You are on page 1of 17

International Journal of Social Economics

Examining workplace deviance in public sector organizations of Pakistan

Misbah Nasir Ambreen Bashir
Article information:
To cite this document:
Misbah Nasir Ambreen Bashir, (2012),"Examining workplace deviance in public sector organizations of
Pakistan", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 39 Iss 4 pp. 240 - 253
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded on: 07 April 2015, At: 07:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

To copy this document:

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1481 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Steven H. Appelbaum, Kyle J. Deguire, Mathieu Lay, (2005),"The relationship of ethical climate to deviant
workplace behaviour", Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 5 Iss 4
pp. 43-55
Steven H. Appelbaum, Giulio David Iaconi, Albert Matousek, (2007),"Positive and negative deviant
workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions", Corporate Governance: The international journal of
business in society, Vol. 7 Iss 5 pp. 586-598
Wendi J. Everton, Jeffrey A. Jolton, Paul M. Mastrangelo, (2007),"Be nice and fair or else: understanding
reasons for employees' deviant behaviors", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 Iss 2 pp. 117-131

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 194288 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit for more information.
About Emerald
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

39,4 Examining workplace deviance
in public sector organizations
of Pakistan
Misbah Nasir and Ambreen Bashir
Army Public College of Management & Sciences, Rawalpindi Cantt, Pakistan

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to pin point the root causes for the deviant workplace
behaviour in the government sector of Pakistan.
Design/methodology/approach Data collection for the research was carried out by interviewing
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

and distributing questionnaires to 100 employees belonging to different Government organizations of

Pakistan. The extent of researcher interference was minimal and research was conducted in a
non-contrived environment. This is a cross-sectional study.
Findings After a comprehensive study, it is concluded that there can be multiple factors
responsible for creating workplace deviance, e.g. financial pressures, lower job satisfaction,
organizational injustice, organization environment, employee perception, etc. but the most important
factors out of these are organizational injustice and job satisfaction.
Research limitations/implications An important limitation of this research is that it was
conducted with a limited sample and a small sample size. Future researchers should use a larger
sample size for the research in order to explore new dimensions regarding workplace deviance in
public sector organizations of Pakistan.
Practical implications Managers can benefit from this research and can devise more appropriate
strategies to make the employees productive. In order to overcome the deviant workplace behaviour,
the managers should try to develop good employee relations, a congenial work environment and
promote a culture of quality control circles.
Originality/value The exact reasons for deviant behaviour in public sector organizations in
Pakistan were not identified, thus solutions could not be formulated. This research pin points
two major factors due to which deviation at work takes place. This paper is of paramount
significance for managers experiencing employee deviance at work in government organizations of
Keywords Pakistan, Public sector organizations, Employees behaviour, Deviant workplace behaviour,
Job satisfaction, Organizational justice, Counterproductive work behaviour, Working conditions
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Employee deviance is defined as: voluntary behavior that violates significant
organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well being of an organization, its
members or both (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). The deviant workplace behavior is of
different types. It can be occupational fraud, aggression either verbal or physical,
showing favoritism, working slowly, etc. (Marcus and Schuler, 2004). It is observed
International Journal of Social
Vol. 39 No. 4, 2012 Deviant behavior is a growing concern in many organizations. Whether the deviance is
pp. 240-253 deemed explicit or subconscious, whether it involves sexual harassment, vandalism, rumor
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
spreading or otherwise, it has negative consequences for the entity and its affiliates
DOI 10.1108/03068291211205677 (Appelbaum and Shapiro, 2006).
Robinson and Bennett (1995) states that there can be a number of reasons for workplace Examining
deviance and those different factors are responsible for different types of deviant workplace
behavior. Wells (2001) believes that workplace environment and working conditions are
important predictors of fraud, a deviant workplace behavior. When employees and deviance
managers think that they are not properly being taken care of, they consign fraud and
abuse to level out matters. Galperin and Burke (2006) suggest that people with great
passion for their work and goals will do anything to achieve their objectives. For them, 241
even breaking organizational rules is nothing. On the other hand, some researchers have
a strong belief that work attitudes and behavior of employees is very much affected by
their expectations toward the organization (Pulich and Tourigny, 2004). While Mehta
(2004) argues that sometimes employees indulge in acts that they consider as satisfying,
but do not realize the inverse outcomes of these acts, that the organization may have to
face. Some researchers have found that employees perception is directly related
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

to their workplace behavior, i.e. good perception leads to good behavior and vice
versa (Colbert et al., 2004). Whereas, Jelinek and Ahearne (2006) are of the view that
bureaucracy has a very important role to play in workplace deviance. It creates
communication gaps between employees and the management and lowers employee
morale and commitment and encourages counterproductive behavior. Thus, it can be
deduced that:
[. . .] counterproductive behavior is the result of a complex interaction between the person and
the environment in which the individuals causal reasoning about the environment and
expected outcomes drive the individuals behavior (Martinko et al., 2002).
Deviant workplace behavior is a common problem faced by almost all the
organizations, particularly in under-developed and developing countries where
literacy rate is low and poverty is more. There are different types of workplace
deviance, for instance, theft, fraud, taking excessive breaks, working slow, showing
favoritism, leg pulling, verbal abuse, etc. Owing to all these kind of behaviors,
organizations suffer in the form of decreased productivity, increased costs, inefficient
work and organizations deteriorating status and reputation. In Pakistan, experience
has shown that organizations run by government, whether autonomous or
semi-autonomous are mostly infected with deviant behavior of the workforce. But
have we ever thought what actually this workplace deviance is? Why this behavior
occurs? Why is it that the employee or the employer tends to behave in a different way?
What are the factors that lead to such deviant behavior? With the intention to overcome
deviation in workplace behavior, one needs to dig out the reasons for such actions. Only
then, one can devise certain solution for it. This attempts to answer the above and other
relevant questions.
In order to increase the efficiency of government sector organizations of Pakistan and
make them more effective and profitable, it is essential to investigate the reasons for
workplace deviance and then come up with a way out. This research is carried out to
explore the factors that result in counterproductive behavior in the government
organizations of Pakistan. The research emphasizes on the triggers of deviant behavior
in employees that affects the organizations overall productivity. This research can
prove to be of vital significance for managers, to understand and overcome the painful
matter of counterproductive or deviant behavior at workplace.
IJSE 2. Literature review
39,4 Job satisfaction
The degree to which members of an organization have a positive affective orientation
toward their job in the organization is termed as job satisfaction. Satisfied and
dissatisfied members have a positive and negative affective orientation, respectively
(Martin, 1979). In simple words, job satisfaction is defined as the general approach of a
242 person towards his job (Lee and Chang, 2008). There are a number of factors that serve
as determinants of employee job satisfaction. Usually, satisfaction is linked with
employees expectations and levels of reward they receive (Wharton et al., 2000). This
notion is supported by Lipman and McGraw (1988). They have found that employees
who feel that they are not fairly treated in terms of compensation are displeased and
dissatisfied from their job and are most likely to steal from their managers and
coworkers. Another school of thought believes that people with more complex
and autonomous jobs possess a higher level of job satisfaction (Wharton et al., 2000)
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

but it is important to note here that different group of people allocate different levels of
importance to job complexity as a determinant of job satisfaction (Ganzach, 1998). So
we cannot say that job complexity is the only determinant of job satisfaction.
Personality has an indirect while working condition has a direct relation with job
satisfaction. Dormann and Zapf (2001) say that personality of an employee has an
effect on the job conditions and this in turn affects job satisfaction. Fields and Blum
(1997) is also of the view that working conditions have an impact on levels of employee
job satisfaction. Hence, it can be generalized that the cognitive characteristic and work
environment interaction determines job satisfaction (Ganzach, 1998). There is an
additional factor that influences job satisfaction. Studies reveal that employee
satisfaction is also affected by the quality of employee-employer relationship at
workplace (Ladebo, 2008). Centralization and formalization have a negative impact on
job satisfaction (Dewar and Werbel, 1979). Therefore, it can be deduced that social cues
and actual work conditions like salary, promotion, job complexity or social relations
give rise to job satisfaction (Ladebo, 2008).
Employee job satisfaction is beneficial and very fruitful for the organization. Job
satisfaction results in greater employee commitment and this in turn results in better
organizational performance. Employee is the real asset of an organization. Actions of
employees (either positive or negative) have a direct connection with organizational
performance. Ladebo (2008) has shown that job satisfaction results in the performance
of organizational citizenship behavior as employees feel energized, they act positively.
Thus, the more the employees are satisfied, the better it is for the organization.
Workforce turnover which is a considerable expense for organizations is associated
with job satisfaction (Behrman et al., 1981). There had been an extensive study on the
relation between job satisfaction and employee turnover but unfortunately it remains
the least understood topic in the literature of organizational behavior (Spencer, 1986).
Amos and Weathington (2008) have found that employees with high turnover intention
are present in those organizations that do not give importance or value their
employees. On the contrary, Christmas (2008) argues that work environment has a
strong influence on employee turnover. Keeping in view the above discussion, it can be
inferred that lower job satisfaction is one of the reasons for employee turnover.
Job satisfaction and workplace deviance are very much linked with each other.
Theft is a form of workplace deviance. Job dissatisfaction or lower job satisfaction
is one of the reasons for employee theft at workplace. Kulas et al. (2007) have Examining
established that in organizations, dissatisfied employees involve in more theft workplace
behaviors as compared to satisfied employees. Individuals with lower job satisfaction
promote workplace deviance (Martin and Hine, 2005). It has been observed that job deviance
satisfaction appears to have a negative relation with deviance at workplace (Judge et al.,
H1. Job satisfaction is negatively related to workplace deviance in government
organizations of Pakistan.

Organizational injustice
Organizational justice can be defined as an employees personal evaluation or perception
of the moral and ethical status of the practices of its manager (Cropanzano et al., 2007).
Attitudes of employees related to the policies, actions and decisions of an organization
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

serves as basis for organizational justice (Jordan and Turner, 2008). Organizational
justice is a vital characteristic of an organization (Warner et al., 2005) as it possesses the
potential to generate significant benefits for both the employees and the organization
itself (Cropanzano et al., 2007). According to some researchers, in order to have an ethical
relation in an organization, the most important requirement is organizational justice
(Byers and Rhodes, 2007). Organizational justice is imperative for organizations of all
kind. It has been established that when employees perceive fairness, they become
delighted and work with more effort (Aguilera et al., 2007). Justice also has a connection
with employee commitment. Research shows that organizations that treat their workers
fairly have more committed employees (Wiesenfeld et al., 2007).
Justice in the organization can be determined by a variety of factors. Some believe
that personality and behavior of leaders has a considerable impact on the
organizational justice (Mayer et al., 2007). Hence, organizational leadership is one of
the factors resulting in justice at workplace (Campbell et al., 2007). In other words, it
can be stated that the overall structure of an organization, pay system and behavior of
colleagues are the determinants of organizational justice (Mayer et al., 2007).
The two forms of organizational justice are distributive justice and procedural
justice. Roberson and Stevens (2006) are of the view that discrimination at workplace,
management treatment and work relations are very much concerned with distributive
and procedural justice. In addition, another study reveals that both distributive and
procedural justice play a major role in predicting workplace attitudes and behaviors
(Warner et al., 2005). Employee motivation is a key characteristic of workplace attitudes.
The two categories of organizational justice serve as a source of motivation for
employees to learn and gain knowledge (Liao and Tai, 2006). Employees perceived
justice of the work environment has a strong effect on the employees well-being as well
as the organization outcomes like job satisfaction, employee performance, employee
turnover, etc. (Aguilera et al., 2007). In this regard, Karriker (2007) has found that
procedural justice has an exclusive impact on the fairness perceptions of employees and
the organization outcomes. If employees perceive that they are not being supported by
the organization and are not being valued, they might not build strong psychological
bonds between the colleagues and the organization (Cheung and Law, 2008). It can be
drawn that both forms of justice play a fundamental part in influencing the overall
performance of the organization.
IJSE Organizational injustice is of two types: distributive injustice and procedural
39,4 injustice. Greenberg (2006) has defined distributive injustice as peoples perception that
they are not fully compensated in comparison to their contribution. Greenberg (2006)
also defines procedural injustice as employees beliefs that the measures being used to
determine output are unjust. The behavioral and affective reaction to procedural
injustice is not directed towards the immediate source, i.e. either individual or a
244 department. Rather it targets the organization, affecting the organizations output
negatively (Siers, 2007). Therefore, it is suggested that if managers want satisfied and
committed employees, they should practice procedural justice (Warner et al., 2005).
Injustice is detrimental to the organization. Some researchers have termed the word
injustice as a corrosive solvent that has the capability of dissolving bonds within
organizations. It hurts the individual employees while harms the whole organization
(Cropanzano et al., 2007).
Organizational injustice is a pressing issue for organizations. Henle (2005)
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

has shown that on experiencing injustice, employees get involved in deviant acts to
find a solution to injustice. Thus, organizational injustice can result in workplace
H2. Organizational injustice is positively related to workplace deviance in
government sector organizations of Pakistan.

Workplace deviance
Deviance, in general means the beliefs, attitudes and behaviors that are varying in
nature from the conventional standards. Mostly, deviance is perceived to be negative
(Lucas and Friedrich, 2005). As the name indicates, workplace deviance is the deviance
at workplace. Huiras et al. (2000) states that deviation at workplace is equivalent to the
problematic issues of employee turnover, absenteeism, lack of commitment, etc.
Employees commit a variety of deviant acts at work. Robinson and Bennett (1995) have
characterized these deviant acts into four different classes; production deviance,
property deviance, political deviance and personal deviance. Production deviance is
concerned with the violating employee behaviors that affect the quantity and quality
of work in the organization resulting in reduced efficiency while property deviance
refers to the misuse or damage of the organizations assets or tangible property
(Hollinger and Clark, 1982). These objectionable actions in the organization range in
severity from minor theft amongst employees to the greater extent of ethical collapses
due to which many huge corporations have gone bankrupt (Harris et al., 2007).
Very little work has been done to explore the reasons why there is more deviation in
some organizations as compared to others (Sherman, 1980). It is said that deviance is
neither the outcome of a power-hungry human nature nor the product of a faulty or
substandard society (Piven, 1981). Rather, there are multiple reasons that cause deviant
acts. Grover (1993) says that employees can deviate and give false statements just to
get promotion or to make extra money. According to Marx (1981), existing studies
related to deviance overlooks a critical point that can be very helpful in determining the
reasons for deviance. The point is the particular situation within which deviation takes
place. Work environment is linked with workplace deviance. Henle (2005) suggests
that employee deviation at work does not depend on the personality or the individual
characteristics of employees. Rather, it is dependent on the working environment
within the organization. Organizational environment portrays the traits and
characteristics of an organization. It also has an effect on employee motivation Examining
and employee behavior (Srivastav, 2006). Research implies that specific characteristics workplace
of an organizations environment results in employee deviance (Henle, 2005). On the
other hand it is said that a significant predictor of variation in workplace deviance is deviance
job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2006).
Theft is a form of workplace deviance and comes under the category of
property deviation. Favorable climate for theft in an organization can act as a source of 245
employee deviation. Climate for theft means providing ample opportunities for theft and
organizations ineffective policies regarding check and control (Kulas et al., 2007). In this
regard, Hollinger and Clark (1983) have found that employees who think they will not be
caught are more likely to steal as compared to those who believe the inverse.
Thus, if organizational policies are strict and employees recognize that they will be
punished for theft, they will not involve in such activities. Another study reveals
that conflict is a key trigger of workplace deviance (Raelin, 1994). Ayoko et al. (2003)
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

have identified that conflict appears as a precursor of bullying and this ultimately
results in counterproductive behaviors at work. Counterproductive behavior is another
name for deviant behavior as explained by Kwok et al. (2005), that, counterproductive
behaviors refers to the deviant behaviors of employees that go against the
organizational norms and negatively affect the organization.
Deviating behaviors of employees are destructive and injurious to the health of an
organization. These diverging behaviors have serious adverse affects on the overall
productivity, efficiency and profitability of an organization. The government sector
organizations of Pakistan are also infected by workplace deviance. This deviance has
resulted in the inefficient performance of the public sector organizations. In order to
overcome this challenging problem, managers must first identify the workplace
deviance taking place in their organization, then pin point the determinants and then
formulate viable strategies to eliminate deviance from their organizations. Litzky et al.
(2006) have also recommended that in order to eradicate workplace deviance and its
effects from an organization, the managers must strive to identify the chief instigators
of workplace deviance.

3. Theoretical framework
Theoretical framework is a logical diagrammatic representation of the relationship
between independent and dependent variables. There are two independent variables in
this model namely organizational injustice and job satisfaction. The dependent
variable is deviant workplace behavior. Organizational justice has a positive
relationship with deviant workplace behavior whereas job satisfaction has a negative
relationship with deviant workplace behavior (Figure 1).

Injustice Deviant
I.V Workplace
Figure 1.
IJSE 4. Research methodology
39,4 Questionnaire
The questionnaire for job satisfaction was adopted from Taylor and Bowers (1974),
consisting of seven items. The questionnaire for perceived organizational injustice was
adopted from Hodson et al. (1994) having four items. While the questionnaire for deviant
workplace behaviors was adopted from Aquino et al. (1999) containing 14 items. This
246 questionnaire was personally administered to the employees of the concerned
organizations. A total number of 120 questionnaires were distributed, out of which
100 were received back, making response rate as 83.3 percent.

Population and sample

The population for this study was the public sector employees of Pakistan. A sample of
100 was selected. The sampling technique used for this study was convenient. The sample
was representative of population based on various characteristics as given in Table I.
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

5. Findings
The correlation indicates a relatively significant positive relationship between deviant
workplace behavior and organizational injustice (0.445), which is in accordance with
the hypothesis. In addition, job satisfaction is more strongly correlated with deviant
workplace behavior (2 0.802). This again is in harmony with the proposed hypothesis.
This means that organizational injustice has an over all impact of 44.5 percent on the
workplace deviance while job satisfaction inversely contributes to 80.2 percent of
workplace deviance (Table II).

Section No. of employees %

Male 72 72
Female 28 28
Matric 18 18
Intermediate 13 13
Bachelor 37 37
Masters 32 32
Age (years)
20-25 11 11
26-30 13 13
31-35 19 19
36-40 26 26
Table I. 41-above 31 31

Deviant workplace behavior Organizational injustice Job satisfaction

Table II. Deviant workplace behavior 1 0.445 20.802

Correlation coefficient Organizational injustice 0.445 1 20.412
matrix Job satisfaction 20.802 20.412 1
Regression analysis suggests that organizational injustice and job satisfaction has a Examining
fundamental contribution towards deviant workplace behavior. About 66 percent of workplace
variation in workplace deviance is caused by these two independent variables. In other
words, deviant workplace behavior is 66 percent dependent on organizational injustice deviance
and job satisfaction. The remaining 34 percent of variation is caused by other
variables that have not been included in this research model (Table III).
6. Discussion
The table for correlation analysis indicates a considerable positive relationship between
organizational injustice and deviant workplace behavior. Greater the level of injustice in
an organization more will be the deviant workplace behavior. The public sector
organizations of Pakistan are unfortunately found to be very much infected by
organizational injustice. Most of the time, some employees are given special treatment
and praised for the work they have never done, simply because of contacts or relation
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

with the managers or senior officials. They are mostly the so-called blue-eyed
employees. Favoritism is a very common and widespread disease in government
organizations of Pakistan. This creates a negative environment and employees get
demotivated. Consequently, they perform deviant behaviors, for instance, intentionally
arriving late at work, gossiping about the managers, purposely ignoring supervisors
instructions, etc. Similarly, in certain cases, the employees are not provided with the
training that was promised, or not given promotions on merit basis or either the criteria
for promotion is not clearly defined or is not properly followed. Employees very close to
the senior managers or officials or having reference of some bureaucrat obtain excessive
promotions or are given the best possible posts. In simple words, a lot can be done in
public sector organizations if one has a reference of a political leader, a bureaucrat or a
higher official. Owing to these reasons, employees experience unfair and undue
treatment from higher authorities. Deviant behavior is an outcome or a response to
organizational injustice. It is employees way of showing retaliation towards the
organizations behavior.
Job satisfaction and deviant workplace behavior is found to have a very strong and
significant negative relationship, as shown by the table for correlation analysis. The
greater the level of job satisfaction, lesser will be the deviant behavior. Workplace
deviance can be reduced by means of numerous factors but one key factor is job
satisfaction. By increasing the level of job satisfaction, workplace deviance can be
decreased. In Pakistan, especially in government sector, ratio of workplace deviance is
very high. A major portion of this deviance is caused by low level of job satisfaction
among the employees. Lower level of job satisfaction leads to deviating behaviors
such as, wasting organizational resources, delaying tasks, wasting time, stealing,
etc. An important point to be noted is that mostly deviant workplace behaviors are

b t-value Sig.

Organizational injustice 0.138 2.121 0.036

Job satisfaction 2 0.746 211.472 0.000
Notes: Dependent variable: deviant workplace behavior; R 2 0.660; F 94.006; sig. 0.000; Table III.
n 100 Regression analysis
IJSE exhibited by the lower level employees who by and large are the chief victims of
39,4 organizational injustice. These are the employees who are deprived of the fundamental
amenities at work. In government sector organizations, employees are not provided with
a healthy, work friendly environment. They are not even provided with ample basic
facilities. For instance, in winter season, majority of the workers have to perform their
duties in severe cold without any proper heating system in their offices. Likewise in
248 summers, there is no arrangement of air conditioners or coolers. Only ceiling fans are
available. These working conditions make it extremely difficult for the employees to
perform well. On the contrary, these conditions serve as a source of dissatisfaction
among the employees. Mostly, they are over-burdened with huge amounts of work
which they have to complete in a limited time span. Moreover, the employees are not
properly compensated in terms of their contribution towards the organization. As
compared to the private organizations, public sector employees do not enjoy much extra
benefits, perks, bonuses or allowances. Hence they have to face tremendous financial
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

pressures. The end result is in the form of lowest level of job satisfaction. Thus, it can be
inferred that pay system in government organizations is one of the factor leading to
lower job satisfaction. The employees get frustrated and the end product of this
frustration comes in the form of deviant behavior executed by the employees like;
corruption, fraud, misuse of organization property, etc. There also exists a wide
communication gap between senior officials and low-level employees. This often creates
the problem of miscommunication among the employees which sometimes lead to
conflict or misunderstandings between colleagues. Communication gap also results in
job dissatisfaction. It can be concluded that a number of factors are responsible for
decrease in job satisfaction. This in turn leads to lower job performance resulting in a
decrease in the over all productivity, efficiency and performance of the organization. On
the other hand if employees are provided with all the central necessities, better pay
structure and are satisfied with their job, they will have a strong sense of commitment
and loyalty towards their job. Their performance will be amplified and they will not
deviate from their work.
A part from organizational injustice and low level of job satisfaction, other factors
also contribute towards deviant workplace behaviors. As in the regression analysis,
the value of R 2 also indicates that 66 percent of deviant behavior at work is due to the
two variables mentioned above while 34 percent is because of other factor. One aspect
can be that in government organizations, job assurance is guaranteed. Whether you
work or not, you get the pay while in private organizations pay system is performance
based. The better you perform, the more you are rewarded. Second, in private sector,
employees are involved in the decision making process and they are given
empowerment while in public sector, decisions of top management are enforced upon
the employees and there is no concept of employee empowerment. In government
controlled organizations of Pakistan, the infection of deviant behavior at work is
widespread and contagious. The reason for this pronounced infection is lack of
accountability, slack rules and regulations, lack of supervision by the manager, no
worry of losing job, biasness and unfairness at managers end and deficiency of
essential work requirements for workers. As opposed to the government controlled
organizations, private organizations have shown better results primarily because of
strict accountability, high discipline, attractive pay structures, strict laws and hire and
fire policy.
7. Practical implication Examining
This research is of vital importance for managers especially those belonging to the workplace
public sector organizations of Pakistan. Managers experience higher level of deviance
from employees but initially the reason for this deviance was not known. Only deviance
assumptions were made regarding this negative behavior of employees. Some people
assumed that this deviance was because of employees personality. Some employees
either have a habit of stealing known as kleptomania, or are malingerer by nature. 249
All these reasons can be valid to some extent but they are not the fundamental reasons on
the basis of which solutions should be devised. This research gives a brief insight to the
potential causes for workplace deviance. Keeping in view the two key factors;
organizational injustice and job satisfaction, managers should try to be fair and just
while dealing with subordinates. The managers should encourage hard workers by
acknowledging them and praising them in front of other employees. They should make
an effort to develop a strong bond with their subordinates based on trust and belief. The
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

total quality management concept of quality control circles should be promoted and
used in the organizations to resolve the issues of employees and to create a culture of
mutual trust, harmony, friendship and commitment. This will motivate the
employees and will have a positive affect on their level of job satisfaction.
This research can prove to be a big help for managers to control deviant behaviors
of employees by fulfilling their due demands and by having a self analysis of their own
actions. As workplace deviance is the result of the fault of both the employees and the
employer. Also, with the assistance of this research, government organizations can
improve their performance by reviewing their policies and course of action. They
should consider their employees as an asset and should value them, but should not
forget to keep a strict eye on them as well.
There are certain limitations regarding this research. Some of the employees were
reluctant in giving their impartial views because of fear of supervisors. Second, they
had a lot of work to complete, so they were not answering the questions with full

8. Conclusion
Despite the few limitations, this study significantly contributes to the literature on deviant
workplace behavior especially in terms of public sector organizations of Pakistan. Public
sector organizations in Pakistan have a distinct way of working characterized by
non-transparent procedures, injustice, favoritism and escalating political influence. All
these factors mostly generate negative and cynical emotions in employees consequently
giving rise to counterproductive and deviant workplace behaviors. This research has
found organizational injustice and low job satisfaction to be significant determinants of
workplace deviance in government sector organizations of Pakistan. Owing to these
unwanted work behaviors, the health of this sector is deteriorating. Steps need to be taken
to curb these negative behaviors otherwise they will eat away the public sector
organizations like termites. For organizations to be successful and productive, integrity,
transparency and top management commitment are the fundamental essentials. Certain
suggestions have also been given in this research to address the painful issues of
organizational injustice and workplace deviance. If they are considered seriously and
actions are taken, the future of these organizations can be brightened.
IJSE References
39,4 Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A. and Ganapathi, J. (2007), Putting the S back in
corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 836-63.
Amos, E.A. and Weathington, B.L. (2008), An analysis of the relation between
employee-organization value congruence and employee attitudes, The Journal of
250 Psychology, Vol. 142 No. 6, pp. 615-31.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M.V. and Bradfield, M. (1999), Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and
employee deviance: a proposed model and empirical test, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 1073-91.
Appelbaum, S.H. and Shapiro, B.T. (2006), Diagnosis and remedies for deviant workplace
behaviors, The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 14-20.
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

Ayoko, O.B., Callan, V.J. and Hartel, C.E. (2003), Workplace conflict, bullying and
counterproductive behaviors, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 283-301.
Behrman, D.N., Bigoness, W.J. and Perreault, W.D. Jr (1981), Sources of job related ambiguity
and their consequences upon salespersons job satisfaction and performance,
Management Science, Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 1246-60.
Byers, D. and Rhodes, C. (2007), Ethics, alterity, and organizational justice, Business Ethics:
A European Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 239-50.
Campbell, K.S., White, C.D. and Durant, R. (2007), Necessary evils, in justice and
rapport management, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 161-85.
Cheung, M.F.Y. and Law, M.C.C. (2008), Relationships of organizational justice and
organizational identification: the mediating effects of perceived organizational support
in Hong Kong, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 213-31.
Christmas, K. (2008), How work environment impacts retention, Nursing Economics,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 316-18.
Colbert, A.E., Mount, M.K., Harter, J.K., Witt, L.A. and Barrick, M.R. (2004), Interactive effects of
personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 4, pp. 599-609.
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D.E. and Gillilang, S.W. (2007), The management of organizational
justice, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 34-48.
Dewar, R. and Werbel, J. (1979), Universalistic and contingency predictions of
employee satisfaction and conflict, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 426-48.
Dormann, C. and Zapf, D. (2001), Job satisfaction: a meta-analysis of stabilities, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 483-504.
Fields, D.L. and Blum, T.C. (1997), Employee satisfaction in work groups
with different gender composition, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 181-96.
Galperin, B.L. and Burke, R.J. (2006), Uncovering the relationship between workaholism and
workplace destructive and constructive deviance: an exploratory study, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 331-47.
Ganzach, Y. (1998), Intelligence and job satisfaction, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41
No. 5, pp. 526-39.
Greenberg, J. (2006), Losing sleep over organizational injustice: attenuating insomniac reactions Examining
to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in interactional justice, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 58-69. workplace
Grover, S.L. (1993), Lying, deceit, and subterfuge: a model of dishonesty in the workplace, deviance
Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 478-95.
Harris, K.J., Harvey, P., Harris, R.B. and Brouer, R.L. (2007), Deviant workplace behavior:
an examination of the justification process, Journal of Applied Sciences Research, Vol. 3 251
No. 12, pp. 1921-8.
Henle, C.A. (2005), Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between
organizational justice and personality, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 247-63.
Hodson, R., Creighton, S., Jamison, C.S., Rieble, S. and Welsh, S. (1994), Loyalty to whom?
Workplace participation and the development of consent, Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 8,
pp. 895-909.
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

Hollinger, R.C. and Clark, J.P. (1982), Formal and informal social controls of employee deviance,
The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 333-43.
Hollinger, R.C. and Clark, J.P. (1983), Deterrence in the workplace: perceived
certainty, perceived severity, and employee theft, Social Forces, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 398-418.
Huiras, J., Uggen, C. and McMorris, B. (2000), Career jobs, survival jobs, and employee deviance:
a social investment model of workplace misconduct, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 41
No. 2, pp. 245-63.
Jelinek, R. and Ahearne, M. (2006), The enemy within: examining salesperson deviance and
its determinants, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 327-44.
Jordan, J.S. and Turner, B.A. (2008), The feasibility of single-item measures for
organizational justice, Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, Vol. 12,
pp. 237-57.
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. 126-38.
Karriker, J. (2007), Justice as strategy: the role of procedural justice in an organizational
realignment, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 7 Nos 3/4, pp. 329-42.
Kulas, J.T., McInnerney, J.E., Demuth, R.F. and Jadwinski, V. (2007), Employee satisfaction and
theft: testing climate perceptions as a mediator, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 141 No. 4,
pp. 389-402.
Kwok, C.K., Au, W.T. and Ho, J.M.C. (2005), Normative controls and self reported
counterproductive behaviors in the workplace in China, Applied Psychology:
An International Review, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 456-75.
Ladebo, O.J. (2008), Perceived supervisory support and organizational citizenship behaviors:
is job satisfaction a mediator, South African Journal of Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 479-88.
Lee, Y.D. and Chang, H.M. (2008), Relations between team work and innovation in organizations
and the job satisfaction of employees: a factor analytic study, International Journal of
Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 732-9.
Liao, W.C. and Tai, W.T. (2006), Organizational justice, motivation to learn, and training
outcomes, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 545-56.
IJSE Lipman, M. and McGraw, W.R. (1988), Employee theft: a $40 billion industry, Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 498, pp. 51-9.
Litzky, B.E., Eddleston, K.A. and Kidder, D.L. (2006), The good, the bad, and the misguided:
how managers inadvertently encourage deviant behaviors, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 91-103.
Lucas, G.M. and Friedrich, J. (2005), Individual differences in workplace deviance
252 and integrity as predictors of academic dishonesty, Ethics & Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 15-35.
Marcus, B. and Schuler, H. (2004), Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: a general
perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 4, pp. 647-60.
Martin, R.J. and Hine, D.W. (2005), Development and validation of the uncivil workplace
behavior questionnaire, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 477-90.
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

Martin, T.N. Jr (1979), A contextual model of employee turnover intentions, Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 313-24.
Martinko, M.J., Gundlach, M.J. and Douglas, S.C. (2002), Toward an integrative theory of
counterproductive workplace behavior: a causal reasoning perspective, International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 36-50.
Marx, G.T. (1981), Ironies of social control: authorities as contributors to deviance through
escalation, non-enforcement, and covert facilitation, Social Problems, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 221-46.
Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B. and Goldstein, H. (2007), The precursors and products of
justice climates: group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 929-63.
Mehta, K.R. (2004), Examining the relationship between motivational traits and
counterproductive work behaviors, Masters thesis, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Piven, F.F. (1981), Deviant behavior and the remaking of the world, Social Problems, Vol. 28
No. 5, pp. 489-508.
Pulich, M. and Tourigny, L. (2004), Workplace deviance: strategies for modifying employee
behavior, The Health Care Manager, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 290-301.
Raelin, J.A. (1994), Three scales of professional deviance within organizations, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 483-501.
Roberson, Q.M. and Stevens, C.K. (2006), Making sense of diversity in the workplace:
organizational justice and language abstraction in employees accounts of
diversity-related incidents, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 379-91.
Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995), A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: a multidimensional scaling, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 555-72.
Sherman, L.W. (1980), Three models of organizational corruption in agencies of social control,
Social Problems, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 478-91.
Siers, B. (2007), Relationships among organisational justice perceptions, adjustment, and
turnover of united states-based expatriates, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 437-59.
Spencer, D.G. (1986), Employee voice and employee retention, The Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 488-502.
Srivastav, A.K. (2006), Organizational climate as a dependent variable relationship with role Examining
stress, coping strategy and personal variables, Journal of Management Research, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 125-36. workplace
Taylor, J.C. and Browers, D.G. (1974), Survey of Organizations (Institute for Social Research, deviance
University of Michigan), Ann Arbor.
Warner, J.C., Reynolds, J. and Roman, P. (2005), Organizational justice and job satisfaction: a test
of three competing models, Social Justice Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 391-409. 253
Wells, J.T. (2001), Why employees commit fraud, Journal of Accountancy, Vol. 191 No. 2,
pp. 89-91.
Wharton, A.S., Rotolo, T. and Bird, S.R. (2000), Social context at work: a multilevel analysis of
job satisfaction, Sociological Forum, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 65-90.
Wiesenfeld, B.M., Swann, W.B. Jr, Brockner, J. and Bartel, C.A. (2007), Is more fairness always
preferred? Self-esteem moderates reactions to procedural justice, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1235-53.
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)

Further reading
Cortina, L.M. and Magley, V.J. (2003), Raising voice, risking retaliation: events following
interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 247-65.

Corresponding author
Misbah Nasir can be contacted at:

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:

Or visit our web site for further details:
This article has been cited by:

1. Intan Nurul Ain Mohd Firdaus Kozako, Siti Zaharah Safin, Abdul Rahman Abdul Rahim. 2013.
The Relationship of Big Five Personality Traits on Counterproductive Work Behaviour among Hotel
Employees: An Exploratory Study. Procedia Economics and Finance 7, 181-187. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Montana At 07:18 07 April 2015 (PT)