Vol. 11(8), pp. 589-597, 23 April, 2016
DOI: 10.5897/ERR2016.2671
Article Number: F4F1E5158013
ISSN 1990-3839
Copyright © 2016
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR
Educational Research and Reviews
Full Length Research Paper
Organizational deviance and multi-factor leadership
Ali Aksu
Faculty of Education, Dokuz Eylul University,
Received 26 January, 2016; Accepted 23 March, 2016
Organizational deviant behaviors can be defined as behaviors that have deviated from standards and
uncongenial to organization's expectations. When such behaviors have been thought to damage the
organization, it can be said that reducing the deviation behaviors at minimum level is necessary for a
healthy organization. The aim of this research is to determine the level of teachers' organizational
deviant behaviors to show the relationship between deviant behavior level and principal's leadership
styles. Research's data were collected from 557 secondary school teachers working in Izmir province
by using scales named as “Organizational Deviance Scale for Schools” and “Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire”. According to the findings, teachers have displayed organizational deviant behaviors at
low level and principals have absorbed transformational and interactional leadership. According to
correlation analysis, there has been a negative relationship between organizational deviant behaviors
and transformational and interactional leadership styles, and a positive relationship between
organizational deviant behaviors and laissez-faire leadership. Findings have explained the effect of
principals' leadership styles on deviant behavior. As a recommendation, to decrease these deviant
behaviors, principals who tend to show transactional and transformational leadership behaviors can be
guided and trained about the reasons of deviant behaviors, and how to reduce these deviant behaviors.
Key words: Organizational deviance, multi-factor leadership, education.
INTRODUCTION
Some obstacles hindering the achievement of
organizational goals may show up, and some of these
obstacles can stem from organizational deviant behaviors.
Organizational deviance can be described as the
mismatch of employees' behavior with the expectations
and rules of the organization. This concept may include
various behaviors ranging from the unimportant ones like
gossiping or embarrassing the co-workers to the serious
ones like theft and sabotage which have important results
Organizational deviant behaviors are the behaviors like
lying, slowdown strike, harassment, gambling,
disobedience, violence (Demir, 2009), theft, embezzling,
mobbing (2011) which lead to adversity for
organizations. Robinson and Bennet (2000) consider
such behaviors as the voluntary acts breaking the
organizational norms. Vaguan defines organizational
deviance as an activity, situation or formation which
deviates from formal goals, normative standards and
expectations, and which results in lower outcomes than
expected (Brady, 2010). Deviant behaviors emerge
disguised as actions like stealing from the office, sharing
E-mail:ali.aksu@deu.edu.tr.
Authors agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
590 Educ. Res. Rev.
the confidential information with unauthorized people,
ignoring the manager and ratting the working environment
(Zhang et al., 2008).
Organizational deviance is considered as the act of
abnormal organizations. This is because such behaviors
are contrary with the usual expectations of the
organization (Ermann and Lundman, 1978). In some
cases, deviant behaviors are perceived as non-functional
by the organization, they can be considered to be
beneficial by the staff. This is because deviant behaviors
may contribute to the protection of honesty, self-respect
and independence of employees (Lawrence and
Robinson, 2007). Deviant behaviors that are beneficial
for the organization are referred as positive deviant
behaviors within the related literature. Some researchers
like Spareitzer et al. (2004) have developed a different
approach towards organizational deviant behaviors by
adding the positive to the organizational discipline. This
approach is based on the assumption that not only the
negative but also positive organizational deviant
behaviors can be exhibited in the workplace (Appelbaum
et al., 2007). Positive deviant behaviors can be
exemplified as creative acting, disobeying non-functional
orders, criticizing insufficient management, easing things
Researchers working on organizational deviant
behaviors have handled these behaviors as the negative
ones harming the organization, and so these behaviors
have been studied as the negative behaviors within the
related literature. The focus of organizational behaviors
are negative behaviors such as absenteeism, withdrawal,
concealing, sexual abuse, making unethical decisions,
disobeying the instructions of the management, slowdown
strike, being late for work, damaging the equipment,
gossiping and sabotage (Muafi, 2011).
Bodla and Danish (2011) state that organizational
deviance emerges with the violation of the organizational
traditions, policies and internal regulations by a person or
a group that will jeopardize the welfare of the
organization (Parks et al., 2013). Skarlicki and Folger
(1997)
organizational behaviors and their rage, anger or
resentment towards the organization in cases where
equal organizational decisions are not made (Ferris et al.,
2012).
Boye and Jones (1997) and Vardi et al. (1996) state
that behaviors in the workplace are affected by personal,
interpersonal, social and organizational factors (Peterson,
2002). According to the theory of deviation, the tension
resulting from the mismatch between the organizational
and social regulations and the individual demands and
needs leads to these behaviors. The level of satisfaction
The satisfaction with the job has positive effects both on
eir physical well-
being. Likewise, a lower satisfaction level or dis-
satisfaction may cause some problems (Demir, 2009).
The studies show that people exhibit deviant behaviors
when they feel themselves or the future of the
organization is in danger or when they think they are hard
done.
The deviant behaviors may vary depending on the
context it is used. Robinson and Bennett (1995) explain
the deviant behaviors in terms of two factors: violence
and target. These factors are defined by Robinson and
Bennett (1995) as follows:
1. Violence: This factor is related with whether the
behaviors are damaging the organization or the staff
while violating the organizational norms. This is related
with such behaviors as favoritism or absenteeism without
permission. More serious behaviors may include physical
anger (reaction) and theft.
2. Target: This factor is related to whether it is towards
the organization or the members of the organization.
Deviations towards the organization may include
vandalism, theft and sabotage. Examples of deviations
towards individuals may include gossiping, accusing
others and physical attack.
The deviations within these two dimensions make up the
typology of negative workplace which explains workplace
behaviors in terms of the target and violence factors are
presented in Figure 1.
When they are targeted at the individual, workplace
behaviors emerge as behaviors with slight violence (like
gossiping and favoritism) or as behaviors with serious
violence (like sexual harassment and violence). When
they are targeted at the organization, behaviors are
categorized as behaviors with slight violence (like
absenteeism and being late) or as behaviors with serious
violence (like theft and sabotage).
Due to their focus on the output, followers may
sometimes deviate from the rules or commit
organizational crimes in the competitive business world.
Transformational leadership is different from other
leadership types in that it has a particular moral effect on
the followers.
That is, both the leader and the followers are carried to
a different level of morality and values. The followers of a
transformational leader are encouraged to reveal the
morality in their actions and to be cautious about their
path and deviant behaviors in order to make sure that
they are ethical (Pradhan and Pradhan, 2014).
According to Avey et al. (2010) and Bean et al. (1986)
there is negative correlation between the control and
flexible leadership and organizational deviation; that is,
the more the control and flexible leadership is present,
the less deviation is observed in the organization
(Abdullah and Marican, 2014). It is suggested that the
control and flexible leadership should be benefitted from
in order to deal with the organizational and interpersonal
deviance (Abdullah and Marican, 2014).
As stated earlier, there is a negative relation between
Aksu 591
Figure1. .
some leadership styles and organizational deviation.
Within this study, the relations between the multifactor
leadership and organizational deviation were revealed. In
order to clarify the relation between the multifactor
leadership and organizational deviation, a more detailed
explanation on the multifactor leadership is provided
below:
Theory of multifactor leadership
One of the most accepted theories within situational
leadership approach is multifactor leadership presented
by Bass (1999). According to this theory, leadership
consists of transformational, interactional and laissez-
faire styles of leadership. Developing his studies on
multifactor leadership in 1978, Bass (1999) has made
some changes in his studies. In the beginning of his
studies, Bass (1999 mentioned that transformational and
interactional leadership are adverse and it is impossible
for someone to perform both transformational and
interactional leadership behaviors. However, backing
down this idea in his final set of studies, Bass (1998)
states that one may have both of these leadership
behaviors and he explains this matter as situationism
lu et al., 2009).
Concept of transformational leadership has started to
be examined by introducing its differences from
interactional leadership. In 1973, Downtown stated that
transformational leaders differed from the interactional
leaders through their rebellious, revolutionary and
reformist features. The concept of transformational
leadership was firstly examined in literature by Burns
(1978). Burns (1978) built his theory being affected by
presents them in a new vision (Avolio and Bass, 2004).
Burns (1978) defined transactional leadership as
connected more to past and traditions, and
transformational leadership as focused more on
innovation, changing and reforms (Owen et al., 2007).
However, these studies of Burns (1978) remained limited
because the theory was not clear, and survey tool had
not been developed yet. Studies in field of
transformational leadership increased after Burns (1978)
studies (Eraslan, 2006). This emergent leadership
paradigm gained importance subsequent to classification
transformational, interactional and laissez faire leadership
types.
Transformational leadership is defined as pushing the
limit, influence and counseling process in which followers
discover their competence (Avolio and Bass, 2004). By
continuously developing their capacity, transformational
leaders endeavor to direct group for the aims to support
their followers. For this, they struggle more than
expected. These efforts of transformational leaders
-competence, pleasure
and devotion (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Transformational
leaders think it is possible to achieve more when there is
more performance than expected before. Because of this
reason, they persuade the followers to use their
standards of morale and ethic at a high level (Avolio and
Bass, 2004). Vision factor made use of motivating. In this
process, leaders listen to their staff, and try to figure out
2014).
592 Educ. Res. Rev.
A transformational leader enables his/her staff to
overcome problems or difficulties that they encounter,
and provide them with autonomy for raising their
performance and competence (Bass et al., 2003). As
Currie and Loackett (2007) mention, transformational
leadership is a kind of leadership that is aware of personal
differences, and meets the needs of subordinates.
Transformational leadership is generally observed in four
dimensions. These are inspirational and intellectual moti-
vation, idealized influence and customized importance
(Avolio and B
mission of organization in company with members is
called idealized influence. Inspirational motivation is
defined as creating team spirit of an organization to reach
its aims and increase performance. As for intellectual
motivation, it means creating a supportive environment
where individual differen
ces are considered. In this way, opinion of subordinates
is appreciated (Tourish and Pinnington, 2002).
Transactional leadership is built upon an agreement
between the leader and his followers based on
accomplishing tasks and rewarding when someone is
successful (Avolio and Bass, 2004). Transactional
leaders want to be sure performance
is good enough and they accomplish their tasks. In
transactional leadership style, leaders clearly explain
what they want from their followers and explain how they
are going to be rewarded in return. For Bass (1998),
transactional leaders perform these two kinds of
behavior: conditional reward and exceptional manage-
ment. While conditional reward behavior is based on a
leader rewarding his followers in return for desired
performance or behavior, exceptional management
(Bass and Riggio, 2006).
Laissez-faire leaders act as if they need administrative
activities least and leave their followers by themselves.
Behaviors of laissez-faire leadership can make leaders
forget that they have a problem to solve. This matter
leads to dissatisfaction of followers. In this type of
leadership, it is mentioned that laissez faire leaders are
indifferent and they
behavior ( et al., 2009).
It is possible to argue that organizational deviation
behaviors prevent the attainment of the organizational
targets. When this process continues, the organizations
where there is a high level of deviation can be predicted
to collapse. Considering that some leadership styles can
decrease the organizational deviation, it is found
beneficial to study the relations between organizational
deviation and leadership.
Purpose of the study
This research aims to find out relationship between
leadership styles and organizational deviant behavior by
exploring school leadership styles, and the
level of organizational deviant behavior with regard to
perceptions of teachers working at Anatolian high
schools. In accordance with this aim, these questions will
be answered:
1. What is the level of organizational deviant behavior in
2.
?
3. What kind of relationship exists between organizational
?
METHODOLOGY
In this part, the model of the survey, universe and sampling, data
sources, how this data was collected, processing this data, and
statistical techniques used in this survey are explained.
Survey pattern
reveal relationship between these levels. Thus, general survey
model was imposed. General survey model is based on screening
all elements or a subset of elements within a domain in order to
come to a judgment about the domain itself (Karasar, 2010).
Population and sample
distirct constitutes the population of the research. Sample of this
research is determined by using stratified sampling method.
Stratified sampling method assures subpopulations to be
behavior may be affected by socio-economical variables, counties
of Izmir were categorized into three groups according to their level
of development. When categorizing, data of Izmir, Development
Agency was taken into consideration. In the sample determined by
stratified sampling method, the researcher got in touch with 557
teachers from 14 counties. 557 teachers constituting sample group
range as follows: 50.3% of women and 49.7% of men in gender
variable, 20.7% of single and 79.3 % of married in marital status
variable, 90.5% of associate and bachelor and 9.5% of
postgraduate degree in level of education variable, 5.6% of 1 to 5
year, 11.7% of 6 to 10 year, 21.7% of 11 to 15 year, 61% of 16 year
experience in length of service variable.
Data collection tools
In this research, a form asking for some general information, a
scale called
by Aksu and Girgin (2013) and another scale called
collect data. Organizational deviance scale for schools consists of
three dimensions: Personal, Organizational and Ethic. Surveying 3
in personal, 9 in organizational and 8 in ethic dimension, the scale
has 20 items in total. Cronbach Alpha coefficiency is 0.79 for
personal, 0.92 for organizational and 0.92 for ethic dimension.
According to confirmatory factor analysis of the scale, compliance
values are above average: RMSEA (0.06), GFI (0.90) and CFI
(0.93).
Aksu 593
Table 1. Descriptive statistics values of workplace deviant behaviors according to the opinions of Anatolian High School Teachers.
Variable
n
Item
number
Lowest
score
Highest
score
Average
SS
Average/Item
number
SS/Item
number
Workplace deviant behaviors
Ethical deviant behaviors
Deviant behavior (Total)
Table 2. Descriptive statistics values of leadership behaviors of school principals according to the opinion of high school teachers.
Variable
n
Item
number
Lowest
score
Highest
score
Average
SS
Average/Item
number
SS/Item
number
leadership
Laissez-Faire leadership
Multifactor leadership questionnaire was developed by Bass and
Avalio (2004) and adapted to Turkish language that was made by
Aksu (2015). Scale consists of 34 questions expressing the
dimensions of transformational leadership, transactional leadership
and laissez-faire leadership. Cronbach alpha coefficient is found to
be 0.96 for transformational leadership, 0.80 for transactional
leadership and 0.83 for laissez-faire leadership. Compliance values
obtained from confirmatory analysis are as follows: RMSEA=0.056
GFI=0.87 SRMR=0.065 CFI=0.93 IFI= 0.93 NNFI=0.93 NFI= 0.90
Data collection process
The data were obtained during the second semester of the 2013 to
2014 academic year. Questionnaires and forms were prepared
regarding the total number of the teachers at specific schools. The
questionnaires and the forms were to the teachers and taken back
with the help of the counselors at the schools. Questionnaires taken
from the teachers were evaluated and the ones which had missing
or misunderstood parts were eliminated. All in all, 557
questionnaires were evaluated. Questionnaire given to the teachers
consists of three sections which are personal information form,
Workplace Deviance Scale and Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Personal information form is used in order to
examine the variables to recognize teachers. Workplace Deviance
Scale and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is a 5-point Likert-
type scale consisting "Strongly Disagree", "Disagree", "Neutral",
"Agree," to "Strongly Agree". Teachers are asked to mark the most
relevant answer in order to reveal how often they show the
behaviors in the scale.
The analysis of the data
The data obtained in this study were analyzed using Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows 15.0. Missing
and incorrectly filled scales were not included in the scoring
process. In the analysis of data, descriptive analysis; such as,
arithmetical average and standard were utilized. Pearson
correlation analysis was used to examine the relationship between
workplace behaviors and multiple leaderships. Regarding the
interpretation of the correlation coefficient from 0.00 to 0.30 low
level, from 0.30 to 0.70 medium level and from 0.70 to 1.00 are
regarded to have a high level correlation (Büyüköztürk, 2010).
The points to be given to the answers of the scale items range
from 1.00 to 5.00. Average scores obtained from the scales,
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Workplace Deviance
Scale, were analyzed in a way that expresses the perceived level of
the scales. According to Tekin (1991), the average score received
from the whole scale from 4.20 to 5:00 is regarded to be strongly
agree, 3.40 to 4.19 agree, 2.60 to 3.39 neutral, 1.80 to 2.59
disagree, and 1.00 to 1..
RESULTS
The first sub-
the level of workplace deviant behaviors in schools
descriptive analysis that is made in order to analyze this
sub-problem are given in Table 1. When Table 1 is
-
dimensions of workplace deviant behaviors are also
perceived as "disagree". It is seen that the views of
disagree "
= 1.55). The second sub-problem of the
of
is made in order to analyze this sub-problem are given in
Table 2.
Table 2 shows that, "transformational" leadership style
) style
used by school principals are
-
-
, 37). The third sub-problem of the study is defined
as "what kind of relationship is there between the
594 Educ. Res. Rev.
leadership styles of the school principles and workplace
deviant behaviors?" In order to analyze this sub-problem,
Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis was
performed. The analysis results are given in Table 3.
When Pearson Product-Moment Correlation analysis
results are analyzed, there is a moderate negative
correlation a) between individual deviant behaviors and
transformational leadership (r=-, 426) and transactional
leadership styles (r=- 3, 49). However, there is a low level
positive correlation between individual deviant behaviors
and laissez-faire leadership style (r=, 206. b). A moderate
negative correlation is determined between workplace
deviant behaviors, transformational leadership (r = -, 394)
and transactional leadership styles (r = -, 311). No
significant correlation between workplace deviant
behaviors and laissez-faire leadership style has been
established. A low level negative correlation is determined
between ethical deviant behaviors and transformational
leadership (r = -, 255) and transactional leadership styles
(r = -, 237). A low level positive correlation (r =, 182) is
determined between ethical deviant behaviors and
laissez-faire leadership style.
DISCUSSION
In terms of organizational deviance, a club of researchers
focused on taking absenteeism, reluctance, hiding,
sexual abuse, and unethical decision making as negative
deviant behaviors (Muafi, 2011). In this research, it was
found out that teachers perceived organizational deviant
er the scale
(x=1.86). The most frequent deviant behavior was
detected in individual deviant behavior subscale (x=2.15),
and the less frequent deviant behavior on the other hand
was found in ethical deviant behavior subscale (x=1.55).
Considering the levels of organizational deviant
behaviors, teachers perceive their deviant behaviors at a
low level. On the other hand, the necessity of minimizing
deviant behaviors for an organization is obvious
regarding the devastating effects of those behaviors.
Though deviant behaviors seem low on average in the
study, it is better to consider keeping those behaviors
even lower.
Throughout the relevant literature, organizational
deviance has been referred by various disciplines as a
topic of investigation and inquiry. To give an example,
organizational deviance as x=1.86 in health care
institutions. As a doctoral dissertation in business
Çetin (2011) likewise
investigated anizational deviance
working in pharmaceutical industry. The results suggested
that participants' perception of general organizational
deviance score for their colleagues was 1.58 on average
and 1.26 for themselves. The outcomes of the study also
indicated a parallelism between the deviant behaviors of
the teachers working in Anatolian High Schools and the
behaviors of nurses serving in health care institutions.
Recently, organizational deviance studies carried out in
educational institutions have also been observed. For
instance, Aksu et al.
unethical individual negative behaviors and their
deficiencies in training, and their capacities led to
deviance in educational institutions. Likewise, a study
carried out by Köse (2013) investigated middle school
revealed tha
particular study and those obtained by Köse (2013)
overlap.
Levels of leadership styles in multifunctional leadership
scale were also detected by this study. Distributed
leadership is recognized as guiding followers to realize
their abilities, to push their limits and to find new ways
and as a process of influencing them (Avalio and Bass,
2004). In terms of distributed leadership, school
administrators were found out to be sufficient in the
study. It is figured out that administrators were promoted
according to certain criteria in the exams, trained in
administration or strived to improve their administrative
skills.
Transactional leadership style is on the other hand
achievements and accomplishing their missions (Avalio
and Bass, 2004). In the study, administrators with this
leadership style were found to have adequate
qualifications that can be understood from Table 2.
Findings of the study acquired from the subjects also
suggested that leaders with transformational and
transactional styles had good level of leadership.
Administrators with laissez-faire leadership were found to
act in a liberal way without relying on their administrative
powers. These leaders were keeping away from problem
Laissez-faire leaders were not actually considered as
laissez-faire leaders are less in number compared to
other leadership styles.
Throughout the study, which examined the relationship
between leadership styles and organizational deviant
behaviors, significant negative multi-way correlations
were revealed between organizational deviance and
transformational and transactional leadership. A negative
correlation between transformational and transactional
leadership can be considered as positive contribution for
schools. It was discovered that
scores on transformational and transactional increased,
deviant behaviors at schools decreased. There is a
positive weak correlation between laissez-faire leadership
and organizational deviance. This leads to the idea that
an increase in laissez-faire leadership styles can have an
Aksu 595
Table 3. Correlation analysis matrix showing the relationship between leadership styles of school principals and workplace deviation.
Variable
Individual deviant
behaviors
Workplace deviant
behaviors
Ethical deviant
behaviors
Deviant behaviors
(Total)
Transformational
leadership
Transactional
leadership
Laissez-faire
leadership
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Laissez-faire leadership
-
-
effect on the increase in deviance.
Considering the literature related to laissez-faire
leadership, there appears two different schools of
view. First, followers need autonomy and they
work more effectively when they are autonomous.
Under this leadership style, group members are
motivated to improve themselves and sort out
problems on their own ways. When they feel the
need, group members can create a group with
other people and seek to apply their new ideas
realizing organizational effectiveness when
laissez-faire leaders have the chance to work with
groups having responsibility and initiative for
participation in decision-making and delegation of
authority. It can be thought that in such groups
with laissez-faire leaders, negative deviant
behaviors like absenteeism, reluctance, hiding,
sexual abuse, unethical decision making, slowing
work deliberately, being late for work, damaging
tools, gossip and sabotage tend to decrease. In
terms of autonomy, the second view of laissez-
faire leadership is different from that of Avolio and
This view of laissez-faire leadership is based on
the idea that to use their control
and authority leads to holes in organizations, and
the gaps are filled by unauthorized people (Avolio
autonomy provided by laissez-faire leaders as
administrative holes, can yield to harmful
consequences for the organizations if
unauthorized people attempt to exploit these
holes. The results of this study present finding
related to organizational deviance caused by
laissez-faire leadership styles. It can be
suggested that autonomy is interpreted as
administrative holes in organizations.
Transformational leaders address their
making decisions and presenting opportunities to
improve themselves in problem solving (Bass,
1999). The same thing applies for transactional
leaders too. They make their followers to be
aware of their roles and expressing their
expectations from the organization openly. These
kinds of leadership styles make teachers turn their
directions to the objectives determined by school
administration, changing their perceptions and
beliefs about participation, commitment and
organizational success (Bass et al., 2003). The
study has also demonstrated that organizational
deviance is decreased in organizations where
roles and expectations are clearly stated and
followers are supported and motivated by leaders.
Throughout the literature, organizational deviance
is viewed that it is negatively related to the
concepts of performance and organizational
citizenship (Dunlop and Lee, 2004) and strategic
leadership (Köse, 2013). The results obviously
demonstrated relationships between
organizational deviance and leaderships styles.
Further, this investigation is thought to contribute
to the literature by elaborating the concepts
related to organizational deviance.
Conclusion
This study aims to determine the level of
organizational deviant behaviors and the school
perceptions of the teachers employed at Anatolian
High Schools as well as to reveal the relations
between them. The results show that the teac
1.86) and the managers adopt the
transformational and transactional leadership style
transformational
transactional
laissez-faire
=
2, 37). The interpretation of the findings has
revealed that the leadership styles of the
596 Educ. Res. Rev.
managers may be effective on the level of their behaviors.
The managers with the transformational leadership style
who guide and encourage their followers to notice their
self-efficacy, push their limits and find new ways, and the
ones with the transactional leadership style who increase
the performance of the followers by motivating them are
capable of decreasing the individual, organizational and
ethical deviant behaviors in the organization where they
are employed. On the other hand, the managers with the
laissez faire leadership style who leave their followers on
their own for decisions and practice increase
behaviors. The findings of the study point to the need for
the training and employing managers who adopt
transformational and transactional leadership styles as an
effective way to decrease organizational behaviors.
Recommendations
Within the scope of the study, the level of deviant
behaviors of teachers working at Anatolian High Schools
in Izmir province was determined. It is recommended to
determine the level of workplace deviant behavior on
different school levels, school types and samples.
Deviant behaviors, even at low levels, are seen as an
important area of research. In addition, as shown in the
results of the study, in order to reduce deviant behaviors,
it is recommended to train leaders who tend to show
transactional and transformational leadership behaviors.
Conflict of Interests
The author has not declared any conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
Abdullah A, Marican HS (2014). Can control and flexible leaderships
influence deviant behavior? Int. J. Technical Res. Appl. 10(6):11-18.
Aksu A, Girgin S (2013). Okullarda örgütsel sapma NWSA:
Educ. Sci. 8(3):375-389.
Aksu A, Guçer H, Orçan A (2015). Primary school teachers views about
supervisional deviant behaviors. Educ. Res. Rev. 10(11):1514-1523.
Appelbaum SH, Iaconi GD, Matousek A (2007). Positive and
negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and
solutions. Corporate Governance: Int. J. Bus. Soc. 7(5):586-598.
kinin analizi.
Avolio BJ, Bass BM (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Third
edition manual and sampler set. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Sosyal bilimlerd ilkeler.
(2009). Okul müdürlerinin çok faktörlü
liderlik stillerinin yetki devrine rusal ve
niversitesi ltesi
Dergisi, 22(2):457-479.
Bass BM (1999). Two Decades of Research and Development in
Transformational Leadership. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 8:9-32
Bass BM, Avolio BJ, Jung DI, Berson Y (2003). Predicting unit
performance by assessing transformational and transactional
leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 88(2):207.
Bass BM, Riggio RE (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology
Press.
, tsel Sapma
niversite Hastanesi
Bennett RJ, Robinson SL (2000). Development of a measure of
workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 85(3):349.
Brady P (2010). Organizational Deviance and the" Grammar" of
Secondary Schooling. EAF J. 21(2):76.
(12.
.
Demir letmelerinde duygusal zeka, örgütsel
ten
l Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü,
zmir
Dunlop PD, Lee K (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational
citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples
do spoil the whole barrel. J. Organ. Behav. 25(1):67-80.
Eraslan L (2006). Liderlikte post-modern bir paradigma:
liderlik. Int. J. Hum. Sci, 1(1).
Ermann MD, Lundman RJ (1978). Deviant Acts by Complex
Organizations: Deviance and Social Control at the Organizational
Level of Analysis1. Sociol. Q. 19(1):55-67.
Ferris DL, Spence JR, Brown DJ, Heller D (2012). Interpersonal in
justice and workplace deviance the role of esteem threat. J.
Manage. 38(6):1788-1811.
itimi (Malatya ili
enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi. Malatya.
Gruys ML, Sackett PR (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of
counter productive work behavior. Int. J. Selection Assess. 11(1):30-
42.
(2012). Verimlilikte liderin rolü. Int. J. Hum. Sci. 9(1).
, Çetin tsel sapma
üzerindeki etkisi: ilaç sektöründe bir ri Dergisi, Cilt.
15-29.
Karasar N (2010). Bilimsel a
Köse G etmenlerinin örgütsel sapma ve stratejik
zerine
.
Lawrence TB, Robinson SL (2007). Ain't misbehavin: Workplace
deviance as organizational resistance. J. Manage. 33(3):378-394.
Muafi (2011). Causes and consequences deviant workplace
behavior, Int. J. Innovation, Manage. Technol. 2(2):123‐6.
Ocak G,
Afyon Kocatepe University J. Soc.
Sci. 16(1).
A, Lewis RJ, Carswell JJ (2011). Employee personality, justice
perceptions, and the prediction of workplace deviance. Personality
Individual Diff. 51(5):595-600.
Owen H, Hodgson V, Gazzard N (2007). Liderlik el
Çeviren: Münevver Çelik, Optimist .
Parks GS, Jones SE, Hughey MW (2013). Belief, truth, and positive
organizational deviance. Howard LJ, 56:399.
Peterson DK (2002). Deviant workplace behavior and the organization's
ethical climate. J. Bus. Psychol. 17(1):47-61.
Pradhan S, Pradhan RK (2014). Transformational leadership and
deviant workplace behaviors: the moderating role of organizational
justice. Proceedings of the First Asia-Pacific Conference on Global
Business, Economics, Finance and Social Sciences (1-11).
Singapore.
Robinson SL, Bennett RJ (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad. Manage. J.
38(2):555-572.
Sönmez Çelik H (2005). Okul Müdürlerinin Okul Kültürünün
Sosyal Billimler Enstitüsü. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Van.
tsel adalet ve
kileri belirlemeye yönelik okul öncesi
zerinde bir Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler
Dergisi, 50(50).
Tourish D, Pinnington A (2002). Transformational leadership, corporate
cultism and the spirituality paradigm: An unholy trinity in the
workplace? Hum. Relat. 55(2):147-172.
Zhang S, Chen G, Chen GQ (2008). Interpersonal and collective group
identities: Differential contribution to business security. Research
Paper sponsored by CIBER. Retrieved on March, 8, 2010.
Aksu 597
