Volume 5, Issue 4 (Winter 2022)
Iranian Journal of Educational Sociology 2022, 5(4): 129-141 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shahbazi M, Sohrabi S, Asadi E. (2022). Antecedents of Destructive Organizational and Administrative Behaviors and the management model to reduce such behaviors based on Social Exchange Theory by Meta-Synthesis Method. Iranian Journal of Educational Sociology. 5(4), 129-141. doi:10.61186/ijes.5.4.129
URL: http://iase-idje.ir/article-1-1248-en.html
URL: http://iase-idje.ir/article-1-1248-en.html
1- PhD student, Department of Public Administration, Roudehen Branch, Islamic Azad University, Roudehen, Iran.
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Shahid Sattari Aviation University, Tehran, Iran.
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Shahid Sattari Aviation University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (1859 Views)
Purpose: Organizational and administrative destructive behaviors cause many direct and indirect costs on organizations and reduce organizational progress. Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify antecedents of destructive organizational and administrative behaviors based on social exchange theory by meta-synthesis method.
Methodology: This study was developmental in terms of objective, cross-sectional in terms of time, and qualitative in terms of data collection. The field of research included 582 articles on destructive organizational and administrative behaviors during 2000-2022. The research sample included 55 articles selected by purposive sampling method and according to inclusion criteria. The data were collected by note-taking (validity was confirmed by the triangulation method and reliability was estimated to be 0.89 by the Cohen's kappa coefficient) and analyzed by content analysis using the seven-step meta-synthesis method of Sandelowski and Barroso (2007).
Findings: The results showed that the antecedents of destructive organizational and administrative behaviors based on social exchange theory had two main categories and six subcategories. Each of the two categories of facilitating antecedents and inhibiting antecedents included three subcategories of behavioral factors, structural factors, and contextual factors. Finally, given the categories and subcategories, a model of the antecedents of destructive organizational and administrative behaviors based on social exchange theory was drawn.
Conclusion: The model of antecedents of organizational and administrative destructive behaviors based on social exchange theory designed in the present study can be used as a tool for strategic planning in the field of organizational and administrative destructive behaviors.
Methodology: This study was developmental in terms of objective, cross-sectional in terms of time, and qualitative in terms of data collection. The field of research included 582 articles on destructive organizational and administrative behaviors during 2000-2022. The research sample included 55 articles selected by purposive sampling method and according to inclusion criteria. The data were collected by note-taking (validity was confirmed by the triangulation method and reliability was estimated to be 0.89 by the Cohen's kappa coefficient) and analyzed by content analysis using the seven-step meta-synthesis method of Sandelowski and Barroso (2007).
Findings: The results showed that the antecedents of destructive organizational and administrative behaviors based on social exchange theory had two main categories and six subcategories. Each of the two categories of facilitating antecedents and inhibiting antecedents included three subcategories of behavioral factors, structural factors, and contextual factors. Finally, given the categories and subcategories, a model of the antecedents of destructive organizational and administrative behaviors based on social exchange theory was drawn.
Conclusion: The model of antecedents of organizational and administrative destructive behaviors based on social exchange theory designed in the present study can be used as a tool for strategic planning in the field of organizational and administrative destructive behaviors.
Keywords: Destructive Organizational Behaviors, Social Exchange Theory, Meta-Synthesis, Facilitating Antecedents, Inhibiting Antecedents
References
1. Ahmadi Alvar Z, Feiz D, Modarresi M. (2022). Meta-synthesis of antecedents of deviant behavior in Iranian organizations. Public Administration Perspective. 13(2): 63-89. [Persian] [DOI:10.52547/jpap.2021.221449.1043]
2. Carpenter NC, Berry CM. (2017). Are counterproductive work behavior and withdrawal empirically distinct? A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Management. 43(3): 834-863. [DOI:10.1177/0149206314544743]
3. Chen CC, Chen MYC, Liu YC. (2013). Negative affectivity and workplace deviance: the moderating role of ethical climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 24 (15): 2894-2910. [DOI:10.1080/09585192.2012.753550]
4. Cheng X, Long R, Wu F. (2022). How symbols and social interaction influence the experienced utility of sustainable lifestyle guiding policies: Evidence from eastern China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 19(7): 4305: 1-22. [DOI:10.3390/ijerph19074305] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Cropanzano R, Anthony EL, Daniels SR, Hall AV. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals. 11(1): 479-516. [DOI:10.5465/annals.2015.0099]
6. Dhurup M, Surujlal J, Kabongo DM. (2016). Finding synergic relationships in teamwork, organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A case study of a construction organization in a developing country. Procedia Economics and Finance. 35: 485-492. [DOI:10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00060-5]
7. Fatahi F, Jahangirfard M, Mahdizadeh A. (2020). The effect of contextual factors on employees' deviant behaviors. Military Management. 19(76): 103-126. [Persian]
8. Ghaedamini Harouni A, Ebrahimzadeh Dastjerdi R, Ebrahimpour AR. (2022). Designing a model for managing deviant behaviors in the workplace in the Islamic Azad University. Strategic Research on Social Problems in Iran. 11(1): 81-108. [Persian]
9. Grijalva E, Harms PD, Newman DA, Gaddis BH, Fraley RC. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology. 68(1): 1-47. [DOI:10.1111/peps.12072]
10. Hou T, Luo X, Ke D, Cheng X. (2022). Exploring different appraisals in deviant sharing behaviors: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Business Research. 139: 496-509. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.066]
11. Hystad SW, Mearns KJ, Eid J. (2014). Moral disengagement as a mechanism between perceptions of organisational injustice and deviant work behaviours. Safety Science. 68: 138-145. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2014.03.012]
12. Jung JH, Yoo J. (2019). The effects of deviant customer-oriented behaviors on service friendship: The moderating role of co-production. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 48: 60-69. [DOI:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.02.012]
13. Kwon HG. (2017). A study on the structural relationship between authentic leadership, trust in superiors, organizational silence, turnover intention, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of the Korea Industrial Information Systems Research. 22(4): 131-147.
14. Lugosi P. (2019). Deviance, deviant behaviour and hospitality management: Sources, forms and drivers. Tourism Management. 74: 81-98. [DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.014]
15. Moslemi Kaviri M, Karimi O, Nick Manesh S. (2020). Disruptive behaviors of staff at Payame Noor University of Alborz province and its causing factors with a mixed approach. Public Organizations Management. 8(1): 61-80. [Persian]
16. O'Connor PJ, Stone S, Walker BR, Jackson CJ. (2017). Deviant behavior in constrained environments: Sensation-Seeking predicts workplace deviance in shallow learners. Personality and Individual Differences. 108: 20-25. [DOI:10.1080/01639625.2016.1197025]
17. Okeke CC, Okeke CI, Ugwuanyi CS. (2023). Demographic determinants of work deviant behaviors of rural community‐based primary school teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Community Psychology. 51(1): 168-181. [DOI:10.1002/jcop.22895] [PMID] [PMCID]
18. Ple L, Demangeot C. (2020). Social contagion of online and offline deviant behaviors and its value outcomes: The case of tourism ecosystems. Journal of Business Research. 117: 886-896. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.002]
19. Pletzer JL. (2021). Why older employees engage in less counterproductive work behavior and in more organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the role of the HEXACO personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences. 173: 110550. [DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110550]
20. Roshan Zamir M, Irani HR, Yazdani HR. (2017). Identifying factors affecting deviant behaviors (Case study: Headquarter of University of Tehran). Culture in the Islamic University. 7(2): 183-204. [Persian]
21. Shi Y, Cai Y, Zhao M. (2021). Social interaction effect of rotational grazing and its policy implications for sustainable use of grassland: Evidence from pastoral areas in Inner Mongolia and Gansu, China. Land Use Policy. 111: 105734. [DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105734]
22. Thibault T, Kelloway EK. (2020). The dark tetrad at work. Human Performance. 33(5): 406-424. [DOI:10.1080/08959285.2020.1802728]
23. Tran PNT, Gorton M, Lemke F. (2022). Buyers' perspectives on improving performance and curtailing supplier opportunism in supplier development: A social exchange theory approach. Industrial Marketing Management. 106: 183-196. [DOI:10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.08.009]
24. Urbonavicius S, Degutis M, Zimaitis I, Kadusleviciute V, Skare V. (2021). From social networking to willingness to disclose personal data when shopping online: Modelling in the context of social exchange theory. Journal of Business Research. 136: 76-85. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.031]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
.jpg)
