This study will perceive how factors such as job satisfaction, abusive supervision and organisational citizenship behaviour influence an employee’s likeliness to engage in workplace deviance. Additionally, investigate if organisational justice perception moderates the relationship between abusive relationship and workplace deviance.
For this research study, quantitative data and descriptive research design will be utilised to gather the required information. An online survey form will be sent to employees via email and we will require a minimum of 385 responses to conduct the study. The data collected for the research will be kept confidential and the identities of the participants will remain anonymous. This helps ensure accurate and honest responses that are bias free.
Once the data has been collected, the research team will run a regression analysis to verify the relationships in the proposed hypotheses. Factors such as validity, reliability and sensitivity will be tested. This allows us to analyse the relationships between Workplace Deviance (DV) and the three IVs, job satisfaction, organisational citizenship behaviour and abusive supervision. If the results are shown to be significant, the null hypotheses are rejected and therefore in conclusion, the results are vital for understanding the relationship between the IVs and workplace deviance.
Finally, possible strategic implementations and control measures will be discussed in a presentation at the end of the study during the proposal.
Undertaking this project will help Commonwealth bank increase employee performance and prevent possible financial liability and upkeep its professional image.
1.0 Situation Analysis
1.2 Problem Statement
1.3 Statement of Importance and Benefit
2. Literature Review
2.1 Workplace Deviance
2.2 Abusive Supervision
2.3 Organisational Justice Perception
2.4 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)
2.5 Job Satisfaction
2.6 Model Review
3.0 Research Design
3.1 Research Design Introduction
3.2 Research Method
3.3 Data Collection
3.4 Sampling Design
3.4.1 Sample Type
3.4.2 Sample Size
3.5.1 Measurement Items
3.5.2 Measurement Design
3.6 Ethics Statement
4.0 Analysis Plan & Strategic Outputs
4.1 Data Analysis Plan
4.1.1 Data Cleaning
4.1.2 Measurement Test
4.1.3 Regression Analysis
4.2 Statement of Strategic Outputs
Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) is an established Australian bank that operates across Asia, Europe, North America and New Zealand. CBA was founded by the Australian Government and is one of the four major banks in Australia. In terms of workplace environment, CBA was recently named as a Gold employer for LGBTI workplace inclusion as part of the Australian Workplace Equality Index (Commonwealth Bank of Australia, 2017). Aside from public contributions and community engagement programs, CBA also pride themselves on being ethical and upstanding employers where they hope to develop a diversified and inclusive workforce. Workplace deviance is something that can affect an organization’s performance, image, and even cost an organization financially.
The proposal intends to understand the factors that contribute to workplace deviance and explore methods that analyse this behaviour. Negative acts such as absenteeism, theft and sabotage are common examples of workplace deviance faced by organizations. Numerous organizations have turned their attention to combating workplace deviance as it has proven to be costly problem (Chen, Chen, & Liu, 2013)
Workplace deviance is broken down into two categories. The first being organizational deviance. This is directed at the organization and aims to provide negative impacts directly upon the employer. An example of this would be the theft of business material for personal use. The second type of workplace deviance is interpersonal workplace deviance. This on the other hand is directed at fellow employees. An example of this would be mocking a peer in front of other colleagues. Even though, this may seem trivial, it is frequently occurrent in most organizations with severe impacts (Ménard & Savoie, 2011)
Workplace deviance is a deliberate behaviour pattern demonstrated by employees that threatens the performance of staff and possibly the corporate image of the organization. It disregards company norms and is usually an act of sabotage (Ferris, Spence, Brown, & Heller, 2012). Research indicates that 33-75% of employees have engaged in deviant behaviours in a workplace (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). This is an issue faced by many organizations and has a negative impact on their performance. Some employees who engage in deviant behaviours do not even know if they are engaging in workplace deviance. For instance, as much as 75% of employees have admitted to stealing from their organizations. This can range from something that is considered trivial such as the theft of stationary to something as major as embezzlement. Annually, workplace theft estimates from $10 billion to $120 billion (Bennett & Robinson, 2000).
The management problem is as follows:
What are the factors that cause Workplace Deviance?
A proper framework is set to address the management problem stated above. The research questions stated below help direct solving the current issue.
The research problems are as follows:
To what extent does Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) and Job Satisfaction affect workplace deviance in an organisation?
Does Organisational Justice Perception affect the extent of Abusive supervision affecting workplace deviance in an organisation?
Workplace Deviance has become common in organizations and has been the root cause to many organizations losing billions of dollars annually (Syaebani & Sobri, 2013). Furthermore, many organizations have also suffered from maintaining stakeholder confidence causing a drop-in share value.
Banks have been made victims of such cases in past years. For instance, HSBC paid 1.9 billion US dollars when it was accused of engaging in a money laundering probe (Brice & Rupp, 2016). Swiss Bank UBS faced a loss of 2.3 Billion US dollars as the result of fraud caused by a single trader in its London office (Brice & Rupp, 2016).
This study aims to identify and investigate the factors that lead to workplace deviance and understand the reasons for its occurrence. Our team will conduct this research to identify the above-mentioned factors and produce strategies and solution to aid CBA overcome this issue of Workplace Deviance and ensure a reduction in liabilities related to this issue.
An organization like CBA has become an icon of stability and a household name in terms of its financial services. This study aims to help CBA continue to build on the legacy without the threats of workplace deviance and its negative consequences.
Workplace deviance can be defined as employee behaviour that leads to negative outcomes for organizations and/or its employees, and involves a degree of intent or awareness on behalf of the acting individual (Dumazert & Plane, 2012). This behaviour is typically derived from a motivation to violate organizational rules and norms, or a lack of motivation to satisfy them (Bennett & Robinson, 1995). Trends in previous research are pointing towards an unsettling fact that not only are many organizations susceptible to workplace deviance, but most employees have engaged in some form of malevolent behaviour against their organization (Syaebani & Sobri, 2013).
Based on this trend, Robin and Bennett (1995) categorised the variety of workplace deviance into two basic categories called Organisational Deviance and Interpersonal Deviance. Organisational Deviance collates deviances directed toward the organisation such as intentionally extending work-shifts, theft and sabotage. Interpersonal Deviance defines deviance directed towards the employees such as verbal abuse, bullying and physical aggression. Due to the frequency of workplace deviance in the current workforce, it is important to investigate the root of the cause to reduce any future financial liability to CBA.
Upon the review of the literature, it has been proposed that an alignment of certain organizational, environmental and individual factors open organizations to this form of malevolent behaviour (Vaughan, 1999). To thoroughly understand the factors that lead to this behaviour, we must consider prominent variables from these following aspects explore their relationship with workplace deviance. In this research study, we aim to focus on abusive supervision from an organisational perspective, Organisational Justice Perception from an environmental level, OCB and Job satisfaction from an individual level to understand the impact within CBA.
For the proposed study, Abusive supervision describes the display or perceived display of supervisors’ non-physical and hostile behaviour towards their subordinates (Tepper, 2000). For example, supervisors who exhibit this type of behaviour in the workplace typically blame, criticize and direct rude remarks at workers (Wang, Mao, Wu, & Liu, 2012).
When an employee perceives mistreatment towards themselves in the workplace, there is a likelihood that the individual will express their negative emotions with attitudes that are counterproductive to the organization as suggested by empirical evidence from (Wang, Mao, Wu, & Liu, 2012; Bennett T. J., 2000; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Huiwen & Ferris, 2014). Based on the existing research, we can expect abusive supervision to result in ‘direct’ deviance against their supervisor or ‘displaced’ deviance towards the organization or its employees.
The reasoning behind this trend is that employees caught in this type of relationship quickly develop a negative outlook on the organization in its entirety, and it allows their perception of justice within the organization to quickly deteriorate (Wang, Mao, Wu, & Liu, 2012). Tepper (2000) suggest this inequity victimizes subordinates and drives then to seek for compensation through other means. The literature appears to confirm this, with Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) suggesting that prolonged levels of abusive supervision are positive related with an increase in both direct and displaced deviance. This can be comprehensible as either experiencing or observing abusive supervision can change the atmosphere and work attitudes towards the organisation.
For the proposed study of CBA, organisational Justice Perception is the employee’s underlying perception on how fair an organisation is toward them (Lim, 2002). This justice perception can be segmented to three segments: Distributive, Procedural and Interactional Justice Perception (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Distributive justice refers to the fairness of the decisions (Lim, 2002). Procedural considers the fairness of the framework used to determine the decision (Lim, 2002). Interactional justice refers to the quality of interpersonal treatment (Lim, 2002).
Even though, research indicates that there is a relationship between Abusive Supervision and Workplace, the frequency and the severity of the Workplace Deviance can be accelerated by a negative perception of Organisational Justice. Particularly the perceptions of interactional and procedural is a main contributor to this severity of Organisational Deviance and, interactional and procedural to Interpersonal Deviance.
The mediating relationship was proposed and emperically tested by Nielhoff and Moorman (1993) and the individual relationships were emperically validated. Aquino et al. (1999) validated that the facets of Organisational Justice Perception indicated a negative relation with Workplace Deviance. Furthermore, Tepper (2000) later proposed the a negative relationship between Abusive Supervision and Organisational Justice Perception. In recent studies, a combined modelling of these relationships emperically signified a similar relationship (Wang, Mao, Wu, & Liu, 2012; Ferris & Lian, 2014; Wang & Jiang, 2015)
In a workplace like CBA, a negative perception of the Organisational Justice impacts the work environment and rouse negative affectivity. This is because they have an innate tendency to reciprocate the behaviours and attitudes shown towards them in the workplace (Shoss, Eisenberger, Restubog, & Zagenczyk, 2013), implying that “individuals who perceive harm are more likely to return negative reactions” (Wang, Mao, Wu, & Liu, 2012).
Hence, we can hypothesize:
H1: When an employee experiences abusive supervision in an organization, a negative relationship is observed between Abusive Supervision and Organisational Justice Perception.
H2: When an employee perceives unfair organisational justice practices against himself from the organisation, a negative relationship is observed with Organisational Justice Perception and Workplace Deviance
OCB has been generalised as an employee’s voluntary behaviour that is not expected from their job roles and responsibilities but beneficial to the organization (Zorlu & Bastemur, 2014). Since the abstract nature of the behaviour, Organ (1988) measured OCB using the five factor model: Altruism, Courtesy, Sportsmanship, Conscientiousness and Civic Virtue.
Zorlu and Bastemur (2014) verified that there is a negative relationship between OCB and the segments of workplace deviance (see section 2.1) using quantitative methods. Apaydin and Sirin (2016) verified that the negative relationship between OCB and workplace deviance in general. Other research models (Faheem & Mahmud, 2015; Organ, 1988; Organ, 1990; Runhaar, Konermann, & Sanders, 2013; Williams & Anderson, 1991) placing OCB and workplace deviance utilise a similar basis.
In relation to the conducted research, the negative relationship of OCB and workplace deviance is prominently visible in large organisations with a centralised or taller organisational structure. OCB at both an individual and organisational level makes it easier to collaborate internally and helps reduce negative affectivity associated with work roles. Additionally, it makes it harder for an individual to distinguish between the individual and the organisation when attempting to engage in workplace deviance as illustrated by Prasetio, Yuniarsih, and Ahman, (2017) investigating State-owned banking organizations. Hence, we can hypothesize that:
H3: When an employee is engaging in Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB), a negative relationship is observed with OCB and Workplace Deviance.
Job Satisfaction is the attitude of employee’s satisfaction level in performing their assigned job and their involvement in the organization (Zorlu & Bastemur, 2014). It is the culmination of psychological, physical and environmental aspects in a workplace (Faheem & Mahmud, 2015). Job satisfaction can be catergorised into global job satisfaction that outlines the overall attitude of their job role and, facet job satisfaction which coves the specfic job aspects.
Many studies have investigated this and identified a relationship between Job Satisfaction and Workplace Deviance (Walsh, 2014; Zorlu & Bastemur, 2014; Chen, Chen, & Liu, 2013; Lee & Allen, 2002; Brayfield & Rothe, 1951). The research unanimously indicates a negative relationship between Job satisfaction and Workplace Deviance. Walsh (2014) indicated that the negative correlation is indicative of employees adjusting to a frustrating job resulting in acts of sabotage and deviant behaviour. Zorlu and Bastemur, (2014) analysed that the individual job satisfaction had a negative relationship between work deviance at an individual and consequently at an organizational level. Lee and Allen (2002) investigated the influence of negative affect and cognitions to evaluate the negative correlation between job satisfaction and workplace deviance.
The reasoning behind this apparent negative relationship could be that satisfying global and facet job satisfaction criteria of an employee would create a symbiotic relationship between the employee and the organisation. This relationship makes it unlikely for the individual to display and workplace deviant behaviour as it is mutually harmul for the employee. This leads to a hypothesis about the relationship between OCB and Workplace Deviance:
H4: Job Satisfaction is negatively associated with Workplace Deviance of employees.
Figure 1: Hypothesized model of proposed research
The hypotheses in the model above will be tested to address the research questions. This will be achieved by exploring the relationships between the dependent variable(DV), workplace deviance, and the independent variables(IVs), abusive supervision, job satisfaction and OCB. Furthermore, we will evaluate how the mediating variable (MV), organisational justice perception, moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance.
The appropriate overall design of the study selected would be quantitative. Quantitative data is the most ideal for this particular situation as it is most accurate, objective and can accommodate greater generalisation. The limitation of it however, is that it can only be recorded in numerical form usually expressing a particular amount, quantity, or range.
When descriptive research is collaborated with quantitative data, it is possible to examine the outcomes of various variable levels, simultaneously allowing the accumulation of evidence in regard to the possible relationships between the DV and each respective IV. Also, high levels of problem crystallisation are required when utilising descriptive research and this can be attained via structured research questions that test the hypotheses.
For this particular study, we will construct a survey on a free online platform (E.g. SurveyMonkey) and use it as the tool to collect the required data to test the hypotheses. Firstly, there are several benefits of using an online survey. For starters, it is cost efficient and does not incur multiple miscellaneous charges, also it does not require excessive manpower or work hours to be wasted on data collection.
It is also in our favour that the internet is accessible to staff. Most internet surveys also have the capabilities to capture real time data such as the duration used by the participants and even specific time slots at which the participants logged on to do the survey itself. Online surveys can help retrieve a broad scope of quantitative data that is exclusively internal to the respondent. This is beneficial considering the nature of the variables and vital in the testing of the relationship between the variables and hypotheses.
However, certain shortcomings of using the internet survey method. Firstly, there is no guarantee that all selected participants will actually complete the survey. For instance, if the link was emailed to them, there is a slight chance they may consider it as junk mail. A good prevention would be, for a superior to brief the participants about the survey and its importance.
Another concern is the anonymity of the survey. Especially so when questions similar to ‘Have you ever engaged in workplace deviance?’ are asked, people usually are sceptical on the anonimity. It is crucial to address this by assuring the participants that the data collected will be kept confidential and also have an official agreement binding the statement.
The data used for assessing the model will be collected using a communication collection method. This method is utilised by directly questioning respondents through the means of a questionnaire. This questionnaire will be distributed online, and will give the respondent the opportunity to view these questions visually, as opposed to asking them in a face-to-face or phone interview (Babin, Carr, Griffin, Quinlan, & Zikmund, 2015). This will increase the respondents perceived anonymity and therefore remove certain biases. In using this communication method, it allows for the collection of a large variety of quantitative data that can be used to better understand the relationships between our model’s independent and dependent variables. It is also able to achieve this in a relatively short span of time and with limited funding. The alternative method of data collection, the observational method, requires a greater investment of time and money in comparison to this method. It would simply not be viable to use the observational method because the respondent’s attitudes and opinions are essential in assessing the various relationships in our model.
We will administer this survey to CBA’s employees via email. These individuals will be randomly selected from a list of employees provided by CBA, which will specify their email. The content inside of this email will be the survey is a brief outline of the purpose of our research, a clear set of instructions, and a reassurance as to their information’s confidentiality and anonymity. A Myer’s Gift Card will be used to incetivise participation. Additionally, response rates will be further improved by sending follow-up emails to individuals in a 10 day period.
One drawback is its predisposition to certain errors and biases. A number of these errors come in the form of a response error. In regards to our collection methods, a number of response errors were able to be minimised by conducting the survey both online, and anonymously. One such bias is the interviewer bias, where the presence of an interviewer influences the responses. This bias becomes redundant from administering the survey by means of an online website, as a physical interviewer is not required in the distribution of the survey. Additionally, there is a minimisation in the social desirability bias, as the assurance of anonymity will reduce the respondents desire to be seen in a different social role. The use of an online survey also reduces the impact of certain administrative errors, such as the interviewer error. Since the respondent’s answers are automatically recorded by the website itself, the potential for human error in this process is eliminated. Additionally, interviewer cheating, which is the practice of filling in or falsifying answers when working as the interviewer, is no longer a possibility. Finally, the use of an online website to record data entry lessens the possibility of incorrect data entry, and thus the possibility of a data-processing error. This is under the assumption that SurveyMonkey.com is a thorough and well-programmed website.
The definition of sampling is the act of collecting data from a small subset of elements within a population, and using that information to represent the population as a whole (Babin, Carr, Griffin, Quinlan, & Zikmund, 2015). A census is an alternative method, and is a design which collects data from an entire population. In our research, a census design is not feasible without CBA making our survey compulsory. As such, our research will use a sampling design, which has the added advantage of efficiency in regard to time and financing.
The relevant population within our sampling design will consist of CBA’s 45,614 employees (The Wall Street Journal, 2017), with the exception of any individual hired within the previous two months. This is because recently hired members of the organisation may not have the necessary experience to provide reliable data. As workplace deviance is a behaviour displayed by employees within a working environment, these are the individuals who must be questioned to better understand the respective factors. Past employees will be excluded from the population, as they may have a negative bias against the organisation and may not be familiar with the company’s culture in its present state. Excluding such individuals ensures the reliability of data in our research. The sampling frame of this design would consist of a the population specified above. This list of employees would be obtained from the organisation itself by searching its databases.
As we have access to the sample frame, which lists all employees and their emails, it can be said that all elements within the population have non-zero chance of being included in this sample. This allows for the use of a probability sampling technique, which allows the sample results to be expanded to the entire population. This technique is chosen over the non-probability technique, as a sample produced with the latter may not be representative of a population (Babin, Carr, Griffin, Quinlan, & Zikmund, 2015). The type of probability sampling that will be applied is the systematic sampling technique. A random starting point will be chosen, and every nth employee on the list will be sent an email with a copy of the survey attached. What determines n is the number resulting from dividing the entire population by the sample size, and then rounding to the nearest whole number (Babin, Carr, Griffin, Quinlan, & Zikmund, 2015). The systematic technique typically presents errors which may occur, including the sampling frame error and the non-response error. The sampling frame error is defined as any inaccuracies in the sampling frame (Babin, Carr, Griffin, Quinlan, & Zikmund, 2015), which would influence the reliability of the collected data. This type of error should present few concerns for our research, as the database that will be obtained belongs to a large MNC with the financial incentive to maintain a quality database. Additionally, the non-response error will be minimised by sending follow-up emails to these participants or by catering specific time for the completion of the survey. If these individuals fail to respond within 20 days, they will be excluded from the study, in which case the nth + 1 employee on the list will be sent an email, and replace the other individual.
The required sample size for our research will be determined with the confidence interval approach. This method is centred on the construction of confidence intervals around sample means or proportions using the standard error formula (Wallin, 2017). The formula consists of the following:
= standardised value that corresponds to the confidence level
= sample standard deviation or estimate of the population standard deviation
= acceptable magnitude of error, plus or minus error factor (max. difference between population and sample mean)
Step 1: The level of precision is specified as E = ±0.1
Step 2: For a 95% confidence level, the corresponding z value is equal to 1.96
Step 3: The estimated σ² :
Step 4: Calculate the sample size
Step 5: As the sample size is less than 10% of the population, the finite population correction is not applied.
With a sample size of 385 participants, we can now calculate n for the systematic sampling technique.
n=Population sizeSample size
Therefore, every 118th person on the list of employees will be sent an email containing the survey.
|Construct||Variable Type & Measurement Scale||Source||Operational Definition||Measures||Reliability Information (Cronbach’s Alpha) *|
|Abusive Supervision||Independent Variable &
|(Tepper, 2000)||Abusive Supervision can be in operation by averaging employee’s survey from the 15 dimensions, 2 subscale questionnaire, using the 7-point Likert scale.
The two subscales as proposed in Section 2.2 that abusive supervision is dependent on are (a) direct deviance against their supervisor or ‘displaced’ deviance towards the organisation.
|The Likert scale for the level of agreement ranges from 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 7 being ‘strongly agree’. We adapted this to our study to reflect current trends.
Example of direct deviance is “Tells me that I’m incompetent”.
Example of ‘displaced’ deviance measurement is “Does not allow me to interact with workers”
|Organisational Justice Perception||Mediator &
|(Niehoff & Moorman, 1993)||Organisation Justice Perception can be in operation by averaging employee’s survey from the 13 dimensions, 3 subscale questionnaire, using the 7-point Likert scale.
The three subscales as proposed in Section 2.3 that Organisational Justice Perception is dependent on are (a) Distributive (b) Procedural and Interactional justice perception towards the organisation.
|Organisational Justice Perception uses the level of agreement Likert scale to measure whether they are treated fairly. A higher mean score indicates positive organisational justice perception and a reduction in workplace deviance.
Example of Distributive justice is “My Work schedule is fair”.
Example of Formal Procedures include “Job decisional are made by the general manager in an unbiased manner”.
Example of Interactional Justice include “When decisions are made about my job, the general manager is sensitive to my personal needs”.
|Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)||Independent Variable &
|(Niehoff & Moorman, 1993)||Organisation Citizenship Behaviour can be in operation by averaging employee’s survey from the 16 dimensions, 5 subscale questionnaire, using the 7-point Likert scale.
The five as proposed in Section 2.4 that OCB is dependent on are (a) altruism (b) Sportsmanship (c) Courtesy (d) Civic Virtue and Conscientiousness
|OCB uses the level of agreement Likert scale to measure whether they display voluntary behaviour that is beneficial to the organisation. A higher mean score indicates positive OCB and a reduction in workplace deviance.
Examples of Altruism items include “Helps others who have been absent”.
Examples of Courtesy includes “Does not abuse the rights of others”
Examples of Conscientiousness includes “Is always punctual”.
Examples of Civic Virtue includes (Keeps abreast of changes in the organisation”
|Job Satisfaction||Independent Variable &
|(Brayfield & Rothe, 1951)||Job Satisfaction can be in operation by averaging employee’s survey from the 8 dimensions, 2 subscale questionnaire, using the 7-point Likert scale for agreement.
The two as proposed in Section 2.5 that Job Satisfaction is dependent on are (a) Global and (b) Facet job Satisfaction. The Cronbach’s alpha value is averaged across those two sub sections.
|Job satisfaction uses the level of agreement Likert scale to measure whether they are satisfied with their job role and environment. A higher mean score indicates low job satisfaction OCB and an increase in workplace deviance.
Examples of a Global Job Satisfaction includes “I am often bored with my work”
Examples of Facet Job Satisfaction includes “There are some conditions concerning my job that could be improved”.
|0.77 – 0.87|
|Workplace Deviance||Dependent Variable &
|(Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007) adapted from
(Bennett & Robinson, 2000)
|Workplace deviance can be in operation by averaging employee’s survey from the 9 dimensions, 2 subscale questionnaires, using the 7-point Likert scale for frequency.
The two as proposed in Section 2.1 that Workplace Deviance is related to is on are (a) Organisational and (b) Interpersonal Deviance.
|Workplace Deviance uses the level of agreement Likert scale to measure whether they are exhibiting harmful behaviour to the organisation. A higher mean score indicates higher frequency of Workplace deviance.
The Likert scale for the level of frequency ranges from 1 being ‘Never’ and 7 being ‘Always Daily’. We adapted this to our study to reflect current trends.
Examples of a Organisational Deviance includes “Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked”
Examples of Interpersonal includes “Said something Hurtful at work”
* Cronbach’s Alpha is summarized by (Fields, 2002)
Any method of data collection must display validity, reliability and sensitivity before the data can be used to create insights into certain relationships between variables. If these measures are not maintained, the data collected may become redundant (Babin, Carr, Griffin, Quinlan, & Zikmund, 2015).
Validity is defined as the degree to which a test is able to measure the concept that it is designed to measure (Babin, Carr, Griffin, Quinlan, & Zikmund, 2015). This ensures that the data truthfully represents the unique concept. The validity of our measures can be assessed by applying face validity and content validity. Face validity is the logical and subjective assessment of whether or not the measure is perceived as actually testing the concept. Content validity is described as the evaluation of how well a measure represents every element of a concept. This can be achieved by introducing multiple questions that assesses various individual aspects of a concept.
Reliability is the consistency with which a measure provides results (Babin, Carr, Griffin, Quinlan, & Zikmund, 2015). Furthermore, it can be described as the extent to which a measure is free from random error. A measure with high reliability should produce similar results over multiple tests. Two perspectives that can be used to assess reliability include internal and test-retest reliability. Internal reliability is a tests ability for each of its items to draw similar conclusions when assessing the same concept. The internal reliability of a measure is represented with Cronbach’s alpha, the function of the number of test items and the average covariance between them. A figure of 0.7 and above is ideal, and suggests convergence amongst the items. The test-retest reliability assessment is an alternative approach in which the test is administered over two different periods in time. By comparing the test results, reliability can be confirmed or rejected depending on the consistency between the results.
Sensitivity is an instrument’s ability to record and measure the variability in responses (Babin, Carr, Griffin, Quinlan, & Zikmund, 2015). Sensitivity is increased by expanding the possible response categories within an item or the number of total items measuring a particular concept. A 7-point Likert scale has been chosen as it is seen as containing a reasonable number of response categories, and therefore a reasonable level of sensitivity. Multiple items were also used to assess each individual concept as to ensure sensitivity was not measured as too low.
There are several ethical dilemmas that should be considered in order to uphold the rights of the research company, the client, and the participants. Firstly, all participants should give their consent and be made aware of the purpose of the study, the nature of the research and their involvement in the study itself. Guaranteed confidentiality agreement is a definite requirement as this will ensure that the participant’s responses are free of biases and provides them with the confidence that the information gathered will not be disseminated or exposed.
Participants should also be given the option to opt out of the study. They should also be allowed to skip questions that make them feel uncomfortable. Contact details of the researchers should also be provided if they have any queries regarding the study.The participants should be informed that their answers should be truthful and unbiased and the clients should also be contractually bound to be discreet with the data provided. Dissemination of all information should be subjected to consent of both the researchers and the participants. The researchers should remain objective and conduct their study avoiding any possible errors. All shortcomings or possible misinterpretation should be explained to the client so as to ensure the client makes an informed decision once the information has been provided.
To ensure that the data has maintained the necessary quality for research, we will use certain methods to detect any inaccuracies or errors that may corrupt the data. By using the descriptive statistic function in excel, we will be able to identify the mean, median and mode, in addition to the skewness and kurtosis. By confirming that these measures fall within an acceptable range, and that each measure fails to reveal any abnormalities, we can proceed with the data.
For all tested items that belong to a set of items testing a single concept, the data collected will be combined into a single statistic using the AVERAGE function in excel. This is theoretically acceptable as each item tests the same concept, and therefore should receive very similar scores. Additionally, each item uses a 7-point Likert scale, which means their data is comparable and consistent with one another. To either confirm or reject the idea that the data is consistent amongst the various sets of items, we will run the measurement analysis test. This test will produce a figure known as Cronbach’s alpha, which will indicate if the data is reliable, which is a measure of consistency (Wallin, 2017). If the Cronbach’s alpha is above 0.7, we can justify that the data is in fact consistent amongst the set of items.
A multiple regression analysis will be used to assess the relationships between the independent and dependent variables. As the predictor variables are not categorical, a linear regression model is the preferred option over an ANOVA. Two separate regression tests will be conducted, with the first testing the relationships between Job Satisfaction, Justice Perception and OCB, and the dependent variable, Workplace Deviance. The second will be a regression analysis testing the relationship between Abusive Supervision and Justice Perception. Justice perception is a mediating variable in the model, but will act as the dependent variable in this test. This test requires a number of assumptions to be satisfied before its results can be considered accurate.
Normality is tested by running descriptive statistics on each of the variables. This will produce a mean, median and mode, in addition to skewness and kurtosis. If the mean, median and mode are relatively close to one another, we can confirm the data’s normality. If the skewness and kurtosis fall within a range of -3 to 3, we will be able to again confirm the data’s normality.
188.8.131.52 Metric Data
To uphold this assumption, all the variables must be measured on at least an interval scale. After reviewing our proposed data collection process, it can be seen that this is in fact the case, and therefore this assumption is upheld.
Linearity can be confirmed by creating scatter plots for each relationship, and applying a regression line to the data. If the line appears to fit the data, then linearity is confirmed.
Multicollinearity is established by using a correlation analysis to determine the strength of the individual relationships. The strength of the relationships is displayed through a single figure, known as the correlation coefficient. A higher number suggests a stronger relationship. If all relationships produce a coefficient of 0.95 or below, it suggests that no relationships are perfect or close to perfect, and therefore the assumption is upheld (Wallin, 2017).
Homoscedasticity can be tested by viewing the scatter plots of each relationship and visually assessing the variance of the data and how consistent it is horizontally. The pattern of variance should remain relatively consistent along the regression line, and be clear of any abnormal patterns such as fanning. If the scatter plot is consistent with these requirements, homoscedasticity is upheld.
184.108.40.206 Interpreting the outputs:
To interpret the significance of the model, we must locate the Sig value that is found in the ANOVA table. If the value is above the significance value of 0.05, it can be stated that none of the relationships tested were statistically significant, and no further analysis is required (Wallin, 2017). If this value is below 0.05, then we must take further steps to analyse the data. This consists of assessing the strength of association between the independent variables and the dependent variable. This is achieved by finding the square of the multiple correlation coefficients, denoted as R2. This value produces a decimal value which can be translated into a percentage value. This value states what percentage of variation in the dependent variable is explained by changes in the independent variables.
The next stage in the analysis is to find the coefficients table, and view the individual p-values for each relationship, which is in the Sig column. This value is then paired against the significance value of 0.05, and if the p-value is lower than this value, the relationship is considered significant (Wallin, 2017).
Once it is determined that the individual relationships are significant, the strength of these relationships can be evaluated. This occurs by interpreting the value produced for the standardized coefficient of the relationship. This value is calculated by measuring how many standard deviations the dependent variable will change, in response to a single standard deviation change in the independent variable. The standardised coefficient will be within the range of -1 to 1 (Wallin, 2017). The further the value is from 0, the stronger the relationship is considered. A negative value suggests that the relationship is also negative (Wallin, 2017).
Should the results of the regression analysis for all IVs be statistically significant, the proposed hypotheses would be supported. Therefore, proving that workplace deviance is indeed affected by abusive supervision, job satisfaction and OCB. Additionally, the moderating variable, organisational justice perception can be proven to be a contributing factor that affects workplace deviance.
As for abusive supervision, there are a few steps that the organisation can take to ensure it is minimised and if not entirely eradicated. For starters, management can brief all staff in leadership roles on the importance of professional supervision. Examples of abusive supervisions should be used as a case study to better inform these leaders on what can be categorised as abusive supervision. The management should also be transparent about the repercussions that may take place should leaders engage in abusive supervision. Additionally, all staff should be given a hotline to report such cases to the human resources department should they happen to experience such incidents.
Secondly, regarding job satisfaction, the organisation can start of by ensuring that the people allocated to specific jobs, suit the job requirements. E.g. Staff in customer service should be comfortable communicating with customers. Supervisors can also hold monthly meetings or feedback sessions to allow staff to practice a certain level of autonomy and surface their concerns to management so this way, higher management can attempt to create a better working environment. Constant communication between staff and management will lead to a better understanding of each other’s needs and wants and will ultimately help increase the overall job satisfaction among employees.
Organisation Citizenship Behaviour is something that is cultivated over time. It is the commitment that staff have towards the organisation that usually goes beyond their primary duties. In order the cultivate this, the organisation must create a sense of belonging within its employees. Essentially, the staff should feel that the organisation cares for them and therefore in return also care for the organisation. A practice that has been used by many successful organisations is to open their stocks to be purchased by their employees. Although this is commonly seen within their higher tiers of the corporate ladder, the idea is that should employees view themselves as stakeholders, they are then less likely to engage in deviant behaviours. Another, perhaps simpler method would be to organise activities that promote cooperation and an office social environment where employees interact and work cohesively. When such an environment is formed, OCB related traits tend to appear such as volunteering or aiding others.
The findings of the research study will be shared with our clients and their management team via a presentation by the research team. Visual aids will be provided through Microsoft PowerPoint. E.g. Graphs, Polls, etc. This will ensure proper understanding of the data collected and the information translated from it. Any queries will be addressed immediately after the presentation. We urge CBA to take up this research as there is much to gain and little to lose.
Apaydin, C., & Sirin, H. (2016). The Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Group Cohesiveness And Workplace Deviance Behavior Of Turkish Teachers. International Education Studies, 9(10), 58-69. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n10p58
Babin, B., Carr, J., Griffin, M., Quinlan, C., & Zikmund, W. G. (2015). Business Research Methods (1 ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.3.349
Bennett, R., & Robinson, S. L. (1995). A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study. Academy of Management Journal, 555-572.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An Index of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 307-311.
Brice, W., & Rupp, D. E. (2016). The Psychology of Workplace Deviant & Criminal Behavior. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 105(2), 533-548. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol105/iss2/7
Chen, C.-C., Chen, M.-C., & Liu, Y.-C. (2013, January). Negative affectivity and workplace deviance: the. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(15), 2894-2910. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.753550
Commonwealth Bank of Australia. (2017). We are Group Operations: Commonwealth Bank of Australia Web Site. Retrieved from Commonwealth Bank of Australia Web Site: https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/careers/working-here/enterprise-services/group-operations.html
Dumazert, J.-P., & Plane, J.-M. (2012). Negative Deviant Behaviors in the Workplace: Causes and Impacts to Co-workers and Human Relations. Revue De Gestion Des Ressources Humaines, 86(4), 52-63,66,68. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/grhu.086.0052
Faheem, M., & Mahmud, N. (2015). The effects of Organisational Justice on Workplace Deviance and Job Satisfaction of Employees: Evidence from a Public-Sector Hospital of Pakistan. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n5p342
Ferris, L. D., & Lian, H. (2014). Blame It on the Supervisor or the Subordinate? Reciprocal Relations Between Abusive Supervision and Organizational Deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 651-664.
Ferris, L. D., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2012). Interpersonal Injustice and Workplace Deviance. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1788-1811. doi:10.1177/0149206310372259
Fields, D. L. (2002). Taking the Measure of Work: A Guide to Validated Scales for Organizational Research and Diagnosis. California, United States of America: Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/10.4135/9781452231143
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Workplace Deviance: The Role of Affect and Cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131-142. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131
Lim, V. K. (2002). The IT way of loaﬁng on the job: cyberloaﬁng, neutralizing and organizational justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 675-694.
Ménard, J., & 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), 309-317. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024741
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), 1159-1168.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior : The good soldier syndrome (Issues in organization and management series). Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behaviour. Research in organizational behaviour, 12, 43-72.
Prasetio, A. P., Yuniarsih, T., & Ahman, E. (2017). Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in State-owned Banking. Universal Journal of Management, 5(1), 32-38. doi:DOI: 10.13189/ujm.2017.050104
Runhaar, P., Konermann, J., & Sanders, K. (2013). Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Considering the Roles of Their Work Engagement, Autonomy and Leader-Member Exchange. eaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 30, 99-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.10.008
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming the Organization for Abusive Supervision: The Roles of Perceived Organizational Support and Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 158-168.
Syaebani, M. I., & Sobri, R. R. (2013). Relationship between Organizational Justice Perception and Engagement in Deviant Workplace Behavior. The South East Asian Journal of Management, 5(1). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21002/seam.v5i1.1795
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of Abusive Supervision. Academy Journal of Management, 43(2), 178-190. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556375
The Wall Street Journal. (2017). Commonwealth Bank of Australia: The Wall Street Journal Website. Retrieved from The Wall Street Journal Website: http://quotes.wsj.com/AU/XASX/CBA
Vaughan, D. (1999). Academy of Management Journal. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 271-305. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.271
Wallin, A. (2017). RBUS2900 Business Research Methods Tutorial Workbook. Brisbane: UQ Business School.
Walsh, G. (2014). Extra- and intra-organizational drivers of workplace deviance. The Service Industries Journal, 1134-1153. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2014.939645
Wang, R., & Jiang, J. (2015). How Abusive Supervisors Influence Employees’ Voice and Silence: The Effects of Interactional Justice and Organizational Attribution. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155(3), 204-220. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.990410
Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W., & Liu, J. (2012). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: the mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power distance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(1), 43-60. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2011.00004.x
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.
Zorlu, K., & Bastemur, C. (2014). A Mediator Role of Perceived Organizational Support in Workplace Deviance Behaviors, Organizational Citizenship and Job Satisfaction Relations: A Survey Conducted With Artificial Neural Network. 3(3), 18-36. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v3i3.106
Dear Participants, thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. This survey should take approximately 10 mins of your time. You will be rewarded for your time with a $10 Myers gift card.
This survey is part of a research study to help understand the causes and effects of workplace deviance. We are attempting to analyse the possible factors that contribute to this phenomenon and possibly help contribute to the building of a fair and safe working environment. There are 5 sections in the questionnaire provided below and it would be most effective if all questions are answered truthfully.
Do note that the participation in this survey is voluntary and all participants have the rights to withdraw from the study at any time. Should you feel uncomfortable with answering any of the questions below, you may choose to leave them blank.
For any queries or clarifications, feel free to contact the research team and we will address your concerns.
<Research Company’s email address>
Please note that all responses received through this study will be kept confidential and will only be accessible to the research team. Your identity will remain anonymous.
I have read and acknowledged all the information stated above.
I willingly agree to participate in this research study.
I am well informed on the aim of this research and have a clear understanding of my rights.
I acknowledge my rights to drop out of the study or leave any question un answered should I choose to do so.
(CLICK TO PROCEED)
Page 1: For each of the statements, please click an option that you most agree
|Statement||Strongly Disagree||Disagree||Somewhat Disagree||Neither||Some-what Agree||Agree||Strongly agree|
Page 2: For each of the statements, please click an option that you most agree
|Statements||Strongly Disagree||Dis-agree||Somewhat Disagree||Neither||Some-what Agree||Agree||Strongly agree|
Page 3: For each of the statements, please click an option that you most agree
Page 4: For each of the statements, please click an option that you most agree
|Statement||Strongly Disagree||Dis-agree||Somewhat Disagree||Neither||Some-what Agree||Agree||Strongly agree|
Page 5: For each of the statements, please click an option that you most agree
|Statement||Never||Rarely||Monthly||Weekly||Once Daily||Frequently daily||Always daily|
Page 6: Demographic Information
Please select your Gender:
Please select your age:
41 – 50
51 – 60
Please select your managerial level:
Customer Service Representative
Please select the length of employment with CBA:
< 1 year
1 – 3 years
3 – 5 years
5 – 10 years
> 10 years