Organizations are increasingly concerned with the prevalence of aggressive behaviour, bullying, harassment, and incivility at work. A study on 412 ‘Best Employer’ organizations in China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, and Singapore by Yeung and Griffin (Reference Yeung and Griffin2008) revealed that 77% of 116,986 participants reported that they had experienced incivility in the workplace ‘in the last year’. Organizations in the United States are also reported to have problems with mistreatment of individuals at work, which is increasingly becoming a common issue (Pearson & Porath, Reference Pearson and Porath2005; Porath & Pearson, Reference Porath and Pearson2010). As aggressive behaviour, bullying, harassment, and incivility are essentially directed or targeted at individuals within or outside the organization, Robinson and Bennett (Reference Robinson and Bennett1995) referred to them as interpersonal deviance. Specifically, interpersonal deviance is defined as deviant behaviours directly harmful to other individuals within the organization (Bennett & Robinson, Reference Bennett and Robinson2000). In their review, Bartlett and Bartlett (Reference Bartlett and Bartlett2011) emphasized the need for organizations to address hostile behaviours because they bring adverse impacts on the organization and its members. They noted that such behaviour has been found to reduce productivity, increase recruitment costs, lower employee morale, increase lawsuits owing to wrongful dismissal, and damage reputation. Employees may also lose their concentration, become stressed, and quit their job, as a result (Bartlett & Bartlett, Reference Bartlett and Bartlett2011).
Studies on interpersonal deviance have generally focused on individual factors such as personality (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, Reference Berry, Ones and Sackett2007; Ménard, Brunet, & Savoie, Reference Ménard, Brunet and Savoie2011). Other situational or contextual factors in the organization such as abusive leadership or supervision (Mitchell & Ambrose, Reference Mitchell and Ambrose2007; Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, Reference Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland and Hetland2007; Tepper, Carr, Breaux, Geider, Hu, & Hua, Reference Tepper, Carr, Breaux, Geider, Hu and Hua2009; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, Reference Thau, Bennett, Mitchell and Marrs2009), lack of justice (Parzefall & Salin Reference Parzefall and Salin2010; Ménard, Brunet, & Savoie, Reference Ménard, Brunet and Savoie2011), and lack of organizational trust (Celik, Turunc, & Begenirbas, Reference Celik, Turunc and Begenirbas2011) have also been found to influence interpersonal deviance. However, to date, limited studies have considered human resource (HR) practices, another important facet of work environment (Robbins & Judge, Reference Robbins and Judge2010), in affecting interpersonal deviance. This is despite the understanding that HR practices can shape one's attitude and behaviour at work (Robbins & Judge, Reference Robbins and Judge2010). Well-implemented HR practices are argued to create conditions where employees become highly involved in their organization and work hard to accomplish the organization's goals (Arthur, Reference Arthur1994; Huselid, Reference Huselid1995; Wood & de Menezes, Reference Wood and de Menezes1998). Furthermore, according to field theory (Lewin & Carthwright, Reference Lewin and Cartwright1951), the environment surrounding an individual determines his/her behaviour. It is therefore reasonable to speculate that interpersonal deviance that occurs in a work setting may be influenced by the work environment.
Past studies have shown that the link between HR practices and work-related outcomes is not direct but purported to be mediated by some processes or mechanisms (Wright, Gardner, & Moynihan, Reference Wright, Gardner and Moynihan2003). Several scholars (Gardner, Moynihan, Park, & Wright, Reference Gardner, Moynihan, Park and Wright2001; Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, Reference Allen, Shore and Griffeth2003) recommended future studies to consider examining a possible mediating mechanism because the empirical evidence seems to indicate a weak effect of HR practices on work outcomes such as turnover, a form of deviant behaviour, and firm performance.
In the present study, we considered job satisfaction as a potential mediating mechanism in the HR-interpersonal deviance, thus filling the gap in the literature. We propose to assess the mediating effect of job satisfaction because separate studies showed that favourable HR practices enhance job satisfaction (Poon, Reference Poon2004; Petrescu & Simmons, Reference Petrescu and Simmons2008; Širca, Babnik, & Breznik, Reference Širca, Babnik and Breznik2012), and that job satisfaction is related to negative work outcomes (Hausknecht, Hiller, & Vance, Reference Hausknecht, Hiller and Vance2008; Singh & Loncar, Reference Singh and Loncar2010; Wang & Yi, Reference Wang and Yi2011). By combining these two distinct streams of research, we theorized the linkage of HR practices–job satisfaction–interpersonal deviance. By doing so, we hope to enhance our theoretical understanding on the dynamics and mechanisms of job satisfaction in explaining the effect of HR practices on interpersonal deviance.
Towards this end, we organized this paper as follows: the next section deals with the relevant literatures on interpersonal deviance and deviant workplace behaviour leading towards hypotheses development. Then, a brief method of how we carried out the study is offered. Next, we present the results obtained from the data collected. Finally, we discuss the findings in relation to the literature.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Interpersonal deviance
According to Robinson and Bennett (Reference Robinson and Bennett1995), there are two types of deviant behaviour at work: deviant behaviour targeted at the organization and deviant behaviour targeted at individuals. While the former is referred to as organizational deviance, the latter is known as interpersonal deviance. Examples of organizational deviance include employee theft, absenteeism, and tardiness. Instances of interpersonal deviance include behaviours such as making fun of others, playing mean pranks, making racial slurs, cursing others, and being rude.
In this study, we focused on interpersonal deviance because this behaviour occurs on a daily basis (Pearson & Porath, Reference Pearson and Porath2005), often trigger an emotional reaction to the victim such as anger (Phillips & Smith, Reference Phillips and Smith2004), which can lead to stress (Perguson & Barry, Reference Perguson and Barry2011). Henle, Giacalone, and Jurkiewicz (Reference Henle, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz2005) reported that targets of interpersonal workplace deviance tend to experience work-related stress symptoms such as psychological and physical pain and other negative work outcomes such as high turnover, low morale, and decreased productivity. In their study to develop and validate uncivil workplace behaviour measure among 368 adult employees in Australia, Martin and Hine (Reference Martin and Hine2005) demonstrated that victims of workplace incivility are likely to report low job satisfaction, low levels of psychological well-being, health dissatisfaction, high level of psychological distress, and high level of work withdrawal.
Interpersonal deviance can range from minor to major, depending on the degree of harm it inflicts on others (Bennett & Robinson, Reference Bennett and Robinson2000). While spreading rumours is generally considered minor, physical violence is major. Because of the different varieties and forms of interpersonal deviance, ranging from minor to major, interpersonal deviance can be regarded as an umbrella term that covers all types of behaviours directed at other individuals that threaten the well-being of the organization or its members (Robinson & Bennett, Reference Robinson and Bennett1995). Concepts such as workplace incivility, bullying, aggression, harassment, and interpersonal mistreatment may well fall within the interpersonal deviancy umbrella, as they involve harming the targets, either verbally or physically (Ménard, Brunet, & Savoie, Reference Ménard, Brunet and Savoie2011). Though these constructs are theoretically distinct from each other owing to the degree of injury they cause to the target or victim (Ménard, Brunet, & Savoie, Reference Ménard, Brunet and Savoie2011), they are exhibited intentionally to cause harm (Naimon, Mullins, & Osatuke, Reference Naimon, Mullins and Osatuke2013). For example, bullying, defined as ‘a situation in which one or more persons systematically and over a long period of time perceive themselves to be at the receiving end of negative treatment’ (Matthiesen & Einarsen, Reference Matthiesen and Einarsen2007: 735), is intended to ‘bring mental anguish to a person or a group of people’ (Naimon, Mullins, & Osatuke, Reference Naimon, Mullins and Osatuke2013: 93) as they have difficulty defending themselves (Matthiesen & Einarsen, Reference Matthiesen and Einarsen2007). Abusive verbal acts are generally committed to humiliate an individual that can reduce or destroy self-worth (Ménard, Brunet, & Savoie, Reference Ménard, Brunet and Savoie2011).
With the advancement of information and communication technology in particular the internet, interpersonal deviance does not only occur offline (i.e., face-to-face) but also online. Scholars now begin to investigate cyber incivility, defined as communicative behaviour exhibited in computer-mediated interactions that violate workplace norms of mutual respect (Lim & Teo, Reference Lim and Teo2009), as a new form of interpersonal deviance at work (Giumetti, McKibben, Hattfield, Schroeder, & Kolwaksi, Reference Giumetti, McKibben, Hatfield, Schroeder and Kowalski2012). Receiving hate emails is an example of such behaviour.
While there is rich literature on specific type of interpersonal deviance such as workplace bullying, sexual harassment, workplace violence, and workplace incivility, literature on general interpersonal deviance is scant. As such, wherever possible, we use the general literature on workplace deviance or on specific type of interpersonal deviance to develop our hypotheses.
Hypothesized relationships: Main effects
HR practices and interpersonal deviance
Generally, HR practices refer to activities conducted by an organization to manage its HR with the objective to fulfil both the organizational and employee goal (Guest, Reference Guest1997; Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, Reference Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart and Wright2009). Although HR practices have been labelled differently in different studies, the core HR practices applied in organizations appear to be staffing, training and development, performance appraisal, and compensation and benefit management. There appears to be overwhelming evidence that indicates a positive link between HR practices and employee outcomes such as employee performance, satisfaction, and commitment (Gould-Williams, Reference Gould-Williams2003; Wright, Gardner, & Moynihan, Reference Wright, Gardner and Moynihan2003; Poon, Reference Poon2004; Petrescu & Simmons, Reference Petrescu and Simmons2008; Širca, Babnik, & Breznik, Reference Širca, Babnik and Breznik2012) as well as withdrawal behavioural reactions such as absenteeism and turnover (Hausknecht, Hiller, & Vance, Reference Hausknecht, Hiller and Vance2008; Singh & Loncar, Reference Singh and Loncar2010; Wang & Yi, Reference Wang and Yi2011). But empirical evidence on the contribution of HR practices to interpersonal deviance is sparse. One such study was by Arthur (Reference Arthur2011), who investigated the effect of HR systems on interpersonal deviance at the organizational level of analysis. Using a basic ability–motivation–opportunity performance model, he posited that organizations with programmes directed towards promoting internal labour market (i.e., long-term employment, internal development, and promotion practices) are expected to be negatively related to organizational interpersonal deviance by impacting both the propensity (ability) and motivation of employees to engage in interpersonal deviance. He found support that HR systems characterized by greater use of internal labour markets are associated with lower frequencies of reported interpersonal deviance behaviours than those that rely on external labour markets. In his study, managers of various organizations across the United States were asked to indicate the organization-level frequency of four interpersonal deviant behaviours – sexual harassment, verbal and written threats, bullying, and incivility, occurred at their establishment ‘over the past year’. While managers are an important source of information, their knowledge may not be accurate as most of the time such behaviours are either not reported (Edwin, Reference Edwin2009; Langton, Reference Langton2012) or largely go unnoticed (Deblieux, Reference Deblieux2003).
The effects of HR practices on general workplace deviance were investigated by Shamsudin, Subramaniam, and Ibrahim (Reference Shamsudin, Subramaniam and Ibrahim2011) among manufacturing employees in Malaysia. They demonstrated that job description, job security, performance appraisal, and internal career opportunities were negatively related to workplace deviance. Applying social exchange theory, they postulated that when an organization implements HR practices well, this creates a sense of obligation for employees to reciprocate in a good manner (Gouldner, Reference Gouldner1960; Wright & Kehoe, Reference Wright and Kehoe2008). Conversely, when HR practices are seen to be not well implemented, employees will return such ‘favour’ by engaging in deviant behaviour. Tessema and Soeters (Reference Tessema and Soeters2006) found that favourable HR practices enhance employee competence, satisfaction, and role clarity. As a result, employees could contribute better towards the accomplishment of organizational goals. Salin (Reference Salin2008) found that the adoption of ‘sophisticated’ HR practices, defined as the use of employee attitude surveys, formal appraisal systems or development discussions, performance-based pay, and formal training, were able to prevent workplace bullying from occurring in Finnish municipality. Similar finding was reported in an earlier study by Zapf and Gross (Reference Zapf and Gross2001). They observed that organizational intervention is critical to resolve the problem of workplace bullying and facilitate successful coping of victims. Alshuaibi, Shamsudin, and Subramaniam (Reference Alshuaibi, Shamsudin and Subramaniam2013) found that performance appraisal and career development were able to predict cyberloafing, defined as employees’ non-work-related use of company provided email and the internet while working (Henle & Blanchard, Reference Henle and Blanchard2008).
Even though the limited evidence indicates that HR practices are linked to reduced workplace deviance, some scholars argue that the poor implementation of HR practices may actually exacerbate it (Klein, Reference Klein1996; Neuman & Baron, Reference Neuman and Baron1998; Salin, Reference Salin2003). For instance, performance evaluation that gives more emphasis on quantity rather than quality of production may enhance workplace bullying because of increased competition and reduced group cohesion (Klein, Reference Klein1996). In this context, workplace bullying is committed to discipline or punish employees or team members who are deemed to have violated established production norms (Neuman & Baron, Reference Neuman and Baron1998). D'Cruz and Noronha (Reference D'Cruz and Noronha2010) argued that HRM generally tends to side with the management, leaving the bullied victims to defend their case on their own. In other words, HR practices may create an environment where workplace bullying remains unchallenged and is allowed to flourish (Lewis & Rayner, Reference Lewis and Rayner2003).
While HR practices may be responsible in exacerbating interpersonal deviance at work such as workplace bullying, some scholars argue that instances of interpersonal deviance can be reduced when those practices are well implemented (Woodrow & Guest, Reference Woodrow and Guest2014). This is because when implemented well, HR practices such as performance appraisal, reward, and disciplinary systems can serve as an organizational formal control system (de Lara, Tacoronte, & Ding, Reference de Lara, Tacoronte and Ding2006) in addition to being a preventive intervention strategy. Hence, based on these arguments and the empirical evidence presented earlier, we formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 : HR practices would be negatively related to interpersonal deviance.
Job satisfaction and interpersonal deviance
Job satisfaction is one of the most widely studied work-related attitudes in the fields of industrial and organizational psychology (Spector, Reference Spector1997). Job satisfaction is defined as ‘a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences’ (Locke, Reference Locke1976: 1304).
Within the literature on interpersonal deviance, job satisfaction is primarily treated as one of the workplace outcomes (e.g., Merkin, Reference Merkin2008; Pseekos, Bullock-Yowell, & Dahlen, Reference Pseekos, Bullock-Yowell and Dahlen2011; Glaso & Notelaers, Reference Glaso and Notelaers2012) and not as an antecedent. We argue that in the context of the present study, job satisfaction may reduce interpersonal deviance, following the definition of Locke. As well-implemented HR practices can induce a positive emotional experience of employees, they will be less likely to manifest such feeling in negative behaviour (Wong & Law, Reference Wong and Law2002). Even though studies that looked into the effect of job satisfaction on general workplace deviance and specifically on interpersonal deviance are almost non-existent, we propose a theoretical link by invoking social exchange theory (Levinson, Reference Levinson1965; Gould, Reference Gould1979) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, Reference Gouldner1960).
Social exchange theory predicts that individuals who perceive that they are receiving unfavourable treatment are more likely to feel angry, vengeful, and dissatisfied. Consistent with the norms of reciprocity, when individuals are dissatisfied with the organization, they may reciprocate with negative work behaviours such as withholding effort, arriving late at work, taking longer break times, leaving early, and so forth.
Based on a meta-analysis of 25 studies and a sample size of 6,106, Dalal (Reference Dalal2005) reported a correlation coefficient of 0.28 between overall job satisfaction and measures of deviant behaviour. Furthermore, in a recent repeated-measures (longitudinal) field study, Judge, Scott, and Ilies (Reference Judge, Scott and Ilies2006) found that employees reported engaging in more deviant behaviours on days when they are less satisfied with their jobs, compared with days when they are more satisfied. Logic would dictate that there would be a significant inverse relationship between job satisfaction and interpersonal deviance. Based on the reasoning above, we hypothesize a significant negative relationship between job satisfaction and interpersonal deviance. Therefore we propose that:
Hypothesis 2 : Job satisfaction would be negatively related to interpersonal deviance.
HR practices and job satisfaction
There is overwhelming evidence that indicates a significant positive relationship between HR practices and job satisfaction (Bradley, Petrescu, & Simmons, Reference Bradley, Petrescu and Simmons2004; Poon, Reference Poon2004; Petrescu & Simmons, Reference Petrescu and Simmons2008; Širca, Babnik, & Breznik, Reference Širca, Babnik and Breznik2012). Gould-Williams (Reference Gould-Williams2003) studied the effect of bundle of HR practices on behavioural outcomes (e.g., workplace trust, job satisfaction, commitment, effort, and perceived organizational performance). Using data of 191 workers in UK's local government employees, they indicated that HR practices positively affect job satisfaction, which subsequently leads to heightened effort, intention to remain, and organizational performance.
Consistent with psychological climate theory (James, Hater, Gent, & Bruni, Reference James, Hater, Gent and Bruni1978; Koys & DeCotiis, Reference Koys and DeCotiis1991), good HR practices set conducive work conditions and environment that make employees feel satisfied and motivated towards the accomplishment of their job performance (Lee & Wu, Reference Lee and Wu2011), which subsequently determines their behavioural responses at work.
Drawing from above empirical evidence, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 3 : HR practices would be positively related to job satisfaction.
Hypothesized relationships: Mediated effects
We hypothesize that HR practices influence interpersonal deviance through job satisfaction. According to Becker, Huselid, Pickus, and Spratt (Reference Becker, Huselid, Pickus and Spratt1997), HRM practices operate to enhance employee skills, capability, and motivation, resulting in behavioural outcomes such as creativity, productivity, and discretionary effort, which are expected to contribute to organizational performance. In line with this contention, previous research has shown that HR practices are distal variables that influence behaviours through the mediating effects of proximal motivation processes (e.g., Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, Reference Mount, Ilies and Johnson2006; Haines, Jalette, & Laros, Reference Haines, Jalette and Larose2010; Huselid & Becker, Reference Huselid and Becker2011; Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, Reference Jiang, Lepak, Hu and Baer2012). Scholars also seem to agree that HR practices and policies do not directly shape employee attitudes and behaviour; rather there exists a generative mechanism that explains how those practices are able to influence them (e.g., Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, Reference Mount, Ilies and Johnson2006; Huselid & Becker, Reference Huselid and Becker2011). We argue that HR practices can predict interpersonal deviance because they influence individuals’ attitudinal reactions to their job (Tessema & Soeters, Reference Tessema and Soeters2006), which, in turn, affects employees’ level of engagement in deviant behaviour. Following Locke (Reference Locke1976) definition that job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences, we propose that well-implemented HR practices can produce such affective response. Hence, we postulate that:
Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction mediated HR practices-interpersonal deviance relationships.
METHOD
Research sample and data collection procedures
We carried out a survey among manufacturing employees of various occupational levels in various manufacturing companies in the northern region of Malaysia. We collected data by distributing questionnaires to participants. Before we distributed the questionnaires, we solicited permission from by the management of various companies to facilitate us with the data collection process. We informed the participants that they could choose to mail the complete survey to us (addressed envelopes were provided) or pass it to the HR department for later collection. We told the participants that their responses would not be disclosed to the management although we had obtained their approval to conduct the study. To secure participation, we informed the participants that their anonymity would be guaranteed. By doing so, we ensured that the objectivity of the responses given was not suspect. We distributed the questionnaires with the assistance of HR department of the companies. The questionnaire took ~ 20 min to complete.
We distributed a total of 400 self-reported questionnaires. After 2 months of data collection, we received 372 questionnaires either by mail or by personal collection, yielding a response rate of 93%. All returned questionnaires were valid for final data analysis. The profile of the participants is as follows: more than half were male (74.7%), were married (62.5%), and Malays (90.8%). The majority of them had high school diploma or certificate (82.8%) and were non-executive employees (73.1%). The mean age of the respondents was 30.79 years and the mean length of service was 6.97 years.
Measures
Interpersonal workplace deviance
We measured interpersonal workplace deviance by 5 items developed by Bennett and Robinson (Reference Bennett and Robinson2000). We chose this instrument because it has been widely employed in previous studies that investigated interpersonal deviance and it has good psychometric properties. For instance, Shao, Resick, and Hargis (Reference Shao, Resick and Hargis2011) reported a reliability of 0.85 of this instrument and Liao, Joshi, and Chuang (Reference Liao, Joshi and Chuang2004) indicated a reliability of 0.83. Instead of using self-reported measures, we asked the participants to indicate, while in the job, how often they know any of their workmates, who, for example, ‘Made fun of someone (other workmates, guests, etc.) while at work’, ‘Said something hurtful to someone while at work’, ‘Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark at work’, and ‘Played a mean prank on someone at work’. We used a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 = ‘never’ to 5 = ‘all the time’ to measure the variable. We decided to ask the participants to report their workmates’ interpersonal deviance for several reasons. First, we acknowledge that self-reported measures, especially of negative behaviour, are prone to criticisms centred on social desirability biases as respondents may attempt to ‘fake good’, thus biasing the results (Sackett & Harris, Reference Sackett and Harris1984; Sackett, Bums, & Callahan, Reference Sackett, Bums and Callahan1989). Second, we wish to reduce common method variance common in behavioural research (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003). Furthermore, we believe that using a third party to report interpersonal deviance at work is valid because victims tend not to report cases of harassment and bullying at work owing to potential intimidation and harassment (Langton, Reference Langton2012) and tend to resort to friends or other family members for support (Cortina & Magley, Reference Cortina and Magley2003). Finally, according to Arthur (Reference Arthur2011), research has shown that data on workplace deviance frequencies reported by supervisors and co-workers in an organization are similar to those collected from self-reports.
HR practices
We used a 23-item instrument of Delery and Doty (Reference Delery and Doty1996) to measure a range of HR practices on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’. We asked participants to indicate their level of agreement (or disagreement) with regards to the HR practices in their organization on items such as, ‘The job description for this job contains all of the duties performed by individual employees’, ‘Performance appraisals are based on objective, quantifiable results’ and ‘Job security is almost guaranteed to employees in this job’. The internal consistency reliability coefficient for these scales has been reported to range from 0.64 to 0.80 (Delery & Doty, Reference Delery and Doty1996).
Job satisfaction
We employed the instrument of Schnake (Reference Schnake1983) that consists of 7 items. We asked participants to indicate their level of satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with regard to item such as, ‘How satisfied are you with the fringe benefits you receive’, ‘How satisfied are you with the chances you have to do something that makes you feel good about yourself as a person’, and ‘How satisfied are you with the friendliness of the people you work with’. We used a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 = ‘very dissatisfied’ to 5 = ‘very satisfied’ to measure all items. Previous study has reported the internal consistency reliability coefficients for these scales ranging from 0.64 to 0.86 (Schnake, Reference Schnake1983).
RESULTS
We ran factor analysis with principle component analysis employing an orthogonal varimax rotation to ascertain the validity of the measures of HR practices, job satisfaction, and interpersonal deviance. We used the criterion by Igbaria, Iivari, and Maragah (Reference Igbaria, Iivari and Maragah1995) to identify and interpret factors in that each item should load 0.50 or greater on one factor and 0.35 or lower on the other factor. With respect to HR practices, we found a four-factor solution that explained 67.90% variance, as shown in Table 1. We found that the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.841 and the Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (χ2 = 1,544.494, p < .01), indicating sufficient intercorrelations for the factor analysis. Job description explained 38.41% variance, employment security 10.59%, result-oriented appraisal 9.78%, and internal career opportunity 9.13%.
Table 1 Factor analysis of HR practices
The bold value indicates that these items are mutually inclusive to form a construct and that they are mutually exclusive from the other constructs.
With respect to job satisfaction, factor analysis yielded a two-factor solution, which explained 66.034% variance, as shown in Table 2. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.803 and the Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (χ2 = 872.286, p < .01), indicating sufficient intercorrelations for the factor analysis. We then labelled the two factors as satisfaction with tangible rewards and satisfaction with interpersonal relationships. While the former explained 47.63% variance, the latter 18.41%.
Table 2 Factor analysis of job satisfaction
While for interpersonal deviance, factor analysis yielded a single factor solution explaining 68.676% variance, as shown in Table 3. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.832 and the Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (χ2 = 1,055.942, p < .01).
Table 3 Factor analysis of deviant workplace behaviour
Table 4 presents the means, internal reliability value (Cronbach's α), and intercorrelations of the variables. We obtained Cronbach's αs for the measures of 0.84 (job description), 0.67 (employment security), 0.86 (result-oriented appraisal), 0.63 (internal career opportunities), and 0.89 (interpersonal deviance). Measures of internal career opportunities and employment security were found to be lower than 0.70; however, according to Nunnally (Reference Nunnally1978), Cronbach's α above 0.60 is acceptable for research purpose. As depicted in Table 4, most participants agreed that HR practices are important as indicated by the high mean values. Low to moderate intercorrelations between the main variables were found, thus eliminating the possibility of multicollinearity, a situation where the independent variables are found to have high correlation between them (>0.75), which can be a serious violation in multiple regression analysis.
Table 4 Correlations, means, and standard deviations of main variables
Notes: Coefficient αs are presented along the diagonal.
**p < .01.
Hypothesis testing
Main effects
Table 5 depicts the results of the test for hypothesized main effects. Support for H1 requires a significant negative relationship between HR practices and interpersonal deviance. This hypothesis is partially supported, as the result indicated that only three HR practices are significantly related to interpersonal deviance. HR practices of job description (β = −0.13), employment security (β = −0.14), and internal career opportunities (β = −0.13) are negatively related to interpersonal deviance (p < .05). Result-oriented appraisal (β = −0.01, p > .05) is not significantly related to interpersonal deviance.
Table 5 Mediating effects of job satisfaction on HR practices and deviant behaviour
Support for H2 requires a significant negative relationship between job satisfaction and interpersonal deviance. This hypothesis is fully supported, as the result indicated that satisfaction with tangible rewards (β = −0.23) and satisfaction with interpersonal relationships (β = −0.37) are negatively related to interpersonal deviance (p < .05).
Support for H3 requires a significant positive relationship between HR practices and job satisfaction. Result indicated that only job description (β = 0.43, p < .05) is found positively related to satisfaction with tangible rewards dimension. As for satisfaction with interpersonal relationships, we found all four HR practices to be positively related: job description (β = 0.27), employment security (β = 0.26), result-oriented appraisal (β = 0.15), and internal career opportunities (β = 0.19), at p < .05. Hence, it is fair to conclude that H3 is partially supported for the dependent variable involving satisfaction with tangible rewards and is fully supported for satisfaction with interpersonal relationships.
Mediated effects
Support for the mediation hypothesis requires the following conditions: the independent variable must significantly impact the mediating variable in the first step; the independent variable must significantly impact the dependent (criterion) variable in the second step; and in the third step, the mediator variable must impact the dependent (criterion) variable, and at the same time the impact of the independent variable on the dependent must either become insignificant (total mediation) or become significant but the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable would be reduced in size (partial mediation) (Baron & Kenny, Reference Baron and Kenny1986).
Mediation of satisfaction with tangible rewards
In order to examine the mediating influence of satisfaction with tangible rewards dimension, we performed a hierarchical regression analysis by following the steps suggested by Baron and Kenny (Reference Baron and Kenny1986). In the first step, we entered HR practices as the independent variables and satisfaction with tangible rewards as the dependent variable. We found a significant influence of HR practices on satisfaction with tangible rewards (F = 25.201, p = .001). HR practices explained 23.3% of the total variance in satisfaction with tangible rewards. We found job description dimension of HR practices only to be positively related to satisfaction with tangible rewards (β = 0.43, p < .001). The significant result fulfilled the requirement for first step in the mediating test.
The second step involved running regression analysis with interpersonal deviance as the dependent variable while the HR practices entered as the independent variables. Result indicated a significant influence of HR practices on interpersonal deviance (F = 9.571, p = .001). HR practices explained 10.4% of the total variance in interpersonal deviance. Job description was found significantly related to interpersonal deviance (β = −0.13, p < .05). The significant result found fulfilled the second step for mediating test of satisfaction with tangible rewards with job description as the independent variable and interpersonal deviance as the dependent variable.
The final step involved running another regression where we entered HR practices and satisfaction with tangible rewards as the independent variables, and interpersonal deviance as the dependent variable. Satisfaction with tangible rewards (β = −0.23, p < .05) was found significantly related to interpersonal deviance in step 3 (see Table 5). The independent variable of job description in step 3 became insignificant (β = 0.00, p > .05) when the mediating variable of satisfaction with tangible rewards was entered into the regression equation (see models 1A, 1B, and 1C in Table 5). As the β value for job description decreased and became insignificant, we can say that satisfaction with tangible rewards fully mediates the relationship between job description and workplace deviance, following Baron and Kenny's (Reference Baron and Kenny1986) recommendation. We also run the Sobel (Reference Sobel1982) z test (not shown here) to test whether the mediator (satisfaction with tangible rewards) carries the influence of job description on interpersonal deviance. We found significant result at p < .05.
Mediation of satisfaction with interpersonal relationships
We employed a similar procedure in testing the mediating effect of satisfaction with interpersonal relationships. In step 1, we entered HR practices as the independent variable and satisfaction with interpersonal relationships as the dependent variable. We found a significant influence of HR practices on satisfaction with interpersonal relationships (F = 64.830, p = .001). HR practices explained 44% of the total variance in satisfaction with interpersonal relationships. Job description (β = 0.27), employment security (β = 0.26), result-oriented appraisal (β = 0.15), and internal career opportunities (β = 0.19) were found to be positively related to satisfaction with interpersonal relationships at p < .05. The significant result found fulfilled the requirement for the first step in the mediating test.
The second step involved running regression analysis with interpersonal deviance entered as the dependent variable while HR practices entered as the independent variable. We found a significant influence of HR practices on interpersonal deviance (F = 9.571, p = .001). HR practices explained 10.4% of the total variance in deviant behaviour. Job description was found to be negatively related to interpersonal deviance (β = −0.13, p < .05). In addition, employment security (β = −0.14) and internal career opportunities (β = −0.13) were found to be negatively related to interpersonal deviance at p < .05. The significant result found fulfilled the second step in the mediating test of satisfaction with interpersonal relationships.
The final step involved running another regression where we entered HR practices and satisfaction with interpersonal relationships as the independent variables, and interpersonal deviance as the dependent variable. Satisfaction with interpersonal relationships (β = −0.37, p < .05) was found to be significantly related to interpersonal deviance in step 3 (see Table 5). The independent variable of job description (β = −0.12, p > .05) and internal career opportunities (β = −0.12, p > .05) in step 3 became insignificant when the mediating variable of satisfaction with interpersonal relationships was entered into the regression equation (see models 2A, 2B, and 2C in Table 5). Employment security (β = −0.13, p < .05), however, was found to be significant and the β value decreased in size compared with what was found in step 2. Hence, we can say that satisfaction with interpersonal relationships fully mediates the relationship between job description, internal career opportunities, and interpersonal deviance, as proposed by Baron and Kenny (Reference Baron and Kenny1986). But satisfaction with interpersonal relationships was found to partially mediate the relationship between employment security and interpersonal deviance. This is because the β value for employment security decreased but still remained significant after the inclusion of the mediator. We also performed the Sobel (Reference Sobel1982) z test (not shown here) to test whether the mediator (satisfaction with interpersonal relationships) carries the influence of job description, internal career opportunities, and employment security to interpersonal deviance. We found significant result at p < .05. Based on the mediation results for satisfaction with tangible rewards and interpersonal relationships, we can conclude that H4 is partially supported.
DISCUSSION
Regardless of their nature, interpersonal deviance is costly to organizations and detrimental to employees’ quality of work life. Hence, there is keen interest in understanding its antecedents. Though limited in number, prior studies have established the linkages between HR practices and interpersonal deviance (e.g., Arthur, Reference Arthur2011; Shamsudin, Subramaniam, & Ibrahim Reference Shamsudin, Subramaniam and Ibrahim2011), between HR practices and job satisfaction (Petrescu & Simmons, Reference Petrescu and Simmons2008; Širca, Babnik, & Breznik, Reference Širca, Babnik and Breznik2012), and between job satisfaction and deviant behaviour (Dalal, Reference Dalal2005; Judge, Scott, & Ilies, Reference Judge, Scott and Ilies2006). These two separate lines of studies have provided insights into the role of HR practices and job satisfaction in predicting interpersonal deviance at the workplace, and lay a foundation for the present study to investigate the interrelationships among these variables in a single framework.
The present study contributes in several ways to understanding interpersonal deviance at work. First, the results of regression analysis on the main effects showed that HR practices of job description, employment security, and internal career opportunities have significant relationships with interpersonal deviance, which appear to be consistent with the findings in prior research (e.g., Arthur, Reference Arthur2011; Shamsudin, Subramaniam, & Ibrahim, Reference Shamsudin, Subramaniam and Ibrahim2011).
Second, the findings also contribute to the literature by showing that both satisfaction with tangible rewards and satisfaction with interpersonal relationships are related to interpersonal deviance. This means that individuals who are satisfied are less likely to engage in interpersonal deviance at work. While researchers like Mount, Ilies, & Johnson (Reference Mount, Ilies and Johnson2006) studied general job satisfaction in relation to deviant behaviour, the present study extends their work by examining two distinct, yet related dimensions of job satisfaction namely satisfaction with tangible rewards and satisfaction with interpersonal relationships.
Our study contributes to theory by demonstrating the joint relationships among HR practices, job satisfaction, and interpersonal deviance. An important finding here is that the dimensions of job satisfaction not only have a direct relationship with interpersonal deviance, but they also mediate the relationship between relevant HR practices and interpersonal deviance. Specifically, satisfaction with tangible rewards fully mediates the relationship between job description and interpersonal deviance and satisfaction with interpersonal relationships fully mediates the relationship between job description, internal career opportunities, and interpersonal deviance. In addition, satisfaction with interpersonal relationships partially mediates the relationship between employment security and interpersonal deviance. The full mediation suggests that HR practices influence job satisfaction, which in turn leads to interpersonal deviance. Understanding how employees evaluate their jobs is an important step to explain the mechanism through which HR practices influence interpersonal deviance at work. As for the partial mediation, the finding demonstrates that in addition to indirect influence on interpersonal deviance, HR practices also have direct influence on it, indicating a rather weak mediation effect of job satisfaction on the HR practices-deviant behaviour relationship.
In sum, the findings are important for managers as they show that good HR practices are able to contribute to an employee's positive assessment of his/her job, which manifests in reduced interpersonal deviance. Hence, implementing good HR practices that allow employees to grow within the organization and to develop social relations are beneficial to reduce interpersonal deviance.
Managerial implications
The findings have important practical implications to HR managers. As contended by Woodrow and Guest (Reference Woodrow and Guest2014), for HR practices to facilitate in the accomplishment of employee performance, they should be effectively implemented. In particular, the HR practices need to be implemented in such a way that they could reduce interpersonal conflict and deviance at work.
With regards to job description, for instance, HR managers should clearly define duties, roles, and responsibilities of individual employees and have up-to-date job description. In today's dynamic and fast-paced work environment where roles tend to be blurred as employees strive to accomplish their job performance, conflict among workers tend to occur. As interpersonal conflict is a precursor to interpersonal deviance (Branch, Ramsay, & Barker, Reference Branch, Ramsay and Barker2013), it is imperative that managers clarify what employees are expected to do, especially when the job requires that employees work interdependently and use their discretion to accomplish the task (Jagoda, 2013). It has been demonstrated that when employees are not clear of their role at work, they will feel stressed and may engage in deviant behaviour at work, as a result (Chen & Spector, Reference Chen and Spector1992).
Another HR practice managers need to be concerned with is providing employees with internal career opportunities, as they have been shown to affect interpersonal deviance. According to Maslow's theory, people are motivated to work when they are given opportunities to develop themselves. As career growth has a motivational function, managers can use internal career opportunities as a way to reduce interpersonal conflict and deviance at work. By communicating clearly that career growth is tied with good performance and behaviour, employees will be discouraged from engaging in negative behaviours at work since doing so may jeopardize their chances to develop their career.
In addition to career immobility owing to interpersonal deviance, managers can also use employment security to leverage their position. Delery and Doty (Reference Delery and Doty1996) argued that organizations providing higher degree of job security convey a clear message that the organization has a long-standing commitment to its workforce. It was found that when people feel that their job is secure, they are more motivated to work, and less likely to engage in deviant behaviour (Reisel, Probst, Chia, Maloles, & König, Reference Reisel, Probst, Chia, Maloles III and König2010). Hence, the ability of an organization to secure employment of its employees will reduce poor and negative behaviours at work.
Limitations
There are several limitations of the study. First, though self-reported measures are often used to indicate deviant behaviour experienced by employees, we believe that peer reported measure is also valid to gauge the extent of interpersonal deviant behaviour demonstrated by employees at work, as mentioned earlier. However, a singular assessment has its inherent biases and weaknesses (Sackett & Harris, Reference Sackett and Harris1984; Podsakoff et al., Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003) it is suggested that future research should include assessment from multiple sources including peers, subordinates, and superiors to provide a comprehensive picture of deviant behaviour.
Second, although the results of our model provide a useful, parsimonious framework for other researchers to build on, ours is underspecified. For example, perceptual variables that could moderate some of the relationships were not included in this study. One area of research that appears to be relevant to understanding deviance behaviour is organizational justice, that is, employees’ perception of unfairness at work (e.g., Judge, Scott, & Ilies, Reference Judge, Scott and Ilies2006). Research shows that different justice perceptions among employees are related uniquely to variables of interest in this study namely job satisfaction and deviance behaviour (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, Reference Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng2001). Further, Judge, Scott, and Ilies (Reference Judge, Scott and Ilies2006) found interpersonal justice influences workplace deviance through job dissatisfaction. Hence, although we believe that individuals’ perception towards organizational HR practices and work experiences (job satisfaction) play a central motivational role in explaining employees’ engagement in deviance behaviour, perceptual variables such as organizational justice and organizational commitment may also play an important explanatory role. In addition to perceptual variables, certain situational variables may also influence HR practices–job satisfaction–deviant behaviour relationships such as leadership style, corporate culture, and ethical climate. We recognize that the inclusion of perceptual and situational variables may be useful for future researcher to examine.
Further, a cross-sectional study design as opted in this study restricts the ability to prove a cause–effect relationship. Our aim was to develop and test a parsimonious model that was grounded in both theory and previous research. Our results showed that the hypothesized model is a plausible explanation for the joint relationships of HR practices and job satisfaction on deviant behaviour. However, owing to the cross-sectional nature of our data, caution must be exercised when inferring causal relationships.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on the manuscript.
