Online published on 28 February, 2020.
Deviant workplace behaviour has seen its signif icance emerging in most of the organizations. Workplace deviance was foresighted to be an unwanted, irrelevant behaviour that is shown because of the failure on organization's part to live up to its own expectations, promises given at workplaces. The deviant workplace behaviour comes as a result of typical human behaviour. The behaviour may be positiveor negative. The positivedeviant behaviour may dowonder and may become the competitive advantage of the firm but negative deviant behaviour is the area of concern. It is very much difficult to bring the definition under one umbrella as working condition wise, organizational culture wise and human behaviour wise for deviant workplace behaviour. Some of the important behavioural aspects like employee theft, aggression, anti-social behaviour, sabotage, playing pranks, telling lies, behaving badly with the subordinates and vice versa etc. may become fatal if some amount of vigilance is not there to check it.
The existences of this kind of behaviour surely affects the economic well-being of the organization as well as social aspect of the individual. The cost incurred by the firms surely attracts the attention of the organizations as well as for future business expansion plan. Due to the above effects of deviant workplace behaviour, it needs a thorough study, so that a comprehensive strategy may be developed to reduce the impact. The organizations most of the time suffer a great loss beyond their imagination due to typical behaviour of the employees. The deviant workplace behaviour may arise because of various factors and till date very little effort is being made to rectify the same. This has a long-term impact which is too bad enough as far as productivity and employee welfare is concerned.
Exploratory researchwas performed to find outinitially 35 variables. Pilot study was conducted which reduced the number of variables to 28 through-unstructured questionnaire and informal discussion with 48 target respondents. Cronbach's Alpha value consisting of 28 variables stood at a staggering 0.987; which itself paved the way for the questionnaire to be reliable. An adequate score of 0.957 of KMO & Bartlett Testof Sphericitygaverise to conduct Principal Component Analysis (Factor Analysis), which extracted out 18 variables, to be clubbed fewer than two factors basically i.e.-Job Related Factor (13 variables) and Organizational Policy Related (5 variables).18 hypotheses were formed and tested using ‘independent sample t Tests’. Apart from these, 10 separate factors were tested with ‘chi square tests’ where two independent categorical hospital groups-government sector and private sector were treated for obtaining desired results.
The analysis pertains to obtain a mixed categorization of results. Causes like job stress, job satisfaction, lack of peer relations, and change of leaders were more seen as an indicators of deviance behavioural acts by most of the employees. On the other hand, two factors specially-flexi work and technology seems to remain unaffected by these mere deviance acts. Deviance acts can be more proactively seen in private organizations because of lack of social security, on-uniform appraisal system, inappropriate salary structure in terms of case wise. Women doctors tend to be more in groups in private sectors indulging themselves in deviance acts than in comparison to government hospitals. Tenure of work wise; it is those employees who are less than 10 years of experience seek to involve in acts of deviance by searching for new and better opportunities. The current study comes to an end by showing that deviance acts in the organization tend to occur frequently, but at the same time can be put to a very low level with transparency in organizational policy, fair justice, good peer relations, and appropriate salary system.
