By: Samson Waibe Bature1 & Michael Olalekan Adeoti 2
1School of Business & Entrepreneurial Education, Federal College of Education (Technical), Gusau, Nigeria
2Department of Business Administration and Management, Federal Polytechnic Bida, Nigeria
Abstract
Employees that experience economic pressure or economic hardship may be tempted to indulge in deviant behaviours at the workplace. However, the condition under which the impact of economic pressure on deviant behaviour at workplace could be curtailed or minimized remains unclear. Thus, this study examines the moderating effect of organizational justice on the positive correlation between economic pressure and employee deviant behaviour. Drawing on previous studies and the tenets of social exchange/reciprocity theory, this study argues that organizational justice has the potential to moderate the impact of economic pressure on employee deviant behaviours. Utilizing a sample of 550 employees through simple random sampling and self-administered survey for this study, 356 participants from federal institutions of higher learning in Zamfara State fully participated in the survey. Results from a variance-based structural equation modelling (PLS 4.9.2) analysis reveal that organizational justice significantly moderate the relationship between economic pressure and deviant behaviour. In other words, the presence of organizational justice weakens the positive link between economic pressure and deviant behaviour. This research contributes to the literature on organizational justice by providing much deeper insights of its role in moderating relationship between economic pressure and deviant behaviour. The implications of this finding for management of institutions of higher learning and future research directions are provided.
Keywords: economic pressure, organizational justice, employee deviant behaviour.
Introduction
Organizational management research mostly emphasize on predictors or antecedents of organizational performance, employee engagement, employee performance, organizational citizenship behaviour, among others (Chang & Smithikrai, 2010; Griffin et al., 1998; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). However, till recently, researchers did not indicate much interest in investigating employee deviant behaviour in organization (Agboola & Salawu, 2011; Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Lee & Ok, 2014). Deviant behaviour at work can cause serious setback to brilliant performance of organizations especially in emerging or developing countries. For instance, Adeoti and Kura (2018) posit that employees from emerging or developing countries have the tendency to exhibit deviant behaviour at work. However, the literature demonstrates that most studies on deviant behaviour at work are conducted in developed economies with little or none from emerging or developing economies like Nigeria. It is imperative to note that deviant behaviour in a given cultural sitting may not be perceived as a deviant behaviour in another cultural sitting. Thus, findings on deviant behaviour in developed economies may not be applicable in emerging or developing economies like Nigeria.
Employee deviant behaviours are regarded as negative workplace behaviours or unethical conducts at workplace which may be detrimental to growth of the organization as an entity. According to Robinson and Bennett (1995), negative workplace behaviours or unethical conducts at workplace may include demand for kickback before discharging responsibilities, lackadaisical attitude toward one’s duty, lateness to and closing early from work, absenteeism, and embezzlement or theft. Negative workplace behaviours are exhibited in several organizational settings and can undermine brilliant organizational performance if not checked.
Arguably, one among many factors that could be responsible for employee deviant behaviours within an organizational setting is economic pressure. Economic pressure may be viewed in terms of financial condition of employees compared with purchasing power of legitimate earnings. The inability of employees to meet their basic needs due to poor financial condition may result to economic pressure. It is observed that not all employees may have the way withal to withstand economic pressure thus, propelled to indulge in deviant behaviour at the workplace.
Of course, it may be logical to reason that when people experience economic pressure or economic hardship, there may be tendency to exhibit deviant behaviours. This reasoning goes to imply that economic pressure may be positively related with deviant behaviour. Besides, some studies that linked economic pressure and employees deviant behaviour revealed significant connection (Fox et al., 2001; Spector et al., 2010). However, the condition under which the impact of economic pressure on deviant behaviour at workplace could be curtailed or minimized remains unclear. Another important point which necessitated this study is that despite the prevalence of deviant behaviour in institutions of higher learning in developing countries like Nigeria (Bashir et al., 2011), it has received less scholarly attention. Therefore, the current study sought to examine the moderating role of organizational justice on the relationship between economic pressure and employees’ deviant behaviour. In doing this, the study will add to the literature on deviant behaviours at workplace. Specifically, utilizing the theoretical framework offered by norm of reciprocity/social exchange theory to explain why employees may be persuaded to refrain from deviant behaviours at workplace, may add to stock of knowledge. In other words, identifying the condition (i.e., organizational justice) under which deviant behaviours could be curtailed or minimized at workplace, would go a long way to bringing improvement in organizational performance.
Literature review
Employee deviant behaviour
Robinson and Bennett (1995) defined deviant behaviour as any conduct or act that contravenes organizational values or customs which is capable of jeopardizing organizational well-being. Similarly, deviant behaviour is defined as conducts or acts that are not in conformity or compliance with the acceptable organizational behaviours (Spector & Fox, 2005).
Typical conducts that may be considered deviant behaviours in institutions of higher learning may include academic theft (plagiarism), award of marks for financial benefits, sexual harassment, embezzlement, exaggeration of financial figures and financial extortion. Others include leakage of examination questions for sexual or financial gains, failure to attend to students, failure to deliver lecture or lesson, failure to complete required courseoutline, failure to undertake community service among others (Adebayo & Nwabuoku, 2008; Adeoti, Shamsudin, & Wan, 2017; Adeoti & Kura, 2018; Jekayinfa, 2013). Hence, this study conceptualized deviant behaviours as deliberate conducts or acts exhibited by employees which may be detrimental or harmful to corporate existence of institutions of higher learning.
Economic pressure and deviant behaviour
Economic pressure depletes individual’s capacity to meet basic needs in the family as it causes overwhelming loss in family savings. The current economic condition in Nigeria as a result of pronouncement on fuel subsidy removal and unified foreign exchange regime made by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu while delivering his inaugural speech on the 29thMay 2023, several employees are witnessing financial pressure as their legitimate earnings’ purchasing power is limited. For instance, employees are struggling to provide food to the family, settle other bills such as energy and gas, water, house rent, health, clothes, school fees, just to mention a few. Consequently, some employees may be propelled to indulge in deviant behaviours at workplace to cope with the condition of economic pressure. In other words, economic pressure on employees may be unbearable to extent of compromising ethical standards. (Adeoti et al., 2018).
From the preceding, employees that experienced economic pressure may be tempted to engage in deviant behaviours at workplace. With reference to employees of institutions of higher learning, deviant behaviour may include but not limited to the following: award of marks to students for money, sale of textbooks or lecture notes at arbitrary price, embezzlement or theft, exaggeration of expenses, sexual harassment, intimidation of students, absent or lateness to delivery of lecture or lesson (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Bennett & Robinson, 2000). By and large, these acts of deviant behaviour may be attributed to economic pressure experienced by staff members. The effect of economic pressure on staff members if not checked and brought under control, may transcend to cause heart disease/attack, gastrointestinal problems, weight loss, insomnia, high blood pressure and substance abuse (Adeoti & Kura, 2018; Penney & Spector, 2005). Besides, extant literature revealed different forms of pressure are positively linked with deviant behaviours at work (Adeoti et al., 2021; Adeoti et al., 2017; Devonish, 2013; Elshaer, et al., 2022; Houston et al., 2006; Mudau, et al., 2019; Obalade & Arogundade, 2019). Therefore, this study hypothesizes that:
H1: Economic pressure is positively related to employee deviant behaviours
Organizational justice as a moderator of the link between economic pressure and employee deviant behaviour
Organizational justice can be described as the backbone of organizational decision making process. It is directly or indirectly related to employee job satisfaction, turnover, organizational leadership, organizational citizenship, organizational commitment, trust, customer satisfaction, employee job performance, employee theft, role breadth, alienation and leader-member exchange (Blakely, Andrews & Moorman, 2005; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Workers usually compare their contributions to the organizations with the rewards they get from the organizations. Also, employees do evaluate if the decision-making process is fair, just, consistent, and impartial in the organization.
Empirically, Kim (2009) revealed that organizational justice plays an important role in employees’ experience in the workplace. Organizational justice foster collaboration amongst employees, between employees and the organization, as well as other stakeholders. If employees perceived a sense of fairness in an organization, it is unlikely for such employees to engage in deviant behaviour (Liu, et al., 2022). More so, organizational fairness motivates employee performance and increases job satisfaction level (Colquitt & Rodell, 2011). Furthermore, a significant number of studies have also concluded that organizational fairness influences employee job satisfaction and general employee behaviour in the workplace (Bakhshi et al., 2009; Henle, 2005; Malik & Naeem, 2011).
It goes to implies that despite the presence of economic pressure, if employees perceive a sense of organizational justice in terms of welfare package, promotion, human resource policies and appointment into leadership positions within the institutions, the incidence of deviant behaviour may be eroded or minimized. In other words, when the dealings or routine organizational procedures or conducts are kept far from political influence or interference, god-father syndrome, nepotism, and religion considerations, then the popular notion would be fairness, impartial, justice, and equity. Thus, employees may refrain from deviant behaviours that are detrimental to organizational superb performance. In that sense, employees may be punctual to work, show commitment in their responsibility, deliver lectures as scheduled, exhaust all components of course contents, turn their back to embezzlement, say no to marks for financial or sexual gains, frown at abetting examination malpractice with the aim of getting some sort of returns, etc. This thought aligns with the tenets of social exchange theory and norm of reciprocity. Consequently, this study suggests that organizational justice may moderate the positive link between economic pressure and employee deviant behaviour at workplace. Hence, the hypothesis:
H2: Organizational justice moderates the positive link between economic pressure and deviant behaviour
Methods and materials
Research design and sampling procedure
This study utilized a causal research design to conduct a cross-sectional survey by means of self-administered questionnaire. The target audience of this study consisted of employees of federal institutions of higher learning in Zamfara State (i.e., Federal University Gusau, Federal College of Education – Technical Gusau, and Federal Polytechnic Kaura Namoda). These institutions were adopted because their employees represent a variety of ethnic backgrounds across Nigeria. The survey utilized a probability sampling technique (i.e., simple random sampling) to obtain the data. This sampling technique offers equal opportunity of participation to entire population of a study. A total of 550 questionnaires were distributed, out of which 356 usable responses were retrieved for the analysis. Thus, a response rate of this study was computed as 64.7 per cent which adequate for reliable results in social science research. To make meaning out of the data collated, a variance-based structural equation modelling known as partial least squares (PLS-SEM) was employed to estimate the relationships between the latent constructs in this study. With PLS-SEM, data normality is not requirement prior to final data analysis (Henseler et al., 2009).
Measures
To measure economic pressure, a four-item instrument was adopted from Robert et al. (1992). While organizational justice was measured with four items developed by Masterson (2001), employee deviant behaviour was measured with a 10-item instrument developed by Spector and Fox (2001). All the instruments were scaled on a five-point Likert ranging from “1” strongly disagree to “5” strongly agree.
Results
Before the main data analysis, data preliminary screening was performed to ensure the data is free from the problem of common method variance (CMV) and multicollinearity issue. While both procedural and statistical measures were observed in the case of CMV, the results of variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance values were all satisfactory.
Results of measurement model
To assess the reliability of the latent constructs, internal consistency reliability and indicator reliability were evaluated. All variables indicated Cronbach’s alpha values greater than 0.7 and composite reliability scores exceeding 0.8. Hence, the variables demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability (Hair et al., 2017). Further, average variance extracted (AVE) was assessed to determine convergent validity. The AVE values in respect of all constructs exceeded the critical threshold 0.5 and ranged between 0.718 and 0.784. This implies adequate convergent validity in this research model (Hair et al., 2017). Also, to check for discriminant validity, the square roots of AVE for each latent construct with the correlations among latent constructs was assessed and the results demonstrated satisfactory discriminant validity based on Fornell-Larcker criterion. Table I presents the results.
Table I
Discriminant Validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion
| Construct | 1. Economic pressure | 2. Org. justice | 3. Deviant behaviour |
| 1. Economic pressure | 0.7808 | ||
| 2. Organization justice | 0.0005 | 0.7843 | |
| 3. Employee deviant behaviour | 0.0035 | 0.3138 | 0.7176 |
Table I shows that adequate discriminant validity was achieved since the square roots of AVEs are greater than the correlations between constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In addition, discriminant validity was examined using heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT). Table II presents the result of HTMT.
Table II
Discriminant Validity (HTMT)
| Construct | 1. Economic pressure | 2. Org. justice | 3. Deviant behaviour |
| 1. Economic pressure | |||
| 2. Org. justice | 0.0438 | ||
| 4. Employee deviant behaviour | 0.0518 | 0.5914 |
Table II, indicates that the highest correlation is between organizational justice and employee deviant behaviour (0.5914). This means that all correlations between constructs are less than the 0.850 which is the maximum acceptable value as suggested by Kline (2011). Thus, discriminant validity via HTMT was achieved.
Structural model results
Results of the PLS-SEM path analysis of this conceptual model is presented below based on the hypotheses stated earlier.
H1. Economic pressure is positively related to employee deviant behaviours.
The path analysis model results for H1 were found to have a ꞵeta value of 0.098, t-value of 1.367, and p-value of 0.086. Based on the outcome of t-value (1.367) and that of the p-value (0.086), this relationship is considered not significant because the t-value is less than 1.69 and p-value greater than 0.05 per cent. This aligns with extant literature that support positive link between different forms of pressure and employee deviant behaviour at the workplace (Adeoti et al., 2021; Adeoti et al., 2017; Devonish, 2013; Elshaer, et al., 2022; Houston et al., 2006; Mudau, et al., 2019; Obalade & Arogundade, 2019).
H2: Organizational justice moderates the positive link between economic pressure and deviant behaviour
The resulting path value for H2 (i.e., moderating effect of organizational justice on economic pressure-employee deviant behaviour relationship) was found to exhibit a ꞵeta value of -0.124, t-value of 2.069, and p-value of 0.019. Given these results, it shows that organizational justice had significant negative effect (influence) on the positive relationship between economic pressure and employee deviant behaviour. Also, the coefficient of determination (R2) of this research model was 0.435 (43.5%). This implies that the exogenous variables (economic pressure and organizational justice) explained 43.5% of total variance in employee deviant behaviour. Therefore, in accordance with Cohen’s (1988) categorization of the extent of variation in endogenous construct
Discussion
The findings of the present study on the relationship between economic pressure and deviant behaviour though not significant, agreed with the tentative statement made earlier. This outcome supports the findings of few studies that found positive relationship between different forms of pressure (financial, economic, job pressure, risk of job insecurity, workload, family pressure, time pressure) and unethical behaviours at work (Adeoti et al., 2021; Adeoti et al., 2017; Devonish, 2013; Elshaer, et al., 2022; Houston et al., 2006; Mudau, et al., 2019; Obalade & Arogundade, 2019).
In reality, employees who experience economic pressure and at the same time organizational justice are unlikely to engage in acts detrimental to the organization or organizational members (deviant behaviour). For example, if employees are granted financial increment, promotion, handsome welfare package, opportunity for career development, or treated fairly, equally, just, impartial, etc., despite the presence of economic pressure, such employees may not extort money from students, abscond from work, fabrication of expenditures that were never made, or engage in property theft in the organization. Therefore, the more employees experience organizational justice, the lower the tendency of indulging in deviant behaviour despite the presence of economic pressure.
Further, the present study contributed to knowledge by using the tenets of social exchange theory and norm of reciprocity to explain the moderating effect of organizational justice on economic pressure – deviant behaviour relationship. Specifically, the results revealed that organizational justice significantly moderated the positive relationship between economic pressure and employee deviant behaviour in a negative direction. The results implied that despite experiencing economic pressure, employees may not engage in deviant behaviour provided they perceived fairness, equity, reward and just treatment in the workplace. In a nut shell, the results indicated that employees who receive fair treatment and recognition for their efforts in terms of reward may not be willing to engage in deviant behaviour. This finding aligns with the tenets of social exchange theory and norm of reciprocity. Both theories state that there is always an expected reciprocal behaviour between employers and employees. The action or behaviour of the employees will largely be determined by the action or behaviour of the employer/management (Akinbode & Fagbohungbe, 2011; Liu, et al., 2022).
Implication for theory and practice
The present study has contributed to extant literature on employee deviant behaviours in institutions of higher learning. This is considered worthwhile because majority of existing studies on employee deviant behaviour are either conducted in Europe, America, or Asia. Results of studies conducted in these continents may not be fit into Africa due to cultural diversity, or difference social values. Secondly, the present study contributed to the literature on organizational justice by offering robust understanding of its role in moderating the positive correlation between economic pressure and deviant behaviour. Also, this research made theoretical contributions by utilizing the norm of reciprocity/social exchange theory to explain the influence of organizational justice on economic pressure – deviant behaviour relationship. It demonstrated that under the moderating influence of organizational justice, high economic pressure does not necessarily lead to increased levels of deviant behaviour. Practically, management of institutions of higher learning may get to know the prominence of organizational justice in minimizing employee deviant behaviours. Thus, this may persuade them into application of fairness, equity, or justice to all employees.
Limitations and directions for future research
There is no single research without some sort of limitations. Firstly, this study was conducted in Zamfara State, Nigeria. This may offer limited grounds to generalize the outcome to entire institutions of higher learning in Nigeria. Thus, further research may be conducted in other states across the country to compare findings with the present results for the sake generalization. Secondly, the present study examined the moderating effect of organizational justice on the link between economic pressure and deviant behaviour only. Future study may incorporate more exogenous variables into this model robust insights. Lastly, it is observed that deviant behaviours may be inculcated over time as such, longitudinal approach may be suitable. However, the present study adopted a cross-sectional survey. Therefore, future studies may adopt longitudinal approach to studying employee deviant behaviour.
Conclusion
The present study revealed that organizational justice is a formidable condition upon which economic pressure may have little or no positive correlation with employee deviant behaviours. In other words, indicated that under the moderating influence of organizational justice, high economic pressure does not necessarily lead to increased levels of deviant behaviour. Therefore, it is pertinent for management of institutions of higher learning in Nigeria to be fair, just, equitable and impartial in their dealings with employees to avoid display of deviant behaviours. Stated differently, for deviant behaviour to be minimized in institutions of higher learning, there should be in place a strong practice of fairness, equity, and inclusiveness.
References
Adeoti, M. O., & Kura, K. M. (2018). Ethical climate, job pressure, and counterproductive work behaviour: The mediating role of neutralization. In N. A. Abu-Bakar, S. Edman, D. A. A. Marikan, D. H. Husaini, & F. Ismail (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Borneo Business Conference (IBBC 2018). Kuching: Universiti Malaysia Sarawak and Universiti Malaysia Sabah.
Adebayo, S. O., & Nwabuoku, U. C. (2008). Conscientiousness and perceived organizational support as predictors of employee absenteeism. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 363-367.
Adeoti, M. O., Shamsudin, F. M., & Mohammad, A. M. (2021). Opportunity, job pressure and deviant workplace behaviour: does neutralisation mediate the relationship? A study of faculty members in public universities in Nigeria. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 30(2), 170-190.
Adeoti, M. O., Shamsudin, F. M., & Wan, C. Y. (2017). Effects of occupational stress and workplace spirituality on workplace deviance in academia: a conceptual paper. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 5(9), 100-106.
Adeoti, M.O., Emmanuel, A.O., Gata, E.G., & Adeoti, I.E. (2018). Stress management among academics: A proposed framework. Journal of Management and Corporate Governance, 10(4), 16-32.
Agboola, A. A., & Salawu, R. O. (2011). Managing deviant behavior and resistance to change. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(1), 235-242.
Akinbode, G. A., & Fagbohungbe, B. O. (2011). Gender, tenure and organisational factors as predictors of job involvement among Nigerian workers. Gender and Behaviour, 9(2), 4005-4038.
Bashir, S., Nasir, Z. M., Saeed, S., & Ahmed, M. (2011). Breach of psychological contract, perception of politics and organizational cynicism: Evidence from Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 5(3), 884-888.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
Chang, K., & Smithikrai, C. (2010). Counterproductive behaviour at work: an investigation into reduction strategies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(8), 1272-1288. doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.483852
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 86, 278-321.
Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1183-1206.
Devonish, D. (2013). Job demands, health, and absenteeism: does bullying make things worse? Employee Relations, 36(2), 165-181.
Elshaer, I. A., Ghanem, M., & Azazz, A. M. (2022). An unethical organizational behavior for the sake of the family: perceived risk of job insecurity, family motivation and financial pressures. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(11), 6541.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. doi: 10.2307/3151312
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803
Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-Kelly, A., & Collins, J. M. (Eds.). (1998). Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior. Stamford, CT: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Henle, C. A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 247-263.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modelling in international marketing. In R.R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), Advances in International Marketing (pp. 277-320). Bingley: Emerald.
Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, S. (2006). Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(1), 17-30.
Jekayinfa, A.A. (2013). Discipline and indiscipline in higher educational system. Being the text of a paper delivered at the workshop on improved teaching and learning methods in the higher education system organised by the Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria 9th-12th April 2013.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Kim, J. (1999). Financial satisfaction, personal finance work conflict, and work outcomes: Pay satisfaction, organizational commitment, and productivity. Proceedings of the Association for Financial Counselling and Planning Education, 16, 38-45.
Lee, J., & Ok, C. M. (2014). Understanding hotel employees’ service sabotage: Emotional labor perspective based on conservation of resources theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 176-187. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.08.014
Liu, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhao, H., & Liu, L. (2022). The double-edged sword effects of differential leadership on deviant behavior. Current Psychology, 1-13. doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03845-x
Mudau, T. J., Chauke, T. A., & Malaji, K. S. (2019). Investigation of the socio-economic factors that influences deviant behaviour among the youth: A case study of Madonsi Village, South Africa. Gender & Behaviour, 17(1), 12630-12648.
Obalade, G. O., & Arogundade, K. K. (2019). Ethical climate and deviant behavior among employees of selected public and private universities: The case of the emerging country. Corporate Governance and Organizational Behavior Review, 3(2), 30-39.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behaviour (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777-796. doi:10.1002/job.336
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
Robinson, S. L., & Kraatz, M. S. (1998). Constructing the reality of normative behavior: The use of neutralization strategies by organizational deviants. In R. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 203-220). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66-80. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The Stressor-Emotion Model of Counterproductive Work Behavior. In S. F. P. E. Spector (Ed.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-174). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 781-790. doi:10.1037/a0019477.
Track2Training 