Journal Critique Huang, G., Wellman, N., Ashford, S., Lee, C. and Wang, L. (2017). Deviance and exit: The organizational costs of job insecurity and moral disengagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(1), pp.26-42.
The purpose of this study was to determine the possible connections between
employees’ perceived job insecurity, moral disengagement, and costly organizational
behaviours using a modified conceptual framework model. The researchers submitted two
main arguments. First, they argued the importance of a new conceptual framework that
incorporates their theoretical perspectives. Second, they proposed a theoretical framework
that can account for the interactions between each different variable in the hypotheses.
Following the arguments, the researchers proposed four hypotheses. Hypothesis 1, the job
insecurity and two of the employees’ organizational costly behaviours are positively
correlated. Hypothesis 2, they assumed that the positive relation in hypothesis 1 is
mediated through moral disengagement. In hypothesis 3 and 4, they further assumed that
the quality of LMX and employees’ perceived employment opportunity serve to moderate
the strength of the indirect effect of constructs presented in hypothesis 2.
The researchers have provided sufficient support for their proposal and provided an
excellent overview of the field of study. However, a significant portion of the reviewed
articles is either over or nearly ten years old. It is possibly because of the current study is
small as the researchers argued, but the writer of this critique could find more recent studies
on the topic (e.g., Reisel, Probst, Chia, Maloles, & König, 2010; Emberland, & Rundmo,
2010). The researchers identified two gaps. First, the researches on the topic was small,
Journal Critique of job insecurity on organizational deviance. The researchers showed their awareness on
the general agreement such as the sense of job insecurity’s negative impact on employees’
personal consequences. Interestingly, the researchers also considered individuals at least
partly blame their suffering on others as one of the agreements. However, the writer of this
critique found this assumption to be situational, especially in studies where individuals
internalize their stigma (Floris, & McPherson, 2015).
The researchers integrated the Social Exchange Theory(SET) and the Theory of Moral
Disengagement(TMD) into their theoretical framework. The Social Exchange Theory fitted
well with the relationship between employees and the employers. The Social Contract
Theory is one of the similar theories to SET, in that both theories emphasised on the
individuals’ negotiation with the organization or the sovereign to contribute or give up
certain things in exchange for something else, based on moral or political agreements (i.e.,
Barker, Hopkins, Locke, Hume, and Rousseau, 1947). The researchers have adopted the
Theory of Moral Disengagement, since a breach of psychological contract may influence the
moral disengagement of the individuals. Similar to the role of Theory of Moral
Disengagement, other researchers have employed the concept of Norm of Reciprocity in
another study (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004). Both theories attempt to
account for the underlying process that leads to the employees’ workplace deviance.
However, Norm of Reciprocity emphasised on the individuals’ positive or negative reactions
to either positive or negative experience with others, co-workers and organization in this
case. Although Norm of Reciprocity can explain some of the deviant behaviours, the model
Journal Critique Theory of Social Control may also provide some new perspectives on the interactions
between LMX and moral disengagement, as the Social Control Theory and some of its
extensions aim to explain the rationale behind delinquency and deviant behaviours (e.g.,
Costello, 2016; Nye, 1958; Matza, 1964). To stay concise, the writer will not discuss these
theories in detail.
The research employed survey design to test the conceptual model. Survey design differs
from experimental and quasi-experimental design in that a survey design does not involve
random assignment nor a control group. While in terms of internal validity, survey design is
weaker than any of the experimental or quasi-experimental design, and cannot find
cause-and-effect relationships, quite often the survey design approach is still more appropriate
than either of the other two designs when in real life scenario where random assignment of
participants and control groups are impossible or difficult to achieve.
The 264 participants included in the final data of study-1 are from one state-owned
enterprise in Northern China, while the 423 participants included in the final data for study-2
are from nine private companies from several different industries in China. The sample size
and background are great, and the participants for both studies are consistent in their
ethnicity. The research did not specify in the theory that the studies are done to participants
with a collectivist social background. Considering China is traditionally considered as a
rather collectivist culture, the result might not be generalizable for other countries; further
Journal Critique
Both studies issued the questionnaires in three waves, with an extended interval for
study-2 to not only increase their confidence in proposing causal ordering between variables
but also to minimize Common Method Bias (CMB). The researchers used 10-item scale by
Oldham, Kulik, Stepina, and Ambrose (1986) to measure the job insecurity (independent
variable), 7-item scale by Graen, and Uhl-Bien(1995) to measure LMX (moderator variable),
15-item scale by McFerran, Aquino, and Duffy (2010) to measure moral disengagement
(moderator variable), 10-item personality inventory developed by Gosling, Rentfrow, and
Swann (2003) to measure Neuroticism (control variable), and 19-item Self-report Scale by
Bennett and Robinson (2000) to measure deviance (dependent variable). The level of LMX,
basic demographic, neuroticism, and employment opportunity was controlled for in the
Direct Effect Model, Mediation model, and Moderated mediation model. However, neither
mediation nor moderated mediation model is a statistical control. Because study-2
replicated study-1, the variables used same instruments with same control variables plus
intention to leave (dependent variable) and employment opportunity (moderator variable).
The researcher used the 5-item scale developed by Walsh, Ashford, and Hill (1985) to
measure intention to leave, while 14-item index developed by Griffeth et al. (2005) was used
to measure employment opportunity.
The researchers’ conclusions derived logically from the result. In both studies, the
researchers used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with Mplus programme to verify the
Journal Critique analysis of the design effect in study-2, in testing the differences between sample sizes using
Simple Random Sampling and their method, the researchers found significant differences
among organizational level groups. Because the differences are above the threshold value of
2, the researchers accounted for it by introducing eight dummy variables to stand for nine
private companies. The researchers also used CFA to test for the Common Method Variance
in both studies. The results were both under 50% threshold, suggesting no significant
Common Method Bias. All the results from their studies showed consistency with their
expectations and models. Thus, with the results supporting their arguments, the
researchers submitted three major conclusions. Firstly, the impact of job insecurity on costly
organizational behaviours may have been under-appreciated by past studies. Secondly, the
researchers identified moral disengagement as one of the key mechanism in explaining the
relationship between job insecurity and costly organizational behaviours. Thirdly, the
researchers have also identified LMX and employment opportunity as two important factors
in influencing the association between job insecurity and costly organizational behaviours
via moral disengagement. Especially, Especially, LMX weakened the interaction between job
insecurity and moral disengagement while employment opportunity reinforced this
interaction. These conclusions were also partially supported, as these studies have different
theoretical frameworks, by some of the previous studies’ results on organizational deviance
(e.g., Samnani, Salamon, and Singh, 2014; Cheng, and Chan, 2008, as cited in Huang,
Wellman, Ashford, Lee, and Wang, 2017). The researchers’ conclusion is enlightening in that
they have brought new systematic perspective to the understandings of the impact of job
insecurity; however, one of the most obvious weaknesses is that despite their effort in
assessing the relationships between each variable, they were not able to draw any causation
Journal Critique
In conclusion, this research article followed appropriate structuring for academic journal
articles. As discussed earlier, the researchers’ have a clear, nuanced, and well-supported
argument section along with relevant hypotheses. However, the reference in their literature
review seemed to be a bit outdated as a significant portion of the support reference are
nearly ten years old. As the researchers have discussed in their limitations, their theoretical
model confirmed the relationships between each construct and variables, but they also did
acknowledge and kept the window open for more potential variables which may require
further research. Their methodology is sound, and they have done an excellent job in
controlling for potential CMB, however, due to the nature of the survey design, they could
not and should not draw any causation from the results. Furthermore, because the study
was done among Chinese organizations, the generalizability to other country’s organization
may need further confirmation.
Also, the researchers have also stressed the immediate practical implications of their
results as it revealed the relationships between job insecurity and costly organizational
behaviours. As the researchers have advised, organizations could either provide a secure
work environment to the employees to reduce their tendencies to disengage by heightening
the LMX, or to actively decrease the level of the employees’ perceived employment
opportunity. However, the practitioners should always beware of the ethical issues relating
to these implications. For example, actively reduce the employee’s perception of their
Journal Critique While a high level of LMX does not guarantee better performance, but to avoid an absence
of high LMX could effectively reduce the employees’ tendencies to damage the organization.
Journal Critique
References
Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, cause, and consequences of job
insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 803-829. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256569
Barker, E., Hopkins, G., Locke, J., Hume, D., & Rousseau, J.-J. (1947). Social contract. London: Oxford University Press.
Cheng, G. H., & Chan, D. K. (2008). Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology, 57, 272-303.
http://dx.doi.org/10.111/j.1464-0597.2007.00312.x
Colbert, A., Mount, M., Harter, J., Witt, L., & Barrick, M. (2004). Interactive Effects of Personality and Perceptions of the Work Situation on Workplace Deviance. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 599-609.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.599
Costello, B. (2016). Social Control Theory. In Preventing Crime and Violence (1st ed., pp. 31-41). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, Switzerland. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-44124-5_4
Emberland, J., & Rundmo, T. (2010). Implications of job insecurity perceptions and job insecurity responses for psychological well-being, turnover intentions and reported risk behavior. Safety Science, 48(4), 452-459.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2009.12.002
Floris, J., & McPherson, S. (2015). Fighting the Whole System: Dissociative Identity Disorder, Labeling Theory, and Iatrogenic Doubting. Journal Of Trauma & Dissociation, 16(4), 476-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2014.990075
Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drif (4th ed.). New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903: Transaction Publishers.
Nye, F. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior (1st ed.). Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Reisel, W., Probst, T., Chia, S., Maloles, C., & König, C. (2010). The Effects of Job Insecurity on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Deviant Behavior, and Negative Emotions of Employees. International Studies Of Management And Organization, 40(1), 74-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/imo0020-8825400105 Samnani, A.-K., Salamon, S. D., & Singh, P. (2014). Negative affect and counterproductivite
