The Relationship Between Personality Traits, Deviant Behavior and Workplace Incivility
Nurul-Azza Abdullah, Aina Nurin Muhamad Nasruddin, Daniella Mokhtar
{"title":"The Relationship Between Personality Traits, Deviant Behavior and Workplace Incivility","authors":"Nurul-Azza Abdullah, Aina Nurin Muhamad Nasruddin, Daniella Mokhtar","doi":"10.6007/IJARBSS/V11-I3/8465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rude, rough, and disrespectful behavior has been experienced by most individuals every day, especially at work. These types of behaviors are categorized into workplace incivility and deviant behavior. Personality traits are one of the characteristics that tend to influence a person's behavior at work. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the relationship between personality traits and workplace incivility and deviant behavior. This study is a quantitative study, where data is collected using a three-part questionnaire which are demographics, personality inventory and workplace behavior. The study sample consisted of 97 employees of private organizations around the state of Selangor and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. Data were then analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Pearson's correlation test and multiple regression tests were carried out to achieve the research's objectives. The results showed that there was a significant relationship between personality traits and workplace deviant behavior and incivility. The results also showed that personality traits significantly predict workplace deviant behavior and incivility. The insights gained can help organizations in hiring new employees or identifying possible causes for unwanted issues within the organization. Keyword: Personality, Deviant Behavior, Incivility, Psychology, Workplace Introduction Most employees in an organization have the experience of being treated rudely or disrespected by their colleagues whether consciously or not. Such behavior is called workplace incivility. According to Miner and Cortina (2016), specific examples of rudeness in the workplace include neglecting someone, making derogatory comments, insulting or shouting at an individual, refusing to communicate orally and speaking in an unprofessional manner to an individual. As many as 98 percent of employees have been estimated to be impolite in the workplace with 50 percent experiencing it on a weekly basis (Porath & Pearson, 2013). This should not be the norm in an organization and should be curbed so as not to get worse, for example, the victim may behave deviant in the workplace if experiencing the matter continuously. Meanwhile, deviant behavior in the workplace refers to the voluntary behavior of individuals International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences Vol. 1 1 , No. 3, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS 171 who violate organizational norms and threaten the well-being of the organization, members of the organization, or both (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Examples of such behaviors include theft, sabotage, vandalism, embezzlement, harassment, and drug use (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Sackett & DeVore, 2001; Spector et al., 2006). Untreated deviant behavior can lead to failure and paralysis of the entire organizational performance (Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Bolin & Heatherly, 2001). Many past studies have been done to understand the resulting factors of politeness and deviant behavior in the workplace including employee personality, stress and workload, leadership ethics, and more. Personality consists of the characteristics of thought patterns, feelings, and behaviors that make a person unique (Eysenck, 1967). The five personality traits used in the study were openness, prudence, extraversion, agreement, and neuroticism. The personality trait of openness has been described as the depth as well as the complexity of an individual's life and mental experience (John & Srivastava, 1999). An example of the nature of an individual who has this trait is fond of trying new, bold, and creative things. The prudent trait refers to the way a person controls, regulates, and directs impulses (Johnson and Ostendorf, 1993) and acts in a socially acceptable way (John & Srivastava, 1999). Extraversion traits are individuals who like to socialize and interact with the public reflecting the level of social harmony of an individual with others. Next, personality traits of neuroticism or low emotional stability refer to a person’s tendency to experience negative feelings (Johnson and Ostendorf, 1993). Individuals with these high neuroticism traits may be irritable, tend to feel uncomfortable with themselves as well as self-doubt (Lebowitz, 2016). Several previous studies have confirmed that the five Big Five personality traits are consistent when applied to different populations including populations of children, students, and adults (McCrae, 2004; Aluja et al., 2005). These personality traits are one of the factors of decency and deviant behavior in the workplace that have been focused on in previous studies. Politeness in the workplace is completely separate from physical violence and aggression (Itzkovich & Heilbrunn, 2016). However, the adverse effects of immorality in the workplace are almost the same as the effects of other negative behaviors such as deviant behavior, aggression, and so on even though the intensity of these impolite behaviors is lower. Porath and Pearson (2009) found that 80 percent of employees report loss of time due to concern about a rude incident and 48 percent report they intentionally reduce the effort in doing their job. This shows that rudeness in the workplace has a detrimental effect on the mental state of an employee and can germinate even worse if left alone. Disrespectful in the workplace is a vague behavior, in the sense that not everyone thinks a certain something is rude, one rude thing to a person may be seen as acceptable by the other person. As a result, politeness in the workplace may be ignored only by leaders in the organization (Lewis & Malecha, 2011). But, everyone can fall victim to this whether they experience it from colleagues, employers or customers and clients if working in a sector that offers services to the public. Researchers see immodesty in the workplace as compared to low-intensity stress, such as disorders that occur in daily life (Lim & Lee, 2011). Politeness in the workplace is also not necessarily aimed at a particular individual. For example, when an employee throws garbage everywhere in the lounge, anyone who wants to use it has to tidy International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences Vol. 1 1 , No. 3, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS 172 up the place. Past studies have mostly focused on the effects of immodesty in the workplace compared to the causes of such behavior, especially in Malaysia. Furthermore, deviant behavior in the workplace has long been studied around the world including Malaysia, but it is still a serious problem in the organization. According to Omar, Awang and Manaf (2012), the performance and integrity of civil servants in Malaysia are still problematic. Many researchers use different terms to replace deviant behavior in the workplace, such as unproductive behavior (Spector et al., 2010), antisocial behavior (Giacalone et al., 1997), misconduct (Vardi & Weiner, 1992), behavior destructive (Murphy, 1993), and more. Deviant behavior or unproductive behavior in the workplace is considered one of the three main dimensions of job performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Therefore, deviant behavior has a huge impact on the employees of the organization so that it can affect the performance of employees and result in losses for an organization. Millions of dollars are lost each year as a result of deviant behavior at work (Johnson & Indvik, 2001). In 2010 alone, the U.S.A. suffered losses of $ 15.9 billion due to theft by employees (Hollinger & Adams 2010). Furthermore, a worldwide survey study was conducted in 32 countries in North America, Asia Pacific, and Europe estimating that more than a third of losses could be attributed to theft by employees (Bamfield, 2007). A study conducted by Coffin (2003) found that at least one-third of individuals in an organization have been involved in stealing activities in their organization and 95 percent are found to have stolen once in their lives. The results of the study show that an individual is very easy to do deviant behavior in the workplace and easily influenced by personal factors that are their personality. In addition, employees who fall victim to deviant behavior will experience physical and psychological pain, compromised self-esteem and increase selfdoubt in the workplace (Farhadi et al. 2012). Therefore, employees will always feel disturbed in the workplace, always be under stress and will not focus on the tasks that need to be completed. The adverse effects of this deviant behavior are almost the same as the effects of rudeness in the workplace which both have a negative impact on employees and organizations, but deviant behavior is clearer in terms of behavior and more physically involved employees. Researchers have identified that deviant behavior results in adverse effects such as the intention to quit work, absenteeism, frustration, abuse of materials and privileges, stealing, sexual harassment, and bias (Chirasha & Mahapa 2012; Appelbaum et al. 2007; Lawrence & Robinso 2007; Bolin & Heatherly 2001).","PeriodicalId":333260,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/V11-I3/8465","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Rude, rough, and disrespectful behavior has been experienced by most individuals every day, especially at work. These types of behaviors are categorized into workplace incivility and deviant behavior. Personality traits are one of the characteristics that tend to influence a person's behavior at work. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the relationship between personality traits and workplace incivility and deviant behavior. This study is a quantitative study, where data is collected using a three-part questionnaire which are demographics, personality inventory and workplace behavior. The study sample consisted of 97 employees of private organizations around the state of Selangor and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. Data were then analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Pearson's correlation test and multiple regression tests were carried out to achieve the research's objectives. The results showed that there was a significant relationship between personality traits and workplace deviant behavior and incivility. The results also showed that personality traits significantly predict workplace deviant behavior and incivility. The insights gained can help organizations in hiring new employees or identifying possible causes for unwanted issues within the organization. Keyword: Personality, Deviant Behavior, Incivility, Psychology, Workplace Introduction Most employees in an organization have the experience of being treated rudely or disrespected by their colleagues whether consciously or not. Such behavior is called workplace incivility. According to Miner and Cortina (2016), specific examples of rudeness in the workplace include neglecting someone, making derogatory comments, insulting or shouting at an individual, refusing to communicate orally and speaking in an unprofessional manner to an individual. As many as 98 percent of employees have been estimated to be impolite in the workplace with 50 percent experiencing it on a weekly basis (Porath & Pearson, 2013). This should not be the norm in an organization and should be curbed so as not to get worse, for example, the victim may behave deviant in the workplace if experiencing the matter continuously. Meanwhile, deviant behavior in the workplace refers to the voluntary behavior of individuals International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences Vol. 1 1 , No. 3, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS 171 who violate organizational norms and threaten the well-being of the organization, members of the organization, or both (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Examples of such behaviors include theft, sabotage, vandalism, embezzlement, harassment, and drug use (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Sackett & DeVore, 2001; Spector et al., 2006). Untreated deviant behavior can lead to failure and paralysis of the entire organizational performance (Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Bolin & Heatherly, 2001). Many past studies have been done to understand the resulting factors of politeness and deviant behavior in the workplace including employee personality, stress and workload, leadership ethics, and more. Personality consists of the characteristics of thought patterns, feelings, and behaviors that make a person unique (Eysenck, 1967). The five personality traits used in the study were openness, prudence, extraversion, agreement, and neuroticism. The personality trait of openness has been described as the depth as well as the complexity of an individual's life and mental experience (John & Srivastava, 1999). An example of the nature of an individual who has this trait is fond of trying new, bold, and creative things. The prudent trait refers to the way a person controls, regulates, and directs impulses (Johnson and Ostendorf, 1993) and acts in a socially acceptable way (John & Srivastava, 1999). Extraversion traits are individuals who like to socialize and interact with the public reflecting the level of social harmony of an individual with others. Next, personality traits of neuroticism or low emotional stability refer to a person’s tendency to experience negative feelings (Johnson and Ostendorf, 1993). Individuals with these high neuroticism traits may be irritable, tend to feel uncomfortable with themselves as well as self-doubt (Lebowitz, 2016). Several previous studies have confirmed that the five Big Five personality traits are consistent when applied to different populations including populations of children, students, and adults (McCrae, 2004; Aluja et al., 2005). These personality traits are one of the factors of decency and deviant behavior in the workplace that have been focused on in previous studies. Politeness in the workplace is completely separate from physical violence and aggression (Itzkovich & Heilbrunn, 2016). However, the adverse effects of immorality in the workplace are almost the same as the effects of other negative behaviors such as deviant behavior, aggression, and so on even though the intensity of these impolite behaviors is lower. Porath and Pearson (2009) found that 80 percent of employees report loss of time due to concern about a rude incident and 48 percent report they intentionally reduce the effort in doing their job. This shows that rudeness in the workplace has a detrimental effect on the mental state of an employee and can germinate even worse if left alone. Disrespectful in the workplace is a vague behavior, in the sense that not everyone thinks a certain something is rude, one rude thing to a person may be seen as acceptable by the other person. As a result, politeness in the workplace may be ignored only by leaders in the organization (Lewis & Malecha, 2011). But, everyone can fall victim to this whether they experience it from colleagues, employers or customers and clients if working in a sector that offers services to the public. Researchers see immodesty in the workplace as compared to low-intensity stress, such as disorders that occur in daily life (Lim & Lee, 2011). Politeness in the workplace is also not necessarily aimed at a particular individual. For example, when an employee throws garbage everywhere in the lounge, anyone who wants to use it has to tidy International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences Vol. 1 1 , No. 3, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS 172 up the place. Past studies have mostly focused on the effects of immodesty in the workplace compared to the causes of such behavior, especially in Malaysia. Furthermore, deviant behavior in the workplace has long been studied around the world including Malaysia, but it is still a serious problem in the organization. According to Omar, Awang and Manaf (2012), the performance and integrity of civil servants in Malaysia are still problematic. Many researchers use different terms to replace deviant behavior in the workplace, such as unproductive behavior (Spector et al., 2010), antisocial behavior (Giacalone et al., 1997), misconduct (Vardi & Weiner, 1992), behavior destructive (Murphy, 1993), and more. Deviant behavior or unproductive behavior in the workplace is considered one of the three main dimensions of job performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Therefore, deviant behavior has a huge impact on the employees of the organization so that it can affect the performance of employees and result in losses for an organization. Millions of dollars are lost each year as a result of deviant behavior at work (Johnson & Indvik, 2001). In 2010 alone, the U.S.A. suffered losses of $ 15.9 billion due to theft by employees (Hollinger & Adams 2010). Furthermore, a worldwide survey study was conducted in 32 countries in North America, Asia Pacific, and Europe estimating that more than a third of losses could be attributed to theft by employees (Bamfield, 2007). A study conducted by Coffin (2003) found that at least one-third of individuals in an organization have been involved in stealing activities in their organization and 95 percent are found to have stolen once in their lives. The results of the study show that an individual is very easy to do deviant behavior in the workplace and easily influenced by personal factors that are their personality. In addition, employees who fall victim to deviant behavior will experience physical and psychological pain, compromised self-esteem and increase selfdoubt in the workplace (Farhadi et al. 2012). Therefore, employees will always feel disturbed in the workplace, always be under stress and will not focus on the tasks that need to be completed. The adverse effects of this deviant behavior are almost the same as the effects of rudeness in the workplace which both have a negative impact on employees and organizations, but deviant behavior is clearer in terms of behavior and more physically involved employees. Researchers have identified that deviant behavior results in adverse effects such as the intention to quit work, absenteeism, frustration, abuse of materials and privileges, stealing, sexual harassment, and bias (Chirasha & Mahapa 2012; Appelbaum et al. 2007; Lawrence & Robinso 2007; Bolin & Heatherly 2001).
人格特质、越轨行为与工作场所不礼貌的关系
大多数人每天都经历过粗鲁、粗暴和不尊重的行为,尤其是在工作中。这些类型的行为被归类为工作场所的不文明行为和越轨行为。性格特征是影响一个人在工作中的行为的特征之一。因此,本研究旨在探讨人格特质与职场不文明行为和越轨行为之间的关系。本研究是一项定量研究,数据收集使用三部分的调查问卷,即人口统计,个性调查和工作场所行为。研究样本包括雪兰莪州和吉隆坡联邦直辖区的97名私人组织雇员。然后使用社会科学统计软件包(SPSS)软件对数据进行分析。通过Pearson相关检验和多元回归检验,达到研究目的。结果表明,人格特质与职场越轨行为、不文明行为之间存在显著的相关关系。结果还表明,人格特质显著预测工作场所的越轨行为和不文明行为。获得的见解可以帮助组织雇用新员工或确定组织中不想要的问题的可能原因。关键词:个性,越轨行为,不文明行为,心理学,工作场所介绍在一个组织中,大多数员工都有被同事粗鲁对待或不尊重的经历,不管这种经历是有意还是无意的。这种行为被称为职场无礼。根据Miner和Cortina(2016)的说法,工作场所粗鲁的具体例子包括忽视某人,发表贬损性评论,侮辱或对某人大喊大叫,拒绝口头交流以及以不专业的方式与某人交谈。据估计,多达98%的员工在工作场所不礼貌,其中50%的人每周都会遇到这种情况(Porath & Pearson, 2013)。这不应该成为一个组织的常态,应该加以遏制,以免变得更糟,例如,如果受害者在工作场所连续经历这件事,可能会表现得不正常。同时,工作场所的越轨行为是指个人的自愿行为,国际商业与社会科学学术研究杂志Vol. 11, No. 3, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990©2021 HRMARS 171违反组织规范,威胁到组织或组织成员的福祉,或两者兼而有之(Robinson & Bennett, 1995)。此类行为的例子包括盗窃、破坏、故意破坏、挪用公款、骚扰和吸毒(Bennett & Robinson, 2000;Gruys & Sackett, 2003;Robinson & Bennett, 1995;Sackett & DeVore, 2001;Spector et al., 2006)。未经治疗的越轨行为会导致整个组织绩效的失败和瘫痪(Dunlop & Lee, 2004;Bolin & Heatherly, 2001)。过去的许多研究都是为了了解职场中礼貌和越轨行为的影响因素,包括员工个性、压力和工作量、领导道德等等。个性包括使一个人与众不同的思维模式、感觉和行为特征(艾森克,1967)。研究中使用的五种性格特征是开放性、谨慎性、外向性、一致性和神经质。开放性的人格特质被描述为个人生活和心理体验的深度和复杂性(John & Srivastava, 1999)。具有这种特质的人喜欢尝试新的、大胆的和创造性的事物。谨慎特质是指一个人控制、调节和指导冲动的方式(Johnson and Ostendorf, 1993),并以社会可接受的方式行事(John & Srivastava, 1999)。外向性格是指喜欢社交和与公众互动的人,反映了一个人与他人的社会和谐程度。其次,神经质或情绪稳定性低的人格特征是指一个人倾向于体验负面情绪(Johnson and Ostendorf, 1993)。具有这些高神经质特征的个体可能易怒,倾向于对自己感到不舒服以及自我怀疑(Lebowitz, 2016)。之前的几项研究已经证实,五大人格特征在适用于不同人群时是一致的,包括儿童、学生和成年人(麦克雷,2004;Aluja et al., 2005)。这些人格特征是先前研究关注的工作场所得体和越轨行为的因素之一。工作场所的礼貌与身体暴力和攻击是完全分开的(Itzkovich & Heilbrunn, 2016)。 然而,在工作场所,不道德行为的负面影响与其他负面行为(如越轨行为、攻击性行为等)的影响几乎相同,尽管这些不礼貌行为的强度较低。Porath和Pearson(2009)发现,80%的员工报告说,由于担心粗鲁的事件,他们浪费了时间,48%的人报告说,他们故意减少工作上的努力。这表明,工作场所的粗鲁行为会对员工的精神状态产生有害影响,如果放任不管,可能会滋生更严重的问题。不尊重在工作场所是一种模糊的行为,在这个意义上,不是每个人都认为某件事是粗鲁的,对一个人来说粗鲁的事情可能被另一个人认为是可以接受的。因此,工作场所的礼貌可能只会被组织中的领导者所忽视(Lewis & Malecha, 2011)。但是,如果在一个为公众提供服务的行业工作,每个人都可能成为这种情况的受害者,无论是从同事、雇主还是顾客和客户那里经历的。研究人员认为,与低强度的压力相比,工作场所的不谦逊,比如日常生活中出现的紊乱(Lim & Lee, 2011)。工作场所的礼貌也不一定是针对某个特定的人。例如,当一名员工在休息室到处扔垃圾时,任何想要使用它的人都必须整理国际商业与社会科学学术研究杂志Vol. 11, No. 3, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990©2021 HRMARS 172。过去的研究主要集中在工作场所不谦虚的影响,而不是这种行为的原因,特别是在马来西亚。此外,包括马来西亚在内的世界各地都对工作场所的越轨行为进行了长期的研究,但它仍然是组织中一个严重的问题。根据Omar, Awang和Manaf(2012),马来西亚公务员的表现和诚信仍然存在问题。许多研究人员使用不同的术语来代替工作场所中的越轨行为,如非生产性行为(Spector等人,2010)、反社会行为(Giacalone等人,1997)、不当行为(Vardi和Weiner, 1992)、破坏性行为(Murphy, 1993)等等。工作场所的越轨行为或非生产性行为被认为是工作绩效的三个主要维度之一(Rotundo & Sackett, 2002)。因此,越轨行为对组织员工的影响是巨大的,它会影响员工的绩效,给组织带来损失。由于工作中的异常行为,每年损失数百万美元(Johnson & Indvik, 2001)。仅在2010年,由于员工盗窃,美国遭受了159亿美元的损失(Hollinger & Adams 2010)。此外,在北美、亚太地区和欧洲的32个国家进行的一项全球调查研究估计,超过三分之一的损失可归因于员工盗窃(Bamfield, 2007)。Coffin(2003)进行的一项研究发现,一个组织中至少有三分之一的个人在其组织中参与过偷窃活动,95%的人在其一生中被发现有过一次偷窃行为。研究结果表明,一个人在工作场所很容易做出越轨行为,很容易受到个人因素的影响,这就是他们的个性。此外,成为异常行为受害者的员工将经历身体和心理上的痛苦,自尊心受损,并在工作场所增加自我怀疑(Farhadi et al. 2012)。因此,员工在工作场所总是会感到不安,总是处于压力之下,不会专注于需要完成的任务。这种越轨行为的负面影响与工作场所的粗鲁行为几乎相同,对员工和组织都有负面影响,但越轨行为在行为方面更清晰,员工的身体参与也更多。研究人员已经发现,异常行为会导致不良影响,如辞职、旷工、沮丧、滥用材料和特权、偷窃、性骚扰和偏见(Chirasha & Mahapa 2012;Appelbaum et al. 2007;Lawrence & Robinso 2007;Bolin & Heatherly 2001)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。