4-abd rahim 211-235.pmd

25 Pages·2009·0.08 MB·English

Rahim & Nasurdin—Trust in Organizational and Workplace Deviant Behavior
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business
May-August 2008, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 211–235
TRUST IN ORGANIZATIONAL AND
WORKPLACE DEVIANT BEHAVIOR
The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control
Abdul Rahman Abdul Rahim
Aizzat Mohd. Nasurdin
This study seeks to investigate the moderating role of locus of
control (LOC) in the relationship between trust in organization
(TiO) and workplace deviant behavior (WDB). Three forms of
deviant behavior are identified: interpersonal deviance, production
deviance, and property deviance. The regression analyses carried
out on a sample of 355 employees show mixed results. Trust in
organization (TiO) demonstrates a negative relationship with pro-
duction deviance and property deviance. In contrast, trust in orga-
nization (TiO) is positively related to interpersonal deviance. Fur-
thermore, locus of control (LOC) is found to moderate the relation-
ship between trust in organization (TiO) and deviant behaviors.
Implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are
discussed.
Keywords: interpersonal deviant behavior; locus of control; Malaysia; property
deviant behavior; trust in organization
211
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, May - August 2008, Vol. 10, No. 2
Introduction drugs and alcohol abuse, while others
are more minor such as taking exces-
Workplace is an opportunity for
sive breaks, wasting resources, blam-
the expression of various forms of
ing others, and gossiping about peers.
behavior that affect individuals, orga-
Workplace deviance has been con-
nizations, and society. Although some
sidered injurious to both the organiza-
of the behavior is socially desirable
tion and human welfare (Griffin and
(such as helping and citizenship be-
O’Leary-Kelly 2004). Apart from re-
havior), others may be viewed as inap-
ducing the firm’s profit margin, vic-
propriate or outside the normal prin-
tims of deviant acts will experience
ciples of acceptability. The inappro-
lower morale (Robinson and Greenberg
priate or unacceptable behavior such
1998). Evidence has shown that the
as stealing, withholding efforts, ab-
amount of losses arising from miscon-
senteeism, abusing sick day privileges
ducts at the workplace is huge. For
have been labeled by researchers (such example, employee theft has been re-
as Appelbaum et al. 2005; Bennett and ported to be ten times costlier than the
Robinson 2000; Diefendorff and Mehta street crime and has been blamed for
2007; Hollinger 1986) as workplace 30 percent to 50 percent of all business
deviant behavior. failures in the United States of America
According to Henle et al. (2005), (Snyder and Blair 1989). On a similar
nearly 95 percent of all companies note, Greenberg and Tomlinson (2004)
report some deviance-related experi- claim that petty thieves account for
ence within their respective organiza- more business losses than grand theft
tions. This line of argument is sup- in an organization. These substantial
ported by Harper (1990) as cited in costs have generated growing inter-
Robinson and Bennett (1995), who ests among researchers especially from
estimate that 33 to 75 percent of em- the West concerning deviant behavior
ployees have engaged in at least one in organization.
form of deviant behavior such as theft, In Malaysia, the phenomenon of
computer fraud, embezzlement, van- workplace deviant behavior has been
dalism, sabotage and absenteeism. given a great deal of attention. This is
Added to these, researchers such as evident from the frequency of reports
Aquino, Galperin and Bennett (2004), in newspapers and other public media
Bolin and Heartherly (2001), concerning cases involving dishonesty,
Giacalone et al. (1997), Sackett and poor work attitudes (New Straits Times
Devore (2001), and Vardi and Weitz 2005), fraudulence, (Utusan Malaysia
(2004) indicate that workplace devi- 2004), and the issue of fake medical
ant behavior can range in terms of certificate (Utusan Malaysia 2003).
severity from minor to serious offence. Besides, a review of the dismissal cases
Some acts are considered serious such under the purview of the Malaysian
as company property theft, sabotage, Industrial Relations Department from
212
Rahim & Nasurdin—Trust in Organizational and Workplace Deviant Behavior
year 2000 to 2005 indicates the pres- stressors and job attributes (Chen and
ence of a variety of deviant behavior Spector 1991; Fox et al. 2001; Ganster
among Malaysian employees (The and Shaubrouk 1991; Lau et al. 2003).
Malaysian Current Law Journal 2000 Environmental factors are comprised
– 2005). Although the number of cases of culture, ethical infrastructure, orga-
is not alarming, this does not mean that nizational constraints, and environ-
employees’ acts of deviance are de- mental uncertainty (Allen et al. 2005;
clining. Given the fact that incidences Carmeli 2005; Greenberg 2002;
of employee misbehavior would tar- Spector and Fox 2001; Vardi 2001).
nish the image of the particular organi- Given that attitude is a prelude to be-
zation, many incidences of deviance havior, one would expect positive work
go unreported as argued by Atkinson attitudes to have a mitigating effect on
(2000). Being one of the largest sec- deviant behavior. The importance of
tors of the Malaysian economy (Ninth work attitudes on work behaviors have
Malaysia plan 2006-2010, 2006), the been noted by previous scholars
manufacturing sector should be highly (Ackroyd and Thompson 1999; Vardi
concerned with work deviance. Since and Weitz 2004). One form of attitude
local studies in this area are scarce, that influences employees’ behavior
there is a need for investigation on the at work is trust in organization (Kramer,
predictors of deviant behavior within Brewer and Hana 1996). Trust is cen-
the Malaysian manufacturing context. tral to human relationships as argued
Past studies have examined vari- by Nooteboom (2003). An individual’s
ous antecedents of employee deviant trust in an organization may deterio-
behavior. These variables can be cat- rate if the organization fails to fulfill
egorized under personal, organiza- its promises, which in turn, may lead to
tional, work-related, and environmen- negative behavior such as workplace
tal factors. Personal variables encom- deviance (Bies and Tripp 1996; Brown
pass individual differences, attitudes, and Trevino 2003). However, many
and personality traits (for example, researchers (such as Brown and
Bolin and Heatherly 2001; Colbert et Trevino 2003; Grover 1997) have high-
al. 2004; Douglas and Martinko 2001; lighted the need for more empirical
Raelin 1984; Vardi and Werner 1996). evidence of the relationship between
Organizational variables include per- trust and deviant behavior. Thus, the
ceived support, organizational justice, first objective of this study is to exam-
leadership style, psychological con- ine the effect of trust in organization
tract violation, organizational climate, on workplace deviant behavior. Stud-
and organizational politics (Colbert et ies (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978; Vardi
al. 2004; Giacalone and Greenberg and Werner 1996) have shown that an
1997; Lau, Au, and Ho 2003; Turnley individual’s attitude-behavior relation-
and Feldman 1999; Vigoda 2002). ship is contingent upon one’s person-
Work-related variables include work ality trait. One such characteristic re-
213
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, May - August 2008, Vol. 10, No. 2
lates to locus of control. Those with place aggression (Baron and Neuman
internal locus of control believe in 1998).
their own efforts and abilities, and are Regardless of the different termi-
more likely to take initiative and dis- nologies, Robinson and Bennett (1995)
play a wider set of work behavior than propose that WDB can vary based on
what is specified by the job (Withey its target: organizational and indi-
and Cooper 1989). Meanwhile, those vidual. Organizational deviance
with an external locus of control be- (WDBO) encompasses deviant behav-
lieve that work outcomes are depen- ior targeted toward the organization
dent upon external factors such as fate (e.g., intentionally working slowly,
and luck, and as such, are more likely damaging company property, sharing
to modify their environment and in- confidential company information),
crease their feeling of control through while interpersonal deviance (WDBI)
destructive acts (Allen and Greenberg encompasses deviant behavior targeted
1980). Hence, the second aim of this toward individuals (e.g., violence, gos-
research is to investigate the role of sip, and theft from coworkers). Orga-
locus of control in moderating the re- nizationally-focused deviant behavior
lationship between trust in organiza- can be further categorized into prop-
tion and deviant behavior. erty deviance and production devi-
ance. Property deviance refers to inci-
Workplace Deviant Behavior
dences where employee violates the
Workplace deviant behavior organizational norms by acquiring or
(WDB) refers to “the voluntary behav- damaging the organization’s tangible
ior that violates significant organiza- assets. Production deviance refers to
tional norms, and in doing so threatens employee behavior that violates orga-
the well-being of an organization, its nizational norms with regard to the
members or both” (Robinson and quality and quantity of work to be
Bennett 1995). Examples of such be- accomplished. Individually-focused
havior include absenteeism (Johns deviant behavior is categorized as po-
1997), theft (Greenberg 1997), and litical deviance and personal aggres-
sexual harassment (Paetzold 2004). sion. Political deviance refers to be-
Researchers have used different terms havior that causes other individuals a
to denote these deviant behavior such political disadvantage. Personal ag-
as organizational misbehavior gression reflects acts of hostility to-
(Ackroyd and Thompson 1999), orga- ward other individuals. Following past
nizational retaliation behavior studies, this study conceptualizes WDB
(Skarlicki and Folger 1997), antisocial based on its target: organizational de-
behavior (Giacalone and Greenberg viance (WDBO) and interpersonal
1997), counterproductive behavior deviance (WDBI). It is important to
(Marcus and Schuler 2004), and work- differentiate between WDBO and
214
Rahim & Nasurdin—Trust in Organizational and Workplace Deviant Behavior
WDBI because while the former deals As a result, employees’ trust toward
with behavior between the individual the organization may decline.
and the organization, the latter focuses Organizational behavioral stud-
on behavior among organizational ies have illustrated that trust is a fea-
members. This delineation will pro- ture of relationship that forms over
vide more focus and specificity to the time (Robbins 2003; McShane and
study and prophecy of such behavior, Glinow 2003). Some scholars (Dreu,
leading to the development of more Giebels and Vliert 1998; Robinson
systematic and integrative theories of and Rousseau 1994) suggest that reci-
WDB. procity in exchange relations enhances
trust, while the absence or violation of
Trust and Workplace Deviant
reciprocity erodes it. Lack of trust will
Behavior
make an employee feels tense, unsatis-
Trust is important because of its fied, less emotionally committed, and
centrality in human relationship (Cook may become unproductive (Costa et.
2005; Lewicki and Bunker 1996; al. 2001), resulting in variety of re-
Nooteboom 2003). Trust that devel- sponses ranging from confrontation to
ops from general beliefs about expec- social withdrawal such as withholding
tations is closely related to one’s will- supports, working less, or leaving the
ingness to trust others during the inter- organization (Bies and Tripp 1996).
action process. Such interactions will This is because when an employee
develop relationships in social and perceives the existence of unjustness
organizational lives that go beyond or inequity in their employment rela-
economic interests (Lewicki and Bun- tionship, he or she attempts to restore
ker 1996). These relationships are por- balance and equity through their ac-
trayed in terms of mutual obligations, tions (Adams 1965).
respect, and goodwill (Nooteboom Previous studies have demon-
2003). Trust is an attitude held by strated a significant and positive rela-
individuals in relation to another indi- tionship between trust and work atti-
vidual or group of individuals, and it is tude such as job satisfaction and com-
very important in working relation- mitment (Gilder 2003; Goris et al.
ship (Costa 2003). For the purpose of 2003; Konovsky and Cropanzano
this study, trust in organization (TiO) 1991; Wong et al. 2002). On the other
is viewed as “one’s expectations, as- hand, job satisfaction and commitment
sumptions, or beliefs for the organiza- are found to have a significant and
tion actions that will influence the negative relationship with deviant be-
likelihood of the employee’s future havior at work (Lau et al. 2003; Tepper
actions” (Gabarro and Athos 1976; 2000; Vigoda 2002). Empirical evi-
Robinson and Rousseau 1994). If the dence also reveals a negative and sig-
organization breaks on a promise, the nificant relationship between trust and
organization’s integrity is questioned. intention to leave the organization
215
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, May - August 2008, Vol. 10, No. 2
(Ferres et al. 2005; Konovsky and H1a: Trust in organization is nega-
Cropanzano 1991). Consequently, in- tively and significantly related
tention to leave will lead employees to to interpersonal deviance
engage in deviant behavior at work (WDBI).
(Bolin and Heatherly 2001; Spector H1b: Trust in organization is nega-
and Jex 1991). Trust is also found to tively and significantly related
have a significant and negative rela- to Organizational deviance
tionship with employee’s efforts with- (WDBO).
holding, information distortion (Rob-
ert and O’Reily 1974), procrastina- Locus of Control
tion, withdrawal, absenteeism and little
Locus of control (LOC) is an im-
effort at work (Gilder 2003; Deery et
portant individual factor, and can be
al. 2006; Rusbult et al. 1988). Gilder
regarded as a stable personality trait
(2003) discovers that trust in organiza-
(Lu, Wu and Cooper 1999). LOC re-
tion has a negative and significant cor-
fers to a generalized belief that re-
relation with destructive behavior such
wards, reinforcement or outcomes of
as exit, voice, negligence, commit-
life are controllable, either by one’s
ment to personal affairs, and intent to
own actions or by outside factors
leave the organization. Therefore, (Spector 1988). Those with an internal
when trust in organization is low, em- LOC (internals) believe that work out-
ployees’ cooperation toward the orga- comes are based on their own efforts
nization will also decline (Deery et al. and abilities. On the other hand, those
2006). When the employment rela- with an external work LOC (externals)
tionship is perceived to be negative, believe that work outcomes depend on
employees show a greater level of re- external factors, such as fate, luck or
sentment toward the organization. As professional acquaintances.
a result, they will be more likely to The type of locus of control in
engage in deviant behavior detrimen- people has implications for behavior
tal to the organization (Bies and Tripp in work settings. Withey and Cooper
1997) and their interpersonal relation- (1989) argue that internals believe that
ships within the organization (Perry their actions make a difference and
and Mankin 2004; Premeaux and accordingly are more likely to take
Bedeian 2003). Following this line of initiative and display a wider set of
thought, and given that there are two work behavior than what is specified
forms of deviant behavior, it is hypoth- by the job. As such, internals are more
esized that: likely to exhibit greater intrinsic moti-
H1: Trust in organization is nega- vation, have higher job satisfaction,
tively and significantly related and experience better work-related
to WDB (WDBI, WDBO). well-being (Allen et al. 2005), and will
216
Rahim & Nasurdin—Trust in Organizational and Workplace Deviant Behavior
respond negatively to frustration job satisfaction and turnover intention
(Storms and Spector 1987). Accord- is stronger for internals than externals.
ing to Spector and O’Connell (1994), Although Lonergan and Maher (2000)
internals usually use their job-relevant propose that LOC is related to one’s
experience to improve tasks and out- reactions to the work environment,
puts by obtaining and utilizing infor- they fail to prove the moderating role
mation more effectively. Hence, of LOC in the relationship between
internals exert greater efforts person- job characteristics and procrastination.
ally to control their environment (Blau Storms and Spector (1987) discover
1987). In contrast, externals are less that LOC moderates the frustration-
likely either to think about learning a sabotage relationship. It is found that
job or to actually leave even if they are frustrated externals tend to engage in
dissatisfied with certain aspects of it sabotage while frustrated internals do
(Blau 1987). Externals may attempt to not. Meanwhile, Blau (1987) in his
modify their environment and increase study discovers that LOC moderates
their feeling of control through de- the relationship between withdrawal
structive acts (Allen and Greenberg cognition and turnover. Internals show
1980). Externals report more uncon- a significantly stronger positive rela-
trollable stressors at work than do tionship than do externals between
internals (Lu, Wu and Cooper 1999). withdrawal cognition and turnover.
Chiu et al. (2005) empirically demon- Hegarty and Sims (1978 1979) find
strate that the externals’ inability to mixed results concerning the measures
cope with job stress negatively influ- of LOC and unethical behavior. Exter-
ences their organizational commitment nals are found to be associated with
and job satisfaction. unethical behavior in their initial study
Findings on the effects of LOC on in 1978. However, in another study,
work attitudes and outcomes have been Hegarty and Sims (1979) find no sig-
inconclusive. Firth et al. (2004) fail to nificant relationship between exter-
identify LOC as having a significant nals and unethical behavior. Similarly,
effect in mediating the relationship Jones and Kavanagh (1996) report in-
between work-stressors and employ- consistent results based on two experi-
ees’ intention to quit. Similarly, Gable ments conducted on LOC and unethi-
and Dangello (1994) are not able to cal behavior intention. In the first ex-
establish any relationship between periment, it is found that individuals
LOC and managerial job performance. with an external LOC report higher
Gable and Dangello (1994) empiri- unethical behavior intentions than do
cally demonstrate that LOC serves to internals, but not in the second experi-
moderate the relationship between ment. Meanwhile, Reiss and Mitra
Machiavellianism and managerial job (1988) demonstrate that externals per-
performance. Chiu et al. (2005) find ceive unethical behavior as acceptable
that the negative relationship between behavior, whereas internals perceive
217
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, May - August 2008, Vol. 10, No. 2
it as unacceptable. The above discus- dividuals and work alienation. Work
sion suggests that LOC may serve as alienation is an act to reduce work
potential moderator in the employee’s involvement, and has been perceived
attitude-behavior relationship. as an act of deviance at work (Harris
According to scholars (Costa 2004; O’Leary-Kelly and Griffin
2003; Nooteboom 2003; Robbins 2004). Therefore, this study postulates
2003), trust (in organization) is per- that LOC will moderate the relation-
sonal and relational in nature. The ship between one’s trust in organiza-
personal and relational characteristics tion and his/her WDB. Hence, our
of trust toward the organization sug- second hypothesis is:
gest that the strength of the relation- H2: Locus of control moderates the
ship between an individual’s trust in relationship between trust in or-
the employing organization and his/ ganization (TiO) and WDB
her work outcomes (such as WDB) (WDBO, WDBI). Specifically,
may be dependent upon the person’s the negative relationship be-
personality traits (such as LOC). Sev- tween trust in organization
eral researchers have examined the (TiO) and WDB (WDBI, WDBO)
moderating role of LOC between atti- is stronger for individuals with
tude and behavior (Cherry and internal LOC than individuals
Fraedrich 2000; Gable and Dangello with external LOC.
1994; Lonergan and Maher 2000; H2a: The negative relationship be-
Storms and Spector 1987). Previous tween TiO and WDBI is stron-
studies (such as Cherry and Fraedrich ger for individuals with inter-
2000; Robert et al. 1997; Syrotnick nal LOC than individuals with
and D’Arcy 1982) have provided em- external LOC.
pirical evidence of the existence of H2b: The negative relationship be-
differences in coping style between tween TiO and WDBO is stron-
internal and external LOC individu- ger for individuals with inter-
als. Furthermore, Zahra (1989) dem- nal LOC than individuals with
onstrate that executives who have an external LOC.
external LOC are inclined to perceive
organizational politics as more ethical
Methodology
than those with an internal LOC.
Robinson and Bennett (1995) view
Sample
organizational politics as a form of
interpersonal deviant. According to Respondents are comprised of 355
Zahra (1989), external LOC individu- production employees of large manu-
als tend to have a positive relationship facturing companies affiliated with the
with WDB. In contrast, Banai et al. Federation of Malaysian Manufacturer.
(2004) find a significant and negative The production employees consist of
relationship between internal LOC in- 286 production operators, 30 produc-
218
Rahim & Nasurdin—Trust in Organizational and Workplace Deviant Behavior
tion line leaders/assistant supervisors, the quality and quantity of work to be
and 39 production technicians. Mean- done. Examples include taking longer
while, 74 supervisors participate in the break, leaving unfinished work, taking
survey, where 61 of them hold produc- unnecessary sick leaves, and inten-
tion supervisor positions and 13 hold tionally working slowly. Property de-
production technical supervisor posi- viance (WDBPr) may cause damage to
tions. This study is focused on large the organization’s assets. It involves
companies since previous studies (Lau actions such as falsifying information,
et al. 2003), Mitchell et al. 1996) have taking and using company’s proper-
shown that large organizations have ties illegally. The responses can range
more incidences of deviant behavior. from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 =
This line of argument is further sup- “strongly agree”. The Cronbach’s al-
ported by other scholars (such as Meier pha for all the three dimensions ranges
and Bohie 2000; McManus 2007; from 0.79 to 0.82.
Mitchell et al. 1996; Wooward 1980) The independent variable, trust in
who claim that large manufacturing organization (TiO), is measured using
companies are more likely to have a seven items derived from Gabarro and
wider span of control that will lead to Anthons (1976). The seven items are
lack of supervision and ambiguous slightly modified to suit the purposes
standards. of this study (whereby the word “em-
ployer” is replaced with “organiza-
Measures
tion”). Sample items include, “I am
The two forms of WDB are gauged not sure that I fully trust my organiza-
via supervisory ratings. 27 items de- tion” and “My organization is not al-
veloped by Robinson and Bennett ways honest and trustworthy”. These
(1995) are used. Items are scored on a items are reverse-coded before con-
7-point likert scale ranging from 1 = ducting further analysis. The responses
‘never’ to 7 = ‘more than 15 times’. can range from 1 = “strongly disagree”
Complying with Hair et al., (2006), a to “7 = strongly agree”. The Cronbach’s
factor analysis is conducted and the alpha for this dimension is 0.76.
results reveal three dimensions of Locus of control (LOC), the mod-
WDB: interpersonal deviance, produc- erating variable, is measured using
tion deviance, and property deviance. eight items used in Martin et al.’s
WDB targeted at individuals is (2005) study. These items are origi-
classified as interpersonal deviance nally designed by Spector (1988). The
(WDBI). Examples include playing a responses can range from 1 = “strongly
mean prank, making fun and publicly disagree” to “7 = strongly agree”. This
embarrassing others. Production devi- single dimension has a reliability coef-
ance (WDBPn) is a form of deviant ficient of 0.56. Based on Ary et al.
behavior targeted at the organization (2006) whose minimum acceptable
that which will ultimately deteriorate reliability level is .50 for an explor-
219
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, May - August 2008, Vol. 10, No. 2
atory study, we opt to retain this vari- fications. In terms ethnicity, majority
able. of the subordinates are Malay (84.5%),
followed by Chinese (6.5%), Indian
Method of Analysis
(6.2%), and others (2.8%). The re-
spondents’ average organizational ten-
The hypotheses of the study are
ure is 7.93 years (SD = 6.2 years).
tested via multiple hierarchical regres-
sions (Hair et al. 2006). Previous stud- The average age of the supervi-
ies have shown that gender, age, ten- sors is 35.2 years (SD = 6.3 years) and
ure, and job position are significant 84.2 percent of them are married. A
predictors of WDB (Douglas and majority of the supervisors are male
Martinko 2001; Lau et al. 2002; (79.7%). In terms of educational quali-
Martinko et al. 2002; Thoms et al. fication, 32.9 percent of the supervi-
2001). Hence, these four demographic sors possess secondary school level
variables are controlled in the statisti- qualification, 24.8 percent hold diplo-
cal analysis. mas, 35.5 percent have bachelor de-
grees and 6.7 percent have other quali-
fications. Majority of the supervisors
Results
are Malay (74.1%), followed by In-
Sample Profile dian (14.6%) and Chinese (11.3%).
Their average organizational tenure is
A total of 355 respondents (sub-
9.7 years (SD = 7.1 years).
ordinates) participate in this survey
where 59.4 percent are males and 40.6
Descriptive Statistics,
percent are females. 56 percent (198)
Intercorrelations, and
of them are married. The average age
Reliabilities
for the sample is 30.19 years (SD = 6.9
years). Approximately 64.5 percent The means, standard deviations,
have educational qualification up to intercorrelations, and reliabilities for
secondary school level, and the re- the measures used in the study are
maining respondents (35.5%) have reported in Table 1.
certificates, diplomas, or degree quali-
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities
Mean SD WDBI WDBPn WDBPr TiO LOC
WDBI 1.36 0.69 1 (.76)
WDBPn 1.62 0.77 .07 1 (.56)
WDBPr 1.39 0.72 -.07 -.05 1 (.82)
TiO 5.27 1.02 -.13* -.06 .49* 1 (.79)
LOC 5.26 0.95 -.22* -.14* .58* .63* 1 (.81)
Notes: N= 355; *p<0.01;**p<0.05; Reliabilities are provided in parentheses
220