The Effect of HR Practices, Leadership Style on Cyberdeviance: The ...

Journal of Marketing and Management, 3 (1), 22-48, May 2012 22

The Effect of HR Practices, Leadership Style on Cyberdeviance: The Mediating Role of

Organizational Commitment

Faridahwati Mohd Shamsudin, Chandrakantan Subramaniam, Ahmad Said Alshuaibi

College of Business

Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

Recently the phenomenon of cyberdeviance has become a major concern of employers, as its

represent outgoing challenge for the contemporary scholar and practitioners, these challenges

related to the significant costs in organizations, in both human and financial terms. Some of the

negative impacts experienced by organizations include: disciplinary actions, termination, or loss

of employees, breaches of corporate confidentiality and reputation loss, or personal privacy,

personal and organizational liability and the associated legal costs, as well as billions of dollars

in lost productivity (Weatherbee, 2010). This concern perhaps stems from the issues related to

prevalence and cost related to the phenomenon. The purpose of this paper is to revisit the

management literature and establish a link between HR practices, leadership style and

cyberdeviance. Within this context this paper will also conceptually propose the possibility of

organizational commitment to mediate this relationship. In this manner the paper will propose a

research model and develop propositions to be later tested empirically.

Keywords: Cybereviance, HR practices, leadership style, organizational commitment

mailto:[email protected]


Introduction

Information technology such as the Internet has made positive and negative impact on

organizations (Case & Young, 2001). From a positive outlook Internet has facilitated

communication both within an organization and with other organizations. It has also enabled

employees to work faster, smarter, and has increased productivity because of increased

accessibility to information (Chen, Chen, & Yang, 2008; Henle & Blanchard, 2008). On the

other hand, these technological advancements has brought an onslaught of unintentional and

unforeseen problems by creating new forms of deviant behavior amongst employees such as

surfing non-work related sites during working hours (Roman, 1996; Tapia, 2006), playing games,

performing personal banking online, updating personal blogs/websites during work hours, or

frittering away organizational time by using email (Weatherbee, 2010) for non-work related

reasons. Such Internet-related misbehavior is often known as cyberdeviance (Weatherbee, 2010).

Cyberdeviance or misbehaving in the age of cyber is a new workplace phenomenon brought

about by transformations in the Internet technology. The phenomenon itself has took different

terms for example, cyberslacking (Johnson & Indvik, 2004), cyberloafing(Lim& Teo, 2005; Lim,

2002), personal web usage(Anandarajan), internet abuse(Churchman, 2003), to name few.

Cyberdeviance have defined as the act of employees using their companies’ internet access

during work hours to surf non-work related web sites and to send personal e-mail (Lim & Teo,

2005).

The issue of computer misusage at workplace in particular during working hours are an

increasing concern among employers (Lim, Teo, & Loo, 2002; Mastrangelo, Everton, & Jolton,

2003), as it is a hidden cost to the organizations. For example, a study conducted by Lim and Teo,


(2005) found that among 226 working adults who had accesses to the Internet at work spent on

average 2.7 hours day surfing on non-related work websites. In his study, Lim (2005) reported

that 30 to 40 percent of the employees surfing non-work related websites cause companies loses

in term of productivity. In USA estimates indicate that between 20% and 30% of companies have

fired an employee for cyberloafing including accessing pornographic sites, online gambling, and

online shopping (Case & Young, 2002; Greenfield & Davis, 2002). If these statistics are to be

reflective of what is happening now at the workplace, organizations will eventually report losses

in productivity and performance. Therefore, such behaviors like these need to be curbed and

managed effectively.

To date studies that have attempted to explain what explains the occurrence of

cyberdeviance at work looked at individual variables namely self-esteem, locus of control,

personality, and organizational tenure (Ferris, Lian, Brown, Pang, & Keeping, 2010; Lim & Teo,

2009; Renaud, Ramsay, & Hair, 2006) and organizational variables namely organizational

sanctions, organizational justice, and monitoring (Vorobyov, 2005) (Henle & Blanchard, 2008,

de Lara, 2006; Lim, 2002). The focus of this paper is on the contribution of organizational

characteristics. The reason being is because generally speaking cyberdeviance is a form of

production deviance. Production deviance is one of the four main dimensions of workplace

deviance, developed by Robinson and Bennett (1995), who extended the original categorization

made by Hollinger and Clark (1982, 1983). Production deviance is defined as behaviors that

violate the organization norms by delineating the quality and quantity of work to be

accomplished (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). In other words, cyberdeviance is an organizationally

focused deviant behavior (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). According to Robinson and Bennett,

(1995) behaviors that violate the organization norms by delineating the quality and quantity of


work to be accomplished categorized under the production deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995).

Because cyberdeviance is an act of employees using their companies’ internet access for

personal purposes during work hours, it is categorized under the rubric of production deviance,

which includes relatively minor, organizationally harmful misbehavior, in the typology

developed by Robinson and Bennett (Lim, 2002). Cyberdeviance could be classified as

organizational deviance since the cyber-loafer acts directly against the company’s internet

system (Lim, 2002).

Theoretical model and proposition development

Literatures indicate a number of studies established the link between HR practices with various

employee outcomes (Collins & Smith 2006, Sels, 2006, Wright et al., 2003). Numerous

researchers have demonstrated positive relationship between HR practices namely compensation

practices, promotion practices, and evaluation practices on various employee related outcomes,

and perceived employees performance namely (Baloch, Ali, Kiani, Ahsan, & Mufty, 2010; Gong

Law, Chang, & Xin, 2009; Marwat, Qureshi, & Ramay, 2007; Shahzad, Bashir, & Ramay

2008).However, very limited studies that tried to establish the link between HR practices to

WDB (Arthur, 2011).

On a similar vein, leadership styles in organizations have also been found to have a profound

impact on organizational and personal outcomes of the followers (Boerner, Eisenbeiss, &

Griesser, 2007; Felfe & Schyns, 2004; Hater & Bass, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Ismail,

Baizura, & Rabaah, 2009; Zhu, Chew, & Spangler., 2005). Past studies have demonstrated the

influence of leadership style on negative behaviors such as workplace deviant behavior (Brown


& Treviño, 2006; Judge, LePine & Rich, 2006; Treviño & Brown, 2005), and workplace

aggression (Hepworth & Towler, 2004), to name few. Literature have indicated limited studies

that focus on the link between leadership style and WDB for example (Brown & Treviño, 2006;

Mulki, Jaramillo, and Locander, 2006; Vardi & Weitz, 2004).

Based on the above description, a possibility to link HR practices and leadership style

with cyberdeviance becomes practical and this opens new avenue to empirical testing. In

developing a holistic model to understand WDB the need to integrate organizational commitment

is vital because organizational commitment considers as joint link between HR practices,

leadership style and cyberdeviance. When one looks at the literatures, such link is possible by

integrating two separate bodies of research into a single model. A group of studies have

examined the effect of HR practices on attitudinal outcomes such as organizational commitment

(e.g. Browning, 2006; Gong et al., 2009; Paul & Anantharaman, 2004; Wright & Kehoe, 2007),

while another group of studies have considered the role of organizational commitment in

influencing work-related outcomes such as job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors,

willingness to share knowledge, absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover (Fedor et al., 2006; Paré &

Tremblay, 2007; Riketta, 2002; Shore & Martin, 1989; Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, 1989; Meyer

et al., 2002; Alvesson, 2001). In addition, in previous empirical attempts it is found to be

influenced by both HR practices and leadership style, and it has also been found to have effect on

employee outcome such as workplace deviant behavior (Liao, 2004; Sims, 2002).

The relationship between HR practices and cyberdeviance

Generally HR practices are defined as organizational activities directed at managing the

pool of human resources and ensuring that the resources are employed towards the fulfillment of


organizational goals (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Wright & Snell, 1991). Previous studies have

found empirical support to the influence of HR practices on employee’s outcomes such as job

performance (Wright, Gardner, & Moynihan., 2003; Tessema & Soeters, 2006), organizational

commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer & Smith, 2000; Shahzad et al., 2010), job

satisfaction (Gardner Moynihan, Park, & Gürbüz, 2009), intent to leave (Gardner et al., 2001;

Khera, 2010), and absenteeism (Gardner et al., 2001). From the empirical standpoint, these

studies concluded that the more favorably HR practices are perceived by employees, the more

likely employees will engage in positive behavioral outcomes such as organizational

commitment and job satisfaction (Anvari, Amin, Ahmad, Seliman, & Garmsari 2011; Gould-

Williams, 2007; Gürbüz, 2009; Lee & Kim, 2010; Marwat et al., 2007 ; Mudor & Tooksoon,

2011; Reisel, Probst, Chia, Maloles, & König, 2010; Shahzad et al., 2008), and the less likely

they are to engage in negative behavioral outcomes such as turnover, and absenteeism (Bawa &

Jantan, 2005; Gardner et al., 2001; Huselid, 1995; Mudor & Tooksoon, 2011).

From the limited studies conducted between HR practices and WDB evidences indicate

that a negative relationship pattern was discover between HR practices and WDB (Arthur, 2011).

Relying on the fact that HR practices have been negatively affecting negative behavioral

outcome such as intention to leave (Gardner et al., 2001; Khera, 2010), it can assumed that they

will be negatively related. In other words, the more favorably HR practices are perceived by

employees, the more likely employee will reduce cyberdeviance at work. This is possible as

good HR practices are important mechanisms in an organization to shape people’s attitude and

behavior to be consistent with the organization’s value and expectations.

For instance, Tessema and Soeters (2006) argued that employees who are being treated

fairly by their organization by receiving rewards and recognition and compensation for their


effort, are more satisfied, more effective, and productive than those who did not. Employees who

are trained well would have clear duties and responsibilities and are more productive than

employees with role ambiguity and confusion as a result of being less trained. Thus, the more

favorable the HR practices in place, the better employee’s contribution toward the organizational

goals would be. This contribution is expected to translate to a higher level of commitment, and

loyalty, which encourages employees to spend extra effort, and engage in positive behaviors that

may benefit the organization (Karadal, Demirel, & Çuhadar, 2008).

Furthermore by implying social exchange theory the relationship can be better

understood. Implementing a combination of HR practices can be seen as contribution from the

organization toward their employees, and this may create a sense of obligation for the employee

to reciprocate in good manner toward the organization (Wright & Kehoe, 2008), which would

deter the employee’s behavior that associated with cyberdeviance activities. Hence the following

proposition is offered.

Proposition 1: HR practices would be negatively related to cyberdeviance.

The relationship between leadership styles and cyberdeviance

Leadership style reflects the relationship between an individual and a group built around

some common interest wherein the group behaves in a manner directed or determined by the

leader are (Shastri, Mishra, & Sinha, 2010). Leadership styles have shown a strong relationship

with employee’s outcomes such as job performance (Chi, Tsai, & Chang, 2007; Davenport,

2010), organizational commitment (Shahzad et al., 2010; Williams & Hazer, 1986), job

satisfaction (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006; Sharma &


Bajpai, 2010). In addition, leadership has also been linked with deviance in work groups (Brown

& Treviño, 2006).

Leader’s behavior towards subordinates will over time affect subordinates’ attitudes and

behaviors. In addition the leader’s behavior could cause employees to become both committed to

the leader’s and the organization’s goals (Mccann, Langford, & Rawlings, 2006; Shastri, Mishra,

& Sinha, 2010). Leadership theories e.g. multifactor theory (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 2000),

path goal theory (house, 1996) address the impact that supervisors’ behavior has on subordinate

satisfaction. What these theories have in common is that they focus on exceptional leaders who

have extraordinary effects on their followers. In essence these theories suggest that employees

may develop negative attitudes towards supervisors in response to perceived negative treatment

by them. As a consequence of negative attitudes towards their leader’s treatment of themselves,

employees can engage in undesired behaviors like cyberdeviance which detrimental to the

organizations.

In fact researchers like Burns, (1978) distinguished the way that transformational and

transactional leadership styles affect employee’s work outcomes. Burns argued that

transformational leaders encourage followers to embrace moral values and to act in the interest

of the collective rather than self-interest. Besides that, transformational leaders are thought to

raise followers’ level of moral development and to focus followers’ attention on higher level

needs and values. Transformational leadership has been associated with many positive outcomes

such as employee’s satisfaction with work and the leader, organizational commitment,

citizenship behaviors, and job performance (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Yukl,

2009). While transactional leaders relies on rewards and punishments to direct followers’

behavior. In other words in a transactional exchange relationship, a supervisor relies on


legitimate power to influence employees through the use of rewards or punishments, and

employees can be expected to perform their duties not only as directed but to do little more

(Trevino & Brown, 2005).

Based on the propositions made by social exchange theory, the attitude an employee

holds towards bad treatment by supervisor could be further understood by the examining the

engagement in cyberdeviance by the particular employee.

In general it is expected that employees are likely to reciprocate with attitudes and

behavior beneficial to their organization when they perceive the treatment received from the

organization, and the supervisor as its representative to be favorable, and to reciprocate negative

attitude when they perceived bad treatment from their leaders (de Lara et al,. 2006; Treviño &

Brown, 2005). For example, if one perceives that the interactions with leaders do not fulfill one’s

needs and expectations, negative attitudes towards the leader in the exchange can be expected.

These can be expressed in dissatisfaction and can lead to undesired behavioral outcomes such

engaging in cyberdeviance which is harmful to the organization because the employee perceives

that the leaders represents the organization.

Proposition 2: Leadership style would be negatively related to cyberdeviance.

Organizational commitment mediates the relationship between leadership style and

cyberdeviance

From a theoretical standpoint, leaders have an important role to play in shaping employee

attitudes at work such as in developing organizational commitment of employees (Shahzad et al.,

2010). In fact, past studies have demonstrated that transformational and transactional leadership


encourage employees to have higher levels of commitment (Avolio; 2004; Marmaya, Hitam,

Torsiman, & Balakrishnan, 2011).

Relating at the definition of transformational and transactional leadership which are

theoretically distinct in terms of how the leaders behave at work, it is expected that

transformational and transactional leadership develops employee commitment differently.

Specifically, transactional leadership uses a carrot-and-stick approach (Bass, 1995) in stimulating

employees’ psychological attachment to the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1997) i.e. by

providing rewards such as recognition, merit increase, promotions, and bonuses for a job well

done, and by monitoring employees to ensure that mistakes are not made (Bass, 1985). Studies

have consistently demonstrated that employee commitment is enhanced by the provision of such

rewards (Bass, 1985; Oliver, 1990; Richards, Akroyd, & O’Brien, 1993), and is reduced with

close supervision (Hackman & Oldham, 1975).

On the other hand, transformational leaders are said to be able to enhance employee

commitment by attending to the employees’ needs, encourages teamwork, emphasizes ethical

behavior, uses encouragement and praise effectively, and leading by example (Marmaya et al.,

2011). Therefore when employees are committed towards the organization, they are also

expected to demonstrate positive behavioral outcomes (Lee & Olshfski, 2002). Reviews of

previous investigationdemonstrated that committed employees are willing to expend extra effort

at work (e.g. Bass, 1985; Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb 1987; Yammarino & Bass, 1990),

make less errors and mistakes at work, and are less prone to accidents at work. For example,

Clarke (2006) studied commitment and network performance among UK based health care units

and found that commitment plays a significant role in influencing performance outcomes.

Similar finding was also reported by Rashid, Sambasvani and Joari (2003) when a similar study


was conducted among Malaysian companies. In other words, it is expected that highly

committed employees will be less likely to engage in behavior that is seen to be harmful or

destructive to the organization such as engaging in cyberdeviance at work because of

psychological bond that they develop of the organization. In a similar vein, studies have shown a

negative relationship between organizational commitment and negative work outcomes such as

general workplace deviance behavior (e.g. Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Liao， Joshi, &

Chuang， 2004), absenteeism (e.g. Eby & Freeman, Rush, & Lance 1999; Mowday & Porter,

1982; Somers, 1995), and turnover (e.g. Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky, 2002;

Payne & Huffman, 2005; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulin, 1974).

The established theoretical link between leadership style, organizational commitment,

and cyberdeviance can be understood within the perspective of social exchange. According to

this theory, social relationships are governed by the norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). Thus,

when leaders are perceived to have contributed well to the social relationships, employees will

tend to positively reciprocate such gesture by demonstrating favorable behaviors. Such

proposition also implies that unfavorable behaviors that will damage the relationship will be

avoided. In the context of the present study, when leaders are perceived to have provided a clear

sense of direction to the employees, stimulated their interests and intellect, encouraged them to

be creative, and shown concern about their needs (Burns, 1978), they will be able to develop a

sense of psychological bond in the employees toward the organization, and consequently

discourage them from demonstrating behaviors that are damaging to the social relationship such

as engaging in cyberdeviance at work. Hence, the following proposition is offered:


Proposition 3: The relationship between leadership style and cyberdeviance would be mediated

by organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment mediates the relationship between HR practices and

cyberdeviance

In the earlier discussion, it logical explanation combined with theoretical justification

rationalized how HR practices could influence cyberdeviance. To reiterate, HR practices could

affect cyberdeviance by applying social exchange theory in which favorable HR practices could

encourage employees to reciprocate the contributions of the organization (or the good gesture of

the organization) by engaging in work behaviors consistent with the expectations and norms of

the organization. This theoretical assertion also implies that employees will not demonstrate

work behaviors that are destructive or dysfunctional to the organization’s well-being such as

engaging in acts of cyberdeviance. While studies that looked at the influence on HR practices on

cyberdeviance are almost nonexistent to date, but limited empirical studies have shown the effect

of HR practices on workplace deviance behavior in general (Arthur, 2011; Faridahwati,

Subramaniam, & Ibrahim, 2011), or on specific types of deviant behavior such as absenteeism

and turnover (Gardner et al., 2007; Huselid, 1995; Delery & Doty, 1996). In other words, the

empirical evidence suggests that there is negative relationship between HR practices and

negative work behaviors.

To understand how HR practices are postulated to reduce cyberdeviance, a link could be

established between the two variables. Not clear of what you are referring to. In this research,

organizational commitment is proposed as a possible link based on two grounds: theoretical and


empirical. Even though social exchange theory does not explicitly talk about the notion of

commitment per se, it does assert that social relationships are built based on reciprocity, which

implies a certain degree of commitment on the part of the parties to the relationship to maintain

and sustain the relationship in the long run. When parties to the relationship are committed to the

relationship, the belief in reciprocity is stronger and this is manifested in actions that benefit both

parties mutually (Blau, 1964). In the context of employment relationship, good HR practices will

generate feelings of commitment and psychological attachment in employees (Masterson, Lewis,

Goldman, & Taylor, 2000) to reciprocate accordingly thus maintaining the relationship that is

seen as mutually benefiting. In sum, social exchange theory takes as its particular focus the

resources that people obtain from, and contribute to, social interactions (Molm, 2001). Exchange

parties follow the principles of reciprocity (i.e., the recipient is obligated to return a benefit to the

party who furnishes such a benefit) and equivalence (i.e., the recipient returns benefits of

equivalent value) (Gouldner, 1960).

According to Wright et al. (2003), the impact of HR practices on commitment begins

with selection and staffing, i.e. choosing the qualified people, and then providing them with

increased skills through continuous training and development opportunities. This makes for a

positive work environment by enabling them to focus doing their own job well. When employees

are fairly and equitably rewarded for their efforts, they will also develop a psychological bond

with the organization (Anvari et al., 2011). McElroy (2001) suggests that high compensation

might serve as an indication of how much an organization values its people, thereby enhancing

their self-worth. That is why the relationship between equitable rewards and commitment is

expected as it might be indicative of satisfaction with the rewards.


In other words, the relationship between HR practices and organizational commitment

can be explained by the fact that HR practices create a perception to an employee of being

valued by the organization, which in turn might induce a reciprocal positive feeling about the

organization (McElroy, 2001). An environment created by the systems discussed above is one

where people are unlikely to want to leave. They identify with the organization personally and

want to see it succeed (Wright, Gardner, & Moynihan, 2003). This describes the construct of

organizational commitment (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974).

The link between HR practices and cyberdeviance is also possible by considering the

empirical evidence. When one looks at the literatures, such link is possible by integrating two

separate bodies of research into a single model. A group of studies have examined the effect of

HR practices on attitudinal outcomes such as organizational commitment (e.g. Browning, 2006;

Gong et al., 2009; Paul & Anantharaman, 2004), while another group of studies have considered

the role of organizational commitment in influencing work-related outcomes such as job

performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, willingness to share knowledge, absenteeism,

tardiness, and turnover (Fedor, Caldwell, & Herold, 2006; Paré & Tremblay, 2007; Riketta, 2002;

Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Taken these two

distinct groups of studies together, it is possible that a link between HR practices and

cyberdeviance (as one of the work outcomes, albeit a negative behavior) could be established.

Researchers suggest that affectively committed employees have lower tardiness rates and

absenteeism, have higher task performance, and are ready to help others (Meyer et al., 2002).

Furthermore, the mediating role of organizational commitment between HR practices or system

and work outcomes has been demonstrated by previous studies. For example, Payne and


Huffman, (2005) found in a longitudinal study that organizational commitment mediates the

relationship between mentoring, and HRM practice in the organization studied, and employee

turnover over time. While Gong et al. (2009) examined the link between systems of HR practices

and firm performance by examining middle managers’ affective and continuance commitment to

a firm in China. They found that the performance-oriented HR subsystems had a positive

relationship with firm performance mediated by affective commitment to the firm. Hence, based

on these arguments, the following proposition is offered:

H4: The relationship between HR practices and cyberdeviance would be mediated by

organizational commitment.

Conclusion

The present attempt has shown the role of HR practices, leadership style in influencing

cyberdeviance. In addition this study suggest that organizational commitment as mediating

variable can play important role in the relationship between HR practices, leadership style on

cyberdeviance. This paper has postulated that HR practices and leadership style and

organizational commitment have negative effect on cyberdeviance. The phenomenon of

cyberdeviance still very much at their infancy despite the growing literature, employer should

give more attention to their employee.

References


Anandarajan, M., Simmers, C., & Igbaria, M. (2000). An exploratory investigation of the

antecedents and impact of Internet usage: An individual perspective. Behaviour and

Information Technology, 19(1), 69-85.

Anvari, R., Amin, S. M., Ahmad, U. N. U., Seliman, S., & Garmsari, M. (2011). The relationship

between strategic compensation practices and affective organizational commitment.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(2), 44-55.

Arthur, J. B. (2011). Do HR system characteristics affect the frequency of interpersonal deviance

in organizations? The role of team autonomy and internal labor market practices.

Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 50(1), 30-56.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and

organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and

moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951-

968.

Baloch, Q. B., Ali, N., Kiani, T. S., Ahsan, A., & Mufty, A. (2010). Relationship between HR

practices and perceived Eemployees' performance of bankers in NWFP, Pakistan (An

empirical evidence). European Journal of Social Sciences, 18(2).

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations: Free Press New York:.

Bawa, M. A., & Jantan, M. (2005). Human resource practices as determinant of employee

turnover: an empirical investigation. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 10(2), 69-

80.

Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and organizational

performance: The impact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15.


Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence,

and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 954.

Browning, V. (2006). The relationship between HRM practices and service behaviour in South

African service organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 17(7), 1321-1338.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership New York. Harper and Row. leadership & ManageMent, 1, 22.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985)

conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of applied

psychology, 80(4), 468.

Case, C., & Young, K. (2001). A preliminary investigation of employee internet misuse. Issues

in Information Systems, 1, 43-49.

Case, C. J., & Young, K. S. (2002). Employee Internet management: Current business practices

and outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(4), 355-361.

Chen, J., Chen, C., & Yang, H. (2008). An empirical evaluation of key factors contributing to

internet abuse in the workplace. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(1), 87-106.

Chi, H.-K., Tsai, H.-P., & Chang, P.-F. (2007). Investigating the relationship among leadership

styles, emotional intelligence and organization commitment on job performance: A study

of salespeople in Thailand. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 3(2),

199-212.

Clarke, S. (2006). Contrasting perceptual, attitudinal and dispositional approaches to accident

involvement in the workplace. Safety Science, 44(6), 537-550.


Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human

resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. The Academy of

Management Journal ARCHIVE, 49(3), 544-560.

Davenport, J. (2010). Leadership style and organizational commitment: The moderatin effect of

locus of control. 17(1), 277-290.

de Lara, P. (2006). Fear in organizations: Does intimidation by formal punishment mediate the

relationship between interactional justice and workplace internet deviance? Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21(6), 580-592.

Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource

management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance

predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802-835.

Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on

employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 1-29.

Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2004). Is similarity in leadership related to organizational outcomes? The

case of transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

10(4), 92.

Ferris, D., Lian, H., Brown, D., Pang, F., & Keeping, L. (2010). Self esteem and job performance:

the moderation role of self esteem contingencies. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 561-593.

Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H. J., & Wright, P. M. (2001). Beginning to unlock the

black box in the HR firm performance relationship: the impact of HR practices on

employee attitudes and employee outcomes. Center for advanced human resource studies

Working Paper Series, 75.


Gong, Y., Law, K. S., Chang, S., & Xin, K. R. (2009). Human resources management and firm

performance: The differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 263.

Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological

review, 25(2), 161-178.

Gould-Williams, J. (2007). HR practices, organizational climate and employee outcomes:

evaluating social exchange relationships in local government. The International Journal

of Human Resource Management, 18(9), 1627-1647.

Greenfield, D. N., & Davis, R. A. (2002). Lost in cyberspace: the web@ work. CyberPsychology

& Behavior, 5(4), 347-353.

Gürbüz, S. (2009). The effect of high performance HR practices on employees’ job satisfaction.

Journal of the School of Business Administration, Istanbul University, 38(2), 110-123.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of

Applied psychology, 60(2), 159-170.

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 73(4), 695-

702.

Henle, C., & Blanchard, A. (2008). The interaction of work stressors and organizational

sanctions on cyberloafing. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(3), 383–400.

Hepworth, W., & Towler, A. (2004). The effects of individual differences and charismatic

leadership on workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(2),

176.


Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1982). Formal and Informal Social Controls of Employee

Deviance. Sociological quarterly, 23(3), 333-343.

Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Deterrence in the workplace: Perceived certainty,

perceived severity, and employee theft. Social Forces, 62(2), 398-418.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,

locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit

performance. Journal of applied psychology, 78(6), 891-902.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,

productivity, and corporate financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal,

38(3), 635-672.

Ismail, I. A., Baizura, N. A. N., & Rabaah, T. (2009). Prelationship between transformational

leadership, empowerment and followers’ performance: An empirical study in malaysia.

Revista Negotium, 5(13), 5-22.

Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of

the narcissistic personality to self-and other perceptions of workplace deviance,

leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4),

762.

Karadal, H., Demirel, Y., & Çuhadar, M. T. (2008). The study of differebtial relationships

between human resource practices and organizational commitment. Gjana, 1(2), 363-379.

Khera, S. N. (2010). Human resource practices and their impact on employee productivity: A

perceptual nalysis of private, public and foreign bank employees in india. DSM Business

Review, 2(1), 65-86.


Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a

predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

76(5), 698.

Lee, K. Y., & Kim, S. (2010). The effects of commitment-based human resource management on

organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of the psychological contract.

World Journal of Management, 2(1), 130-147.

Lee, S. H., & Olshfski, D. (2002). Employee commitment and firefighters: It’s my job. Public

Administration Review, 62, 108-114.

Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking Out Like a Sore Thumb: Employee

Dissimilarity and Deviance at Work*. Personnel Psychology, 57(4), 969-1000.

Lim, V. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational

justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 675-694.

Lim, V. (2005). The moderating effect of neutralization technique on organizational justice and

cyberloafing. PACIS 2005 Proceedings, 18.

Lim, V., & Teo, T. (2005). Prevalence, perceived seriousness, justification and regulation of

cyberloafing in Singapore:: An exploratory study. Information & Management, 42(8),

1081-1093.

Lim, V., & Teo, T. (2009). Mind your E-manners: Impact of cyber incivility on employees' work

attitude and behavior. Information & Management, 46(8), 419-425.

Lim, V., Teo, T., & Loo, G. (2002). How do I loaf here? Let me count the ways.

Communications of the ACM, 45(1), 66-70.


Lowe, K., Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ

literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Marmaya, N., Hitam, M., Torsiman, N. M., & Balakrishnan, B. (2011). Employees’ perceptions

of Malaysian managers’ leadership styles and organizational commitment. African

Journal of Business Management, 5(5), 1584-1588.

Marwat, Z. A., Qureshi, T. M., & Ramay, M. I. (2007). Impact of human resource management

(HRM) practices on employees performance.

Masterson, S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B., & Taylor, M. (2000). Integrating justice and social

exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships.

Academy of Management journal, 43(4), 738-748.

Mastrangelo, P., Everton, W., & Jolton, J. (2003). Deviant computer use at work: From bad to

worse. Paper presented at the Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2003. IEEE International

Conference on.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,

and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological bulletin, 108(2), 171-

194.

Mccann, J. A. J., Langford, P. H., & Rawlings, R. M. (2006). Testing behling and Mcfillen’s

syncretical model of charismatic transformational leadership. Group & Organization

Management, 31(2), 237-245.

McElroy, J. C. (2001). Managing workplace commitment by putting people first. Human

Resource Management Review, 11, 327-335.


Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and

application: Sage Publications, Inc.

Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989).

Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that

counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 152.

Meyer, J. P., & Smith, C. A. (2000). HRM practices and organizational commitment: Test of a

mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue canadienne des

sciences de l'administration, 17(4), 319-331.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,

and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents,

correlates, and consequences. Journal of vocational behavior, 61(1), 20-52.

Molm, L. D. (2001). Theories of social exchange and exchange networks. Handbook of social

theory, 260-272.

Mudor, H., & Tooksoon, P. (2011). Conceptual framework on the relationship between human

resource management practices, job satisfaction, and turnover. Journal of Economics and

Behavioral Studies, 2(2), 41-49.

Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., & Locander, W. B. (2006). Emotional exhaustion and organizational

deviance: Can the right job and a leader's style make a difference? Journal of Business

Research, 59(12), 1222-1230

Oliver, N. (1990). Rewards, investments, alternatives and organizational commitment: Empirical

evidence and theoretical development. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 19-31.

Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources practices,

procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information


technology professionals' turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32(3),

326.

Paul, A., & Anantharaman, R. (2004). Influence of HRM practices on organizational

commitment: A study among software professionals in India. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 15(1), 77-88.

Payne, S. C., & Huffman, A. H. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the influence of

mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover. The Academy of Management

Journal, 158-168.

Rad, A. M. M., & Yarmohammadian, M. H. (2006). A study of relationship between managers'

leadership style and employees' job satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services, 19(2),

11-28.

Rashid, M. Z. A., Sambasivan, M., & Johari, J. (2003). The influence of corporate culture and

organisational commitment on performance. Journal of Management Development, 22(8),

708-728.

Reisel, W. D., Probst, T. M., Chia, S. L., Maloles, C. M., & König, C. J. (2010). The effects of

job insecurity on job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior,

and negative emotions of employees. International Studies of Management and

Organization, 40(1), 74-91.

Renaud, K., Ramsay, J., & Hair, M. (2006). " You've Got E-Mail! Shall I deal with it now, 313-

332.

Richards, B., Akroyd, D., & O’Brien, T. (1993). The ability of work related factors to predict the

organizational commitment of health occupations education teacher. Journal of Health

Occupations Education, 8(2), 16-33.


Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta analysis.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 257-266.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A

multidimensional scaling study. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.

Roman, L. (1996). Survey: employees traveling in cyberspace while on the clock. Memphis

Business Journal, 10, 2-3.

Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource

management practices. The Academy of Management Executive (1987-1989), 207-219.

Sharma, J. P., & Bajpai, N. (2010). Effective leadership and its linear dependence on job

satisfaction: A comparative study in public and private organization in India. Research

Journal of Internat onal Stud es-Issue, 73-85.

Shastri, R., Mishra, K. S., & Sinha, A. (2010). Charismatic leadership and organizational

commitment: An Indian perspective. African journal of business management, 4(10),

1946-1953.

Sims, R. L. (2002). Ethical rule breaking by employees: A test of social bonding theory. Journal

of Business Ethics, 40(2), 101-109.

Tapia, A. H. (2006). Information technology enabled employee deviance. IT workers: human

capital issues in a knowledge-based environment, 405.

Tessema, M. T., & Soeters, J. L. (2006). Challenges and prospects of HRM in developing

countries: testing the HRM–performance link in the Eritrean civil service. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), 86-105.

Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2005). The role of leaders in influencing unethical behavior in

the workplace. Managing organizational deviance, 69–87.


Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework.

Organization Science, 7(2), 151-165.

Vorobyov, G. D. (2005). Computer and internet use in the work place: a common sense approach.

The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 8(2), 177-187.

Weatherbee, T. G. (2010). Counterproductive use of technology at work: information &

communications technologies and cyberdeviancy. Human Resource Management Review,

20(1), 35-44.

Williams, L. J., & Hazer, J. T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and

commitment in turnover models: A reanalysis using latent variable structural equation

methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 219-232.

Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). The impact of HR practices on the

performance of business units. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 21-36.

Wright, P. M., & Kehoe, R. R. (2008). Human resource practices and organizational

commitment: A deeper examination. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(1), 1-

22.

Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. (1991). Toward an integrative view of strategic human resource

management. Human Resource Management Review, 1(3), 203-225.

Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of

analysis. Human Relations, 43(10), 975.

Yukl, G. (2009). Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and research. The

Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 49-53.


Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. H., & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEO transformational leadership and

organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human

resource management. The Leader

The Effect of HR Practices, Leadership Style on Cyberdeviance: The ...

Documents

Transcript of The Effect of HR Practices, Leadership Style on Cyberdeviance: The ...