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,
Stassen‐Ferrara, & 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 (García‐Izquierdo, Moscoso, & Ramos‐Villagrasa, 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 |
21-30 |
31-40 |
41-50 |
51-60 |
61 or |
5 or |
10-Jun |
15-Nov |
16 or |
|
- |
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
Boone, H. N., & Boone, D.
A. (2012). Analyzing likert data. Journal
of Extension, 50(2), 1-5.
Chandola, T. (2010). Stress at
work. British Academy Policy Centre,
October 2010.
García‐Izquierdo, A. L.,
Moscoso, S., & Ramos‐Villagrasa, 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.
Gau, J. M., & Brunson, R.
K. (2010). Procedural justice and order maintenance policing: A study of inner‐city young men’s
perceptions of police legitimacy. Justice
Quarterly, 27(2), 255-279.
Griffin, R., & Moorhead, G.
(2011). Organizational Behavior:
Cengage Learning.
Ledbetter, A. M., Stassen‐Ferrara, H. M.,
& Dowd, M. M. (2013). Comparing equity and self‐expansion theory
approaches to relational maintenance. Personal
Relationships, 20(1), 38-51.
Munshi, J. (2014). A method for
constructing Likert scales. Available at
SSRN 2419366.
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.
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 leader‐member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8),
1103-1126.
Wu, M., Huang, X., Li, C.,
& Liu, W. (2012). Perceived Interactional Justice and Trust‐in‐supervisor as
Mediators for Paternalistic Leadership. Management
and Organization Review, 8(1), 97-121.