motives and management. Journal of Management
Development, 14(7), 48-65
Ahmad Sarji, (1996). Incorporated achieving civil service excellence in the context of from
Retrieved from url: http://mgv.mim.edu.my/MMR/9309/930907.Htm.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M.U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity,and
employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organisational
Behavior, 20(7), 1073 -1091
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471.
Aquino, K., & Bradfield, M. (2000). Perceived victimization in the workplace: The role of
factors and victim characteristics. Organisation Science, 11(5), 525-537
situational
Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of
strain
most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and delinquency,
38(4), 319-361.
Aquino, K. & Byron, K. (2002). “Dominating Interpersonal Behaviour and Perceived
Victimization in
Groups: Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship”. Journal of
Management, 28(1), 69-87.
Anderson, C.A., & Bushman, B.J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology,
27-51
53(1),
Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of
organisational injustice. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 947
17
Ambrose, M.L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are Procedural Justice and Distributive Justice
Conceptually
Distinct? In J. Greenberg, & Colquitt, J.A. (eds.), Handbook of
Organisational Justice (pp. 5984). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ahmad Nizan Mat Noor (2006). Burnout and workplace deviant behavior. Unpublished Master
Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Thesis.
Agnew, R. (2006). General strain theory: Current status and directions for further research. In F. T.
Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory,
advances in criminological theory (Vol. 15, pp. 101–126) New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Aznira Abdul Azib (2006). Emotional Intelligence and Workplace Deviance Behavior.
Master Thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Unpublished
Appelbaum, H.S., Iaconi, D.G. & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace
behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions . Corporate Governance, 7(5), 586-598
Awanis Ku Ishak (2008). The relationship between deviance behavior among Mara employees in
northern Malaysia and its predictors. Unpublish Master Thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Abdul Rahman Abdul Rahim & Aizat Mohd Nasurdin (2008). Trust in Organisational and Workplace
Deviant Behavior. The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control. International
Journal of
Business, 10(2), 211 -235
Abdul Rahman Bin Abdul Rahim (2008). Predictors of workplace deviance behavior in Malaysia.
Unpublished doctoral’s thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Andeaoli, N. & Lefkowitz, J. (2009). Individual and Organisational Antecedents of Misconduct in
organisations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 309-332
Buss, A. & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum
Bensimon, H. (1997). What to do about Anger in the Workplace. Training and Development,
28-32.
51(9),
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.
of Applied Psychology, 85(3) 349-360.
Journal
Burton, J. (2002), The leadership factor, Accident Prevention, January/February, pp 22-6.
Bennett, R.J. & Robinson, S.L. (2003), The past, present and future of workplace deviance
research, in Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organisational Behavior: The State of the Science, 2nd ed.,
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 247-81.
Brown, R. B. (2003). Emotions and behavior: Exercises in emotional intelligence.
Management Education, 27(1), 122-134.
Journal of
Burnfield, J.L., Clark, O.L., Devendorf, S.A., & Jex, S.M. (2004). Understanding workplace
incivility: Scale development and validation. In V. Fortunato & J. L. Burnfield
(Chairs),
Current issues in the conceptualization and measurement of workplace incivility. Symposium
conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organisational
Psychology, Chicago, IL.
18
Burton, J. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T.W. (2005). The role of self-esteem and social influences
aggressive reactions to interactional injustice. Journal of Business and Psychology,
131-170.
in
20(1),
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual,
ideological, and
empirical issues. In S. Fox & P. E. (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of
actors and targets (pp. 65–81). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Bennett, R. J., Aquino, K., Reed II, A., & Thau, S. (2005). The normative nature of employee
deviance and the impact of moral identity. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.),
Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets (pp. 107-125).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bowling, N.A., & Beehr, T.A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: a
theoretical model and meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998-1012.
Berry, C. M., D. S. Ones & P. R. Sackett (2006). ‘Interpersonal Deviance, Organisational Deviance, and
their Common Correlates: A Review and Meta-Analysis’, Presented at the
Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial-Organisational Psychology.
B. Ann Bettencourt A.B. & Talley, A., Benjamin, J.A., and Valentine, J. (2006). Personality
and
Aggressive Behavior Under Provoking and Neutral Conditions: A Meta-Analytic Review.
American Psychological Association, 132(5), 751–777
Berry, C.M., Ones, D.S., & Sackett, P.R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organisational deviance and
their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology,
92(2), 410-424.
Burton, James P., Hoobler & Jenny M. (2007). Abusive supervision and subordinate aggression: The
role of self-esteem and narcissism. Annual meetings of the the Academy of
Management,
Philadelphia, PA.
Bing, M. N., Stewart, S. M., Davison, H. K., Green, P. D., McIntyre, M. D., & James, J. L. (2007). An
integrative typology of personality assessment for aggression: Implications
for predicting
counterproductive workplace behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 722-744.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organisational deviance, and
their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(2),
410−424.
Bechtoldt, M. N., Welk, C, Hartig, J., & Zapf, D. (2008). Main and moderating effects of
organisational justice, and emotional labour on counterproductive behaviour at
Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 16(4), 479-479.
selfcontrol,
work. European
Browning, V. (2008). An exploratory study into deviant behavior in the service encounter.
of Management and Organisation, 14(4), 451-471.
Journal
Bayram, N., Gursakal, N. & Bilger, N. (2009). Counterproductive work behavior among white
employees: A study from Turkey. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
180-188.
collar
(17)2,
Bukhari, U.Z. & Ali, U. (2009).
Relationship between organisational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior in the Geographical context of Pakistan, International Journal
of Business and Management, 4(1), 85-92,
19
Bowling N.A. & Gruys, M.L. (2010). Overlooked issues in the conceptualization and
measurement
of counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Management
Review, 20(1), 54–61.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dembroski, T. M. (1989). Agreeableness versus antagonism:
Explication of a potential risk factor for CHD. In A. Siegman & T. M. Dembroski (Eds.).
search of coronary-prone behavior (pp. 41–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
In
Cortina, Magley, Doughlas S.C. & Martinko J.M. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in
the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86(4), 547 -559
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organisational: A meta- analysis.
Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278−321.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E.,Wesson, M. H., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at
millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organisational justice research.
of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425−445.
the
Journal
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the
Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64-80.
workplace:
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C.A., & Chen, P.Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to
procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organisation Management,
distinguish
27(3), 324.
Cullen, M.J., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Personality and counterproductive workplace
behavior. In
M.R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and Work. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Colbert, A.E., Michael, M.K.., Harter, J. K., Witt, A.L., & Murray, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of
personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance.
Journal
Applied Psychology, 89(4), 599-609.
of
Conlon, D.E, Meyer, C.J & Nowakowski, J.M. (2005). How does organisational justice affect
performance, withdrawal, and counterproductive behavior? In Greenberg J, Colquitt J
(Eds.),
Handbook of organisational justice (pp. 301–327). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence
Erlbaum.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
review. Journal
Chappell, D., & Martino, V.D. (2006). Violence at work, 3rd ed. Geneva: International Labour
Organisation.
Crede, M., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Dalal, R. S., & Bashshur, M. (2007). Job satisfaction as
mediator: An assessment of job satisfaction’s position within the nomological network. Journal of
Occupational and Organisational Psychology. 80(3), 515-538
Chandler, M.M. (2008). Examining the mechanisms by which situational and individual difference
variables relate to workplace deviance: The mediating role of goal self- concordance.
Unpublished Master Thesis. The University of Akron. USA.
Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organisations.
Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55-75.
Dawson, L.C. (1996).
Dispositional and Attitudinal Explanations of counterproductivity in the
workplace. Unpublish Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of Berkeley, California.
Doughlas S.C.& Martinko M.J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of
20
workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86(4), 547 -559
Dietz, J., Robinson, S.L., Folger, R., Baron, R.A., & Schulz, M. (2003). The impact of community violence
and an organisation’s procedural justice climate on workplace aggression. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(3), 317-326.
Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organisational citizenship behavior, and
business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organisational
Behavior, 25(1), 67-80.
Deshpande, S., Joseph, J. & Shu, X.
(2005). The Impact of Emotional Intelligence on
Counterproductive Behavior
In China. Management Research News, 28(5), 75-85
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organisational citizenship
behaviour and counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241–
1255.
Diefendorff, J. M, & Mehta, K. (2007). The relations of motivational traits with workplace
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 967-977.
deviance.
Dilchert, S., Ones, D.s., Davis, R.D., & Rostow, J.D. (2007). Cognitive ability predicts
measured counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,
objectively
92(3), 616 -627.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I. & Matthiesen, S.M. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their
relationships to work environment quality-An exploratory study. The European Work and
Organisational Psychologist, 4(4), 381–401.
Ellis, K., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (1999). Communicating with management: Relating trust to
satisfaction and organisational effectiveness. Paper presented at the National
Communication
Association Convention, Chicago.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of
perceived organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51.
Emmerling, R. J., & Goleman, D. (2003). Emotional intelligence: Issues and common
misunderstandings. New Brunswick, NJ: The Consortium for Research on Emotional
Intelligence Issues in EI. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from
http://www.eiconsortium.org
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C.L. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: The
European tradition, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (9 eds), Bullying
and
Emotional Abuse in the workplace, London: Taylor & Francis.
Eder, P., & Eisenberger, R. (2004, August). Perceived organisational support and workplace
deviance: The moderating influence of the negative reciprocity norm. Academy of
Management, New Orleans.
Eder, P. & R. Eisenberger (2006).
Perceived organisational support: overcoming work group
deviance. Working paper, University of Delaware.
Fox, S., Spector, E.P. & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job
stressors and organisational justice: some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and
emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291–309.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some
parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organisational citizenship
behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269–292.
Faridahwati Mohd. Shamsudin (2003). Workplace deviance among hotel employees: An exploratory
21
survey. Malaysian Management Journal. 7(1), 17-33
Ferguson, J.M. (2007). From bad to worse: A social contagion model of organisational misbehavior.
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee.
Ferris, L.D., Brown, J.D. & Heller, D. (2009). Organisational supports and organisational deviance: The
mediating role of organisation based self-esteem. Organisational
Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 108(2), 279-286
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay
cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561–568.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big-Five factor
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.
structure.
Greenberg, J. (1997). The steal motive: managing the social determinants of employee theft. In R.
Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds), Antisocial Behavior in organisations (pp. 85-108).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Giacalone R.A. & Greenberg J. (1997). Antisocial Behaviour in Organisations. Sage Publication,
Thousand Oaks.
Gomez, E.T. & S.K. Jomo (1999). Malaysia’s Political Economy: Politics, Patronage and Profits,
Cambridge University Press.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2001). Primal leadership. Harvard Business Review,
79(11),
42-51. Retrieved from http://www.changeforchildren.co.uk/uploads/primalleadership.pdf
Greenberg, (2001), The seven loose cannons of organisational justice. In: J. Greenberg and R.
Cropanzano (Eds), Advances in organisational justice, Stanford University Press (pp.
245271) Stanford, CA: Sage
Gonthier, G. (2002). Rude Awakenings: Overcoming the Civility Crisis in the Workplace. Chicago,
Dearborn Trade Publishing.
Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money and when? Individual and situational determinants
of employee theft. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1),985-1003.
Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: social influence,
reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 486-496.
Greenberg J. (2004). Stress fairness to fare no stress: Managing workplace stress by promoting
organisational justice. Organisational Dynamics, 33(4), 352–365.
Griffin, R.W. & Lopez, Y.P. (2004). Toward a model of the person-situation determinants of
deviant
behavior in organisations, paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the
Academy of
Management, New Orleans, LA, 6-11 August 2004.
Goh, A. (2007). An Attributional Analysis of Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) in Response to
Occupational Stress. Unpublish Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of
South Florida.
George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (2008). Understanding and managing Organisational Behavior
Edition). Upper Saddle River: New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.
(Fifth
Greenberg, J. (2010). Insidious Workplace Behaviour. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group,
New
22
York.
Hollinger, R., & Clark, J. (1982). Employee deviance: A response to the perceived quality of the
experience. Work and Occupations, 9(1), 97-114.
work
Hallowell, E. M. (1999). Connect. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (2003). Hostile attribution in perceived justification of
aggression. Psychological Reports, 92(1), 185-194.
workplace
Hoel, H., Einarsen & Cooper, S.C. (2003). Organisational effects of bullying. In Einarsen S,
Hoel
H, Zapf D, Cooper C (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
International
perspectives on research and practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Henle, C.A. (2005), Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organisational
justice and personality, Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(2), 247-63.
Hickman, M.J. (2005). State and local law enforcement training academies, 2002 (NC 204030),
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hosmer, L.T. & C. Kiewitz (2005). Organisational Justice: A Behavioral Science Concept with
Critical
Implications for Business Ethics and Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics
Quarterly,
15(1), 67-91.
Hollinger, R.C., & Langton, L. (2006). 2005 National Retail Security Survey: Final report. Gainesville,
University of Florida, USA.
Hutton, S. A. (2006). Workplace Incivility: State of the science. Journal of Nursing
36(1), 22-28.
Administration,
Harris, K.J., Kacmar, M.K., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a
predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The
Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 252-263.
Hastings, S.E., & Finegan, J.E. (in press). The role of ethical ideology in reactions to injustice.
of Business Ethics.
Journal
Hershcovis, S. M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M.
Sivanathan. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Psychology, 92(1), 228-238.
M., &
Applied
Inness, M., Barling, J., & LeBlanc, M.M. (2008). Psychosocial Predictors of Supervisor-, Peer-,
Subordinate-, and Service-Provider-Targeted Aggression, Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(6), 1401–1411
Johnson, P. R., & Indvik, J. (2001). Rudeness at work: Impulse over restraint. Public Personnel
Management, 30(4), 457-466.
Judge, T., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2004). Personality, Interactional Psychology, and Person- Organisation
Fit. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Personality and Organisation (pp.87-109).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Jones, D.A. & D.P. Skarlicki, (2005). The effects of overhearing peers discuss an authority's
reputation for fairness on reactions to subsequent treatment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(2), 363-372.
23
Jacobson, K.J.L. (2009). Contextual and Individual Predictors of counterproductive work behaviors.
Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Arizona State University.
KPMG Forensic (2004). Fraud Survey 2004. KPMG International, Amsterdam.
Kidwell, E.R. & Martin L.C, (2004). Managing the ambiguity of workplace deviance. Lessons
from
the study of conflict. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, New
Orleans, LA.
Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Trust and distrust in organisations: Dilemmas and
R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
approaches. In
Kidwell, R.E. and Martin, C.L. (Eds) (2005), Managing Organisational Deviance, London: Sage
Publishing
Kelly, D.J. (2006). Workplace bullying- a complex issue neeing IR/HRM research?, , in Pocock, B,
Provis, C and Willis, E (eds), 21st Century Work: Proceedings of the 20th Conference
of the
Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand,
University
of
South Australia, February 2006, 274-284.
Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange
relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance.
Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1286–1298.
Krohn D.M., Lizotte & Hall (2007). Handbook of Crime and Deviance.
Publications.
New York: Springer
Kidwell, E.R. & Martin L.C, (2008). Managing organisational deviance. Sage Publication, Thousand
Oaks.
Krau, E. (2008). Work, creativity, inventions and society. Man and Work, 16, 45-54
Lim, V.K.G. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing, and
justice. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 23(5), 675–694.
organisational
Lewis, D. (2004). Bullying at Work: the impact of shame among university and college
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32(3), 281-99
lecturers, British
Liao, H., Joshi, A. & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: employee dissimilarity
deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57(4), 969-1000.
and
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Shin, K. (2005). Personality correlates of workplace anti-social
behavior. Applied Psychology. 54(1), 81-98
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive
Psychological Review, 80(4), 252-283.
social
learning
reconceptualization
Matano, R.A., Futa, K.T., Wanat, S.F., Mussman, L.M., & Leung, C.W. (2000). The
Stress and Alcohol Project: The development of a computer-based alcohol
prevention program for employees. Journal of Behavioral Health Services &
27(2), 152–165.
of
personality.
Employees
abuse
Research,
Martinko, M.J., Gundlach, M.J., & Douglas, S.C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of
counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International
Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 10(1), 36–50.
24
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A
general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 647-660.
McCrae, R.R. (2005). Personality Structure. In V.J. Derlega, B.A. Winstead, & W.H. Jones
(Eds.),
Personality: Contemporary theory and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 192- 216). Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Martinko, M.J., Doughlas, S.C., Harvey, P., & Joseph, C. (2005). Managing organisational aggression.
In R.E. Kidwell, Jr., & C.L. Martin Eds), Managing organisational deviance (pp 237-259).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Mayhew, C. & McCarthy, P. (2005). Occupational violence/bullying in public service
organisations,
Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, Australia and New Zealand, 21(1), 33-42
Mount, M., Ilies, R., and Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work
behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology. 59(3), 591-622.
Marcus, B., Lee, K., & Ashton, M.C. (2007). Personality dimensions explaining relationships
between integrity tests and counterproductive behavior: Big five, or one in addition?
Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 1-35.
Marcus, B., & Wagner, U. (2007). Combining dispositions and evaluations of vocation and job
to
account for counterproductive work behavior in adolescent job apprentices. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 161-176.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the
moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159.
Mccardle, G.J., (2007). Organisational Justice and workplace deviance: The role of organisational
structure, powerlessness, and information salience. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis,
University of Central Florida, Orlando.
Mohd Sidek Hassan (2009, November). More errant civil servants. Retrieved from News
Times.
Straits
Moorthy, K.M., Seetharaman, A., Somasundaram, R.N. & Gopalan, M. (2009). Preventing
Employee Theft and Fraud, European. Journal of Social Sciences, 12(2), 259-268
Milam, A.C., Spitzmueller, C., & Penney, L.M. (2009). Investigating individual differences among targets
of incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(1), 58–69
Marvin D. Krohn, Alan J. Lizotte, & Gina P.H. (2009). Handbook on Crime and
Springer: New York.
Deviance,
Ng, T.W.H. & Feldman, D.C. (2008). The Relationship of Age to Ten Dimensions of Job
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 392–423.
Performance,
O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W., & Glew, D.J. (1996). Organisation-motivated aggression:
research frame-work. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 225-253
a
O'Brien, K. E., & Vandello, J. (2005). Development and validation of the workplace
hostile
attribution bias scale. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
25
Ozylimaz, A. (2010). Vertical Trust in Organisation: A Review of empirical studies over the last
Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 7(13), 1-28
decade.
Puffer, S.M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance among
commission sales people. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 615-621.
Pearson, C. (1999). Rude managers make for bad business. Workforce, 78(3), 18.
Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Porath, C. (2000). Assessing and attacking. Organisational
Dynamics, 29(2), 123-137.
Piirainen, H., Elo, A.L., Hirvonen, M., Kauppinen, K., Ketola, R., Laitinen, H., Lindstrom, K.,
Reijula,
K., Riala, R., Viluksela, M. & Virtanen, S. (2000) Work Health – an interview
study. Helsinki:
Tyoterveyslaitos
Perrewe, P.L., Ferris, G.R., Frink, D.D. & Anthony, W.P. (2000), Political skill: an antidote for
workplace stressors, Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 115-23.
Petrides, K.V., Fredrickson, N., & Furham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic
performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual indifference, 36(2), 277 – 293.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2005). Global Economic Crime Survey.
Available
from
URL:
http://www.pwc.com/gx/eng/cfr/gecs/PwC_2005_global_crimesurvey.pdf , Cited 30 September
2010.
Penney, L.M., & Spector, P.E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior: The
moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 26 (7), 777-796.
Pearson, C., & Porath,C. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace
incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 7- 18.
Robinson, S.L., & Bennett, R.J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors:
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.
A
Roberts, B.W., Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L.R. (2005). The structure of
conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires.
Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 103–139.
Richards, J. (2008). The many approaches to organisational misbehavior. A review, map and
research agenda. Employee Relations, 30(26), 653-678
Skarlicki, D.P. & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and
interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-443.
Skarlicki, D., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship
between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 100-108.
Shapiro, D. (2001). The death of justice theory is likely if theorists neglect the "wheels" already
invented and the voices of the injustice victims. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 235-242.
Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A compariso of two
different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and
Organisational
Psychology, 10(4), 424-441.
26
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1), 117–125
Sivanathan, N., & Fekken, G.C. (2002). Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and
transformational
leadership. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 23(4),
198-204.
Svyantek, D. J., & Rahim, M. A. (2002). Links between emotional intelligence and behavior in
organisations: Findings from empirical studies. International Journal of Organisational
Analysis, 10(4), 299-301.
Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or Outsider? How employee perceptions of
status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 23(8), 875- 894
insider
Sackett, P.R., & DeVore, C. J. (2002). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson,
D. S.
Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and
organisational psychology: Personnel psychology (Vol.1, pp. 145–164). London: Sage
Sagie, A., Stashevsky, S. and Koslowsky, M. (Eds) (2003), Misbehaviour and Dysfunctional
Attitudes in Organisations, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Salgado, J.F. (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality
Journal of Occupational & Organisational Psychology, 76(3), 323–346.
measures.
Spector, P.E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S.
Fox, & P. E.Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior:
Investigations of actors and
targets: (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Spector, P.E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality
of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created
equal? Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460.
Sackett, P.R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2006). Citizenship and
counterproductive behavior: Clarifying relations between the two domains. Human
Performance, 19, 441–464.
Siddiquee, N.A. (2006). Public management reform in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Sector
Management Journal, 19(4), 339-358.
Spector, P. E., Coulter, H. G., Stockwell, G., & Matz, M.W. (2007). Perceived violence climate:
A new
construct and its relationship to workplace physical violence and verbal aggression, and their
potential consequences. Work & Stress, 21(2), 117-130.
Spector, P.E. (2007). Industrial and Organisational Psychology:Research and practice (5th
John Wiley and Sons, USA.
edition).
Salleh, M.T. (2007). Enhancing integrity in the public service. A paper presented at the 12th
Civil Service Conference, INTAN, 3-4 September, 2007.
Smithikrai, C. (2008).
Moderating effect of situational strength on the relationship between
personality traits and counterproductive work behavior. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,
11(4), 253-263
Sady, K., Spitzmüller, C., & Witt, L.A. (2008). Good employee, bad business: An interactionist
approach to workplace deviance. Presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Anaheim.
27
Shim, J. (2008).
Concept exploration of workplace incivility: Its Implication to HRD.
URL:
http://www.midwestacademy.org/Proceedings/2008/papers/Shim&Park_49.pdf. Cited on 12
February, 2010.
Salas, S. (2009), A study of the relationship between employee virtuality and technology deviance as
mediated by leadership and employee perceptions. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Florida
University, Florida.
Scheuer, L.M. (2010). A climate for workplace aggression: The influence of abusive
supervision,
organisational factors, and subordinate predispositions. Unpublished
Master Thesis. Nothern
Illinious University.
Trevino, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. I. (1998). The ethical context in organisations:
Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447– 476.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
100–108.
42(1),
Talley, A. & Bettencourt, A.B. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking
and
neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. American Psychological Associates, 132(5), 751-777
Thau, S., Crossley, C., Bennett, R. J., and Sczesny, S. (2007). The Relationship between Trust,
Attachment, and Antisocial Work Behavior. Human Relations, 60(8), 1155-1179.
Tepper, B.J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organisations: Review, synthesis, and
agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289.
research
Vardi, Y. (2001). The effects of organisational and ethical climates on misconduct at work.
of Business Ethics, 29(1), 325 – 337.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organisations: Theory, research, and
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Journal
management.
Van Rooy, D.L. and Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic
investigation of
predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 65(1), 71-95.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
Organisational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H., & Tetrick, L.E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and
rewards
in perceptions of organisational support and learn-member exchange. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 87(3), 590-598.
Wanek, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Ones, D. S. (2003). Towards an understanding of integrity test
similarities and differences: An item-level analysis of seven tests. Personnel Psychology, 56(4),
873–894
Wellen, M.J. (2004). From individual deviance to collective corruption: A social influence
model
of the spread of deviance in organisations. Paper presented to the social change in
the 21st
century conference centre for social change research, Queensland University of Technology.
28