Content uploaded by Gregory S Ching
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gregory S Ching on Jul 03, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology
2017 Volume 6 Number 1, 1-14
© The Author(s) / Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND
Counterproductive work behaviors within academic
institutions: A myth or a reality
Ching, Gregory S.
Graduate Institute of Educational Leadership and Development, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan
(gregory_ching@yahoo.com; 094478@mail.fju.edu.tw)
Tsay, Wen-Rong
Institute of Professional Development for Educators, National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan
(wtsay@dragon.nchu.edu.tw)
Hu, Yueh-Luen
Department of Education, National Chengchi University, Taiwan (joyhu@nccu.edu.tw)
Hung, Chao-Hsiang
Department of Education, National Chengchi University, Taiwan (aka0518@gmail.com)
Received: 3 July 2016 Revised: 28 September 2016 Accepted: 5 October 2016
Available Online: 7 October 2016 DOI: 10.5861/ijrsp.2016.1629
ISSN: 2243-7681
Online ISSN: 2243-769X
OPEN ACCESS
Abstract
Recent studies in counterproductive work behavior (CWB) have noted the seriousness of
having deviant behaviors within the workplace environment. Acknowledging that CWBs
exists in all types of organization; this would mean that even within academic institutions,
occurrence of CWBs is inevitable. Within an initial study of CWBs in Taiwan academic
institutions, results suggest a moderate occurrence of some serious negative behaviors. To
clarify their findings, further validation of the CWB-T is needed. In the spring semester of
2015, an online survey was established and data was collected from strategically selected
schools all over Taiwan. After three weeks of data collection, a total of 718 valid responds are
noted and analyzed. Using the CWB-T framework, eight (8) factors are validated using
Structured Equation Modelling (SEM). In addition, various demographical backgrounds are
also collected and analyzed. Results suggest that teachers with administrative responsibilities,
teachers with longer years of service, teachers working in urban cities, and teachers who are
working in the key capital region all seem to perceived higher occurrence of CWBs within the
academic workplace. In essence, it is currently noted that even within school, CWBs are
occurring from low to moderate. Therefore, it is imperative that awareness of such deviant
behaviors be achieved and further escalation be prevented.
Keywords: work attitude; teacher; social desirability; deviant behavior; organizational
behavior
Ching, G. S., Tsay, W.-R., Hu, Y.-L., & Hung, C.-H.
4 Consortia Academia Publishing
Counterproductive work behaviors within academic institutions: A myth or a reality
1. Introduction
Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is an issue that exists in all areas within the workplace (Spector et
al., 2006), this is also quite true within educational institutions (Hu, Hung, & Ching, 2015). Many have also tried
to further explain the relationship between CWB and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which are noted
to show some significant connections (Dalal, 2005). Noting the positive role of OCB within educational
institutions (Belogolovsky & Somech, 2010; Oplatka, 2009), however, with the pressure involved within the
academic career (Fox & Stallworth, 2010), CWB would seem to be a type of normal response for teachers under
such circumstances (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). In essence, teachers are also normal individuals, hence
exhibits similar behaviors as of the typical employees (Bayram, Gursakal, & Bilgel, 2009). Nevertheless, CWB
is still considered quite harmful to both the people working within and to the organization itself (Gruys &
Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Sackett, 2002). Therefore, in order to prevent the current situation
from getting worst, it is quite important to truly understand and determine the various CWBs that are currently
happening inside the school.
As mentioned, CWB can be harmful to both people and organization. CWBs also comes in different levels,
some minor issues might include deliberately coming late to work, or to the very serious incidents, such as theft
and deliberate waste of organizational resources. Within Hu and her colleagues (2015) recent study, they suggest
that CWBs can be differentiated with either the common ones or to the very serious offenses. In their initial
findings, they mentioned that there exists a certain amount of serious CWBs in Taiwan schools (Hu et al., 2015).
While, in a study on secondary school teachers in Nigeria, Salami (2010) mentioned that work related stress and
negative affectivity are two crucial predictors for CWB. As with the stressful nature of academic work in Taiwan
(Hung, 2011; Kyriacou & Chien, 2004), occurrence of deviant behaviors are inevitable. More important, CWB
studies in Taiwan are quite limited, hence, the current study shall attempt to further verify the CWB Taiwan
(CWB-T) scale (Hu et al., 2015) within the elementary and high school teachers.
Within the CWB-T scale a total of 8 factors are mentioned, namely: time theft (TT) – reducing work hours
using any form of improper or inappropriate reasons, inappropriate use of resources (IUR) – deliberate use,
waste, theft, or destruction of schools’ properties, inappropriate student-teacher relationship (ISR) – any
inappropriate, unethical, or unprofessional interactions between teachers and students, inappropriate
parent-teacher relationship (IPR) – any inappropriate, unethical, or unprofessional interactions between
teachers and parents, lack of professionalism (LOP) – lack of pedagogical and professional content knowledge
resulting in poor teaching performance, apathy (AP) – lack of enthusiasm and/or unwilling to improve oneself,
political tactics (PT) – forming alliances to gain control and personal attacks, and reluctant to accept
administrative duties (RAD) – unwilling to accept any duties besides teaching (Hu et al., 2015, p. 71). CWB-T
scale is computed to have Cronbach (1951) alpha reliabilities ranging from .73 to .90, denoting quite a reliable
instrument (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). Therefore, it would seem appropriate to validate the CWB-T
and at the same time administering it to wider participants.
2. The study
In order to determine the state of CWB within Taiwan schools, participants of the study are volunteer
elementary and high school teachers from strategically selected schools all over Taiwan from the 2014-15
Ministry of Education database. After selecting the schools, invitation for volunteer participation were emailed.
After 3 weeks, a total of 718 respondents were collected. Table 1 shows the various demographical backgrounds
of the respondents, note the deliberate diverse characteristics of the respondents are selected to provide better
coverage (Weisberg, Kronsnick, & Bowen, 1996). Furthermore, for ethical purposes, during the survey
Counterproductive work behaviors within academic institutions: A myth or a reality
International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology 5
administration participants are free to skip any questions that they would prefer not to answer (Walker, 2010).
Table 1 shows the various demographics with the corresponding number of participants. Results show that
the proportion of male and female respondents is almost equal with 372 or 52% male teachers and 343 or 48%
female teachers. While, there are 216 or 30.1% subject teachers, 245 or 34.1% teachers with class adviser duties,
185 or 25.8% teachers with administrative responsibilities/positions, 40 or 5.6% administrative staff, and 26 or
3.6% school principals. As for their educational attainment, 328 or 45.7% are college/university graduate
(bachelor degree), 379 or 52.8% are master degree holders, and 8 or 1.1% are doctoral degree holders. For the
years of service, almost half of the participants or 348 teachers worked for less than 10 years, while the rest are
less than 20 years, while 69 or 9.6% of the teachers have worked for 21 to 25 years, and 10 or 1.4% of the
teachers have more than 26 years of experience in teaching.
For the geographical location, majority of the participants are actually from two areas namely: Northern
Taiwan with 310 or 43.2%, Central Taiwan with 343 or 47.8%, while the remaining participants are from the
Southern with 60 or 8% and Eastern Taiwan with 5 or 1%. For the school size, majority of the participants
worked in schools with 13 to 48 classes; categorized as middle school by the MOE (313 or 43.6%) and schools
with more than 49 classes; big schools (330 or 46%). Lastly, for the school districts, participants who worked in
urban/city schools with 490 or 68.2%, rural schools with 186 or 25.9%, and remote schools with 42 or 5.8%.
Table 1
Participants' demographic background (N=718)
Items n %
Gender
Male 372 52
Female 343 48
Role
Subject teacher 216 30
Teacher (+ class adviser) 245 34
Teacher (+ administrator) 185 26
Administrative staff 40 6
School Principal 26 4
Education level
College 328 46
Master 379 53
Doctor 8 1
Years of service
1 to 5 years 179 25
6 to 10 years 169 24
11 to 15 years 118 16
16 to 20 years 126 18
21 to 25 years 69 10
More than 26 years 10 1
Geographical location
North Taiwan 310 43
Central Taiwan 343 48
South Taiwan 60 8
East Taiwan 5 1
School size
Less than 12 classes 74 10
Between 13 to 48 classes 313 44
More than 49 classes 330 46
District
Urban/City 490 68
Rural 186 26
Remote 42 6
Ching, G. S., Tsay, W.-R., Hu, Y.-L., & Hung, C.-H.
6 Consortia Academia Publishing
2.1 Issues of social desirability
In order to prevent the issue of social desirability in affecting the self-reported survey, some statistical
considerations were implemented. Following the design in the initial study of Hu et al. (2015) for the CWB-T,
the perceived frequency of the various deviant practices, which is initially outline with Likert (1932) type scale
ranging from 0 to 3; denoting never to always. In order to account for the effects of social desirability, the survey
is recoded into either 0 for none occurrence and 1 for possible occurrence. Afterwards, reliability of the CWB-T
factors is recomputed. Table 2 shows that the Cronbach (1951) alpha reliabilities before (original) and after
(transformed) the recoding. Note that majority of the reliabilities improved slightly, hence, the transformed
reliabilities ranges from .72 to .90, denoting a reliable instrument (Cohen et al., 2007).
Table 2
Reliability of CWB-T factors
Factors Cronbach Alpha
Original Transformed
TT .81 .81
IUR .71 .72
ISR .84 .86
IPR .82 .82
LOP .81 .84
AP .83 .82
PT .92 .90
RAD .78 .79
Besides the recoding of perceived CWB occurrence, a social desirability scale was also administered
together with the survey. The current study employed the Fischer and Fick (1993) short version of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS), which is highly tested for its reliability in predicting socially
conscious participants (Andrews & Meyer, 2003; Barger, 2002; Leite & Beretvas, 2005; Loo & Thorpe, 2000;
Thompson & Phua, 2005). To check for social desirability issues, correlations were computed between the
CWB-T factors and SDS. Table 3 shows that majority (6 out of 8) of the factors are not significantly correlated
to SDS, hence, can be considered as reliable results. While, two of the CWB-T factors ISR and LOP might be
slightly influenced by individual social desirability tendencies.
Table 3
Correlation of CWB-T factors with SDS
Factors SDS
TT .030
IUR .070
ISR .087*
IPR .030
LOP .076*
AP .060
PT .050
RAD -.020
Note. * p < .05 (2-tailed).
2.2 Factor analysis of CWB-T
To evaluate the CWB-T scale, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is accomplished using the structured
equation modelling (SEM). Analysis followed the concepts mentioned in Kenny’s (2016), resulting with a good
model fit (Kenny, 2015) with χ
2
= 2870.97
***
, df = 961, GFI = .93, CFI = .91, TLI .92, NFI= .93, RMSEA
= .053, SRMR = .046. Furthermore, Table 4 shows the various factor loadings with values above .5 and Average
Variance Extracted (AVE) ranging from 46% to 63%, while the Composite Reliability (CR) are well above .7,
Counterproductive work behaviors within academic institutions: A myth or a reality
International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology 7
denoting reliable CFA (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In addition, Table 5 also shows the various inter-correlations of
the CWB-T factors, denoting significant relationships among all of the indicators of CWB in Taiwan educational
setting. In other words, the CWB-T can be considered as a reliable instrument.
Table 4
Confirmatory factor analysis of CWB-T
Factors/Items Standardized
SE
t AVE
CR
factor loading
TT
.46
.86
Lying about being sick .65
Leaving without asking for leave .66 0.08
15.09
Coming to school late and/or going home early .66 0.07
15.18
Asking for leave regardless of the work situation .69 0.07
15.61
Doing personal stuff while on duty .70 0.07
15.79
Being online (personal internet surfing; FB) while on duty .74 0.08
16.49
Chatting while on duty .73 0.08
16.38
IUR
Waste of school's resources .84
.48
.78
Occupying school's resources as if one's own property .82 0.04
24.58
Stealing school resources .52 0.02
13.96
Destruction of school's resources .51 0.02
13.68
ISR
.49
.87
Favoritism or discriminating specific students .61
Improper student punishment .68 0.07
14.90
Mocking students .74 0.08
15.83
Discrimination against students .67 0.06
14.66
Deliberate singling out of specific students .72 0.07
15.54
Focusing only on students with good grades and ignoring others .72 0.08
15.51
Separated and cold towards students' problems .74 0.08
15.78
IPR
.49
.83
Deliberate concealment or providing misleading information .77
Improper behavior in front of parents .76 0.04
20.66
Encouraging parents to go against the school .66 0.04
17.62
Conniving with parents .56 0.03
14.50
Ignoring or unwilling to communicate with parents .73 0.04
19.69
LOP
.48
.85
Inadequate teacher preparation .70
Not following proper curriculum .68 0.06
16.71
Saying improper things during class .73 0.06
17.91
Too few or too much assignments/class activities .64 0.06
15.67
Casual checking of students' assignments .73 0.05
17.72
Improper use of teaching pedagogy (such as too much movie time)
.66 0.06
16.27
AP
.48
.84
Unwilling to undergo tutoring .68
Lacks teaching enthusiasm .67 0.06
16.10
Wrong use of educational resources .62 0.06
15.03
Lacks professional content knowledge .56 0.05
13.65
Unwilling to participate in professional development workshops .80 0.07
18.75
Lacks the motivation to join professional development programs .80 0.07
18.65
PT
.61
.92
Gossiping .73
Spreading wrong/bad information .78 0.05
20.39
Improver verbal conduct .75 0.05
19.67
Deliberate neglect or ignoring others .79 0.05
20.75
Deliberate singling out others .83 0.05
21.94
Forming small groups/alliances to go against others .81 0.05
21.17
Convincing others to go against the school .79 0.05
20.83
Ching, G. S., Tsay, W.-R., Hu, Y.-L., & Hung, C.-H.
8 Consortia Academia Publishing
Table 4 continued …
Factors/Items Standardized
factor loading
SE
t AVE
CR
RAD
.50
.79
Unwilling to cooperate with school administration .85
Going against all educational reforms .73 0.04
20.98
Unwilling to undertake administrative responsibilities .69 0.06
19.60
Miscommunication between teachers and administrators .50 0.06
12.80
Note. All standardized factor loading are significant with p < .001.
Table 5
Correlation analysis between CWB-T factors
Factors Mean
SD
Skew (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
(1) TT 0.65
0.30
-.64 1
(2) IUR 0.29
0.30
.67 .84 1
(3) ISR 0.49
0.35
.03 .83 .82 1
(4) IPR 0.28
0.34
.90 .70 .73 .85 1
(5) LOP 0.54
0.37
-.14 .70 .74 .71 .73 1
(6) AP 0.59
0.34
-.35 .77 .77 .74 .69 .61 1
(7) PT 0.46
0.38
.21 .63 .72 .74 .81 .80 .60 1
(8) RAD 0.61
0.37
-.40 .71 .67 .69 .67 .60 .84 .60 1
Note. All correlations are significant with p < .001 (2-tailed).
3. Results and discussions
With a reliable instrument, appropriate analysis can now be accomplished. Table 6 shows the mean scores of
the CWB-T factors. Results indicate that several factors such as: LOP (M=0.54), AP (M=0.59), RAD (M=0.61),
and TT (M=0.65) seems to be perceived as occurring in the workplace, while ISR (M=.49) and PT (M=0.46);
with mean scores almost 0.50, also seems to be present within schools. The remaining CWB-T factors IPR
(M=0.28) and IUR (M=0.29) indicates that these deviant behaviors seems unlikely or less chances of occurring.
Furthermore, to better understand CWB, gender analysis was also accomplished. Table 7 shows that only ISR
with t(713)=1.960, p=.050 and RAD with t(713)=2.991, p=.003, denoting female teachers perceived higher
occurrence of CWBs than male faculty counterparts.
Table 6
CWB-T mean scores (N=718)
Factors Mean SD
TT 0.65 0.30
IUR 0.29 0.30
ISR 0.49 0.35
IPR 0.28 0.34
LOP 0.54 0.37
AP 0.59 0.34
PT 0.46 0.38
RAD 0.61 0.37
For the perceived differences between teachers roles, Table 8 shows the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
results noting significant differences in all of the CWB-T factors with F values ranging from 11.054 to 19.707 all
with p=.001. As for the post-hoc analysis, significant differences were computed with Teachers with
administrative duties and School principals perceiving significant higher CWB occurrences (in all of the eight
factors) as compared to the other faculty. In addition, with some instances such as within the factors PT and
RAD, School administrative staff perceived significant higher CWB occurrences as compared to Subject
teachers and Teachers with class advising duties. Such findings clearly show that having administrative duties
seems to provide better opportunities for the participants to observe what is really happening inside the school.
Counterproductive work behaviors within academic institutions: A myth or a reality
International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology 9
Furthermore, as with the participants’ roles are related to their time spent in schools, such as teacher with
administrative duties sometimes stayed late in the office, hence, better chance of encountering and identifying
deviant behaviors that occurs within the school.
Table 7
Gender differences among CWB-T factors (N=718)
Factors Gender n Mean SD t η
2
TT Female 343 0.67 0.31 1.348 .003
Male 372 0.64 0.30
IUR Female 343 0.30 0.30 0.830 .001
Male 372 0.28 0.30
ISR Female 343 0.52 0.35 1.960*
.005
Male 372 0.47 0.34
IPR Female 343 0.30 0.34 1.045 .002
Male 372 0.27 0.34
LOP Female 343 0.55 0.37 0.909 .001
Male 372 0.53 0.36
AP Female 343 0.61 0.35 1.267 .002
Male 372 0.58 0.34
PT Female 343 0.48 0.37 1.556 .003
Male 372 0.44 0.38
RAD Female 343 0.65 0.36 2.991**
.012
Male 372 0.57 0.37
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Table 8
Differences among participants' role and CWB-T factors (N=718)
Factors
Role n Mean
SD F η
2
Tukey post-hoc
TT Subject teacher 216
0.62
0.31
11.054***
.059
C>A, B; E>A, B, C, D
Teacher (+ class adviser)
245
0.60
0.29
Teacher (+ administrator)
185
0.72
0.30
Administrative staff 40 0.72
0.29
School Principal 26 0.93
0.14
IUR Subject teacher 216
0.24
0.30
11.458***
.061
C>A, B; B>D; E>A, B, C
Teacher (+ class adviser)
245
0.24
0.28
Teacher (+ administrator)
185
0.35
0.30
Administrative staff 40 0.38
0.32
School Principal 26 0.54
0.18
ISR Subject teacher 216
0.46
0.34
11.298***
.060
C>A, B; E>A, B, C, D
Teacher (+ class adviser)
245
0.42
0.34
Teacher (+ administrator)
185
0.56
0.35
Administrative staff 40 0.56
0.33
School Principal 26 0.80
0.21
IPR Subject teacher 216
0.22
0.31
19.707***
.100
C>A, B; E>A, B, C, D
Teacher (+ class adviser)
245
0.22
0.30
Teacher (+ administrator)
185
0.38
0.36
Administrative staff 40 0.37
0.36
School Principal 26 0.68
0.26
LOP Subject teacher 216
0.47
0.35
19.488***
.099
C>A, B; E>A, B, C, D
Teacher (+ class adviser)
245
0.47
0.35
Teacher (+ administrator)
185
0.65
0.37
Administrative staff 40 0.60
0.35
School Principal 26 0.96
0.11
Ching, G. S., Tsay, W.-R., Hu, Y.-L., & Hung, C.-H.
10 Consortia Academia Publishing
Table 8 … continued
Factors
Role n Mean
SD F η
2
Tukey post-hoc
AP Subject teacher 216
0.53
0.33
12.001***
.064
C>A, B; E>A, B, C, D
Teacher (+ class adviser)
245
0.55
0.33
Teacher (+ administrator)
185
0.67
0.35
Administrative staff 40 0.65
0.35
School Principal 26 0.90
0.16
PT Subject teacher 216
0.40
0.37
17.004***
.088
C>A, B; D>A, B; E>A, B, C
Teacher (+ class adviser)
245
0.37
0.36
Teacher (+ administrator)
185
0.55
0.37
Administrative staff 40 0.63
0.37
School Principal 26 0.82
0.27
RAD
Subject teacher 216
0.54
0.37
17.907***
.092
C>A, B; D>B; E>A, B, C, D
Teacher (+ class adviser)
245
0.52
0.36
Teacher (+ administrator)
185
0.73
0.35
Administrative staff 40 0.70
0.36
School Principal 26 0.96
0.09
Note. Subject teacher=A, Teacher (+ class adviser)=B, Teacher (+ administrator)=C, Administrative staff=D, and School Principal=E.
*** p < .001.
For the perceived variations in CWB with teachers’ educational attainment and school size, ANOVA results
noted that there are no significant differences with all the CWB-T factors. This would mean that CWBs is not
just limited to big schools, even within small schools CWBs exists. More important, perception of CWBs is not
affected by an individual’s educational attainment.
As with the school locations to whether it is located in the Northern, Central, Southern, or Eastern Taiwan,
ANOVA results show that there are significant differences with F values ranging from 5.693 to 16.761 all with p
values ranging from .000 to .001 (see Table 9). As with the majority of respondents are from the Northern and
Central Taiwan, comparison of the teachers working in the two regions would seem more relevant. Table 9
shows that the post-hoc analyses all noted that teachers who worked in Northern Taiwan perceived significant
higher CWB occurrence than their Central Taiwan teacher counterparts. This results actually signifies that CWB
occurrence are more prevalent in Northern Taiwan elementary and high schools, which is quite contrary to the
notions that since the Northern region is the seat of Taiwan government; the MOE is quite visible and strict,
CWB should be minimal. However, results might also indicate a different spectrum, wherein elementary and
high school teachers in Central Taiwan are not that sensitive and/or knowledgeable with CWB issues.
Table 9
Differences among location and CWB-T factors (N=718)
Factors
Locations n Mean
SD F η
2
Tukey post-hoc
TT North Taiwan 310 0.70
0.30
5.734** .024
A>B
Central Taiwan 343 0.61
0.31
South Taiwan 60 0.65
0.27
East Taiwan 5 0.80
0.24
IUR North Taiwan 310 0.33
0.31
5.693** .023
A>B
Central Taiwan 343 0.24
0.28
South Taiwan 60 0.28
0.30
East Taiwan 5 0.45
0.21
ISR North Taiwan 310 0.56
0.34
8.811*** .036
A>B
Central Taiwan 343 0.43
0.34
South Taiwan 60 0.48
0.36
East Taiwan 5 0.71
0.29
IPR North Taiwan 310 0.36
0.36
12.393***
.049
A>B; D>B
Central Taiwan 343 0.21
0.30
South Taiwan 60 0.27
0.34
East Taiwan 5 0.60
0.42
Counterproductive work behaviors within academic institutions: A myth or a reality
International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology 11
Table 9 … continued
Factors
Locations n Mean
SD F η
2
Tukey post-hoc
LOP North Taiwan 310 0.62
0.36
10.825***
.044
A>B
Central Taiwan 343 0.47
0.36
South Taiwan 60 0.50
0.38
East Taiwan 5 0.80
0.18
AP North Taiwan 310 0.69
0.33
16.761***
.066
A>B, C
Central Taiwan 343 0.51
0.34
South Taiwan 60 0.51
0.33
East Taiwan 5 0.83
0.29
PT North Taiwan 310 0.55
0.38
11.618***
.047
A>B
Central Taiwan 343 0.38
0.37
South Taiwan 60 0.45
0.34
East Taiwan 5 0.49
0.41
RAD North Taiwan 310 0.71
0.35
15.604***
.062
A>B, C
Central Taiwan 343 0.52
0.36
South Taiwan 60 0.55
0.39
East Taiwan 5 0.65
0.42
Note. North Taiwan=A, Central Taiwan=B, South Taiwan=C, and East Taiwan=D. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
For the difference in schools either located in the City (urban), Rural, or in the Remote areas of Taiwan,
ANOVA results show that only the CWB-T factor AP is noted with F(3, 714)=4.135, p=.016, hence, significant
differences are found. While, post-hoc analysis shows that schools located in the City are perceived to have more
CWBs than their Rural school counterparts (see Table 10). In some sense this result signifies that teachers who
worked in city schools show less concern towards their students. It is hypothesized that work conditions and/or
the stress connected in teaching within major cities as primary source of apathy. In other words, teachers in the
city tend to get burn-out more often than the teachers who teach in the rural areas. Further analysis on this issue
is suggested to future researcher on topics related to in schools CWBs.
Table 10
Differences among school district and CWB-T factors (N=718)
Factors
District n Mean
SD F η
2
Tukey post-hoc
TT Urban/City 490 0.65
0.31
0.907 .003
Rural 186 0.68
0.29
Remote 42 0.64
0.29
IUR Urban/City 490 0.27
0.29
1.983 .006
Rural 186 0.32
0.31
Remote 42 0.28
0.30
ISR Urban/City 490 0.48
0.35
1.175 .003
Rural 186 0.52
0.34
Remote 42 0.52
0.38
IPR Urban/City 490 0.28
0.34
1.248 .003
Rural 186 0.28
0.33
Remote 42 0.36
0.35
LOP Urban/City 490 0.53
0.37
1.151 .003
Rural 186 0.56
0.35
Remote 42 0.60
0.36
AP Urban/City 490 0.57
0.35
4.135* .011 Urban/City > Rural
Rural 186 0.65
0.32
Remote 42 0.62
0.31
PT Urban/City 490 0.44
0.38
1.271 .004
Rural 186 0.49
0.38
Remote 42 0.50
0.33
RAD Urban/City 490 0.59
0.38
2.349 .007
Rural 186 0.64
0.36
Remote 42 0.70
0.32
Note. * p < .05.
Ching, G. S., Tsay, W.-R., Hu, Y.-L., & Hung, C.-H.
12 Consortia Academia Publishing
Table 11
Differences among years of service and CWB-T factors (N=718)
Factors
Years of service n Mean
SD F η
2
Tukey post-hoc
TT 1 to 5 years 179
0.59
0.30
3.043* .022
6 to 10 years 169
0.68
0.28
11 to 15 years 118
0.63
0.34
16 to 20 years 126
0.68
0.30
21 to 25 years 69 0.67
0.29
More than 26 years 10 0.84
0.23
IUR 1 to 5 years 179
0.20
0.28
4.839*** .035
B>A; D>A
6 to 10 years 169
0.29
0.31
11 to 15 years 118
0.28
0.29
16 to 20 years 126
0.35
0.30
21 to 25 years 69 0.29
0.28
More than 26 years 10 0.45
0.31
ISR 1 to 5 years 179
0.43
0.34
3.746** .027
D>A; F>A
6 to 10 years 169
0.46
0.34
11 to 15 years 118
0.46
0.33
16 to 20 years 126
0.55
0.34
21 to 25 years 69 0.53
0.37
More than 26 years 10 0.76
0.33
IPR 1 to 5 years 179
0.22
0.32
3.629** .027
F>A
6 to 10 years 169
0.26
0.32
11 to 15 years 118
0.25
0.32
16 to 20 years 126
0.33
0.35
21 to 25 years 69 0.34
0.36
More than 26 years 10 0.54
0.30
LOP 1 to 5 years 179
0.49
0.36
2.692* .020
6 to 10 years 169
0.51
0.35
11 to 15 years 118
0.48
0.38
16 to 20 years 126
0.60
0.37
21 to 25 years 69 0.59
0.37
More than 26 years 10 0.72
0.34
AP 1 to 5 years 179
0.52
0.32
2.909* .021
D>A
6 to 10 years 169
0.57
0.34
11 to 15 years 118
0.58
0.36
16 to 20 years 126
0.64
0.32
21 to 25 years 69 0.64
0.35
More than 26 years 10 0.75
0.30
PT 1 to 5 years 179
0.40
0.37
3.504** .026
F>A
6 to 10 years 169
0.45
0.36
11 to 15 years 118
0.40
0.37
16 to 20 years 126
0.51
0.38
21 to 25 years 69 0.53
0.38
More than 26 years 10 0.74
0.34
RAD 1 to 5 years 179
0.54
0.39
4.597*** .033
D>A, C; F>A, C
6 to 10 years 169
0.60
0.37
11 to 15 years 118
0.55
0.39
16 to 20 years 126
0.68
0.32
21 to 25 years 69 0.66
0.35
More than 26 years 10 0.93
0.17
Note. 1 to 5 years=A, 6 to 10 years=B, 11 to 15 years=C, 16 to 20 years=D, 21 to 25 years=E, and more than 26 years=F.
** p < .01. *** p < .001. * p < .05.
Lastly, for the differences with the perceived CWBs in teachers’ years of service, Table 11 shows that there
are significant differences in all the CWB-T factors with F value ranging from 2.692 to 4.839 and p value
ranging from .000 to 0.20. Post-hoc analysis denotes the trend of faculty that worked longer (seniority) perceived
Counterproductive work behaviors within academic institutions: A myth or a reality
International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology 13
higher CWBs than their younger counterparts. Similar with the findings on the differences in teachers’ role or
position, data suggest that faculty with higher years of service tend to have greater opportunity to observed what
is really happening inside the school, hence, higher perception of CWB occurrence.
4. Conclusions
Occurrence of CWBs inside the school is a reality. Results of the current study clearly noted that the
perceived CWB-T factors TT and RAD as the two highest occurring deviant behaviors within the school.
Analyzing the results, the TT item “Doing personal stuff while on duty” was perceived the highest with a mean
value of 0.86, this roughly translate to occurring around 86% of the time. Within the RAD items, “Unwilling to
undertake administrative responsibilities” with mean value of 0.75 and the item “Miscommunication between
teachers and administrators” with mean value of 0.69, both are crucial to the smooth operations within the
school. Furthermore, ISR item “Favoritism or discriminating specific students” with mean value of 0.72 and
item “Improper student punishment” with mean value of 0.62, LOP item “Too few or too much assignments/class
activities” with mean value of 0.69, AP item “Lacks teaching enthusiasm” with mean value of 0.73 and item
“Wrong use of educational resources” with mean value of 0.75, and PT item “Gossiping” with mean value of
0.72, all of which can be said to occur more than half of the time.
As for the differences with regards to the participants’ background demography, results suggest that teachers
with administrative duties, teachers with longer years of service, teachers working in urban cities, and teachers
who are working in the key capital region all seem to perceived higher occurrence of CWBs within the academic
workplace. While, no perceived significant differences are found in teachers with different educational
attainment and school sizes, these further suggests that no matter what size of the school is and to what level of
education the teachers has, CWBs are still present. In sum, as awareness of CWBs within academic institutions
increases, it is hoped that this type of study would be able to shed light and help policy makers design better
strategies to help remedy the situation.
Acknowledgement: This work is supported in part by the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology projects
103-2410-H-004-143 and 104-2410-H-004-151-SS2. Part of this paper is accepted for presentation in the 2016
Lumina Research Congress to be held in Hong Kong from 29 to 30 October 2016 and is also included in the
Conference Book of Proceedings.
5. References
Andrews, P., & Meyer, R. G. (2003). Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale and short form C: Forensic
norms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(4), 483-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10136
Barger, S. D. (2002). The Marlowe-Crowne affair: Short forms, psychometric structure, and social desirability.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 79(2), 286-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7902_11
Bayram, N., Gursakal, N., & Bilgel, N. (2009). Counterproductive work behavior among white-collar employees:
A study from Turkey. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(2), 180-188.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00461.x
Belogolovsky, E., & Somech, A. (2010). Teachers' organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the boundary
between in-role behavior and extra-role behavior from the perspective of teachers, principals and
parents. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 914-923. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.032
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 197-334.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
Fischer, D. G., & Fick, C. (1993). Measuring social desirability: Short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social
desirability scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(2), 417-424.
Ching, G. S., Tsay, W.-R., Hu, Y.-L., & Hung, C.-H.
14 Consortia Academia Publishing
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053002011
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors
and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2010). The battered apple: An application of stressor-emotion-control/support
theory to teachers' experience of violence and bullying. Human Relations, 63(7), 927-954.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349518
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30-42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00224
Hu, Y.-L., Hung, C.-H., & Ching, G. S. (2015). Examining the counterproductive work behaviors within Taiwan
academic setting: A pilot study. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 9(1), 63-82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6197/HEED.2015.0901.04
Hung, C.-L. (2011). Coping strategies of primary school teachers in Taiwan experiencing stress because of
teacher surplus. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(9), 1161-1174.
Kenny, D. A. (2015). Measuring model fit. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm
Kenny, D. A. (2016). Multiple latent variable models: Confirmatory factor analysis. Retrieved from
http://davidakenny.net/cm/mfactor.htm
Kyriacou, C., & Chien, P.-Y. (2004). Teacher stress in Taiwanese primary schools [Online]. The Journal of
Educational Enquiry, 5(2).
Leite, W. L., & Beretvas, S. N. (2005). Validation of scores on the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale and
the balanced inventory of desirable responding. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(1),
140-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164404267285
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. New York: Columbia University Press.
Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (2000). Confirmatory factor analyses of the full and short versions of the
Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(5), 628-635.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600503
Oplatka, I. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior in teaching: The consequences for teachers, pupils, and
the school. International Journal of Educational Management, 23(5), 375-389.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540910970476
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling
study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with
facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1-2), 5-11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00189
Salami, S. O. (2010). Job stress and counterproductive work behavior: Negative affectivity as a moderator. The
Social Sciences, 5(6), 486-492.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of
counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior,
68(3), 446-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
Thompson, E. R., & Phua, F. T. (2005). Reliability among senior managers of the Marlowe-Crowne short-form
social desirability scale. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(4), 541-554.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-4524-4
Walker, I. (2010). Research methods and statistics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Weisberg, H. F., Kronsnick, J. A., & Bowen, B. D. (1996). An introduction to survey research, polling, and data
analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
