CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Most employees in organizations today engage in one deviant behaviour or the other which violates organizational norms and threatens the well-being of their organization and such deviants include; theft, fraud, lateness to work, putting up laiz-affair attitude, wasting raw materials during production, making long unnecessary calls while on duty, destroying properties belonging to their organization and co-worker and so on. Every employee has personal goal, aspiration and expectations which they wish to achieve while working in their organization and when these goals, aspirations and expectations are not met, they (employees) tend to believe that they are not being treated well by their organization. Employees tend to make “psychological contracts” with their employers (organizations) right form the first day they are employed. Once these goals and expectations of employees are not met, the (employees) perceive a breach in psychological contract with the organization (Chiu & Peng, 2008). Employees may resort to workplace deviant behaviours as one of the ways to express their grievances to either the organization or coworkers for the unfair treatment to they received. One of the critics is that workers most time perceive that they are treated in a bad manner even when they are not.
Workplace deviance may arise when the worker’s perceive that their organization has mistreated them in some manner. Workplace deviance may be viewed as a form of negative reciprocity. This is consistence with the proverbial maxims, which states thus, “an eye for an eye”, or “tooth for tat’;, a concept which almost all employees strongly believe is a suitable approach to most situations in their organizations (Anderson & Pearson, 1999). Workplace deviance is a phenomenon which occurs in several organizations not withstanding the age, levels/position, of an employee. Research has suggested that manager’s behaviour influences employees’ ethical decision making and organizational behaviour of employees who perceive being treated respectfully and valued, such individuals are less likely to resort to workplace deviance.
Griffin and O’ Leary-Kelly, (2004) defined workplace deviance as a voluntary behaviour that violates institutional norms and in doing so threatens the well-being of the organization. Workplace deviance could be described as a deliberation or intentional desire to cause harm to an organization. Robinson and Benneth, (1995) defined workplace deviance as a voluntary behaviour by employees that violate significant company norms, policies or rules and threatens the well being of the organization. Employees who perceive treatment they receive from their organization as “unfair” tend retaliate to their organization by engaging in workplace deviance. Employees see workplace deviance as a means of pay back, or balancing inequity by themselves in a way of causing harm to their organization. These deviant workplace behaviours include; withholding effort,Coworker backstabbing, withholding information, stealing, acting rudely to co-workers and management, lateness to work, wasting raw-materials during production, involving in demonstration, tarnishing rather than protect organizational image outside, sabotage, destroying organizational properties and so on.
Workplace deviance include those behaviours that are directed at the organization which includes, theft, sabotage, lateness to work, making calls while on duty, putting little effort into work (duty) and so on. Other deviant behaviours directed at individuals in the workplace like supervisors, co-workers management include; playing pranks, acting rudely, arguing during duties, stealing individual (co-workers) properties, fighting and so on. Workplace deviance could be also addressed as uncivil behaviours which are characteristically rude, discourteous, displaying a lack of respect for others.
Bennet and Robison (2000), classified workplace deviance into four types which include; product deviance, property deviance, political deviance and personal aggression. Product deviance is a type of deviant behaviours are directed to the production department of an organization with examples like; making unnecessary phone calls during work time, intentionally slow working, telling stories during work period being wasteful with raw material and so on. Property deviance is a type of deviant behaviour is directed at destroying Organizational property, stealing properties belonging to the organization and co- worker. Political deviance occurs when managers and supervisors asks employees to engage in overtime work and also additional duties beyond their job description of such employee not considering such employees plight. This behaviour shows management and supervisors’ willingness to have a full political control over subordinates during and after work period. Most times supervisors direct employees to engage in overtime or extra work time without payment or any form of compensation. These behaviours include, fighting with employees, sexual harassment, verbal aggression, that brings insult to supervisors, management and co-workers. Managers and supervisors most time misuse their power or authority on their sub-ordinate which may trigger negative reaction or emotions in the workplace deviance and ultimately lead to personal aggressive behaviour from such employee.
Robinson and Bennet, (1995) also identified two types of workplace deviance which is based on deviance target, they include; interpersonal and organizational deviants. Pulich and Tourigny, (2004) supports that interpersonal deviances are misconduct behaviours targeted at specific stakeholders such as the supervisors and co-workers. Other examples of the interpersonal deviance include, gossiping about co-workers, blaming co-workers, backstabbing (Pulich & Tourigny, 2004). The second type of the work place deviant based on the deviance target is the Organizational deviance which workers direct or aim at the Organizational property or production. Employees engage in this type of deviant behaviours which include, stealing Organizational properties, withholding efforts and information, wasting raw materials during production and so on (Robinson & Benneth, 1995). Tangirala and Ramannjam, (2008) described employee “silence” as form of Organizational deviance behaviour in which that employee intentionally or unintentionally withhold any type of information that might be useful to the organization due to the injustice or unfair treatment they receive from their organization. Recently, due to the development in information and technology in the workplace, a new deviance known as “cyber loafing” had emerged because it is carried out on the internet. During work hours, employees engage in non work related task instead of work related task on the internet using the computer and their mobile phones. Example is employees who chat in the social network such as face book, twitter, badoo, nimbuzz and so on (Zoghbi, 2006).
There are numerous consequences of workplace deviance which include; reduction in productivity, increase in absenteeism, job dissatisfaction, sabotage, decrease in employees’ morale, turnover, decrease in quality of products, counter productivity, financial involvement and so on. Employees sometimes suffer from psychological effects such as anxiety, anger, and irritability which may lead to physical aggression (Fitzgerald, 2002). Deviant workplace behaviours are both pervasive and costly not only in term of finance but also in social and psychological perspectives (Peterson, 2002). The negative consequences of deviant behaviours to work organization are significant (Vardi & Winer, 1996), therefore, this explains why deviant behaviours within organization should not be neglected anymore. Researchers suggest that workplace deviance is a reaction to inequity in the workplace or employers’ violation of obligation owned to employees (Greenberg & Scott, 1996). Workplace deviance could occur in the organizations/ workplace where working environment is hostile, unconducive, and also where employees feel powerlessness, voiceless, perceives unfairness and inequity (lack of Organizational justice) in the workplace. Employees feel cheated when they perceive absence of Organizational injustice (distributive, procedural, interactional and informational justice) (Blau & Anderson, 2005). When employees are not treated in an unfair manner, workplace deviance could be the resultant outcome.
There are many factors which could propel employees towards engaging in workplace deviant but the researcher is interested in two among others which include; Organizational justice and Workplace deviance. The issue of fairness which is known as organizational justice has being a very key concern to all employees. Vardi and Wiener, (1996) stated that workplace deviant behaviours were related with the perception of inequity and mistreatment (organizational justice) in Organizations. According to Folger, (1977), employees’ response to work depends on the type of treatment they receive which may be either fair of unfair. Also, employees’ attitude and commitment to work most times is determined by their perception of the level of Organizational justice that exists in their organization (workplace).
Organizational justice is based on Adams’ (1963:1965), equity theory, also to current work of (Greenburg, 1987; Folger, 1977). It’s root could be also traced to the Homan’s, (1961) Social exchange theory. Adam, (1963), explained that man suffers from cognitive dissonance when things do not go in the manner they are expected. When an employee do not get reinforcement or reward he/she expects from their employed organization, such employee’s private, family, social, emotional and other personal aspect of life would be affected and in return, it would effect his/her performance at their workplace and general commitment to work.
Organizational justice was first used by Greenburg, (1996) as a concept expressing the employees’ perception about how fair they were treated by their organization and how these perceptions affected loyalty and satisfaction in terms of Organizational behaviour. When employees perceive that there is no favourable, “outcome”, such as, attractive salary, promotion, incentives, and also organization treating workers with dignity, respect, and so on, their perception about the “outcome” will be seen as unfair, and this could motivate them to indulge in workplace deviant behaviour in a quest to restore equity within them selves. The civic virtue of employees depends on their perception of the level and form of existing organizational justice in their workplace. An employee’s civic virtue is the levels of employees’ reaction persuading the management of organization behave properly (Organ, 1988). Eskew, (1993) supports the view of the organizational behavioural scientists which believe that the interest in employee’s perception about Organizational justice has increased in the last ten (10) years. Organizational justice in workplaces is based on fairness in perception. Moreover, in organizations, employees’ perception of unfairness results to negative reactions such as, withdrawal, absenteeism, theft, tardiness, resistance to change, and retaliatory behaviours.
The issue of fairness is a key concern to virtually all individuals in our society. Every employee in their work settings often try to strike a balance to know whether the rewards they receive from their organization match their contributions to the organization or the rewards received by their colleagues (Adams, 1965; Leventhal, 1976). Employees in organizations also judge the fairness of the decision making procedures used by Organizational representatives, to see whether those procedures are consistent, unbiased, accurate, correctable, and representative of worker concerns and opinion (Greenberg, 1986; Leventhal, 1980; Thibant & Walker, 1975). Employees go to the extent of considering the interpersonal treatment they receive as procedures are implemented by authority figures (Bies & Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1993). Organizational justice researches in our organizations (workplace) could help us explain why employees retaliate against inequitable outcome or inappropriate processes and interactions (Alsalem & Alhaiani, 2007).
Different groups of scholars studied Organizational justice had explain and classify it in several models or dimensions. Some scholars classified and explained Organizational justice into four models or dimensions namely; Distributive justice, Procedural, Interactional and Informational justice. The researcher in the study explains Organizational justice according in three models or dimension. The first dimension of Organizational justice is the Distributive justice, according to Adams, (1965), it is refer to as an employee’s perceptions of the extent to which the outcome he or she receive from their organization such as pay, salary, allowances and so on are fair. He was of the view that a fair distribution within allocation processes is established when outcomes comply with internal norms such as equity (Adams, 1965), equality, or need (Deutsch, 1975; Leventhal, 1976). This dimension tend to focus more on outcome, satisfaction or the evaluation of some final decision concerning an individual more than attitude about the system (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). Distributive justice is related to workplace deviance because when employees perceives that the extent to which the outcome he/she receives pay such as salary and allowances from their organization is not fair, they would like to strike a balance or earn equity by themselves and this may result to workers engaging in work place deviance in other to retaliate the unfair treatment they get from their Organization. This describes and explains why employees individually engage in workplace deviance such as; lateness to work, being wasteful with raw materials, destroying organizational properties, laiz affair attitude to work, insulting supervisors and co-workers.
The second dimension is the Procedural justice, which according to Greenberg, (1990), concerns that fairness of the ways to determine the distribution and determining job involvement in organization. This dimension of Organizational justice is very important and explains how employees meet their socio-emotional needs through human resources management polices and practices like reward allocation, organizational justice and employee’s support programs which are available in their organization. Procedural justice examines the perceptions of fairness about the processes and procedures used to make allocation decisions (Folger & Greenberg, 1985). Procedural justice has been shown to predict various important organizational behaviours and attitudes such as performance (Cropanzano & Prehar, 1999) and organizational commitment (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Procedural justice has been shown to be related to identify concern of individuals (Tyler & Blader, 2003) and this is because it moves the employees to check whether they are full-fledged and respected members of a group or organization (Tyler & Lind, 1992). Fairness in decisions concerning resources distribution should have a strong cumulative effect on perceived organizational support and perhaps job involvement by indicating a concern for employee’s welfare (Shore & Shore 1995).
Procedural justice perceptions are affected by the extend to which employees believe they have a voice in the decision making process (Thibault & Walker, 1975) and when decision making is perceived as consistent, ethical, lacking bias, possible to appeal, and based on accurate information (Leventhal, Karuza & Frye, 1980). Recent meta-analysis studies have found that Procedural justice can predict counterproductive behaviours (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001, in Forret & Love, 2008), non cooperative management behaviour (Rahim, Magner & Shapiro, 2000, in Forret & Love, 2008), and aggression directed at one’s supervisor (Greenberg & Barling, 1999, in Forret & Love, 2008). Employees are likely to retain positive attitudes towards their organization when the procedures determining the decision were fair, moreover when the decision itself resulted in an unfavourable outcome (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1993; Schanbroeck, May & Brown, 1994). Whenever employees in any organization perceive that they don’t have a voice or contribution in decision and policies making in their organization, most times employees engage in workplace deviance regularly to show their grievances about the poor level of Procedural justice in such Organization. These employees may decide to demonstrate their grievances through destruction of properties, indulging in strike actions or rejecting or resisting Organizational change in their organization. The third model or dimension is the Interactional justice which is referred to as an individual’s perception of fair treatment by an organization’s decision makers (Bies & Moag, 1986) and this includes; treating employees with dignity, honesty and respect, as part of interpersonal justice while Informational justice treatment include; providing explanations for procedures and negative events) components (Colquitt, 2001 & Greenberg, 1993). It is important to note that Organizational justice should have a strong symbolic function which is to provide information about the value and respect given to individuals (employees) by their organization as suggested by Tyler & Lind, (1992). Researchers overtime had adopted this approach were by the human resource decisions, policies and practices are evaluated in terms of employees’ perceived of Organizational justice by and then those perceived feeling are measured with job commitment in non-profit organizations to know it’s outcome. Perceived Organizational justice and support are related to not only job involvement, but to job satisfaction and Organizational identification process (Jones, 2007).
Many organizations today have a zero or little employee-employer relationship, organizational friendly culture, family friendly policy and support programs which are part of the Procedural justice, and this affects the behaviour of the employees in workplaces. Few organizations today had improved on their employees’ family friendly and support programs, Organizational culture and policies while other organizations had decided not to improve on theirs. The family is a very important domain in every individual’s live and it has a very high influence on employees’ work live. This is the reason organizations and their management should put in their best in other to help employees manage their roles from the work and family domains. Organizations today need to improve the welfare of employees and introduce supportive programmes which include employees’ work-family friendly cultures and policies to reduce the work-family conflict which are caused by multiple role conflict thereby reducing workplace deviance which are it’s product.
Every individual employee is faced with multiple roles in life and these roles emerge from the two warring domain (family and work) which compete with each other. Katz and Kahn, (1978) suggested that conflict arises when individuals engage in multiple roles that are incompatible. When these multiple roles compete with each other, they end up causing conflict in the life of employees. According to Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Smock and Rosenthat, (1964) roles are the result of expectations of others about appropriate behaviour in a particular position in life. Role conflict is therefore described as a psychological tension that is aroused by conflicting pressures. Greenhause and Bentell, (1985); Cinamen and Rich, (2002) defined work-family conflict as a “form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressure from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect”. Balancing multiple roles can increase the interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict experience by employees (women and men) and simultaneously maintain professional and personal responsibilities. Work and family domain are two central components in people’s lives and thus demand a great deal of time and energy to manage their multiple responsibilities. In addition, work and family role can have a meaningful impact on psychological wellbeing and satisfaction of employees (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Schwartizberg & Dytell, 1996). Work-family conflict occurs when “roles pressures associated with membership in one organization (work) are in conflict with pressures, steaming from membership in other group (family)” (Kahn, Wolf, Quinn, Smock & Rosen, 1964). From the work-family perspective, conflict reflects the degree to which work demands interfere with family responsibilities. Similarly, family-work conflict (FWC) occurs when responsibilities associated with one’s family roles interfere with work related role demands. The tasks and roles related to family domain include; childcare, the care of an aging parent, household responsibilities, as well as additional responsibilities that may arise as a result of one’s role within the family while the tasks and roles related to the work domain include; hours of paid work, and can additionally include overtime work, work related travel, and work obligations that are fulfilled at home.
Work-family conflict can be time-based, strain-based or behavioural basedaccording to Greenhaus and Benthall, (1985). The conflict between these two domains could be time-based when role pressure steaming from the two different domain (work and family) compete for the individual’s limited time as suggested by Greenhaus and Bentall (1995). Nevertheless, work-family conflict could be said to be strain-based when it occurs as result of a strain experiences in one role domain interfering with effective performance of role behaviours in the other domain Greenhaus and Bentall, (1995). According to Greenhaus and Bentall, (1995), they suggested also that work-family conflict could be behavioural-based when conflict steaming from incompatible behaviours demanded by competing roles from different domain interfering with other domain (work and family). The most common among the three types of conflict, is the time based conflict, this is because it is based on the scarcity hypothesis of time which suggests that the sum of human energy is fixed and that multiple roles inevitably reduce the time and energy available to meet all role demands, thus creating strain (Goode, 1960) and work conflict (Marks, 1977).
It has been documented that employees with significant dependent elderly parents, young children or employees with large number of family members tend to report higher levels of work-family conflict; Frone, Rusell, and Cooper, (1992); Greenhaus, Guteck, Searle and Klepa, (1992). It is very necessary to strike a balance between the two domains to reduce conflict in life of employees. These conflict employees face each day results to; increase turnover, increase absenteeism, reduction in performance, poor physical, mental and psychological health etc., Barnett and Baruch, 1985; Barnett and Marshall, 1992; Roskies and Carrier, (1994), believed that multiple roles have been associated with positive outcome which include; higher self-esteem and life satisfaction while (Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1991; Kopelman, Greenhaus & Connolly, 1983; Watkins & Pulich, 1995) suggested that the perceptions of insufficient time and energy to successfully perform work and family roles which results to work-family conflict has associated with job and family dissatisfaction, depression, life stress, work and family tension.
The work domain have other organizational factors which increases the occurrence of work-family conflict which include; unfair organizational injustice which employees perceive in the workplace, management method and system, organizational policies, the personality of the decision makers and supervisors, workplace culture, working environment (unconducive), work timing, work over load and stress (Galinsky, Bond & Friedman, 1996; Greenhaus & Bentell, 1985; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999). If these factors are allowed to crossover or spillover from family domain to the work domain it will result to conflict in the work domain and vice visa. Recently, family-work conflict has been examined from a system perspective demonstrating that one member of a couple’s experience of family-work conflict can significantly impact on their partner’s experience of work-family conflict (Hammer, Allen & Grigsby, 1997). The work and family “cross over effect” of stress and strain from one member of a dyad to the other have been recently presented in a theoretical model developed by Westman, (2001).
The work-family (WFC) and family-work conflict (WFC) is a very important area of study because both employers and employees struggle with multiple roles (Baruch & Barnett, 1987). These roles includes; employees’ personal life, taking care of children, aged parent and relatives apart from work and social roles such as carrying out the daily work duty, attending official and social meetings among others. Researchers have suggested that family conflict has been associated with a member of dysfunctional outcomes (Bacharch, Baruberger, & Conley, 1991), decreased family and occupational well-being (Kinnuen & Manuo, 1998). The domain flexibility hypothesis predicts that the work domain is a greater source of conflict than the family domain for both men and women. The “domain salience hypothesis” predicts the family domain is a greater source for women and the work domain is greater source of conflict for men, (Isreal, 1993). Other dysfunctional outcome of work-family conflict include, anxiety, depression, poor health and family relationship, increase interpersonal conflict, divorce and for family-work conflict (FWC), examples include; absenteeism, tardiness, loss of talented employees, raw materials waste and so on.
Nevertheless, much of the organizational psychological researches carried out on work-family conflict has been based on the premise that multiple roles inevitable create stress and strain to employees (Chapman, IngerSoll – Dayton & Neal 1994; Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1992; Golf, Mount & Jamison, 1990). Also, employees’ attitude and commitment to work many a time is determined by employees’ perception of the type of organizational justice that exist in such organization (workplace). Employees’ tend to be more committed to work, by protecting organizational property, being less wasteful during production and also not sabotaging their organization if they perceive “fair” treatment from their organization.
In quest to understand more about the work-family conflict another group of researchers has found evidence of positive spillover, both from these research studies supported the enhancement hypothesis supply of energy is abundantly and expendable (Mark, 1977). This goes ahead to explain that one could expand his energy to do more roles when organized and planned with less conflict. Employees who plans and arrange their selves well could carry out roles are duties with less conflict. Baruch and Barnett, (1987), found that women who have multiple life roles such as motherhood in the family, work duties in the office, were found to be less depressed and have higher self-esteem than women and men who have fewer life roles. Furthermore, Gutek, Searle and Klepa (1992) found out from their research work that women experience greater work-family conflict more than their male counterpart.
Statement of the Problem
Workplace deviant, a regular phenomenon which occurs in our organizations daily had caused so many problems to organizations and their employees. These deviant behaviours had lead to destroying and stealing both the organizational and other employees’ properties causing financial losses to organizations, fraud, decreased employees’ morale, increased turnover rate, decreased productivity and so on (Evention, Jolton & Mastangelo, 2007; Hollinger & Clark, 1982). Employees most times resort to engage in deviance such as fraud, absenteeism, lateness to work, insolence, cyber loafing, employee silence, raw material wasting, strike actions, destroying properties belonging to their organization and their employee as a way of showing their grievances.
Different organizational management had tried their best to see how they can minimize the rate at which employees engage in deviant behaviours but have not achieved much because there are many other factors that enhance the rate at which workers engage into workplace deviant behaviours rather than just motivation and provide conducive working environment alone (Vardi & Weiner, 1982; Markus & Schuler, 2004). Among many other factors which may motivate or enhance employees to indulge in workplace deviance, the researcher is interested in only two of them namely, organizational justice and work-family conflict. Bases on this, the researcher would want to investigate the following;
(1) Whether the four dimensions of organizational justice:
(a) Procedural, (b) Distributive, (c) Interpersonal justice and (d) Informational justice, will predict the occurrence of workplace deviance among non academic staff of University of Nigeria Nsukka.
(2)(a) Whether work-family conflict will predict workplace deviance.
(b) Whether family-family conflict will predict workplace deviance.
Purpose of the Study
Since organizational justice and work-family conflict enhances the rate at which worker engagement into workplace deviance in organizations are still going on, the researcher would like to investigate the following:
- Whether the four dimensions of organizational justice
- Procedural justice (b) Distributive justice (c) Interpersonal justice and
- Informational justice, will predict the occurrence of workplace deviance among non academic staff in University of Nigeria Nsukka.
- (a) Whether work-family conflict will predict the occurrence of workplace
deviance among non academic staff in University of Nigeria Nsukka.
(b) Whether family-work conflict will predict workplace deviance among non academic staff in University of Nigeria Nsukka.
Operational Definition of Terms
Organizational justice: Refers to in the study as the employees’ perception of fairness and unfairness in an organization and is measured by the organizational justice scale developed by Colquitt, (2001)
Work-family conflict: Refer to in the study as the extent to which an employee’s work interferes with his or her family role which is measured by work-family conflict scale by Carlson, Kacmar and Williams (2000).
Work-place deviance: Refers to in the study as a voluntary behaviour of organizational members (employees) that violates significantly organizational norms which threatens the organizational well-being and is measured by workplace deviance behaviour scale by Benneth and Robinson (2000).
