CURING WORKPLACE DEVIANCE THROUGH ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE IN THE MEDIATING ROLE OF JOB SATISFACTION

THE CASE OF NGOS IN PAKISTAN

Faizan Baig, UCP Business School, University of Central Punjab. Email: faizanbaig@ucp.edu.pk

Zia Ullah, Assistant Professor, UCP Business School, University of Central Punjab. Email: dr.ziaullah@ucp.edu.pk

Abstract. Organizations of modern era are trying to obtain competitive advantage through human force. Unfortunately, workforce is getting involved into deviant practices in almost every organization and such workplace deviance can be a great threat which can harm the organizational performance. Most of such deviant practices are due to injustice events which happen in organization and ultimately reduce the job satisfaction of employees. Such issues of deviance and injustice have not been explored in Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of Pakistan in the past which highlights a certain need to explore this area. This study has aimed to check the impact of organizational justice dimensions on workplace deviance in the mediating role of job satisfaction in NGOs of Pakistan. To do this, a sample of five NGOs was selected and 500 close ended questionnaires were personally administered to randomly selected employees. A total of 381 questionnaires complete in all the respects were included for analysis. Inferential statistical techniques were then applied to draw conclusions. The results have proved that all dimensions of organizational justice have a significant negative impact on workplace deviance and job satisfaction significantly mediate this relationship which establishes that organizational injustice lead employees to behave in deviant ways.. This research has implications for both managers and theory. Limitations and future research indications have also been given at the end of this study.

Key words: Human Resource Management, Management, Organization Behaviour

Introduction

Employees are the most vital resource and competitive advantage for the firms engaged in service industry. Tax and Brown (2012) also regarded employees as ambassadors of the organization for its customers. If the members of such organizations start behaving badly with the intent of providing harm to the workplace and their co-workers then it will dent the organization both internally and externally. Same voices have been aroused is past (Bordia, Restubog, & Tang, 2008; Robinson, Wang, & Kiewitz, 2014) that deviant behaviors cursed an organization from every dimension. Workplace deviance characterized by the divergent behavior of employees to take their revenge from organization due to their perception of breaching psychological contract by the executives resulted in poor organizational performance and higher turnover intentions. Bowles and Gelfand (2009) supported this thought as they enlightened that   deviant employees feel that organization is not behaving fairly with them in the form of mistreatment, abusive supervision and injustice which tend them to disturbing coworkers, expressing tardiness, blocking disclosures and reducing productivity to act as “eye for an eye” at the workplace. So it is vibrant to cure the workplace deviance disease to ensure the survival of such firms (Appelbaum, Iaconi, & Matousek, 2007; Lawrence & Robinson, 2007; Ménard, Brunet, & Savoie, 2011).

Although past studies mostly focused on problems arising from workplace deviance rather than its treatment, rare studies try to analyze the remedy for workplace deviance through procedural justice by incorporating personality factors and through various managerial styles (de Lara & Verano-Tacoronte, 2007; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009). Past studies overlooked interpersonal deviance from an employee which should be addressed by interactional justice. Omar, Halim, Zainah, and Farhadi (2011) considered job stress and job satisfaction as creators of deviant behavior but did not see the enhanced level of job satisfaction as solution of workplace deviance.

The gaps identified above raised the voice to cure workplace deviance as whole by considering its interpersonal and organizational aspects which can be possible through inducing organizational justice by entailing its all dimensions as prescription for the cure. Organizational justice entails the perception regarding fairness of firm’s decisions, processes and interactions through distributive, procedural and interactional justice respectively which leads towards enhanced trust, performance, satisfaction and commitment of employees (Nadiri & Tanova, 2010; Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Hartnell, 2009). Justice is incorporated through better communication and empowerment and Dusterhoff, Cunningham, and MacGregor (2014) proceeded it by arguing that resulted interaction reduces the gap and nourishes trust and positive attitudes. On the other hand, job satisfaction cultivates through fairness, support and empowerment prevail in the organization and literature also second it by saying that the satisfaction can cease the unorthodox behaviors from the workplace (Omar et al., 2011).

The research questions which have been discussed in this study are following;

·         What is the cure of workplace deviance?

·         What is the impact of organizational justice on workplace deviance?

·         Can distributive justice reduce the workplace deviance?

·         Is procedural justice significant to treat workplace deviance?

·         Either workplace deviance can be cured through interactional justice or not?

·         Can job satisfaction mediate the relationship between distributive, procedural and interactional justice and workplace deviance?

The purpose of this research study is to find out a cure of workplace deviance by checking the impact of distributive, procedural and interactional justice on workplace deviance in mediating role of job satisfaction as it is also suggested (Walsh, 2014)  about the organizational driving forces of workplace deviance. This research study is significant as it is going to provide a unique and new cure of workplace deviance disease through OJ. Theoretically this study will intensify the insight about the outcomes of OJ by nourishing the equity theory in the workplace deviance dimensions along with job satisfaction. This research study will focus on the NGO sector of Pakistan which is one of the most revenue generating industry of this era (Imtiaz, Khan, & Shakir, 2014). The results of this study will facilitate the executive and managers of NGO industry to understand the importance of positive and civil response from the employees to prevail the integrity and peacefulness of workplace to ensure better performance of the organization by incorporating justice flavor.

Literature Review

Workplace Deviance

Organizations are getting exposed to uncivil events at their work settings as 98% of the employees registered their complaint as the victims of such deviant behaviors from their co-workers (Porath & Pearson, 2013). However, the portfolio of deviant behaviors were not enough depicted in those studies. Such workplace deviance has been defined by the literature as voluntary behavior of the organization’s members that violates organizational rules, norms and ethics to cause disturbances at workplace (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Nasir & Bashir, 2012). Some authors of the domain also defined workplace deviance as the intentional behavior of employees to harm the organization and its members (Henle, Giacalone, & Jurkiewicz, 2005; Lawrence & Robinson, 2007) yet the frequency and intensity of deviance was not revealed vividly by the past studies. Berry, Ones, and Sackett (2007) classified workplace deviance practices on two fronts, one is towards the organization in which absenteeism, late coming and theft etc. have been included while the second one is towards the members of organization which involve both supervisor and the workplace peers in the form of arguing, rude behavior and pranks etc. Organizational deviance included production and property deviance (Brown & Trevino, 2006)while interpersonal deviance involved political deviance and personal aggression(Arthur, 2011; Ferguson & Barry, 2011). Nonetheless past literature did not dig the deviant response reasons by seeing both sides of the coin. Reasons which are provided by the literature revolve around increased stress, perceived injustice, revenge attitudes, job cognition and poor socialization (Christian & Ellis, 2011; Ferris, Spence, Brown, & Heller, 2012; O’Neill & Hastings, 2011). Yet very rare studies discussed the fact that these deviant behaviors at workplace can be the responses of some wrong doings happened to the deviant person. (Garcia, Wang, Lu, Kiazad, & Restubog, 2015) discussed that workplace deviance is reciprocal of an unfair behavior by the organization or some other member which may or may not be unfair but considered by the deviant employee in the respective way. Still the existing research work on the treatment of workplace deviance did not address such reciprocal responses. Absence of proper cure for this disease progressing towards many disastrous consequences such as increased turnover intentions, low employee productivity, workplace violence and lurking organizational performance (O’Neill & Hastings, 2011; O’Neill, Lewis, & Carswell, 2011) but many more serious impacts such as polluted organizational culture and depleting values have been left unquoted by past studies. Affective Event Theory provided better insight about the potential harms of workplace deviance by linking employees’ emotional response with their poor job performance and diminishing satisfaction that further lead towards intentions to quit (Lam & Chen, 2012). However this theory was more concentrated on personal factors than the organizational ones’. Moreover, Warren (2003) elaborated that Agent Theory also revealed the factors behind pessimistic performance from employees by elaborating that rational employees have self-interest which blocked their potential output thus needed performance compensation practices and extra supervision to ensure better behavior and performance. Yet the framework of agency theory and past studies did not reduce the ambiguity about the elimination of self-interests from their root that is providing the gap to cure workplace deviance from more organizational approach rather than the personal. In Pakistan, rare work has been done on workplace deviance but almost no study addressed its treatment or cure rather they explained its dynamics and consequence more or less (Nasir & Bashir, 2012; Shahzad & Mahmood, 2012) which is also indicating the need to find the prescription for workplace deviance.

Workplace Deviance & Organizational Justice

Employee’s behavior can be aligned with organizational desires if they feel that organization is playing fairly in the both subjective and objective matters (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). Past literature regarded this perception and reactions about organizational fairness with employees as organizational justice (Brockner, 2011; Fernandes & Awamleh, 2006) which can be in the form of equal employment opportunities, fair pay systems, equal growth chances and sufficient information regarding firm and its decisions (Cole, Bernerth, Walter, & Holt, 2010). Yet the dimensions of this organizational justice are still evolving in literature as the previous researches used various combinations of its possible aspects. Profound literature categorized organizational justice into three broad categories named as distributive, procedural and interactional justice (Rodriguez, 2012). However relative importance of these dimensions was vaguely enlightened by the previous literature.

Soltis, Agneessens, Sasovova, and Labianca (2013) enlighten that distributive justice entails the fairness in the distribution of outcomes or incentives which an employee expects in return of the inputs or efforts induced by him at workplace. Most of the work has been done by Adams (1965) on distributional justice as he coined that if the pay will better and fairly distributed then it will be resulted in greater quality and satisfaction of employee in both tasks and behavior aspects. Nonetheless literature on distributive justice did not relate it with organizational outcomes like organizational behavior. Procedural justice describes as the fairness in polices, routes or processes to attain those outcomes (Hough, Jackson, Bradford, Myhill, & Quinton, 2010) which have to be distributed in employees in return of their efforts (Gau & Brunson, 2010). These processes like equal growth opportunities seem to be fair when they have consistency, persistence and ethicality in them (Loi, Lam, & Chan, 2012; Zeinabadi & Salehi, 2011) along with their disclosure to the employees too. Trust and satisfaction enhance in employees through procedural justice as a sense of equality has emerged in the employees’ mind (Searle et al., 2011). Yet the final product of this mutual trust was not depicted thoroughly by the past studies which can be in the form of strong relationships. Wu, Huang, Li, and Liu (2012) defined Interactional justice as the fairness practices in interpersonal interactions and ideas or information sharing, consists of two dimensions; interpersonal justice and informational justice; former one elaborated as the fairness in mutual treatments and behavior like respect and dignity (Holtz & Harold, 2013; Patient & Skarlicki, 2010) while the later one argued on the fairness of the information shared like its extensiveness and truthfulness (Skarlicki, Barclay, & Pugh, 2010; Zhang & Jia, 2013). Nadiri and Tanova (2010) entailed in their study that satisfaction and engagement get higher due to the implications of interactional justice. However outcomes of strong interpersonal relations in terms of workplace were not highlighted by the previous literature.

Equity theory better demonstrated the underlying processes and effects of organizational justice (Alexander, MacLaren, O’Gorman, & White, 2012) as it explains that the outcomes of an employee’s input should be fair to enhance satisfaction and to catalyze organization citizenship behavior (Barkema, Chen, George, Luo, & Tsui, 2011; Till & Karren, 2011). However literature did not enhance the resulted organizational citizenship behavior in terms of resolving workplace deviance. Killen, Rutland, and Ruck (2011) discussed that equity can be gained through fairly designed processes to earn the outcomes and disseminated information among the stakeholders. The resulted satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior are they key players of reducing stress at workplace which is the major reason of workplace deviance (Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010; Nadiri & Tanova, 2010). Nonetheless, the importance of organizational justice regarding depleting deviant behaviors was not aroused by the literature directly. Literature also argued on the fact that lack of fair practices and stress are key determinants of deviant behavior at workplace (Omar et al., 2011) which can be gauged and mitigated through organizational justice and its major dimensions distributive, procedural and interactional. All three dimensions of organizational justice harvest trust and cropped satisfaction among employees which make employees reluctant to show uncivil behaviors at workplace (Demir, 2011). Such indications demand to test the influence of organizational justice on workplace deviance.

H1: Distributive justice is significantly affecting workplace deviance.

H2: Procedural Justice is significantly affecting workplace deviance.

H3: Interactional justice is significantly affecting workplace deviance.

Job Satisfaction and Mediation

Workplace is dependent of employees, their actions and behaviors which sum up to present the working environment of organization. So it is important to know that what an employee is expecting and feeling at his job (Chen & Kao, 2012) yet the professionalism of such expectations have not been enlightened in previous literature. Millán, Hessels, Thurik, and Aguado (2013) held that job satisfaction is about the employee’s feeling which according to Morris and Venkatesh (2010) he is experiencing at his work and that can be the difference of his expectations and actual state of the job. However literature did not persuade the need to keep the employee’s expectations under control. Many theories in literature anchored their roots in the domain of job satisfaction. Diener, Inglehart, and Tay (2013) put a light on Affect theory that it entailed the fact that satisfaction is related with the expectations that can be moderated through some other aspect of job thus the resulted output is better performance and behavior. Nonetheless, rare facets have been discussed by the literature regarding workplace norms in terms of satisfaction. Burns and Bowling (2010) conceptualized dispositional approach which regarded satisfaction as individual phenomenon as employees possess same level of satisfaction across their lives. Yet this approach embedded the organizational factors to enhance or diminish the satisfaction level. Satisfaction is also discussed by equity theory (Ledbetter, StassenFerrara, & Dowd, 2013) which focused on the fairness of social relationships whose betterment can enhance the satisfaction level due to the equity in between input and output (Griffin & Moorhead, 2011). However literature did not extend the social relationship circle to counter workplace activities. Discrepancy theory talked about the stress evolved in the result of low job satisfaction as employees failed to fulfill their duties (Blore, Stokes, Mellor, Firth, & Cummins, 2011). Equity theory is also an important contribution in satisfaction work as it differentiated between no satisfaction and dissatisfaction by incorporating motivators and hygiene factors but negative consequences of no satisfaction were vaguely depicted by those studies.

Literature has evidences that organizational justice generates job satisfaction. Fairness which evolved from organizational justice enhanced the satisfaction level of employees (GarcíaIzquierdo, Moscoso, & RamosVillagrasa, 2012) due to being treated equally within the organization without any discrimination. However those studies did not do the aftermath of the resulting job satisfaction in terms of the treatment of workplace deviance. Past studies hinted that the stress which got reduced due to job satisfaction is an important determinant of workplace deviant behaviors (Chandola, 2010; Gray-Stanley & Muramatsu, 2011). Diminishing levels of stress will be resulted in more ethical and moral behavior from the participants. In addition, satisfaction makes employees contented with their work so they stay reluctant to engage in any offensive activities that can harm the environment (Ealias & George, 2012). That’s why we are proposing following hypotheses in this regard:

H4:      Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between distributive justice and workplace deviance;

H5:      Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between procedural justice and workplace deviance;

H6:      Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between interactional justice and workplace deviance;

Theoretical Framework

Procedural Justice

Job Satisfaction

Distributive Justice

Interactional Justice

Workplace Deviance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 1           Theoretical Model of the Study

Methodology

Sample

This empirical study revolved around the employees of NGO sector of Pakistan who acted as the population for this research. 381 employees belonged from NGOs of Lahore and Islamabad were included in sample through simple random sampling to avoid from any biasness as every member of population has equal chance to select in the sample in the prescribed sampling technique and it has also been used by past empirical studies too (Beltramini, Peterson, & Kozmetsky, 2013; Vahlne, Ivarsson, & Johanson, 2011). Reason behind testing the propositions on NGO sector’s employees is that the service industry is more vulnerable to the workplace deviance practices (Imtiaz, Khan, & Shakir, 2015) so to study them is more viable and meaningful.

Instrument

Responses were collected through a structured questionnaire consisted of 27 questions about distributive, procedural and interactional justice along with job satisfaction and workplace deviance. Structured questions are best to entail responses in empirical studies as used by many previous studies (Kebede et al., 2014). To confirm the integrity of the given responses, questionnaires have been filled through self-administered approach. Self-administered approach is better to answer the queries of the respondents at the time of their emergence.

 

Procedure

Data was collected in one-phase process from two cities of Pakistan named as Islamabad, and Lahore which are business hubs of the country and have enough NGOs working in these major cities. A little presentation about the research topic has been given to the NGO manager to get access to the participants with his consent and will that has been made the data collection process more convenient.

Measures

A 5-Point Likert scale has been used in gauging all variables of the interest in which scale has been ranged from 1 to 5 and from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Many researchers have been used this scale to measure the responses to provide them explanatory power (Boone & Boone, 2012; Munshi, 2014).

Bennett and Robinson (2000) developed an instrument to measure workplace deviance which after some cultural amendments was used in this study. Instrument measured workplace deviance from two facets which include interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance respectively through 10 questions on five points Likert scale.

Organizational justice has been measured through a scale developed by Al-Zu’bi (2010) which included the questions from distributive (3), procedural (4) and interactional justice (5). After some contextual and cultural considerations, 12 questions were included in instrument to assess the responses on five points Likert scale.

Job satisfaction is measured through 5 items deducted from the scale used by  Fernandes and Awamleh (2006) on a 5 point Likert scale that ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Results and Analysis

The data which have been collected from the NGOs’ employees has been entered in SPSS for statistical analysis. To check the correlation among the desired variables, Pearson correlation test has been used while the quantity of the effect has been determined from regression analysis which included R square and beta values. Mediation has been tested through the process test designed by Andrew F. Hayes which depicted mediation through direct and indirect effect. Furthermore descriptive statistic and reliability analysis has also been used to make the picture more vivid about the hypotheses.


 

Table 1            Cronbach’s Alpha

 

Organizational Justice

Job Satisfaction

Workplace Deviance

Cronbach’s Alpha

0.933

0.858

0.966

Table 1 is showing the values of Cronbach’s alpha which is normally used to test the reliability of proposed scales as all values are greater than 0.7 so it is depicting that measures which have been used were highly reliable and same goes for their responses. 0.933, 0.858 and 0.966 are values of Cronbach’s alpha for organizational justice, job satisfaction and workplace deviance respectively.

Table 2a Demographics- Gender of Participants

Gender

Male

Female

55.4

44.6

Table 2b Demographics-Age and Experience of the Participants (Percentage)

Age (Years)

Job Tenure (Years)

20 or
less

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61 or
above

5 or
less

10-Jun

15-Nov

16 or
more

-

52.50

36

10.8

0.80

54.9

39.4

5.8

-

Table 2a and 2b show the demographic distribution of the sample respondents among the categories of gender, age and job tenure. 55.4% respondents were male while 44.6% were female. Most of the respondent employees have fallen between the age category from 21-30 years and the least were belonged from 51-60 years group whose value was 0.8%. 54.9% of the employees have the job tenure of 5 years or less.

Table 3            Pearson Correlations N = 381

 

Distributive Justice

Procedural Justice

Interactional Justice

Workplace Deviance

Distributive Justice

1.00

 

 

 

Procedural Justice

.743**

1.00

 

 

Interactional Justice

.566**

.623**

1.00

.

Workplace Deviance

-.439**

-.723**

-.671**

1.00

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3 is showing the Pearson correlation figures which are used to determine the association among the desired variables. Significant negative association has been shown by the table between distributive, procedural and interactional justice and workplace deviance as the figures are -.439, -.723 and -.671 respectively.

Table 4            Model Summary (N=381)

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

-.896a

0.802

0.801

0.37495

a.   Predictors: (Constant), Interactional Justice, Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice

Table 4 was all about the regression analysis which is showing the total effect of independent variables on dependent variable as the value of adjusted R square was 0.801 showing that 80% change can occur in workplace deviance due to distributive, procedural and interactional justice which is a quite significant figure.

Table 5            ANOVA Statistics (N=381)

Model

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

215.304

3

71.768

510.497

.000b

Residual

53

377

0.141

 

 

Total

268.304

380

 

 

 

a.       Dependent Variable: Workplace Deviance

b.      b. Predictors: (Constant), Interactional Justice, Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice

Table 5 is showing the significance value which is 0.000 predicting that the model is highly significant so its results can be trusted and generalized.

Table 6                        Coefficientsa (N=381)

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

T

Sig

B

Std. Error

Beta

1

(Constant)

-0.18

0.05

 

4.01

.00

Distributive Justice

-0.20

0.05

-0.21

4.15

.00

Procedural Justice

-0.23

0.04

-0.24

5.36

.00

Interactional Justice

-0.49

0.05

-0.47

9.96

.00

Table 6 is depicting the beta values which entailed the individual effect of independent variables on dependent variable as in this study interactional justice is reducing workplace deviance up to 48% while for distributive and procedural justice, the respective percentages are 21% and 24%.

Table 7      Mediating Role of J. Satisfaction between Distributive Justice & Workplace Deviance

Total effect of X on Y

Effect

SE

t

p

-0.27

0.043

18.46

0.00

Direct effect of X on Y

Effect

SE

t

p

-0.21

0.043

18.36

0.00

Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction in Between Procedural Justice and Workplace Deviance

Total effect of X on Y

Effect

SE

t

p

-.33

0.07

3.28

.001

Direct effect of X on Y

Effect

SE

t

p

-.25

.076

2.95

.004

Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction in Between Interactional Justice and Workplace Deviance

Total effect of X on Y

Effect

SE

t

p

-.523

.071

3.283

.001

Direct effect of X on Y

Effect

SE

t

P

-.485

.0763

2.952

.004

Table 7 is showing the result of the mediation test conducted through the process test designed by Andrew F. Hayes based on direct and indirect effect. For all the three proposed relationships indirect effects in the presence of job satisfaction have been greater than the direct effects so job satisfaction has been proved a significant mediator in between distributional, procedural and interactional justice and workplace deviance.

Discussion

The statistical analysis of the data obtained from the sample has been made the picture more vivid about the proposed relationships. Many past studies have been relied on correlational, regression and process mediating tests to assess the viability of the theoretical framework which is depicting the usefulness of these statistical methods which have also been incorporated in our study. The findings have been elaborated that organizational justice as a whole and its dimensions too including distributive, procedural and interactional justice found significantly correlated with workplace deviance as the Pearson correlation values have illustrated the same which were for distributive, procedural and interactional justice respectively. The same kind of the results have been found in the previous studies that also confirmed a string association between the proposed variables (Christian & Ellis, 2011; Ferris et al., 2012). Furthermore, the regression test unveiled the quantity of the effect induced by the independent variable on dependent variable. Adjusted R square value which highlights the total effect of distributive, procedural and interactional justice on workplace deviance which was workplace deviance in our study presented the value of -0.654 that is explaining the negative effect of organizational justice dimensions on workplace deviance. Along with the significant P-value which was lesser than 0.05, beta values were also 0.23, 0.34 and 0.45 for distributive, procedural and interactional justice respectively indicating that increase in any of these dimensions can decrease the workplace deviance in the respective amount. So our first four hypotheses have been accepted. Job satisfaction has been also proposed as the mediator in our study between the three dimensions of organizational justice and workplace deviance. A process test of mediation which is designed by Andrew F. Hayes has been run on the data which have described that job satisfaction has significantly mediated the relationship between distributive, procedural, interactional justice and workplace deviance as the direct effect of all the above mentioned relationships was less than the indirect effect which was due the presence of job satisfaction who mediated the relationship thus the other four hypothesis have also been accepted in the light of concrete findings. Instruments were reliable as shown by the values of Cronbach's alpha which was greater than 0.7 for all the scales showing the reliability of measurement items. Studies have been suggested that such scales are highly reliable which possess such values. Descriptive analysis of the sample data has also been gathered by applying descriptive statistic tests which have been evoked the distribution of the sample's demographic characteristics.

Conclusion

Organizations are becoming human capital dependent which has been raised the importance of employees for the success of the firm. But increasing work deviance practices at workplaces are denting not only the performance of such employees but also polluting the workplace environment. Organizational justice practices are vital for the workplace peace and ethicality as it nourish the fairness in rewards, procedures and growth. Distributive justice which is closely associated with the distribution of incentives, if applied then the performance of the employees can be increased as they will stay from the deviant activities which probably harm their co-workers along with the whole workplace. Procedural justice is also on the center of the stage which is concerned with the justice in procedures, policies and ways through which the individuals can earn rewards at workplace. A positive reinforcement of procedural justice will keep employees away from the unfair means of getting benefits thus it will ensure the reduction in workplace deviance too. Workplace deviance can also be coped through interactional justice which has been gauged in accordance to the relationships and information which an employee have in his work environment. The concreteness in such interaction will stimulate the feelings like sympathy and bonding among the members of the organization. Dimensions of organizational justice directly enhance the job satisfaction among employees which make them more contented with their job keeping them at the arm's distance from deviant practices. Results of this study have been proved that organizational justice can reduce workplace deviance directly as well as in the mediating role of job satisfaction. Thus, prescribing a cure of this workplace disease.

Theoretical Implications

This study is novel from correlational, sectorial and mediation aspects so it can furnish the literature from many dimensions. The most important implication of this study will be the enrichment of the equity theory by including the workplace deviance perspective in it. Moreover this study will also extend the empirical literature by providing a cure for workplace deviance which was initially absent from the previous work. Job satisfaction has also linked by this study in a dyadic way with deviance and justice practices, emerging a whole new horizon of research regarding job satisfaction.

Practical Implications

Practically this study will extend its benefits to almost all manufacturing and service sector industries especially to the NGOs by enlightening its managers and executives with the importance of organizational justice and its dimensions. Managers can resolve the issue of workplace deviance by ensuring fairness in rewards distribution (distributional justice), making policies with equal benefits to all stakeholders (procedural justice) and providing all the necessary information to the employees (interactional justice). Furthermore NGOs can enhance job satisfaction with economical and sustainable ways to cope with many serious problems of the organization.


 

Limitations and Future Research Indications

As all the empirical studies possess some limitations, same is the case of this particular study. First of all sample size was small which can be a hurdle in making the results of this study generalized in broader context as many of the researchers have been hinted this issue. Furthermore the research was conducted on a single sector regardless to the fact that deviance practices have been occurring in many of the industries so this study is seemingly has a soft corner for NGOs. Only one mediating variable has been used in this study which can restrict the results to few dimensions. Future studies should extend the proposed relationship with larger sample size and in broader context by going cross culture and cross discipline. Other mediating variables like organizational commitment, psychological well-being and emotional intelligence can be used as mediating variables in future.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,2, 267-299.

Al-Zu’bi, H. A. (2010). A study of relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 102-109.

Alexander, M., MacLaren, A., O’Gorman, K., & White, C. (2012). Priority queues: Where social justice and equity collide. Tourism Management, 33(4), 875-884.

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.

Arthur, J. B. (2011). Do HR system characteristics affect the frequency of interpersonal deviance in organizations? The role of team autonomy and internal labor market practices. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 50(1), 30-56.

Barkema, H., Chen, X.-P., George, G., Luo, Y., & Tsui, A. (2011). West meets East: New concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 642-644.

Beltramini, R. F., Peterson, R. A., & Kozmetsky, G. (2013). Concerns of college students regarding business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics,  419-426.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360.

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410-425.

Blore, J. D., Stokes, M. A., Mellor, D., Firth, L., & Cummins, R. A. (2011). Comparing multiple discrepancies theory to affective models of subjective wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 1-16.

Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing likert data. Journal of Extension, 50(2), 1-5.

Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees strike back: investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1104-1115.

Bowles, H. R., & Gelfand, M. (2009). Status and the evaluation of workplace deviance. Psychological Science, 21(1), 49-54.

Brockner, J. (2011). A Contemporary Look at Organizational Justice: Multiplying Insult Times Injury: Routledge.

Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of applied psychology, 91(4), 954.

Burns, G. N., & Bowling, N. A. (2010). Dispositional approach to customer satisfaction and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 99-107.

Chandola, T. (2010). Stress at work. British Academy Policy Centre, October 2010.

Chen, H.-J., & Kao, C.-H. (2012). Empirical validation of the importance of employees' learning motivation for workplace e-learning in Taiwanese organisations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 580-598.

Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. (2011). Examining the effects of sleep deprivation on workplace deviance: A self-regulatory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 913-934.

Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., Walter, F., & Holt, D. T. (2010). Organizational justice and individuals' withdrawal: Unlocking the influence of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 367-390.

de Lara, P. Z.-M., & Verano-Tacoronte, D. (2007). Investigating the effects of procedural justice on workplace deviance: Do employees' perceptions of conflicting guidance call the tune? International Journal of Manpower, 28(8), 715-729.

Demir, M. (2011). Effects of organizational justice, trust and commitment on employees' deviant behavior. Anatolia, 22(2), 204-221.

Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2013). Theory and validity of life satisfaction scales. Social Indicators Research, 112(3), 497-527.

Dusterhoff, C., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2014). The effects of performance rating, leader–member exchange, perceived utility, and organizational justice on performance appraisal satisfaction: Applying a moral judgment perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 265-273.

Ealias, A., & George, J. (2012). Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: a correlational study. Research Journal of Commerce and Behavioral Science, 1(4), 37-42.

Ferguson, M., & Barry, B. (2011). I know what you did: The effects of interpersonal deviance on bystanders. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 80-94.

Fernandes, C., & Awamleh, R. (2006). Impact of organisational justice in an expatriate work environment. Management Research News, 29(11), 701-712.

Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2012). Interpersonal injustice and workplace deviance the role of esteem threat. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1788-1811.

GarcíaIzquierdo, A. L., Moscoso, S., & RamosVillagrasa, P. J. (2012). Reactions to the Fairness of Promotion Methods: Procedural justice and job satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(4), 394-403.

Garcia, P. R. J. M., Wang, L., Lu, V., Kiazad, K., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2015). When victims become culprits: The role of subordinates’ neuroticism in the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 225-229.

Gau, J. M., & Brunson, R. K. (2010). Procedural justice and order maintenance policing: A study of innercity young men’s perceptions of police legitimacy. Justice Quarterly, 27(2), 255-279.

Gouthier, M. H., & Rhein, M. (2011). Organizational pride and its positive effects on employee behavior. Journal of Service Management, 22(5), 633-649.

Gray-Stanley, J. A., & Muramatsu, N. (2011). Work stress, burnout, and social and personal resources among direct care workers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(3), 1065-1074.

Griffin, R., & Moorhead, G. (2011). Organizational Behavior: Cengage Learning.

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.

Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2013). Interpersonal Justice and Deviance The Moderating Effects of Interpersonal Justice Values and Justice Orientation. Journal of Management, 39(2), 339-365.

Hough, M., Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Myhill, A., & Quinton, P. (2010). Procedural justice, trust, and institutional legitimacy. Policing: A Journal of Policy & Practice, 4(3), 203-210.

Imtiaz, S. Y., Khan, M. A., & Shakir, M. (2015). Telecom sector of Pakistan: Potential, challenges and business opportunities. Telematics and Informatics, 32(2), 254-258.

Kebede, D., Zielinski, C., Mbondji, P. E., Piexoto, M., Sanou, I., Kouvividila, W., & Lusamba-Dikassa, P.-S. (2014). Research output of health research institutions and its use in 42 sub-Saharan African countries: results of a review by structured questionnaire. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 107(1S) 105–114.

Killen, M., Rutland, A., & Ruck, M. D. (2011). Promoting equity, tolerance, and justice in childhood: Social policy report. Society for Research in Child Development, 25(4), 1-33.

Lam, W., & Chen, Z. (2012). When I put on my service mask: Determinants and outcomes of emotional labor among hotel service providers according to affective event theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 3-11.

Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2007). Ain't misbehavin: Workplace deviance as organizational resistance. Journal of Management, 33(3), 378-394.

Ledbetter, A. M., StassenFerrara, H. M., & Dowd, M. M. (2013). Comparing equity and selfexpansion theory approaches to relational maintenance. Personal Relationships, 20(1), 38-51.

Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: a relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 395.

Loi, R., Lam, L. W., & Chan, K. W. (2012). Coping with job insecurity: The role of procedural justice, ethical leadership and power distance orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), 361-372.

Ménard, J., Brunet, L., & Savoie, A. (2011). Interpersonal workplace deviance: Why do offenders act out? A comparative look on personality and organisational variables. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 43(4), 309.

Millán, J. M., Hessels, J., Thurik, R., & Aguado, R. (2013). Determinants of job satisfaction: a European comparison of self-employed and paid employees. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 651-670.

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159.

Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Job characteristics and job satisfaction: understanding the role of enterprise resource. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 34(1), 143-161.

Munshi, J. (2014). A method for constructing Likert scales. Available at SSRN 2419366.

Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 33-41.

Nasir, M., & Bashir, A. (2012). Examining workplace deviance in public sector organizations of Pakistan. International Journal of Social Economics, 39(4), 240-253.

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’Neill, T. A., Lewis, R. J., & Carswell, J. J. (2011). Employee personality, justice perceptions, and the prediction of workplace deviance. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 595-600.

Omar, F., Halim, F., Zainah, A., & Farhadi, H. (2011). Stress and job satisfaction as antecedents of workplace deviant behavior. World Applied Sciences Journal, 46-51.

Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the manager’s empathic concern and moral development. Journal of Management, 36(2), 555-578.

Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1/2), 114-121.

Robinson, S. L., Wang, W., & Kiewitz, C. (2014). Coworkers Behaving Badly: The Impact of Coworker Deviant Behavior upon Individual Employees. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), 123-143.

Rodriguez, C. (2012). High School Students' Perceptions of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice: An Exploratory Study of Justice with Correlates of Counterproductive and Withdrawal Behaviors: California State University, Fresno.

Searle, R., Den Hartog, D. N., Weibel, A., Gillespie, N., Six, F., Hatzakis, T., & Skinner, D. (2011). Trust in the employer: the role of high-involvement work practices and procedural justice in European organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(05), 1069-1092.

Shahzad, A., & Mahmood, Z. (2012). The mediating-moderating model of organizational cynicism and workplace deviant behavior: (Evidence from banking sector in Pakistan). Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 12(5), 580-588.

Skarlicki, P. D., Barclay, L. J., & Pugh, S. D. (2008). When explanations for layoffs are not enough: Employer’s integrity as a moderator of the relationship between informational justice and retaliation. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 81, 123–146.

Soltis, S. M., Agneessens, F., Sasovova, Z., & Labianca, G. J. (2013). A social network perspective on turnover intentions: The role of distributive justice and social support. Human Resource Management, 52(4), 561-584.

Tax, S. S., & Brown, S. W. (2012). Recovering and learning from service failure. MIT Sloan Management Review.

Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 79-92.

Till, R. E., & Karren, R. (2011). Organizational justice perceptions and pay level satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(1), 42-57.

Vahlne, J.-E., Ivarsson, I., & Johanson, J. (2011). The tortuous road to globalization for Volvo's heavy truck business: Extending the scope of the Uppsala model. International Business Review, 20(1), 1-14.

Walsh, G. (2014). Extra-and intra-organizational drivers of workplace deviance. The Service Industries Journal (ahead-of-print), 1-20.

Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Hartnell, C. A. (2009). Organizational justice, voluntary learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification and leadermember exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1103-1126.

Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and Destructive Deviance tn Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 622-632.

Wu, M., Huang, X., Li, C., & Liu, W. (2012). Perceived Interactional Justice and Trustinsupervisor as Mediators for Paternalistic Leadership. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 97-121.

Zeinabadi, H., & Salehi, K. (2011). Role of procedural justice, trust, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of teachers: Proposing a modified social exchange model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1472-1481.

Zhang, Z., & Jia, M. (2013). How can companies decrease the disruptive effects of stretch goals? The moderating role of interpersonal-and informational-justice climates. Human Relations, 66(7), 993-1020.

 

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




ISSN: 2414-2336