Counterproductive Work Behaviour: The Role of Work Overload and Organizational Justice Dimensions among Employees in Nigeria Private Sector Organizations

Abstract

Due to the growing employment rate, employees' voices may not be heard but they speak in salient ways especially regarding their organizational climate as regards work load and uneven distribution of organizational rewards and punishments. Considering that these circumstances elicit employees' reaction, this study explored the roles of work overload and organizational justice dimensions on counterproductive work behaviour (CWB). The design was correlation design while regression statistics was used to analyze the predictive effects of work overload and organizational justice dimensions on CWB. Sample for the study was 85 employees, 44 males (51.8%) and 41 females (48.2%) drawn with the aid of purposive and cluster sampling. Participants' ages range from 20 to 57 at an average age of 34.02 years. CWB scale, Distributive justice index, and Work overload scale were instruments for data collection. The result revealed that employees were high on counterproductive work behaviour and that the predictive effects of work overload on CWB was positive and significant at β(3, 385) = .57*, p < .05 implying that with greater work overload on employees CWB increased proportionally. However, predictive effects of distributive justice (DJ) and procedural justice (PJ) were negative and significant at β(3, 385) = .52 and .40, p < .05 respectively implying that as the justice dimensions (distributive and procedural) improved, CWB reduced proportionally. The study recommends that management of organizations should shun exploitation and enthrone fair treatment of employees across board irrespective of ethnic background, age, religion, and gender to reduce CWB and improve organizational efficiency.

The Impact of Organizational Justice Dimensions on the Quality of Work Life During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…These findings likewise strengthen the description of the theory that the higher the application of disruptive justice values felt by employees, the higher the quality of their working lives [11]. The results of the study showed that distributive justice had an overwhelmingly positive relationship with the quality of work-life perceived by employees [12].…”

Relationship between Perceived Employability and Sabotage Behavior: Moderating Roles of Perceived Organizational Support and Procedural Justice

“…This takes us to the second gap in the extant literature related to the mentioned earlier. Although the literature on the antecedents of sabotage behavior in the present research location (Nigeria) is highly appreciable (e.g., Akinsola & Alarape, 2020;Ezeh & Osineme, 2017;Ezeh et al, 2018;Nnaebue et al, 2020), perceived employability have not been studied in relations to negative workplace behaviors. Perceived employability is an area in management that has not been well explored, especially concerning skilled labor in manufacturing organizations.…”

“…For instance, Afghan et al (2018) found that distributive and procedural justice were significantly and negatively related to counterproductive work behavior, while Dar and Rahman (2019) found a significant negative relationship between procedural justice and workplace deviance. Also, Nnaebue et al (2020) found that the three dimensions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) were negatively significant with counterproductive work behavior. These studies support the notion that PJ in the organization reduces negative workplace behaviors.…”

Leader-Member Exchange and Abusive Supervision as Predictors of Psychological Well-Being

“…It is envisaged that good leader-member exchange will elicit positive psychological well-being from organizational members that will lead to a more effective and efficient organization such as; job creativity (Nwangwu et al, 2021), job satisfaction, job security and other emotional well -being (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer & Ferris, 2012). It may also make workers feel overloaded if they do not exchange well (Nnaebue et al, 2020). However, it has been noted that managers of banking organizations in the process of working with others, sometimes exhibit behaviors that could be seen as tyrannical, aggressive or abusive (Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002;Hoobler & Brass, 2006;Hoel, Rayner & Cooper, 1999;Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002).…”