POLITICS, JUSTICE, STRESS, AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR IN ORGANIZATIONS: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

ABSTRACTThe paper aims to test a proposed model linking organizational politics and organizational justice (distributive justice and procedural justice) indirectly with deviant behaviour through stress. Data was gathered using self-administered questionnaires from a sample of 279 production employees within the electronics industry of Malaysia. Our confirmatory factor analysis results illustrate that deviant behavior is a unidimensional construct in the context of Malaysia. In addition, structural equation modeling procedure used in our model testing indicates that both organizational politics and organizational justice (distributive and procedural) affect deviant behaviour via the mediating role of stress. Our results suggest the need for organizations to have clearly-defined policies and procedures in allocating work outcomes, treat employees in a fair manner, and encourage employee participation. Although some limitations have been acknowledged, the value of this study lies in its contribution in providing validation evidence of the applicability of research findings abroad to non-Western nations. In conclusion, our proposed model was supported whereby environmental elements (organizational politics and organizational justice) were found to affect an individual's behavioural response (organizational deviance) through his/her internal affective state (stress). Keywords: Politics; Justice; Stress; Deviant Behavior; Malaysia.1. INTRODUCTIONRecent years have seen a proliferation of interest among researchers and practitioners in workplace deviance, such as incivility, aggression, sabotage, and theft. Accumulating evidence show that work-related misbehaviours have become pervasive and costly to both the organizations and individuals. According to Harper (1990), 33 to 75 percent of employees in the United States have engaged in some form of theft, fraud, embezzlement, vandalism, sabotage, and unexcused absenteeism. Furthermore, incidences of negative workplace deviance are now soaring out of control, in nearly 95% of all organizations (Appelbaum et al, 2007; Henle et al, 2005). Another study estimated that more than 2 million people were physically attacked at work, about 6 million workers were threatened, and approximately 16 million were harassed (Northwestern National Life Insurance Company, 1993). In terms of costs, Murphy (1993) noted that employee deviance and delinquency accounted for between US$6 billion to US$200 billion of organizational loss annually. Besides, it has been estimated that three-quarters of employees steal at least once from their employer and the financial costs associated with it have been estimated at US$50 billion per year (Coffin, 2003). In the United States, retailers lose US$15.1 billion per year in internal theft, and the rate of such theft is increasing each year (Muafi, 2011). Appelbaum et al, (2007) recently reported that three out of every four employees in the United States have stolen at least once from their employers. Research also indicates the detrimental effects of deviant acts on organizational members. For instance, victims of interpersonal workplace deviance are more likely to suffer from stress-related problems, reduced productivity, low morale, lost work time, and high turnover (O'Leary-Kelly et al, 1996), damaged self-esteem, increased fear and insecurity at work, and psychological and physical pain (Henle et al, 2005). Although the amount of research in this field has increased substantially over the last decade, a majority of the empirical work is based on Western settings. In most cases, these studies have been devoted to examining an array of antecedents of deviant behaviour (Fagbohungbe et al, 2012; Muafi, 2011; Appelbaum et al, 2007; Marcus et al, 2004; Vigoda, 2002; Peterson, 2002; Vardi, 2001; Bennett et al, 2000; Aseltine et al, 2000; Aquino et al, 1999). These factors include life stress (Ferguson et al, 2012; Aseltine et al., 2000), perceptions of the work situation (Colbert et al, 2004; Peterson, 2002; Vigoda, 2002; Vardi, 2001; Bennett et al, 2000; Aquino et al. …