A Theoretical Model on the Proposed Predictors of Destructive Deviant Workplace Behaviors and the Mediator Role of Alienation

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 330 – 338

4th International Conference on Leadership, Technology, Innovation and Business Management

A Theoretical Model on the Proposed Predictors of Destructive Deviant Workplace Behaviors and the Mediator Role of Alienation

Bora Yıldıza , Lütfihak Alpkanb a

Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli, 41400, Turkey Gebze Institute of Technology,Kocaeli, 41400, Turkey

b

Abstract Destructive deviant workplace behaviors are getting more and more important in today’s business world. Although numerous researchers in the literature have tried to determine and clarify antecedents and consequences of deviant behaviors, studies on both alienation and deviance are limited. In this respect after a comprehensive literature review on the concept of workplace deviance, this paper provides a theoretical framework on some rarely studied predictors (i.e. person-organization fit, participative decision making, careerism) of it, where work alienation plays a mediator role. Managerial and further research implications are provided. Keywords: Destructive deviant workplace behaviors, Work alienation, Person-organization fit, Participative decision making, Careerism

© Authors. by Published byLtd. Elsevier Ltd. This is an peer-review open access article the CC BY-NC-ND license ©2015 2014The Published Elsevier Selection and/or underunder responsibility of 4th International Conference (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). on Leadership, Technology, Innovation and Business Management Peer-review under responsibility of the International Conference on Leadership, Technology, Innovation and Business Management

1. Introduction The concept of workplace deviance has been received a great deal of attention in past two decades (Robinson and Bennet, 1995; Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Henle, 2005; O’Neill and Hastings, 2011). Workplace deviant behavior has generally conceptualized deviance as destructive (Robinson and Bennett, 1995; Spector and Fox, 2002; Sacket, 2002; Henle, 2005; Spector and Fox, 2010; Bodankin and Tziner, 2009), but some researchers have used this concept as a positive meaning (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2003, 2004; Appelbaum et al., 2007), which is called as a constructive deviance (Galperin, 2002; Warren, 2003; Robbins and Galperin, 2010; Galperin, 2012; Vadera, Pratt and Mishra, 2013). Thus, it can be inferred from these studies the construct of workplace deviance includes positive (constructive) and negative (destructive) behaviors, which are deviations from formal organizational norms (Warren, 2003). Although this behavior is a two-edged sword, in this study, we address only destructive deviant workplace behaviors. Destructive deviant workplace behaviors are one of the most important research topics affecting well-being of organizational norms and performance. Therefore understanding these behaviors and related work attitudes has

Corresponding author. Tel. + 90-555-721-3425

fax. +90-000-000-0000

E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the International Conference on Leadership, Technology, Innovation and Business Management doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.373

Bora Yıldız and Lütfihak Alpkan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 330 – 338

331

become a significant research area. A deviant behavior in the workplace has been defined as “voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization and its members or both” (Robinson and Bennett, 1995; Bennett and Robinson, 2000). In this respect, previous researches show that workplace deviance is an important threat for organizations in terms of social and economic costs (Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Greenberg, 1990: Murphy, 1993; O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin and Glew, 1996; Griffin, O’Leary and Collins, 1998; Galperin and Burke, 2006; Örücü and Yıldız, 2014). According to these definitions this kind of behaviors have two basic characteristics: (a) they are not mentioned in the formal job definitions and go beyond the existing role expectations, (b) they violate organizational norms. There are many empirical studies on the direct antecedents of workplace deviance. They include many demographical factors, organizational conditions, employee perceptions and characteristics, etc. However, these predictors might cause deviance not directly but through some negative attitudes. For instance according to the social exchange theory (Blau, 1969) perceptions cause attitudes that cause behaviors. In other words employees’ personal feelings, expectations, perceptions, characteristics etc. may develop some negative attitudes towards the work and organization which then cause some negative behaviors. Therefore in this study, we highlight work alienation as a negative attitude that links some possible predictors to deviant behaviors. Although important and interesting, relations between two negative concepts, both at the expense of the organizational milieu and norms, work alienation -a negative attitude, and workplace deviance -a set of negative behaviors, are rarely studied until now. Thus, the present study has two main research questions: (a) what might be some less studied antecedents of destructive deviant workplace behaviors, and (b) is work alienation a missing link between the antecedents and behaviors? It develops a conceptual model that incorporates some possible causes and a mediator for destructive deviant workplace behaviors. The paper proceeds in the following manner. It begins with a literature review on deviant workplace behaviors and work alienation. Then the mediator role of alienation is discussed in the relations of careerism, participative decisionmaking and person-organization fit to deviant behaviors. Lastly, conclusion and implications are forwarded.

2. Destructive Deviant Workplace Behaviors and Work Alienation The concept of destructive workplace deviant behaviors has been defined as “voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization and its members or both” (Robinson and Bennett, 1995; Bennett and Robinson, 2000). In a recent study, Gruys and Sacket (2003) extended this definition as “any intentional behavior on the part of an organization member viewed by the organization as contrary to its legitimate interests”. With this definition it is clear that behavior (or intend to behavior) is more important than its negative results. This behavior is also labeled as an organizational misbehavior (Vardi and Weiner, 1996), counterproductive workplace behavior (Fox, Spector and Miles, 2001; Gruys and Sacket, 2003), deviance (Robinson and Bennett, 1995; Hollinger, 1986), antisocial behavior (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998; Aquino and Douglas 2003) and dysfunctional work behavior (Griffin et al., 1998). Although these concepts have different names, they have nearly same definitions. For instance, counter-productive workplace behavior is defined as” behavior that is intended to have a detrimental effect on organizations and their members” (Fox et al., 2001). Based on the these definitions, it is easy to see that destructive behaviors have two common distinct characteristics; (a) these behaviors are performed voluntarily, (b) the main aim of these behaviors harm to the organization’s significant norms, or tend to harm organization and its members, stakeholders or all of them (Robinson and Bennett, 1995; Bennett and Robinson, 2000). Destructive deviance behavior is an important problem for organizations from two aspects; it is a common problem and its cost is enormous (Bennet and Robinson, 2000). Therefore, understanding and managing this problem is an important research area. In the literature, many researchers have studied many possible antecedents of these behaviors such as; work alienation (Kanten and Ülker, 2014), organizational climate (Kanten and Er Ülker, 2013), moral disengagement (Fida et al., 2014; Samnani, Salamon and Singh, 2014; Hystad, Mearns and Eid, 2014; Christian and Ellis, 2014), negative affect (Alias et al., 2013; Fox et al., 2001; Hung, Chi and Lu, 2009; Kantur, 2010; Spector, 2011; Ho, 2012; Samnani et al., 2014), organizational commitment (Appelbaum, Saphiro and Molson, 2006; Brooks, 2012), organizational justice (Henle, 2005; Yen and Teng, 2013; Fatima et al., 2012; Chang and Smithikrai, 2010; Appelbaum, Iaconi and Matousek, 2007; Galperin, 2002), ethical climate (Peterson, 2002; Appelbaum et al, 2005; Alias et al., 2013), organizational structure (Zimmerman, 2001; Yen and Teng, 2013; Fatima et al., 2012),

332

Bora Yıldız and Lütfihak Alpkan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 330 – 338

organizational culture (Chung and Moon, 2011; Galperin, 2002), guilt proneness (Cohen, Panter and Turan, 2013), ethical ideology (Henle, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2005), Machiavellianism (Galperin, 2002), ethical orientation (Galperin, 2002) personality traits (Salgado, 2002; Bolton, Becker and Barber, 2010; O’Neill and Hastings, 2011) have been widely studied by researchers. Apparently, since the last two-decades, numerous researches have been tried to clarify workplace deviance and as a result acknowledged that perceived fairness, injustice and some negative emotions play a crucial role in occurrences of this kind of behaviors (Fox et al., 2001; Appelbaum et al., 2006; Kantur, 2010; Kelloway et al., 2010). In light of these studies, it is easy to say that there are many negative variables that relate to this deviance. Work alienation, which can be accepted a common result of work and organization related negative factors, is one of newly studied drivers of deviant behaviors (Chiaburu, Diaz and De Vos, 2013). In this paper, the work alienation will be used as a mediator in our proposed model, alienation and its relationship with the destructive workplace behavior will be defined. Beside the above mentioned studies, work alienation as an attitudinal negative variable has been rarely related to deviant behaviors in the past literature. However, alienation is a common problem in today’s business world where employees’ levels of specialization have risen. The concept of alienation has long been studied (Nair and Vohra, 2010). According to Suárez-Mendoza and Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara (2008) alienation defined as the loss of capacity to express oneself at work. Work alienation occurs when employees lack concern, interest and attachment against to their work (Kanten and Ülker, 2014). According to Seeman’s (1983) study, alienation is not a stable personality characteristic; in contrast, it is a situational phenomenon that emerges under some conditions. According to Sulu, Ceylan and Kaynak (2010) an alienated person is defined as a person lacking involvement in work role and disengaging from the work. The feeling of alienation can lead to a decrease in motivation and negative results in terms of organization and its members or both (Banai, Reisel and Probst, 2004; Ceylan and Sulu, 2011; Chiaburu et al, 2013). In the literature, many researchers have studied many related factors to alienation such as; management style and practices and job characteristics, lack of decision-making, limited control over the job, organizational commitment, job involvement, performance related pressure, organizational justice, the negative effect of downsizing, perceived organizational structure, technological changes (Dipietro and Pizam, 2008; Banai and Reisel, 2007; Allen and LaFollette, 1977; Ceylan and Sulu, 2011; Hirschfield, Feild and Bedeian, 2000; Kanten and Ülker, 2014; Sulu et al., 2010; Nair and Vohra, 2012). According to these studies, it is easy to say that the causes and consequences of alienation are numerous. However its relation to deviant behaviors is rarely studied (Nair and Vohra, 2012). Accordingly, in this study we propose a theoretical model where alienation is not only a cause of deviance but also a mediator that links the effects of some other drivers to deviant behaviors.

3. Mediator Roles of Alienation Because of its harmful effects and enormous costs, studying and understanding destructive deviant workplace behaviors is an important research area (Yıldız and Yıldız, 2014). Although a great deal of study has been done about these behaviors, the main difference of the present study from previous researches is the mediator role of work alienation in the proposed model. Of course alienation have already been proposed as mediator in a study by Kanten and Er Ülker (2013). But, in our study, predictors are not employee perceptions on organizational climate. We use employee feelings or orientations instead. Then, we propose that negative employee feelings may lead to negative behaviors through the negative attitudes, i.e. work alienation in our study.

3.1. Mediator Role of Alienation in the Relation of Person-Organization Fit to Destructive Deviant Workplace Behaviors Generally, hiring or selecting right person to organizations is an important process. From this aspect, a fit between person and organization is a must. Person-Organization Fit (POF) is defined as the compatibility of personal and organizational characteristics (KristofϋBrown, Zimmerman and Johnson, 2005). Person-Organization (POF) fit is a pivotal factor for organizations to elevate employee commitment and flexibility to overcome challenges in the competitive environment (Kristof, 1996). POF can exhibit two aspects; complementary and supplementary fit.

Bora Yıldız and Lütfihak Alpkan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 330 – 338

333

Supplementary fit occurs when a person’s characteristics are similar to those of the organization. On the other hand complementary fit was defined as when a person brings to the organization, something is missing, add needed (Kristof, 1996; Sharkawi, Rahim, and AzuraDahalan, 2013). In social sciences, many studies explain employee behaviors in terms of Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory. This theory explains employee behaviors as a two-way communication between person and organization. Employees receive some positive or negative messages from organizations and perform some positive or negative behaviors as a response to the organization. According to this theory POF can be a predictor of some positive behaviors such as; job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Liu, Liu and Hu, 2010; O'Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell, 1991), career success (Bretz and Judge, 1994) and organizational citizenship behavior (Suárez-Mendoza and Zoghbi-Manrique-deLara 2008). According to these studies high-level of POF can lead to positive outcomes and poor level of POF can also lead to some negative outcomes such as; turnover intention (Liu, Liu and Hu, 2010), work alienation (SuárezMendoza and Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara 2008), dissatisfaction and counterproductive workplace behaviors (Sharkawi et al., 2013; Jawad et al., 2013). Accordingly, if a person feels a poor level of POF, this can develop negative attitudes, then leading to destructive deviant workplace behaviors (Sharkawi et al., 2013). Alienation as an important negative attitude may play such a linking role between the employees’ feelings of POF and deviant behaviors. As presented before, low level of POF is associated with destructive deviant workplace behaviors (Sharkawi et al., 2013). Alienation is also associated with destructive workplace behaviors (Kanten and Ülker, 2014; Kanten and Er Ülker, 2013; Nair and Vohra, 2012). Moreover, in Suárez-Mendoza and ZoghbiManrique-de-Lara’ (2008) study, they used alienation as mediator in the relationship between POF and citizenship behavior. In this relationship hypothesized model explain that if person with high-level POF will more likely to exhibit citizenship behaviors precisely because of their low-level tendency to alienation. In this respect many studies have already state that citizenship behaviors, as a pro-social behavior (Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004; Galperin, 2012), are inversely related to destructive deviant workplace behaviors (Sackett and DeVore, 2001; Dunlop and Lee, 2004; Dalal, 2005; Dineen, Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2006; Vigoda-Gadot, 2007; Levine, 2010; Chang and Smithikrai, 2010; Jung and Yoon, 2012; Hafidz, Hoesni and Fatimah, 2012; Ariani, 2013; Yen and Teng, 2013). In light of these studies, we propose that an employee, who feels that there is a misfit between his characteristics and those of the organization he serves, may get alienated and then engage in deviant behaviors. P1. Work alienation mediates the negative relationship between Person-Organization Fit (POF) and destructive deviant workplace behaviors 3.2. Mediator Role of Alienation in the Relation of Careerism to Destructive Deviant Workplace Behaviors Careerism or careerist orientation is defined as “the propensity to pursue career advancement through nonperformance-based means” by Feldman and Weitz (1991). In their study, they state that people, who have careerist orientations pretend to be successful even if they are not, use their social relationship with the coworkers or supervisors as an instrument to career advancement, and commit some misbehaviors necessary to career development. Accordingly, careerist orientation is related to some negative outcomes such as absenteeism and turnover (Aryee and Chen, 2004; Feldman and Weitz, 1991). However, we could not find in the literature any study on the effects of careerism on deviant behaviors. Thus, our aim is to close this research gap and propose that careerism is associated with destructive deviant workplace behaviors since in a recent study by Adams (2011) a negative relationship has been found between organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and careerism. Given the negative relationship between OCB and destructive workplace behaviors (Dunlop and Lee, 2004; Dalal, 2005; Vigoda-Gadot, 2007; Levine, 2010) it can be proposed that there is a positive relationship between high-level careerism orientation and destructive deviant workplace behaviors. Another negative outcome of careerism is alienation. This has already been studied and a direct relation is found by Chiaburu et al. (2013). If frustrated careerist employees may develop negative attitudes including work alienation. But with or even without frustration, careerism may cause work alienation since work related qualifications, tasks or performance measures are not already internalized by careerist people. Just pretending to be successful is enough. Alienated from the real substance of the work, they may then easily engage in deviant behaviors to further develop

334

Bora Yıldız and Lütfihak Alpkan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 330 – 338

their careers. Therefore we propose that an employee who pursues careerist orientations may get alienated and then develop deviant behaviors. P2. Work alienation mediates the relationship between Careerism and destructive deviant workplace behaviors

3.3. Mediator Role of Alienation in the Relation of Participative Decision-Making to Destructive Deviant Workplace Behaviors Nassehi (2005) defines organizations as “decision machines”. Participative decision-making is defined by Aiken and Hage (1966) as “the degree to which staff members participate in setting the goals and policies of the entire organization”. Employees’ role in the decision-making process is vital for organizations in terms of their positive or negative attitudes towards the organization (Lam, Chen and Schaubroeck, 2002; Nassehi, 2005). Past studies exhibit positive effects of participative decision-making on positive attitudes and behaviors such as job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Black and Gregersen, 1997; Porter, Lawler and Hackman, 1996; Gilbert, Laschinger and Leither, 2010). On the other hand, there are also findings about the effects of low participation on negative outcomes such as low-level performance and alienation, (Aiken and Hage, 1966; Allen and LaFollette, 1977; Black and Gregersen, 1997). Already, according to Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory if members of an organization feel themselves out of the decision-making process they might develop some negative behaviors. Since a positive antecedent of OCB can be assumed as a negative one of destructive workplace behaviors (Bennet and Stamper, 2001; Yen and Teng, 2013) and since alienation is found as an outcome of low participation, we can propose that low participation is a source of deviance and alienation mediates this relation. In other words, an employee who feels to be externalized or isolated from the decision making process may get alienated and then develop deviant behaviors. P3. Work alienation mediates the relationship between participative decision-making and destructive deviant workplace behaviors

Person- Organization Fit

Careerism

P1

P2

Alienation

Destructive Deviant Workplace Behaviors

Participative Decision Making

P3

Figure 1: Proposed Model 4. Conclusion In this study, we began defining some constructs with related to proposed model and reviewing the relevant literature of destructive deviant workplace behaviors. After explaining their rationales we suggested several propositions related with five variables; destructive deviant workplace behaviors, participative decision-making, alienation, person-organization fit (POF) and lastly careerism. In this respect, several propositions are developed to test these predictive relationships (see Figure 1). Thus, this study provides a theoretical model, whereby practitioners and researchers can examine and clarify these empirically testable relationships. Considering this relationship within the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we can say that employees’ organizational level perceptions are predictors of attitudes and in turn these attitudes are predictors of behaviors. In

Bora Yıldız and Lütfihak Alpkan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 330 – 338

335

other words, employees perceive some positive and negative treatment from their organizations, than develop some positive and negative attitudes and lastly exhibit some behaviors based on these attitudes. In this respect, we thought employees’ feelings and orientations could lead to deviant behaviors through the agency of work alienation. This theoretical framework can be beneficial in terms of practitioners and researchers. Informed about theoretical antecedents of alienation and deviant behaviors, managers might develop some precautions to prevent or destructive deviance. For instance, HRM managers should look for POF as a must in selection and appraisal activities. Career opportunities should be provided for those specialist employees who may easily develop careerist orientations. Also top managers should establish an organizational milieu where employees may feel involved in the decision making process. If accordingly work alienation is minimized, positive attitudes such as commitment and involvement may flourish which then lead to a decrease in destructive deviance. Despite the strengths, this study is not without limitations. Firstly, we included only destructive deviant workplace behaviors. But, there is also constructive deviance and this type of deviance lies outside the scope of this study. Future researches, should examine destructive deviance together with constructive deviance to emphasize the differences. Secondly, it is easy to say that there are numerous situational and contextual variables that could affect these relations. Further researches should explore the possibility that certain situational or contextual variables mediate or moderate these relations. In addition, future studies may investigate the direct or moderator effects of personality variables. Lastly, although we assume that the present study will provide a useful standpoint to researchers, we believe that it will achieve its primary purpose when empirically tested by future researches.

References Adams, J. W. (2011). Examination of inter-relationships between psychological contract, careerist orientation, and organizational citizenship behaviour .Doctoral dissertation. City University. London. Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1966). Organizational alienation: a comparative analysis. American Sociological Review, 497-507. Allen, B. H., & LaFollette, W. R. (1977). Perceived organizational structure and alienation among management trainees. Academy of Management Journal,20 (2), 334-341. Alias, M., Rasdi, R. M., Ismail, M., & Samah, B. A. (2013). Predictors of workplace deviant behaviour: hrd agenda for malaysian support personnel. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(2), 161-182. Appelbaum, S. H., Deguire, K. J., & Lay, M. (2005). The relationship of ethical climate to deviant workplace behaviour. Corporate Governance, 5(4), 43-55. Appelbaum, S. H., Shapiro, B. T., & Molson, J. (2006). Diagnosis and remedies for deviant workplace behaviors. Journal of American Academy of Business, 9(2), 14-20. Appelbaum, S. H., Iaconi, G. D., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7(5), 586-598. Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 195-208. Ariani, D. W. (2013). The relationship between employee engagement, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Business Administration, 4(2).46-56. Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. (2004). Countering the trend towards careerist orientation in the age of downsizing: test of a social exchange model. Journal of Business Research, 57(4), 321-328. Banai, M., Reisel, W. D., & Probst, T. M. (2004). A managerial and personal control model: predictions of work alienation and organizational commitment in Hungary. Journal of International Management, 10(3), 375-392. Banai, M., & Reisel, W. D. (2007). The influence of supportive leadership and job characteristics on work alienation: A six-country investigation. Journal of World Business, 42(4), 463-476. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349. Bennett, R., & Stamper, C. L. (2001). Corporate citizenship and deviancy: A study of discretionary work behavior. International Research in the Business Disciplines, 3, 265-284. Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1997). Participative decision-making: An integration of multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50(7), 859-878. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers. Bodankin, M., & Tziner, A. (2009). Constructive deviance, destructive deviance and personality: how do they interrelate. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 11, 549-564. Bolton, L. R., Becker, L. K., & Barber, L. K. (2010). Big Five trait predictors of differential counterproductive work behavior dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 537-541. Bretz Jr, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person–organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(1), 32-54. Brooks, G. (2012). Misbehavior, its dimensions, and relationship to commitment in organizations. Advances in Industrial & Labor Relations, 19, 237-257.

336

Bora Yıldız and Lütfihak Alpkan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 330 – 338

Ceylan, A., & Sulu, S. (2011). Organizational injustice and work alienation. E+ M Ekonomie a Management, 2, 65-78. 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 Chiaburu, D. S., Diaz, I., & De Vos, A. (2013). Employee alienation: relationships with careerism and career satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(1), 4-20. Christian, J. S., & Ellis, A. P. (2014). The crucial role of turnover intentions in transforming moral disengagement into deviant behavior at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 193-208. Chung, Y. W., & Moon, H. K. (2011). The moderating effects of collectivistic orientation on psychological ownership and constructive deviant behavior. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(12), p65. Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., & Turan, N. (2013). Predicting counterproductive work behavior from guilt proneness. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 45-53. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241. Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity: relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 622. DiPietro, R.B. and Pizam, A. (2008), “Employee alienation in the quick service restaurant industry”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 32, pp. 22-39. Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 67-80. Fatima, A., Atif, K., Saqib, A., & Haider, A. (2012). A path model examining the relations among organizational injustice, counterproductive work behavior and job satisfaction. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(6), 697-701. Feldman, D. C., & Weitz, B. A. (1991). From the invisible hand to the glad-hand: Understanding a careerist orientation to work. Human Resource Management, 30(2), 237-257. Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Fontaine, R. G., Barbaranelli, C., & Farnese, M. L. (2014). An integrative approach to understanding counterproductive work behavior: the roles of stressors, negative emotions, and moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-14. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (cwb) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291-309. Galperin, B.L. (2002). Determinants of Deviance in the Workplace: An Empirical Examination of Canada and Mexico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. Galperin, B. L., & Burke, R. J. (2006). Uncovering the relationship between workaholism and workplace destructive and constructive deviance: An exploratory study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 331-347. Galperin, B. L. (2012). Exploring the nomological network of workplace deviance: Developing and validating a measure of constructive deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 2988-3025. Gilbert, S., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Leiter, M. (2010). The mediating effect of burnout on the relationship between structural empowerment and organizational citizenship behaviours. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(3), 339e348. Greenberg. J. (1990), Employee theft as a response to underemployment inequity: the hidden cost of pay cuts, Journal of Applied Psychology. 75(5), 561-568. Griffin,R.W., O'Leary, A.M., & Collins, J. (1998). Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations. In. Cooper, C.L., & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.), Trends in Organizational Behaviors , Vol. 4, (pp. 65-82). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30-42. Hafidz, S. W., Hoesni, S. M., & Fatimah, O. (2012). The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Asian Social Science, 8(9).32-37. Henle, C. A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, XVII (2), 247-263. Henle, C. A., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2005). The role of ethical ideology in workplace deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(3), 219-230. Hirschfeld, R. R., Feild, H. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2000). Work alienation as an individualϋdifference construct for predicting workplace adjustment: a test in two samples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(9), 1880-1902. Ho, V. T. (2012). Interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors: Distinguishing between person-focused versus task-focused behaviors and their antecedents. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 467-482. Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7(1), 53-75. Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341. Hung, T. K., Chi, N. W., & Lu, W. L. (2009). Exploring the relationships between perceived coworker loafing and counterproductive work behaviors: the mediating role of a revenge motive. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(3), 257-270. Hystad, S. W., Mearns, K. J., & Eid, J. (2014). Moral disengagement as a mechanism between perceptions of organizational injustice and deviant work behaviours. Safety Science, 68, 138-145. Jawad, M., Tabassum, T. M., Raja, S., & Abraiz, A. (2013). Study on work place behaviour: role of person-organization fit, person-job fit & empowerment, evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 1(4), 47-54. Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2012). The effects of emotional intelligence on counterproductive work behaviors and organizational citizen behaviors among food and beverage employees in a deluxe hotel. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 369-378. Kanten, P., & Er Ülker, F. (2013). The effect of organizational climate on counterproductive behaviors: an empirical study on the employees of manufacturing enterprises. The Macrotheme Review, 2(4), 144-160. Kanten, P., & Ülker, F. (2014). Yönetim tarzinin üretkenlik karşiti iş davranişlarina etkisinde işe yabancilaşmanin aracilik rolü. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Ensitüsü Dergisi, (32), 16-40.

Bora Yıldız and Lütfihak Alpkan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 330 – 338

337

Kantur, D. (2010), Emotional motives and attitudinal reflections of workplace deviant behavior, The Business Review, Cambridge, 14(2), 70-77. Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., Prosser, M., & Cameron, J. E. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior as protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 18-25. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person ϋ organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49. KristofϋBrown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals'fit at work: a metaϋanalysis of person̢job, person̢organization, person̢group, and person̢supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342. Lam, S. S., Chen, X. P., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 905-914. Levine, E. L. (2010). Emotion and power (as social influence): Their impact on organizational citizenship and counterproductive individual and organizational behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 4-17. Liu, B., Liu, J., & Hu, J. (2010). Person-organization fit, job satisfaction, and turnover intention: an empirical study in the Chinese public sector. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(5), 615-625. Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Nair, N., & Vohra, N. (2010). An exploration of factors predicting work alienation of knowledge workers. Management Decision, 48(4), 600-615. Nair, N., & Vohra, N. (2012). The concept of alienation: towards conceptual clarity. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(1), 25-50. Nassehi, A. (2005). Organizations as decision machines: Niklas Luhmann's theory of organized social systems. The Sociological Review, 53(s1), 178-191. O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 225-253. O’Neill, T. A., & Hastings, S. E. (2011). Explaining workplace deviance behavior with more than just the “Big Five”. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 268-273. O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing personorganization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516. Örücü, E., & Yıldız, H. (2014). İşyerinde kişisel internet ve teknoloji kullanımı: Sanal kaytarma. Ege Academic Review, 14(1). 99-114. Peterson, D. K. (2002). Deviant Workplace Behavior and The Organization's Ethical Climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 47-61. Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., III, & Hackman, J. R. (1996). Ways groups influence individual work effectiveness. In R. M. Steers, L. W. Porter, & G. A. Bigley (Eds.), Motivation and leadership at work (pp. 346e354). New York: McGraw-Hill. Robbins, D. L., & Galperin, B. L. (2010). Constructive deviance: striving toward organizational change in healthcare. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 5, 1-11. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572. Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658–672. Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1ϋ2), 117-125. Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1ϋ2), 5-11. Sackett, P.R. and DeVore, C.J. (2001) Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (eds.) Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1. London: Sage. Samnani, A. K., Salamon, S. D., & Singh, P. (2014). Negative affect and counterproductive workplace behavior: The moderating role of moral disengagement and gender. Journal Of Business Ethics, 119(2), 235-244. Seeman, M. (1983). Alienation motifs in contemporary theorizing: The hidden continuity of the classic themes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 171184. Sharkawi, S., Rahim, A. R. A., & AzuraDahalan, N. (2013) Relationship between person-organization fit, psychological contract violation on counterproductive work behaviour. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 4(4), 173-183. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (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., & Fox, S. (2010). Theorizing about the deviant citizen: An attributional explanation of the interplay of organizational citizenship and counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 132-143. Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior (CWB): An integration of perspectives. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 342-352. Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2003). Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing. Positive Organizational Scholarship, 207-224. Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 828-847. Suárez-Mendoza, M. J., & Zoghbi-Manrique-De-Lara, P. (2008). The impact of work alienation on organizational citizenship behavior in the Canary Islands. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 15(1), 56-76. Sulu, S., Ceylan, A., & Kaynak, R. (2010). Work alienation as a mediator of the relationship between organizational injustice and organizational commitment: implicationsfor healthcare professionals. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(8), 27-38. Vadera, A. K., Pratt, M. G., & Mishra, P. (2013). Constructive deviance in organizations integrating and moving forward. Journal of Management, XX(XXXX), 1-56. Vardi, Y. and Weiner, Y. (1996), “Misbehavior in organizations: a motivational framework”, Organizational Science, 7(2), 151-65. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawıng the boundarıes of ocb? An empırıcal examınatıon of compulsory extra-role behavıor ın the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 377-405. Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 622-632.

338

Bora Yıldız and Lütfihak Alpkan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 210 (2015) 330 – 338

Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K. (1999). The role of human capital, motivation and supervisor sponsorship in predicting career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(5), 577-595. Yen, C. H., & Teng, H. Y. (2013). The effect of centralization on organizational citizenship behavior and deviant workplace behavior in the hospitality industry. Tourism Management, 36, 401-410. Yıldız, B. & Yıldız, H. (2014). İş yaşamındaki sanal kaytarma davranışlarının hukuki yönden incelenmesi. A. Öğüt (Ed.), 22. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi bildiriler kitabı içinde (pp. 771-776). Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi Zimmerman, J. (2001). The effects of bureaucratization on corruption, deviant and unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 119-128.