Employees’ reaction to organization restructuring varies as some react positively towards change but others refuse to accept it. Those who react negatively may engage in counterproductive work behavior. Since the existing studies are scarce in addressing this issue especially during organization restructuring, the present study is meant to investigate the influence of interpersonal conflict, anomie and trust in management on employees’ counterproductive work behavior. Data were collected from 215 non-managerial staff of a company offering maritime related services, which is undergoing restructuring exercise. Using a multiple regression analysis, it was found that trust in management and interpersonal conflicts negatively influence counterproductive work behavior while anomie or feeling helplessness or hopelessness positively influences counterproductive work behavior. The implications of the study are discussed in the paper.
Keywords: Organizational restructuring, Interpersonal conflict, Anomie, Trust, Counterproductive work behavior.
Received: 10 April 2018 / Revised: 6 July 2018 / Accepted: 13 July 2018 / Published: 20 July 2018
This study contributes in the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the role of trust in management, interpersonal conflict and anomie in influencing counterproductive work behavior. These three factors are significant predictors of counterproductive work behavior.
Employees commonly spend more than eight hours at their workplace in which interactions become critical among organizational members. Such interactions generate opportunities for the exhibitions of various forms of individual behaviors. As individuals, employees are unique as they may exhibit both the positive and negative work behaviors due to their contacts with varieties of situations and circumstances. Scholars and researchers argued that understanding employees’ work behavior is deemed critical as it is the key for any organizational success. In an attempt to improve our understanding on employees’ work behavior, researchers argue that counterproductive work behavior (CWB) that is conceptualized as negative work behavior has been one of the significant current discussions. CWB (e.g. (Abdul et al., 2012s; Fox et al., 2012; Klotz and Buckley, 2013; Abas et al., 2015; Marcus et al., 2016; Courtois and Gendron, 2017; Harvey et al., 2017)) continues to be a world-wide phenomenon and common problems facing today’s organization that demands more investigations for identifying its root causes and appropriate solutions as a way to minimize, if not to eradicate such negative work behavior that will deplete individual and organizational performance.
CWB refers to any form of behaviors that diverge from norms or negative, that can be ranging from gossiping, moral disengagement, workplace retaliation, to sabotaging organizational property, to name only a few (Robinson and Bennett, 1995; Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Aubé and Rousseau, 2014; Abdul et al., 2016; Zaghini et al., 2016). This undesirable behavior has been argued to negatively influence individual and organizational performance such as low productivity, up-surging company’s insurance costs, lost and damage property, increasing dissatisfaction, absenteeism, and negativity (Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Henle, 2005; Bhatti et al., 2016; Chung and Yang, 2017).
In the Malaysian context, cases of CWB, including fighting at workplace, insubordination, theft, bribery and fraud are common cases in the Malaysian Industrial Courts (Malaysian Law Journal 2010 – 2017; KPMG Malaysia Fraud, Bribery, and Corruption Survey 2013) as well as in national and international media. Regrettably, no formal statistics on the incidences of CWB was documented by the Malaysia Labor Department (Sharizan et al., 2013). Due to this alarming condition that has a negative impact on organization, local researches (such as (Alias et al., 2013; Abas et al., 2015; Iqbal and Hassan, 2016; Raja et al., 2017)) argued that further investigations are essential as to rectify the roots of the problems. Based on the suggestion from literatures (e.g., (Tsahuridu, 2009; Javed et al., 2014; Bhatti et al., 2016; Chung and Yang, 2017)) in comparison with past local studies, this study aims to investigate the influence of interpersonal trust, anomie and trust in managing employee CWB.
Specifically, this study aims to study the relationship between interpersonal conflict, anomie, trust in management and CWB among employees of a service industry, currently, in the midst of restructuring exercise. Employees who participated in this study consist of non-management staff of a company that provides technical services in the central region of Malaysia which is in the process of organizational restructuring. Using the theories of psychological stress at work, it is expected that this empirical evidence will aid the practitioners to develop appropriate strategies to minimize the occurrences of CWB by managing interpersonal conflict, anomie, and trust in management among employees in a stressful event. This study will start with literature review on CWB, interpersonal conflict, trust in management and anomie. Findings of the study will be presented using quantitative methods using tested measurement instruments. Lastly, this paper will share the conclusion and recommendations that could be adopted by practitioners at large.
2.1. Counterproductive Work Behaviour
Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is a behavior intended to hurt the organization or other members of the organization (Bennett and Robinson, 2000). For a simplistic understanding of CWB, researchers has established that the characteristic of CWB consists of two behaviors, namely, CWB-Interpersonal (CWB-I) and CWB-Organizational (CWB-O). CWB-I, such as aggression and hostility, are behaviors directed to individual members of the organization. While CWB-O, such as purposely doing task incorrectly or theft, are behaviors directed to the organization. Other researchers such as (Spector et al., 2006) categorized CWB into five dimensions, namely, abuse against others, sabotage, production deviance, theft, and withdrawal. In addition, researchers such as Bennett and Robinson (2000); Hollinger (1986) and Kelloway et al. (2010) further categorized CWB from its target to the degree of severity, ranging from minor to severe. Gossiping, instead of working, is classified as a minor CWB, while, fight at work would be classified as severe act (Hollinger, 1986; Bennett and Robinson, 2000). Interestingly, several researchers conceptualized CWB as a construct by itself (Omar et al., 2011).
This study is aware that empirical evidences highlighted several categories and classifications of CWB. Yet, the understanding of the predictors that lead to employees acting undesirably is deemed critical, it enables practitioners develop strategies for managing and preventing occurrences of such negative behavior. Such pervasive behavior would cost a lot to organizations and would project negative company’s image if it has received media attention. Therefore, as indicated earlier, in this study, the three variables namely interpersonal conflict, trust in management, and anomie will be further discussed.
2.2. Interpersonal Conflict
Interpersonal conflict, generally, refers to matters that arise due to differences in goal or interest between each member of group in an organization. For the purpose of this study, interpersonal conflict is conceptualized as the perceived and/or actual incompatibility of needs, interests, and/or goals between two interdependent parties over task related and/or affective issues, and such differences influence their behavior at work. Conflict, either the interpersonal or organizational conflict, needs to be managed or it will destructively bring dislocation and polarization of the organizational members with reduction in productivity and job performance (Akanji, 2005). Researches such as Cohen et al. (2013); Hershcovis et al. (2007) and Longe (2015) further argued that conflict can influence employees’ attitude and behavior negatively. In similar note, Riaz and Junaid (2012) conceptually summarized the consequences of interpersonal conflict, among others, it influences employees’ attitude negatively, such as trust deficit and damaged management credibility. Riaz and Junaid (2012) further argued that interpersonal conflict would also negatively affect employees’ work behavior such as reduced productivity, excessive turnover and undesired work behavior. Empirically, it was also shown that interpersonal conflict demonstrated a significant and positive relationship with job stress (Ullah and Naeem, 2012) dissatisfaction and low self-monitoring (Ohbuchi and Fukushima, 1997). Interestingly, Yao et al. (2014) empirically demonstrated a negative and significant relationship between work stressor and employees’ negative work behavior. Hence, this study postulated that interpersonal conflict that arises during the restructuring process will demonstrate a positive and significant relationship with CWB (CWB-I & CWB-O).
2.3. Anomie
Anomie has been conceptualized as an individual’s lack of integration in social life (Srole, 1956). It is related to helplessness or hopelessness that causes an individual to experience lack of purposes and values that lead to a breakdown of the norms that rule the conduct of people (Tsahuridu, 2006). The study on anomie has been extensively attracted researchers in sociology and psychology discipline to explain various forms of deviant behavior that include criminal behavior, alcoholism, and dishonesty (Caruana et al., 2001). However, the link between anomie and workplace counterproductive behavior appears to be scarce. Christ (2015) indicated that an individual who is said to be anomic, tends to create his/her own world and behaves towards it as he/she pleases without integrating with others that leads to a CWB behavior. In a restructuring exercise, due to uncertainty, worker’s work behaviors appear to depend heavily on the level of adherence by organization to basic normative standards of employment. Moreover, restructuring exercise is a top down instruction, where employees feel helpless and hopeless to sequentially going through the restructuring exercise.
If an employee perceives that the level of employment relationship adherence is violated by the employer or faced by an unconventional impediment towards his/her goal achievement, an individual will feel a sense of frustration (Berkowitz, 1962) dissatisfaction, and pressure. At work, frustration would increase employees’ feelings of negative emotion, job stress, and would motivate them to act in a counterproductive manner (Merton, 1968). Being anomic, an employee tends to engage with behavior in relation to work instead of non-work context (Tsahuridu, 2011). Such engagement may influence employees’ ethical behavior at work (Martin et al., 2009) where they tend to seek an alternative immoral means to achieve the unsuccessful prescribed objectives. Johnson et al. (2011) empirically demonstrated that a competitively fierce working environment demonstrated strong influence on anomie in organizations. Ntayi et al. (2010) empirically revealed a positive and significant relationship between anomie and public procurement officer’s deviant act in Uganda. They also empirically demonstrated that anomie acts as a mediator on the relationship between moral disengagement and deviant behavior. As such, this study argues that anomie will be positively related to counterproductive work behavior.
2.4. Trust in Management
Trust, as a valuable resource within organizations has been conceptualized as an attitude and is believed to be an important determinant of individual and organization performance. Although scholars of human resource management have not paid much attentions as those of the organizational behavior scholars (e.g., (Shahid and Azhar, 2013; Brown et al., 2015)) more human resource management researchers (e.g., (Dietz and Den Hartog, 2006; Bakon and Hassan, 2013)) have begun to take notice of its value. Trust is conceptualized as an individual belief in the truthfulness, benevolence and sincerity of others. When an individual trusts someone, he/she will reciprocate positively which can be considered as some forms of cooperation with the others. This will enable better cooperation and will reflect how employees view their relationship with management. In similar note, trust in management can create atmosphere in which employee is willing to build a truthful relationship with management. However, in stressful events, such as in a restructuring exercise, employees’ trust towards management would probably deteriorate. This is due to the perception on management’s inability to fulfill their perceived psychological contract; for being defined as an organizational asset. As argued by Mineo (2014) trust is seen as an investment overtime that will allow success of individual and organizational objectives. Trust is a strong component in employee-employer relationship. Trust has a positive and significant relationship with organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior. In contrast, if employees’ trusts towards management or organization were belittled, their conduct at workplace could be in a negative behavior. Conceptualizing CWB as contrasting form of behavior from OCB (Fox et al., 2012) this study postulated that there will be a negative and significant relationship between trust in management and CWB.
3.1. Procedure and Sample Characteristics
Data were collected from a company specializes in maritime-related services with a population of 403 employees. Due to the new company’s direction and vision, employees were made aware of the restructuring exercise. It was expected to be implemented in the 4th quarter of year 2017. Based on this phenomenon, permission from the company’s management for this study to be conducted was requested and approval was granted in mid-year of 2017. The Human Resource Manager being the contact person assisted in the distribution of the questionnaires. Participation was on a voluntary basis. Eventually, there were 215 valid responses after 11 were rejected due to incorrect completion of the questionnaire. The sample comprised 64.7% males (139) and 35.3% (76) females. 87.4% were 45 years old or younger, while the remaining 12.6% were older than 45 years of age. All respondents were non-management staffs who were in normal working hours (64.2%) and shift working hours (35.8%). In terms of organizational tenure, 80% (172) of the respondents had been with the company for less than five (5) years, while the remaining 9.8% and 10.2% respondents’ organizational tenure was between 5 - 7 years, while the latter was more than 7 years. A total of 131 respondents had either a diploma or a degree level of education. While 13.9% had a professional certificate and 25.6% were secondary school leavers.
3.2. Measures
All items were scored on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree. Cronbach’s alphas representing the reliability value was within acceptable limits as shown along the diagonal of the correlations table (Table 1).
Counterproductive work behavior: We used the 10 items to measure counterproductive work behavior. However, all items were reversely stated into positive statements. For instance, the original statement of “purposely wasted my employer’s material or supplies” was restated as “never purposely wasted my employer’s materials and supplies”. All data for this variable was reverse-coded before conducting the data analysis process.
Anomie: In this study, anomie was measured using the 8 item measure proposed by Tsahuridu (2006) to measure work related construct. Sample items include “I get the feeling that life at work is not very useful” and “People in this company don’t really care what happens to the next person”.
Interpersonal conflict: Spector and Jex (1998) 4 items scale which explored areas of interpersonal conflict at work among employees were adopted for the purpose of this study. Sample items include “I always get into arguments with others at work” and “Other people are often rude to me at work”.
Trust in management: Trust in management reflects the level of employees’ trust towards their management. Trust in management was measured using responses to the following sample survey items. “My Company’s management always tries to treat me fairly and makes me feel more confident in my work” and “My Company’s management would never take advantage by deceiving the workers”.
Reliability Analysis: Hair et al. (2006) conceptualized reliability as a measure of the degree to which a set of indicators of a latent construct is internally consistent in their measurement. The reliability for each measure was examined by computing its Cronbach’s alpha. Table 1 provides the reliability coefficients of the measures. It shows that all studied variables have Cronbach’s alpha values higher than 0.7. Hair et al. (2006) indicated that a very good reliability level is when the alpha value is 0.7 and above. Therefore, the internal consistency of the measures used in this study is considered acceptable.
Correlation Analysis: The correlations and directions of the study variables were examined by computing the Pearson (product moment) correlation coefficients (r). The Pearson’s r indicated the coefficient’s estimate of linear associations based on sampling data. However, it does not distinguish the correlation between the independent and dependent variables. Thus, the summary statistics of correlations does not reveal the appropriateness of the data for the model. The negative and positive signs only signify the direction of the association but do not reveal the size of the relationship (Hair et al., 2006 ). For the purpose of this study, correlations of .30 are considered low level. Meanwhile, correlations of .80 are considered high level. As shown in Table 1, all studied independent variables (trust in management, anomie, and interpersonal conflict) demonstrated a significant correlation with CWB. The direction of the correlation is as postulated, except for interpersonal conflict that demonstrated a negative correlation.
Table-1. Correlation of studied variables
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
1 |
- |
|||||||||
2 |
.125 |
- |
||||||||
3 |
-.174* |
-.020 |
- |
|||||||
4 |
-.251* |
.216** |
.209** |
- |
||||||
5 |
.135 |
.388** |
.101 |
.283** |
- |
|||||
6 |
.181* |
.378** |
-.128 |
.128 |
.559** |
- |
||||
7 |
.069 |
-.147* |
.120 |
-.194* |
-.118 |
-.097 |
(0.790) |
|||
8 |
.068 |
.140* |
.133 |
-.132 |
-.140* |
-.176* |
.674* |
(0.828) |
||
9 |
-.015 |
.119 |
-.011 |
.148* |
.070 |
.082 |
-.764** |
-.742* |
(0.860) |
|
10 |
-.019 |
.155* |
-.131 |
.102 |
.094 |
.168* |
-.745** |
-.687** |
.742** |
(0.968) |
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Note: 1-gender, 2-marital status, 3-education, 4-work schedule, 5-Income, 6-org. tenure, 7-trust in management, 8-interpersonal conflict, 9-anomie, 10-CWB. The numbers in parentheses on the diagonal are coefficient alphas.
Table-2. Regression Results between Independent Variables and Dependent Variables
| Counterproductive Work Behavior | ||
| β | ||
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
|
| Step 1: Control Variables Gender | .109 |
.046 |
| Marital status | .078 |
22 |
| Education level | -.105 |
.000 |
| Organizational tenure | .008 |
-.019 |
| Work schedule | .173 |
.170 |
| Step 2: Independent Variables | ||
| Trust in management | -.3 3** |
|
| Interpersonal onflict |
-.291** |
|
| Anomie | .331** |
|
| R² | .052 |
.786 |
| Δ R² | .052 |
.733** |
| F Value | 2.082 |
85.17 |
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 2 shows the results of the regression analysis between the independent variables (trust in management, interpersonal conflict, and anomie) and the dependent variables (CWB). Gender, marital status, education level, organizational tenure and work schedule were conceptualized as the control variables (Abdul et al., 2012). As depicted in Table 2, the control variable is not significant for the studied model. In step 2, it was demonstrated that the model is significant and the studied variables explain 78.6% of the variation in CWB (R2 = 0.786, p < .01). Trust in management shows a negative and significant relationship with CWB. This indicates a support for Hypothesis 1. Interestingly, interpersonal conflict demonstrated a significant and negative relationship with CWB. It contradicts the initial conceptualization of significant and positive relationship. On the other hand, the positive and significant relationship existed between anomie and CWB, which supported the third hypothesis.
This study has attempted to answer the questions of whether employees’ trust in management, interpersonal conflict and anomie has significant influence on CWB. The regression results revealed that trust in management demonstrated a negative and significant relationship with CWB. As postulated, when employees believe or highly trust the company’s management, the tendency for them to act counterproductively would be low. In contrast, when their level of trust towards the company’s management deteriorates, the tendency for them to get even by acting counterproductively would be higher. In similar note, when their level of anomie is high, they tend to be more counterproductive at workplace (Christ, 2015). These suggest that when employees feel helpless and hopeless and experience a lack of purpose and value at workplace, the tendency for them to act counterproductive such as to purposely wasted employer’s materials/supplies and complaining about insignificant things at work would be very high.
Interestingly, the relationship between interpersonal conflict and CWB is significant but in a negative direction instead of positive direction. This finding revealed that when an employee encounters or experiences a conflict with his/her peer, the tendency for him/her to act counterproductively would be lower. This finding opposed the assumption of this study that postulated a positive and significant relationship between interpersonal conflict and CWB. The possible explanation is that the company is in the process of restructuring/reorganizing which eventually will lead to retrenchment exercise. Being retrenched, employees are entitled for termination benefits upon retrenchment. However, if their peers reported the conflict to the management, there will be a tendency that an investigation will be conducted. Such investigation may lead to the setting up of a domestic inquiry panel where the perpetrators or individuals involved in the conflict will be called to defend themselves. If they were found guilty of such counterproductive behavior or misconduct and being dismissed, no termination benefits are entitled. As such, employees would try to avoid any incidence that may cause conflict. If they encounter any interpersonal conflict, they would fend away and consolidate the problems among themselves. It should be noted that employees are tactful on their act of counterproductive (Abdul et al., 2012; Sharma and Thakur, 2016). If they are not happy with someone, they would try to avoid any interpersonal conflict but tacitly they will act counterproductively.
In conclusion, organizational restructuring either directly or indirectly would put employees in a stressful condition. Such stressful condition will influence their attitude and behavior at workplace. Interestingly, from this study, it was evident that they were cognitively alert on the consequences of their act to avoid further repercussions. Moreover, in stressful work environment, the association between trust in management, anomie and CWB is high. As such, the company’s management, specifically the managers, needs to develop appropriate strategies to ensure high level of trust among employees and to minimize employees’ level of anomie towards the management. For any interpersonal conflict that arises, actions taken should apply the concept of ‘natural justice’ and to reprimand the problems not as a solution to the company’s problems but to create a ‘win-win concept’. These will further mould greater employees’ trust, respect, hope and value towards the management.
It should be noted that this study is not without limitation. This study was done in a company specializes in a maritime-related services. Future study should extend the study in other service providers such as the banking and communication industry. Moreover, variables studied can be conceptualized as individual factors. Therefore, exploring other constructs will be able to provide better understanding on how to minimize CWB at workplace.
| sFunding: This study received no specific financial support. |
| Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
| Contributors/Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. |
Abas, C., F. Omar, F.W. Halim and S.W.M. Hafidz, 2015. The mediating role of organizational-based self-esteem in perceived organizational support and counterproductive work behaviour relationship. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(9): 99–109.View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Abdul, R.A.R., S. Alwi and M.N. Aizzat, 2012. Effects of job characteristics on counterproductive work behaviour among production employees: Malaysian experience. International Journal of Business and Development Studies, 4(1): 123-145.
Abdul, R.A.R., S. Alwi and M.N. Aizzat, 2016. Effects of job characteristics on counterproductive work behaviour among production employees: Malaysian experience. International Journal of Business and Development Studies, 8(1): 117-139.
Akanji, T.A., 2005. Perspective on workplace conflict management and new approaches for the twenty-first century. Perspectives on peace and conflict in Africa. Ibadan: John Archers Publishers Ltd.
Alias, M., M.R. Roziah, I. Maimunah and A.S. Bahaman, 2013. Predictors of workplace deviant behaviour: HRD agenda for Malaysian support personnel. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(2): 161-182. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Aubé, C. and V. Rousseau, 2014. Counterproductive behaviours: Group phenomena with team-level consequences. Team Performance Management, 20(5/6): 202-220. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Bakon, K. and Z. Hassan, 2013. Perceived value of smartphone and its impact on deviant behaviour: An investigation on higher education students in Malaysia. International Journal of Information System and Engineering, 2(1): 38-55.
Bennett, R.J. and S.L. Robinson, 2000. Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3): 349-360.View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Berkowitz, L., 1962. Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bhatti, O.K., M.A. Alam, A. Hassan and M. Sulaiman, 2016. Islamic spirituality and social responsibility in curtailing the workplace deviance. Humanomics, 32(4): 405-417. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Brown, S., D. Gray, J. McHardy and K. Taylor, 2015. Employee trust and workplace performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 116: 361-378. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Caruana, A., B. Ramaseshan and M.T. Ewing, 2001. Anomie and deviant behaviour in marketing: Some preliminary evidence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(5): 322-338. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Christ, O., 2015. The concept of alienation in the early works of Karl Marx. European Scientific Journal, 11(7): 551-563.View at Google Scholar
Chung, Y.W. and J.Y. Yang, 2017. The mediating effects of organization-based self-esteem for the relationship between workplace ostracism and workplace behaviours. Baltic Journal of Management, 12(2): 255-270. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Cohen, T.R., A.T. Panter and N. Turan, 2013. Predicting counterproductive work behavior from guilt proneness. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1): 45-53. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Courtois, C. and Y. Gendron, 2017. The “normalization” of deviance: A case study on the process underlying the adoption of deviant behavior. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(3): 15-43. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Dietz, G. and D.N. Den Hartog, 2006. Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35(5): 557-588. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Fox, S., P.E. Spector, A. Goh, K. Bruursema and S.R. Kessler, 2012. The deviant citizen: Measuring potential positive relations between counterproductive work behaviour and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(1): 199-220. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, R.E. Anderson and R.L. Tatham, 2006. Multivariate data analysis. 6th Edn., Uppersaddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Harvey, P., M.J. Martinko and N. Borkowski, 2017. Justifying deviant behaviour: The role of attributions and moral emotions. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(4): 779-795. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Henle, C.A., 2005. Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12(2): 247-263. View at Google Scholar
Hershcovis, M.S., N. Turner, J. Barling, K.A. Arnold, K.E. Dupré, M. Inness, M.M. LeBlanc and N. Sivanathan, 2007. Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1): 228-238. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Hollinger, R.C., 1986. Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7(1): 53-75. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Iqbal, Q. and S.H. Hassan, 2016. Role of workplace spirituality: Personality traits and counterproductive workplace behaviors in banking sector. International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 3(12): 806-821. View at Google Scholar
Javed, M., R. Balouch and F. Hassan, 2014. Determinants of job satisfaction and its impact on employee performance and turnover intentions. International Journal of Learning And Development, 4(2): 120-140. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Johnson, J.L., K.D. Martin and A. Saini, 2011. Strategic culture and environmental dimensions as determinants of anomie in publicly-traded and privately-held firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(3): 473-502. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Kelloway, E.K., L. Francis, M. Prosser and J.E. Cameron, 2010. Counterproductive work behaviour as protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1): 18-25. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Klotz, A.C. and M.R. Buckley, 2013. A historical perspective of counterproductive work behaviour targeting the organization. Journal of Management History, 19(1): 114-132. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Longe, O., 2015. Impact of workplace conflict management on organizational performance: A case of Nigerian manufacturing firm. Journal of Management and Strategy, 6(2): 83. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Marcus, B., O.A. Taylor, S.E. Hastings, A. Sturm and O. Weigelt, 2016. The structure of counterproductive work behaviour: A review, a structural meta-analysis, and a primary study. Journal of Management, 42(1): 203-233. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Martin, K.D., J.L. Johnson and J.B. Cullen, 2009. Organizational change, normative control deinstitutionalization, and corruption. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(1): 105-130. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Merton, R.K., 1968. Social theory and social structure. USA: The Free Press, Simon & Schuster Inc.
Mineo, D.L., 2014. The importance of trust in leadership. Research Management Review, 20(1): 1-6. View at Google Scholar
Ntayi, J.M., S. Eyaa and M. Ngoma, 2010. Moral disengagement and the social construction of procurement officers' deviant behaviours. Journal of Management Policy & Practice, 11(4): 95-110.View at Google Scholar
Ohbuchi, K.I. and O. Fukushima, 1997. Personality and interpersonal conflict: Aggressiveness, self-monitoring, and situational variables. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(2): 99-113. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Omar, F., F. Halim, A. Zainah and H. Farhadi, 2011. Stress and job satisfaction as antecedents of workplace deviant behaviour. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12(16): 45-51. View at Google Scholar
Raja, M.Y., A.R. Abd Rahman and R.H. Mohd, 2017. Psychological contract violation and counterproductive work behaviour: Moderating effect of industrial relations climate. Proceedings of Melbourne International Business and Social Science Research Conference 2017, 28th-30th October, 2017, Melbourne, Australia.
Riaz, M. and F. Junaid, 2012. Types, sources, costs & consequences of workplace conflict. Asian Journal of Management Research, 2(1): 600 -611. View at Google Scholar
Robinson, S.L. and R.J. Bennett, 1995. A typology of deviant workplace behaviours: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 555-572. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Shahid, A. and S.M. Azhar, 2013. Gaining employee commitment: Linking to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Management Research, 5(1): 250-268. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Sharizan, S., A.R.A. Rahman and A.D. Noor, 2013. Relationship between person organization fit, psychological contract violation on counterproductive work behaviour. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(4): 173–184. View at Google Scholar
Sharma, A. and K. Thakur, 2016. Counterproductive work behaviour: The role of psychological contract violation. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach & Studies, 3(1): 13-27. View at Google Scholar
Spector, P.E., S. Fox, L.M. Penney, K. Bruursema, A. Goh and S. Kessler, 2006. The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviours created equal? Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 68(3): 446-460. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Spector, P.E. and S.M. Jex, 1998. Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4): 356-367. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Srole, L., 1956. Social integration and certain corollaries: An exploratory study. American Sociological Review, 21(6): 709-716. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Tsahuridu, E.E., 2006. Anomie and ethics at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2): 163-174. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Tsahuridu, E.E., 2009. An exploration of factors affecting anomia at work. Proceedings of the 6th Critical Management Studies Conference, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK 13th –15th July 2009.
Tsahuridu, E.E., 2011. An exploration of factors affecting work anomia. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2): 297-305.View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Ullah, M.A. and H. Naeem, 2012. Job stress as a result of interpersonal conflict. An empirical evidence from the banking sector of Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(9): 90-95. View at Google Scholar
Yao, Y.H., Y.Y. Fan, Y.X. Guo and Y. Li, 2014. Leadership, work stress and employee behaviour. Chinese Management Studies, 8(1): 109-126.View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
Zaghini, F., R. Fida, R. Caruso, M. Kangasniemi, A. Sili and P.T. Vergata, 2016. What is behind counterproductive work behaviors in the nursing profession? A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Research and Bioethics, 7(4):1000277. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher