Counterproductive behaviors: A case study of a private sports business

Year 2018, , 393 - 404, 26.06.2018

Sevim Güllü

https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.427560

Abstract

Counterproductive behavior (CB) is defined as intentional behavior against an organization or the partners in an organization. In the literature, it is commonly referred to as organizational deviation, which is a relatively new concept in Turkey. There is yet no study on sports businesses in the literature, which makes the current study very unique. The aim of this study is to examine the relationships between demographics and counterproductive behaviors in sports businesses. The study’s sample includes 150 employees working at a private sports business in the Anatolian Side of İstanbul. The study was designed with a screening model. In the first part of the study, the participants provided demographic information. Next, they completed the Counterproductive Behaviors Scale, which was developed by Bennett and Robinson (2010) and adapted into Turkish by Öztürk (2015). This instrument consisted of 2 sub-dimensions. The reliability studies of the instrument were conducted for the current study. Percentage and frequency tests were used so as to determine the range of the participants’ personal information. Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s normality test was applied to examine whether the data had a normal distribution. Afterward, the test results revealed that non-parametric tests were suitable for analysis (p<0.05). The Mann Whitney U Test was conducted to determine the significant differences for two-factor variables, and Kruskal Wallis was applied for three or more factor variables. A data analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between gender, marital status, employment type (payroll employment, contract labor, part-time employment), seniority, educational status, and counterproductive behaviors and the sub-dimensions of counterproductive behaviors (p>0.05). However, a statistically significant difference was found between counterproductive behavior dimensions and age (X²(2) =10.135; p<0.05). This indicates that participants between the ages of 26-30, especially participants in the younger part of that range, scored higher in the counterproductive behaviors dimension. In addition, a similar statistically significant difference was observed between employment positions and counterproductive behaviors (X²(4)=3.579; p<0.05), so the general services staff was found to score higher than others. 

Keywords

Counterproductive behaviors, organizational deviation, organizational aberration, organizational behavior

References

• Ambrose, M, Seabright, M.A., ve Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: the role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Process-es, 89(1), 947-965.
• Appelbaum, S. H., Iaconi, G. D., ve Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance: The İnternational Journal Of Business İn Society, 7(5), 586-598.
• Appelbaum, S. H., ve Roy-Girard, D. (2007). Toxins in the workplace: affect on organizations and employees. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 7(1), 17-28.
• Appelbaum, S. H., ve Shapiro, B. T. (2006). Diagnosis and remedies for deviant workplace behaviors. Journal of American Academy of Business, 9(2), 14-20.
• Avcı, N. (2008). Konaklama İşletmelerinde Örgütsel Öğrenme, İş Tutumları ve Örgütsel Sapma Arasındaki İlişkilerin Analizi. Doktora Lisans Tezi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. İzmir.
• Barling, J., Dupré, K. E., ve Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual review of psychology, 60, 671-692.
• Behrem, Ü. (2017). Beş Faktör Kişilik Özelliklerinin Örgütsel Adalet Algısı Aracılığıyla Üretkenlik Karşıtı Davranışlar Üzerine Etkisinin İncelenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., ve Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organiza-tional deviance, and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410.
• Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., ve Kramer, R. M (1997). At The Breaking Point: Cognitive And Social Dynamics Of Revenge İn Organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial Behavior İn Organizations (Pp. 18–36). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
• Bolton, L. R., Becker, L. K., ve Barber, L. K. (2010). Big Five trait predictors of differential counterproductive work behavior dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 537-541.
• Bolton, L. R., Becker, L. K., ve Barber, L. K. (2010). Big Five trait predictors of differential counterproductive work behavior dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 537-541.
• Bozyiğit, E. & Durmuş, D.E. (2018). Profesyonel Futbolcuların İş Doyum Düzeyleri. [Job Satisfaction Levels of Professional Football Players]. Spor Eğitim Dergisi, 2 (1), s.01-11.
• Branch, S. (2008). You say tomatoe and I say tomato: Can we differentiate between workplace bullying and other counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Organisational Behavior, 13(2), 4-17.
• Bülbül, G. (2013). Havayolu Taşımacılığında Üretkenlik Karşıtı Davranışlar Ve Kabin Görevlilerinin Algısı Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Anadolu Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Eskişehir.
• Chirasha, V., ve Mahapa, M. (2012). An analysis of the causes and impact of deviant behavior in the workplace. The case of secretaries in state universities. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 3(5), 415.
• Demir, M. (2009). Konaklama İşletmelerinde Duygusal Zeka, Örgütsel Sapma, Çalışma Yaşamı Kalitesi ve İşten Ayrılma Eğilimi Arasındaki İlişkinin Analizi. Doktora Tezi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. İzmir.
• Demir, M. (2011). The Analysis of the Relationship among Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Deviance, Quality of Work Life and Turnover Intentions in Hospitality Business, European Journal of Tourism Research, 4 (2), 214-216.
• Di Battista, R. A. (1991). Creating new approaches to recognize and deter sabotage. Public Personnel Management, 20(3), 347-352.
• Dirican, A. H. (2013). Duygusal Zekanın Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı Ve Üretkenlik Karşıtı Davranışlar Üzerine Etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji En-stitüsü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Doğan S. ve Kılıç S. (2014). Algılanan örgütsel etik iklim ve üretkenlik karşıtı iş davranışları arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 15(1), 269-292.
• Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J. ve Heller, D. (2009). Organizational supports and organizational deviance: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 279-286.
• Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A. ve Bruursema, K. (2007). Does your coworker know what you're doing? convergence of self-and peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal Of Stress Management, 14(1), 41.
• Giacalone, R. A. ve Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial Behavior İn Organizations. Thou-sand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
• Göksel, A.G., Caz, Ç., Yazıcı, Ö.F. ve İkizler, H,C. (2017). Examination of the Rela-tionship between Organizational Stress and Employee Performance: A Research on Staff Working on Provincial Directorate of Youth and Sports. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1); 322-239.
• Gruys, M. L. ve Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International journal of selection and assessment, 11(1), 30-42.
• İyigün, N. Ö. (2011). Psikolojik Kontratın Örgütsel Sapma Üzerindeki Etkisinde Kişilik Özelliklerinin Rolü ve Bir Araştırma. Doktora Tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilim-ler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• İyigün, Öykü N. Ve Çetin, Canan. (2012). Psikolojik Kontratın Örgütsel Sapma Üzerindeki Etkisi Ve İlaç Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. Öneri Dergisi. 10.37, 15-29.
• Kırbaşlar, M. (2013). Çalışanların Etik İklim Algılarının, Örgütsel Güven Algısı Ve Üretkenlik Karşıtı Davranışlar İle İlişkilerinin İncelenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. İstanbul.
• Kızıloğlu, E., Çelik, A. (2015). Whistleblowing Behavior in Organizations and Work Morality Interaction. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 1 (2), 399-414.
• Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5, 119-26.
• Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J. ve Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1‐2), 36-50.
• Neuman, J. H. ve Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace Violence and Workplace Aggression: Evidence Concerning Specific Forms, Potential Causes, And Preferred Targets, Journal Of Management, 24(3), 391-419.
• Örmeci, E. (2013). Örgütsel Adalet Algısının, Örgüte Bağlılık Aracılığıyla Üretkenliğe Aykırı Çalışma Davranışlarına Etkisinde Kuruma Güvenin Rolü. Doktora Tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. İstanbul.
• Öztürk, İ. (2015). İş Yaşamında Üretkenlik Karşıtı Davranışlar: Ayrımcılık ve Ada-letsizlik Algıları ile Olumsuz Duyguların Etkileri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Özüren, Ü. (2017). Tekstil İşletmelerinde Nepotizm Uygulamalarına Bağlı Olarak Üret-kenlik Karşıtı Davranışlar Ve Sonuçları. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul Kültür Üniversi-tesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Özüren, Ü. (2017). Tekstil İşletmelerinde Nepotizm Uygulamalarına Bağlı Olarak Üret-kenlik Karşıtı Davranışlar Ve Sonuçları. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul Kültür Üniversi-tesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Robinson, S. L. ve Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555−572.
• Robinson, S.L. ve Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees Behaving Badly: Dimensions, Determinants, And Dilemmas In The Study Of Workplace Deviance. In Rousseau, D.M. ve Cooper, C. (eds), Trends in Organizational Behavior, New York: Wiley, 5,1±30.
• Rogers, K. A. ve Kelloway, E. K. (1997). Violence at work: personal and organizational outcomes. Journal Of Occupational Health Psychology, 2(1), 63.
• Sackett, P. R. ve DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil ve C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook Of İndustrial, Work, And Organizational Psychology. London: Sage, 145–164.
• Skarlicki, Daniel P. ve Folger, Robert (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, Journal Of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434.
• Spector ve diğ. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?, Journal of Vocational Behavior. Spector, P. E. ve Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investi-gations of Actors and Targets, 151–174, Washington, DC: American Psychological As-sociation.
• Yalap, O. (2016). Çalışanların Örgütsel Adalet Algılamalarının Örgütsel Sapma Davranışları Üzerinde Etkisi: Tekstil Sektöründe Bir Araştırma.Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Tokat.