Upload
vanthu
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ABUSIVE SUPERVISION, WORK TENSION AND OVERLOAD
AS PREDICTORS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK
ABUSIVE SUPERVISION, WORK TENSION AND OVERLOAD
AS PREDICTORS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK
BEHAVIOUR.
UGWUMGBOR THERESA EBERE
PG/M.Sc/10/52357
Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s
DN : CN = Weabmaster’s name
O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka
OU = Innovation Centre
ORJI ANN N.
Faculty of Social Sciences
Department of Psychology
1
ABUSIVE SUPERVISION, WORK TENSION AND OVERLOAD
AS PREDICTORS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK
UGWUMGBOR THERESA EBERE
: Content manager’s Name
Weabmaster’s name
a, Nsukka
2
ABUSIVE SUPERVISION, WORK TENSION AND OVERLOAD AS
PREDICTORS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR.
AN M.Sc THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF
SCIENCE (M.Sc) HONOURS DEGREE IN
INDUSTRIAL /ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY.
BY
UGWUMGBOR THERESA EBERE
PG/M.Sc/10/52357
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
FACULTY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA.
SUPERVISOR: DR. CHRIS UZONDU
AUGUST, 2014.
3
i
TITLE PAGE
ABUSIVE SUPERVISION, WORK TENSION AND OVERLOAD AS
PREDICTORS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE
WORK BEHAVIOUR.
ii
CERTIFICATION
Ugwumgbor Theresa Ebere, a protgraduate student in the Department of Psychology, University
of Nigeria Nsukka, and with Registration Number PG/M.Sc/10/52357 has satisfactorily
completed the requirements for course work and comprehensive research work for the degree of
M.Sc. in Psychology (Industrial and Organizational Psychology). The work embodied in this
thesis report is organized and has not been submitted in part or full for any other diplomas or
degree of this or any other university.
______________________________ _________________________________
Prof. P. N. Ibeagha Dr. Chris Uzondu
(Head of Department) (Supervisor)
Prof. I. A. Madu
(Dean of Faculty of the Social Sciences)
________________________________________
External Examiner
iii
DEDICATION
This work is first dedicated to my God Almighty, Saviour Jesus Christ who led my effort to
fruition, also to my mother, siblings and husband who have always been the wind behind my
wings.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am grateful to all the researchers whose reports aided the success of this work. I am
indebted to my Supervisor, Dr. Chris Uzondu, whose encouragement kept me striving for
success and also Dr. Ike Onyishi, under whose tutelage this work was birthed. My appreciation
goes to the Head of Department, Prof. P. N. Ibeagha, who is always generous with her motherly
advice.
My sincere gratitude also goes to Dr. P. Mefoh, Dr. L. I. Ugwu for their assistance and
useful criticisms. Dr. John Eze, Dr. Van Eze, Dr. Amazue, Rev. Sr. Dr. N. B. Nwoke and all my
lecturers, I am grateful to God for all of you.
I owe a lot of thanks to Kalu Ogba, Nicholas Ugwu, Ebizie Eze, Facetus Agbo, Gabriel
Ugwu and Kingsly Odo for their assistance. Also to all the Secondary School Teachers who have
contributed to the success of this work. To my parents Mr. and Mrs. Anselm Ugwumgbor, you
are the best. To my brothers and sisters, Norbert, Victor, Cecilia, Emmanuel, Mary and Sabina
Ugwumgbor, I thank you all. To my friends, Udochukwu, Ezinne, Emerie, Agozie, Joy and
Maria, I remain grateful.
To all, I say may God bless you abundantly.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgement iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii
CHAPTER ONE
1
Introduction 1
Statement of the problem 10
Purpose of the Study 11
Operational Definition of Terms 11
CHAPTER TWO 12
Literature Review 12
Theoretical Review 12
Retaliation Theory 12
Organizational Culture Theory 13
Role Stressors Theory 15
Role Specificity and Role Ambiguity Theory 17
Emotional Experience versus Affective Dispositions Theory 17
Empirical Review 19
vi
Abusive Supervision and Counterproductive Work Behavior 19
Work Tension and Counterproductive Work Behavior 24
Work Overload and Counterproductive Work Behavior 27
Summary of Literature Review 32
Hypotheses 33
CHAPTER THREE 34
Method 34
Participants 34
Instruments 34
Procedure 36
Designs/Statistics 37
CHAPTER FOUR 38
Result 38
CHAPTER FIVE 40
Discussion 40
Implications of the Study 43
Limitations of the Study 43
Recommendations 44
Summary 44
Conclusion 45
References 46
Appendix 52
vii
LIST OF TABLES
i. A mean and standard deviation scores showing the influence of abusive supervision,
work tension and overload on counterproductive work behaviour.
ii. Analysis of variance (REGRESSION) summary table showing the influence of abusive
supervision, work tension and overload on counterproductive work behaviour.
viii
ABSTRACT
The study investigated abusive supervision, work tension and work overload as predictors of
counter productive work behaviour (CWB). Three hundred and one (301) secondary school
teachers participated, who were randomly drawn from Urban Girls Secondary School, Nsukka;
Nsukka High School, Nsukka; St. Teresa’s College, Nsukka; Queen of the Rosary Secondary
School, Nsukka; Community Secondary School Obukpa, Nsukka; Model Secondary School,
Nsukka and Community Secondary School Isienu, Nsukka. Their age ranged between 25years to
59years and above. These teachers were accidentally sampled. Four instruments were used:
Abusive Supervision Scale designed by Tapper (2000), Work Tension Scale designed by House
and Rizzo (2013), Work Overload Scale designed by Kaplan (2006) and Counter Work
Productive Behaviour Scale designed by Suzy and Spector (2003). Three hypotheses were stated
and tested. The result of the multiple regression analysis showed that all the null hypotheses were
rejected implying that the abusive supervision, work tension and work overload all significantly
predicted CWB; abusive supervision (β = .24, t = 4.10, P < 0.05), work tension (β = .21, t = .20,
P < 0.001) and work overload (β = .22, t = .10, P < 0.001). It was however concluded that
abusive supervision of any kind and degree, work tension as well as work overload by this
research are associated with CWB. Implications and limitations were discussed and suggestions
were made for further studies.
1
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
There is a growing interest among organizational researchers on the topic of
Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWB). Counterproductive work behaviour refers to
behaviour of an employee that harms an organization or its members (Michael, 2006) and it
includes such acts as shoplifting, sabotage, verbal abuse, withholding of effort, lying, lateness,
theft, absenteeism refusing to cooperate and physical assault. Over the years, researchers have
investigated similar set of behaviours using different terminologies which included:
Organizational delinquency (Robert, 2006), Organization-motivated Aggression (O’Leary-Kelly,
1996), Organizational Retaliatory behaviours, Workplace Aggression and Workplace Deviance
(Steven, 2007), Revenge and Intimidation (Gallagher, 2008) and Antisocial Behaviour in
Organizations (Griffin & Yvette, 2005).
Counterproductive work behaviour is defined as an employee’s behaviour that goes
against the goal of an organization. This behaviour can be intentional or unintentional and result
from a wide range of underlying causes and motivations. It has been proposed that a person-by-
environment interaction can be utilized to explain a variety of counterproductive work
behaviours. For instance, an employee who steals from the company may do so because of lax
supervision (environment) and underlying psychopathology (person) that work in concert to
result in the counterproductive behaviour. Most researches in this area have focused attention on
identifying environmental antecedents of CWB such as job stressors and identifying personality
traits such as affectivity that may increase an individual’s propensity to engage in CWB (Penney
& Spector, 2005). Although, many researchers agree on the interactionist perspective in
investigating the contributions of both interpersonal and environmental variables in predicting
2
behaviour, few have studied both with CWB in the same study (Penney & Spector, 2005).
Moreover, while a number of studies in this area have examined the relationships between job
stressors and CWB, lesser study seems to have been conducted in Nigerian organizations. The
growing interest in CWB stemmed from the fact that CWB is a common occurrence in
organizations and can have a tremendous negative impact on both organizations in terms of low
productivity, increased insurance costs, lost or damaged property and decreased turnover
(Lindberg, 2008) and the people in terms of increased dissatisfaction (Kristine, 2011) and
expressed job stress. A useful framework for understanding CWB derives from the job stress
literature. Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWB) consists of volitional acts that harm or
intend to harm organizations and their stakeholders (example, clients, coworkers, customers and
supervisors) (Kevin, Lori, Matthew & James, 2010).
Specific CWBs include abusive behaviour against others, aggression (both physical and
verbal), purposely doing work incorrectly, sabotage, theft and withdrawal (example, absence,
lateness and decreased turnover). Other examples of CWB are emotional abuse, bullying,
mobbing, deviance, aggression, retaliation and intimidation (Blaug, Army &Rohit, 2007). A
number of job stressors have been linked to the performance of CWB including role ambiguity,
role conflict, workload, organizational constraints and interpersonal conflict (Blaug, Army &
Rohit, 2007). Gallagher (2008) in his study found that job tension was significantly correlated
with intimidation, a form of CWB. An explanation for relation between job stressors and CWB
can be based on the Samuel (2010) conservation of resources theory. According to this theory,
people strive to protect and retain resources under stressful conditions. An alternative
explanation for the relationship between job stressors and CWB was that stressors may provoke,
trigger or cue individuals to engage in CWB such as workplace aggression as a form of
3
retaliation or attempt to restore justice to an unfair situation (Samuel, 2010). Therefore, it is
expected that the experience of job stress will be positively correlated with performance of CWB
among the teachers. Individuals who are high in negative affectivity are more sensitive and more
reactive to negative events (Marsland, Sheldon, Bruce & Stephen, 2001). Baumeister (2004) is of
the view that people act aggressively when they feel bad(state of negative affect), those who are
high in negative affectivity are more likely to have the propensity to feel bad more often. They
are more likely to experience distress and dissatisfaction, focus on their failures and dwell on the
negative side of life in general (Westman, 2004) - a wide range of negative states including fear,
anger, guilt, disgust, loneliness and self-dissatisfaction. This phenomenon is similar to over-
reaction such that behaviours are not necessarily in line with appropriate responses in a given
situation. In addition to their potential fear of changing jobs, persons high in negative affectivity
are likely to remain in unsatisfying jobs (Sharon, 1989).
Abusive supervision leads to counterproductive work behaviour (Tapper, 2000). If a
subordinate encountered abusive supervision as a result of being late to work is a typical
example of how abusive supervision could lead to counterproductive work behaviour. He or she
may decide to form the habit of lateness as revenge to abusive supervision, saying after all, he or
she will only be abused and that is all. Though “abuse” may conjure images of physical violence,
it is not included in the activities encompassed by the term – actions such as belittling,
undermining, or yelling at subordinates are classic examples of abusive supervision. It should
come as no surprise that victims of abusive supervision are likely to commit acts of
organizational deviance – things like theft, sabotage, and the shirking of duties. Employees are
said to be committed to an organization when they have a sense of liking for and loyalty to their
organization. Committed employees tend to behave in ways that are in the best interest of the
4
organization, and frown upon activities detrimental to the organization’s success. Victims of
abusive supervision are less likely to be committed to the organization, leading to a greater
likelihood for committing acts of CWB. They may hold the organization responsible for allowing
their supervisor to behave in such a manner, believing that the organization does not care about
its employees’ well-being. Supervisors play a significant role in creating employee commitment
to an organization.
Abusive supervision describes the hostile actions of managers toward their subordinates
(Mary, 2012). When subordinates are abused by their supervisors, they look to coworkers for
support and behavioural guidance. If they see that deviant behaviours like theft and shirking are
accepted, they are more likely to engage in those behaviours themselves. Kelly and Benneth
(2002) asserted that the past decade has recorded an explosion of interest and research on the
topic of abusive supervision. Such behaviours typically include ridiculing and humiliating
subordinates in public, refusing to speak with subordinates, or otherwise debasing subordinates.
Research suggests that abusive supervision has a detrimental effect on a number of
organizational outcomes, including an increase in anti-social behaviour among subordinates, job
performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Abusive supervision is estimated
to affect approximately 10 to 16 percent of American workers at a cost of $23.8 billion dollars
annually (Tapper, 2000). As the world economy becomes increasingly globalized and company
workforces become more culturally diverse, there is an increasing need to understand the
implications of these trends for organizational leadership theories. In the study of abusive
supervisory behaviour, research from a faculty member at the Penn State Smeal College of
Business emphasizes the relevance of the concept of power distance, or the degree to which
5
individuals accept and believe that organizational, institutional, or societal power should be
distributed unequally.
Based on a social learning model, which implies people learn what actions are
appropriate from models in their surrounding environment, the researchers suggest that this
learning pattern is exacerbated for those with high power distance orientations because they are
more likely to view their superiors as role models and therefore as people to pattern their own
interpersonal behaviour after. Thus, they argued that for high power distance orientation
subordinates, abusive superiors should be respected and learned from; as a result, high power
distance subordinates are likely to mimic the abusive behaviours their supervisors display. The
researchers conducted several studies using a series of surveys that invited employed individuals
to participate in research on workplace attitudes and behaviours. They measured employee
perceptions of how abusive their supervisor is, to what extent they believed they would be
rewarded for abusive behaviour, and their own abusive behaviour, among others. These were
considered in relation to the employee's power distance orientation. The findings show that
subordinates with higher power distance orientations modeled the actions of their superiors,
engaging in more abusive interpersonal behaviour themselves.
Furthermore, results show that deviant behaviour between subordinates and their co-
workers is facilitated when the behaviour goes unpunished, otherwise implying that such
behaviour is encouraged, even rewarded. Noting that previous studies have primarily suggested
and found high power distance orientation is a “good thing” in that it buffers subordinates from
negative effects associated with abusive supervision (example, perceiving such treatment as fair),
the researcher (Lian, Ferris & Brown, 2012) explain that high power distance orientation is a
6
double-edged sword for abusive supervisors.“Although they may perceive such abusive
behaviour as fair, the fact that the subordinates turn around and treat their co-workers in an
abusive manner is problematic,” write the researchers. “It will also have negative consequences
in their relationships to fellow co-workers.
However, given that interpersonal deviance is typically thought to negatively impact
performance and morale, it’s questionable whether or not having subordinates with high power
distance orientations are a boon or a bane to abusive leaders.”Their study ultimately shows that
an important caveat in the research of abusive supervision exists in the power distance
orientation of subordinates. This conclusion is equally notable given that high power distance has
typically been conceived of as purely justifying the effects of abusive supervision giving that the
process by which subordinates imitate superiors is largely based in social learning theory, the
research findings can be used to suggest ways in which organizations can halt this modeling
process. The most obvious way to do so is to remove the model. That is, by implementing a zero-
tolerance policy for abusive supervision and firing those who violate the policy. Of course, zero-
tolerance policies are harsh and not always applicable in every situation. In such cases, other
forms of punishment (i.e. unpaid leave, formal reprimands and so on) may be used.
Therefore, raising the awareness among supervisors of the potential impact their
behaviours may have on subordinates and the organization as a whole may help to motivate
change, especially when paired with training to provide supervisors with new manners in which
to interact with others. In terms of future research, their findings suggest that social learning
theory tenets may be particularly useful in understanding workplace interactions in high power
distance countries. In the study of abusive supervisory behaviour, (Bialas, 2009) emphasize the
7
relevance of power distance, or the degree to which individuals accept and believe that
organizational power should be distributed unequally. Key findings include. High power distance
orientation is a double-edged sword in that it buffers subordinates from the negative effects of
supervisory mistreatment, but leads to deviant interpersonal relations among fellow employees.
Employees with higher power distance orientations modeled the actions of their superiors,
engaging in more abusive behaviour themselves. Abusive behaviour between subordinates and
their co-workers is facilitated when the behaviour goes unpunished, otherwise implying that such
behaviour is encouraged, even rewarded. Given that the process by which subordinates imitate
superiors is largely based on social learning theory, the research findings can be used to suggest
ways in which organizations can halt this modeling process.
Work tension leads to counterproductive work behaviour (Blaug, Army & Rohit, 2007).
Every thing changes but Work tension and anxiety is often found in all human relationships and
in organizations. Why is this so? There is a constant work tension present in all relationships
because people want and need different things. This work tension is often viewed as negative,
but in reality it is necessary and very positive. This work tension is necessary and healthy for
change and growth to occur. The issues that come up usually are a result of people not viewing
those differences as being healthy, and subsequently not recognizing how to effectively manage
and utilize that work tension in the change and growth process.
Nevertheless, in the process of being able to manage and utilize the work tension that is
present in relationships in one’s organization, one first need to recognize and differentiate
between different types of work tension. There are therefore five (5) levels of work tension that
one needs to be able to identify and intervene with: Reactivity, Triangulation, Projection, Cut off
and Polarization. It is absolutely critical that individuals should not only become aware of these 5
8
levels of work tension, but also take action to make sure the tension is nipped in the bud before
things get out of hand. The more managers try to ignore or smooth over issues, the more issues
will become negative and destructive. When one can identify tension and learn to utilize it to
help people connect and work more effectively with each other, the better off one and one’s
organization will be. It’s not an absence of conflict and tension that makes organizations and
relationships successful, but how organizations and people view problems as opportunities for
growth to occur that makes all the difference.
Work tension has to do with stress at work. It is defined as experience of unpleasant,
negative emotions in an organization. It is sign and symptom of excessive job and workplace
stress which include: Feeling anxious, irritable, or depressed, apathy, loss of interest in work,
problems sleeping, fatigue, trouble concentrating, using alcohol or drugs to cope, muscle tension
or headaches, stomach problems, social withdrawal, and loss of sexual drive. All these work
related tensions and stress are potential causes of CWB. Common causes of excessive workplace
stress include: Fear of being laid off, more overtime due to staff cutbacks, pressure to perform to
meet rising expectations and pressure to work at optimum levels all the time without increase in
job satisfaction, take-home and other remuneration, could perhaps lead to CWB.
Moreover, to learn how to manage job stress, there are a variety of steps one can take to
reduce both overall stress levels and the stress one finds on the job and in the workplace. These
include:Taking responsibility for improving one’s physical and emotional well-being, Avoiding
pitfalls by identifying knee jerk habits and negative attitudes that add to the stress experienced at
work, Learning better communication skills to ease and improve your relationships with
management and coworkers, Recognize warning signs of excessive stress at work, Reduce job
stress by taking care of oneself, Reduce job stress by prioritization and organization, Reduce job
9
stress by improving emotional intelligence, Reduce job stress by breaking bad habits and learn
how managers or employers can reduce job stress. When work related tensions are minimally
reduced through the above methods, CWB in such an organizations will as well be brought to the
lowest level.
Work overload leads to counterproductive work behaviour (Kaplan, 2006). Observations
reveal that teachers work more hours because they were mandated to. Off course, so many of
them handle so many Subjects of which in the actual sense is very improper and alternatively,
more teachers should have been employed to make their work easier and reduce work overload
but the reverse is the case. For instance, extra-moral classes seem to be the most work overload
they suffer from, in addition to other academic problems they face. In such teachers’ working
condition, CWB is imminent.
Work overload is defined as too much responsibilities given to individuals in an
organizational setting (Michie, 2002). Many employees do suffer from work overload because
they work more than the usual official working periods. For instance, work overload in
Secondary School could result from any or all of the following: Preparation of lesson note,
delivering of the lessons, Attending to student’s cases, as well as administrative challenges,
Stress of generating examination questions, conducting examinations, marking and computing of
results and in some cases, extra-moral classes. All these contribute to work overload among
Secondary School Teachers. In terms of job satisfaction, the work overload is perceived more
seriously when the Secondary School Teachers perceive that their work input is not
commensurate to their monthly take- home (Rafael, 2005). Usually, their official dismissal hour
in Secondary School is 1:30pm, but one discovers that most teachers come back home around
4:00pm. Why the extra time?
10
However, feeling trapped, rank-and-file workers do as they are told and do their best to
keep the ensuring stress at bay. But some times, one finds out that the more demanding job
becomes, the more individuals lack good work and health. Work overload brings about
depression. Some individuals have suffered from high blood pressure, headache etc, as a result of
work overload they experience in their organization. Some people resign from their job because
of the stressful nature of their job and they are glad as they do not deal with the job anymore
hence do not want to be trapped by CWB effect. When employees or individuals are overloaded
with work, it affects the level of productivity or goals of the organization and possibly leads to
CWB. They work a lot more hours. Some times they do not take lunch, due to the nature of work
they do. If all these work-related overloads are not adequately rewarded and reinforced by the
organization, the employees may encounter CWB.
Statement of the Problem
In recent years, questions have been raised on whether abusive supervision, work tension
and overload could predict counterproductive work behaviour in organization? Is abusive
supervision important or does it display roles that will be counterproductive in organization? Or
how do employees perceive work tension and react to challenges emanating from work
overload? These questions and more have intrigued experts in managerial organizations. Thus, it
is very crucial to address the ever-changing problems of adaptation to the external environment
and the internal integration of organization resources, personnel, and policies to support external
adaptation. This perhaps has to do with problems emanating from individuals who are not
working within the organization but come to patronize it as well as people who are working
inside the organization. Therefore, the following are the specific statement of the problem of this
research:
11
Will abusive supervision significantly predict counterproductive work behaviour?
Will work tension significantly predict counterproductive work behaviour?
Will work overload significantly predict counterproductive work behaviour?
Purpose of the Study
The researcher intends to find out whether abusive supervision, work tension and
overload could predict counterproductive work behaviour so as to contribute to the enhancement
of organizational effectiveness. The study specifically intends to examine whether:
Abusive supervision significantly predicts counterproductive work behaviour
Work tension significantly predicts counterproductive work behaviour
Work overload significantly predicts counterproductive work behaviour
Operational Definition of Terms
Abusive supervision: This refers to the hostile actions of managers toward their subordinates.
This is measured using Abusive Supervision Scale by Tapper (2000).
Work tension: This refers to experience of unpleasant, negative emotions in an organization.
This is measured using Work Tension Scale by Rizzo (2013).
Work overload: This implies too much responsibility given to individuals in an organizational
setting. This is measured using work overload scale Kaplan (2006).
Counterproductive work behaviour: This refers to behaviour of employees that harms an
organization or its members. This is measured using CWB Scale by Suzy and Spector (2003).
12
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
Theoretical Review
There are a number of theories that explain counterproductive work behaviour for a
greater understanding of the concept. The following theories are thus reviewed:
Retaliation Theory
Organizational Culture Theory
Role Stressors Theory
Role Specificity and Role Ambiguity Theory
Emotional Experience versus Affective Dispositions Theory
Retaliation Theory
Nathan, William and Mary (2010) propose retaliation theory. This theory proposes and
argues that deterrence theory is logically established to curb on retaliation as it involves negative
internal and external characteristics of individual(s). Retaliation theory considers harmful acts
conducted in response to feelings of having been wrongly treated, but in this case the focus is
specifically on injustice. Smollan (2012) noted how anger and outrage are emotions experienced
in response to injustice. Although their initial work focused on the reactions of those affected by
injustice, more recent work has explored vicarious reactions to the injustice experienced by
others (Gabriela, Juan & Marales, 2013). According to this view, anger occurs when one
witness’s injustice against others and this can be associated with overt or covert retaliation
13
against the perceived cause of the injustice. The specific negative emotion experienced in
response to negative events or outcomes may depend upon the individual’s causal attributions for
the precipitating event. Todaro (2003) suggested that although internal attributions for negative
events are likely to lead to specific negative emotions (example, self-deprecation or helplessness)
and behaviours (example, learned helplessness or substance abuse) directed toward self, external
attributions, coupled with perceived intentionality, are likely to lead to negative emotions (such
as anger) and behaviours (such as aggression, revenge, or sabotage) directed toward others.
Spector and Fox (2005) developed a model of CWB that gives central importance to emotions as
a response to workplace stressors. Conditions and events at work are perceived and appraised by
employees. Those perceived to be stressors induce negative emotions, including anger, anxiety,
and depression. Such emotions contribute to CWB that can occur immediately and impulsively
or at a later time. In many cases, emotions help motivate intentions to engage in later CWB. This
model includes an important role for perceived control that affects both the appraisal of
situations and the decision to engage in CWB or some alternative constructive act. Those who
perceive control in a situation will be less likely to perceive a stressor, experience negative
emotion, and engage in CWB. Personality (particularly affective dispositions that will be
discussed later) is also an important element that can affect both appraisal and the decision to act.
Individuals who have a tendency to experience negative emotions will be more sensitive to
stressors and will be more likely to exhibit emotional reactions to the environment, as well as
CWB.
Organizational Culture Theory
Ehtesham (2011) proposes organizational culture theory. The theory asserted the
possibility of regarding receptive organizational culture context features as possible determinants
14
of readiness toward work behaviour. Marchand, Victory and Julie (2013) develop their
organizational model using factor analysis to examine organizational culture. Organizational
culture refers to a set of processes that binds together members of an organization based on the
shared pattern of basic values, beliefs, and assumptions in an organization (Mitchell, 2012).
Organizational culture allows an organization to address the ever-changing problems of
adaptation to the external environment and the internal integration of organizational resources,
personnel, and policies to support external adaptation. Michelle (2004) stated that organizational
culture is a pattern of basic assumptions and is developed by a given group as it learns to cope
with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration. The organization’s culture
serves as a foundation for an organization’s management system. This foundation is a set of
management practices and behaviours that both exemplify and reinforce those basic principles
(Oliver, Wehby & Daniel, 2011). These principles or beliefs are held in common by the members
of a group or organization (Lars, Dan & Jon, 2006). Such expectations or norms specify the
ways in which all members of the organization are expected to approach their work. They
represent strategies for survival that worried well in the past and members believe will work
again in the future.
Understanding your culture before implementing a business strategy is an important
domain for organizations. These findings indicated that corporations, communicating specific
goals and providing feedback will create a positive environment for organizational learning
(Benita, 2002). A positive learning environment from an organization’s culture may reduce role
stressors. Contemporary businesses are interested in studying their organizational culture to
enhance its humanistic and financial returns, so that the company can maintain a competitive
advantage over its competition (James, 2004). Researchers, Kolb and Shepherd (1997) have
15
utilized concept mapping to identify major components of a business culture. Despite the
attention organizational culture has received from specialist in organizational behaviour,
organizational theory, and organizational design, comparatively, little research has been
conducted to examine the relationship between an organization’s culture and job tension, with
their effects on outcome variables such as job commitment, job satisfaction and job performance.
Role Stressors Theory
Mark (2008) proposes role stressors theory as a triadic model and response of the body to
any demand made in an organization. This theory proposes that business executives strive to
meet organizational goals by utilizing an effective role. A role is referred to as a set of
expectations involving an executive’s position within a business organization. Expectations are
referred to as behavioural requirements or limits, which the business executives must pursue.
Depending on the behavioural requirements and expectations, executives may form high levels
of stress in carrying out these requirements. The two role stressors in measuring stress are role
conflict and role ambiguity. Role conflict occurs when the messages and cues from a superior
about the role is clear, but may be contradictory or mutually exclusive (Ram, 2011). This is
defined in terms of the dimensions of congruency-incongruency or compatibility-incompatibility
in the requirements of the role (Karl, 2011).
Role ambiguity arises when a role is unclear. Role ambiguity is the need for clear
instructions so that the individual may perform their organizational tasks successfully. Unclear
instructions may result from the overall complexity of the organization, constraints in the
communication of information, or a very high dynamic performance environment (Rachel &
Zawadi, 2013). Role ambiguity may prevent individuals from understanding what is expected on
16
the job and this expectation may bring an unsecured feeling involving their position within the
organization. Executive positions are known for the high level of stress and this may affect their
jobs. Examples of stress are: downsizing, restructuring, mergers, acquisitions and competing in
high velocity markets or limited time management constraints may contribute to the high stress
environment and create detrimental effects on executives. Many studies have inquired into the
nature of role stressors among business executives. Lars (2001) researched the impact of
business organizational practices and the impact on role stressors and discovered that clear and
communicated organizational practices will reduce role stress. Also, if superiors are unclear as to
the expected behaviour, role stress will increase among executives. If role stressors reach an
intensified level among individuals, this will reduce job satisfaction and organizational
commitment according to Kelloway (2010). There is direct and indirect cost of role stressors and
this is measured in both humanistic and financial terms. The humanistic perspective identifies the
relationship between role stressors and the impact on the individual.
Financial healthy organizations are successful in reducing or maintaining acceptable
levels of job stress, thus, retaining a productive workforce (Deborah & Keely, 2009). The
importance of understanding job stressors is stated in a 1997 survey entitled, The Work life
Report. The report reveals most workers in the Nigeria believe that stress is increasing in their
jobs and must work harder to earn a living compared to workers 20 or 30 years ago (Prinveton
Survey Research Associates,1997). Understanding how role stressors have a negative impact on
organizations and identifying the culture may reduce the effects of stressors as this is a critical
issue for management.
17
Role Specificity and Role Ambiguity Theory
Tang (2010) proposes role specificity and role ambiguity theory. He suggested increase of
motivation and satisfaction as benefits from the organization and the respondents’ attitudinal or
affective statements. The concepts of role specificity and role ambiguity or role clarity have been
discussed under various labels by almost every major organizational theorist (Bosselut, 2010).
Yet, as Daniel, William and David (2006) point out; there is no unanimity among these writers
about the effects of varying degrees of specificity or ambiguity of member roles. There have
been surprisingly few direct investigations of these concepts and even fewer studies of their
behavioural, rather than attitudinal, correlates. Some theorists have suggested increased
motivation and satisfaction as benefits of lower specificity of organizational roles (Adeyinka,
Ayeni & Popoola, 2007). Others have suggested that lower specificity may be a condition for
greater innovation (Stalker, Frank & Tinge, 1965). The concept of role clarity or ambiguity can
be operational in at least two ways. First, it can refer to the presence or absence of adequate role-
relevant information due either to restriction of this information or variations of the quality. This
would be an operationalization of objective role clarity refer to the subjective feeling of having
as much or not as much role relevant information as the person would like to have. Both types of
measures of role clarity have been found to relate to satisfaction and reduced tension. Blaug,
Amy and Rohit (2007) found that workers who reported having inadequate information about
plant activities or about their own position in the eyes of their foremen also reported more
nervousness than workers having a clearer picture.
Emotional Experience versus Affective Dispositions Theory
Bee (2012) proposes emotional experience versus affective disposition theory. He stated
that media and entertainment users make moral judgments about characters in a narrative
18
dimension. He also proposes that viewers sometimes develop story scheme that provides them
with information which they will use as a way of explaining how emotions become part of the
entertainment experience. It is important to distinguish emotional states from affective
dispositions and the impact of momentary states from more chronic and long-term emotional
experiences. An emotional state refers to a moment during which an individual experiences a
deep feeling. Although emotional states certainly last for some period of time, the assessment is
generally of a particular instance, and states are relatively short-lived. Thus, an event occurs at
work (a coworker makes a sarcastic comment), and the employee becomes angry. That anger
may dissipate in a few minutes or hours. Of course, a particular pattern of events that elicit
emotional responses might occur; for example, a coworker might periodically make nasty
comments, which elicit angry reactions repeatedly over time. Models of CWB do not explicitly
deal with this time distinction, although much of the writing about these models seems to
describe particular events. Tests of models, however, tend to assess conditions and emotions
more on a chronic or periodic level.
The typical questionnaire study asks employees to indicate how often certain events
occur (example, arguments with coworkers) and how often they experience negative emotions
such as anger. Inferences are drawn from relations among frequencies of conditions and
emotions to processes suggesting emotions are a response to particular conditions. Emotion can
also be assessed at the trait level as affective dispositions. Such traits reflect that certain
individuals are more likely to experience negative emotions than others. Distinctions have been
made among different discrete emotions, such as trait anger (tendency to experience anger) and
trait anxiety (tendency to experience anxiety). It is assumed that affective dispositions are
personality variables that arise at least partially from genetic predispositions, and although it is
19
beyond the scope here, there are data suggesting that these dispositions are clearly different from
emotional states or even the frequency of states over time within a particular setting (Spector,
Chen & O’Connell, 2000).
Empirical Review
Abusive Supervision and Counterproductive Work Behaviour
Feng (2013) investigated both individual differences and perceived situational variables
such as self-esteem and organizational justice as the antecedents of counterproductive work
behaviors (CWB). This article focuses on employees’ perceived interpersonal interaction. More
specifically, the relation between abusive supervision and subordinates’ counterproductive work
behaviors toward the organization is examined. Using a sample of 198 dyads employees and
their immediate supervisor (N = 396) from a multinational company in China, this research finds
that abusive supervision results in increased levels of sabotage, withdrawal, production deviance,
and theft. This research also examines the moderating effects of locus of control and perceived
mobility on the relationships between abusive supervision and subordinates’ CWB toward the
organization. The results suggest that locus of control moderates the relationship between
abusive supervision and sabotage, production deviance and theft, but not abusive supervision and
withdrawal; perceived mobility moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and
withdrawal and theft, but not abusive supervision and sabotage and production deviance.
Kimberly (2009) found four types of working abusive supervision such as neglectful
abusive supervision by supervisor, ongoing abusive supervision, abusive supervision by group
and denial of due process. Kimberly (2009) investigated the relationship between abusive
supervision and counterproductive work behaviour. Sulea (2013) administered measures of
20
abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour to three hundred and one (301)
Secondary School Teachers purposely selected from United States of America (USA). Data were
analyzed using multiple linear regressions. According to the findings, abusive supervision
positively correlated with counterproductive work behaviour. From the above findings, it could
be deduced that counterproductive work behaviour correlates with abusive supervision of
individuals in work place.
Faique (2014) examined this research to find out the impact of abusive supervision on
organizational citizenship behaviour and to see what mediating role do to the three variables i.e.
job tension, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention play in the association of abusive
supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour. A total of 205 responses were gathered for
the analysis of the study. Analysis was done using Simple regression, Multiple Regression and
Baron and Kenny tests. The results concluded that the mediating variables did not have any
relationship with the dependent variable. Due to this no mediation existed among the dependent
and independent variable. Abusive supervision however, was found to be in a positive
relationship with Organizational citizenship behaviour. A positive relationship was also found
between abusive supervision and 3 mediating variables (job tension, emotional exhaustion and
turnover intention).
June and Ukm (2011) examined the direct and interactive effects of abusive supervision
and coworker support on work engagement. Employees from diverse organizations in Malaysia
(N= 140) were surveyed. Multiple regression analysis results showed that abusive supervision
related negatively and coworker support related positively with work engagement but did not
interact with each other to predict work engagement. Results found that there was no support for
21
a buffering effect of coworker support on the relationship between abusive supervision and work
engagement.
Feng (2013) found that abusive supervision is related to both counterproductive work
behaviours toward organization and counterproductive work behaviour towards persons. Mary
(2012) observed that when confronted with stressful conditions, individuals high with abusive
supervision may ascribe more malicious motives to the actor leading to increased negative
emotional arousal which may lead to counterproductive work behaviour. Individuals low in
displaying abusive supervision, on the other hand, may give the actor the benefit of doubt and
attribute the behaviour to more causes, enabling them to proceed without feeling the need to
respond or retaliate with counterproductive work behaviour. Also, there are other research
evidences to show that abusive supervision mediates or moderates the relationship between
counterproductive work behaviours (Sulea, 2013).
Research findings have indicated that persons under stressful condition, who report high
levels of abusive supervision, are more likely to report counterproductive work behaviour
(Stavroula, Amanda & Tom, 2003). An explanation for this is that persons high in displaying
abusive supervision are believed to experience a hyper-responsivity mechanism as a response to
perceived stressors (Hongping, 2014). Counterproductive work behaviours (CWB) are
considered to be associated with both personal and situational behaviours, and the relationship
between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour is investigated. Toward a
better understanding of this issue, the present study examined the moderating effects of
personality traits on the relationship between a specific situational stressor, abusive supervision,
and organization-targeted counterproductive behaviours. The results found significant main
22
effects for both abusive supervision and personality, as expected, as well as a significant
interaction between them, whereby employees with low scores in conscientiousness,
agreeableness, and or emotional stability were more likely to engage in organization- targeted
counterproductive behaviours in response to abusive behaviours from their supervisors.
The study also examined the relationship between subordinates’ perceptions of abusive
supervision and their reports of counterproductive work behaviour. As predicted, subordinates’
perceptions of abusive supervision were negatively related with their counterproductive work
behaviours. With regards to the various dimensions of counterproductive work behavior, abusive
supervision had significant negative relationship with counterproductive work behaviour directed
to the organization and to the individuals but was not significantly related to role-prescribed
behaviours.
A research has identified individual differences, perceived situational variables and
abusive supervision as they relate to counterproductive work behaviour. It focuses on
employees’ perceived interpersonal interaction. More specifically, the relation between abusive
supervision and subordinates’ counterproductive work behaviors toward the organization is
examined. The research indicates that abusive supervision results in increased levels of sabotage,
withdrawal, production deviance, and theft. This research also examines the moderating effects
of locus of control and perceived mobility on the relationships between abusive supervision and
subordinates’ counterproductive work behaviour toward the organization. The results suggest
that locus of control moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and sabotage,
production deviance and theft. Perceived mobility moderates the relationship between abusive
supervision and counterproductive work behaviour. Tepper (2000) draws on justice review, the
23
author examined the consequences of abusive supervision behavior by abusive supervisors as
related to counterproductive work behaviour. As expected, subordinates who perceived their
abusive supervisors were more abusive and more likely to quit their jobs. For subordinates who
remained with their jobs, abusive supervision was associated with lower job and life satisfaction,
lower normative and affective commitment, and higher continuance commitment, conflict
between work and family, and psychological distress. Organizational justice mediated most of
these effects, and job mobility moderated some of the deleterious effects of abusive supervision.
Empirical studies relating narcissism to abusive supervision and counterproductive work
behaviour have offered mixed results. This study integrates prior research findings via meta-
analysis to make four contributions to review on narcissism and abusive supervision, by
distinguishing between abusive supervision emergence and abusive supervision effectiveness, to
reveal that narcissism displays a positive relationship with abusive supervision emergence, but
no relationship with abusive supervision effectiveness, showing narcissism's positive effect on
abusive supervision emergence can be explained by supervisor extraversion and demonstrating
that whereas observer-reported abusive supervision effectiveness ratings (e.g., supervisor-report,
subordinate-report, and peer-report) are not related to narcissism, self-reported abusive
supervision effectiveness ratings are positively related to narcissism; and illustrating that the nil
linear relationship between narcissism and abusive supervision effectiveness masks an
underlying curvilinear trend, advancing the idea that there exists an optimal, midrange level of
supervisor narcissism. Evidence however, indicated that in the relationship between abusive
supervision and counterproductive work behaviour that high level of counterproductive work
behaviour occurred when abusive supervision was high (Feng, 2013).
24
Work Tension and Counterproductive Work Behaviour
Blaug, Amy and Rohit (2007) found that work tension may have an adverse effect on
executive’s attitudes and suggested for further studies on this subject matter. Leblanc and Barling
(2005) found that counterproductive work behaviour expectations associate with greater work
tension and less job satisfaction. This is however in consonant with Michael, Remus, and Erin
(2006) who found that in a questionnaire study of 156 registered Nurses, that perceived
counterproductive work behaviour, was related negatively to voluntary turnover, propensity to
leave, work tension and positively to work satisfaction. The correlations of counterproductive
work behaviour with voluntary turnover, propensity to leave and work satisfaction were not
significant for Nurses who are supposedly classified low on work related tension. The
correlations were significantly higher for Nurses with a high work related tension. The
correlations between work tension and counterproductive work behaviour were significant for
both subgroups of nurses when both subgroups are merged.
The concepts of work tension, the rigidity of counterproductive work behaviour and
conditions of work tension specificity as opposed to the processes of counterproductive work
behaviour, in this context were however examined with regard to organizational change.
Research findings investigated the effect of personality, job and organizational factors on
counterproductive work behaviour. A random sample of 185 employees (men and women) of
Second Gas Transmission Operational Area in Iran completed the following research
questionnaire. Results indicated that validity and reliability of the questionnaire were acceptable.
Measures of counterproductive work behaviour have also been found to relate to satisfaction and
reduced work tension (Bukhari, 2009). Neel (1955) found that workers who reported having
inadequate information about plant activities or about their own position in the eyes of their
25
foremen also reported more nervousness than workers having a clearer picture. Similarly, Michie
(2002) found in a field study that work tension was related to feelings of threat. Slawski and
Matthias (2012) reported a high negative linear regression result (R ═ - .47) for industrial
workers between job satisfaction and an index of perceived meaninglessness in work.
Carsten and Bianca (2005) examined that high levels of conflict and organizational
constraints and low levels of perceived justice are associated with high levels of negative
emotions and counterproductive work behaviour. High levels of negative emotions are associated
with high levels of counterproductive work behaviour. Negative emotions mediate the relation
between stressors or injustice and counterproductive work behaviour. Perceived task autonomy,
trait anxiety, and trait anger moderate the relations between work tension stressors or injustice
and counterproductive work behaviour. Those individuals perceiving low autonomy and those
individuals who are high in these affective traits are more likely to respond to work tension
stressors or injustice with counterproductive work behaviour.
Abdul, Alwi and Aizzat (2012) seek to investigate the impact of work tension
characteristics on counterproductive work behaviour. Three forms of counterproductive work
behaviour are identified: Interpersonal counterproductive work behaviour, production
counterproductive work behaviour and property counterproductive work behaviour. The
regression analysis carried out on a sample of 355 employees showed mixed results. Work
tension significantly demonstrated a significant and negative relationship with production
counterproductive work behaviour. The relationship between work tension feedback,
interpersonal counterproductive work behaviour and property counterproductive work behaviour
was postulated. In similar not, work tension identity demonstrated a significant and negative
relationship with organizational counterproductive work behaviour.
26
However, work tension autonomy does not show any significant relationship. Thus, there
is a significant negative relationship between work tension characteristics (work tension
autonomy, work tension identity, work tension feedback, work tension significance, skill variety)
and counterproductive work behaviour (organizational counterproductive work behaviour,
interpersonal counterproductive work behaviour).
There is a significant negative relationship between work tension autonomy and both
organizational counterproductive work behaviour and interpersonal counterproductive work
behaviour. There is a significant negative relationship between work tension identity, and both
organizational counterproductive work behaviour and interpersonal counterproductive work
behaviour. There is a significant negative relationship between work tension feed back, and both
organizational counterproductive work behaviour and interpersonal counterproductive work
behaviour. There is a significant negative relationship between work tension significance and
both organizational counterproductive work behaviour and interpersonal counterproductive work
behaviour. There is a significant negative relationship between skill variety, and both
organizational counterproductive work behaviour and interpersonal counterproductive work
behaviour. Mariekevan (2010) examined that valid moderating effect of job resources correlates
with counterproductive work behaviour and work tension and both level of match between job
demands and job outcomes. The researcher (Mariekevan, 2010) also investigated the relationship
among job demands, job resources and self-regulatory behaviour.
Lyle (2007) used psychometric methods in a study of roles of graduate students in ten
academic departments. Analysis of the scales in one factor, labeled counterproductive work
behaviour and work tension, indicated that “students’ scores on the scales of counterproductive
work behaviour and psychological withdrawal were higher, and scores on morale were low,
27
when professors appeared to be unclear and conflicting.” Samuel (2010) found that
counterproductive work behaviour is highly related to experienced work tension only for those
workers who had high “need for cognition.”
Work Overload and Counterproductive Work Behaviour
Pradana (2013) investigated the nature of work overload and its impact on
counterproductive work behaviour in predicting outcome constructs. It adopted a cross sectional
survey design sampling 144 bankers who were administered a questionnaire. The fit model is
statistically created and tested by applying a structural equation model. Samuel (2003)
investigated the relationship between work overload stress and counterproductive work
behaviour and the moderator effect of negative affectivity on the relationship. Measures of work
overload stress; negative affectivity and counterproductive work behaviour were administered
on 422 Secondary School Teachers randomly selected from Southwest Nigeria. Data were
analyzed using hierarchical multiple regression. Work overload stress and negative affectivity
were positively correlated with counterproductive work behaviour. Negative affectivity
moderated the relationship between work overload stress and counterproductive work behaviour
such that high levels of counterproductive work behaviour occurred when work overload stress
and negative affectivity were both high. The results indicated that work overload significantly
reduced counterproductive work behaviour thereby increasing job satisfaction, job performance
and job commitment (Krischer, 2010).
The present economic challenges increase the level of demand and pressure on people in
their workplaces, eventually affecting the efficiency of organizations. Given the relationship
between work overload strain and individual and organizational outcomes (Robertson, 2009), the
present context places an even higher importance on understanding and dealing correctly with
28
these issues. The research at hand examines the predictive value of different occupational
sources of pressure on job satisfaction and counterproductive work behaviour, using an
occupational sample in the financial services field. The participants were asked to complete two
questionnaires: OSI-90 (Horia, 2009) and Workplace Deviance Scale (Bennett & Robinson,
2000). The results indicate that stressors related to the organizational climate, the work
relationships, organizational hassles and work overload predict counterproductive work
behaviour. Furthermore, job satisfaction was positively related to the high quality of the work
relationship and low levels of tension in the organizational climate and hassles, while the level of
satisfaction with the organization was associated with the work-family balance and the
organizational climate.
Jilie, Amanda and Goodman (2008) found in a laboratory group that less group
productivity in addition to less satisfaction, increased defensiveness, work overload and
counterproductive work behaviour that in nine of the eleven studies reviewed by Ambrose and
Carol (1999) persons with highly specific goals perform at significantly higher levels of work
overload than persons with the more general goal of "doing their best."
Beliefs and practices that become embedded in work overload can originate from a
number of sources. Beliefs, vision, objectives and business approaches and practices supporting
work overload’s strategy may be compatible with counterproductive work behaviour or possibly
not. When they are, the work overload becomes a valuable ally in strategic implementation and
execution. When this is not accomplished, counterproductive work behaviour becomes difficult
for implementation. Ahmad, Nek and Aizzat (2011) researched the impact of work overload and
the impact on counterproductive work behaviour. He discovered that clear counterproductive
work behaviour practices will reduce work overload. Also, if superiors are unclear as to the
29
expected behaviour, counterproductive work behaviour will increase work overload among
executives. If counterproductive work behaviours reach an intensified level, this will reduce job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (Norizan, 2012).
There are direct and indirect costs of counterproductive work behaviours and this is
measured in both humanistic and financial terms .The humanistic perspective identifies the
relationship between counterproductive work behaviour and the impact on the individual. The
financially healthy organizations are successful in reducing or maintaining acceptable levels of
work overload and retaining a productive work force (Deborah & Keely, 2009). The importance
of understanding work tension is stated in the 1997 survey entitled, The Work life Report. The
report reveals that most workers in the United States of America (USA) believe that stress
increases their work overload and they must work harder to earn a living compared to workers 20
or 30 years ago (Michie, 2002). Understanding how counterproductive work behaviours have a
negative impact on organizations and identifying them may reduce the effects of work overload
is a critical issue for management. A few research findings link emotional states to both
organizational stressors and counterproductive behavioural responses.
The research findings examine the relationship between employees’ perception of unfair
treatment and counterproductive work behaviour with regards to negative emotions, such as
anger, outrage and resentment in turn to behavioural responses. It also examines injustice to
emotions and work place conflict. O’Boyle (2011) relates counterproductive work behaviour to
high levels of work overload, somatic tension, fatigue and burnout. Allen (2004) examines a
meta-analysis of 12 early studies reporting correlations between experienced frustration and
other work variables. He also examines emotions, violence and counterproductive work
behaviour. Experienced frustration correlates with counterproductive work behaviour, lack of
30
autonomy, interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, role ambiguity, role conflict, and
work overload. Behavioural and other outcomes that were correlated with experienced frustration
included job satisfaction, work anxiety, physical health symptoms, employee withdrawal
behavior (e.g., intention to quit, but not absence) aggression, hostility and sabotage.
Suzy, Spector and Miles (2001) found a measure of anger but not experienced frustration
correlated with theft and anger correlated more strongly than experienced frustration with
aggression, hostility and sabotage. It is noteworthy that most of the studies reported in this meta-
analysis were self-report, except for Spector and Jex (1991) in which incumbent-reported
experienced frustration was correlated with supervisor-reported constraints, conflict, role
ambiguity, and work overload. In a meta-analysis, Spector and Goh (2001) found anger and
anxiety to be related to a variety of stressors, with mean correlations ranging from.29 (anxiety
and role conflict) to .49 (anger and organizational constraints). Perceptions of distributive and
procedural justice are negatively related to emotional exhaustion. Production deviance moderates
the relationship between perceptions of justice and emotional exhaustion.
The negative relationship between justice and emotional exhaustion is weaker when
production deviance is frequent compared with infrequent. Withdrawal moderates the
relationship between perceptions of justice and emotional exhaustion. The negative relationship
between justice and emotional exhaustion is weaker when withdrawal is frequent compared with
infrequent. Relations among work overloads, perceived justice, negative emotional reactions to
work, counterproductive work behaviour, autonomy and affective traits were investigated.
Participants representing a wide variety of works across many organizations were surveyed both
inside and outside a school setting. Results were consistent with an empirical work stress
framework in which organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, and perceived injustice are
31
work overload stressor. Only very weak support was found for the moderating role of affective
disposition (trait- anger and trait- anxiety), and no support was found for the expected
moderating role of autonomy in the stressor–CWB relationship.
Cropanzano, Bowen and Stephen (2007) have taken an organizational justice perspective,
viewing counterproductive work behaviour as a cognition-based response to experienced
injustice. These two perspectives are not incompatible, and in fact Paula and Sofia (2003) noted
links with the equity (justice) concept, and Suzy (2001) noted links with frustration. The current
study integrates both perspectives, assessing relations among work overload stressors,
perceptions of injustice, and counterproductive work behaviour within the framework of job
stress. It further examined that consistent with this empirical framework, emotional reactions to
work overload stressors and injustice perceptions, affective disposition, and perceived control
over work are key links in these relations. Negative emotion mediates the relations between work
overload stressors and counterproductive work behaviour.
In each case mediation was tested following the procedure recommended by Baron and
Kenny (2009) in whom three regression models are investigated: the counterproductive work
behaviour on the stressor, the examined mediator (negative emotion) on the stressor, and the
counterproductive work behaviour on the stressor and negative emotion together. If the beta of
the stressor variable is significant in the first model but non-significant or substantially reduced
in the combined model, we have a pattern consistent with mediation. Having control over
specific tasks (task autonomy) may be helpful in reducing the stressfulness of task-related
stressors such as work overload, but it will not affect the stressfulness of unrelated stressors such
as interpersonal conflict. Personality traits are also relevant factors in counterproductive work
behaviour, and an entire integrity test industry has grown around the idea that personality tests
32
can predict these behaviours (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001). Affective dispositions, the tendency
to experience similar emotions across situations, seem particularly relevant. Negative affectivity,
a generalized dispositional tendency for an individual to experience negative emotions across
time and situations, has been studied widely in relation to perceptions of work overload stressors,
injustice, constraints and strains (Thomas & Lee, 2005).
In organizational settings, the clinical implication of providing counseling interventions
for proper managing of these variables so as to facilitate positive affectivity from the researchers’
environment by employers is needed.
Summary of Literature Review
Five theories were reviewed in this study. Firstly, the Retaliation theory that assumes
negative internal and external characteristics of individual(s) made to respond to harmful acts
done initially through injustice. Secondly, the Organizational Culture theory that creates room
for analyzing and understanding processes that bind together members of an organization based
on the shared pattern of basic values, beliefs and assumption in an organization. Thirdly, the
Role Stressors theory which assume expectations from individuals that may involve high levels
of stress in carrying out these requirements, considering also role conflict and ambiguity.
Fourthly, the Role Specificity and Role Ambiguity that proposes increase, motivation and
satisfaction as benefits of lower specificity of organizational roles, indicating the level of
nervousness workers face in an organization. Finally, the Emotional Experience versus Affective
Dispositions theory that provides proper information about emotions, it portrays also that
emotions can be assessed at the trait level as affective dispositions.
33
It was however, observed that previous studies were partially related to the present study.
This therefore, contributes to research endeavour on counterproductive work behaviour. To curb
counterproductive work behaviour, employees or supervisors should understand some of the
values they share and tackle them properly for a better organization as reviewed in literatures.
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses are expected to be tested:
1. Abusive supervision will not statistically significantly predict counterproductive work
behaviour.
2. Work tension will not statistically significantly predict counterproductive work behaviour.
3. Work overload will not statistically significantly predict counterproductive work behaviour.
34
CHAPTER THREE
Method
Participants
A total of three hundred and one (301) Secondary School Teachers, selected from seven
schools in Nsukka urban, will participate in the study. The schools to be used include: Urban
Girls Secondary School, Nsukka; Nsukka High School, Nsukka; St. Teresa’s College, Nsukka;
Queen of the Rosary Secondary School, Nsukka; Community Secondary School Obukpa,
Nsukka; Model Secondary School, Nsukka and Community Secondary School Isienu,
Nsukka.The Schools are all located in Nsukka, Enugu State. Both randon sampling and
accidental sampling methods will be used in the study. Random sampling technique will be used
to select the sampled secondary schools. While accidental sampling technique will be used to
select the participants. The ages of the participants will be from 25 to 59 years.
Instruments
Four instruments will be used in the study. They are: Abusive Supervision Scale, Work
Tension Scale, Work Overload Scale and Counterproductive Work Behaviour Scale.
Abusive Supervision Scale: This is a 15-item scale designed by Tapper (2000) to measure
abusive supervision as perceived by subordinates. Participants will be required to respond to
each item on a 5-point Likert scale indicating the extent to which they agree or disagree with
each of the statements made in the questionnaire ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly
agree. For instance: 1=Strongly Disagree (SD), 2=Disagree (D), 3=Undecided (U), 4=Agree(A),
5 = Strongly Agree (SA) (Tapper, 2000). Tapper (2000) reported reliability index for the Scale as
35
.95. Pilot study using eighty (80) participants from (Community Secondary School Umuna,
Community Secondary School Ukopi-Ekwegbe, Community Secondary School Umunko and
Premier Secondary School Ukehe in Igbo-Etiti) was conducted with the instrument. The result of
pilot study showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .92.
Work Tension Scale: This is a 7-item scale designed by Rizzo (2013) to measure work
tension and an employee’s psychological or psychosomatic symptoms associated with tension
experienced at work. It includes the extent to which tension from work tends to keep employees
awake at night and be constantly on an employee’s mind. Responses are scored as follows: 1═
false, 2═ coded 1, 3═ coded 2, 4═ true (House & Rizzo, 2013). The alpha reliability ranges from
.71 to .89 as reported by House and Rizzo (2013). Pilot study using eighty (80) participants from
(Community Secondary School Umuna, Community Secondary School Ukopi-Ekwegbe,
Community Secondary School Umunko and Premier Secondary School Ukehe in Igbo-Etiti) was
conducted with the instrument. The result of the pilot study showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .72.
Work Overload Scale: This instrument is an 11-item work overload scale designed by
Kaplan (2006) to measure work overload. The items of the scale are divided into two groups: the
first four (4) items and the other seven (7) items. Responses to the first four items are scored as
1= rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5 = very often (Kaplan, 2006). While
responses to the other seven items were anchored on a 5-point Likert scale as 1= hardly any, 2= a
little, 3= some, 4= a lot, and 5= a great deal (Kaplan, 2006).The Cronbach’s alpha values of the
instrument as reported by Kaplan (2006) range from .72 to .81. Pilot study using eighty (80)
participants from (Community Secondary Schools Umuna, Community Secondary School
Ukopi- Ekwegbe, Community Secondary School Umunko and Premier Secondary School Ukehe
36
in Igbo-Etiti) was conducted with the instrument. The result of pilot study showed a Cronbach’s
alpha that ranges from .50 to .67.
Counterproductive Work Behaviour Scale: This is a 29-item scale designed by Suzy
and Spector (2003) to measure integrity, emotion, violence and intentional acts of individuals in
work place or counterproductive work behaviour. Responses are obtained and scored on a five
Likert response format as 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = everyday, 4 = every weekend, 5 =
every two weeks (Suzy & Spector, 2003). The Cronbach’salpha value of the scale as reported by
Suzy and Spector (2003) ranges from .88 to .94. Pilot study using eighty (80) participants from
(Community Secondary School Umuna, Community Secondary School Ukopi-Ekwegbe,
Community Secondary School Umunko and Premier Secondary School Ukehe in Igbo-Etiti) was
conducted with the instrument. The result of the pilot study showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .98.
Procedure
The researcher will get letter of identification from the Department of Psychology,
University of Nigeria Nsukka. The letter will help the researcher in facilitating the co-operation
of Principals of the Secondary Schools who will thereafter permit his teachers to participate in
the research. The researcher will select seven Secondary Schools in Nsukka urban using random
sampling method and select participants using accidental sampling method. Having obtained the
informed consent of the teachers, the questionnaires will be thereafter, administered to the
teachers in their respective classes and collected after filling. Three research assistants will also
help in the study.
37
Design/Statistics
The design to be used is a cross-sectional survey design and regression analysis will be used to
analyze the data.
38
CHAPTER FOUR
Results
This chapter in a tabular form illustrates the results of the study. These results are show in
different tables below:
Table 1: Regression model summary showing Abusive Supervision, Work Tension and Work
Overload on Counterproductive Work Behaviour.
Change Statistics
Model R R Square Adj. R Square Std. Error of the Estimate RSquare Change Fchange df1 df2 Sig
1 .254a .065 .054 2.384 .065 5.958 3 259 .001*
*Significant P < .001
The result of the model summary shows the strength of the relationship between abusive
supervision, work tension and work overload on counterwork productive behaviour (CWB). It
indicates the R, R Square and Adjusted R for the relationship as .25, .06 and .05 respectively. It
indicates that abusive supervision, work tension and work overload were implicated by 5% in
CWB.
Table 2: Regression Beta (β) coefficient showing significant predictors of Abusive Supervision,
Work Tension and Work Overload on Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWB).
Unstandardized Coefficient Standardized Coefficient
Model B Std. Error Beta (β) t Sig
Abusive Supervision .268 .065 .248 4.102 .05**
Work Tension .310 .476 .213 .201 .001*
39
Work Overlaod .414 .278 .221 .102 .001*
**Significant P < .05; *P < .001
The table above shows a significant relationship between abusive supervision and CWPB
(β = .24, t = 4.10, P < 0.05), work tension and CWPB (β = .21, t = .20, P < 0.001) and work
overload on CWB (β = .22, t = .10, P < 0.001).
Table 3: Correlations Matrix of Abusive Supervision, Work Tension and Work Overload on
Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWB).
Variable 1 2 3 4
1. CWB
2. Abusive Supervision .400**
3. Work Tension .359* .370*
4. Work Overload .189* .069 .041
Significant *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001
The correlation table above showed that martial conflict was significantly and positively
correlated to abusive supervision (r = .40, P < .001), work tension (r = .35, P < .05) and abusive
supervision (r = .37, P < .05). Work overload was also shown to significantly and positively
correlate to abusive supervision (r = .18, P < .05).
40
CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion
Abusive supervision was shown to significantly associate CWB (β = .24, t = 4.10, P <
0.05). It is based on this finding that the null hypothesis which sated that abusive supervision will
not statistically significantly predict counterproductive work behaviour was rejected. This result
is in an agreement with the findings of Feng (2013) whose results suggested that locus of control
moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and sabotage, production deviance and
theft, but not abusive supervision and withdrawal; perceived mobility moderates the relationship
between abusive supervision and withdrawal and theft, but not abusive supervision and sabotage
and production deviance. This implies according to Sulea (2013) that abusive supervision
positively correlated with counterproductive work behaviour. From the above findings, it could
be deduced that counterproductive work behaviour correlates with abusive supervision of
individuals in work place. In support of the above findings, Mary (2012) observed that when
confronted with stressful conditions, individuals high with abusive supervision may ascribe more
malicious motives to the actor leading to increased negative emotional arousal which may lead to
counterproductive work behaviour. Individuals low in displaying abusive supervision, on the
other hand, may give the actor the benefit of doubt and attribute the behaviour to more causes,
enabling them to proceed without feeling the need to respond or retaliate with counterproductive
work behaviour. Also, there are other research evidences to show that abusive supervision
mediates or moderates the relationship between counterproductive work behaviours (Sulea,
2013).
Other research findings have strengthened the result of the present study that persons
under stressful condition, who report high levels of abusive supervision, are more likely to report
41
counterproductive work behaviour (Stavroula, Amanda & Tom, 2003). As predicted, Hongping,
(2014) explained that subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision were negatively related
with their counterproductive work behaviours. With regards to the various dimensions of
counterproductive work behavior, abusive supervision had significant negative relationship with
counterproductive work behaviour directed to the organization and to the individuals but was not
significantly related to role-prescribed behaviours.
Work tension significantly predicted CWB (β = .21, t = .20, P < 0.001). With this result,
the null hypothesis which stated that work tension will not statistically significantly predict
counterproductive work behaviour was rejected. This result means that employees who are
working under tension are likely to encounter CWB. This finding was confirmed by Blaug, Amy
and Rohit (2007) who found that work tension may have an adverse effect on executive’s
attitudes. Leblanc and Barling (2005) in support, found that counterproductive work behaviour
expectations associate with greater work tension and less job satisfaction. This is however in
consonant with Michael, Remus, and Erin (2006) who found that perceived counterproductive
work behaviour, was related negatively to voluntary turnover, propensity to leave, work tension
and positively to work satisfaction. The correlations of counterproductive work behaviour with
voluntary turnover, propensity to leave and work satisfaction were not significant for Nurses who
are supposedly classified low on work related tension.
Abdul, Alwi and Aizzat (2012) confirmed that work tension significantly demonstrated a
significant and negative relationship with production counterproductive work behaviour. The
relationship between work tension feedback, interpersonal counterproductive work behaviour
and property counterproductive work behaviour was postulated. In similar manner, work tension
identity demonstrated a significant and negative relationship with organizational
42
counterproductive work behaviour. Thus, there is a significant negative relationship between
work tension characteristics (work tension autonomy, work tension identity, work tension
feedback, work tension significance, skill variety) and counterproductive work behaviour
(organizational counterproductive work behaviour, interpersonal counterproductive work
behaviour). There is a significant negative relationship between work tension autonomy,and both
organizational counterproductive work behaviour and interpersonal counterproductive work
behaviour.
Work overload finally was shown to significantly associate with CWB (β = .22, t = .10, P
< 0.001). Thus, the null hypothesis that work overload will not statistically significantly predict
counterproductive work behaviour was not accepted. This implies, like work tension, those
employees overloaded with work will exhibit CWPB. Krischer, (2010) confirmed the findings of
the present study that work overload stress and negative affectivity were positively correlated
with counterproductive work behaviour. Negative affectivity moderated the relationship between
work overload stress and counterproductive work behaviour such that high levels of
counterproductive work behaviour occurred when work overload stress and negative affectivity
were both high. The results indicated that work overload significantly reduced counterproductive
work behaviour thereby increasing job satisfaction, job performance and job commitment.
Robertson, (2009) indicated in his results that stressors related to the organizational
climate, the work relationships, organizational hassles and work overload predict
counterproductive work behaviour. Furthermore, job satisfaction was positively related to the
high quality of the work relationship and low levels of tension in the organizational climate and
hassles, while the level of satisfaction with the organization was associated with the work-family
balance and the organizational climate. Jilie, Amanda and Goodman (2008) found in a laboratory
43
group that less group productivity in addition to less satisfaction, increased defensiveness, work
overload and counterproductive work behaviour.
Implications of the Study
CWB have been seen to adversely affect organizational behaviour and organizational
procedures. Specific CWBs include abusive behaviour against others, aggression (both physical
and verbal), purposely doing work incorrectly, sabotage, theft and withdrawal (example,
absence, lateness and decreased turnover). Other examples of CWB are emotional abuse,
bullying, mobbing, deviance, aggression, retaliation and intimidation (Blaug, Army & Rohit,
2007). A number of job stressors have been linked to the performance of CWB including role
ambiguity, role conflict, workload, organizational constraints and interpersonal conflict (Blaug,
Army & Rohit, 2007).The rate at which employees work under tension or stress could trigger
CWB in organizations. So also work overload in a particular work description can predispose
employees into exhibiting CWB. Thus, the findings of the study could however be generalized to
other sample but the same research could be replicated with other larger sample before such a
generalization. The study could also be a guide for further study on CWB in relation to abusive
supervision, work tension and work overload.
Limitations of the Study
This study could be limited to inadequate sample and could not allow for generalization
to a situation involving large sample size that may run in thousands. As a survey study and no
matter how robust it is, relationship or correlation between two variables can be compared with
experimentation that outlines the cause-effect relationship.
44
Recommendations
It is therefore recommended that managers and other employers of labour should not
abuse the supervisory roles. Employees’ rights and views should be respected and appreciated as
it is part of the supervisory obligations. Also, job description should be clearly spelt out in ‘white
and black’ and made available for every employee. This will go a long way to reduce not only
work tension, work overload but also duplication of duties in work environment. In a situation
where extra hour is added to the normal official hour, the management should as well inform the
employee and pay them accordingly.
Summary
The study focused on abusive supervision, work tension and work overload as predictors
of counterwork productive behaviour. Counterproductive work behaviour could be the
behaviours of an employee that harms an organization or its members (Michael, 2006) and it
includes such acts as shoplifting, sabotage, verbal abuse, withholding of effort, lying, lateness,
theft, absenteeism refusing to cooperate and physical assault. Others include such terms as:
Organizational delinquency (Robert, 2006), Organization-motivated Aggression (O’Leary-Kelly,
1996), Organizational Retaliatory behaviours, Workplace Aggression and Workplace Deviance
(Steven, 2007), Revenge and Intimidation (Gallagher, 2008) and Antisocial Behaviour in
Organizations (Griffin & Yvette, 2005) and their association with abusive supervision, work
tension and work overload. The study sampled a total of three hundred and one participants who
were administered with the scales on abusive supervision, work tension, work overload and
CWB. Their age ranged between 25 years to 59 years and above. The result of the multiple
regression show that abusive supervision, work tension and work overload all significantly
45
predicted CWB: Abusive supervision (β = .24, t = 4.10, P < 0.05), work tension (β = .21, t = .20,
P < 0.001) and work overload (β = .22, t = .10, P < 0.001) respectively.
Conclusion
Abusive supervision of any kind and degree, work tension as well as work overload by this
research are associated with CWB. Therefore, employers of labours, private and public office
holders should be mindful of their actions in organizational settings and always spell out job
designations to avoid clashes of interest, work duplications and the corresponding stress.
46
REFERENCES
Abdul, R., Alwi, S., &Aizzat, M. N. (2012). Impact of work tension characteristics on counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Business and Development Studies, 4(1), 123-145.
Adeyinka, T., Ayeni, C. O., & Popoola, S. O. (2007). Work motivation, job satisfaction and
organizational commitment of library personnel in academic and research libraries in
Oyo State, Nigeria. Library and Philosoph and Practices.
Ahmad, Z. A., Nek, K.Y., & Aizzat, M. N. (2011).The impact of work overload. Journal of
Muamalat and Society, 5, 1-10.
Allen, T. D. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127-136.
Ambrose, M. L., & Carol, T. K. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research. Journal of
Management, 25(3), 231-292.
Baron, K., & Kenny, B. (2009). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research.
Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Human nature and aggressive motivation. Presses Universitaires De Grenoble.
Bee, C. (2012). Outcomes are in the eye of the beholder: The influence of affective dispositions
on disconfirmation emotions, outcome satisfaction and enjoyment. Corvallis.
Benita, S. (2002). From strategy to corporate communication strategy: A conceptualization. University of Pretoria: South Africa.
Bennett, R. J. & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360.
Bialas, S. (2009). Power distance as a determinant of relations between managers and employees in the enterprises with foreign capital. Journal of Intercultural Management, 1(2), 105-115.
Blaug, R., Amy, K, & Rohit , L. (2007). Stress at work. The Work Foundation: 3 Carlton House Terrace, London.
Bosselut, G. (2010). Structure of the role ambiguity framework and validity in the French culture.Psychology of Sport and Exercise,1-8.
Bukhari, Z. (2009). Relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive work behaviour in the geographical context of Pakistan. Journal of
Business and Management, 4(1).
Carsten, K. W. & Bianca, B. (2005). Conflict in organizations: Beyond effectiveness and performance. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(2), 105-117.
47
Cropanzano, R. Bowen, D. E., & Stephen, W. G. (2007). The management of organizational
justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 40(4), 1150-1173.
Daniel, C., William, O. B., & David, M. H. (2006). Varying the content of job advertisements: The effects of message specificity. Journal of Advertising, 35,123-141.
Deborah, A. C., & Keely, J. S. (2009). The financially healthy organizations. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 947-966.
Douglas, S. C., &Martinko, M. J. (2001). Individuals high in negative affectivity. Journal of
Personality Psychology, 4, 47-57.
Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Persons under stressful condition. Journal of
Personality Psychology, 25, 70-95.
Ehtesham, E. (2011). Relationship between organizational culture and performance management practices: A case of university in pakistan. Journal of Competitiveness, 6, 23-46.
Faique, B. F. (2014). Impact of abusive supervision on organizational citizenship behaviour: Mediating role of job tension, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention. Journal of
Business and Management, 16(2), 70-74.
Feng, W. S. (2013). Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviours: The moderating effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Journal of
management, 30, 281-296.
Gabriela, T., Juan, A. M., & Morales J. F. (2013). Organizational injustice: Third parties’ reactions to mistreatment of employee. Psicothema, 25(2), 214-221.
Gallapher, N. (2008). Job tension. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 5, 22-45.
Griffin, R. W. & Yvette, P. L. (2005). Bad behaviour in organizations: A review and typology for future research. Journal of Management, 31(6), 988-1005.
Hongping, Z. (2014). High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motivational model of abusive supervision. Journal of Management.40(4), 1151-1174.
Horia,D. P. (2009). The impact of occupational stress on job satisfaction and counterproductive work behaviour. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 7(2), 30-39.
James, R. L. (2004). Durkheim and organizational culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Julie, W., Amanda, S., & Goodman, C. (2008). Laboratory medicine: A national status report. The Lewin Group
June, M. L., & Ukm G. (2011). Effects of abusive supervision and coworker support on work
engagement. International Conference on Economics, Business and Management.
48
Karl, B. (2011). Congruency proportion reveals asymmetric processing of irrelevant physical and numerical dimensions in the size congruity paradigm. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 65(2), 98-104.
Kelly, L. Z., & Bennett, J. T. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behaviour.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068-1076.
Kelloway, E. K. (2010).Counterproductive work behavior as protest. Human Resource
Management Review, 20, 18-25.
Kevin, E. K., Lori, F., Matthew, P., & James, E. C. (2010). Counterproductive work behaviour as protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 18-25.
Kimberly, D.R.(2009). The effects of abusive supervision and social support on workplace
aggression. College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences: De Paul University.
Krischer, M. (2010). Cancounterproductive work behaviours be productive? Counterproductive work behaviour as emotion-focused coping. Journal of occupational Health
Psychology, 15(2), 154-166.
Kristine, V. (2011). Employee responses to job dissatisfaction. University of Rhode Island.
Lars, N. (2001). The impact of quality practices on customer satisfaction and business results: Product versus service organizations. Journal of Quality Management, 6, 5-27.
Lars, B., Dan, H., & Jon, K. (2006). Group formation in large social networks: Membership,
growth and evolution. Cornell University: Ithaca NY.
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(1), 107-123.
Lindberg, G. (2008). World gastroenterology organization practice guideline: Acute diarrhea. WGO Practice Guidelines.
Lyle, V. J. (2007). A history and overview of psychometrics. Handbook of Statistics, 26, 0169-7161.
Marchand, A., Victor, Y. H, & Julie, D. G. (2013). Quantitative analysis of organizational
culture in occupational health research: A theory-based validation in 30 workplaces of
the organizational culture profile instrument. BMC Public Health.
Mariekevan, D. T. (2010). Job demands, job resources and self-regulatory behaviour.
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Mark, G. M. (2008). Stress models:A review and suggested new direction. Mark.indd 1
Marsland, A. L., Sheldon, C., Bruce, S. R., & Stephen, B. M. (2001). Associations between stress, trait negative affect, acute immune reactivity and antibody response to hepatitis b injection in healthy young adults. Health Psychology, 20(1), 1-11.
49
Mary, B. M. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325-357.
Michael, M. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviours: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, 591-622.
Michael, M. Remus, I., & Erin, J. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviours.Personnel Psychology, 59, 591-622.
Michie, S. (2002). Causes and management of stress at work. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 59, 67-72.
Michelle, L. K. (2004). Organizational cultures of libraries as a strategic resource. Library
Trends, 53(1), 33-53.
Mitchell, P. (2012). Core principles and values of effective team-based health care. Institute of Medicine.
Nathan, B.O., William, R., & Mary, L. S. (2010).Consent to retaliation: A civil recourse theory
of contractual liability. Social Science Research Network.
Norizan, I. (2012). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction among staff of higher
learning education institutions in Kelantan. University Utara Malaysia.
O’Boyle, E. H. (2011). Bad apples or bad barrels: An examination of group and organizational level effects in the study of counterproductive work behaviour. Group and
Organization Management, 36(1), 39-69.
O’Leary, K. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of
Management Review, 21(1), 225-253.
Oliver, R., Wehby, J., & Daniel, J. (2011). Teacher classroom management practices: Effects on
disruptive or aggressive student behaviour. Campbell Systematic Reviews.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Integrity tests and other criterion-focused occupational
personality scales used in personnel selection. Criterion-focused Occupational Personality Scales.
Paula, B., & Sofia, G. (2003). Poverty, equity, human rights and health. Bulletin of the World
Health Organization, 81, 539-545.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility and counterproductive work behaviour: the moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of organizational
behaviour, 26, 777-796.
Pradana, A. (2013). Role of work overload toward turnover intention among newly hired public
accountants. Social Science Research Network.
Rachel, H. B., & Zawadi, R. A. (2013). Role ambiguity in online courses: An analysis of student and instructor expectations. Community College Research center: Teachers College, Columbia University.
50
Rafael, M. B. (2005). Job satisfaction as an indicator of the quality of work. Journal of Socio-
Economics, 34, 656-673.
Ram, N. (2011). Role conflict and role ambiguity as factors in work stress among managers: A case study of manufacturing sector in Pakistan. Social Science, 7(2), 31-40.
Robert, J. F. (2006). Office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. U.S. Department of Justice.
Robertson, J. (2009). The impact of occupational stress on job satisfaction and counterproductive work behaviour. Psihology Resurselor Umane, 7(2), 30-39.
Samuel, O. S. (2010). Job stress and counterproductive work behaviour: negative affectivity as a moderator. Journal of the social sciences, 5,486-492.
Sharon, L. B. (1989). Managing resistance to change. Ideals.
Slawski, M., & Matthias, H. (2012). Non-negative least squares for high dimensional linear
models:Consistency and sparse recovery without regularization. Saarland University.
Smollan, R. K. (2012). Emotional responses to the injustice of organizational change: A qualitative study. Emotion in Organisations, 8, 175-202.
Spector, P. E., & Goh, A. (2001). The role of emotions in the occupational stress process. Journal of occupational Stress, 1, 195-232.
Spector, P. E., &Jex, S. M. (1991). Relations of job characteristics from multiple data sources with employee affect, absence, turnover intentions and health. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76(1), 46-53.
Stavroula, L., Amanda, G., & Tom, C. (2003). Work organization and stress. Institute of Work, Health and Organisations.
Steven, H. A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviours: causes, impacts and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7(5), 586-598.
Sulea, C. (2013). Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviours: The moderating effects of personality. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(4), 196-200.
Suzy, F., Spector, P. E. & Mile, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behaviour in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 59, 291-309.
Tang, Y. T. (2010). Impact of role ambiguity and role conflict on employee creativity. Journal
of Business Management, 4(6), 869-881.
Thomas, B., & Lee, C. (2005). The role of negative affectivity in pay at risk reactions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 382-388.
Todaro, J. F. (2003). Effect of negative emotions on frequency of coronary heart disease: The normative aging study. Journal of Cardiology, 92, 901-906.
51
Westman, M. (2004). Crossover of marital dissatisfaction during military downsizing among Russian army officers and their spouses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 769-779.
52
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
Department of Psychology,
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
Dear Respondent,
I am a postgraduate student of the above mentioned Department and the questionnaire
below is part of my thesis. Please, you are requested to read carefully the information contained
in each of the sections and respond to them as they apply to you. This is purely an academic
exercise and all responses made will be treated with utmost confidentiality and will be used for
the purpose for which they are intended only.
Yours sincerely,
UgwumgborTheresaEbere
(Researcher)
53
PART ONE
Personal Information
1. Gender: Male ( ) Female ( )
2. Age: ………………………………………………………………………….
3. Marital Status: ……………………………………………………………….
4. Highest Educational Qualification ……………………………………………
5. How long have you been in your present organization? ……………………..
6. Employment status…………………………………………………………….
7. Permanent staff ( ) Contract staff ( )
8. Job position: Senior staff ( ) Junior staff ( )
54
SECTION A
ABUSIVE SUPERVISION SCALE
s/n Items SD D U A SA
1. My boss ridicules me.
2. My boss tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid.
3. My boss gives me the silent treatment.
4. My boss puts me down in front of others.
5. My boss invades my privacy.
6. My boss reminds me of my past mistakes and failures.
7. My boss doesn’t give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort.
8. My boss blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment.
9. My boss breaks promises he/she makes.
10. My boss expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason.
11. My boss makes negative comments about me to others.
12. My boss is rude to me.
13. My boss does not allow me to interact with my coworkers.
14. My boss tells me I’m incompetent.
55
15. My boss lies to me.
SECTION B
WORK TENSION SCALE
S/n Item 1 2 3 4
1. My job tends to directly affect my health.
2. I work under a great deal of tensions.
3. I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job.
4. If I had a different job, my health would probably improve
5. Problems associated with my job have kept me awake at night.
6. I have felt nervous before attending meetings in the company.
7. I often take my job home with me in the sense that I think about it when doing other
things.
56
SECTION C
WORK OVERLOAD SCALE:
S/n Items 1 2 3 4 5
1. How often does your job require you to work very fast?
2. How often does your job require you to work very hard?
3. How often does your job leave you with little time to get things done?
4. How often is there a great deal to be done?
S/n Items 1 2 3 4 5
5. How much slowdown in the workload do you experience?
6. How much time do you have to think and contemplate?
7. How much workload do you have?
8. What quantity of work do others expect you to do?
9. How much time do you have to do all your work?
10. How many projects, assignments, or tasks do you have?
11. How many lulls between heavy workload periods do you have?
57
SECTION D
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR SCALE:
S/n Items 1 2 3 4 5
1. Purposely waste your employer’s materials or supplies.
2. Purposely damage a piece of equipment or property.
3. Purposely dirty or litter your place of work.
4. Come to work late without permission.
5. Stay home from work and say you are sick when you are not.
6. Take a longer break than you are allowed to take.
7. Leave work earlier than you are allowed to.
8. Purposely do your work incorrectly.
9. Purposely work slowly when things need to get done.
10. Purposely fail to follow instructions.
11. Steal something belonging to your employer.
12. Take supplies or tools home without permission.
13. Take money from your employer without permission.
14. Steal something belonging to someone at work.
15. Tell people outside the job what a lousy place you work for.
16. Start or continue a damaging or harmful rumor at work.
17. Being nasty or rude to a client or customer.
18. Insult someone about their job performance.
19. Make fun someone’s personal life.
20. Ignore someone at work.
21. Blame someone at work for errors you made.
22. Start an argument with someone at work.
58
23. Verbally abuse someone at work.
24. Make an obscene gesture (the finger) to someone at work.
25. Threaten someone at work with violence.
26. Threaten someone at work, but not physically.
27. Say something obscene to someone at work to make them feel bad.
28. Hit or push someone at work.
29. Insult or made fun of someone at work.