1. Introduction

Human resource play significant role in the success or failure of any organization and how to manage this resource of an organization is the question of which human resource department continuously strive to find an answer. Human resource management seems to be the easiest part of the story but quit contrary to the notion it is likewise complicated task as other department of organizations has. Some time it become formidable challenge for managers to deal with employees problems and comes to the solution due to diverse sort of employees’ behavior managers faced at work place. Employees elicit different behaviors at work place i.e. form organizational citizenship behavior to deviant and anti-social behaviors. All such behavior didn’t come in isolation, these are accompanied by many factors including both organizational and individual ^[1]. The point is why to study these actions? The answer is that these actions, deeds and behaviors made intentionally or unintentionally by employees affect largely to the organizational performance ^[2]. Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is a form of employee performance behaviour which is affected by many factors either in positive or negative end of the spectrum such as job-satisfaction, organizational justice and job-strain ^{[3, 4]}.

On the contrary Deviant behaviors elicit by the employees can be define as one’s actions made intentionally to violate the organizational norms & customs which affects or threatens the welfare of organization, its associates or both. Employees do such a voluntary deviance acts due to reason that he/she is deprived of the motivational aspect to meet certain normative expectations of the society or he/she is actually enthused to contravene required expectations ^[5]. Workplace deviance is found to be positive associated to performance of business unit, however its influence on business unit performance is more than that OCB ^[6]. It is found to be positively related to reduction in corporate strategies, and is moderated by distributive justice, interactional justice and organizational citizenship behaviour ^[7]. Researchers are striving to find solution to minimize negative behavior at work place and reinforce positive one. This cram revolves around the said context i.e. ascertaining the factors that exhibit impact on the workplace deviance. Though lots of research has been carried out regarding this issue but still this is a conflicting concern in Pakistan and the concept to value employees and dealing with their problems is on the initial ladder ^[8].

Massive study regarding work place behavior i.e. organizational citizenship behaviors and deviant behaviors has been conducted with relation to either person-job fit or person-organization fit. In this study all these four variables has been taken together to find association b/w them and the role of empowerment, operationalized in self-competence & self-determination, as moderating variable has been be taken under study as illustrated in Figure 1. Moreover little evidence has been found regarding this concern in Pakistan. This study explores the stated problem in Pakistani context.

More specifically the objective of the study is:

•  To study the relationship of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and deviant behaviour (DB) with that of person-organization fit (PO fit) and person-job fit (PJ fit) with empowerment as moderator (see Figure 1).

•  To depict the scope of connection present among organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and deviant behaviour (DB) with that of person-organization fit (PO fit) and person-job fit (PJ fit) with empowerment as moderator (see Figure 1) in diverse Pakistani organizations and its implication.

•  To aid organizations in providing solutions to tackle with the behavioural issues of employees and confronting with the problems.

Figure 1. Role of PO fit, PJ fit & Empowerment in Workplace Behaviour

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Figures index

Veiw figure

View current figure in a new window

View next figure

In this study two types of behaviours are taken under study i.e. organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and deviant behaviour and two factors have been taken to affecting work place behaviour i.e. person-organization fit (PO fit) and person-job fit (PJ fit) where moderating role of empowerment b/w PO fit & OCB and PJ fit & OCB has also taken in to account. The performance and the productivity level of the organization have significantly found higher in the literature whose employees elicit OCB. On the contrary organization’s whose employees show deviant behaviours contribute largely towards bad performance and good will of the companies.

The study deals with the following research queries:

1. What is the relationship between person-organization fit and organizational citizenship behavior?

2. What is the relationship between person-organization fit and deviant behavior?

3. What is the relationship between person-job fit and organizational citizenship behavior

4. What is the relationship between person-job fit and deviant behavior?

5. Does empowerment moderate relationship b/w person-organization fit and organizational citizenship behavior?

6. Does empowerment moderate relationship b/w person-job fit and organizational citizenship behavior?

2. Literature Review

On the positive end of the spectrum in workplace behaviour is organizational citizenship behaviour. It has many determinants where job satisfaction is one of them. From 220 executives of Iran, Canada and turkey responses were taken concluding the fact that job satisfaction influence to the large extent to OCB ^[4]. Where OCB is a form of employee performance behaviour, a research conduct on 640 Australian police officers, which is very much influenced by job strain & organizational justice ^[3]. In the negative end of spectrum in workplace behaviour called workplace deviance, is found to be positive associated to performance of business unit, however its influence on business unit performance is more than that OCB ^[6]. It is found to be positively related to reduction in corporate strategies due to some particular personality traits and is moderated by distributive justice, interactional justice and organizational citizenship behaviour ^[7].

PO fit largely influence OCB where sometime it leads to OCB or else simply positively related to it ^{[9, 10, 11]}. Behaviour of employees at workplace is largely determined by their attitudes at work where CB directed at organization is linked with PO fit and this relationship is mediated by anomic feelings of employees. This was illustrated by 198 employees of Spanish Social Security of the provincial agency ^[9]. PO fit gives an indication and direction to employees to further examine the ethics and customs that aid in calculating the alteration coming among both among individual and in the organization. This fit can be enhanced if organizations started to socialize their employees and train them other than their own particular job. By encouraging job rotation organization can minimize the mis-fit of person with respect to their organization ^[12].

PO fit also serves as the antecedent of OCB directed at co-workers and students or clients when tested from the high school teachers of Spain where work alienation mediated the relationship of these variables. Actions must be devised to encourage PO fit for efficiently managing work alienation of employees so that they internalize powerfully OCB on the work place ^[10]. Moreover PO fit found to be positively related with commitment and job satisfaction from the data taken by 489 members of Nation Purchasing Association USA. Here moral intensity was found to toughen relationship b/w PO fit and commitment ^[11]. On the basis of above literature it is hypothesized that:

H1: Person-Organization fit (PO fit) is positively related to Organization citizen ship behaviour (OCB)

Person-Job fit is an important element that played a significant role during hiring of employees and forming a psychological contract among them. Moreover it is relatively more important than PO fit in hiring human capital and for the formation of psychological contract ^[13]. PJ fit is very much influenced positively by having sufficient computer knowledge and this PJ fit in results give better and effective performance of employees ^[14]. PJ fit is an undeniable factor related to OCB i.e. by enhancing PJ fit one can ensure the elevation in OCB among employees and hence their overall performance, the more an employee will have job involvement the more he/she will elicit OCB ^{[15, 16, 17, 18]}. 116 Information System workers in Malaysia were tested where job-involvement among them was found to be positively correlated with OCB directed to co-workers. The more a person will involve in the job, more he/she will share information among his/her co-workers ^[18]. On the basis of above literature it is hypothesized that:

H2: Person-Job fit (PJ) is positively related to Organization citizen ship behaviour (OCB)

If person’s ethical values match with that of the organization then it prevents it from illustrating DB else one can be given ethical education to prevent from having DB at workplace. To avoid such behaviour at workplace organizations can develop such a surroundings having top-down focus, a mission declaration linking every person in the company and put into practice ethical training agenda ^[19]. Ethical ideology is proved to be negatively correlated with that of workplace deviance. In other words higher the ethical ideology will be lower deviance will be found in work place ^[20]. Also organizational climate effects largely on the misbehaviour conduct of employees in the organization. Climate such as warmth, support and reward is negatively related to misbehaviour in the organization. The lower the quality of such climate in organization results in higher rate of misbehaviour among the employees. This was empirically tested among 97 supervisory and non-supervisory employees of Israeli metal production ^[21]. On the basis of above literature it is hypothesized that:

H3: Person-Organization fit (PO fit) is negatively related to Deviant behaviour (DB)

The counterproductive behaviours affect largely to the employee performance and such behaviours are very much contributed by the non-alignment of employee with the job ^{[7, 22]}. Employee job status is deemed to be considerably correlated to the perceived victimization at workplace but some research proved contrary to the stated argument. Workers of city government of Georgia were assessed randomly and an exploratory factor analysis was performed. Results indicate that job status didn’t influence perceived victimization at workplace. In fact employees having hostile behaviour alleged high altitude of unfair treatment than those who were little in these qualities ^[23]. The same concept goes with the anomic behaviour among employees. Employees of large retail chain of Australia were tested and regression equations were applied on the data being gathered. The results indicate the positive relationship of anomia of employees and the extent of deviant behaviour they illustrate. In other words higher the anomia among the employees higher the deviant behaviour they’ll illustrate towards both co-workers and organization ^[22].

These counterproductive behaviours contribute in the overall reduction of strategies. Such behaviours are affected largely by the person’s own characteristics and traits such as self esteem, internal locus of control and internal locus of control. Among this conscientiousness is the toughest forecaster of counterproductive behaviours among employees chased by agreeableness, self-esteem, extraversion, neuroticism &openness to know-how ^[7]. On the basis of above literature it is hypothesized that:

H4: Person-Job fit (PJ) is negatively related to Deviant behaviour (DB)

For the aim of enhancing productivity employees are given autonomy up to certain extent which is commonly termed as empowerment, sometime it involves some aspects of job-involvement and job enrichment ^[24]. On the rationale that empowerment can enhance the relationship between POF and OCB also of PJF and OCB hypothesis 5 and 6 are been made.

H5: Empowerment moderate the relationship b/w Person-Organization fit (PO fit) and Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)

H6: Empowerment moderate the relationship b/w Person-Job fit (PJ fit) and Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)

3. Methodology and Theoretical Model

In this study two types of behaviours are under study i.e. OCB and DB and two factors have been taken to affecting work place behaviour i.e. PO fit and PJ fit where moderating role of empowerment b/w PO fit and OCB has also taken in to account. Empowerment is also taken as moderation between PJ fit and empowerment OCB. Following is the conceptual model showing the stated relationships.

In the given conceptual model two independent variables has been taken i.e. person-organization fit (PO fit) and person-job fit (PO fit). PO ft is operationalized in “values, ethics, goals and objectives” where 4 elements have been taken ^[25]. PJ fit has determined by “ability to perform a job” and measured by 4 elements ^[26]. Moreover two dependent variables i.e. organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and deviant behaviours (DB) has been taken in this model where OCB is determined by two dimensions ^[27] i.e. OCB towards individual (OCBI) and OCB towards organization(OCBO). Both OCBI and OCBO have been measured by 3 elements each. Deviant behaviours are also determined into 2 dimensions ^[28] i.e. interpersonal deviance item and organizational deviance items where both of them are measured by 3 elements each. The moderating variable empowerment has been determined by two dimensions i.e. competence item and self-determination where both of these dimensions are measured by 3 elements each ^[29].

This study was conducted to explore association among PO fit and OCB, PO fit and DB, PJ fit and OCB, PJ fit and DB and the moderating role of empowerment in PO fit and OCB. The data included qualification of employees, age, experience, gender, organizations they were working for and their responses on 5-point likert scale on for PJ fit, OCB, DB and empowerment. PO fit was taken on 7 point likert scale which was coded into 5points after wards. The scales of PO fit is taken from ^[25] having Cronbach alpha 0.92 where as PJ fit instrument is taken from ^[26] with reliability test of 0.73 to 0.74. OCB measures, operationalized in OCB towards individuals and OCB towards organization, has been taken from ^[27] having reliability ranged from 0.61 to 0.88. Deviant behaviours was measured by the measures taken from ^[28]. It was operationalized in interpersonal and organization deviance items. Empowerment was measured by the measure developed by ^[29] operationalized in competence and self-determination items.

Data were gathered from employees themselves their immediate bosses and line managers. Sample of 380 was taken by estimating the population of telecom and banking sector both as approximately upto 100,000 ^[30]. 250 questionnaires were floated among telecom sector but the response rate was 210 and 130 was among banks and response rate were found to be 97. It took 4 weeks to gather the data. Convenient sampling was used where questionnaires were distributed among respondents directly as well as indirectly. Online mode was also used as some questionnaires were mailed to the organizations.

4. Data Analysis, Conclusion and Recommendations

For data analysis, reliability statistics, descriptive statistics, correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis are used. Following equations are used to verify the stated hypothesis.

Equation1: OCB = α + β₁ (POF) + β₂ (PJF) + ε

Equation2: D.B = α - β₃ (POF) - β₄ (PJF) + ε

Equation3: OCB = α + β₅ (POF) + β₆ (PJF) + β₇ (E.POF) + β₈ (E.PJF) + ε

From the sample of 307 the reliability of each question was founded between 0.6 and 0.9 (See Table 1 in appendix). For Organizational Citizenship behaviour i.e. OCB it was 0.657 which is similar to the reliability statistic of Anderson (1991) 0.61 to 0.88. Deviant behaviour’s reliability was found to be 0.697 which is close to 0.7 and showing a satisfactory reliability. Person organization fit i.e. PO fit (POF) was found to be 0.866 whereas of Person job fit (PJF) it was 0.772. Reliability statistic of PJF is close to the reliability statistic of ^[26] i.e. 0.73 to 0.74. The reliability of combine question’s of 26 items were founded as 0.874 which deemed to be strong as it is greater than 0.7. The reliability of model founded to be 0.706. The actual responses of OCB and DB are slightly deviated from the required responses as illustrated from the reliability statistics which is less than 0.7 whereas the collective reliability analysis of 26 items reflect the strong reliability i.e. 0.874 and required responses. Moreover 0.706 reliability of model illustrate that all the taken responses revolved around our research area i.e. OCB and DB and the average responses lie under our scope of research where the deviation of the actual responses is very low.

The mean response of OCB was found to be lie around 4.041, between agree to strongly agree (See Table 2 in appendix). The minimum responses (1.17) were between strongly disagree to disagree and the maximum response went up to strongly agree (5.00) on likert scale. The variance in response was 0.326 which is observed minimum in the table as compared to other variables. Mean response of deviant behaviours (DB) were found to lay around 1.6695, on the lower end of the likert scale. Its minimum responses lay on the extreme lower end (1.00) and the maximum responses on the extreme upper end (5.00). The variance in the responses was founded as 0.337. In the descriptive statistics of person organization fit or PO fit (POF) the mean of the responses founded to revolve around 3.5071, where the minimum responses were lying between very poor fit and poor fit (1.07) and the maximum response was on the upper extreme end (5.00). The variance in the responses found to be greatest i.e. 0.923. The mean of response of person job fit i.e. PJ fit (PJF) was found to be highest as compared to other variables i.e. 4.2011 where the minimum and the maximum responses are on the extreme end like deviant behaviours. The variance in response was found to be 0.473. The variances in the responses were found maximum in PO fit 0.923 followed by PJF 0.473, DB 0.337 and OCB 0.326.

The correlation of the dependent variables i.e. OCB and DB founded as insignificant 0.061 (See Table 3 in appendix). The correlation of OCB with two independent variables PO fit (POF), PJ fit (PJF) and moderating variable empowerment (E.POF & E.PJF) has been founded as significant. Weak correlation of 0.453 has been observed between OCB and POF, similarly between OCB and PJF (0.454). Again weak correlation (0.497) of moderating variable empowerment between POF and OCB (E.POF) has been found. Moderate correlation is also found in the moderation of empowerment between OCB and PJF i.e. 0.547. The correlation of deviant behaviour DB with that of PJF and POF founded to be very weak values 0.029 and 0.200 respectively. Thus very weak correlations (0.029) have found between DB and PJF, DB and POF (0.200) but are significant with only POF and insignificant with PJF.

In the model summary of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) the adjusted R² founded to be 0.269 or we can say that the goodness of fit of this model is only 26.9% (See Table 4 in appendix). It means that independent variable PO fit and PJ fit explains only 26.9% of OCB. The rest of is explained by other variables or factors which is not taken under the scope of this study. ANOVA for OCB represents the significant in the model with F = 57.430. Standard Coefficient beta for POF and PJF founded as 0.301 and 0.304 respectively with both having significant values. It is represented as

Equation4: OCB = α + 0.301 (POF) + 0.304 (PJF) + ε

The results came consistent with hypothesis (see on page 10) and with Equation1 as showing positive relation of POF and PJF with that of OCB. In other words with one unit of increase in POF results in increase in OCB with rate of 0.301 or one unit rise in POF results in 30.1% increase in OCB. Similarly one unit rise in POF results in elevation of OCB with rate of 0.304 or 30.4%. The Beta of both variables came statistically significant leading towards supporting H1 and H2.

Figure 2. Hypothetical Model of relationship b/w POF, PJF and OCB

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Figures index

Veiw figure

View current figure in a new window

View previous figure

View next figure

In the model summary of deviant behaviour (DB) the adjusted R² founded to be 0.040 or we can say that the goodness of fit of this model is only 4.0%which is very low. It means that independent variable PO fit and PJ fit explains only 4.0% of DB. The rest of is explained by other variables or factors which is not taken under the scope of this study. ANOVA for DB represents the statistically significant value of the model with F = 7.427. Standard Coefficient beta for POF and PJF founded as 0.247 and -0.094. It is represented as

Equation5: DB = α + 0.247 (POF) - 0.094 (PJF) + ε

Results came inconsistent with H3, H4 and with Equation2. It is showing positive relation of POF but the value is showing significance of 0.000 leading towards an argument of disconfirming the research hypothesis. It means that rejection of null hypothesis doesn’t means acceptance of an alternative one. There are might be other theories supporting the given results in the present situation which is not taken under the scope of this study. Similarly the negative beta coefficient of PJF seems apparently consistent with H4 but came insignificant resulting in hypothesis unsupported. The theoretical based null hypothesis can’t be rejected but neither is it deemed true due to absence of enough evidence that can support null hypothesis.

Figure 3. Hypothetical Model of relationship b/w POF, PJF and DB

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Figures index

Veiw figure

View current figure in a new window

View previous figure

View next figure

In the model summary of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) where empowerment is taken as moderator for POF and PJF the adjusted R² founded to be 0.313 or we can say that the goodness of fit of this model is 31.3% which is very low. It means that independent variable PO fit and PJ fit with their moderations E.POF & E.PJF explains only 31.3% of OCB. The rest of is explained by other variables or factors which is not taken under the scope of this study. ANOVA of this model represents the statistically significant value with F = 35.871. Standard Coefficient beta for POF, PJF, E.POF, and E.PJF are as follows:

Equation6: OCB = α + 0.326 (POF) - 0.245 (PJF) - 0.257 (E.POF) + 0.756 (E.PJF) + ε

Results came inconsistent with H5 and with Equation3. It is showing positive relation of POF but the value is insignificant leading towards a notion that hypothesis is unsupported. Here only empowerment as moderator b/w PJF and OCB are giving required and significant results.

Figure 4. Hypothetical Model of relationship b/w POF, PJF, Empowerment and OCB

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Figures index

Veiw figure

View current figure in a new window

View previous figure

In descriptive statistics the variance of PO fit (0.923) is found greatest which is followed by PJ fit (0.473), DB (0.337) and OCB (0.326) respectively. The responses of PO fit are found to vary maximum giving a notion that responses of all respondents don’t lay around one particular concept. In correlation table OCB found to be significantly but weakly correlated with POF, PJF and E.POF. It has moderate relation with E.PJF. Only the correlation of OCB with DB if found to be insignificant. Moreover POF and PJF is found to be explaining OCB by only 26.9% showing the low goodness of fit but H1 and H2 has been supported with highly significant results illustrated by Equation4. POF and PJF explain only 4% of DB with controversial results as well. H3 has not been supported or disconfirm but the alternative one cannot also be accepted. The relationship exists between variables which can be supported by different other theories which is not taken under the scope of this study. Moreover H4 is not rejected but we cannot also accept this, illustrated by Equation5, due to lack of enough evidence to support the null hypothesis H4. Thus we conclude that the hypothesis is unsupported by the data. Similarly the H5 has been rejected due to insignificant moderation and negative direction but H6 has been accepted due to significant moderation and positive effect on PJF and OCB. Contrary to the apparent picture it is also found that by giving empowerment to the individual the relationship of PJF and OCB became negative.

In this study factors affecting workplace behaviour (only OCB and DB has taken in study) and nature of the relationship between them has been explored. Five variables were taken in this study where two were independent variables POF, PJF; two were dependent variables OCB, DB and one moderating variable empowerment was taken. The moderation was taken between PO fit and OCB also between PJ fit and OCB. Positive relationship of OCB was hypothesised with PO fit (H1) and PJ fit (H2) on the basis of literature. Conversely negative relationship of DB was hypothesised with PO fit (H3) and PJ fit (H4). Moderation of empowerment between PO-fit & OCB (H5) has been taken. Similarly the same moderation is also hypothesised for PJ-fit and OCB (H6). To test the states hypothesis sample of 380 was taken from service sector particularly from telecommunication and banking sector through convenient sampling. The responses were taken on 5-likert scale to 7-likert from adapted scales in the time frame of almost 4 weeks with 80.78% response rate. The total overview can be seen in Table 5 in appendix.

Results supported the H1, H2, illustrated by Equation4, and remain consistent with literature by eliciting positive relationship of PO fit & OCB ^{[9, 10, 11]} and PJ-fit & OCB ^{[15, 16, 17, 18]}. With significant results and positive relationship of PO-fit and PJ fit with that of OCB it is clearly explained that with the increase in the organizational and job-fit, citizenship behaviours of individuals also elevate. But weak correlation of both variables illustrates weak influence on OCB. Moreover PJ-fit, though slightly, illustrate more influence on OCB than that of PO-fit which is consistent with the literature ^[16]. Both of the independent variables PO-fit and PJ-fit explains little of OCB which might be due to the nature of organizations under study. The large percentage of OCB among individual in these organizations might be influenced by many other factors which is not taken under the scope of this study. It is also another possibility that citizenshipbehaviours in such an these organizations are influenced by the recognition, pay and promotion policies, which is not taken under the scope of this study, rather that organization and job-fit.

Results are disconfirmed for H3 due to the rejection of null hypothesis but significant results came. Positive relationship is been observed between DB and PO-fit ( see Equation5) but having high significance level illustrates the rise in DB with increase in PO-fit. This controversial result came inconsistent with literature. This result could explain by other psychological or social theories which are not taken under the scope of this study and should must explore in further studies. For H4 results again remain unsupported and inconsistent with the literature. Apparently it supported H4 by having negative relation between PJ fit and DB (see Equation5) but results remain insignificant leading towards a notion that though we cant reject our null hypothesis but neither can accpet it due to lack of enough evidence to support the stated hypothesis. Moreover PO-fit and PJ-fit explain negligibly of DB. This might be due to the fact that DB is very much influenced by other factor such as organizational politics, role ambiguity, work family or family work conflict which are not taken under the scope of study and should explore in future studies. Testing H5 also leads towards rejection of null hypothesis or we can say that results doesn’t support the stated null hypthesis. Empowerment will not serve as moderation between PO-fit and OCB but results supported H6 results in an argument that empowerment act as moderator between PJ-fit and OCB. In other words we can say that empowerment stenghthen the relationship of PJ-fit and OCB.

This study almost achieved its stated objectives by recognizing the relationship of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and deviant behaviour (DB) with that of person-organization fit (PO-fit) and person-job fit (PJ-fit). Also the role of empowerment as moderating variable has also been explored in this study. The study contributed new course in management sciences, more specifically in human resource management, by opening up a debate on the significance of workplace behaviours in the organizational performance. The piece of information indicates that PO-fit and PJ-fit is positively correlated with OCB. With DB PO-fit and PJ-fit has disconfirmed and unsupported results respectively. Moreover empowerment can be moderator only between PJ-fit and OCB, not between PO-fit and OCB. The findings suggest that management must be focused on giving their employees proper working conditions and explore the ways so to enhance the organizational and job-fit among individuals. But in doing so they should focus a bit more on job-fit due to its greater influence on OCB than organizational-fit. The more an individual deemed to fit in with the job, the more he/she will develop psychological contract with their organization. Moreover managers must investigate and explore more antecedents of OCB to enhance such psychological contract and ultimately to enhance the organizational performance.

Findings also give direction to the managers and researchers to study deviant behaviours of employees by exploring more factors other than PO-fit and PJ-fit due to their negligible influence on DB. But such behaviours should not be ignored because they might influence largely to organizational performance. Moreover managers must consider the concept of empowering employees to enhance the job-fit due to the reason that with rise in job-fit OCB also increases and this relationship is strengthen by empowering the employees.

There are certain limitation of this study which should be kept in mind while general application. Following are those limitations:

•  This sample size is not enough to generalize the application of study in service sector of Pakistan regarding the association of OCB and DB with that of PO-fit, PJ-fit and empowerment.

•  The data collection method used in our study is very common i.e. questionnaire which ignore lots of other empirical evidence. There are also other methods which could have been utilized for this research study like group discussions/discussion forum etc.

•  Due to financial and time constraint, detail study on the topic is unable to be conducted which might could give more generalize and accurate result.

References

[1]	Kelloway. E. Kevin, Lori Francis, Matthew Prosser, James E. (2010) “Counterproductive work behavior as protest” Human Resource Management Review 20: 18-25.
	In article
[2]	Patrick D. Dunlop1, Kibeom Lee. (2004) “Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole barrel” Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 67-80.
	In article		CrossRef
[3]	Nobleta, A., S. Maharee-Lawlera, J. Rodwell (2012). "Using job strain and organizational justice models to predict multiple forms of employee performance behaviours among Australian policing personnel." The International Journal of Human Resource Management: 1-18.
	In article
[4]	Kabasakal, H., Dastmalchian.A, Imer. P., (2011). "Organizational citizenship behaviour: a study of young executives in Canada, Iran, and Turkey." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22(13): 2703-2729.
	In article		CrossRef
[5]	Kaplan, H. B. (1975). "Self-attitudes and deviant behavior." Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
	In article
[6]	D.Dunlop, P. and K. Lee (2004). "Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole barrel." Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 67-80.
	In article		CrossRef
[7]	Changa, K. and C. Smithikrai (2010). "Counterproductive behaviour at work: an investigation into reduction strategies." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21(8): 1272-1288.
	In article		CrossRef
[8]	Misbah Nasir, Ambreen Bashir. (2012) "Examining workplace deviance in public sector organizations of Pakistan" International Journal of Social Economics 39 (4): 240-253.
	In article		CrossRef
[9]	Lara, P. Z.-M. d. (2008). "Should faith and hope be included in the employees’ agenda? Linking P-O fit and citizenship behavior." Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(1): 73-88.
	In article		CrossRef
[10]	Suárez-Mendoza, M. J. and P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara. (2008). "The impact of work alienation on organizational citizenship behavior in the Canary Islands." International Journal of Organizational Analysis 15(1): 56-76.
	In article		CrossRef
[11]	Andrews, M. C., Baker, T., Hunt,T.G. (2011). "Values and person-organization fit: Does moral intensity strengthen outcomes?" Leadership & Organization Development Journal 32(1): 5-1.
	In article		CrossRef
[12]	Chatman, J. A. (1989). "Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of Person-Organization Fit." The Academy of Management Review 14(3): 333-349.
	In article
[13]	Sekiguchi, T. (2007). "A contingency perspective of the importance of PJ fit and PO fit in employee selection." Journal of Managerial Psychology 22(2): 118-131.
	In article		CrossRef
[14]	Li, C.-K. and C.-H. Hung (2010). "An examination of the mediating role of person-job fit in relations between information literacy and work outcomes." Journal of Workplace Learning 22(5): 306-318.
	In article		CrossRef
[15]	Dimitriades, Z. S. (2007). "The influence of service climate and job involvement on customer-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in Greek service organizations: a survey." Employee Relations 29(5): 469-491.
	In article		CrossRef
[16]	Sekiguchi, T. (2007). "A contingency perspective of the importance of PJ fit and PO fit in employee selection." Journal of Managerial Psychology 22(2): 118-131.
	In article		CrossRef
[17]	Behery, M. H. (2009). "Person/organization job-fitting and affective commitment to the organization: Perspectives from the UAE." Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 16(2): 179-196.
	In article		CrossRef
[18]	Teh, P.-L. and H. Sun (2012). "Knowledge sharing, job attitudes and organisational citizenship behaviour." Industrial Management & Data Systems 112(1): 64-82.
	In article		CrossRef
[19]	Gross-Schaefer, Jeff Trigilio, Jamie Negus and Ceng-Si Ro. (2000). "Ethics Education in the Workplace: An Effective Tool to Combat Employee Theft." Journal of Business Ethics 26(2): 89-100.
	In article		CrossRef
[20]	Christine A. Henle, Robert A. Giacalone and Carole L. Jurkiewicz. (2005). "The Role of Ethical Ideology in Workplace Deviance." Journal of Business Ethics 56(3): 219-230.
	In article		CrossRef
[21]	Vardi and Yoav (2001). "The Effects of Organizational and Ethical Climates on Misconduct at Work." Journal of Business Ethics 29(4): 325-337.
	In article		CrossRef
[22]	Caruana, A., B. Ramaseshan, Michael T. Ewing. (2001). "Anomia and deviant behaviour in marketing: some preliminary evidence." Journal of Managerial Psychology 16(5): 322-338.
	In article		CrossRef
[23]	Aquino, K. and M. Bradfield (2000). "Perceived Victimization in the Workplace: The Role of Situational Factors and Victim." Organization Science 11(5): 525-537.
	In article		CrossRef
[24]	Smith, B. (1997). "Empowerment - the challenge is now." Empowerment in Organizations 5(3): 120-122.
	In article		CrossRef
[25]	Lovelace, K. and B. Rosen (1996). "Differences in Achieving Person-Organization Fit among Diverse Groups of Managers." Journal of Management 22(5): 703-722.
	In article		CrossRef
[26]	Xie, J. L. (1996). "Karasek's Model in the People's Republic of China: Effects of Job Demands, Control, and Individual Differences." The Academy of Management Journal 39(6): 1594-1618.
	In article		CrossRef
[27]	Williams, L. J. and S. E. Anderson (1991). "Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors." Journal of Management 17(3): 601-617.
	In article		CrossRef
[28]	Karl Aquino, Margaret U. Lewis, Murray Bradfield (1999). "Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: a proposed model and empirical test." Journal of Organizational Behavior 20(7): 1073-1091.
	In article		CrossRef
[29]	Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). "Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation." The Academy of Management Journal 38(5): 1442-1465.
	In article		CrossRef
[30]	Sekaran Uma & Bougie Roger (2010). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, 5th Edition.
	In article

Appendix

Table 1. Reliability Statistics details

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View next table

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View previous table

View next table

Table 3. Correlations

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View previous table

View next table

Table 4. Regression Analysis

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View previous table

View next table

Table 5. Hypothesis results

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View previous table