Abstract
Counterproductive behaviour exhibited by hotels workers in Port Harcourt is alarming. Despite the consequences of deviant acts, operators of the hotel industry in Port Harcourt are less minded on the organizational antecedents of workplace deviant behaviour. This study proposed an integrated model that explains the relationship between organizational predators and workplace deviant behaviour (OP-WDB) in the hotel industry in Port Harcourt. The study used a structured questionnaire and sampled 138 hotel staff in Port Harcourt. Pearson Moment Correlation analysis was used. The result shows that four of the six organisational predictors have a positive and significant relationship with deviant behaviour in respect of hotels in Port Harcourt. The F- statistic was statistically significant indicating a valid model. It is recommended that hotel managers should promote the cordial relationship between managers and their subordinates for enhanced employee's civility behaviour. In addition, hotel owners and managers should formulate policies that can forestall a positive hotel work climate for employees. Once more, hotel managers should ensure that daily employee's activities are scientifically measured to avert cases of work overload. Finally, hotel managers should lead by example and ensure that employees' trust in management is total.
Keywords: Deviant behaviour, Organisational predictors, Hotel industry, Port Harcourt.
Received: 26 October 2018 / Revised: 30 November 2018 / Accepted: 3 January 2019/ Published: 28 March 2019
Contribution/ Originality
This study contributes to the literature on workplace deviance in the hotel industry. The research proposed and validated an integrated model that explains the relationship between organisational predators and workplace deviant behaviour (OP-WDB) in an emerging country. The study increased the explanatory power of the OP-WDB model in explaining the social exchange theory.
1. INTRODUCTION
Deviant workplace behaviour (DWB) is a prevalent and costly phenomenon for organizations including the hotel industry. Studies have shown that deviant workplace behaviour not only cost organizations substantial amount of money annually but have negative and psychological consequences for employees as well (McCardle, 2007; Milkovich and Newman, 2008; Baharom et al., 2017). Deviant workplace behaviour in this context refers to voluntary behaviour that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members (Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Johnson and Indvik, 2001). It was reported that employees accounted for a higher percentage of retail thefts than did customers (Appelbaum et al., 2007). Annual costs of workplace violence are estimated at $4.2 billion per year (Everton et al., 2007). A report had it that employee theft, and fraudulent behaviour cost organizations $200 billion and $400 billion yearly respectively (Kidwell and Kochanowski, 2005). Interpersonal deviances lead to job stress and less job satisfaction and subsequently reduce productivity (Appelbaum et al., 2007). Businesses pay more than $150 billion annually for managing occupational stress of absenteeism of employees (Spector et al., 2006).
In Canada, a study by the Conference Board of Canada reported that the Canadian economy lost $16.6 billion in 2012 due to workplace deviance absenteeism (Nguyen, 2013). In the United States, it was reported that approximately $6 to $300 billion were lost annually to employee workplace deviant behaviour (Goh, 2006; Valentine and Rittenburg, 2007; Brown and Mitchell, 2010) such as absenteeism, theft and diminish productivity. In Australia, employers incurred estimated costs between 6 and 13 billion Australian dollars annually on theft and bullying (Chappell and Di Martino, 2006). In Nigeria, reports on the economic and social cost of workplace deviant behaviour in the hotel industry had not been reported. However, personal observations of a trend of counterproductive work behaviour exhibited by hotels workers include absenteeism, withholding effort, stealing, taking long breaks, working slowly, filing fake accident claims, theft, gossiping, abusing sick day privileges, hiding needed resources, and unethical decision making. Another workplace deviant behaviour exhibited by employees of hotels in Nigeria includes not following the manager's instructions, intentionally slowing down the work cycle and corporate sabotage.
Despite the various deviant acts observed and highlighted in respect to hotel employees in Nigeria and particularly Port Harcourt, operators of the hotel industry in Port Harcourt are less minded on the organizational antecedents of workplace deviant behaviour. To date, less study has also employed hotel staff in Port Harcourt as a sample in this domain of study! Due to the costly and harmful consequences of deviant behaviour to organization, including the hotel industry, Vardi and Weitz (2004) suggested that more studies are needed to understand the determinants of deviant behaviour at the workplace. The premise on this, the need to determine antecedents of workplace deviant behaviour among employees of the hotel industry in Port Harcourt necessitate this study. Practical implications of this study include the contribution to the literature on workplace deviance in the hotel industry in an emerging economy. The results in this study are expected to assist researchers and practitioners in understanding the predictors of workplace deviance in hotels based on the organizational factors explored in this study.
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. The Concept of Deviant Behaviour
Organizational norms are a grouping of expected behaviour, languages, principles, and postulations that allow the workplace to perform at a suitable pace (Awanis, 2006; Alias et al., 2013). However, when normal work behaviour goes outside the norms of the organization, its consequences are far-reaching and affect all levels of the organization including its decision-making processes, productivity and financial costs (McCardle, 2007; Brown and Mitchell, 2010; Sims, 2010). Researchers have given these behaviour different names including, workplace deviance (Appelbaum et al., 2007) counterproductive behaviour (Bennett and Robinson, 2000) organizational incivility (Miner et al., 2012) among others.
An act can be described as workplace deviant if it violates the major rules of organizational life (Spector and Fox, 2002; Appelbaum et al., 2007). Workplace deviant behaviour is therefore occupational crimes that denote acts such as embarrassing co-workers, leaving duty early, sabotage, and theft (Bennett and Robinson, 2000). Workplace deviance refers to voluntary behaviour in which employees lack the motivation to conform to, and or become motivated to violate normative expectations of the social context (Mazni and Roziah, 2011). The concept is also seen as the intentional behaviour that departs from the norms of a referent group in an honorable way (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004; Sims, 2010). Deviant workplace behaviour is also referred to as voluntary behaviour that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, perceived as threatening the well-being of the organization or its members (Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Spector and Fox, 2002). Bolin and Heatherly (2001) defined work place deviance as a voluntary behaviour that violates institutionalised norms and in so doing threatens the well- being of employees and the organisation itself.
The index in the definitions reviewed shows that workplace deviance is intentional acts that harm the organization or people in the organization. As it applied to this study, deviant behaviour is described as when a hotel organization’s customs, policies, or internal regulations are intentionally violated by an individual or a group to jeopardize its well-being and that of its employees.
2.2. Predictors of Deviant Behaviour
Past researchers argued that certain organizational related factors make organisations more vulnerable to employees’ workplace deviant behaviour (Henle, 2005; Abdul, 2008). From the social exchange perspective, individuals in organisation are more likely to reciprocate with destructive behaviour with the existence of workplace condition (Alias, 2013). Researchers found that organizational-related factors such as organizational ethical climate (Andreoli and Lefkowitz, 2009); organization justice (Jones, 2009); perceived organizational support (Monnastes, 2010; Balducci et al., 2011) supervisory support (Balducci et al., 2011) job demand (Balducci et al., 2011; Fransson et al., 2012) organizational trust (Thau et al., 2007; Balducci et al., 2011) are pertinent factors in employees’ inclination in destructive behaviour.
However, the results of empirical studies that determined reasons employees engage in deviant behaviour are inconsistent. We also argued that limited study has assessed predictors of deviant behaviour specifically in the context of hotels in Port Harcourt. The selection of the key constructs and variables such as organizational support, ethical climate, organizational justice, supervisory support, job demand, and organizational trust, in this study, reflected the boundaries that this study places in limiting its scope.
2.3. Theoretical Underpinning: Social Exchange Theory
This study adopted the social exchange theory. Social exchange theory was developed by Blau in 1964 quoted in Alias (2013). The theory was originally used to explain the motivation behind attitudes and behaviours exchanged between individuals (Shore et al., 1999). The theory posits that individuals who perceived that they are receiving unfavourable treatments are more likely to feel dissatisfied. Consistent with the norms of reciprocity, when individuals are dissatisfied with their employers, they may reciprocate with destructive behaviours. The theory predicts that individuals retaliate against any dissatisfying conditions at a workplace by engaging in negative behaviours. This implies that social exchange theory was used to explaining the relationships between organizational-related factors and workplace deviance.
Social exchange theory has been frequently used by researchers to explaining the occurrence of workplace deviance (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007; Alias, 2013). The theory has often been used to study organisations in an attempt to better understand the reciprocal relationship that develops between employees and the organisation (Castro et al., 2004). This view suggests that when an employer provides employees with fair treatment, the employees will perceive high levels of support from the organisation and as a result feel obligated to. Based on these principles it can be argued that individuals who receive greater support from their organisations will be more inclined to return the act of goodwill (Allen et al., 2003). Furthermore, Allen et al. (2003) argue that the inverse is true where employee’s perception of low organisational support may result in deviant behaviour.
Researchers such as Glomb and Liao (2003); Brown and Treviño (2006) and Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) have employed social exchange theory to explain the phenomenon of workplace deviant behaviour. They argued that employees that have high quality of exchange relationship with their superiors are less likely to engage in destructive behaviours. Subsequent studies have included organizational-related factors such as organizational ethical climate (Andreoli and Lefkowitz, 2009) organization justice (Jones, 2009) perceived organizational support (Monnastes, 2010; Balducci et al., 2011) supervisory support (Balducci et al., 2011) job demand (Balducci et al., 2011; Fransson et al., 2012) and organizational trust (Thau et al., 2007; Balducci et al., 2011) as pertinent factors in employees’ inclination in destructive behaviour.
As it relates to the current study, the theory posits that individual employees in the hotel industry in emerging countries and more so in Port Harcourt, Nigeria will retaliate against any dissatisfying work conditions such as organizational support, ethical climate, organizational justice, supervisory support, job demand, and organizational trust thus, behave defiantly. In view of the applicability of the social exchange theory to the present study, the researchers adopted these six organizational variables as the predicting factors of deviant behaviour in hotels in Port Harcourt.
3. EMPIRICAL REVIEW
3.1. Organizational Support and Deviant Behaviour
Organizational support refers to staff perception that their management appreciates their contributions, compliments them, and genuinely cares about their well-being (Alias, 2013). Organisational support refers to employees’ global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organisation values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 2001). It has been reported that perceived organisational support is related to workplace deviant behaviour (Thau et al., 2007; Sady et al., 2008). According to Eder and Eisenberger (2006) perceived organisational support would increase employees' obligation to assist the organisation in achieving its goals hence, making them shun acts of deviance. Salas (2009) revealed that employees who feel that their organisation is not supportive were more likely to engage in destructive behaviour. Accordingly, organisational researchers argue that within the employer-employee relationship, not only are impersonal resources such as money, services, and information exchanged, but also socio-emotional resources such as approval, respect and support (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). These contribute towards employee’s perception of organisational support (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). If employees feel that they are supported by their companies, they will more likely refrain from stealing and other deviant acts (McClurg and Butler, 2006).
Furthermore, perceived organisational support was found to be negatively associated with supervisor-rated production deviance (Stamper and Masterson, 2002) and interpersonal deviance at work (Colbert et al., 2004). A study in the US conducted by Monnastes (2010) revealed that the correlation between perceived organizational support and organizational deviance was stronger compared to the relationship with interpersonal deviance. The index in this literature shows that when perceived organisational support is unpleasant, negative moods and feelings about organisational support will cause employees to act defiantly. As such from the previous discussion, we assume the following hypotheses:
H1. Perceived organizational support has a positive influence on deviant behaviour among hotel staff in Port Harcourt.
3.2. Supervisory Support and Deviant Behaviour
Supervisors act as agents of the organization, having responsibility for directing and evaluating subordinates’ performance. Employees view their supervisor’s favourable or unfavourable orientation toward them as indicative of the organization’s support (Eisenberger et al., 2004). Additionally, employees understand that supervisors’ evaluations of subordinates are often conveyed to upper management, further contributing to employees’ association of supervisor support with perceived organisational support (Stander and Rothmann, 2008). Supervisor support has a direct effect on levels of perceived organisational support (Liu and Jang, 2009) indicate that high levels of POS are related to supervisor support because they are seen as agents of the organisation and thereby represents the organisation's commitment to their employees. Employees experience high levels of POS when supervisors value employee's contributions and care about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 2004). The index in this information shows that not only workgroups influences employees behaviour rather, supervisory support is a factor.
The way managers behave influences the way lower level employees and the whole organization behave when facing ethical dilemmas (Kaplan et al., 2007). Just as employees form global perceptions concerning their valuation by the organization, they develop general views concerning the degree to which supervisors value their contributions and care about their well-being (i.e. perceived supervisor support) (Krause, 2004). Deviant workplace behaviour as an act of retaliation can be the consequence (Pamenter, 2002). Hence, frustrated and maltreated employees will sabotage organizational property; another plausible outcome is workplace aggression (Pamenter, 2002). If supervisor and subordinate do not get along personally or professionally, interpersonal conflicts are the result (Everton et al., 2007). The consequence is that employees will try to avoid that person, and due to less motivation they will work less and consider quitting hence, forms of deviancy (Everton et al., 2007). The better the alignment between words and deeds (behavioural integrity) of the manager, the greater credibility he has and the greater will be the trust of his employees. When managers show greater behavioural integrity, employees will be more satisfied with their jobs. Furthermore, there is a link between job satisfaction and lower absenteeism and turnover (Davis and Rothstein, 2006). As such from the previous discussion, we assume the following hypotheses:
H2. Perceived supervisor support has a positive influence on deviant behaviour among hotel staff in Port Harcourt.
3.3. Organizational Justice and Deviant Behaviour
Organizational justice refers to the study of fairness within organizational settings (Greenberg, 1990). It is concerned with the fair treatment of employees (Randeree, 2008). The construct was categorized into three sub-dimensions, namely procedural justice, distributive justice and interactional justice (Ambrose et al., 2002). Justice or fairness in organizations may include issues associated with perceptions of fairness in pay, equal opportunities for promotion and employee selection processes (Tabibnia et al., 2008). Organizational justice theory relates to the perceived fairness of processes, outcomes and interactions within the decision making processes of an organization between those who manage and those who are managed (Nowakowski and Conlon, 2005).
The relationship between injustice and workplace deviant behaviour has been well documented. Empirical studies by Ambrose et al. (2002) and Jones and Skarlicki (2005) indicated that organisational justice is a strong predictor of sabotage (i.e. damaging or disruptive behaviour) and other negative behaviour. Organisational injustice conveys a message to an employee’s perception that he or she is not being treated fairly by the organisation, superiors and colleagues (Greenberg, 2004). Lawrence and Robinson (2007) categorised Organisational justice as a source of employees’ frustration. They highlighted that if the power enacted is perceived as unfair, frustrations are likely to increase, perceptions of injustice might arise and workplace deviant behaviour increases (Sims, 2010). Further examples of feelings of injustice include individual beliefs that he or she is not being compensated properly and being mistreated by their superiors (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007). The feelings of frustration lead to negative behaviour at the workplace. Thus, we believe that overall organisational justice is an important construct in explaining support personnel’s engagement in workplace deviant behaviour. As such from the previous discussion, we assume the following hypotheses:
H3. Perceived organizational justice has a positive influence on deviant behaviour among hotel staff in Port Harcourt.
3.4. Ethical Climate and Deviant Behaviour
Ethical climate can be defined as the length of application of ethical judgment to business activities (Peterson, 2002; Cullen et al., 2003). It is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business environment (Barnett and Vaicys, 2000). Ethical climate refers to the moral atmosphere of the work environment and the level of ethics practiced within a company (Martin and Cullen, 2006; Leung, 2008). The authors identified ethical virtues to include clarity, congruency, feasibility, supportability, transparency, discuss ability and sanction ability. These virtues reflect the capacity of an organization to stimulate ethical conduct of employees. The ethical climates of work groups, that individuals are part of, are more likely to predict deviant behaviour than the climate of the whole organization (McClurg and Butler, 2006). Hence, it is crucial to create strong ethical climates in order to prevent unethical acts (Kaptein and Schwartz, 2008; Leung, 2008). Both the ethical climates of the work group and the whole organization will affect theft rates and other deviant behaviour (McClurg and Butler, 2006).
Empirical results have shown that instrumental climates were most predictive of production deviance including working on a personal matter (Peterson, 2002). Organizations in which individuals are primarily concerned about their self-interest are most likely to be affected by such deviance (Appelbaum and Shapiro, 2006). A survey has shown that purchasing executives are more likely to repay vendors for gifts or favors when they perceive the ethical climate of their organization to be centered on self-interest (Martin and Cullen, 2006). Benevolent climates are negatively related to production deviance, political deviance, and personal aggression (Peterson, 2002). A lack of principled climates is a predictor for deviant behaviour (Martin and Cullen, 2006). Principled climates are negatively related to production deviance and property deviance (Peterson, 2002). Rules climates are closely linked to property deviance (Appelbaum and Shapiro, 2006). Organizations that foster adherence to internal policies have the lowest risk to be victim of property deviance such as stealing and sabotaging equipment (Appelbaum and Shapiro, 2006). Positive evaluations of an organization’s ethical work climate lead to higher job satisfaction (Mulki et al., 2008). Caring climates and principled climates are positively related to employee’s job satisfaction, while the instrumental climates are negatively related (Martin and Cullen, 2006). The more positive the climate is the higher will be the trust in supervisors. Trust in supervision comes along when employees have a fair relationship with their supervisor. When employees perceive their work climate to be ethical they have more trust in their supervision. Trust in supervision is also an antecedent to higher job satisfaction (Mulki et al., 2008). As such from the studies reviewed, we assume the following hypotheses:
H4. Ethical climate has a positive influence on deviant behaviour among hotel staff in Port Harcourt.
3.5. Job Demand and Deviant Behavior
Different researchers have come up with different definitions of job demand. Job demand is described as the general tasks, or other related duties, and responsibilities of a position (Aswathappa, 2002). Bhanugopan and Fish (2008) and Winter et al. (2000) viewed job demand as attitudinal response among the employees which includes role stress, job characteristics, and supervisory, structural and social characteristics that directly and indirectly shape employees’ experiences and attitudes. Based on the review above, job demand is an organizational factor that can arouse employee stress which is manifested by employees engaging in workplace deviant behaviour.
Past researcher has found that job demand can increase employees' strain which eventually causes stress and depression (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Employees feel tired and faced with emotional depletion, which may lead them to act contrary to organizational norms (Deery et al., 2002). Numerous researchers also opined that job demand can increase employees’ burnout which may result in many forms of employee workplace deviant behaviour (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007; Balducci et al., 2011). (Fox et al., 2006) found that job demand influence workplace deviant behaviour. The feeling of being threatened by excessive job demand experienced by employees (Rodell and Judge, 2009) engenders negative outcomes. Golparvar et al. (2012) and Edmondson (2008) described that increases in job demand lead to employee negative emotion and eventually result in them engaging in negative behaviour.
Other researchers have also found that job demand increases employee job stress; hence resulting in them engaging in deviant workplace behaviour (Sanne et al., 2005; Tepper et al., 2009). Balducci et al. (2011) found that job demand is associated with deviant workplace behaviour. Besides, high workloads are also found to have a relationship with negative emotion and behaviour (Grandey et al., 2002). Based on these considerations, we hypothesized that:
H5: Job demand has a positive influence on deviant behaviour among hotel staff in Port Harcourt.
3.6. Organizational Trust and Deviant Behavior
A commonly used definition of organizational trust is the extent to which members of one organization hold a collective trust orientation toward another organization (Adams, 2004). Trust in organization refers to an employee’s trust and belief towards the management in cultivating relationships within the organization (Alias, 2013). Organizational trust (OT) refers to the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action important to the trust or irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party (Vohs and Heatherton, 2000). Gilberth and Tang (1998) describe OT as the belief that everybody would act in line with the objectives of the organization and they would be honest. The index in these definitions shows that organizational trust refers to subordinate's trust in the management of an organisation at different levels of its hierarchy, not necessarily his or her immediate manager. The existence of a climate of trust in an organization keeps the individuals together and enables them to trust each other and act openly. This implies that organizational trust can be described as good will-based or competence based and employees' feeling of safety and support.
Trust in management has been found to be a determinant of subordinate’s workplace intentions and behaviour (Ozyilmaz, 2010). Lack of trust is associated with various forms of implications which includes lost output, incompetence, reduced in revenue, and exhibited antisocial behaviours (Thau et al., 2007). Organizations with a higher level of mutual trust among members and between management and employees may be able to maintain and sustain human talents in order to achieve business competitiveness (Wayne et al., 2002; Liao et al., 2004). Organisational trust is one of organisational factors used in judging the probability of employee’s engagement in workplace deviant behaviour (Alias et al., 2013). Thau et al. (2007) cross-sectional study involving 325 workers from six locations of a caregiving organization in the US revealed that trust in an organization was negatively associated with workplace deviance. Lack of trust, on the other hand, generates workplace deviant behaviour (Aquino and Bayron, 2002). As such from the studies reviewed, we hypotheses that:
H6. Organizational trust has a positive influence on deviant behaviour among hotel staff in Port Harcourt.
3.7. Conceptual Framework for the Study
The organisational predators of workplace deviant behaviour model (OP-WDB) for the hotel industry in Port Harcourt is proposed for this study as shown in Figure 1. The OP-WDB model shows six organisational predictors as independent variables and deviant behaviour as the dependent variable. The independent variables include; Organisational Support, Supervisory Support, Organisational Justice, Ethical Climate, Job Demand, and Organisational Trust. The model is expected to explain the relationship between these six organisational predictors and the dependent variable (i.e. Employee’s deviant behaviour) measured with eight dimensions (i.e. absenteeism, withholding effort, stealing, taking long breaks, hiding needed resources, not following the manager’s instructions, intentionally slowing down the work cycle and corporate sabotage) in the context of hotels in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
Figure-1. Organisational Predators of Workplace Deviant Behaviour Model (OP-WDB) for Hotel Industry in Port Harcourt.
Source: Researcher’s Conceptualization (2018)
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study used structured questionnaire to gather data relevant to determine the relationship between organisational predictors and employees' deviant behaviour with respect to hotels in Port Harcourt, Rivers State Nigeria. The 12 items questionnaire of workplace deviance developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000) were adopted and modified. Trust in organization scale in Robinson (1996) were adopted, slightly modified and used. Furthermore, organizational support is measured using a one dimensional scale developed by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002). The 11items questionnaire of organizational justice developed in Nguyen (2008) and (Greenberg, 2008) was adopted, modified and used for this study. Organizational ethical climate was measured using one-dimensional scale by Schwepker et al. (1997) which comprises of seven items and modified into 5 items in this study. The 5 items each for job demand and supervisory support developed by Spector and Fox (2002) were adopted and modified for this study.
The research population for this study comprised of staff of 25 four stars registered hotels in Port Harcourt. The sampling units used include 5 out of the twenty-five, four stars registered hotels that were selected through the systematic random sampling. The researchers serially numbered the 25 hotels from 1-25 and automatically picked the first hotel on the list while others were picked at an interval of five thus, five (5) hotels which include: Novotel, Le Meridien Hotel, Golden Tulip Hotel, Park Hotel and Hotel Claridon were selected. It is very rare in research to sample the entire participants in a sample unit except for when the size of such unit is small (Comrey and Lee, 1992). In this study, it is practically impossible for the researchers to sample every staff in each of the 5 selected hotels; hence, the researchers determine the proportion of the sample unit that should constituted the sample (i.e. the number of respondents which questionnaires shall be administered to). Taro Yamane formula which is given as follows is adopted to determine the sample size used in this study.
Where n= Sample Size.
X= Observation Unit.
N= Population Size.
e= Sample Error or level of significance.
However, to determine the sample size of the 5 selected hotels vis-à-vis the population of the employees, the present study conceded to the method of proportional allocation suggested in Kothari (1990). The concept of propositional allocation suggested that the size of samples from different strata is kept propositional to the size of the strata. Therefore, before applying the Taro Yamane formula, the researchers contacted the management of the 5 selected hotels to obtain the total number of the employees in their various hotels thus; the population (N) size of 208 was obtained as shown in Table 1.
Table-1. Summary of Observation Unit of Staff in the Selected Hotels in Port Harcourt.
Town |
Name of Hotels |
No of Staff |
Sample Size |
Port Harcourt |
Novotel |
35 |
23 |
Le Meridien Hotel |
57 |
38 |
|
Golden Tulip Hotel |
45 |
30 |
|
Hotel Claridon |
36 |
24 |
|
Park Hotel |
35 |
23 |
|
Total Population of Hotel Staff |
208 |
138 |
|
Source: Researcher’s Computation (2018).
The sample size (n) of employees in each of the 5 selected hotels (i.e. n1....5) to be drawn from the population (N) of 208 was determined as shown in Table 1. The results show that the sample size for this study is put at 138. Since it is practically impossible to access the nominal register of staff of the 5 selected hotels; hence, the researchers opted for non-probability sampling with convenience sampling technique. Convenience sampling technique is a non-probability sampling method that offered no inclusion of criteria prior to the selection of respondents from the 5 targeted hotels (Sekaran, 2003). The author further affirmed that the method involves getting participants wherever the researchers can find them, hence, very convenient, cheap and fast. In view of this, the researchers personally visited each of the 5 targeted hotels in Port Harcourt and, thus, administered the structured questionnaires on proportional allocation bases until the sample size of 138 is met. Pearson Moment Correlation analysis that allows for the exploration of the relationship among a set of variables (Pallant, 2010) were adopted for the analysis of data collected. Before proceeding with the analysis of objectives in the present study, the researchers test for the reliability and validity of the instrument used for the study using statistical package for social science (SPSS) software version 23.
The outcome of the reliability analysis shows that each of the organisational predictors has a Cronbach’s alpha readings as follows; Organisational Trust, (α=.73), Organisational Support, (α=.71), Supervisory Support, (α=.77), Organisational Justice, (α=.70), Ethical Climate, (α=.81), Job Demand, (α=.74), and Workplace Deviance Behaviour, (α=.72). This result justifies that all the items of the six organisational predictors, and workplace deviance behaviour construct with respect to hotels in Port Harcourt are internally consistent. The findings corroborate (Hair et al., 2006) findings which suggest that a Cronbach’s Alpha reading 0.7 and above is considered satisfactory. In the same vein, the researchers conducted the validity of the scale employed for the study. Hair et al. (2006) suggest the use of factor loading, hence, the item loading should be >.6. The results show that all the items in the instrument met the parameters.
5. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The relationship between organisational predictors and workplace deviant behaviour with respect to hotel staff in Port Harcourt were analysed and results were presented in Table 2.
Table-2. Correlations of Organisational Predictors and Workplace Deviant Behaviour in Hotel Industry in Port Harcourt.
Variables |
R |
P |
Level |
Workplace Deviant Behaviour (WDB) |
-- |
-- |
-- |
Organisational Support (OS) |
0.167 |
0.789 |
Low |
Supervisory support (SS) |
0.612 |
0.002 |
High |
Organisational Justice (OJ) |
0.48 |
0.413 |
Low |
Ethical Climate (EC) |
0.664 |
0.033 |
High |
Job Demand (JD) |
0.767 |
0.009 |
Very High |
Organisational Trust (OT) |
0.612 |
0.002 |
High |
Source: (Researchers Computation, 2018).
Table 2 depicted that four of the six organisational predictors were found to have a positive and significant relationship with deviant behaviour in respect to hotels in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Hence, supervisory support (SS) (r = 0.612; p =0.002); Ethical climate (EC) (r = 0.664; p = 0.033); Job demand (JD) (r = 0.767; p = 0.009), and organisational trust (OT) (r = 0.612; p =0.002). On the other hand, Organisational Support (OS) (r = 0.167; p =0.789), and Organisational Justice (OJ) (r = 0.480; p =0.413) were found not to be significant to workplace deviant behaviour in respect to staff in hotel industry in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. This implies that alternative hypotheses with respect to supervisory support, ethical climate, job demand, and organisational trust are supported. In terms of the strength of the relationship, the result shown that; supervisory support (SS) (r = 0.612); Ethical climate (EC) (r = 0.664); Job demand (JD) (r = 0.767), and Organisational Trust (OT) (r = 0.612) were found to be highly correlated with workplace deviant behaviour in hotel industry in Port Harcourt.
Table-3. Model Summary.
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
Change Statistics |
||||
R Square Change |
F Change |
df1 |
df2 |
Sig. F Change |
|||||
1 |
.798a |
0.638 |
0.45 |
1.37281 |
0.638 |
0.586 |
6 |
1 |
0.717 |
Source: (Researchers Computation, 2018).
From Table 3, it was depicted that the R-square value of .638 which is an indication of the goodness of fit of the model is statistically significant. In the empirical analysis, it is not unusual to obtain a high R-square as in the case of this model, which could mean that some of the regression coefficients are either statistically insignificant or have signs that are contrary to a-priory expectations. The adjusted R-square value of .450 is also statistically significant which indicate that after taking into accounts; the number of regressors, the model explains about 45% of the variation in workplace deviant behaviour in respect to hotel staff in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Thus, the remaining 55% is due to other factors and residuals. Also, the multiple R (R= .798) revealed a significant high relationship between independent variable (i.e. Organisational Predictors) and the dependent variable (i.e. Workplace deviant behaviour) in respect to hotel staff in Port Harcourt.
Table-4. ANOVA.
Model |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
1 |
Regression |
3.315 |
6 |
1.105 |
0.286 |
.017b |
Residual |
1.885 |
1 |
4.885 |
|||
Total |
5.2 |
7 |
||||
Source: (Researcher Computation, 2018).
Table 4 shows the analysis of variance of the model. The F- statistic which measures the overall goodness of fit and linearity of the relationship in the model at .286 and its probability of .017 is statistically significant. This shows that the model is valid. Thus, based on the findings it can be concluded that there was a linear relationship between the organisational predictors and workplace deviant behaviour in the hotel industry in Port Harcourt Rivers State.
Table-5. Regression Coefficients.
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
T |
Sig. |
||
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
1 |
(Constant) |
12.038 |
8.045 |
1.496 |
0.375 |
|
Organizational Support |
2.442 |
1.955 |
0.958 |
1.249 |
0.43 |
|
Supervisory Support |
0.019 |
0.796 |
0.017 |
0.024 |
0.985 |
|
Organizational Justice |
0.308 |
0.538 |
0.483 |
0.571 |
0.67 |
|
Ethical Climate |
-0.438 |
0.242 |
-0.582 |
-1.807 |
0.322 |
|
Job Demand |
-0.604 |
0.227 |
-0.838 |
-2.658 |
0.229 |
|
Organizational Trust |
0.019 |
0.796 |
0.017 |
0.024 |
0.985 |
|
Source: (Researcher Computation, 2018).
In comparing the contribution of each independent variable, Beta values are used as illustrated in Table 5 . The result shows that organisational support makes the strongest unique contribution to explaining workplace deviant behaviour in respect of staff of hotels in Port Harcourt (β= .958), followed by job demand with (β= .838), and ethical climate (β= .582. Organisational trust and supervisory support made the least contributions in predicting workplace deviant behaviour in respect to the staff of four stars hotels in Port Harcourt with (β= .017) each.
6. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The study sought to establish the relationship between organisational predictors and workplace deviant behaviour with respect to the staff of hotel industry in Port Harcourt. The major findings for each objective are as follows;
i. Regarding the relationship between organisational support and workplace deviant behaviour, the study found that organisational support has no significant relationship with workplace deviant behaviour. This finding is in contrary to Monnastes (2010) report that there is a correlation between perceived organizational support and deviance behaviour. It is also reported that perceived organisational support is related to workplace deviant behaviour (Thau et al., 2007; Sady et al., 2008) . According to Eder and Eisenberger (2006) perceived organisational support would increase employees' obligation to assist the organisation in achieving its goals hence, making them shun acts of deviance.
ii. In respect to the relationship between supervisory support and workplace deviant behaviour in hotel industry, the finding shows that supervisory support positively influences workplace deviant behaviour among hotel staff in Port Harcourt. This finding is in agreement with Kaplan et al. (2007) hence, argued that the way managers behave influences employees behaviour. Pamenter (2002) affirmed that a frustrated and maltreated employee by their managers will sabotage organizational property (Pamenter, 2002) . This argument is upheld in Everton et al. (2007) as the authors pointed that the act of deviance is inevitable if supervisor and subordinate do not get along personally or professionally. Furthermore, other previous studies also established a link between supervisory support and lower absenteeism and turnover (Davis and Rothstein, 2006).
iii. On the relationship existing between organisational justice and workplace deviant behaviour in the hotel industry, the study found a non-significant relationship between organisational justice and workplace deviant behaviour among the staff of four stars hotels in Port Harcourt. This finding disagrees with Ambrose et al. (2002) and Jones and Skarlicki (2005) who argued that organisational justice is a strong predictor of sabotage (i.e. damaging or disruptive behaviour) and another negative behaviour. In another report, feelings of injustice include individual beliefs that he or she is not being compensated properly lead to negative behaviour at the workplace (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007) . The implication of this finding with respect to the hotel industry in Port Harcourt is that there is no correlation between organisational justice and deviant behaviour.
iv. In respect to the relationship existing between ethical climate and workplace deviant behaviour in hotel industry, the study found a positive and significant relationship between ethical climate and workplace deviant behaviour among staff of four stars hotels in Port Harcourt. This finding agrees with Leung (2008) who reports that it is crucial to creating strong ethical climates in order to prevent unethical acts. A lack of principled climates is a predictor for deviant behaviour (Martin and Cullen, 2006) . Organizations that foster adherence to internal policies have the lowest risk to be the victim of property deviance such as stealing and sabotaging equipment (Appelbaum and Shapiro, 2006) . Caring climates and principled climates are positively related to employee’s job satisfaction, while the instrumental climates are negatively related (Martin and Cullen, 2006) . The implication of this finding with respect to the hotel industry in Port Harcourt is that there is a positive and significant correlation between ethical climate and workplace deviant behaviour.
v. On the relationship existing between job demand and workplace deviant behaviour in hotel industry, the study found a positive and significant relationship between job demand and workplace deviant behaviour among staff of four stars hotels in Port Harcourt. This finding agrees with Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) which opined that job demand can increase employees' strain which eventually causes stress and depression. Numerous researchers also opined that job demand can increase employees' burnout which may result in many forms of employee workplace deviant behaviour (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007; Balducci et al., 2011) . Balducci et al. (2011) found that job demand is associated with deviant workplace behaviour. The implication of this finding to hotel industry in Port Harcourt is that job demand is an organizational factor that can arouse employee stress which is manifested by employees engaging in workplace deviant behaviour.
vi. On the objective which determined the relationship between organisational trust and workplace deviant behaviour in respect of hotel staff in Port Harcourt. The finding shows that a positive and significant relationship between organisational trust and workplace deviant behaviour. This finding is in accordance to previous studies which reports that lack of trust in organisation be employees is associated with various forms of implications which includes lost output, incompetence, reduced in revenue, and exhibited antisocial behaviour (Thau et al., 2007) . Organisational trust is one of organisational factors used in judging the probability of employee’s engagement in workplace deviant behaviour (Alias et al., 2013) . Lack of trust, on the other hand, generates workplace deviant behaviour (Aquino and Bayron, 2002) . The implication of this finding is that existence of a climate of trust in a hotel organization keeps the individual employees together and enables them to trust each other and act in civility manner.
7. CONCLUSION
One of the conclusions that could be drawn from this study is that the extent at which hotel organisation supports their staffs is not a determinant of staffs taking to deviant behaviour. This may be due to the fact that the term perceived organisational support is relative in nature as it explains employee's feelings. Hence, the extent to which employees feel satisfied with the kind of support they received from their organisation varies. What satisfies an employee in a hotel organisation may differ in another. Furthermore, another conclusion that could be drawn from this finding is that the extent of supervisory support enjoyed by hotel staff determines their civility behaviour. In addition, this study can also conclude that the more positive the work climate of hotels in Port Harcourt is to employees; the higher the employees' trust in the organisation, hence reduced their chances of taking to deviant behaviour. It can as well be concluded that the higher the employees' trust in the organisation, the reduced is their chances of taking to deviant behaviour.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
Hotel managers in Port Harcourt must ensure that more emphasis is placed on the cordial relationship between managers and their subordinates for enhanced employee's civility behaviour. In addition, it can also be recommended that hotel owners and managers should formulate policies that can forestall a positive hotel work climate for employees. Once more, hotel managers should as a matter of urgency ensures that daily employee's activities are scientifically measured to avert cases of work overload. Finally, hotel managers should lead by example and ensure that employees’ trust in management is total.
| Funding: This study received no specific financial support. |
| Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
| Contributors/Acknowledgement: Both authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. |
REFERENCES
Abdul, R.A.R., 2008. Predictors of workplace deviance behaviour in Malaysia. Malaysia: Unpublished PhD Thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Adams, S.H., 2004. The relationships among adult attachment, general self-disclosure, and perceived organizational trust. Virginia: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Alias, M., 2013. Workplace deviant behaviour and the mediating role of job satisfacton among support personnel in the Malaysian local authorities. Selango: Unpublished PhD Thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia.
Alias, M., R. Mohd Rasdi, M. Ismail and B. Abu Samah, 2013. Influences of individual-related factors and job satisfaction on workplace deviant behaviour among support personnel in Malaysian public service organizations. Human Resource Development International, 16(5): 538-557.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2013.812315.
Allen, D.G., L.M. Shore and R.W. Griffeth, 2003. The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29(1): 99-118.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900107.
Ambrose, M.L., M.A. Seabright and M. Schminke, 2002. Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1): 947-965.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00037-7.
Andreoli, N. and J. Lefkowitz, 2009. Individual and organizational antecedents of misconduct in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3): 309-332.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9772-6.
Appelbaum, S.H., G.D. Iaconi and A. Matousek, 2007. Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: Causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 7(5): 586-598.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700710827176.
Appelbaum, S.H. and B.T. Shapiro, 2006. Diagnosis and remedies for deviant workplace behaviours. Journal of American Academy of Business, 9(2): 14-20.
Aquino, K. and K. Bayron, 2002. Dominating interpersonal behaviour and perceived victimization in groups: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship. Journal of Management, 28(1): 69-87.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063(01)00129-5.
Aswathappa, K., 2002. Human resource and personnel management. 2nd Edn., New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company.
Awanis, K.I., 2006. The relationship between deviance behaviour among Mara employees in Northern Malaysia and its predictors. Malaysia: Unpublished Master thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Baharom, M.N., M.D.K.B. Sharfuddin and J. Iqbal, 2017. A systematic review on the deviant workplace behaviour. Review Public Administration Management, 5(3): 231-238.Available at: https://doi.org/10.4172/2315-7844.1000231.
Balducci, C., W.B. Schaufeli and F. Fraccaroli, 2011. The job demands–resources model and counterproductive work behaviour: The role of job-related affect. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(4): 467-496.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13594321003669061.
Barnett, T. and C. Vaicys, 2000. The moderating effect of individuals' perceptions of ethical work climate on ethical judgments and behavioral intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4): 351-362.
Bennett, R.J. and S.L. Robinson, 2000. Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3): 349-360.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.3.349.
Bhanugopan, R. and A. Fish, 2008. The impact of business crime on expatriate quality of work-life in Papua New Guinea. Australian Human Resources Institute, 46(1): 68–84.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411107086544.
Bolin, A. and L. Heatherly, 2001. Predictors of employee deviance: The relationship between bad attitudes and bad behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(3): 405-418.
Brown, M.E. and M.S. Mitchell, 2010. Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4): 583-616.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201020439.
Brown, M.E. and L.K. Treviño, 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6): 595-616.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004.
Castro, B.C., E. Martín Armario and D. Martín Ruiz, 2004. The influence of employee organizational citizenship behavior on customer loyalty. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(1): 27-53.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230410523321.
Chappell, D. and V. Di Martino, 2006. Violence at work. 2nd Edn., Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organisation.
Colbert, A.E., M.K. Mount, J.K. Harter, L.A. Witt and M.R. Barrick, 2004. Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4): 599-609.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.599.
Comrey, A.L. and H.B. Lee, 1992. A first course in factor analysis. New Jersse: Erlbaum.
Cullen, J.B., K.P. Parboteeah and B. Victor, 2003. The effects of ethical climates on organizational commitment: A two-study analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2): 127-141.
Davis, A.L. and H.R. Rothstein, 2006. The effects of the perceived behavioral integrity of managers on employee attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4): 407-419.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9034-4.
Deery, S., R. Iverson and J. Walsh, 2002. Work relationships in telephone call centres: Understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal. Journal of Management Studies, 39(4): 471-496.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00300.
Eder, P. and R. Eisenberger, 2006. Perceived organisational support: Overcoming work group deviance working paper. Newark, DE: University of Delaware.
Edmondson, D.R., 2008. Emotional exhaustion and its role in service sabotage among boundary spanners. Suth Florida: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Florida.
Eisenberger, R., S. Armeli, B. Rexwinkel, P.D. Lynch and L. Rhoades, 2001. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 42-51.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.42.
Eisenberger, R., P. Lynch, J. Aselage and S. Rohdieck, 2004. Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6): 787-799.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264047.
Everton, W.J., J.A. Jolton and P.M. Mastrangelo, 2007. Be nice and fair or else: Understanding reasons for employees' deviant behaviors. Journal of Management Development, 26(2): 117-131.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710710726035.
Fox, S., P.E. Spector and D. Miles, 2006. Counterproductive work behaviour in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 59(3): 291–309.
Fransson, E.I., S.T. Nyberg, K. Heikkilä, L. Alfredsson, D.D. Bacquer, G.D. Batty, S. Bonenfant, A. Casini, E. Clays and M. Goldberg, 2012. Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: The IPD-Work consortium. BMC Public Health, 12(1): 1-9.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-62.
Gilberth, J.A. and L. Tang, 1998. An examination of organizational trust antecedents. Public Personne lManagement Review, 27(3): 321-338.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609802700303.
Glomb, T.M. and H. Liao, 2003. Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4): 486-496.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/30040640.
Goh, A., 2006. An attributional analysis of counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) in response to occupational stress. USA: University of South Florida.
Golparvar, M., M. Kamkar and Z. Javadian, 2012. Moderating effects of job stress in emotional exhaustion and feeling of energy relationships with positive and negative behaviors: Job stress multiple functions approach. International Journal of Psychology Studies, 4(4): 99-112.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v4n4p99.
Grandey, A.A., A.P. Tam and A.L. Brauburger, 2002. Affective states and traits in the workplace : Diary and survey data from young workers. Motivation and Emotion, 26(1): 31–55.
Greenberg, J., 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2): 399-432.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208.
Greenberg, J., 2004. Stress fairness to fare no stress: Managing workplace stress by promoting organisational justice. Organisational Dynamics, 33(4): 352-365.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.09.003.
Greenberg, J., 2008. The seven loose cannons of organisational justice. UK: Standford University Press: Sage Publication.
Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, R.E. Anderson and R.L. Tatham, 2006. Multivariate data analysis. 6th Edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Henle, C.A., 2005. Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(2): 247-263.
Johnson, P.R. and J. Indvik, 2001. Rudeness at work: Impulse over restraint. Public Personnel Management, 30(4): 457-465.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600103000403.
Jones, D.A., 2009. Getting even with one's supervisor and one's organization: Relationships among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 30(4): 525-542.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.563.
Jones, D.A. and D.P. Skarlicki, 2005. The effects of overhearing peers discuss an authority's fairness reputation on reactions to subsequent treatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2): 363-372.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.363.
Kaplan, S.E., P.B. Roush and L. Thorne, 2007. Andersen and the market for lemons in audit reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(4): 363-373.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9115-4.
Kaptein, M. and M.S. Schwartz, 2008. The effectiveness of business codes: A critical examination of existing studies and the development of an integrated research model. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2): 111-127.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9305-0.
Kidwell, J.R.E. and S.M. Kochanowski, 2005. The morality of employee theft: Teaching about ethics and deviant behavior in the workplace. Journal of Management Education, 29(1): 135-152.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562903261180.
Kothari, C., 1990. New age research methodology; methods and techniques. 2nd Edn., New Delhi: New Age International (P) Limited.
Krause, T.R., 2004. Organizational influences on performance. California, USA: Behavioral Science Technology, Inc.
Lawrence, T.B. and S.L. Robinson, 2007. Ain't misbehavin: Workplace deviance as organizational resistance. Journal of Management, 33(3): 378-394.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300816.
Leung, A.S., 2008. Matching ethical work climate to in-role and extra-role behaviors in a collectivist work setting. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(1-2): 43-55.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9392-6.
Liao, H., A. Joshi and A. Chuang, 2004. Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 57(4): 969-1000.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00012.x.
Liu, Y. and S.S. Jang, 2009. Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the US: What affects customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(3): 338-348.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.10.008.
Martin, K.D. and J.B. Cullen, 2006. Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2): 175-194.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9084-7.
Mazni, A. and M.R. Roziah, 2011. Towards developing a theoretical model on the determinants of workplace deviance among support personnel in the Malaysian public service organisations.
McCardle, J.G., 2007. Organizational justice and workplace deviance: The role of organizational structure, powerlessness, and information salience. Doctoral Dissertation. Florida: University of Central Florida Orlando.
McClurg, L.A. and D.S. Butler, 2006. Workplace theft: A proposed model and research agenda. Southern Business Review, 31(2): 25-34.
Milkovich, G.T. and J.M. Newman, 2008. Compensation. 8th Edn., New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Miner, K.N., I.H. Settles, J.S. Pratt-Hyatt and C.C. Brady, 2012. Experiencing incivility in organizations: The buffering effects of emotional and organizational support 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2): 340-372.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00891.x.
Mitchell, M.S. and M.L. Ambrose, 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4): 11-59.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159.
Monnastes, S.N., 2010. Perceived organizational support and counterproductive work behaviour: How personality moderates the relationship. California: Unpublished Master Dissertation. San José State University.
Mulki, J.P., J.F. Jaramillo and W.B. Locander, 2008. Effect of ethical climate on turnover intention: Linking attitudinal- and stress theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(4): 559-574.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9368-6.
Nguyen, D., 2008. Moral reasoning as a moderator to organizational justice and workplace deviance: A person-situation interactionist model. Canada: University of Windsor.
Nguyen, L., 2013. Canadian economy loses $16.6B annually due to absenteeism. Conference Board. Australia: The Star.
Nowakowski, J.M. and D.E. Conlon, 2005. Organizational justice: Looking back, looking forward. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(1): 4-29.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022921.
Ozyilmaz, A., 2010. Vertical trust in organisation: A review of empirical studies over the last decade. Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 7(3): 1-28.
Pallant, J., 2010. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. McGraw-Hill International.
Pamenter, F., 2002. Good performer, bad manager, ugly situation. Canada: Canadian HR Reporter.
Peterson, D.K., 2002. Deviant workplace behavior and the organization's ethical climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1): 47-61.
Randeree, K., 2008. Organisational justice: Migrant worker perceptions in organisations in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, 3(4): 57-67.Available at: https://doi.org/10.15209/jbsge.v3i4.148.
Rhoades, L. and R. Eisenberger, 2002. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. American Psychological Association, 84(4): 698-714.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698.
.Robinson, S.L., 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 574-599.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2393868.
Rodell, J.B. and T.A. Judge, 2009. Can good stressors spark bad behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviours. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6): 1438–1451.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016752.
Sady, K., C. Spitzmuller and L.A. Witt, 2008. Good employee, bad business: An interactionist approach to workplace deviance. A Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Anaheim, CA.
Salas, S., 2009. A study of the relationship between employee virtuality and technology deviance as mediated by leadership and employee perceptions. Florida University, Gainesville, FL: Unpublished PhD Thesis.
Sanne, B., S. Torp, A. Mykletun and A.A. Dahl, 2005. The Swedish demand-control-support questionnaire (DCSQ): Factor structure, item analyses, and internal consistency in a large population. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 33(3): 166–174.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14034940410019217.
Schaufeli, W.B. and A.B. Bakker, 2004. Job DJ Mands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25(3): 293–315.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248.
Schwepker, C.H., O.C. Ferrell and T.N. Ingram, 1997. The influence of ethical climate and ethical conflict on role stress in the sales force. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2): 99-108.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02894345.
Sekaran, U., 2003. Research methods for business: A skill building approach. 5th Edn., New York: John Wileyand Sons.
Shore, L.M., L.E. Tetrick and K. Barksdale, 1999. Measurement of transactional and exchange relationships. A Paper Presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology. Atlanta, GA.
Sims, R.L., 2010. A study of deviance as a retaliatory response to organizational power. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4): 553-563.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0172-3.
Spector, P.E. and S. Fox, 2002. An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2): 269-292.
Spector, P.E., S. Fox, L.M. Penney, K. Bruursema, A. Goh and S. Kessler, 2006. The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3): 446-460.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005.
Spreitzer, G.M. and S. Sonenshein, 2004. Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6): 828-847.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203260212.
Stamper, C.L. and S.S. Masterson, 2002. Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(8): 875-894.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.175.
Stander, M.W. and S. Rothmann, 2008. The relationship between leadership, job satisfaction and organisational commitment: Empirical research. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(3): 7-13.
Tabibnia, G., A.B. Satpute and M.D. Lieberman, 2008. The sunny side of fairness: Preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry). Psychological Science, 19(4): 339-347.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00037-7.
Tepper, B.J., J.C. Carr, Breaux, D. M., S. Geider, C. Hu and W. Hua, 2009. Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 109(2): 156–167.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.004.
Thau, S., K. Aquino and P.M. Poortvliet, 2007. Self-defeating behaviors in organizations: The relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3): 840-847.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.840.
Thau, S., C. Crossley, R.J. Bennett and S. Sczesny, 2007. The relationship between trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors. Human Relations, 60(8): 1155-1179.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707081658.
Valentine, S.R. and T.L. Rittenburg, 2007. The ethical decision making of men and women executives in international business situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(2): 125-134.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9129-y.
Vardi, Y. and E. Weitz, 2004. Misbehaviour in organisations:Theory, research and management. Hillsdaley, New jessey: Eribaum.
Vohs, K.D. and T.F. Heatherton, 2000. Self-regulatory failure: A resource-depletion approach. Psychological Science, 11(3): 249-254.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00250.
Wayne, S.J., L.M. Shore, W.H. Bommer and L.E. Tetrick, 2002. The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organisational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3): 590-598.
Winter, R., T. Taylor and J. Sarros, 2000. Quality of academic work life issues within a comprehensive Australian university. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3): 279-294.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/713696158.
Xanthopoulou, D., A.B. Bakker, M.F. Dollard, E. Demerouti, W.B. Schaufeli, T.W. Taris and P.J.G. Schreurs, 2007. When do job demands particularly predict burnout? The moderating role of job resources. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(8): 766-786.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Journal of Tourism Management Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |