Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Deviant workplace behavior violates organizational standards and has the potential to hurt either the entire organization or specific members of the organization. It is a serious and present problem in the workplace. Workplace culture have been linked to deviant workplace behavior however, there has been a scarcity of research and reviews on the impact of workplace culture on deviant workplace behavior. Scopus, Sage, MEDLINE and Web of Science Journals were used to look for terms relating to workplace culture (workplace culture, organizational culture) as well as terms related to deviant workplace behavior (deviant behavior, deviances). Original research, samples, or gendered employee subsamples were considered for this evaluation of workplace culture that have an impact on deviant workplace behavior, and the research must be completed in English. This evaluation has 19 publications that passed the eligibility criteria. This review’s results showed that deviant workplace behavior is significantly influenced by workplace culture with different interpretation of culture and measurement used. These findings are explored in light of existing gaps in the literature and fresh research opportunities.

Plain Language Summary

A systematic literature review on Impact of Workplace Culture on Deviant Workplace Behaviour. Using PRISMA method, 19 publications that passed the eligibility criteria regarding the impact of workplace culture on deviant workplace behaviour has been selected from Scopus, Sage, MEDLINE and Web of Science Journals dated from 2012 to 2022. Original research, samples, or gendered employee subsamples were considered for this evaluation of workplace culture that have an impact on deviant workplace behaviour, and the research must be completed in English. This review's results showed that deviant workplace behaviour is significantly influenced by workplace culture with different interpretation of culture and measurement used. This study has the potential to make a contribution to the body of research that focuses on workplace culture as a possible instigator of employee deviant behaviour in the workplace. The gathering of data on workplace culture and its effect on deviances will be beneficial to both public and private sector organisations because it has been established that workplace culture plays a vital role in preventing the manifestation of deviant workplace behaviour. Future studies could afford to explore other criteria to expand the sample size for systematic review to attain a larger sample in order to advance research on the effect of workplace culture on deviant workplace behaviour.

Keywords

behavioral sciences humanities social sciences social anthropology anthropology organizational communication human communication communication studies communication criminology

Introduction

A straightforward explanation of workplace culture is “how things are done around here” (Drennan, 1992). The term “workplace culture” refers to the shared values, opinions, or perspectives held by employees within a company or organizational unit (Robbins & Coulter, 2018). Culture is best defined as a set of psychological predispositions, known as basic assumptions, maintained by members of an organization that impact how the members behave (Schein, 1985a). Trevino (1986) in her study on ethical decision making in organizations, stated that environmental and organizational factors have been shown to influence employee behaviors and attitudes. Workplace culture can be a set of written or unwritten rules that must be adhered to by all employees to be accepted in the organization. These organizational norms, or those established by formal and informal organizational policies, rules, and procedures; are defined by social groupings rather than by a set of absolute moral standards. Thus, certain workplace cultures can be construed as an act of deviance and impact an employee’s morale conscience.

A group’s morale is described as a psychological state that all of its members share and consists of feelings of pleasure with the circumstances affecting the group (Wood et al., 2012). It is common knowledge that low morale in the workplace leads to burnout, which in turn can have severe repercussions on an employee’s mental health and overall welfare (Milner et al., 2016; Teo et al., 2021). It is safe to say that workplace culture which is an organizational factor, can affect an employee’s morale and lead to deviances. Sabitova et al. (2020) discovered that a supportive working atmosphere, collaborative teams, and fair, honest, and transparent processes were all positively connected with job morale in a study of healthcare employees. In addition, it has been discovered that working in a learning culture improves clinical services and that assisting clinicians in their work boosts morale and increases worker retention (Blanchard et al., 2020; Sabitova et al., 2020; Senge, 2006).

Generations of sociologists (Blake & Davis, 1964; Etzioni, 1988; Parsons, 1937; Scott, 1971) beginning with Durkheim (1895, 1903), have argued that moral norms and laws are essential to social organization because they prevent individuals from engaging in deviant behavior and promote social solidarity and cooperation among members of society. Morality has been demonstrated to be a strong independent predictor of criminal probabilities and misbehavior, with a strength that appears to outperform self-control as a predictor of criminal probabilities and misbehavior, requiring greater attention as a potent variable in understanding misconduct (Antonaccio & Tittle, 2008).

A prominent white-collar crime theory holds that organizations have diverse cultures that allow legal transgressions for the sake of the company (Apel & Paternoster, 2009). Employees must learn and adopt such culture just as any other organizational practices are learned. Workplace culture can be morally acceptable practices or morally controversial ones that benefits an organization. Some sectors have a system of values or cultural prohibitions that are “friendly to lawbreaking,” and criminal behavior flourishes within these industries and businesses regardless of the characteristics of those who work for them (E. Sutherland, 1983). Thus, E. Sutherland (1983) suggests that a deviant act can be committed regardless of one’s attributes and caused by the culture surrounding oneself.

E. H. Sutherland (1949) also stated that two empirical characteristics had to be accounted for regarding white-collar crimes: (1) workplace conduciveness to criminality; Certain industries appeared to be more conducive to crime over others and (2) engagement in law violations; Some corporations or organizations were more engaged in unlawful activities than others within specific industries. Deviant acts are produced because there is a culture within organization or within sections inside an organization that offer normative support for such illegal behavior as well as a framework of incentives to encourage compliance with such standards and as penalty for noncompliance. As such, it is suffice to say that deviant act may be due to organizational features such as workplace culture and organizational climate. Normative cultural characteristics of organizations is widely cited as a leading factor in encouraging deviant act along with corporate and white-collar criminal activity (Hawkins, 2002; Shover & Hochstetler, 2006).

The impact of workplace culture on deviant workplace behavior might also be framed via the lens of Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964). Social Exchange Theory states that workers and their employers have an interdependent relationship in which one party’s behavior effects the other. According to this idea, values, standards, and all other aspects of workplace culture are learned through earlier exchange experiences shared by individuals in the organization (di Stefano et al., 2019). Since exchange of norms normalizes guidelines for conduct around employers and employees, deviant workplace behavior can be construed to have been facilitated by social exchanges between employee and their organization (Liao et al., 2004).

The connection among both workplace culture and deviant behavior in the workplace can also be further explained by Social Information Processing theory. According to this notion, individual attitudes are created through the processing of information about socially relevant behaviors. As a process, individuals “adapt attitudes, behaviour, and beliefs to their social context and to the reality of their own past and present behaviour and situation” (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). This idea also indicates that employees look for cues in their work surroundings to characterize their working atmosphere and determine how to behave (Mayer et al., 2010). In other words, workplace culture provides signals and hints for employees regarding acceptable or unacceptable behaviors and behavioural appropriateness in the organizational setting. Workplace culture can also create peer pressure for new employees to conform to organizational norms, so as to be appreciated and accepted among employees and friends. Such tension may include performing deviant behavior, which violates the employee’s morality or beliefs (Zakaria et al., 2022).

Studies have suggested that two sets of variables correlate to deviant behaviors in the workplace: variables at the individual level and other variables at the situational or organizational level (Alias et al., 2013; Appelbaum et al., 2007; di Stefano et al., 2019). Psychopathy, inadequate self-control, and a challenging temperament are significant variables, according to research on the relationship between individual personality traits and criminality (Tharshini et al., 2021). Although research usually supports the major effects of various personality variables on organizational results, effect sizes for their function in predicting deviant workplace behavior are small in general, leaving a lot of variation unexplored (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). Based on this understanding, this study posits that organizational-related variables could be useful in improving the explanatory power of workplace misbehavior (di Stefano et al., 2019; Mount et al., 2006).

Researchers have also emphasized the significance of workplace culture in terms of affecting deviant workplace behavior (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005; Goldman et al., 2006; Vardi & Weitz, 2003). This study adopts other scholars’ assertion that workplace culture influences deviant organizational behaviors are clear (Boye & Jones, 1997; Goldman et al., 2006; Kidwell & Martin, 2005; O’Boyle et al., 2011). A more recent study done by di Stefano et al. (2019) noted that workplace culture seemed to influence deviant workplace behavior in the direction of both employees and the organization, which is consistent with the work of Hill and Jones (2001) who observed that shared values, norms, beliefs, and goals impact the dynamics of relationships within employees, between organizations and employees, and even between organizations and external stakeholders (di Stefano et al., 2019).

Furthermore, a study done by Mathieu (2021) found support for the relationship between an individual’s personality and work misbehavior. Specifically, Mathieu (2021) stated that people with negative personality qualities are more prone to conduct fraud, perpetuate leadership behavior that is abusive, engage in acts of harassment and bad manners, and exhibit inadequate quality of work. Our premise is that individuals with dark personality qualities appear to operate in an environment that provides them with freedom and access to resources, while retaining a minimal level of organizational structure and control in order to achieve their self-serving objectives. Such a work environment incorporates employee and management selection processes that are disorganized or politically motivated, has an absence of anti-fraud mechanisms, and has an organizational culture that tolerates negative interpersonal behavior.

The above findings are linked to what represents unethical and ethical work ethos. Based on Victor and Cullen (1987), the agreed viewpoints on what constitutes ethical behavior and how ethical concerns should be addressed inside the organization are referred to as the ethical climate of an organization. On the surface, the notion of organizational climate and its cultural equivalent are different, but from a practical standpoint, they overlap (Ng & Ng, 2014). The current literature is not unanimous on what organizational culture and climate are, or how these concepts should be operationally measured (Shim, 2014).

Nevertheless, it has been proposed that the ethical climate of an organization is not limited to employees’ ethical behavior, but also to a variety of behaviors, including behaviors that are detrimental for example tardiness, absenteeism, and lax performance (Wimbush & Shepard, 1994). Kagaari (2011) had earlier confirmed that organizational culture and climate have a moderating effect on performance management techniques and managed performance. It appears that the ethical climate of an organization will dictate workplace culture, and in turn have an effect on deviant behavior in a workplace. We are of the opinion that ethical climate of an organization which relates to workplace culture may be predictive of both ethical behavior in addition to the frequency of deviant workplace behaviors. This would seem to further provide support for the possibility that workplace culture may have an impact on deviant behavior in the workplace.

Every aspect of human life has changed after the global COVID-19 pandemic breakout in March 2020, and recent studies indicate that criminal and aggressive behavior may also have been impacted (Regalado et al., 2022). The temporary closure of establishments reduced the number of individuals in public settings, hence reducing opportunities for social interaction. This decrease in social interaction therefore affected people’s propensity to commit various deviant behaviors, such as physical altercations or DUI-related car accidents (Calderon-Anyosa & Kaufman, 2021; Gerell et al., 2020). Crime statistic comparisons for 2020 and 2021 showed a marked decrease in violent and property crime incidents. For example a 19.3% decrease for Malaysia (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2022).

Following the implementation of stringent lockdown measures during the initial wave of the pandemic, the Internet became the default mode of communication and continues to be a major platform for work, classes, consultations, shopping, and socializing (Regalado et al., 2022). Consequently, we have seen what is known as a “transition” from the physical to the digital world (Miró-Llinares & Moneva, 2019; Monteith et al., 2021; Plachkinova, 2021). Organizations’ reactions to this transition often lead to botched cultural change processes (Spicer, 2020).

However the disruption of the work culture presents researchers with a number of key opportunities. The most important set of questions is: How resilient are organizational cultures? What changed in these cultures? How do changes in the symbolic work affect organizational culture? Will there be big changes in the culture of the organization as a whole? What are the actual impact of these changes on culture? (Spicer, 2020). An additional group of inquiries could center on the ways in which alterations to organizational culture can have an effect on individuals, employees, and their behavior, as well as the ways in which it will influence deviations.

There are many interpretations of workplace deviance in academic literature. Most of them agree that workplace deviance is horrendous for organizations. Workplace deviance is defined as voluntary employee behaviors that violate organizational norms and having the ability to hurt either the organization as a whole or individuals inside it. This topic has sparked increased research interest (Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector et al., 2006). Robinson and Bennett (1995) in their study on typology of deviant workplace behaviors divide workplace deviances into four categories: Production Deviance, Property Deviance, Political Deviance and Personal Aggression. Deviances in the form of personal aggression is not only a type of deviant workplace behavior but it is also a criminogenic feature that is frequently linked to numerous violent crimes (Kamaluddin et al., 2016). Furthermore, physical well-being-threatening behaviors, such as fights and other physically aggressive involving peers, are strongly associated with bullying involvement (Sabramani et al., 2021).

Deviant behavior has negative consequences for people, groups, and organizations. Administrators and human resource managers must therefore describe the predictors of anomalous behaviors inside their organizations (Abbasi & Ismail, 2017). Examples of deviant workplace behaviors include fraud, acceptance of bribes, using one’s power to hurt others in organization, and endangering co-workers. Bennett and Marasi (2015) defend that workplace deviance is a worrying organizational behavior issue. Deviant workplace behaviors are a collection of distinct behaviors that harm or attempt to hurt organizations and their stakeholders. In government organizations, the stakeholder is the general populace.

Plenty of research have been conducted to determine the factors that influence deviant behavior at work (Abbasi et al., 2022; Aryati et al., 2018; Öztürk & Yüksel Poyraz, 2021; Peterson, 2002; Wang et al., 2022). To alleviate deviant behavior in organizations, it is vital to have a comprehensive awareness of the factors that influence an employee’s propensity of engaging in deviant behaviour (Öztürk & Yüksel Poyraz, 2021). When employees experience various sorts of deviance at work, they either reciprocate to co-workers or stray from it, and both action incur costs to the organization (Abbasi et al., 2022). These costs, together with cost associated with excessive breaks, squandered resources, sabotage, and other workplace deviance-related actions, show that workplace deviance is a substantial and critical problem that has to be forcefully handled (Spector & Fox, 2010).

The shortcomings, following an examination of previous evaluations discussing the impact of workplace culture on deviant workplace behavior, is glaring. There are few reviews addressing this relationship, and even fewer empirical research highlighting the importance of situational circumstances such as organizational climate perceptions, ethical climate, injustice perceptions and perceived organizational support. It appears that most empirical research has neglected this macro-level, contextual predictor in favor of more controllable antecedents such as organizational ethical climate or organizational justice (di Stefano et al., 2019). Therefore, to further understand the factors of workplace deviances, the effect of workplace culture on deviant behavior in the workplace merits a systematic and thorough investigation. The objective of the present systematic literature review is to provide a short and systematic evaluation of the research concerning the effects of workplace culture on deviant workplace behavior. It accomplishes this by maintaining explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as clarity regarding how the quality of the sampled studies was evaluated. In this sense, the results offer a useful synthesis of prior knowledge to guide future behavioural science research directions especially in a workplace environment. The inconsistent results of other studies will be clarified by this study, which examines several factors of workplace culture on deviant workplace behavior in an organization.

Materials and Methods

The PRSIMA flowchart was used to summarize the search process for this systematic review, which adheres to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The QUAROM guideline, which consists of a checklist and flowchart with 27 components, has been improved into PRISMA (Munusamy et al., 2022). The flow diagram outlines the selection, eligibility, screening, and inclusion standards for reports that fall under the purview of a review (Selçuk, 2019). Sierra-Correa and Cantera Kintz (2015) claim that PRISMA has three key benefits: the ability to define explicit research questions in order to do systematic highlights, the ability to use both inclusive and exclusive criteria, and the ability to quickly analyze a big database. PRISMA was used to identify earlier studies on the impact of workplace culture on deviant workplace behavior in this systematic review.

Regardless of the methodology chosen to do a literature review, whether systematic literature review or other (narrative), there are two essential characteristics that must be present in a good literature review: selection of information sources and gathering of data with sufficient quantity, quality, and dependability (Mangas-Vega et al., 2018). In order to carry out a literature review, it is necessary to pick quality publications based on the journals that are deemed to be of high quality (Wallace & Wray, 2016; Xia et al., 2018). Our search used the following four databases: Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and SAGE Journals. The fact that these databases provide coverage for a greater number of high-quality journals was a primary factor in our decision to use them.

Scientific databases, whether general or specialized, benefit from the support of major corporations or esteemed publishers who vouch for the accuracy and dependability of the data as well as the selection criteria (Mangas-Vega et al., 2018). However, in contrast to other fields, the vast majority of the scientific literature in the field of Humanities is dispersed across numerous sources of information; consequently, it is fraught with peril to restrict the searching of data to a single source, as is the case with some other investigations (Sivarajah et al., 2017). The use of these four databases from prestigious publishers will both guarantee the high standards of the journal and significantly increase its potential readership. The systematic review process consists of three parts. Identification is the first stage. Screening follows, and the inclusion procedure is the last stage (refer to Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Diagram showing the identification, screening, and inclusion of articles.

Finding the keywords to be employed in the search strategy procedure is the first step. Based on prior research, similar phrases and terms relating to the effect of workplace culture on deviant workplace behavior were utilized. The keyword list was examined and improved, for instance, the insertion of various spelling variants. The final form of the keyword search list is presented in Table 1. The primary goal of this research is to identify empirical quantitative studies regarding the association between workplace culture and deviant workplace behavior. Several items were considered as a method for discovering criteria as presented in Table 2. In this study, we looked for articles published between 2012 and 2022 (within the previous eleven years) such that the most recent information synthesis and retrieval research might serve as the foundation for our evaluation of the literature.

Table 1.

Keyword Search List.

Term	Key words applied during the searching process
Workplace culture	(“Workplace Culture” OR “Organisational Culture”) AND
Deviant behavior	(“Deviant Behaviour” OR “Deviance”)

Table 2.

Article-Discovery Criteria.

Criteria	Inclusive	Exclusive
Year duration	2012–2022	No exclusion
Language	English/Malay article	Not English/Malay articles
Country	All countries	No exclusion
Article	Type of Journal (Empirical Data)	Not a research article

From July 4 through July 9, 2022, the databases Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and SAGE Journals were searched for studies. Figure 1 depicts the overall number of articles retrieved, the number of surviving articles after deleting duplicates, the number of articles that did not fulfill the inclusion criteria, and the articles chosen for further investigation. There were initially 698 papers. Using the search parameters across all four databases, 271 articles were retained after deleting all the duplicates. In the initial screening phase, 220 titles were eliminated after each paper’s title and abstract were assessed for relevancy. The eligibility of the studies’ full texts was then evaluated in accordance with their methodology and conclusions. After reading the entire article, several manuscripts were rejected for a variety of reasons. Among those that were deleted were manuscripts that did not define the phrase “workplace culture,” manuscripts that were reviews of secondary sources, and papers that just quantified the link. Finally, 19 manuscripts were included and deemed to be eligible for study. Figure 1 depicts the PRISMA flow diagram.

Results

The flow diagram of the identification, screening, and inclusion of articles is shown in Figure 1.

Measurement of Workplace Culture and Deviant Workplace Behavior

Two main measures for workplace culture used in samples that involved employees in public sector and private organization are Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) by Cameron and Quinn (1999) and FOCUS Questionnaire developed by van Mujien et al. (1999). Other scales measured more macro parts of organizational culture such as toxic work culture, abusive supervision, perceived organizational injustice, power distance culture, tightness-looseness, organizational politic, aggressive work culture and hostile organizational climate. A plethora of studies tend to portray organizational climate and perception of leadership or supervision as organizational culture. Most frequent organizational culture measured were abusive supervision (Mawritz et al., 2014; Syed & Azam, 2019; Tiwari & Jha, 2022; Valle et al., 2019), organizational justice (Loi et al., 2020; Nasir & Bashir, 2012), aggressive work culture (Mawritz et al., 2014; Restubog et al., 2012) and organizational politic (Bashir et al., 2019; Rosen et al., 2016).

The workplace deviance scale created by Bennett and Robinson (2000) is the most commonly utilized. Other studies measured specific deviant acts such as incivility via behavioural identification (Rosen et al., 2016), police misconduct (Lim & Sloan, 2016), critical incident technic (Restubog et al., 2012) and police self-protective behaviors (Helfers et al., 2018). Another tool for measuring deviant behavior at work as a whole is a scale developed by Aquino et al. (1999) as described by Nasir and Bashir (2012). Rahmah et al. (2021) study on work ethics at the police corps used unethical behaviour as measurement of deviant workplace behavior.

Synthesized Findings

Nineteen studies in total were chosen for review. Only four manuscripts (Aleksi’c et al., 2019; di Stefano et al., 2019; Načinovi’ et al., 2020; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara & Ting-Ding, 2016) directly measured workplace culture using either Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) by Cameron and Quinn (1999) or FOCUS Questionnaire developed by van Mujien et al. (1999). Other manuscripts used more directly observed antecedents in their study to reflect a specific variable of workplace culture involving employees’ personal circumstances and experiences. This contradict di Stefano et al.’s (2019) argument that instead of focusing on workplace culture at a macro-level and as a contextual predictor, the majority of the research explicitly addressed the link between organizational variables and deviant workplace conduct, emphasizing the relevance of situational variables. However, all the variable that had been previously investigated, can still be subsumed in the four main organizational values according to the computing value framework developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999).

Organizational culture had a significant effect on workplace deviance (di Stefano et al., 2019) although individual sociodemographic factors such as age and gender, in addition to characteristics of personality, are stronger predictors of both individual and organizational deviance (Načinovi’ et al., 2020). Both studies using the same computing value framework developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999) appears to be consistent with Aleksi’c et al.’s (2019) work stating that deviant behavior can be linked to market and hierarchy cultures same as workplace culture that emphasis on “efficiency,” which can raise the level of deviant behavior. Conversely, clan and adhocracy cultures are the only types of culture that considerably reduce relational conflict and boost trust, which are linked to sabotage or customer-oriented behavior, a type of organizational deviance (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara & Ting-Ding, 2016).

The findings stated that narcissism, which contributes to a toxic work environment and abusive supervision have a significant effect and partial mediation effect on organizational deviance (Tiwari & Jha, 2022). For organizations that encourage the culture of volunteerism, high perception of organizational justice reduces the indirect link between employee volunteering and workplace deviances (Loi et al., 2020). On the contrary, low perception of organizational justice shows that employees who believe there’s a power asymmetry inside the organization, may lead to an employee’s engagement in deviant workplace behavior as a means of resisting organizational authority and the perceived powerlessness—this is also echoed in a study by Kelloway et al. (2010) and Lawrence and Robinson (2016). Nasir & Bashir (2012) concluded that one of the most significant contributors responsible for creating workplace deviance are organizational injustice and job dissatisfaction.

In this review, some evidence was found linking the negative influence of organizational and supervisory support to employees’ deviant workplace behavior. Results show how employee perceptions of supervisor support, organizational support, and cultural dimension configurations all have a role in fostering employee deviant workplace behavior (Kalemci et al., 2019). The effect of this on organizational support, expressed as a tightness-looseness ratio culture; demonstrates that perceived cultural tightness at the unit level is significantly and negatively associated to stress and intention to exit at the person level, as well as organizational deviance (di Santo et al., 2021).

The impact of organizational support culture was also revealed in Helfers et al. (2018) study on self-protective behaviors among police officers. Fairness and self-protective behavior are related, but primarily inasmuch as it improves social exchange by raising perceptions of organizational support and lowering perceptions of organizational indifference, both of which have a direct impact on an officer’s use of self-protective behavior. Other surveys that involved police officers as respondents also show that organizational factors influence supervisors’ propensity to report subordinate wrongdoing (Lim & Sloan, 2016). Rahmah et al. (2021) concluded that the work ethics implementation in the police force is strongly influenced by the culture that develops in the organization so that organizational submission toward work ethics that are applied, will depend on whether the organizational culture is conducive or supportive of individuals who implement it.

On the matter of organizational politics and workplace deviance, this review found that while construal level (a stable, personal factor) reduced the association between low self-control and induced incivility, organizational politics (a stable, environmental factor) enhanced the relationship between experienced incivility and low self-control (Rosen et al., 2016), which is a type of deviance in the form of personal aggression. This is in accordance with Bashir et al.’s (2019) study stating that when employees encounter organizational politics, they tend to exhibit interpersonal deviance but not organizational deviance which is two different type of deviances. Deviances in the form of personal aggression also appeared in the results in the form of perceived aggressive culture, abuse and employees’ hostility (Mawritz et al., 2014; Restubog et al., 2012; Syed & Azam, 2019; Valle et al., 2019).

Employees with abusive employers indulged in moral disengagement methods, which led to organizational deviance behaviors (Valle et al., 2019). Employees who worked for supervisors with lower ethical standards were more likely to experience the indirect consequences of a hostile climate through abusive supervision. Furthermore, employees who worked for supervisors with abusive supervision were more likely to engage in organization-directed deviance as a means of coping with the pressure of hostile surroundings (Mawritz et al., 2014). Table 3 provides an overview of these mentioned studies.

Table 3.

Overview of Study.

References	Country	Design	Sample size	Workplace culture	Deviant workplace behavior
di Stefano et al. (2019)	Italy	Cross-sectional study	954 Italian working adults within 30 organizations	Organizational culture (Competing Values Framework model)	Workplace deviant behaviors
Tiwari and Jha (2022)	India	Descriptive study	130 respondents	Narcissism, toxic work culture and abusive supervision	Organizational deviance
Loi et al. (2020)	USA	Cross-sectional study	225 undergraduate students	Employee volunteering	Workplace deviance
Načinovi’ et al. (2020)	Croatia	Cross-sectional study	251 employees from 11 organizations	Organizational culture (Competing Values Framework model)	Deviant workplace behavior
Kalemci et al. (2019)	Turkey	Qualitative comparative analysis	235 employees	Perceived organizational support; Perceived supervisory support	Deviant behaviors of the employees
Aleksi’c et al. (2019)	Croatia	Cross-sectional study	251 employees from 11 organizations	Organizational culture (Competing Values Framework model)	Deviant workplace behavior
Rosen et al. (2016)	USA	Experience sampling design across 2 work weeks	70 employees from variety of organizations	Organizational politics	Incivility at work
Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara and Ting-Ding (2016)	Spain	Cross-sectional study	215 staff within 14 hotels	Corporate culture	Sabotage
Nasir and Bashir (2012)	Pakistan	Cross-sectional study	100 employees from public sectors	Organizational injustice; Organization environment	Deviant workplace behavior
Lim and Sloan (2016)	USA	Cross-sectional study	553 ranking officers	“Rotten barrels”—organizational influences on integrity	Police misconduct and willingness to disclose misconduct by fellow police
di Santo et al. (2021)	Italy	Cross-sectional study	417 workers, including 208 women and 209 men, from 16 private and public organizations across Italy	Perceived work unit Tightness-Looseness	Organizational deviance
Syed and Azam (2019)	Pakistan	Cross-sectional study	189 employees of different organizations	Employees perceived abusive supervision	Workplace deviance
Bashir et al. (2019)	Pakistan	Cross-sectional study	400 respondents among the employees of eight circles	Organizational politics	Organizational deviance
Restubog et al. (2012)	Australia and Philippines	Cross-sectional study	146 hospitality workers in Australia and 168 hospitality workers in Philippines	Perceived aggressive work culture	Workplace deviance
Ahmad Bodla et al. (2019)	Pakistan	Cross-sectional	240 employee-supervisor	Authoritarian leadership; Benevolent climate	Organizational deviance behavior
Helfers et al. (2018)	USA	Cross-sectional	1,861 police officers	Perception of organizational support, indifference and fairness	Police self-protective behaviors
Valle et al. (2019)	USA	Cross-sectional	206 respondents	Leader-Member exchange	Organizational deviance
Mawritz et al. (2014)	USA	Cross-sectional	221 paired respondents (employee-supervisor)	Supervisor hostile climate perceptions	Employee organizational deviance
Rahmah et al. (2021)	Indonesia	Cross-sectional	82 police officers	Work ethics implementation	Unethical behavior

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to perform a comprehensive review of the literature on the impact of work culture on deviant workplace behavior. Despite having well-established organizational cultural instruments for measuring organizational culture, the related underlying culture variables are very much not known. The broad definition of culture and the overlapping framework and model of organizational culture and its impact on workplace deviant merits a systematic and thorough investigation. Consequently, we analyzed systematically several studies on the influence of workplace culture on deviant workplace behavior. Based on our investigation, we were able to identify 19 publications that qualified, all of which differ in terms of the demographics studied, research designs, and workplace cultures.

For example, in the research done by Kalemci et al. (2019), variables measured included perception of employee that their organization and supervisor take care of their workers and enhance the power distance cultural value. Perception of employees that their organization and supervisor take care of their workers are captured in the computing value framework under clan culture which emphasizes cohesion, participation, empowerment of employees, and teamwork; it is bound together by loyalty and tradition (di Stefano et al., 2019). Additionally, clan culture is linked positively to organizational loyalty, job engagement, and job happiness. (Goodman et al., 2001). According to Hofstede (2005), one way to conceptualize power distance is the degree to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations in a country are prepared for and accept unequal power allocation.

It is mentioned here that personality traits should be measured for the purpose of investigating mediating effect of the cultural values that might impact deviant workplace behavior. This is because personality traits have been demonstrated to be more accurate predictors of both individual and organizational deviance than organizational culture (Načinovi’ et al., 2020). Variables such as toxic work culture (Tiwari & Jha, 2022), perceived abusive supervision (Syed & Azam, 2019; Tiwari & Jha, 2022), perception of organizational support (Helfers et al., 2018; Kalemci et al., 2019), hostile climate perceptions (Mawritz et al., 2014) and organizational politic (Bashir et al., 2019; Rosen et al., 2016) are not directly measured in the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) (Cameron & Quinn,1999), which was developed from computing value framework, and yet it reflects the culture of an organization. It is important for researchers to firmly differentiate between organizational culture or climate used as variables in order to justify the study of workplace culture on deviant workplace behavior.

Shim (2014) stated that Schein’s conceptual framework of organizational culture, which is founded on presumptions, ideals, norms for behavior, and ways of behaving; is generally congruent with organizational culture developed by Schein (1984, 1985b). Shim (2014) also listed the generally used measures of organizational culture in the literature on organizational culture as follows: Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) by O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell (1991); Organizational Social Context (OSC) by Glisson et al. (2007); and Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) by Cooke and Lafferty (1987). By categorizing organizational culture as helpful or destructive, passive/defensive culture, and aggressive/defensive culture, the OCI assesses twelve sets of behavioral standards (Cooke & Lafferty, 1987).

The OCP evaluates both individual and organizational values, examining the connection between organizational value selection and personal value preferences (O’Reilly et al., 1991). The OCP is more focused on culture defined by assessing person-organization fit. The OSC (Glisson et al., 2007) assesses the norms, values, and expectations of an organization’s members and categorizes organizational culture as competent, inflexible, or resistive. Even while the OCI and the OSC employ different culture types for categorization, there are commonalities between constructive and proficient cultures, passive and rigid cultures, and aggressive and resistant cultures (Shim, 2010). None of the measurements mentioned by Shim (2014) were used in the manuscripts included in this current systematic review. The selection of measurement for culture was dependent on the subject and the variables focused by the researchers.

Conversely, twelve out of 19 identified manuscripts used The Scale of Workplace Deviance created by Bennett and Robinson (2000) to measure deviant workplace behavior. Two manuscripts used FOCUS Questionnaire developed by van Mujien et al. (1999). Another five manuscripts measured specific types of deviant behavior using a specific set of scales. A specific type of deviance in a study usually involved specified respondents such as police officers (Helfers et al., 2018; Lim & Sloan, 2016; Rahmah et al., 2021). This shows that adoption of a typology of deviant workplace behavior is more established and accepted among researchers. Overall, the results indicate that workplace culture has negative and positive impacts on deviant workplace behavior. This has important implications for research, especially in terms of the cultivation of the right workplace culture that has negative relations to workplace deviances or prevention strategies to reduce deviant workplace behavior. Table 4 refers to the findings of studies.

Table 4.

Findings of Studies.

References	Tool	Finding	Limitations
di Stefano et al. (2019)	Workplace Deviance Scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000); The NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Caprara et al., 2001; Costa and McCrae, 1992); Italian version Organizational Cultural Assessment Inventory (OCAI) by di Stefano and Scrima (2016)	Workplace deviant behaviors (WDB) were significantly influenced by organizational culture (OC), with adhocracy and clan cultures exhibiting lower levels of WDB.	Because of common method bias, using a self-reported survey approach to capture employees’ personal tendencies jeopardizes the study’s internal validity; Findings have a limited ability to be generalized. It is critical to determine the target population for WDB research; The interconnections between OC and WDB from an interactionist perspective require further study.
Tiwari and Jha (2022)	The standardized questionnaire of H. A. Murray’s (1938) for narcissism; For toxic work culture, self-made questions used; Tepper (2000) for abusive supervision scale; Organizational deviance scale by Bennett and Robinson (2000)	Narcissism has a strong influence on organizational deviance, which also contributes to a toxic work environment and abusive supervision. Not only do the listed variables have a substantial effect on organizational deviance, but they also have a partial mediation effect.	Due to an unseen fear element, respondents lacked the courage to express their unbiased judgments; There is a small sample size; For the general professional population to comprehend the difficulties and issues faced by the respondent, more thorough disclosures would be given.
Loi et al. (2020)	Rodell’s (2013) five-item measure of employee volunteering; Aquino and Reed (2002) to measure moral credentials; Psychological entitlement scale by Campbell et al. (2004); Organizational justice scale from Colquitt et al. (2001); Workplace Deviance Scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000)	While moral credentials were expected to play a mediating function, this link is sequentially mediated by moral credits and psychological entitlement; When there is a strong conviction in the organization’s ability to treat its employees fairly, there is less of an indirect link between employee volunteering and workplace misconduct.	The tiny impact size of the indirect influence that volunteering has on deviance suggests that these findings may have limited application in the actual world; The lack of a precise time limit made it impossible to capture psychological entitlement as a state.
Načinovi’ et al. (2020)	FOCUS questionnaire (van Mujien et al. 1999); Workplace Deviance Scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000)	Individual-related characteristics, such as age and gender, as well as personality traits, outperform organizational culture as predictors of both individual and organizational deviation.	The sample size is modest and gender biased. Furthermore, there is a risk of sample bias when utilizing the snowball sampling technique to enroll participants; Because the metrics are self-reported, they may be influenced by personal biases.
Kalemci et al. (2019)	Eisenberger et al. (1986) and Tate et al. (1997) items to determine whether employees believe their organization and managers care for them; Impact of individualism/collectivism by Dorfman and Howell’s (1988); Workplace Deviance Scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000)	Organizational and supervisory support influences employees’ deviant workplace behavior (DWB). The findings reveal that employee perceived supervisory support, perceived organizational support, and cultural dimension configurations all have a role in fostering employee DWB.	This method made it possible to study how different predictor variables affected deviant behavior in the workplace, but only certain variables could be evaluated.
Aleksi’c et al. (2019)	FOCUS questionnaire (van Mujien et al., 1999); Workplace Deviance Scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000)	The occurrence of deviant behavior can be attributed to a market- and hierarchy-centered culture. By emphasizing the market culture value “job clarity,” deviant behavior can be reduced, whereas by emphasizing the market culture value “efficiency,” deviant behavior can be increased.	Respondents were asked to self-report their level of deviant behavior; it is probable that some of them provided answers that were more socially acceptable, hence increasing the actual quantity of deviant behavior. Low variance shows that other separate personal and environmental factors impact deviance, and hence organizational culture cannot be analyzed as the sole factor determining deviant behavior.
Rosen et al. (2016)	Participants reported experiencing and initiating incivility during the course of their shift; perceptions of politics scale by Hochwarter et al. (2003); Behavioural Identification Form by Vallacher and Wegner (1989)	Experiencing incivility earlier in the day decreased one's levels of self-control, resulting in increased induced incivility later in the day. Organizational politics strengthened the relationship between experienced incivility and low self-control, whereas construal level diminished the relationship between low self-control and induced incivility.	All dimensions were evaluated based on self-reports, which raises concerns that the results may have been distorted due to method variance. The findings may not be generalizable to other causes of incivility, and further theory may be necessary to explain how individuals respond to supervisors' incivility. The study did not establish whether the rude behavior was directed at the original offender.
Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara and Ting-Ding (2016)	Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) by Cameron and Quinn (1999); Internal-external interpersonal trust by Simons and Peterson (2000); Relationship and task conflicts between internal and external employees by Jehn (1995); Customer-oriented behaviors scale by Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara et al. (2012); Bennett and Robinson (2000) scale for measuring deviant behavior was modified to include guest-directed deviations.	The key relationship outcomes that are strongly associated with sabotage or customer-oriented behaviors (COBs) are trust and relational conflict. Clan and adhocracy are the only types of culture that considerably reduce relational conflict or boost trust.	It is crucial to examine the numerous influencing factors of the perceptions of the studied culture according to the distinct aspects or services where the workers operate in the hotel. This is because the different areas or services can produce significant differences in the behavior of the variables studied that have been used in this study. Due to the possibility that the study is biased because of a single source or approach, extreme caution is required when evaluating the outcomes.
Nasir and Bashir (2012)	Job satisfaction scale from Taylor and Bowers (1974); Perceived organizational injustice scale by Hodson et al. (1994); Deviant workplace behaviors scale by Aquino et al. (1999)	Multiple reasons, such as financial pressures, decreased job satisfaction, organizational injustice, organizational environment, and employee perception, might be responsible for workplace deviance, with organizational injustice and job happiness being the most significant.	Due to apprehension of their superiors, a few of the employees were hesitant to provide objective feedback. Second, they did not answer the questions with their whole concentration because they had a lot of work to finish, so they answered them as quickly as possible.
Lim and Sloan (2016)	The original 11 scenarios utilized by Klockars (1999) plus five amended and one modified scenarios prepared by Klockars et al. (2007) total 17 situations of police wrongdoing.	Individual and organizational factors influence a supervisor's inclination to report subordinate wrongdoing, however their impacts vary depending on the severity of the misconduct.	Respondents represented a convenience sample of supervisors who either voluntarily attended LEMIT training or were required to go by law (as was the case with police officers); Organizational climate measurement is crude. Future research using other variables may have yielded a different result; Since the majority of the agencies for which the respondents worked were extremely small, extra research is required to determine whether they had distinct organizational cultures, particularly in rural locations.
di Santo et al. (2021)	Tightness-Looseness scale by Gelfand et al. (2011)	Individual-level work satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment were significantly and positively associated to perceived cultural tightness at the unit level, while individual-level stress, intention to leave, and organizational deviance were significantly and adversely connected.	A unit is a microculture within a larger culture that reflects the bigger organization's beliefs and standards. It is consequently proposed that the investigation of these effects be expanded to the organizational level. At the same time, organizational cultures are ingrained in the culture of their respective countries.
Syed and Azam (2019)	Islamic work ethics scale by Ali (1992); Employee’s perceived abusive supervision scale by Tepper (2000); Hostility scale by Buss and Perry (1992); Workplace Deviance Scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000)	Islamic work ethics (IWE) is negatively linked with workplace deviance. It is confirmed that the relationship between IWE and workplace deviation is moderated by employees' perceptions of supervisory maltreatment and mediated by their hostility.	Future research may include additional variables, which including corporate citizenship policies, turnover intentions, and job dedication, all of which may be lowered by a perception of abusive monitoring. The research findings' credibility as well as their applicability to a wider audience may also be improved by obtaining data from other nations with a majority-Muslim workforce.
Bashir et al. (2019)	Organizational politic scale by Kacmar and Ferris (1991); Job stress scale by Sams (2005); Workplace Deviance Scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000); Resilience scale by Stephens et al. (2013)	Employees are more likely to engage in interpersonal deviance when exposed to organizational politics, but that organizational politics does not encourage organizational deviance. Under pressure, the individual exhibits a marginally greater degree of interpersonal deviance than organizational deviance. In this study, the moderating effect of resilience has not been demonstrated.	Robinson and Bennett (1995) identified "accepting bribes" or financial corruption as a major form of organizational deviance, which is most frequent in developing Asian nations in general and in Pakistan in particular. Therefore, future research exploring deviance among public sector personnel in developing nations should also consider accepting kickbacks as an aspect of unproductive work behaviors in unionized organizations.
Restubog et al. (2012)	Global measure of breach by Robinson and Morrison (2000); Psychological contract violation was assessed using scale by Robinson and Morrison (2000); Revenge cognitions scale by Bradfield and Aquino (1999); Perceived aggressive work culture scale by Douglas and Martinko (2001); Critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954); Self-control scale by Scott (1965)	Self-control and the perception of an aggressive culture influence the execution of deviant activities.	The nature of the study methodologies adopted in both Samples 1 and 2 precludes the inference of cause-and-effect relationships in the outlined process model; The effective implementation of psychological contract breach is built on the concept that this phenomena only occurs in persons when those individuals believe that they have gotten less than was promised to them; The model did not contain alternate moderators.
Ahmad Bodla et al. (2019)	Paternalistic leadership scale from Cheng et al. (2004); Benevolent climate measurement following Cullen et al. (2003); OCBI scale from Williams and Anderson (1991); Workplace Deviance Scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000)	At moderate degrees of authoritarian leadership, employees displayed the highest levels of organizational civic behavior toward one's supervisor (OCBS) and the lowest levels of organizational deviance. The curvilinear links were tempered by employees' perceptions of a favorable workplace climate.	Findings and implications about the curvilinear associations of authoritarian leadership with OCBS and organizational deviance, respectively, may be limited, especially for high power distance cultures.
Helfers et al. (2018)	Using three manifest variables chosen to describe sentiments of mistrust and/or alienation from the department, a latent indicator of SPBs was created; Armeli et al. (1998) generated the second and third measures from an 11-item scale previously employed; Modified version of the perceived organizational support scale created by Eisenberger et al. (1986)	The research generally supports the notion that fairness is related to self-protective behaviors (SPB), but mainly insofar as it improves the social exchange by raising perceptions of organizational support and lowering perceptions of organizational indifference, both of which have a direct impact on an officer’s use of SPBs and are a form of police deviance.	Researchers were unable to link officers in the survey to a particular agency, making it impossible to examine organizational and contextual effects. In light of this, it is possible that these effects condition the relationships found in this study; The survey did not ask about the recentness or severity of a respondent’s punishment, which limits the study’s measurement of a broad notion like deviation. Those elements may influence how fair the officers perceive the situation to be.
Valle et al. (2019)	Abusive supervision with Harris et al.’s (2011); Tepper’s (2000) abusive supervision scale; Scandura and Graen’s (1984) measure of LMX; Moral disengagement was measured with the Moore et al. (2012); Workplace Deviance Scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000)	Employees who worked for abusive managers adopted moral disengagement tactics, which led to organizational deviation. Additionally, those that had better leader-member interchange had a stronger bond (LMX).	LMX and harsh supervision have a strong negative correlation. This issue was first addressed by looking for common method variance in the data using a marker variable, but none was found; Inability to assess the severity of the abuse that has occurred; More research is required to investigate the many organizational deviance processes that occur in abusive supervisory relationships, as well as the degree to which positive
Mawritz et al. (2014)	The evaluation of supervisors’ views of hostile organizational climates by Buss and Perry’s (1992) Aggression questionnaire; Employees rated abusive supervision using Tepper’s (2000); Workplace Deviance Scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000); Employees rated psychological withdrawal using Rusbult et al.’s (1988); Measure of conscientiousness by Saucier (1994)	The findings showed that while destructive behaviors are more likely to flourish in hostile environments, conscientious people are less likely to engage in hostile behavior in response to perceived hostility. Employees were protected from the detrimental impacts of perceptions of a hostile work environment when supervisor conscientiousness levels rose because supervisors were less likely to engage in abusive supervision. Employees did, however, indirectly feel the consequences of perceived hostile environments when working for less responsible supervisors because of abusive supervision. The stress of hostile surroundings brought on by abusive supervision was then often handled by less diligent workers by committing acts of organization-directed deviance. Similarly, regardless of their levels of conscientiousness, all employees tended to psychologically disengage from their uncomfortable circumstances.	It's unknown to what extent supervisor perceptions mirror what other team members perceive in general; Given that the correlations we looked at might be impacted by disposition, it may have been advantageous to control for negative affectivity in the supervisor and/or employee populations.
Rahmah et al. (2021)	Data collection was done using an open-ended questionnaire. The data obtained were analyzed using qualitative methods (coding) and quantitative descriptive (frequency distribution tables) simultaneously.	The implementation of work ethics is strongly influenced by the culture that develops in the organization so that organizational submission toward work ethics that are applied will depend on whether the organizational culture is conducive or does not support individuals to implement it.	Small sample size; Since the study was cross-sectional, it is challenging to draw conclusions about causality.

Our study extends and empirically supports the premise that organizational norms and values are implemented through workplace culture, therefore it appears plausible to argue that workplace culture, in addition to employees' personality characteristics, influenced the expression of deviant workplace behavior. Conscientiousness, followed by adjustment, agreeableness, openness to experience, and surgency, have a substantial link with deviances, with conscientiousness being the most commonly observed personality and surgency being the least frequently observed (Abdullah & Marican, 2016). Načinovi’ et al. (2020), di Stefano et al. (2019), and Aleksi’c et al. (2019) explicitly investigated organizational culture as an organization-related component and personality traits as an individual-related factor in their analysis of both individual and organization-related factors as antecedents and instigators of deviant behavior. Whilst di Stefano et al. (2019) and Aleksi’c et al. (2019) found that some types of culture are linked to less deviant behavior, Načinovi’ et al. (2020) research showed that culture has a small effect when personality is considered. Načinovi’ et al. (2020) implication was that an employee's demographic and personality traits are more influential to their deviant behavior than environmental factors of the workplace. Aside from the culture implemented by the organization, workplace culture defined in the findings also included culture that is resulted by personal circumstances and experiences of the employees such as experiencing incivility (Rosen et al., 2016), abusive supervision (Mawritz et al., 2014; Syed & Azam, 2019; Valle et al., 2019), aggressive work culture (Mawritz et al., 2014; Restubog et al., 2012) and toxic work culture (Tiwari & Jha, 2022). The results have shown that workplace culture derive from experiencing negativity and dark personality have a strong influence on deviances. It is worth noting that the definition of workplace culture is not necessarily an antecedent at organizational level but can also be at individual level. Workplace culture define by instruments explained in findings were used to examine workplace culture as organizational or environmental factor meanwhile culture from collective employees’ personality is arguably an individual factors.

Conclusions and Implications for Further Research

According to the findings of our literature review drawn from the following four databases: Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and SAGE Journals, from the time period beginning in 2012 and continuing through 2022, it was found that deviant workplace behavior is significantly influenced by workplace culture. According to the findings of the empirical research, it is necessary to generate conceptual clarity within a good theoretical framework for the study of organizational culture as an environmental or individual element. Most of the research reported in the evaluation was conducted with a diverse range of respondents, which may result in conclusions that understate or exaggerate the population effect. Hershcovis (2007) argue that the predictors of deviant workplace behavior depend on the participant; therefore, it is necessary to specifically indicate the participant to whom the study was intended, such as a supervisor, senior officer, or general clerk.

Numerous tools have been recognized as being used to assess workplace culture. The majority of measurements used to examine workplace culture are trait-specific, such as toxic or aggressive work cultures, and other measurements were created specifically for a single study. To assess psychometric features and sensitivity of the measures in relation to their application, more instrument validation and specification is required. The cultural validation of these already-in-use tools for usage in a variety of nations would improve awareness and comprehension of the potential universality of culture in the workplace.

The findings of the current investigation serve as a foundation for upcoming research on the effect of organizational characteristics and provide a roadmap for how such research should proceed. More study is needed focusing on a clear definition of culture such as clan culture or hierarchy culture with personal traits, dark personality and employees experience as mediator and moderator to gain deeper understanding on deviant workplace behavior. Future studies could afford to explore other criteria to expand the sample size for systematic review to attain a larger sample in order to advance research on the effect of workplace culture on deviant workplace behavior.

This study has the potential to make a contribution to the body of research that focuses on workplace culture as a possible instigator of employee deviant behavior in the workplace. The gathering of data on workplace culture and its effect on deviances will be beneficial to both public and private sector organizations because it has been established that workplace culture plays a vital role in preventing the manifestation of deviant workplace behavior.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully thank Centre for Research in Psychology and Human Well-Being, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author wishes to acknowledge the Dana Ganjaran Penerbitan (GP-K021070) for providing financial support for this study.

An Ethics Statement

Not applicable

ORCID iDs

Muhammad Amin bin Bujang

Mohammad Rahim Kamaluddin

Hee Jhee Jiow

Data Availability Statement

The data described in this article were available for download from the journal website or a data repository.

References

Abbasi

Ismail

W. K. W.

(2017). Organisational predictors of workplace deviance in public university in Malaysia. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Innovation in Business and Strategy, 4(1), 769–773.

Abbasi

Ismail

W. K. W.

Baradari

Zureigat

Abdullah

F. Z.

(2022). Can organisational justice and organisational citizenship behaviour reduce workplace deviance? Intangible Capital, 18(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1816

Abdullah

Marican

(2016). The effects of big-five personality traits on deviant behavior. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 219, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2016.04.027

Ahmad Bodla

Tang

van Dick

Mir

U. R

. (2019). Authoritarian leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, and organizational deviance: Curvilinear relationships. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 40(5), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2018-0313/FULL/PDF

Aleksi’c

A. A.

Načinovi’

Braje

Raši’c

S. R.

Jelavi’c

(2019). Creating sustainable work environments by developing cultures that diminish deviance. Sustainability, 11(24), 7031. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU11247031

Ali

A. J.

(1992). The Islamic work ethic in Arabia. The Journal of Psychology, 126(5), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1992.10543384

Alias

Rasdi

R. M.

Ismail

Samah

B. A.

(2013). Predictors of workplace deviant behaviour: HRD agenda for Malaysian support personnel. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591311301671

Antonaccio

Tittle

C. R.

(2008). Morality, self-control, and crime. Criminology, 46(2), 479–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1745-9125.2008.00116.X

Apel

Paternoster

(2009). Understanding “criminogenic” corporate culture: What white-collar crime researchers can learn from studies of the adolescent employment–crime relationship. In Simpson

S. S.

Weisburd

(Eds.), The criminology of white-collar crime (pp. 15–33). Springer.

10.

Appelbaum

S. H.

Iaconi

G. D.

Matousek

(2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: Causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7(5), 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700710827176

11.

Aquino

Lewis

M. U.

Bradfield

(1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20(7), 1073–1091.

12.

Aquino

Reed

(2002). The self-importance moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423

13.

Armeli

Eisenberger

Fasolo

Lynch

(1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance: The moderating influence of socioemotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.288

14.

Aryati

A. S.

Sudiro

Hadiwidjaja

Noermijati

(2018). The influence of ethical leadership to deviant workplace behavior mediated by ethical climate and organizational commitment. International Journal of Law and Management, 60(2), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-03-2017-0053

15.

Bashir

Abrar

Yousaf

Saqib

Shabbir

(2019). Organizational politics and workplace deviance in unionized settings: Mediating role of job stress and moderating role of resilience. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 943–959. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S213672

16.

Bennett

R. J.

Robinson

S. L.

(2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349

17.

Bennett

Marasi

(2015). Workplace deviance. In Wright

J. D.

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 722–726). Elsevier.

18.

Blake

Davis

(1964). Norms, values and sanctions. In Faris

(Ed.) Handbook of modern sociology (pp. 456–484). Rand McNally.

19.

Blanchard

Baker

Perreault

Mask

Tremblay

(2020). The importance of keeping employees satisfied: Three prevailing factors for health organization leaders. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 34(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-04-2019-0084/FULL/XML

20.

Blau Peter

. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley & Sons.

21.

Boye

M. W.

Jones

J. W.

(1997). Organizational culture and employee counterproductivity. In Giacalone

R. A.

Greenberg

(Eds.), Antisocial behaviour in organizations (pp. 172–184). Sage Publications.

22.

Bradfield

Aquino

(1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25(5), 607–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500501

23.

Buss

A. H.

Perry

(1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452

24.

Calderon-Anyosa

R. J. C.

Kaufman

J. S.

(2021). Impact of COVID-19 lockdown policy on homicide, suicide, and motor vehicle deaths in Peru. Preventive Medicine, 143, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.YPMED.2020.106331

25.

Cameron

K. S.

Quinn

R. E.

(1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Addison Wesley.

26.

Campbell

W. K.

Bonacci

A. M.

Shelton

Exline

J. J.

Bushman

B. J.

(2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04

27.

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaranelli

Hahn

Comrey

A. L.

(2001). Factor analyses of the NEO-PI-R inventory and the comrey personality scales in Italy and the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00030-1

28.

Cheng

B.-S.

Chou

L.-F.

T.-Y.

Huang

M.-P.

Farh

J.-L.

(2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00137.x

29.

Colquitt

J. A.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

C. O. L. H.

Conlon

D. E.

K. Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

30.

Cooke

R. A.

Lafferty

J. C.

(1987). Organizational culture inventory. Human Synergistics.

31.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5

32.

Cullen

J. B.

Parboteeah

K. P.

Victor

(2003). The effects of ethical climates on organizational commitment: A two-study analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025089819456

33.

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2022). Crime Statistic, Malaysia, 2022.

34.

di Santo

Talamo

Bonaiuto

Cabras

Pierro

(2021). A multilevel analysis of the impact of unit tightness vs. Looseness culture on attitudes and behaviors in the workplace. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 5652. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.652068/BIBTEX

35.

di Stefano

Scrima

Parry

. (2019). The effect of organizational culture on deviant behaviors in the workplace. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(17), 2482–2503. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1326393

36.

Dorfman

P. W.

Howell

J. P.

(1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127–150.

37.

Douglas

S. C.

Martinko

M. J.

(2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.547

38.

Drennan

(1992). Transforming company culture: Getting your company from where you are to where you want to be. McGraw-Hill Book Company.

39.

Dunn

J. R.

Schweitzer

M. E.

(2005). Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 736–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.736

40.

Durkheim

(1895). Emile Durkheim on the Division of Labor in Society. Being a Translation of His De La Division du Travalil Sociale. Macmillan.

41.

Durkheim

(1903). Moral education: A study in the theory and application of the sociology of education. Free Press.

42.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

43.

Etzioni

(1988). The moral dimension: Toward a new economics. Free Press.

44.

Flanagan

J. C.

(1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470

45.

Gelfand

M. J.

Raver

J. L.

Nishii

L. H.

Leslie

L. M.

Lun

Lim

Duan

Almaliach

Ang

Arnadottir

Aycan

Boehnke

Boski

Cabecinhas

Chan

D. K.

Chhokar

J. S.

D'Amato

Ferrer

Fischlmayr

I. C.

. . .Yamaguchi

(2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100–1104.

46.

Gerell

Kardell

Kindgren

(2020). Minor covid-19 association with crime in Sweden. Crime Science, 9(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40163-020-00128-3

47.

Glisson

Landsverk

Schoenwald

Kelleher

Hoagwood

K. E.

Mayberg

Green

Weisz

Chorpita

Gibbons

Green

E. P.

Hoagwood

Jensen

P. S.

Miranda

Palinkas

(2007). Assessing the Organizational Social Context (OSC)of mental health services: Implications for research and practice. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 35(1–2), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10488-007-0148-5

48.

Goldman

van Fleet

D. D.

Griffin

R. W.

(2006). Dysfunctional organization culture: The role of leadership in motivating dysfunctional work behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 698–708. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610713244

49.

Goodman

E. A.

Zammuto

R. F.

Gifford

B. D.

(2001). The competing values framework: Understanding the impact of organizational culture on the quality of work life. Organization Development Journal, 19(3), 58–68.

50.

Gruys

M. L.

Sackett

P. R.

(2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00224

51.

Harris

K. J.

Harvey

Kacmar

K. M.

(2011). Abusive supervisory reactions to coworker relationship conflict. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 1010–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEAQUA.2011.07.020

52.

Hawkins

(2002). Law as last resort. Oxford University Press.

53.

Helfers

R. C.

Reynolds

P. D.

Maskály

(2018). Applying social exchange theory to police deviance: Exploring self-protective behaviors among police officers. Criminal Justice Review, 44(2), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016818796547

54.

Hershcovis

M. S.

Turner

Barling

Arnold

K. A.

Dupré

K. E.

Inness

LeBlanc

M. M.

Sivanathan

(2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228

55.

Hill

C. W. L.

Jones

G. R.

(2001). Strategic management theory: An integrated approach (5th ed.). Houghton Mifflin Co.

56.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Kacmar

K. M.

Perrewé

P. L.

Johnson

(2003). Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00048-9

57.

Hodson

Creighton

Jamison

C. S.

Rieble

Welsh

(1994). Loyalty to whom? Workplace participation and the development of consent. Human Relations, 47(8), 895–909. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700802

58.

Hofstede

G. J.

(2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.

59.

Jehn

K. A.

(1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638

60.

Kacmar

K. M.

Ferris

G. R.

(1991). Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511019

61.

Kagaari

J. R. K.

(2011). Performance management practices and managed performance: The moderating influence of organisational culture and climate in public universities in Uganda. Measuring Business Excellence, 15(4), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683041111184099

62.

Kalemci

R. A.

Kalemci-Tuzun

Ozkan-Canbolat

(2019). Employee deviant behavior: Role of culture and organizational relevant support. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 28(2), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-11-2018-0125/FULL/PDF

63.

Kamaluddin

M. R.

Shariff

N. S. M.

Othman

Ismail

K. H.

Saat

G. A. M.

(2016). Associations between low self-control and aggression among Malaysian male prisoners. ASEAN Journal of Psychiatry, 17(1), 79–86.

64.

Kelloway

E. K.

Francis

Prosser

Cameron

J. E.

(2010). Counterproductive work behavior as protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HRMR.2009.03.014

65.

Kidwell

R. E.

Martin

C. L.

(Eds.). (2005). Managing organizational deviance. SAGE Publications.

66.

Kish-Gephart

J. J.

Harrison

D. A.

Treviño

L. K.

(2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0017103

67.

Klockars

C. B.

(1999). Some really cheap ways of measuring what really matters . In Langworthy

R. H.

(Ed.), Measuring what matters: Proceedings from the policing research institute meetings (pp. 195–214). National Institute of Justice.

68.

Klockars

C. B.

Ivković

S. K.

Haberfeld

M. R.

(2007). Measuring police integrity. In Klockars

C. B.

Ivković

S. K.

Haberfeld

M. R.

(Eds.), Enhancing police integrity (pp. 13–38). Springer.

69.

Lawrence

T. B.

Robinson

S. L.

(2016). Ain’t Misbehavin: Workplace deviance as organizational resistance. Journal of Management, 33(3), 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300816

70.

Liao

Joshi

Chuang

(2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57(4), 969–1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1744-6570.2004.00012.X

71.

Lim

Sloan

J. J.

(2016). Police officer integrity: A partial replication and extension. Policing, 39(2), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-10-2015-0127/FULL/PDF

72.

Loi

T. I.

Kuhn

K. M.

Sahaym

Butterfield

K. D.

Tripp

T. M.

(2020). From helping hands to harmful acts: When and how employee volunteering promotes workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(9), 944–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/APL0000477

73.

Mangas-Vega

Dantas

Sánchez-Jara

J. M.

Gómez-Díaz

(2018). Systematic literature reviews in social sciences and humanities: A case study. Journal of Information Technology Research, 11(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.4018/JITR.2018010101

74.

Mathieu

(2021). Dark personalities in the workplace. Elsevier Academic Press.

75.

Mawritz

M. B.

Dust

S. B.

Resick

C. J.

(2014). Hostile climate, abusive supervision, and employee coping: Does conscientiousness matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 737–747. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0035863

76.

Mayer

D. M.

Kuenzi

Greenbaum

R. L.

(2010). Examining the link between ethical leadership and employee misconduct: The mediating role of ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(Suppl. 1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-011-0794-0

77.

Milner

A. J.

Maheen

Bismark

M. M.

Spittal

M. J.

(2016). Suicide by health professionals: A retrospective mortality study in Australia, 2001–2012. The Medical Journal of Australia, 205(6), 260–265. https://doi.org/10.5694/MJA15.01044

78.

Miró-Llinares

Moneva

(2019). What about cyberspace (and cybercrime alongside it)? A reply to Farrell and Birks “Did cybercrime cause the crime drop?” Crime Science, 8(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40163-019-0107-Y

79.

Monteith

Bauer

Alda

Geddes

Whybrow

P. C.

Glenn

(2021). Increasing cybercrime since the pandemic: Concerns for psychiatry. Current Psychiatry Reports, 23(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11920-021-01228-W/TABLES/3

80.

Moore

Detert

J. R.

Klebe Treviño

Baker

V. L.

Mayer

D. M.

(2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1744-6570.2011.01237.X

81.

Mount

Ilies

Johnson

(2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 591–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1744-6570.2006.00048.X

82.

Munusamy

Jeyagobi

Mohamed

I. N.

Murthy

J. K.

Chong

S. T.

Abdullah

Kamaluddin

M. R.

(2022). Underlying familial factors for aggressive behavior in romantic relationships: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8), 4485. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084485

83.

Murray

H. A.

(1938). Explorations in personality. Oxford University Press.

84.

Načinovi’

Braje

Aleksi’c

A. A.

Raši’c

S. R.

Jelavi’c

(2020). Blame it on individual or organization environment: What predicts workplace deviance more? Social Sciences, 9(6), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/SOCSCI9060099

85.

Nasir

Bashir

(2012). Examining workplace deviance in public sector organizations of Pakistan. International Journal of Social Economics, 39(4), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291211205677

86.

J. C. Y.

K. Y. N.

(2014). Culture, organisational culture and organisational climat: An integrative approach. Indian Journal of Commerce & Management Studies, 5(2), 18–26. www.scholarshub.net

87.

O’Boyle

E. H.

Forsyth

D. R.

O’Boyle

A. S.

(2011). Bad apples or bad barrels: An examination of group- and organizational-level effects in the study of counterproductive work behavior. Group and Organization Management, 36(1), 39–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110390998

88.

O’Reilly

C. A.

Chatman

Caldwell

D. F.

(1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.2307/256404

89.

Öztürk

Yüksel Poyraz

(2021). Employees’ perceptions of justice and workplace deviance: A moderated mediation model of ethical work climate and task type. Turkish Journal of Business Ethics, 14(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.12711/tjbe.2021.14.2.2219

90.

Parsons

(1937). The structure of social action. McGraw-Hill.

91.

Peterson

D. K.

(2002). Deviant workplace behavior and the organization’s ethical climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016296116093

92.

Plachkinova

(2021). Exploring the shift from physical to cybercrime at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Cyber Forensics and Advanced Threat Investigations, 2(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.46386/IJCFATI.V2I1.29

93.

Rahmah

Himam

Riyono

Nurcahyo

(2021). The implementation of the work ethics dynamics at the police corps (exploration study on unethical behavior). Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun, 9(1), 123. https://doi.org/10.26811/PEURADEUN.V9I1.517

94.

Regalado

Timmer

Jawaid

(2022). Crime and deviance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sociology Compass, 16(4), e12974. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12974

95.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Zagenczyk

T. J.

Bordia

Chapman

G. J.

(2012). If you wrong us, shall we not revenge? Moderating roles of self-control and perceived aggressive work culture in predicting responses to psychological contract breach. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1132–1154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312443557

96.

Robbins

S. P.

Coulter

M. A.

(2018). Management (14th ed.). Pearson Education Inc.

97.

Robinson

S. L.

Bennett

R. J.

(1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.5465/256693

98.

Robinson

S. L.

Morrison

E. W.

(2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 525–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5<525::AID-JOB40>3.0.CO;2-T

99.

Rodell

(2013). Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1274–1294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0611

100.

Rosen

C. C.

Gabriel

A. S.

Koopman

Johnson

R. E.

(2016). Who strikes back? A daily investigation of when and why incivility begets incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(11), 1620–1634. https://doi.org/10.1037/APL0000140

101.

Rusbult

C. E.

Farrell

Rogers

Mainous

A. G.

(1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599–627.

102.

Sabitova

Hickling

L. M.

Priebe

(2020). Job morale: A scoping review of how the concept developed and is used in healthcare research. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12889-020-09256-6

103.

Sabramani

Idris

I. B.

Ismail

Nadarajaw

Zakaria

Kamaluddin

M. R.

(2021). Bullying and its associated individual, peer, family and school factors: Evidence from malaysian national secondary school students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 7208. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH18137208

104.

Salancik

G. R.

Pfeffer

(1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563

105.

Sams

(2005). An empirical examination of job stress and management of emotionally-based behavior: Frontline social service personnel perspective [PhD dissertation]. University of South Florida.

106.

Saucier

(1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.

107.

Scandura

T. A.

Graen

G. B.

(1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428

108.

Schein

E. H.

(1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 3–16.

109.

Schein

E. H.

(1985a). Defining organizational culture. Classic Organization Theory, 3(1), 490–502.

110.

Schein

E. H.

(1985b). Organisational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. Jossey-Bass.

111.

Scott

J. F.

(1971). Internalization of norms: A sociological theory of moral commitment. Prentice-Hall.

112.

Scott

W. A.

(1965). Values and organizations: A study of fraternities and sororities. Rand-McNally.

113.

Selçuk

A. A.

(2019). A guide for systematic reviews: PRISMA. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngology, 57(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.5152/tao.2019.4058

114.

Senge

(2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. Currency/Doubleday.

115.

Shim

(2010). Factors influencing child welfare employee’s turnover: Focusing on organizational culture and climate. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(6), 847–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHILDYOUTH.2010.02.004

116.

Shim

(2014). Do organisational culture and climate really matter for employee turnover in child welfare agencies? British Journal of Social Work, 44(3), 542–558. https://doi.org/10.1093/BJSW/BCS162

117.

Shover

Hochstetler

(2006). Choosing White-collar crime. Cambridge University Press.

118.

Sierra-Correa

P. C.

Cantera Kintz

J. R.

(2015). Ecosystem-based adaptation for improving coastal planning for sea-level rise: A systematic review for mangrove coasts. Marine Policy, 51, 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOL.2014.09.013

119.

Sivarajah

Kamal

M. M.

Irani

Weerakkody

(2017). Critical analysis of Big Data challenges and analytical methods. Journal of Business Research, 70, 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2016.08.001

120.

Spector

P. E.

Fox

(2010). Counterproductive work behavior and organisational citizenship behavior: Are they opposite forms of active behavior? Applied Psychology, 59(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1464-0597.2009.00414.X

121.

Spector

P. E.

Fox

Penney

L. M.

Bruursema

Goh

Kessler

(2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVB.2005.10.005

122.

Spicer

(2020). Organizational culture and COVID-19. Journal of Management Studies, 57(8), 1737–1740. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOMS.12625

123.

Stephens

Heaphy

Carmeli

Spreitzer

Dutton

(2013). Relationship quality and virtuousness: Emotional carrying capacity as a source of individual and team resilience. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(1), 13–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886312471193

124.

Sutherland

(1983). White collar crime? The uncut version. Yale University Press.

125.

Sutherland

E. H.

(1949). White collar crime. Dryden Press.

126.

Syed

N. A.

Azam

(2019). Islamic work ethics and workplace deviance: Moderating role of employees’ perceived abusive supervision and mediating role of employees’ hostility. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 13(4), 952–975.

127.

Tate

Whatley

Clugston

(1997). Sources and outcomes of job tension: A three-nation study. International Journal of Management, 14, 350–358.

128.

Teo

Y. H.

Ke Xu

J. T.

Leong

J. M.

Jyn Tan

B. K.

Hsuen Tan

E. K.

Goh

W. A.

Neo

Jing Chua

J. Y.

Yi Ng

S. J.

Yi Cheong

J. J.

Hwang

J. Y. F.

Lim

S. M.

Soo

Khim Sng

J. G.

(2021). Factors associated with self-reported burnout level in allied healthcare professionals in a tertiary hospital in Singapore. PloS One, 16(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0244338

129.

Tepper

(2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375

130.

Tharshini

N. K.

Ibrahim

Kamaluddin

M. R.

Rathakrishnan

Che Mohd Nasir

(2021). The link between individual personality traits and criminality: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8663. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH18168663

131.

Tiwari

Jha

(2022). Narcissism, toxic work culture and abusive supervision: A double-edged sword escalating organizational deviance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-05-2020-2187/FULL/PDF

132.

Trevino

L. K.

(1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist Modelm Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1986.4306235

133.

Valle

Kacmar

K. M.

Zivnuska

Harting

(2019). Abusive supervision, leader-member exchange, and moral disengagement: A moderated-mediation model of organizational deviance. Journal of Social Psychology, 159(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1466776

134.

van Mujien

J. J.

Koopman

de Witte

de Cock

Sasanj

Lemoine

Bourantas

Papalexandris

Branyicski

Spaltro

Jesuino

das Neves

J. G.

Pitariu

Konrad

Peiro

Gonzales-Roma

Turnipseed

. (1999). Organizational culture: The focus questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(4), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398168

135.

Vardi

Weitz

(2003). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609052

136.

Victor

Cullen

J. B.

(1987). A theory and measure of ethical climate in organizations. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 9, 51–71.

137.

Wallace

Wray

(2016). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates. Sage Publications.

138.

Wang

Lin

M. H.

Narayan

Burns

G. N.

Bowling

N. A.

(2022). A cross-cultural examination of the relationships between job attitudes and workplace deviance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 39(1), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-020-09721-1

139.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. E.

(1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305

140.

Wimbush

J. C.

Shepard

J. M.

(1994). Toward an understanding of ethical climate: Its relationship to ethical behavior and supervisory influence. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(8), 637–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871811

141.

Wood

Stride

Johnson

(2012). Personal and team morale in health services: Distinct and measurable concepts. Journal of Health Management, 14(4), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972063412468981

142.

Xia

Zou

P. X. W.

Griffin

M. A.

Wang

Zhong

(2018). Towards integrating construction risk management and stakeholder management: A systematic literature review and future research agendas. International Journal of Project Management, 36(5), 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2018.03.006

143.

Zakaria

Kamarudin

N. N.

Mohamad

Z. S.

Suzuki

Rathakrishnan

Singh

Rahman

Z. A.

Sabramani

Shaari

A. H.

Kamaluddin

M. R.

(2022). The role of family life and the influence of peer pressure on delinquency: Qualitative evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(13), 7846. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH19137846

144.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara

Araña

Celis Sosa

D. F.

(2012). Assessment and prediction of client-targeted citizenship behaviors among civil servants. In Petty

MacFarland

(Eds.), Citizenship: Practices, types and challenges (pp. 91–104). Nova Science Publishers.

145.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara

Ting-Ding

J. M.

(2016). The influence of corporate culture and workplace relationship quality on the outsourcing success in hotel firms. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 56, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHM.2016.04.012

Impacts of Workplace Culture on Deviant Workplace Behavior: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Measurement of Workplace Culture and Deviant Workplace Behavior

Synthesized Findings

Discussion

Conclusions and Implications for Further Research

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

An Ethics Statement

ORCID iDs

Data Availability Statement

References