COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR IN AIR TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATIONS: A STUDY ON AIRLINE CABIN SERVICES

Yıl 2017, , 407 - 424, 01.04.2017

K. Gülnaz Bülbül Nalan Ergün

https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.2017228691

Cited By: 3

Öz

The primary objective of this study is to identify the dimensions of CWB perceived by cabin crew, while the secondary objective is to determine the relationship between the perception of these dimensions and demographics. A research was conducted with the data gathered from 152 cabin crew in a mid-sized airline company via survey. As a result of the study, six dimensions, namely, Unsafe Behavior, Violating Service Standards and Rules, Violence against Other Crew Members, Misuse of Time and Resources, Property Misuse, and Violence Against Passengers were identified and analyzed. Non-parametric tests showed that ‘Violating Service Standards and Rules’ dimension relates with demographics the strongest

Anahtar Kelimeler

Organizational Behavior, Counterproductive Work Behavior, Airline, Cabin Services, Cabin Crew

COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR IN AIR TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATIONS: A STUDY ON AIRLINE CABIN SERVICES

Öz

The primary objective of this study is to identify the dimensions of CWB perceived by cabin crew, while the secondary objective is to determine the relationship between the perception of these dimensions and demographics. A research was conducted with the data gathered from 152 cabin crew in a mid-sized airline company via survey. As a result of the study, six dimensions, namely, Unsafe Behavior, Violating Service Standards and Rules, Violence against Other Crew Members, Misuse of Time and Resources, Property Misuse, and Violence Against Passengers were identified and analyzed. Non-parametric tests showed that ‘Violating Service Standards and Rules’ dimension relates with demographics the strongest.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Örgütsel Davranış, Üretkenlik Karşıtı Davranışlar, Havayolu, Kabin Hizmetleri, Kabin Ekibi

Kaynakça

• Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Agressive Behavior, 161-173.
• Baumeister, R.F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K.L. (1998). Freudian defense mechanisms and empirical findings in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection, undoing, isolation, sublimation and denial. Journal of Personality, 66, 1081-1124.
• Chalus, A. D. (1978). The mechanisms underlying attributive projection. Journal of Personality, 46 (2), 362-382.
• Ergün, N. (2008). Kabin memurlarının kabin içi düşük hava kalitesi nedeniyle karşı karşıya kaldıkları sorunları. Kayseri VII. Havacılık Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, Kayseri, 120-122.
• Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behaviors in organizations. London: Sage Publications.
• Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 89, 985- 1003.
• Griffn, R. W., Anne, A. O.-K., & Collins, J. (2002). Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36-50.
• Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behaviour. International Journal of Selection and Assesment, 30-42.
• Hackett, R. D. (1990). Age, tenure, and employee absenteeism. Human Relations, 43(7), 601- 619.
• Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
• Lau, V. C., Au, W. T., & Ho, J. M. (2003). A qualitative and quantitative review of antecendents of counterproductive behaviour in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 73-90.
• Mangione., T. W., & Quinn, R. P. (1975). Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and drug use at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 114-116.
• Marcus, B. (2002). Measuring counterproductivity: Development and initial validation of a German self-report questionnaire. International Journal Of Selection and Assesment, 18-35.
• Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assesment, 36-50.
• Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organization level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 963-974.
• Robinso, S. L., & Bennet, R. J. (1995). Typology of deviant workplace behaviours: A multidimensional scaling study. The Academy of Managment Journal, 555-572.
• Rogojan, P. T. (2009). Deviant workplace behavior in organizations: Antecedents, influences, and remedies. Magister der Sozial und Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Universitat Wien.
• Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2005). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In. N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, C. Viswesvaran (eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work andOrganizational Psychology (pp. 145-164). London: Sage Publications.
• Salgado, J. F., & Rumbo, A. (1997). Personality and job performence in financial services managers. International Journal Of Selection and Assesment, 91-100.
• Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior (CWB): An integration of perspectives. Human Resource Management Review, 342- 352.
• Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 446-460.