Content uploaded by Mohammad Nisar Khattak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohammad Nisar Khattak on Jun 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
The combined effect of perceived
organizational injustice
and perceived politics on
deviant behaviors
Mohammad Nisar Khattak
QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Roxanne Zolin
Nobel International Business School, Accra, Ghana, and
Noor Muhammad
Brighton Business School, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The main purpose of this study is to examine the catalytic impact of perceptions of politics in
organizations on the relationship between perceived unfairness and deviant behavior at work.
Design/methodology/approach –To test the proposed research model, the authors collected field data
in a public sector university located in Islamabad Capital Territory, Pakistan. A two-wave questionnaire was
distributed to 400 employees. In the first wave, the questionnaire was used to collect data on participants’
perceptions of perceived injustice and organizational politics. After two weeks, the second wave of data
collection was conducted by sending another questionnaire to the same respondents to collect data on their
organizational and interpersonal deviance.
Findings –Empirical findings revealed that perceived interactional injustice results in interpersonal
deviance, and perceived distributive and procedural injustice results in organizational deviance. Moreover,
the direct relationship between perceived injustice and deviant behaviors was stronger when the perception of
politics factor was high.
Originality/value –To the best of the authors’knowledge, this study is one of the first to test the
detrimental effect of perception of politics on deviance in a public organization in Pakistan.
Keywords Procedural justice, Interactional justice, Distributive justice, Organizational politics,
Perceived injustice, Organizational deviance, Perceived politics
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Deviant workplace behaviors are pervasive in today’s organizations and have been shown
to negatively influence the performance of organizations (Vardi and Weitz, 2004;Chappell
and DiMartino, 2006). Numerous research studies support the hypothesis that perceived
injustice in the workplace results in undesirable behaviors such as organizational
delinquency (Hogan and Hogan, 1989), workplace aggression (Baron et al., 1999),
organization-motivated aggression (O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1996), workplace deviance (Bennett
and Robinson, 2000;Robinson and Bennett, 1995), organizational retaliatory behaviors
(Skarlicki and Folger, 1997) and revenge (Bies and Tripp, 1998). In addition to individual
studies, two meta-analyses on organizational justice (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001;
Colquitt et al.,2001) and two meta-analyses on deviant behaviors (Berry et al.,2007;
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
Received 13 December2019
Revised 1 March 2020
28 April 2020
Accepted 11 May 2020
International Journal of Conflict
Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1044-4068
DOI 10.1108/IJCMA-12-2019-0220
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1044-4068.htm
Hershcovis et al., 2007) demonstrate the significance of considering perceived justice or
injustice and deviant behaviors within organizations.
The seminal article of Robinson and Bennett (1995) identifies a clear distinction between
interpersonal deviance –that is, deviant behavior harmful to other individuals (DBI) –and
organizational deviance –that is, deviant behavior harmful to the organization (DBO). DBI
includes deviant behaviors directed toward individuals, such as gossip, violence or theft
from co-workers, and DBO includes deviant behaviors directed toward the organization,
such as vandalism, theft, sabotage or sharing confidential organizational information. Meta-
analysis findings confirmed the separability of DBI and DBO and found that these
constructs are highly but differentially correlated with the Big Five personality traits and
organizational citizenship behaviors (Berry et al.,2007). Furthermore, studies have also
found that deviant behaviors are directed toward the source of injustice; that is, DBI is
directed toward interpersonal and informational injustice, and DBO is directed toward
distributive and procedural justice (Jones, 2009;Khattak et al.,2018).
In a meta-analysis, Hershcovis et al. (2007) identified that individual and situational
factors have a direct effect on deviant behaviors. However, they did not address the possible
interaction between individual and situational factors in their study. Focusing on this
potential gap, the current study tests perceived organizational politics (POP) as a situational
factor, with the potential to have a catalytic impact on the positive relationship between
perceived injustice and deviant workplace behaviors. Organizational politics is defined as
“informal, parochial, typically divisive and illegitimate behavior that is aimed at displacing
legitimate power”(Mintzberg, 1983, p. 172) and “social influence behavior that is
strategically designed to maximize self-interest”(Ferris et al.,1989, p. 145). These are the
most cited definitions in organizational politics literature and generally have negative
connotations. Thus, referring to employees’perceptions in organizations, they often describe
political behaviors in negative terms and associate these with self-serving behaviors,
usually at the expense of others (Poon, 2003).
There are numerous motives for political behaviors, such as promoting one’s own
interest, evening the score for a previous injustice and fighting for valuable rewards
(Skarlicki and Folger, 1997). Individuals adopt these kinds of behaviors when there is a
scarcity of resources and a lack of clear rules for the allocation of those resources. However,
if the rewards distribution and procedures enactment are unfair, and supervisors treat
employees in an undignified manner, then employees will feel suffocated and the end results
will be withdrawal from work. Therefore, the main goal of this study is to examine the
contextual variable (POP) that might affect the perceived injustice–deviant behaviors
relationship.
This paper contributes to previous literature in three ways. First, the paper contributes to
the organizational behavior literature by looking concurrently at the two negatively
valenced factors of perceived injustice and POP in a single study of their effects on deviant
workplace behaviors. No past research has been conducted to explore these relationships.
Not only is it important from a practical standpoint to study the role of negative experiences
in the workplace to gain a competitive advantage by attracting and retaining valuable
employees (Pfeffer, 1995), it is also important from a theoretical standpoint as research
shows that individuals’attitudes and behaviors in the workplace are more heavily
influenced by negative experiences than by positive ones (Brief and Weiss, 2002). Hence, the
current study aims to demonstrate the combined effect of two negative contextual factors
(perceived injustice and perceived politics) on employee deviant workplace behaviors. By
emphasizing the effect of these amplifiers on employee deviant behaviors, we can
understand the organizational dynamics that influence individuals’behavior in the
IJCMA
workplace. A second contribution is that, unlike current literature, which proposes that the
source of the injustice determines the referent for the deviant behavior, we found that
the referent for the deviant behavior is generalized to include both the supervisor and the
organization regardless of the source. Third, and finally, most studies of deviant workplace
behaviors are conducted in Western societies with high individualism (Hofstede, 1983), such
as the USA and the UK, which could influence the relationships between interpersonal
deviance (DBI) and organizational deviance (DBO). This study was conducted in Pakistan,
which is a highly collectivist society with high power distance (Hofstede, 1983), to determine
if Pakistan exhibits the same distinctions we would expect to see in other Western societies.
2. Theory and hypotheses development
Social exchange theory (SET; Blau, 1964) has been used as a theoretical lens to understand
the influence of perceived organizational injustice and the resulting employees’deviant
workplace behaviors. SET is one of the most important conceptual paradigms used to
understand individuals’behaviors in the workplace (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). This
theory has been widely used in different disciplines, including anthropology (Sahlins, 1972),
social psychology (Gouldner, 1960;Homans, 1964) and sociology (Blau, 1964). Theorists
agree that interactions result in social exchanges that engender obligations (Emerson, 1976).
SET posits that individuals develop exchange relationships based on their experiences with
others (Blau, 1986; Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2004;Shore et al., 2003). Following the norm
of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960;Levinson, 1965), individuals often repay others in the same
manner as they receive; that is, good with good or bad with bad (Mitchell and Ambrose,
2007). Therefore, this study uses SET as an overarching theory to explore the effects of
perceived injustice onemployee reactions (i.e. deviant behaviors).
In addition to the SET and norm of reciprocity, this study uses the agent–system model
of justice, which suggests that individuals respond to perceived fair or unfair treatment by
targeting the origin of such treatment (Bies and Moag, 1986). Individuals develop exchange
relationships with their immediate supervisors and their organization (Rupp and
Cropanzano, 2002), and research shows that in response to perceived unfairness, individuals
engage in deviant behaviors directed toward the perceived source of the injustice, which is
typically either their supervisor or the organization (Jones, 2009). Other studies have also
confirmed that blame attribution is significantly correlated with subsequent revenge
(Aquino et al.,2001,2006), confirming that the victim will attribute mistreatment to either
the organization or its members. There is also a general perception that, following the “tit-
for-tat”response strategy (Andersson and Pearson, 1999), people usually retaliate against
the entity (i.e. organization, supervisor or co-workers) they perceive caused them harm.
Employees perceive injustice in procedures and distributions as coming from the
organization (Jones, 2009;Khan et al., 2013;Khattak et al., 2018). Therefore, in retaliation
against perceived injustice in procedures and distributions, employees will direct their
deviant behaviors against the organization. In the same manner, the causes of interactional
injustice are perceived to be the manager or supervisor. Therefore, in this case, retaliation
would focus on deviance toward the individuals or co-workers involved (Yang and
Diefendorff, 2009). In summary, research tells us that individuals who perceive injustice in
the workplace will attribute blame to the individual(s) or the organization perceived to be the
source of the injustice and then direct their subsequent deviant behavior toward the
attributed party. The following section builds hypotheses relating to workplace deviance
and organizational injustice.
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
2.1 Organizational injustice and workplace deviance
Organizational justice research focuses extensively on employees’perceptions of unfair
treatment in the workplace and their substantial effect on various employees’attitudes and
behaviors. In the past three decades, organizational justice researchers have identified that
perceived fairness may influence individual attitudes such as job satisfaction, intention to
leave the organization and organizational commitment (Folger and Konovsky, 1989;
Korsgaard et al.,1995). Perceived fairness may also influence the judgment of the legitimate
power of authority figures in the organization and their policies (Huo et al., 1996). When
focusing on behavioral outcomes of organizational justice, researchers identified that once
employees perceive that organizational outcomes and procedures are not based on equity,
employee performance deteriorates (Khan et al., 2013;Jones, 2009), they become prone to
stealing organizational property (Greenberg, 1993), are unwilling to engage in
organizational citizenship behaviors (Moorman et al., 1993), do not abide by the decisions of
authority figures (Huo et al., 1996), are likely to be involved in protesting behaviors
(Vermunt et al.,1996) and have a higher inclination to take legal action against their
employers (Bies and Tyler, 1993;Lind et al., 2000). Employees’perceptions of a leader’s
unethical behavior reduce their deontic justice (justice for the sake of justice), which
transforms into retributive behaviors and trying to “even the score”with their leader
without caring about the cost associated with this act (Reich and Hershcovis, 2015;O’Reilly
et al., 2016). A comprehensive literature review points out that the coworkers’deviant
behaviors influence the individual employees’attitudes, affect and actions through three
routes including direct impact, vicarious impact and ambient impact (Robinson et al.,2014).
Similarly, recent studies have found that perceived gender discrimination, unethical leader
behaviors, time-related work stress, distributive injustice and procedural injustice positively
predict organizational deviance (Qu et al., 2019;Gan et al., 2019;De Clercq et al., 2019). More
specifically, a study found that justice rule violations predict prevention-laden outcomes,
whereas justice rule adherence predicts promotion-laden outcomes (Colquitt et al.,2014).
The notion of fairness or justice has received considerable attention in social sciences
over the past three decades. Initially, researchers focused on the single dimension of justice
related to decision outcomes, referred to as distributive justice (Adams, 1965;Leventhal,
1976). The second stream of research emerged, focusing on the dimension of justice related
to processes that lead to decision outcomes, referred to as procedural justice (Leventhal et al.,
1980;Thibaut and Walker, 1975). Alexander and Ruderman (1987) found that distributive
and procedural justice are correlated with several attitudinal outcomes, such as trust, job
satisfaction, stress and turnover intentions. To strengthen this two-dimensional justice
model, later research studies identified that distributive justice also has a relationship with
individual-level evaluation, which leads to outcomes such as pay satisfaction. In addition,
procedural justice was found to be related to organizational-level evaluations and outcomes
such as organizational commitment (Folger and Konovsky, 1989;McFarlin and Sweeney,
1992). However, organizational justice researchers have also identified that the two-
dimensional model considers procedures and outcomes but neglects an important aspect of
the exchange relationship within the organization: interpersonal treatment. It has been
argued by organizational justice scholars (Bies and Moag, 1986) that the treatment
employees receive in the workplace may also influence the appraisal of fairness, arguing
that adding the concept of interactional justice provides a three-dimensional model that
presents a more holistic view of organizational justice. A recent study conducted in the
context of Pakistan found that procedural injustice and incivility has a negative and
significant effect on organizational performance (Sarwar and Muhammad, 2019).
IJCMA
Interactional justice captures the extent to which individuals in the workplace are treated
with dignity, respect and politeness (Colquitt, 2001). Interpersonal and informational justice
are the sub-dimensions of interactional justice. There is now widespread recognition that
interpersonal justice is critical in shaping employees’attitudes and behaviors (Judge et al.,
2006;Neuman and Baron, 1997;Skarlicki and Folger, 2004). Frequent interpersonal
encounters in organizations mean that interpersonal justice is often of more concern to
employees than other justice dimensions (Fassina et al.,2008). Similarly, a study found a
positive relationship between indirect supervisor conflict (i.e. covert and implicit) and
counterproductive work behaviors directed toward the supervisor (Ma and Liu, 2019).
A variety of theoretical frameworks have been used to understand why perceived
interpersonal injustice induces employees’deviant workplace behaviors. For example, SET
(Blau, 1964) and the reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) suggest that individuals react to the
treatment they receive in the workplace accordingly; that is, good for good and bad for bad.
Similarly, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) would argue that individuals develop their
behaviors in response to their observations of their surroundings. Organizational justice
scholars have argued that those employees who receive unfair treatment either from their
supervisors or from their organizations have a higher tendency to engage in harmful
organizational behaviors (Dalal, 2005;Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007;O’Leary-Kelly et al.,
1996). A field and experimental study found that team deviance negatively influences team
member trust such that an honest member experiences a greater decline in trust when team
deviance is high (Schabram et al., 2018). Three important meta-analyses of organizational
justice and counterproductive behaviors also support the positive relationship between
interpersonal injustice and individual-directed workplace deviance (Berry et al.,2007;
Colquitt et al.,2001;Hershcovis et al.,2007). Extending this line of inquiry, this study uses
the SET framework to understand that employees who are treated unfairly will respond in
the form of deviant behaviors. The source of perceived unfairness will determine the target
of the deviant behaviors; for example, perceived distributive and procedural injustice will be
responded to with DBO, and perceived interactional injustice will be responded to with DBI.
Previous research has established the relationship between perceived fairness within the
organization and the resultant employee attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. A study
found that trust in supervisor works as an exchange deepener and uncertainty reducer
between organizational justice dimensions (i.e. procedural justice, interpersonal justice and
distributive justice) and job performance (Colquitt et al., 2012). The agent–system model
suggests that, most of the time, supervisors or managers are considered to be the primary
source of interactional justice or injustice, whereas the organization is held responsible for
enacting procedural justice or injustice (Bies and Moag, 1986). As a result, employees tend to
respond to interactional injustice with deviant behaviors directed toward the supervisor and
procedural injustice through deviant behaviors directed toward the organization (Jones,
2009). Organizational deviance theory and the agent–system model are highly congruent,
suggesting that discontented employees strive to direct their workplace deviance toward
those entities they hold responsible for mistreatment (O’Leary-Kelly et al.,1996;Robinson
and Bennett, 1995). In a meta-analytic review, Hershcovis et al. (2007) confirmed that
interpersonal mistreatment from supervisors (e.g. interpersonal injustice or abusive
supervision) is the strongest predictor of supervisor-directed deviant behaviors. Research by
Jones (2009) also confirmed that procedural injustice positively predicts organization-
directed deviant behaviors, and interpersonal and informational injustice positively predicts
supervisor-directed deviant behaviors. A study found that leader–member-exchange
between a bystander and his/her supervisor buffers the positive relationship, vicarious
abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance (Chen and Liu, 2019). Extending this
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
line of enquiry, a recent study found that justice-relevant personality dimensions of moral
identity –symbolization and victim sensitivity –both strengthen these target similarity
effects (Lavelle et al., 2018). Following the agent–system model, it should follow that
interactional injustice will trigger deviance directed toward an individual, and, because
decision-making and distribution of outcomes are mostly considered the organization’s
responsibility, procedural and distributive injustice will trigger DBO behaviors. In light of
the above literature, the following hypotheses will be tested:
H1a. Distributive injustice has a positive relationship with deviant behavior harmful to
the organization (DBO).
H1b. Procedural injustice has a positive relationship with deviant behavior harmful to
the organization (DBO).
H1c. Interactional injustice has a positive relationship with deviant behavior harmful to
other individuals (DBI).
2.2 Moderating impact of perceptions of politics
POP has been viewed as an important contextual variable in organizational behavior
research and has mostly been perceived with negative connotations. A political environment
possesses ambiguity and uncertainty where employees are involved in illegitimate self-
serving tactics for personal gain. Previous research evidences the detrimental effects of
perceived injustice in the form of counterproductive workplace behaviors (Chang et al.,2009;
Baloch et al., 2017). However, the interactive effect of perceived injustice and POP on deviant
behaviors has not been previously tested and seems more pertinent. Previous studies have
examined the link between perceived injustice and deviant workplace behaviors and
identified that a strong positive relationship exists between these two constructs (Khan
et al.,2013;Khattak et al.,2018). It is proposed that this relationship may be stronger in a
political environment, where self-centered activities are in abundance, and individuals will
be more likely to engage in deviant behaviors. For example, in a political environment, an
employee may try to gain benefits by tearing others down (Kacmar and Carlson, 1997);
therefore, when one experiences interpersonal injustice, he/she will show more interpersonal
deviance in a highly political organizational environment.
According to Ferris et al. (1996), ambiguity is a critical work environment characteristic
that provides the opportunity for detrimental types of politics to flourish. Moreover, political
environments promote favoritism and nepotism for promotions, opportunity access,
monetary benefits and other rewards (Chang et al.,2009;Kacmar and Carlson, 1997).
Similarly, individuals perceiving distributive injustice are more likely to indulge in deviant
acts against the organization when they feel the political environment is helping people to
gain more rewards by being part of an influential group instead of through efforts and merit.
All these facts signify that the detrimental effects of injustice become stronger in the form of
interpersonal and organizational deviance when the organizational environment is highly
political.
As described above, political activities are deemed as self-serving actions without
considering the well-being of fellow workers or even the organization (Kacmar and Baron,
1999). It is argued that the motives behind political behaviors and their targets vary greatly,
confirming the various reasons for these self-centered behaviors (Kacmar et al., 2007). These
motives can be “evening the score”with others for past injustices or to access valuable
resources and rewards (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997). It is observed that a lack of clear and
transparent rules and regulations insinuate the unfairness, ambiguity and lack of control in
IJCMA
the work place (Kacmar et al., 2007). This kind of environment will be acceptable to those
who have a good relationship with their supervisor and perceive fair procedures enactment
and rewards distributions. However, the same is unlikely to be true for those who perceive
injustice in the workplace. Therefore, individuals who do not get respect from their
supervisor and perceive unfair organizational procedures and rewards distribution might
feel themselves to be the victims of political activities. Therefore, in a high political context,
it is highly probable that individuals will engage in deviant behaviors.
As noted earlier, there are numerous motives for political behaviors. Individuals adopt
these kinds of behaviors when there is a scarcity of resourcesand a lack of clear rules for the
allocation of those resources. However, if the rewards distribution and procedures
enactment are unfair, and supervisors treat employees in an undignified manner, then they
will feel suffocated, and the end results will be withdrawal from work. Therefore, the main
goal of this study is to examine the contextual variable (POP) that might affect the perceived
injustice–deviant behaviors relationship. More specifically, we are interested in
understanding the intensifying impact of POP on the relationship between perceived
injustice and deviant behaviors. The rationale for the negative impact of POP is based on the
attributional process that influences employees’interpretation of their work environment
when they perceive organizational injustice (distributive, procedural and interactional).
Therefore, this study argues that employees who perceive high politics in their
organizations are more likely to attribute the perceived injustice either to the organization or
to their supervisor. In such a situation, employees will react more strongly to perceived
injustices.
Drawing on the Conservation of Resource (COR) theory, it is argued that the individuals
who are confronted with a stressful context strive to minimize their loss of resources and
invest their resources to protect and conserve their capital (Hobfoll, 1989). An organizational
context is perceived as political (and therefore likely to be more stressful) when employees
notice that others gain resources and favor through unfair means (Hochwarter et al.,2003).
Therefore, building on the COR principle, we propose that when employees with high
perceived injustice are threatened by the high political context, they are more conscious of
conserving their personal resources of self-esteem and they will attribute their deviant
behaviors to the presence of unfair treatment they received from the organization and/or
their supervisor. Therefore, it is argued that POP will exacerbate the positive relationship
between perceived injustice and deviant workplace behaviors. As such, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
H2a. The relationship between distributive injustice and organizational deviance will
be more positive when POP is high than when POP is low.
H2b. The relationship between procedural injustice and organizational deviance will be
more positive when POP is high than when POP is low.
H2c. The relationship between interactional injustice and interpersonal deviance will be
more positive when POP ishigh than when POP is low (Figure 1).
3. Methodology
To test the proposed research model, data were collected relating to employees’perceptions
of organizational injustice, POP and the behavioral outcome of deviant workplace behaviors.
In this study, it was decided to target a public university to collect the data for two reasons.
First, there is a higher degree of job security in public organizations in developing countries
such as Pakistan, which may make them more similar to organizations in developed nations.
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
Most often, employees may take undue advantage of higher job security and be more
involved in self-serving political activities. Second, there is usually a strong employee union
in public organizations, which stands for the welfare of employees. Sometimes union
representatives may try to bend the rules in favor of their colleagues, with
counterproductive results for the organization.
There are differing views on the sampling techniques and the appropriate sample size
when conducting this type of research. Some researchers argue that the theoretical
framework will play a crucial role in making decisions about the selection of sample size
(Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003;Teddlie and Yu, 2007). Similarly, Grant and Osanloo (2014)
suggest that most often, it is a theoretical framework that directs the data collection plan.
Beyond considering the theoretical framework, Roscoe (1975) suggests that in social
sciences, a sample size of ten or more times the number of variables included in the
theoretical framework is appropriate. Similarly, Cochran (2007) argues that in studies
undertaken in small populations (i.e. less than 10,000), a sample size of 10%–30% is highly
reasonable. Bearing in mind all these recommendations and the power analysis, a sample
size of 305 was determined to be the required number. Therefore, survey questionnaires
were distributed to 400 participants in the targeted organization. The participants belonged
to 11 different administrative departments. Most of the participants were from lower level
positions and were undertaking administrative responsibilities in their respective
departments. Prior to the distribution of surveys to the participants, they were informed of
the purpose of the study and were ensured confidentiality of the data. This study used age,
gender, educational level and tenure with the organization as control variables to control for
their potential confounding effect. English is the official language in all public sector
organizations in Pakistan; therefore, the surveys were distributed in English. Previous
studies conducted in Pakistan have also used English as a survey language (Khan et al.,
2015;Raja et al.,2018;Raja et al.,2004;Abbas et al., 2014).
To avoid common method bias, a two-wave questionnaire was distributed to 400
employees. In the first wave, the questionnaire was used to collect data on participants’
perceptions of perceived injustice, POP and demographic information. A total of 313
completed self-reported responses were received in the first wave. After two weeks, the
second wave of the study was conducted by sending another questionnaire to the same
respondents to collect data on their deviant workplace behaviors directed toward
individuals (DBI) and the organization (DBO). A total of 282 two-wave paired questionnaires
were received, resulting in a response rate of 70.5%. A total of 13 questionnaires were
excluded because of significant missing data. In addition, 23 questionnaires were identified
Figure 1.
Proposed research
model
H1a H2a H2c
H1b H2b
H1c
POP
Distributive injustice
(DJ)
DBO
Procedural injustice
(PJ)
DBI
Interactional
injustice
(IJ)
IJCMA
with pattern responses (e.g. providing the same rating for all items). Because careless
responses such as these can jeopardize the integrity of research findings (Meade and Craig,
2012), these 23 were excluded. As a result, the final sample comprised 246 respondents, with
a response rate of 61.5%. Table 1 shows the respondents’demographic characteristics.
The existence of common method bias in the data set was tested using Harman’s one-
factor test. The items of all six factors (e.g. distributive injustice, procedural injustice,
interactional injustice, POP, organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance) were all
combined into a single factor and compared with the six-factor model. The goodness-of-fit
indices (GFI) of the one-factor model [
x
2
= 2016.50, df =628,p<0.01, root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.10, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.66, TLI = 0.65,
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.08] were significantly poorer than those
of the six-factor model (
x
2
= 938.60, df =619,p<0.01, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.92, TLI =
0.91, SRMR = 0.05, D
x
2
(9) = 1077.9, p<0.01), suggesting that common method bias is not a
serious concern in the data set.
3.1 Measurement of variables
In this study, all the variables were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
3.2 Organizational injustice
The Organizational Justice Scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) was used to
measure organizational injustice (see Appendix Table A1). Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities for
Table 1.
Demographic
characteristics of
respondents
Demographic Number of people (frequency) % of total n
Gender
Male 161 65.4
Female 85 34.6
Age
20–25 1 0.4
25–30 49 19.9
30–35 113 45.9
35–40 57 23.2
40–45 24 9.8
45–50 2 0.8
Education
SSC 1 0.4
HSSC 31 12.6
BA/BSc 172 69.9
Master 35 14.4
MS/MPhil 7 2.8
PhD 0 0
Tenure with organization
1–3 21 8.5
4–6 61 24.8
7–10 29 11.8
Above 10 years 135 54.9
Note: n= 246
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
the three dimensions were 0.60, 0.66 and 0.74, respectively. As this study focuses on
perceived injustice rather than justice, after collecting the data for justice perception, the
scores for perceived justice were reverse-coded as injustice scores. The authors conducted a
second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to see if the three-dimensional justice factor
loaded on a single latent factor. Results of this model did not provide an adequate fit to the
data [
x
2
= 4325, df =1135, p<0.01, CFI = 0.85, GFI= 0.84, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.83,
RMSEA= 0.097 and SRMR = 0.077]. As such, the authors proceeded with the three-
dimensional construct of perceived injustice in which distributive, procedural and
interactional injustice items were specified to load on their respective factors.
Distributive injustice was measured using a four-item scale assessing the fairness of
different work outcomes, pay level, work schedule, work load and job responsibilities. The
example items include, “My work schedule is fair.”Procedural injustice was measured using
the six-item scale to tap formal procedures. The example items include, “My manager/boss
makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before job decisions are made.”
Interactional injustice was measured using a four-item scale. The example items include,
“When decisions aremade about my job, the manager treats me with respect and dignity.”
3.3 Perceived organizational politics
A revised version of the 15-item measure developed by Kacmar and Carlson (1997) was used
to measure POP (see Appendix Table A1). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of these 15 items
measuring POP was 0.67.
3.4 Workplace deviant behaviors
Employees’workplace deviant behaviors were measured using a 19-item workplace
deviance scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000). A total of 12 items relate to DBO
(organization-directed) and 7 items measure DBI (individual-directed) (see Appendix Table
A1). A second-order CFA was conducted to see if the two-dimensional deviance factor
loaded on a single latent factor. Results of this model provided a poor fit to the data (
x
2
=
4132, df =1098, p<0.01, CFI = 0.84, GFI = 0.83, NFI = 0.83, RMSEA = 0.10 and SRMR =
0.079). As such, the authors proceeded with the two-dimensional construct of DBO and DBI
in which items were specified to load on their respective factors. Evidence presented by
Bennett and Robinson (2000) affirmed that the two-dimensional construct of deviant
behaviors has acceptable internal reliability, and it was also established from the CFA that a
two-dimensional construct has an acceptable fit. Cronbach’s alpha scores for both
dimensions were 0.81 and 0.86, respectively.
4. Analysis and results
4.1 Measurement model
CFA was conducted with AMOS 25 to test a six-factor model composed of perceived
distributive injustice, procedural injustice, interactional injustice, POP, DBI and DBO. Model
fit was evaluated on the basis of fit indices, including CFI, GFI, NFI, RMSEA and SRMR,
using the criteria established by Hu and Bentler (1999; i.e. CFI >0.90, GFI >0.90, NFI >
0.90, RMSEA <0.08 and SRMR <0.06). The hypothesized six-factor model yielded an
excellent fit to the data (
x
2
= 3009, df =1065, p<0.001, CFI = 0.956, GFI = 0.920, NFI =
0.935, RMSEA = 0.078 and SRMR = 0.047). In addition, the hypothesized six-factor model
was compared with two alternative models. In one, the authors combined perceived injustice
(distributive, procedural and interactional) in a single factor, which yielded a poor fit(
x
2
=
4635, df =1325, p<0.001, CFI = 0.88, GFI = 0.84, NFI = 0.85, RMSEA = 0.087 and SRMR =
0.069). In the other model, DBI and DBO were combined in one factor, and perceived
IJCMA
injustice (distributive, procedural and interactional) was retained on a single factor to make
a three-factor model. This model demonstrated the worst fit to the data (
x
2
= 5957, df =1634,
p<0.001, CFI = 0.81, GFI = 0.80, NFI = 0.81, RMSEA = 0.14 and SRMR = 0.10). As shown
in Table 2, the hypothesized six-factor model has a better fit to the data than any other
alternative model, providing evidence of discriminant validity. Examination of the Chi-
square difference statistics indicates a statistically better fit for the six-factor hypothesized
model. Therefore, these results provide support for the construct validity of the measures
used in this study.
Reliability analyses (see Table 3) demonstrated that the scores of composite reliability
(CR) of all the study’s constructs were above the minimum acceptable threshold (CR>0.70).
All item loadings were significant (p<0.05) and the average variance extracted values of
distributive injustice, procedural injustice, POP, DBI and DBO were all above 0.50, which
lends support to convergent validity (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988); therefore, all items were
retained (see Table 3 for details).
4.2 Descriptive statistics and main effects
Four demographic variables were used in this study, including the employee’s age, gender,
position in the organization and tenure with the organization. The analysis revealed that
none of these demographic variables had a significant impact on the dependent variables of
the proposed model. The descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of the study variables
are presented in Table 4. Results indicate that perceived injustice (distributive, procedural
and interactional) is significantly and positively related to employee DBI and DBO.
Multiple linear regression analyses were used to test the main effect hypotheses H1a,
H1b and H1c. In the first step, the authors entered the demographic variables, including age,
gender, position and tenure, followed by independent variables in the second step. Tables 5
(Step 2) present the results for the main effects of perceived injustice (distributive,
procedural and interactional) on DBO and DBI. Distributive injustice is positively related to
DBO (
b
= 0.533, p<0.01), as is procedural injustice (
b
= 0.659, p<0.01). Similarly,
interactional injustice is positively related to DBI (
b
= 0.603, p<0.01). These results
therefore support H1a,H1b and H1c.
4.3 Moderation analysis
A step-by-step approach to moderated regression analyses (Cohen et al.,2003) was used to
test the hypotheses. Baron and Kenny (1986) suggest that moderation is confirmed if the
product term of the independent variable and the moderator (interaction) has significant
effects on the dependent variable when controlling for the effects of the independent and the
moderator variables. Therefore, control variables were entered into the equation, followed
by the justice dimensions and the moderator POP in the second step. Finally, in the third
step, the cross-products of each injustice dimension and POP were added to the equation.
The study used centered values of independent and moderator variables for moderated
regression analyses to avoid multicollinearity (Aiken and West, 1991). For significant
interactions, the authors calculated the high and low values of the moderator variable using
Table 2.
Confirmatory factor
analysis
Model
x
2
df CFI GFI NFI RMSEA SRMR
Six-factor model 3,009 1,065 0.956 0.920 0.935 0.078 0.047
Four-factor model 4,635 1,325 0.89 0.84 0.85 0.087 0.069
Three-factor model 5,957 1,634 0.81 0.80 0.81 0.14 0.10
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
Factors Standardized loading Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE
Distributive injustice (DJ) 0.60 0.712 0.574
DJ1 0.712
DJ2 0.789
DJ3 0.803
DJ4 0.695
Procedural injustice (PJ) 0.66 0.701 0.568
PJ1 0.712
PJ2 0.656
PJ3 0.638
PJ4 0.705
PJ5 0.624
PJ6 0.648
Interactional injustice (IJ) 0.74 0.725 0.545
IJ1 0.706
IJ2 0.734
IJ3 0.805
IJ4 0.689
POP 0.67 0.703 0.587
POP1 0.709
POP2 0.657
POP3 0.632
POP4 0.605
POP5 0.715
POP6 0.632
POP7 0.702
POP8 0.705
POP9 0.602
POP10 0.681
POP11 0.635
POP12 0.701
POP13 0.645
POP14 0.642
POP15 0.703
DBI 0.81 0.735 0.592
DBI1 0.801
DBI2 0.798
DBI3 0.758
DBI4 0.786
DBI5 0.852
DBI6 0.815
DBI7 0.765
DBO 0.86 0.742 0.603
DBO1 0.825
DBO2 0.875
DBO3 0.806
DBO4 0.856
(continued)
Table 3.
Factor loadings,
Cronbach’s,CR
and average variance
extracted (AVE)
IJCMA
the 61 from standard deviation. Regression lines were then plotted using unstandardized
regression coefficients (Raja and Johns, 2010).
Results presented in Table 5 show that the control variables did not account for a
significant amount of variance in the dependent variables (DBO and DBI). Table 5 (Step 3)
shows that the direct effect of distributive injustice is significant on DBO (
b
= 0.485, p<
0.01) and DBI (
b
= 0.476, p<0.01). Similarly, the direct effect of procedural injustice on
DBO (
b
= 0.548, p<0.01) and DBI (
b
= 0.534, p<0.01) was found to be significant. Finally,
the direct effect of interactional injustice on DBO (
b
= 0.552, p<0.01) and DBI (
b
= 0.514,
p<0.01) was found to be significant. In summary, these results provide support for H1a,
H1b and H1c. Step 3 shows the results of adding the interaction terms of predictors
(distributive injustice, procedural injustice and interactional injustice) and the moderator
(POP). As shown in Table 5 (Step 3), the interaction term of distributive injustice POP was
significant for DBO (
b
= 0.604, p<0.01) and DBI (
b
= 0.576, p<0.01). Similarly, the
interaction term of procedural injustice POP was significant for the DBO (
b
= 0.654, p<
0.01) and DBI (
b
= 0.613, p<0.01). Finally, the interaction term of interactional injustice
POP was also significant for the DBO (
b
= 0.582, p<0.01) and DBI (
b
= 0.652, p<0.01).
Overall, these results provide support for H2a,H2b and H2c (Figures 2–4).
5. Discussion
The impact of perceived organizational injustice on employee performance is discussed in
the literature. Qu et al. (2019) recently found that perceived gender discrimination,
distributive injustice and procedural injustice positively predict organizational deviance.
Similarly, McCardle (2007) found that organizational justice, perceived powerlessness and
centralization exert direct effects on workplace deviance. Organizational behavior literature
has also identified the hazardous effects of POP on employee performance (Chang et al.,
Table 4.
Means, standard
deviations and
correlations among
the study variables
No. Variables Mean SD AVE CR 1 2345
1 Distributive injustice 3.59 0.42 0.565 0.788
2 Procedural injustice 3.52 0.41 0.538 0.775 0.526**
3 Interactional injustice 3.87 0.58 0.577 0.718 0.426** 0.444**
4 DBI 3.90 0.51 0.622 0.811 0.553** 0.584** 0.685**
5 DBO 3.84 0.50 0.602 0.823 0.486** 0.577** 0.670** 0.747**
6 POP 3.05 0.34 0.587 0.790 0.187** 0.205** 0.111 0.179** 0.245**
Notes: n= 246; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Factors Standardized loading Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE
DBO5 0.835
DBO6 0.857
DBO7 0.835
DBO8 0.859
DBO9 0.824
DBO10 0.816
DBO11 0.872
DBO12 0.849 Table 3.
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
2009;Abbas et al.,2014). However, the combined effect of perceived injustice (distributive
injustice, procedural injustice and interactional injustice) has received negligible emphasis,
especially in public organizations or in developing countries.
This study found that perceived distributive, procedural and interactional injustice and
POP collectively influence employees’behavior (i.e. DBI and DBO) in a negative way with
potential flow-on effects to overall organizational performance. The results of this study also
demonstrate the moderating effect of POP on the relationship between perceived injustice
and deviant behavior. The findings of this study corroborate previous research findings,
which have identified organizational politics as a source of stress and found that perceived
politics positively predicts employees’turn-over intention and negatively influences job
performance and job satisfaction (Kapoutsis et al., 2011;Harris et al.,2005;Abbas et al.,
2014).
The findings of this study are in the expected directions; however, we got significant
results for both the sources of injustice (organization and supervisor) and deviant behaviors
directed toward the organization and supervisor. These results are paradoxical to the agent–
system model, which proposed that deviant behaviors are directed toward the source of
injustice (i.e. organization or supervisor). Nonetheless, there are a few other studies for
example (Berry et al.,2007;Colquitt et al.,2001;Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001), which
found significant relationships between the justice dimensions and deviant behaviors. One
Table 5.
Results for main
effects and
moderated regression
analysis
DBO DBI
Predictors BDR
2
b
DR
2
Step 1
Age 0.014 0.010
Gender 0.158 0.121
Position 0.114 0.012
Tenure 0.017 0.02 0.011 0.01
Step 2
Age 0.014 0.090
Gender 0.158 0.112
Position 0.014 0.050
Tenure 0.016 0.013
DJ 0.533** 0.513**
PJ 0.659** 0.524**
IJ 0.619** 0.603**
POP 0.174** 0.336** 0.154** 0.331**
Step 3
Age 0.013 0.012
Gender 0.145 0.113
Position 0.090 0.070
Tenure 0.013 0.012
DJ 0.485** 0.476**
PJ 0.548** 0.523**
IJ 0.552** 0.514**
POP 0.113** 0.143**
DJ POP 0.604** 0.081** 0.576** 0.071**
PJ POP 0.654** 0.091** 0.613** 0.073**
IJ POP 0.582** 0.075** 0.652** 0.092**
Notes: DJ = distributive injustice; PJ = procedural injustice; IJ = interactional injustice
IJCMA
possible explanation for the significant impact of the organizational injustice (DJ, PJ and IJ)
on the both dimensions of deviant behaviors (DBO and DBI) could be the high collectivistic
and high-power distance culture in Pakistan where the study was conducted. It is often
observed that employees consider the managers and the organization as the same in these
contexts. They hold both entities responsible for whatever decisions are made, whether the
decisions are favorable or unfavorable for the employees.
The findings reveal that employees who perceive unfair treatment from their immediate
supervisor are more likely to engage in deviant behaviors targeted toward their supervisor
and/or the organization, such as gossip, violence or theft from co-workers. This relationship
is stronger in the context of high politics as compared to an environment of low politics.
Similarly, employees who perceive unfair treatment from their organization (such as
Figure 2.
Moderating impact of
POP on distributive
injustice (DJ) and
organizational
deviance
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low DJ High DJ
DBO
Low POP
High POP
Figure 4.
Moderating impact of
POP on interactional
injustice (IJ) and
interpersonal
deviance
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low IJ High IJ
DBI
Low POP
High POP
Figure 3.
Moderating impact of
POP on procedural
injustice (PJ) and
organizational
deviance
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low PJ High PJ
DBO
Low POP
High POP
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
distributive and procedural injustice) are more prone to engage in organizationally directed
deviant behaviors as well as deviant behaviors directed toward their supervisors. This
generalized response is particularly important because it means that supervisors who
motivate feelings of injustice are not the only ones in the organization who will feel the brunt
of retaliation from disgruntled employees. Likewise, organizational actions, which create
employee injustice could motivate aggression against even the most respectful and fair
leaders. This is an important finding, which needs to be tested in other contexts. These
relationships are exacerbated by high POP. Hence, the findings clearly support the notion
that when employees perceive a high degree of injustice in the workplace, there is an
increased likelihood of counterproductive workplace behaviors –even in a highly
collectivist society such as Pakistan. In addition, when there is a perception that politics are
prevalent, the relationship between perceived injustice and deviant behaviors is even
stronger.
5.1 Theoretical implications
In addition to supporting the hypotheses, the study findings indicate additional theoretical
implications. First, this study contributes to the organizational behavior literature by
looking concurrently at the two negatively valenced factors of perceived injustice and POP
in a single study of their effects on deviant workplace behaviors. The education sector is
perceived as a stressful occupation (Yusoff and Khan, 2013;Johnson et al.,2006;Travers and
Cooper, 1993), which is highly conducive to deviant behaviors. Recent studies conducted in
the context of Pakistan identified that the environment of the education sector is highly
competitive because of the intense race for maximizing enrolment (Javed, 2014;Bhatti et al.,
2011;De Clercq et al.,2019). This study took that research one step further by confirming
that POP exacerbates the impact of perceived injustice on deviant behaviors.
Second, this study shows that, as predicted individual injustice affects individual-
focused deviant behavior and organizational injustice affects deviant organizational
behavior, but the source of the injustice determines not only the referent for the deviant
behavior. Both individual and organizational injustice are generalized and can affect both
deviant individual- and organizational-focused behaviors.
Finally, most studies of deviant workplace behaviors are conducted in Western societies
with high individualism, such as the US and the UK, which could influence the relationships
between DBI and DBO. This study was conducted in Pakistan, which is a highly collectivist
society, to determine if Pakistan exhibits the same distinctions we would expect to see in
other Western societies. The authors were also concerned that Pakistan’s high-power
distance culture (Hofstede, 1983) might change the influence of organizational politics on the
relationship between perceived injustice and deviant workplace behaviors. The hypotheses
were supported, showing that these relationships hold –even in a highly collectivist, high-
power distance society such as Pakistan.
5.2 Practical implications
Organizational literature shows that deviant supervisor and organizational workplace
behaviors cause significant financial, physical and psychological impacts on the
organization and its employees. Therefore, it is a key responsibility of organizational leaders
to understand the root causes of deviant behaviors and ensure these issues are addressed.
The results of this study show that the impact of distributive injustice, procedural injustice
and interactional injustice on organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance is
exacerbated by POP. The findings from this research point to three key practical
implications.
IJCMA
First, the results show that a high level of perceived injustice triggers counterproductive,
and even destructive, deviant workplace behaviors even in the context of Pakistan.
Understanding the reasons for these negative behaviors and acting to address the
underlying causes will give the organization an opportunity to meet employee needs and
expectations and reduce behavior damaging to workers and the organization. In addition, it
can stop the cycle of deviant behaviors generating deviant responses. Focusing on the
findings of this study, it reinforces that organizations must provide employees with
supervisors and a working environment perceived to be fair in terms of all three forms of
justice: distributive, procedural and interactional. Generally, when employees perceive that
procedures and processes within the organization are not fair, they are more likely to engage
in behaviors detrimental to the organization, such as sabotage, theft or breach of policies.
They are also likely to engage in such behaviors if they perceive outcomes from
organizational processes such as the distribution of rewards and incentives to be
inequitable. In addition, employees are more likely to direct deviant behaviors toward their
supervisor or the organization if they believe they are not being treated in an equitable way.
Therefore, managers at all levels in an organization need to be cognizant of how employees
perceive actions taken by the organization. It will be critical to strive to build an
environment where fairness is pervasive in all forms: distribution of financial rewards is on
an equitable basis, unbiased and transparent decision-making occurs and personal
interactions demonstrate respect for individuals. Building perceptions of fairness in these
ways is likely to significantly reduce the likelihood of behaviors damaging to the
organization and individual employees.
Second, the literature has established that perceived organizational support and a
positive organizational environment buffer the deleterious effect of perceived unfairness on
overall organizational performance. However, this study has identified an important
contextual consideration: that highly political environments in organizations adversely
influence employee attitudes and behaviors and exacerbate deviant organizational
behaviors where there is perceived injustice. Organizations must recognize that not only is
political behavior damaging in its own right, but it is also likely to exacerbate perceptions of
injustice and the negative outcomes resulting from these perceptions. Acting to reduce self-
centered political behaviors and ensuring that there is transparency and equity will have
many benefits for organizations. Although the findings of this study shed light on perceived
injustice in Pakistani organizations, such findings may be useful for other organizations
exhibiting similar conditions in different cultural settings.
Finally, there is consensus among organizational researchers that political activities
distract employees from their job responsibilities, ultimately having a counterproductive
impact on the overall organizational performance. Educational institutions play a pivotal
role in the economic, social and moral development of countries. Therefore, it is the core
responsibility of top management in educational institutions to reduce unfair and political
activities and to role-model appropriate behavior. This can be done by providing high job
security, equal distribution of workload, fair procedures, fair distribution of rewards and
respect for employees. Although these generalizations emerged in the context of educational
institutions, future research regarding these themes is expected to show similar insights in
other industries. In addition, during national or international crises, such as the COVID-19
Pandemic, national governments may find greater community cooperation when politically
divisive comments are kept to a minimum, and all social groups are perceived to be treated
fairly, or the government may risk social backlash and lack of cooperation. More research is
needed to see if these organizational dynamics also operate at a national level.
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
5.3 Limitations and future research directions
There are a few limitations associated with the results of this study. First, this study used a
purposeful sampling approach to collect quantitative data, limiting the representativeness of
the sample and the generalizability of the findings. Future research could gather larger
samples of data across a variety of contexts to address these limitations.
Second, self-reported measures were used for all the variables included in this study,
which may lead to the problem of common method bias. However, the nature of the
variables included in this study justifies the use of self-report measures, as perceived
injustice is most appropriately rated by the individual respondent. It might be argued that a
peer or supervisor could report deviant workplace behaviors as a less biased option;
however, Bennett and Robinson (2000) suggest that a self-report measure of deviant
behaviors is most appropriate because many deviant behaviors are covert and therefore
difficult for others to observe. Other studies also suggest that assessment of deviant
behaviors by others may not be more appropriate than self-reporting (Berry et al.,2007;
Ones et al.,1993). Nonetheless, future research could consider collecting deviant behavior
data from multiple sources to eradicate the potential for social desirability in responses and
provide an opportunity for triangulation.
Third, this study collected data in Pakistan, which might hamper its generalizability.
The findings might be prone to cultural bias because Pakistan is a high collectivist and
high-power distance society (Hofstede, 1983). Being a high collectivistic and high-power
distance society, findings may not be equally applicable in other cultures. The authors did
not do a comparison study of collectivist societies, such as Pakistan, to individualist
societies, such as the USA. Therefore, future researchers are encouraged to test this model in
other cultural settings.
Finally, the data were collected in a higher education institution, so the context and
culture of higher education need to be considered when generalizing the results to other
organizations. A recent book reviewing the context of higher education mentions the recent
influences of human capital theory, neo-liberalism, managerialism and performativity in
that sector (Mercer et al.,2010). Human capital theory contends that the primary purpose of
education must be to enhance productivity and support economic growth. At its most
simplistic, neo-liberalism proclaims that the market is king. Managerialism, dubbed New
Public Management, has reshaped the relationship between the public and private sectors
(Mercer et al.,2010). Citizens (i.e. students) are recast as consumers, and public service
organizations (e.g. higher education institutions) are recast in the image of the business
world. Performativity means minimizing inputs (costs) and maximizing outputs (benefits) to
deliver optimal value for money (Mercer et al.,2010). These influences more closely reflect an
industry context and better align higher education institutions with industry. Nevertheless,
this alignment is not complete, and the context of the study must be kept in mind when
reviewing the results.
6. Conclusion
This study empirically tested the interactive effect of POP and perceived injustice on
deviant workplace behaviors. The findings affirm that deviant behaviors are directed
toward the party attributed to the injustice. Interactional injustice is responded to with DBI,
whereas distributive and procedural injustices are responded to with DBO. Results also
confirm that POP moderates the positive relationship between perceived injustice and
deviant behaviors, such that the relationship is stronger when POP is high. This study
demonstrates the importance of considering contextual factors and their deleterious impact
on the organization.
IJCMA
References
Abbas, M., Raja, U., Darr, W. and Bouckenooghe, D. (2014), “Combined effects of perceived politics and
psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance”,Journal of
Management, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1813-1830.
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-299.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage
Publications.
Alexander, S. and Ruderman, M. (1987), “The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behavior”,Social Justice Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 177-198.
Andersson, L.M. and Pearson, C.M. (1999), “Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 452-471.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M. and Bies, R.J. (2001), “How employees respond to personal offense: the effects of
blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the
workplace”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 52-59.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M. and Bies, R.J. (2006), “Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice,
and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in
organizations”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 653-658.
Baloch, M.A., Meng, F., Xu, Z., Cepeda-Carrion, I. and Danish Bari, M.W. (2017), “Dark triad,
perceptions of organizational politics and counterproductive work behaviors: the moderating
effect of political skills”,Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01972.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”,Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Baron, R.A., Neuman, J.H. and Geddes, D. (1999), “Social and personal determinants of workplace
aggression: evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the type a behavior pattern”,
Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 281-296.
Bennett, R.J. and Robinson, S.L. (2000), “Development of a measure of workplace deviance”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 349-360.
Berry, C.M., Ones, D.S. and Sackett, P.R. (2007), “Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and
their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92
No. 2, pp. 410-424, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410.
Bhatti, N., Hashmi, M.A., Raza, S.A., Shaikh, F.M. and Shafiq, K. (2011), “Empirical analysis of job
stress on job satisfaction among university teachers in Pakistan”,International Business
Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 246-270.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”,Research on
Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 43-55.
Bies, R.J. and Tripp, T.M. (1998), “Revenge in organizations: the good, the bad, and the ugly”,
Monographs in Organizational Behavior and Industrial Relations, Vol. 23.
Bies, R.J. and Tyler, T.R. (1993), “The litigation mentality in organizations: a test of alternative
psychological explanations”,Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 352-366.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers.
Brief, A.P. and Weiss, H.M. (2002), “Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace”,Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 279-307.
Chang, C.-H., Rosen, C.C. and Levy, P.E. (2009), “The relationship between perceptions of organizational
politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: a meta-analytic examination”,Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 779-801.
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
Chappell, D. and DiMartino, V. (2006), Violence at Work, 3rd ed., ILO, Geneva.
Chen, S.C. and Liu, N.T. (2019), “When and how vicarious abusive supervision leads to bystanders’
supervisor-directed deviance: a moderated-mediation model”,Personnel Review, Vol. 48 No. 7,
pp. 1734-1755.
Cochran, W.G. (2007), Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Cohen, J., Cohen, O., West, S. and Aiken, L. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for
the Behavioral Sciences, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp.386-400.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), “Justice at the millennium: a
meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”,Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-445.
Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A., Piccolo, R.F., Zapata, C.P. and Rich, B.L. (2012), “Explaining the justice–
performance relationship: trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer?”,Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Colquitt, J.A., Long, D.M., Rodell, J.B. and Halvorsen-Ganepola, M.D.K. (2014), “Adding the “in”to
justice: a qualitative and quantitative investigation of the differential effects of justice rule
adherence and violation”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 278-297.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. and Conway, N. (2004), “The employment relationship through the lens of social
exchange”, in Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., Shore, L.M., Taylor, M.S. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), The
Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual Perspectives, Oxford
University Press, NewYork, NY, pp. 5-28.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 784-900.
Dalal, R.S. (2005), “A Meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1241-1255,
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241.
De Clercq, D., Ul Haq, I. and Azeem, M.U. (2019), “Time-related work stress and counterproductive
work behavior: invigorating roles of deviant personality traits”,Personnel Review, Vol. 48 No. 7,
pp. 1756-1781.
Emerson, R.M. (1976), “Social exchange theory”,Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 335-362.
Fassina, N.E., Jones, D.A. and Uggerslev, K.L. (2008), “Relationship clean-up time: using meta-analysis
and path analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and
citizenship behaviors”,Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 161-188.
Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S. and Fandt, P.M. (1989), “Politics in organizations”, in Giacalone, R.A. and
Rosenfeld, P. (Eds), Impression Management in the Organization, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 143-170.
Ferris, G.R., Frink, D.D., Galang, M.C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, C.M. and Howard, J.L. (1996), “Political work
environments”,Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 233-266.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay
raise decisions”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 115-130.
Gan, C., Guo, W., Chai, Y. and Wang, D. (2019), “Unethical leader behavior and employee performance:
a deontic justice perspective”,Personnel Review, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 188-201.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment”,Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 186-192.
IJCMA
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”,American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
Grant, C. and Osanloo, A. (2014), “Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in
dissertation research: creating the blue print for you house”,Administrative Issues Journal:
Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 12-26.
Greenberg, J. (1993), “Stealing in the name of justice: informational and interpersonal moderators of
theft reactions to underpayment inequity”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp.81-103.
Harris, K., James, M. and Boonthanon, R. (2005), “Perceptions of organizational politics and cooperation
as moderators of the relationship between job strains and intent to turnover”,Journal of
Managerail Issues, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 26-42.
Hershcovis, M.S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K.A., Dupre, K.E., Inness, M. and Sivanathan, N.
(2007), “Predicting workplace aggression: a meta-analysis”,Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 228-238, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228.
Hobfoll, S. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”,American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, C., Perrewé, P. and Johnson, D. (2003), “Perceived organizational support as a
mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions and work outcomes”,Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 438-456.
Hofstede, G.H. (1983), “National culture in four dimensions”,International Studies of Management and
Organization, Vol. 13 Nos 1/2, pp. 46-74.
Hogan, J. and Hogan, R. (1989), “How to measure employee reliability”,Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 273-279.
Homans, G.C. (1964), “Bringing men back in”,American Sociological Review, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 809-818.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”,Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Huo, Y.J., Smith, H.J., Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1996), “Superordinate identification, subgroup
identification, and justice concerns: is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer?”,
Psychological Science, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 40-45.
Javed, S. (2014), Excellence in Higher Education: A Catalyst for Transformative Change in Pakistan,QS
Showcase.
Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P. and Millet, C. (2006), “The experience of
work related stress across occupations”,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 178-187.
Jones, D.A. (2009), “Getting even with one’s supervisor and one’s organization: relationships among
types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors”,Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 525-542.
Judge, T.A., Scott, B.A. and Ilies, R. (2006), “Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a
multilevel model”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 126-138.
Kacmar, K.M. and Baron, R.A. (1999), “Organizational politics: the state of the field, links to related
processes, and an agenda for future research”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-39.
Kacmar, K.M. and Carlson, D.S. (1997), “Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): a
multiple sample investigation”,Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 627-658.
Kacmar, K.M., Zivnuska, S. and White, C.D. (2007), “Control and exchange: the impact of work
environment on the work effort of low relationship quality employees”,The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp.69-84.
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
Kapoutsis, I., Papalexandris, A., Nikolopoulos, A., Hochwarter, W.A. and Ferris, G.R. (2011), “Politics
perception as moderator of the political skills-job performance relationship: a two-study, cross-
national, constructive replication”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 123-135.
Khan, K., Abbas, M., Gul, A. and Raja, U. (2015), “Organizational justice and job outcomes: moderating
role of Islamic work ethic”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 126 No. 2, pp. 235-246.
Khan, A.K., Quratulain, S. and Crawshaw, J.R. (2013), “The mediating role of discrete emotions in the
relationship between injustice and counterproductive work behaviors: a study in Pakistan”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 49-61.
Khattak, M.N., Khan, M.B., Fatima, T. and Shah, S.Z.A. (2018), “The underlying mechanism between
perceived organizational injustice and deviant workplace behaviors: moderating role of
personality traits”,Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 201-211.
Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, D.M. and Sapienza, H.J. (1995), “Building commitment, attachment, and
trust in strategic decision-making teams: the role of procedural justice”,Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 60-84.
Lavelle, J.J., Harris, C.M., Rupp, D.E., Herda, D.N., Young, R.F., Hargrove, M.B. and Thornton-
Lugo, M.A. (2018), “Multifoci effects of injustice on counterproductive work behaviors and
the moderating role of symbolization and victim sensitivity”,Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 1022-1039.
Leventhal, G.S. (1976), “The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations”,in
Berkowitz, L. and Walster, W. (Eds), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 9,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 91-131.
Leventhal, G.S., Karuza, J. and Fry, W.R. (1980), “Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation preferences”,in
Mikula, G. (Ed.), Justice and Social Interaction, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 167-218.
Levinson, H. (1965), “Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organization”,Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 370-390.
Lind, E.A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K.S. and Welchans, T.D. (2000), “The winding road from employee to
complainant: situational and psychological determinants of wrongful-termination claims”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45 No.3, pp. 557-590.
McCardle, J.G. (2007), “Organizational justice and workplace deviance: the role of organizational
structure, powerlessness, and information salience”, PhD Thesis, University of Central Florida.
McFarlin, D.B. and Sweeney, P.D. (1992), “Research notes. Distributive and procedural justice as
predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes”,Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 626-637.
Ma, J. and Liu, C. (2019), “The moderating effect of emotional intelligence on the relationship between
supervisor conflict and employees’counterproductive work behaviors”,International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 227-245.
Meade, A.W. and Craig, S.B. (2012), “Identifying careless responses in survey data”,Psychological
Methods, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 437-455.
Mercer, J., Barker, B. and Bird, R. (2010), Human Resource Management in Education: Contexts,
Themes and Impact, Routledge.
Mintzberg, H. (1983), Power in and around Organizations, Vol.142, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mitchell, M.S. and Ambrose, M.L. (2007), “Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the
moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4,
pp. 1159-1168.
Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P. and Organ, D.W. (1993), “Treating employees fairly and organizational
citizenship behavior: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
procedural justice”,Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 209-225.
Neuman, J.H. and Baron, R.A. (1997), “Aggression in the workplace”, in Giacalone, R.A. and Greenberg,
J. (Eds), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, pp. 37-67.
IJCMA
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of
monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 527-556.
O’Reilly, J., Aquino, K. and Skarlicki, D. (2016), “The lives of others: third parties’responses to others’
injustice”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 171-189.
O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W. and Glew, D.J. (1996), “Organization-motivated aggression: a
research framework”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 225-253.
Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C. and Schmidt, F.L. (1993), “Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test
validities: findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 679-703.
Pfeffer, J. (1995), “Producing sustainable competetive advantage through the effective management
people”,Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 55-72.
Poon, J.M. (2003), “Situational antecedents and outcomes of organizational politics perceptions”,Journal
of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 138-155.
Qu, Y., Jo, W. and Choi, H.C. (2019), “Gender discrimination, injustice, and deviant behavior among
hotel employees: role of organizational attachment”,Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality
and Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 78-104, doi: 10.1080/1528008X.2019.1619498.
Raja, U., Javed, Y. and Abbas, M. (2018), “A time lagged study of burnout as a mediator in the
relationship between workplace bullying and work–family conflict”,International Journal of
Stress Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 377-390.
Raja, U., Johns, G. and Ntalianis, F. (2004), “The impact of personality on psychological contracts”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 350-367.
Reich, T.C. and Hershcovis, M.S. (2015), “Observing workplace incivility”,Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 203-215.
Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995), “A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a
multidimensional scaling study”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 555-572.
Robinson, S.L., Wang, W. and Kiewitz, C. (2014), “Coworkers behaving badly: the impact of coworkers
deviant behavior upon individual employees”,Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 123-143.
Roscoe, J.T. (1975), Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, New York, NY.
Rupp, D.E. and Cropanzano, R. (2002), “The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in
predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice”,Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 925-946.
Sahlins, M.D. (1972), Stone Age Economics, Transaction Publishers.
Sarwar, A. and Muhammad, L. (2019), “Impact of employee perceptions of mistreatment on
organizational performance in the hotel industry”,International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 230-248.
Schabram, K., Robinson, S.L. and Cruz, K.S. (2018), “Honor among thieves: the interaction of team and
member deviance on trust in the team”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 9,
pp. 1057-1066.
Shore, L.M., Cleveland, J.N. and Goldberg, C.B. (2003), “Work attitudes and decisions as a function of
manager age and employee age”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 529-537.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), “Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive, procedural,
and interactional justice”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 434-443.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (2004), “Broadening our understanding of organizational retaliatory
behavior”,inGriffith, R.W., O’Leary-Kelly, A. and Pritchard, R.D. (Eds), The Dark Side of
Organizational Behavior, Wiley, pp. 373-402.
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oak, CA.
Teddlie, C. and Yu, H. (2007), “Mixed methods sampling: atypology with examples”,Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 77-100.
Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Travers, C.J. and Cooper, C.L. (1993), “Stress and burnout in the higher education sector in Pakistan: a
systematic review of literature”,Research Journal of Recent Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 11, pp. 90-98.
Vardi, Y. and Weitz, E. (2004), Misbehavior in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Management,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,Mahwah, NJ.
Vermunt, R., Wit, A., van den Bos, K. and Lind, E.A. (1996), “The effects of unfair procedure on
negative affect and protest”,Social Justice Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 109-119.
Yang, J. and Diefendorff, J.M. (2009), “The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behaviour
with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: a diary study in Hong
Kong”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 259-295.
Yusoff, R.M. and Khan, F. (2013), “Mental health, job satisfaction and occupational stress among UK
teachers”,Work and Stress, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 203-219.
Further reading
Kong, M. and Yuan, Y. (2018), “Perceived deviance tolerance: make employees’moral constructs
accessible from a dual-system”,Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 9, pp. 1936-1955.
Mackey, J.D., McAlister, C.P., Maker, L.P. and Wang, G. (2018), “Leaders and followers behaving badly:
a meta-analytic examination of curvilinear relationships between destructive leadership and
followers’workplace behaviors”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 3-47.
IJCMA
Appendix
Factors
Standardized
loading
Distributive injustice (DJ)
DJ1. My work schedule is fair 0.712
DJ2. I think that my level of pay is fair 0.789
DJ3. I consider my work load to be quite fair 0.803
DJ4. I feel that my job responsibilities are fair 0.695
Procedural injustice (PJ)
PJ1. Job decisions made by the GM in an unbiased manner 0.712
PJ2. My manager makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before job decisions are
made 0.656
PJ3. To make job decisions, my manager collects accurate and complete information 0.638
PJ4. My manager clarifies decisions and provides additional information when requested by
employees 0.705
PJ5. All job decisions are applied consistently across all affected employees 0.624
PJ6. Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by the manager 0.648
Interactional injustice (IJ)
IJ1. When decisions are made about my job, the manager treats me with kindness and
considerations 0.706
IJ2. When decisions are made about my job, the manager treats me with respect and dignity 0.734
IJ3. When decisions are made about my job, the manager deals with me in a truthful manner 0.805
IJ4. My manager explains very clearly any decision made about my job 0.689
POP
POP1. People in this organization attempt to build themselves up by tearing others down 0.709
POP2. There has always been an influential group in this department that no one ever
crosses 0.657
POP3. Employees are encouraged to speak out even if they are critical of well-established
ideas (R) 0.632
POP4. There is no place for “yes-men”around here. Good ideas are desired even when it
means disagreeing with superiors (R) 0.605
POP5. Agreeing with powerful others is the best alternative at this organization 0.715
POP6. It is best not to rock the boat at this organization 0.632
POP7. Sometimes it is better to remain quiet than to fight the system 0.702
POP8. Telling others what they want to hear is sometimes better than telling them the truth 0.705
POP9. It is safer to think what you are told than to make up your own mind 0.602
POP10. Since I have worked in this organization, I have never seen pay and promotion
policies applied politically (R) 0.681
POP11. I can’t remember when a person received a pay increase or promotion that was
inconsistent with the published policies (R) 0.635
POP12. The stated pay and promotion policies have nothing to do with actual pay and
promotions 0.701
POP13. When it comes to pay and promotions, policies are irrelevant 0.645
POP14. Promotions around here are not valued much because how they are determined is so
political 0.642
POP15. None of the raises I have received are consistent with policies on how raises should
be determined 0.703
(continued)
Table A1.
Survey measures in
the organizational
context with
standard loadings
Perceived
politics on
deviant
behaviors
Corresponding author
Mohammad Nisar Khattak can be contacted at: mohammad.nisar@hdr.qut.edu.au
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Factors
Standardized
loading
DBI
DBI1. Made fun of someone at work 0.801
DBI2. Said something hurtful to someone at work 0.798
DBI3. Made an ethnic, religious or racial remark at work 0.758
DBI4. Cursed at someone at work 0.786
DBI5. Played a mean prank on someone at work 0.852
DBI6. Acted rudely toward someone at work 0.815
DBI7. Publicly embarrassed someone at work 0.765
DBO
DBO1. Taken property from work without permission 0.825
DBO2. Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working 0.875
DBO3. Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business
expenses 0.806
DBO4. Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your workplace 0.856
DBO5. Come in late to work without permission 0.835
DBO6. Littered your work environment 0.857
DBO7. Neglected to follow your boss’s instructions 0.835
DBO8. Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked 0.859
DBO9. Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized person 0.824
DBO10. Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job 0.816
DBO11. Put little effort into your work 0.872
DBO12. Dragged out work to get overtime 0.849
Note: R = Reverse-coded
Table A1.
IJCMA
