CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.4 Research on Cultural Differences between Thailand and China and Employees'
2.4.2 Study on Counterproductive Work Behavior of Chinese and Thai
2.4.2.1 Relevant Research on Counterproductive Work Behavior in
addition, Thai people themselves pay more attention to enjoyment and ease of the situation, do not have too much ambition and encourage competition, so they are more casual during work, often late or take holidays at will, often chat and eat snacks during work, and especially love activities after work. Thai people think that work is for life and they pay more attention to the quality of life, sometimes not coming to work until they have finished paying their wages. Thai businesses have strict regulations of superior and inferior relationships, superiors should not be accused and questioned, and the communication style of the work is mostly top-down. Thai people believe that people's anger will arouse spiritual anger to a certain extent, and the effective way to get out of trouble is to avoid confrontations as much as possible, so they also prefer to tolerate concessional conflict management (Yuan, 2016).
2.4.2 Study on Counterproductive Work Behavior of Chinese and Thai
deeply dissects the connotation of an employee's counterproductive work behaviors from the body, object, nature, and outcomes of behavior, which is defined as actions intentionally taken by an organization member against other organization members or organizational belongings and which violate the prevailing norms important to the organization, and whose outcomes objectively present four scenarios, they are win- win, lose others at their own expense, lose yourself at their own expense, and lose others at their own expense. Whereas Zhang and Lin (2009) defines counterproductive work behavior as explicit and implicit behaviors that are deliberately implemented by members of the organization, causing damage to the organization and its members' properties. Later, H. Chen and Ma (2012) defines it as an individual's behavior that violates organizational goals. There are also scholars who have studied counterproductive work behaviors of employees from different perspectives. T. Sun (2008) analyzed counterproductive work behaviors of employees from an organizational perspective and found that organizational constraints had a significant predictive effect on counterproductive work behaviors. In regard to this, Liu and Gao (2009) develops a five dimensional structural model of counterproductive work behavior in conjunction with the Chinese cultural context, in which he argues that employee counterproductive work behaviors encompass work indolence, encroachment, hostile destructive behavior, promiscuity malfeasance, and corporate political behavior, which can also be divided according to behavioral orientation and severity of nature. Zhao and Yu (2009) based on attribution theory and expectation theory, systematically analyzed the action mechanism of performance appraisal on counterproductive work behavior, pointed out that, due to the control and guidance of performance appraisal, it is easy to cause employees to feel imbalance and excessive work pressure, thus producing negative emotions both internally and externally, and finally triggering various counterproductive work behaviors. Zhang and Zhao (2015) proposed three typical characteristics of employees' counterproductive work behavior from an organizational point of view. First, the behavior is a negative behavior that poses a threat to or creates a hazard to organizational and/or organizational employee welfare, second, the behavior is spontaneous and governed entirely by the subjective violation of the employee, who can freely decide to engage or not, and finally, the behavior is an out of role behavior,
it is not explicitly stated in the employee's job duties that an employee must or will not engage in these behaviors. In addition to the different research perspectives, there are also researchers studying counterproductive work behavior from different dimensions, Z. A. Peng (2010) found that counterproductive work behaviors of Chinese intellectual workers can be classified from two dimensions: harmful degree and unethical degree, which further constitute four types of counterproductive work behaviors: against others, against organizations, against tasks passively and against tasks radically. Yang, Hannah-Hanh Nguyen, and Chen (2011) adopted the multi- dimensional scale analysis method, and found that there are 45 typical counter- productive behaviors of Chinese employees, which can be divided into four categories: productive negligence, illegal act, benefit oneself at the expense of public interests, and cooperative disruption. These four types of counterproductive work behaviors can better represent the situation of Chinese employees' counterproductive work behaviors, and the frequency of production-type negligence is the highest. With the further research, researchers believe that different situations also affect employees' counterproductive work behaviors. Zhao et al.(2011) systematically analyzed the relationship between performance appraisal and counterproductive work behavior, pointing out that the purpose, objective, content, cycle, method and feedback of performance appraisal may have a positive impact on counterproductive work behavior. Y. Liu et al. (2020) conducted a questionnaire survey on 322 employees in Chinese enterprises to explore the impact of off-hours work connectivity on employees' counter-productive behaviors. The results indicate that off-hours work connectivity has a significant positive impact on employees' counterproductive work behaviors. psychological contract violation mediates between off-hours work connectivity and employees' counterproductive work behaviors. Compensation fairness negatively regulates the relationship between off-hours work connectivity and psychological contract violation. Under the influence of COVID-19, L. Zhang et. al.
(2020) took 587 employees from 12 enterprises as research objects to explore the influence of leadership practice on reducing counterproductive work behaviors of employees. The empirical results show that: genuine leadership has significant negative impact on counterproductive work behaviors; Self-efficiency negatively regulates the relationship between leader-member exchange and Counterproductive
Work Behavior.
To sum up, Chinese scholars' research on employee counterproductive work behavior is reflected in the definition of an overview of employee counterproductive work behavior H. Chen & Ma, 2012; Yang et al. (2004;
Zhang & Liu, 2009); Definition of content and dimension (Z. A. Peng, 2010; Yang et al., 2011); Research on Employee counterproductive work behavior from Different Perspectives or Backgrounds (Liu & Gao, 2009; T. Sun, 2008; L. Zhang et. al., 2020) and the factors affecting employees' counterproductive work behavior (Y. Liu et al., 2020; Zhao et. al., 2011). From the above findings, Chinese scholars' research on counterproductive work behaviors started late, and the research is still in its infancy, necessitating further enhancement of indigenous research in this field.
2) Multi-group comparison of counterproductive work behavior of employees in China and other countries
Chinese scholars have relatively late onsets of the research on employee counterproductive work behaviors, and especially there are fewer studies in the group comparison analysis of employee counterproductive work behaviors between China and other countries, with the main research focused on the 21st century onwards.
Kickul et al. (2004), who examined the psychological contract, job satisfaction, turnover intention, organizational commitment, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior among 60 U.S. and 76 Hong Kong Chinese employees, showed that employees from both cultures differ in their perception of the psychological contract. Workers in the United States had weaker perceptions of breach than employees in Hong Kong. U.S. employees had a more negative reaction to disruption of the perceived intrinsic psychological contract, whereas Hong Kong employees had a more negative reaction to disruption of the perceived extrinsic psychological contract. J. C. Chen et al. (2006), in a study of 130 mainland Chinese and 101 US employees, found that the organizational responsibilities of the psychological contract of employees in both cultural contexts encompass the transaction, relationship, and work dimensions, with Chinese employees valuing the relationship dimension more than US employees, while US employees value the transaction and work dimensions more than Chinese employees. And when
psychological contract violations occur, U.S. employees have a more negative work attitude than Chinese employees. Due to the influence of labor oversupply, relationship dimension contract violation has less negative impact on Chinese employees' work attitudes than American employees. Thomas et al. (2010) explored the relationship between ethnoculture and individual psychological contracts by interviewing 657 respondents in four countries, and the results showed that French respondents (vertical individualists) perceived their psychological contracts as primarily exploitative, Canadian respondents (horizontal individualists) perceived their psychological contracts as primarily instrumental, Chinese respondents (vertical collectivists) perceive their psychological contracts to be primarily managerial, and Norwegian respondents (horizontal collectivists) perceive their psychological contracts to be primarily communalism. Krishnan (2011) believes that most of the research on employment in India is conducted on the Anglo-Saxon context, and the results may not be fully valid in India. India's emerging employment relationship has a significant impact on valuable work outcomes from the perspective of psychological contract. S. Xu, Wang, and Jin (2018) took 688 and 892 full-time workers from China and the USA as subjects, and found that family collectivism had a negative moderating effect on the relationship between psychological contract violation and turnover intention in the Chinese sample, and a positive moderating effect on the relationship between psychological contract violation and turnover intention in the American sample. Peterson et al. (2019) found that in four countries: Australia, China, Hungary and Jamaica, men's organizational commitment is higher than women's, and in two countries (Bulgaria and Romania), women are higher than men. Vu and Nguyen (2020) results show that cross-cultural workplace learning increases organizational commitment among expatriate employees. Furthermore, managers' trust mediates the relationship between cross-cultural adaptation and organizational commitment.
To sum up, the subjects of group comparison of counterproductive work behaviors of employees from China and other countries under the cross-cultural background mainly originates from western countries, such as the United States, France, Canada, Australia, and so on, while studies in Asian countries are lacking, therefore, more studies in Asian countries are needed.
2.4.2.2 Study on Counterproductive Work Behavior in Thailand