Display of Counter Productive Work Behaviour in Relation to Person-Organization Fit

α
yajvinder
yajvinder
σ
Dr Anita Sharma
Dr Anita Sharma
ρ
Kalpna Thakur
Kalpna Thakur

Send Message

To: Author

Display of Counter Productive Work Behaviour in Relation to Person-Organization Fit

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

99WH5

Display of Counter Productive Work Behaviour in Relation to Person-Organization Fit Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground
  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Amharic
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Azerbaijani
  • Basque
  • Belarusian
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Bulgarian
  • Catalan
  • Cebuano
  • Chichewa
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)
  • Corsican
  • Croatian
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Estonian
  • Filipino
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Frisian
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Gujarati
  • Haitian Creole
  • Hausa
  • Hawaiian
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Igbo
  • Indonesian
  • Irish
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Javanese
  • Kannada
  • Kazakh
  • Khmer
  • Korean
  • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
  • Kyrgyz
  • Lao
  • Latin
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malagasy
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Maltese
  • Maori
  • Marathi
  • Mongolian
  • Myanmar (Burmese)
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian
  • Pashto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Samoan
  • Scots Gaelic
  • Serbian
  • Sesotho
  • Shona
  • Sindhi
  • Sinhala
  • Slovak
  • Slovenian
  • Somali
  • Spanish
  • Sundanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Xhosa
  • Yiddish
  • Yoruba
  • Zulu

Abstract

The present study was aimed to investigate the relationship between counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) and person-organization fit (P-O Fit) within the context of manufacturing industry situated in Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. The sample comprised 300 employees of production department (150 male and 150 female respondents). The analysis revealed that for the total sample, Interpersonal Similarities (12%) and unique roles (4%) have contributed 16% of variance in totality for Organizational-Counterproductive Work Behaviour and for Interpersonal-Counterproductive Work Behaviour, Unique Roles (4%) and Value Congruence (2%) contributed for 6% variance in totality. In Males sample, Unique Roles explained maximum variance (12%) followed by Need Supplies (5%) and Interpersonal Similarities (3%) for Organizational-Counterproductive Work Behaviour. For Interpersonal-CWB only Unique Roles have turned out to be a significant predictor which accounted for 5% of variance. In Females sample, Interpersonal Similarities explained maximum variance (16%) followed by Demand Abilities (4%) in total these predictors accounted for 20% variance for Organizational-Counterproductive Work Behaviour.

References

24 Cites in Article
  1. S Applebaum,B Shapiro,J Molson (2007). Diagnosis and remedies for deviant workplace behaviors.
  2. S Aryee,P Budhwar,Z Chen (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a Social Exchange Model.
  3. K Aquino,B Galperin,R Bennett (2004). Social status and aggressiveness as moderator of the relationship between interactional justice and work place deviance.
  4. Rebecca Bennett,Sandra Robinson (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance..
  5. P Blau (1964). Exchange and power in social life.
  6. Geoffrey Borman,N Dowling (2008). Teacher Attrition and Retention: A Meta-Analytic and Narrative Review of the Research.
  7. D Cable,T Judge (1994). Personorganization fit and theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success.
  8. Daniel Cable,Timothy Judge (1996). Person–Organization Fit, Job Choice Decisions, and Organizational Entry.
  9. Daniel Cable,Timothy Judge (1997). Interviewers' perceptions of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions..
  10. Daniel Cable,Jeffrey Edwards (2004). Complementary and Supplementary Fit: A Theoretical and Empirical Integration..
  11. D Caldwell,C O'reilly,Iii (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison process.
  12. B Christopher,J Leonard,M Steven (2012). The general environment fit scale: A factor analysis and test of convergent construct validity.
  13. C Henle (2005). Predicting workplace CWB from the interaction between organizational justice and personality.
  14. Abid Hussain,Muhammad Rizwan-Ul-Haq,Hassan Al-Ayedh,Ahmed Al-Jabr (2014). Mycoinsecticides: Potential and Future Perspective.
  15. J Hoffman,J Woehr (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between personorganization Fit and behavioral outcomes.
  16. A Kristof-Brown,R Zimmerman,E Johnson (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, personorganization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit.
  17. Amy Kristof (1996). PERSON‐ORGANIZATION FIT: AN INTEGRATIVE REVIEW OF ITS CONCEPTUALIZATIONS, MEASUREMENT, AND IMPLICATIONS.
  18. A Kristof-Brown (2000). PERCEIVED APPLICANT FIT: DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN RECRUITERS' PERCEPTIONS OF PERSON‐JOB AND PERSON‐ORGANIZATION FIT.
  19. Bangcheng Liu,Jianxin Liu,Jin Hu (2010). Person-Organization Fit, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intention: An Empirical Study in the Chinese Public Sector.
  20. Mahmut Demir,Sirvan,Sen Demir,Kevin Nield (2015). The relationship between person-organization fit, organizational identification and work outcomes.
  21. C O'reilly,J Chatman,D Caldwell (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit.
  22. C O'reilly,J Chatman (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior.
  23. Lisa Penney,Paul Spector (2002). Narcissism and Counterproductive Work Behavior: Do Bigger Egos Mean Bigger Problems?.
  24. S,Jailap Deen,Ashok Bosley (2015). The effect of congruence between perceived personal and organizational values on organizational commitment.

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

yajvinder. 2016. \u201cDisplay of Counter Productive Work Behaviour in Relation to Person-Organization Fit\u201d. Global Journal of Human-Social Science - A: Arts & Humanities GJHSS-A Volume 16 (GJHSS Volume 16 Issue A1): .

Download Citation

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJHSS

Print ISSN 0975-587X

e-ISSN 2249-460X

Keywords
Classification
GJHSS-A Classification: FOR Code: 170199
Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

February 6, 2016

Language
en
Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

Article Matrices
Total Views: 3933
Total Downloads: 1979
2026 Trends
Related Research

Published Article

The present study was aimed to investigate the relationship between counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) and person-organization fit (P-O Fit) within the context of manufacturing industry situated in Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. The sample comprised 300 employees of production department (150 male and 150 female respondents). The analysis revealed that for the total sample, Interpersonal Similarities (12%) and unique roles (4%) have contributed 16% of variance in totality for Organizational-Counterproductive Work Behaviour and for Interpersonal-Counterproductive Work Behaviour, Unique Roles (4%) and Value Congruence (2%) contributed for 6% variance in totality. In Males sample, Unique Roles explained maximum variance (12%) followed by Need Supplies (5%) and Interpersonal Similarities (3%) for Organizational-Counterproductive Work Behaviour. For Interpersonal-CWB only Unique Roles have turned out to be a significant predictor which accounted for 5% of variance. In Females sample, Interpersonal Similarities explained maximum variance (16%) followed by Demand Abilities (4%) in total these predictors accounted for 20% variance for Organizational-Counterproductive Work Behaviour.

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]

Request Access

Please fill out the form below to request access to this research paper. Your request will be reviewed by the editorial or author team.
X

Quote and Order Details

Contact Person

Invoice Address

Notes or Comments

This is the heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

High-quality academic research articles on global topics and journals.

Display of Counter Productive Work Behaviour in Relation to Person-Organization Fit

Dr Anita Sharma
Dr Anita Sharma
Kalpna Thakur
Kalpna Thakur

Research Journals