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.