Development and Validation of a Workplace Deviant Behavior Scale in Taiwan

• Main Authors: Shih-Tse Lin, 林世澤
• Other Authors: Su-Fen Chiu
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2015
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/09421455127496608001

博士 === 國立臺灣科技大學 === 企業管理系 === 103 === Workplace deviant behavior (WDB) can be defined as voluntary behavior that violates organizational norms and may harm the organization, its employees, or both (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). It may bring a lot of direct and indirect costs to organizations. Scholars have increasingly paid attention to investigate employee deviant behaviors. Up to date, Taiwanese scholars mostly adopt western workplace deviance behavior scale to conduct WDB research. Since there are significant differences between Chinese culture and Western culture, this study intends to develop and validate a workplace deviant behavior scale in Taiwan. Following Hinkin’s (1998) scale development procedures, this study first collected 677 incidents of workplace deviant behavior. After experts review and classification processes, 49 items of deviant behaviors were generated. Next, using data collected from 329 respondents, results of exploratory factor analyses revealed a six-factor solution for a 27-item deviant behavior scale. Using data collected from 383 respondents, results of confirmatory factor analyses resulted in a six-factor solution for a 21-item deviant behavior scale, including self-interest deviant behavior (4 items), verbal bullying deviant behavior (5 items), harming team harmonious deviant behavior (3 items), coworker-directed deviance behavior (3 items), violating management regulation deviant behavior (3 items), and supervisor-directed deviant behavior (3 items). Harming team harmonious deviant behavior is the main emic factor in Taiwan deviant behaviors. As to criterion-related validity, this study found positive correlations between the six factors and abusive supervision, and negative correlations between the six factors and agreeableness, conscientiousness, and organizational justice. Limitations and implications of the study results for future research directions are discussed.