155

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REFLECTING ORGANIZATIONAL

INJUSTICE AND EMPLOYEES' WORKPLACE DEVIANCE:
UNLOCKING THE INFLUENCE OF EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION
Anita Laila1, Sabeen Naeem Khan2
Abstract
Deviant workplace behaviors (DWBs) are the most expensive
phenomenon for organizations these days as they are costing them billions of
dollars annually. Several researchers have realized the significance of the
construct perceived organizational justice, in the form of distributive, procedural,
interpersonal, and informational justice as a strong predictor of Deviant
workplace behaviors (DWBs) like organizational deviance and interpersonal
deviance. However, very little focus is laid on the variables which are playing an
integral role in the form of mediator or moderator between this relationship of
Organization Justice and DWBs. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review was
to collect evidence for the existence of relationship of several DWBs with
perceived organizational justice in the presence of mediating variable i.e.,
emotional exhaustion in the light of previous literature available. So far, very
little research has been conducted on this unique relationship. This paper has
tried to do a detailed systematic review of the relationships between organization
justice, DWB’s, and emotional exhaustion. The research study explored the results
that organization justice was negatively related to dimensions of DWB/s.
whereas; emotional exhaustion was undesirably related to Organizational justice
and desirably related to DWB dimensions, respectively. Thus, findings of this
study, with the help of literature, supports the claim that emotional exhaustion
completely mediates the relationship between perceived organizational justice
and deviant workplace behaviors (DWB’s).

Keywords: Organizational Justice, Emotional exhaustion, Deviant

workplace behaviors (DWBs), Conservation of Resource Theory, Social Exchange
Model, The Stress-Strain outcome framework

1. INTRODUCTION
In today’s dynamic and competitive world, achieving a sustainable
competitive advantage is the key towards organizational success (Tworzydło,
Gawronski, & Szuba, 2020). However, in the current outbreak of Covid-19
pandemics, organizations have to be alert towards responding to unseen
arising challenges of service quality operations (Joel B. Carnevale, 2020) and

1
Assistant Professor, Bahria University Karachi campus, anitalaila.bukc@bahria.edu.pk
2
PhD Scholar, Bahria University Karachi Campus, sabeendawood@gmail.com

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 156

meeting wellbeing criteria of external stakeholders (e.g. customers, suppliers,

etc.). However, an organization can achieve this success by offering superior
quality products along with superior customer service to win customer hearts
and commitment towards them. Indeed, the quality of product offering and
superior customer service highly depends upon employees of the organization
who serve as the linking process between customer and organization (Bell et
al., 2004; Karatepe & Uludag, 2008; Lee & Suh, 2020). Organizations these days
face several challenges in terms of attitude and behaviors employees exhibit
towards customers and management (Karatepe & Uludag, 2008). These
attitude and behaviors can be both constructive and destructive depending
upon several stressors which employee face within the organization. Internal
audiences like frontline employees not only display such behaviors but are also
displayed by other office employees working for the organizations (Lee & Suh,
2020).

1.1 Deviant workplace behaviors (DWBs)

When employee indulges into negative behaviors with intent to harm
other employees and organizations, such behaviors are considered as deviant
workplace behaviors (Fox et al., 2001; Spector et al., 2006). Through past
researches, it has been identified that the workplace deviance is not a new
concept; in fact, it is being studied since mid-1900s. According to past
literature, approximately 95 per cent organizations face deviant workplace
behavior and 75 per cent of this DWB include stealing and harsh behavior of
employees at workplace (Malik & Lenka, 2018). Therefore, it is evident from
the previous research studies that around 50% to 75% of employees of the
companies get engaged in some form of deviant workplace behaviors (DWBs).
However, more recent studies deduce that 90% of the employees have
admitted that they displayed some form of deviant workplace behavior during
their stay at job (Bennett et al., 2018). With its high prevalence among
companies, DWBs are one of the significant research domains which not only
highlights the deviant behavior of employees working within the
organizations, but it also reflects that how these behaviors posed by
employees affect the health of the organization.
Two prominent research scholars (Robinson & Bennett, 1995) have
defined deviant workplace behavior (DWBs) as “A voluntary behavior engaged
by employee that is contrary to the significant organizational norms and it is
considered as a threat to the well-being of an organization and/ or its
members”. Thus, workplace deviance can be explained as voluntary behaviors
exhibited by employees as they lack the motivation to confirm normative

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 157

expectation of the organization instead, they become motivated to violate

these expectations.
DWBs have plagued the companies since many years (Bennett et al.,
2018). Billions of dollars are lost by the organizations each year in the form of
human related costs counted as DWBs (Bennett et al., 2018). Many researchers
have predicted that every employee joining the organization has the potential
to pose deviant behaviors (Baharom et al., 2017). Employees who show deviant
workplace behaviors are more conscious as they know that they are violating
organizations shared ethical and moral principles (Baharom et al.,
2017).Therefore, DWBs is an interesting topic for researchers these days due
to its pervasiveness and potential consequences posing detrimental effect to
the health of not only the organizations but also individuals too (Malik &
Lenka, 2018).
DWBs exhibited by employees can not only cause harm to the
organization but also the other employees and customers associated with the
organization in both minor and major ways. Robinson & Bennett, (1995) have
utilized the multidimensional scaling technique to classify DWB’s. Hence, there
are two types of deviances: organizational deviance and interpersonal
deviance. Some form of organizational deviance include, coming late,
sabotage, aggression, violence, turnover, voluntary absenteeism, usage of
organizational resources for personal use and work slowdown and so on
(Darrat et al., 2016; Fagbohungbe et al., 2012; Harris & Ogbonna, 2012a; Henle,
2005; Hochstein et al., 2017; Lee & Suh, 2020; VanYperen et al., 2000). Recent
literature have revealed negative word of mouth by employees working for the
organization as part of deviant workplace behaviors directed towards
organization DWBs (Harris & Ogbonna, 2012b; Lee & Suh, 2020). On the other
hand, deviant behaviors directed towards individuals (interpersonal deviance)
like supervisors and co-workers involves blaming, humiliating and bullying
members of the organization (Zaghini & Fida, 2016).
Previous research studies have tried to answer the why behind the
exhibition of the DWBs. Some of the antecedents highlighted include HR
practices, interpersonal conflicts, abusive supervision, workload, lack of social
support, role conflict and role ambiguity. These antecedents influence
employees to display DWBs. On the other hand, research by O’Neill et al.,
(2011) has revealed two powerful predictors of DWBs i.e. employee perceived
organizational justice and employee personality. However, the research under
study has reviewed all the literature from past studies reflecting how
organizational injustice as a factor increases the stress of employee resulting
in emotional exhaustion of employee and letting employee pose deviant
workplace behaviors to vent out their stress (Colquitt et al., 2013a).

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 158

1.2 Organizational Justice

Employee’s perceptions towards organization decisions on salaries or
tasks distribution can significantly influence their relationship with the
management. When employees perceive that the decisions taken by the
management are fair, they become satisfied and feel positive about the
organization, but if they feel unfairness resides within the organization then
they face psychological distress and less satisfaction (Cole et al., 2010; Judge
& Colquitt, 2004). Such perception of the fairness/unfairness can be connected
with the concept of organizational justice (VanYperen et al., 2000). However,
organizational justice is employees’ perception of fairness within the workplace
(Wu et al., 2016). Further, Cropanzano et al., (2007) defines perceived
organizational justice as “A degree to which individuals believe the outcomes
they receive and the ways they are treated within organizations are fair,
equitable, and in line with expected moral and ethical standards.” Thus,
organizational justice is considered to be a significant construct responsible
for individual attitudes and behavior towards the organization (Cohen-Charash
& Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013b).
Interesting findings from the past research suggests that organization
justice cannot be rigidly defined according to the organization actions as it
completely depends upon the perception of individual who has witnessed or
experienced it. Thus, we can say that a justice perception varies from person to
person. Therefore, when employees perceive that there exist unfair decisions
involving biasness or inequality in the organization their likeability to indulge
in DWBs increases in order to harm the organization (Cochran, 2014).
Employee’s perception regarding injustice prevailing in the
organization significantly result into DWB’s (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).
Prevalence of injustice in the organization creates hostile work environment
for employee which will hinder their capacity to work (Maslach & Leiter, 2008;
Wu et al., 2016). According to Colquitt et al.,( 2013b) organizational justice is
strongly correlated with DWBs. Colquitt et al., (2013b) has defined
organizational justice as a multidimensional construct as it is divided into;
procedural injustice, distributive injustice, and interactional injustice.

1.2.1 Distributive injustice

Distributive injustice as explained by Adams, (1965) as employee
perception regarding unequal distribution of resources and outcomes by the
organization i.e. perceived inequity. However, when employee perceived the
prevalence of distributive injustice within the organization either they reduce

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 159

their inputs towards the work by slowing it down or they show resentment
towards the person whom they think is the cause of injustice (Cochran, 2014).

1.2.2 Procedural justice

Procedural justice is fairness in processes used by the organization to
determine outcomes ( Lind & Tyler, 1988) along with providing the opportunity
to the employee to participate in decision making (Bies & Shapiro, 1988).On
the contrary procedural injustice emerge from non-participative decision
making (Lee & Suh, 2020). However, previous research studies confirmed the
fact that procedural justice correlates with DWBs directed towards the
organization.

1.2.3 Interactional justice

The third dimension of organizational justice is interactional justice,
which explains perceived compatibility between organization and its members
(Cochran, 2014). According to Greenberg (1993), interactional justice has been
divided into two sub-components; interpersonal justice and informational
justice. Interpersonal justice is concerned with perception of employee
regarding treatment of employee by organizational heads in terms of respect
and dignity. However, interpersonal justice is the strongest antecedent of
DWB’s (Cochran, 2014; Greenberg, 1993). Other subcomponent of interactional
justice is informational justice which can be explained by the amount and
quality of information disclosed and shared by the organization to its
employees (Cochran, 2014; Greenberg, 1993). Both informational and
interpersonal justice are based on the interaction between two employees,
therefore, there is a possibility that it will lead to deviant behaviors which are
impersonal (Cochran, 2014).

1.3 Emotional Exhaustions

Wright & Cropanzano, (1998) has defined emotional exhaustion as “A
chronic state of physical and emotional depletion which results from excessive
work demands and continuous hassles.” Maslach & Leiter, (2008) defines
emotional exhaustion as depletion of an individual’s capacity to sustain
cognitive and emotional resources to meet continuous job expectations and
demands. Wright & Cropanzano, (1998) relates emotional exhaustion with
mental weariness and physical fatigue. Thus, emotional exhaustion distance an
individual emotionally and cognitively from his/her work (Cole et al., 2010).
According to Howard & Cordes, (2010), negative emotions aroused in an
employee will consume his valuable emotional energy letting his cognitive and
emotional resources depleted, eventually resulting in emotional exhaustion.

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 160

Emotional exhaustion negatively influences employees’ attitude and behaviors

towards the organization and its employees.

1.4 Organizational Justice & Emotional Exhaustion

Several researchers have predicted the direct association between
organizational justice and DWB’s ignoring how organizational justices’
reactions motivate responses. However, as noted by Barclay et al., (2005)
organizational injustice usually result in negative feelings like aggravation and
resentment. Several previous studies have supported the negative association
between organizational justice and emotional exhaustion with the view that
justice perceptions correlate easily with emotions and they reciprocate with
each other (Cochran, 2014; Howard & Cordes, 2010; Tayfur et al., 2013). Thus,
an individual’s perception of just acts displayed by the organization results in
the replenishment of their cognitive and social resources whereas perception
of injustice will result in depletion of the cognitive and social resources (Barclay
et al., 2005; Cole et al., 2010) leading individuals towards emotional exhaustion.

1.5 Emotional Exhaustion and DWBs

Several researchers have confirmed the relationship between
emotional exhaustion with DWBs (Cole et al., 2010; Darrat et al., 2016;
Greenbaum et al., 2014; Howard & Cordes, 2010; Lee & Suh, 2020, 2020;
Vaamonde et al., 2018). Emotionally exhausted employees engage in DWBs
like coming late to work, taking long breaks at work, leaving work early,
working slowly and emphasizing their quitting intention (Bauer & Spector,
2015) other than engaging in behaviors like sabotage, aggression , abuse and
theft (Nowakowski & Conlon, 2005).

2. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 Conservation of resource theory: Procedural Justice, Emotional
Exhaustion and DWBs
The role of conservation of resource theory is to create a linkage
between injustice perceptions of the organization and emotional exhaustion
(Hobfoll, 1989). It was proposed conservation of resource theory to explain
inclination of emotionally exhausted employees toward withdrawal behaviors
to cope up with the stressors as they are short of cognitive and emotional
resources. COR perspective protects emotionally exhaustive employee from
further loss of cognitive and emotional resources. COR Theory believes that
individuals possess limited number of cognitive and social resources at a given
point in time therefore, they try to gain, retain and protect those resources
(Cole et al., 2010) but if their valued resources are lost with no further gain then

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 161

it results into emotional exhaustion (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). In other

words, COR theory emotional exhaustion within employee will only occur when
they feel they have a lack of insufficient cognitive and emotional resources to
address the injustice prevailing in the organization. (Judge & Colquitt, 2004)
gave this notion that empirical researchers who tested the direct relationship
between organizational justice and DWBs still do not completely understand
the mechanism behind it. Therefore, the need of more integrative models to
test this relationship (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001) has emerged. However,
several past literatures have established this association that emotional
exhaustion mediates the relationship between organizational justice and DWBs
because employees intend to show DWBs to stop the drain of emotional and
cognitive resources at the point when they feel they are emotionally exhausted
by injustice or inequity taking place within the organization (Cole et al., 2010b;
Fox et al., 2001;Howard & Cordes, 2010; Krischer et al., 2010, 2010; Lee & Suh,
2020; Tayfur et al., 2013). With the perspective of COR theory, stressors like
injustice deplete individual cognitive and emotional resources which hinders
individual capability to cope with these stressors resulting in emotional
exhaustion of employees, this, in turn, let employees take detaching and
defensive actions to avoid more resource depletion (Cole et al., 2010; Hobfoll,
1989).

2.2 Social Exchange Model: Procedural Justice, Emotional Exhaustion

and DWBs
The social exchange model by (Bierstedt & Blau, 1965; Schaufeli, 2006)
also supports the same phenomenon as conservation of resource theory does.
The social exchange model refers to the balance of give and take between
employee and organization. Thus, in the social exchange model employees
reciprocate unfair treatment with DWBs because they believe in punishing
those who are responsible for injustice (Wu et al., 2016). The social exchange
model explains that injustice perceptions related to organization deplete
individual’s cognitive and social resources resulting in emotional exhaustion
due to the inadequate benefits he or she gets because of respective efforts he
puts into the organization. As a result, there is a likelihood that individual will
reduce his efforts in the organization in the form of avoidance behavior and
turnover intentions. However, several researchers have supported the role of
social exchange model in the presence of relationship between organizational
injustices and DWBs in the presence of mediating variable called emotional
exhaustion (Cole et al., 2010; Vaamonde et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2016; Fox et al.,
2001).

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 162

2.3 The Stress-Strain-Outcome Framework: Procedural Justice,

Emotional Exhaustion and DWBs
A very significant model relevant to stress research is stress-strain-
outcome framework (Koeske & Koeske, 1993). This framework highlights the
linkage between stressor and outcomes with the placement of strain as a
mediator in the research framework. This model reflects that how negative
events leads negative response from individual in the presence of emotional
exhaustion(Fox et al., 2001). Several researchers have highlighted stress as a
problem for employee and results in the formation of certain attitudes and
behaviors by the individual. However, stress can lead to strain which are certain
psychological and emotional reaction by employees experiencing stress. In the
study by (Krischer et al., 2010) the stress in perceived injustice prevailing in the
organization which will result into DWBs in the presence of strain called
emotional exhaustion.

3. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The DWBs carries the limelight from an immense number of
researchers across various parts of the world. The subject of DWBs has not
failed to enthrall the researchers and has led them to work on the combination
of speculative fundamentals and structure from special areas. Firstly, this study
will include a detailed review of earlier work on DWBs, organizational justice
and emotional exhaustion. Secondly, this review of literature will not solely
focus on the interaction of organizational justice with DWBs in conceptual way,
but it will also try to unlock the influence of emotional exhaustion as mediating
variable on the relationship between the two through previous research.
Thirdly, this research will also deduce from the literature, theories contributing
to the relationship between organizational justice and DWBs where emotion
exhaustion is playing the role of mediator. Lastly, the present study on systemic
review will recognize spaces for further research in focus area for upcoming
researchers.

4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Search Strategies
The relevant conceptual and empirical research articles were extracted
for the conduction of a systematic literature review from Google Scholar. The
database was searched with the combination of these keywords
“Organizational Justice”, “Organizational Fairness”, “Organizational Equity”,
“Emotional exhaustion”, “burnout” and “Withdrawal”, “Workplace Deviances”,
“Counterproductive Behaviors”, and “Antisocial Behaviors”. All the above-
mentioned keywords were put together in the database to have reduced

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 163

number of articles relevant for the required review. The database retrieved 215
research results. These highlighted articles were further shortlisted based on
Title and Abstract of the article. Another criterion for shortlisting was the
availability of article in English language. The research papers were also
collected from the reference list of the systematic review or Meta-analysis
articles.

4.2 Inclusion criteria

The studies selected for the systematic literature review were
published between the periods of 1980 – 2020. The research articles chosen
were from peer-reviewed journals. All selected research studies articles were
from impact factor journals. The chosen empirical studies had a sample size of
more than 100. The articles chosen had an organizational justice as an
exogenous variable and DWBs as outcome variable with the must presence of
emotional exhaustion as a mediating variable. For this systematic research
review articles were drawn from multi-disciplinary sectors of economy around
the world excluding health sector.

4.3 Exclusion criteria

The studies excluded for the systematic literature review were
irrelevant titles, short reports, and incomplete research. Duplicate studies were
also excluded. Research articles published in a language other than English
were also excluded. Articles not confirming the requirement of this unique
combination of organizational justice (independent variable), emotional
exhaustion (mediator), deviant workplace behavior (dependent variable) were
excluded from this systematic review too.

5. RESULTS
A total of 215 articles were identified from Google Scholar, published
through JSTOR, Springer Link and Taylor & Francis. After applying the inclusion
and exclusion criterion mentioned above on these articles, 6 empirical research
were found to be relevant for this systematic literature review. According to
Cohen (1992), even a small correlation of effect size is likely to reach the
statistical significance to interpret research outcomes. All those research
articles were chosen who were representing the unique combination of
organizational justice (independent variable), emotional exhaustion
(mediator), deviant workplace behavior (dependent variable) along other
variables. All chosen research articles were empirical. Not a single conceptual
paper was identified representing the combination of these three variables.

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 164

Out of the six finalized articles mentioned in Table 1, five of them were
cross sectional in nature (Cole et al., 2010; Howard & Cordes, 2010; Lee & Suh,
2020; Vaamonde et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2016) except one (Tayfur et al., 2013).
The study conducted by Cole et al., (2010) included 869 civilian and
military employees US Air Force Material Command (AFMC). The study by Wu
et al., (2016) reviewed the integrated model on 213 full-time employees of the
public sector in East China. Tayfur et al., (2013) tested the integrated model on
217 employees from the service industry i.e. banks in Turkey. Lee & Suh, (2020)
applied an integrated framework to 150 employees from the airline industry
whose headquarter located in Seoul, South Korea. Vaamonde et al., (2018)
chose to study on a multi-occupational sample of 408 Argentine employees
whereas a research study done by Howard & Cordes, (2010) chose 437
randomly selected workers from various occupations and industries.
The research study done by Cole et al., (2010) has tested the
relationship between organizational justice with individual’s withdrawal in the
presence of a multi-mediation model involving emotional exhaustion and
organizational commitment. Wu et al., (2016) has used moderated mediation
model between perceived organizational justice and DWBs where job burnout
was chosen as a mediator and moral identity was taken as a moderator for the
relationship. The study performed by Tayfur et al., (2013) through a multi-
mediation approach by using emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and learned
helplessness as mediators between procedural justice and distributive justice.
On the other hand, Lee & Suh, (2020) used the integrative model verifying the
relationship between procedural justice, emotional exhaustion resulting in
person’s negative word of mouth or job quitting intention highlighting
NWOM as a new outcome of injustice and emotional exhaustion. Research
conducted by Vaamonde et al., (2018) tested a multi-mediation model by using
multiple mediators like burnout and job satisfaction on organizational justice
perceptions to turnover intentions. Another study conducted by Howard &
Cordes, (2010) was also part of this systematic review, the study tested the
relationship between Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Quit intention,
Alcohol Use, Work Alienation & Sickness Absence in the presence of employee
suffering, employee wellness and emotional exhaustion.

Table 1: Summary of research published in Organizational Justice, emotional exhaustion and

Deviance workplace behavior
S. Antecedents and Mediator/
Source Theoretical Framework
No Outcome variables Moderator
Conservation of
Cole et al., Empirical study on Emotional
1 resources theory &
2010 Organizational Justice exhaustion &
Social exchange Model

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 165

and Individual's Organizational

withdrawal Commitment
Empirical study on
Conservation of
Lee & Suh, Procedural Justice, Emotional
2 resource theory & Self-
2020 NWOM and turnover exhaustion
regulation theory
intention
Empirical study on
Counterproductive work Social exchange theory
Wu et al., Job burnout/
3 behavior (DWB) & & Resource
2016 Moral Identity
Perceived organizational conservation theory
Justice
Empirical study on
Vaamonde Turnover Intentions, Burnout & Job Conservation of
4
et al., 2018 organizational Justice satisfaction resource theory
Perceptions
Learned Job demand resource
Empirical study on
helplessness, model, equity theory,
Tayfur et Turnover Intentions,
5 Emotional control theory, group
al., 2013 Procedural Justice &
exhaustion & value model & learned
Distributive Justice
Cynicism helplessness theory
Empirical study on Emotional Person-environment
Distributive Justice, suffering, misfit model, Equity
Howard &
Procedural Justice, Quit Emotional theory, group-value
6 Cordes,
intention, Alcohol Use, wellness & theory, control theory &
2010
Work Alienation & Emotional conservation of
Sickness Absence exhaustion resources (COR) model

This literature review highlighted that perceived organizational justice

was measured by Colquitt’s (2001) & Niehoff and Moorman’s (1993) scale. Job
burnout was measured with Maslach Burnout Inventory by Maslach and
Jackson (1981). Counterproductive work behavior was measured by Bennett
and Robinson’s (2000). The turnover intention was measured using a Wayne,
Shore, and Linden (1997), Randal (1999); Suhet al (2011)
All six studies conducted by Cole et al., (2010; Howard & Cordes, 2010;
Lee & Suh, 2020; Tayfur et al., 2013; Vaamonde et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2016)
confirmed that the relationship exists among organizational justice and
deviant workspace behavior / turnover intentions in the presence of mediating
effect of emotional exhaustion.

6. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
This systematic study confirmed the prior findings that low perceived
organizational justice results in emotional exhaustion which further lead
towards the exhibition of DWBs by employees (Judge & Colquitt, 2004).
Moreover, the present review also confirmed that emotional exhaustion

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 166

mediates the relationship between low perceived organizational justices on

DWB’s.
This review also highlights that most studies testing the effect of
perceived organizational justice on DWB’s are conducted in the western world.
However, the point to ponder is that whether this effect can be generalized to
the eastern world too. In addition, the research model highlighted in this study
can be applied to various sectors of the economy significantly.
This review suggests the organizations to initiate corporate
consultancy training programs for employees that they can behave fairly with
the employees which might increase their perception of organizational justice.
Proper communication between middle level management and top-level
management can be a fresh air to increase morale of employees and may give
them a sense of participative management to reduce their work stress. There
has been a huge gap in the development and implementation of human
resource management in most of the developing countries, especially in
Pakistan. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the distribution of
rewards and organizational decision making should be just, and in fairly
manner too. Further, we recommend organizations focus on creating an
organizational justice climate in the organization because organizational
justice impact on employee’s behavior. In the situation when an employee
faces unfairness they show destructive behavior which are DWBs.
Organization should also inform employees about their DWBs. To
reduce DWBs, management should make employees realize about their DWBs
at workplace because some DWBs, like leaving workplace early or gossiping
inside or about workplace, might not be considered as deviant by employees.
Thus, individuals should be informed about their DWBs which are undesirable
so that this guilty situation will motivate them to take positive action at
workplace, like organizational citizenship behavior.

7. LIMITATION AND FUTURE DIRECTION

One of the biggest limitations of this review was the access to a proper
database to screen out and shortlist the right number of articles. The only
source to search the research articles was Google Scholar. Therefore, it is
recommend that future researchers have access to a proper database like
SCOPUS for the conduction of this systematic review. Second, the articles
shortlisted are scarce in number due to the rigid inclusion criterion identified
regarding the presence of organizational justice, deviant workplace behaviors
and emotional exhaustion. It is recommended that future researchers should
add more constructs to expand the scope of the research. The third limitation
of this research is that it has completely ignored the applicability of this model

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 167

on health sector. Which can highlight new avenue in the form of new variables
related to mediation and moderation that can assist in reducing the deviant
behavior by employees and those variables can be tested on other industries
and sectors to check their viability. Lastly, most of the research considered in
this review was cross-sectional. However, it is recommended that the
suggested should be tested by conducting longitudinal studies too.

8. CONCLUSION
This systematic review has provided additional evidence to the
growing body of knowledge in DWBs. Despite above mentioned limitations,
this study provides more evidence to the theoretical propositions mentioned
and identified a gap for future research on the area of DWBs. It is pertinent to
mention that DWBs cannot be eradicated however, it can be controlled or
minimize with suitable measures being to be taken. Therefore, this study tried
to highlight through the number of studies the unique combination of
variables proposed for the study which not only include underlying
antecedents and causes of DWBs, but it will also identify several mediating and
moderating variables which plays an integrated role with emotional
exhaustion, perceived organizational justice and deviant workplace behavior.
Thus, this study shares significant practical implication not only with
researchers but also with professionals to carry out further research in the
domain of DWBs.

References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity In Social Exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic
Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
Baharom, M. N., Bin Sharfuddin, M. D. K., & Iqbal, J. (2017). A Systematic Review
on the Deviant Workplace Behavior. Review of Public Administration
and Management, 05(03). https://doi.org/10.4172/2315-
7844.1000231
Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the Role of Emotions
in Injustice Perceptions and Retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(4), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.629
Bauer, J. A., & Spector, P. E. (2015). Discrete Negative Emotions and
Counterproductive Work Behavior. Human Performance, 28(4), 307–
331. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2015.1021040
Bell, S. J., Mengüç, B., & Stefani, S. L. (2004). When Customers Disappoint: A
Model of Relational Internal Marketing and Customer Complaints.

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 168

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(2), 112–126.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303261467
Bennett, R. J., Marasi, S., & Locklear, L. (2018, May 24). Workplace Deviance.
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/ 9780190224851.013.111
Bierstedt, R., & Blau, P. M. (1965). Exchange and Power in Social Life. American
Sociological Review, 30(5), 789. https://doi.org/10.2307/2091154
Blau, G. J. (1987). Locus of control as a potential moderator of the turnover
process. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60(1), 21–29.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1987.tb00238.x
Cochran, M. (2014). Counterproductive Work Behaviors, Justice, and Affect: A
Meta-Analysis. 64.
Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer.
Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The Role of Justice in Organizations:
A Meta-Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 86(2), 278–321. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., Walter, F., & Holt, D. T. (2010). Organizational Justice
and Individuals’ Withdrawal: Unlocking the Influence of Emotional
Exhaustion. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 367–390.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00864.x
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E.,
& Wesson, M. J. (2013a). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A
meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199–236.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E.,
& Wesson, M. J. (2013b). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A
meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199–236.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The Management of
Organizational Justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4),
34–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.27895338
Carnevale, J. B., & Hatak, I. (2020). Employee adjustment and well-being in
the era of COVID-19: Implications for human resource
management. Journal of Business Research, 116, 183-187.
Darrat, M., Atinc, G., & Babin, B. J. (2016). On The Dysfunctional Consequences
of Salesperson Exhaustion. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
24(2), 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2016.1130563

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 169

Fagbohungbe, Bamikole. O., Akinbode, G. A., & Ayodeji, F. (2012).

Organizational Determinants of Workplace Deviant Behaviours: An
Empirical Analysis in Nigeria. International Journal of Business and
Management, 7(5), p207. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n5p207
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive Work Behavior
(CWB) in Response to Job Stressors and Organizational Justice: Some
Mediator and Moderator Tests for Autonomy and Emotions. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291–309.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803
Greenbaum, R. L., Quade, M. J., Mawritz, M. B., Kim, J., & Crosby, D. (2014).
When the customer is unethical: The explanatory role of employee
emotional exhaustion onto work–family conflict, relationship conflict
with coworkers, and job neglect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6),
1188–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037221
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, 54(1), 81–
103. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1004
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2012a). Motives for service sabotage: An empirical
study of front-line workers. The Service Industries Journal, 32(13),
2027–2046. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.582496
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2012b). Forms of employee negative word‐of‐
mouth: A study of front‐line workers. Employee Relations, 35(1), 39–
60. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451311279401
Henle, C. A. (2005). Predicting Workplace Deviance from the Interaction
between Organizational Justice and Personality. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 18(2), 18.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of Resources. American Psychologist, 12.
Hochstein, B. W., Lilly, B., & Stanley, S. M. (2017). Incorporating a
Counterproductive Work Behavior Perspective into the Salesperson
Deviance Literature: Intentionally Harmful Acts and Motivations for
Sales Deviance. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 25(1), 86–
103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2016.1236663
Howard, L. W., & Cordes, C. L. (2010). Flight from Unfairness: Effects of
Perceived Injustice on Emotional Exhaustion and Employee
Withdrawal. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 409–428.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9158-5
Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational Justice and Stress: The
Mediating Role of Work-Family Conflict. Journal of Applied

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 170

Psychology, 89(3), 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.89.3.395
Karatepe, O. M., & Uludag, O. (2008). Role stress, burnout and their effects on
frontline hotel employees’ job performance: Evidence from Northern
Cyprus. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(2), 111–126.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.645
Koeske, G. F., & Koeske, R. D. (1993). A Preliminary Test of a Stress-Strain-
Outcome Model for Reconceptualizing the Burnout Phenomenon.
Journal of Social Service Research, 17(3–4), 107–135.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v17n03_06
Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive
work behaviors be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(2), 154–166.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018349
Lee, S. B., & Suh, T. (2020). Internal audience strikes back from the outside:
Emotionally exhausted employees’ negative word-of-mouth as the
active brand-oriented deviance. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-02-2019-2239
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice.
Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4
Malik, P., & Lenka, U. (2018). Integrating antecedents of workplace deviance:
Utilizing AHP approach. Journal of Indian Business Research, 10(1),
101–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-09-2017-0148
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and
engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 498–512.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.498
Nowakowski, J. M., & Conlon, D. E. (2005). ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE:
LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 16(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022921
O’Neill, T. A., Lewis, R. J., & Carswell, J. J. (2011). Employee personality, justice
perceptions, and the prediction of workplace deviance. Personality and
Individual Differences, 51(5), 595–600.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.025
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A Typology of Deviant Workplace
Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study. Academy of
Management Journal, 19.
Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). The Balance of Give and Take: Toward a Social Exchange
Model of Burnout. https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-
psychologie-sociale-2006-1-page-75.htm

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)

 171

Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006).
The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive
behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–
460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
Tayfur, O., Bayhan Karapinar, P., & Metin Camgoz, S. (2013). The mediating
effects of emotional exhaustion cynicism and learned helplessness on
organizational justice-turnover intentions linkage. International
Journal of Stress Management, 20(3), 193–221.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033938
Tworzydło, D., Gawroński, S., & Szuba, P. (2021). Importance and role of CSR
and stakeholder engagement strategy in polish companies in the
context of activities of experts handling public relations. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 64-70.
Vaamonde, J. D., Omar, A., & Salessi, S. (2018). From organizational justice
perceptions to turnover intentions: The mediating effects of burnout
and job satisfaction. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14(3), 554–570.
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i3.1490
VanYperen, N. W., Hagedoorn, M., Zweers, M., & Postma, S. (2000). Injustice
and Employees’ Destructive Responses: The Mediating Role of State
Negative Affect. Social Justice Research, 22.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of
job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(3), 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.83.3.486
Wu, M., Sun, X., Zhang, D., & Wang, C. (2016). Moderated mediation model of
relationship between perceived organizational justice and
counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Chinese Human Resource
Management, 7(2), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHRM-07-2016-
0016
Zaghini, F., & Fida, R. (2016). What is Behind Counterproductive Work
Behaviors in the Nursing Profession? A Systematic Review. Journal of
Clinical Research & Bioethics, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-
9627.1000277

Bahria University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (BUJHSS)