Counterproductive Behavior Thesis

August 24, 2017 | Author: Mark Joseph D. Laus | Category: Survey Methodology, Action (Philosophy), Cognition, Psychology & Cognitive Science, Cognitive Science
Share Embed Donate

Short Description



CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Counterproductive behavior is employee behavior that goes against the legitimate interests of an organization. These behaviors can harm organizations or people in organizations including employees and clients, customers, or patients. It has been proposed that a personby-environment interaction can be utilized to explain a variety of counterproductive behaviors. For instance, an employee who is high on trait anger (tendency to experience anger) is more likely to respond to a stressful incident at work (being treated rudely by a supervisor) with CWB. The Trends of the Counterproductive Behavior term is to subsume related constructs that are distinct. Workplace deviance is behavior at work that violates norms for appropriate behavior. Retaliation consists of harmful behaviors done by employees to get back at someone who has treated them unfairly. Workplace revenge are behaviors by employees intended to hurt another person who has done something harmful to them. Workplace aggression consists of harmful acts that harm others in organizations. Lets talk about the problem regarding the Counterproductive Behaviour, counterproductive behaviour has been a problem since organizations have hired employees. Recently, there has been increasing interest in explaining and addressing deviant behavior in the workplace. So what can we do to lessen this kind of problems regarding in Counterproductive Behavior? In my opinion is identify first the ethical orientation of each job candidate. For example when hiring individuals who will be working face to face with the public, ask questions pertaining to integrity and honesty then understand employee perceptions. Creating a work environment with fair and equitable policies while also treating employees with respect will engage

employees' involvement. Be a role model. When policies and procedures are implemented within a facility, those in power need to follow the same rules. limit the number of personal calls they make or take per day.



Profile of Respondents    

Age Gender Position Length of service

Strategies Rules and Regulation Profer Training Be a Role Model

Assessment of the group respondents through survey.     

Questioner Interviews Documentary Analysis Gathering Data


Having a Good Employee Increasing of Growth rate of the company Good Discipline of Employee

Research Paradigm

Conceptual Framework In figure 1 show that the input refers to the profiles of respondents in terms of age, gender, Position and Length of Service. The Figure 1 paradigm shows the process through assessment of the group of respondents through survey questioners, interviews, documentary analysis and gathering of data. The output is the effects if we reduce the Counterproductive Behaviours is made the whole company good, Having a Good Employee, Increasing of Growth rate of the company and Good Discipline of Employee.

Statement of the Problem The main problem of the study is to determine the counterproductive behaviors manifested among the marketing professional of DBP Service Corporation, Specifically it attempts to answer the following Questions: A. What is the Profile of the respondents as to: A.1 Age A.2 Gender

A.3 Position A.4 Length of Service

B. How evident are the manifestations on the Counterproductive Behaviors among the Marketing Professional?

C. Is there a significant relationship between the manifestation of the counterproductive behaviors among the marketing professional and their profiles?

Hypothesis There is no significant difference on the assessment on the group of respondent on the Counterproductive Behaviours because they meet the individuals Expectation.

Significance of the study The study focused on explaining the Counterproductive Behaviours manifested among the Marketing Professional of DBP Service Corporation . Moreover, the results of the study will be beneficial to the following: 1. DBP Service Corporation - this research will help them to become knowledgeable the number of applicants, or percentage of total applicants, its services ratings. 2. Employers- This study will help them on how to use the strategies wisely and effectively 3. Respondents- The respondents will have awareness on the importance of IMC

4. Government- this study is important to them because they are the only one who collected taxes in all kinds of business. they are also funding some agencies to make the agencies attract applicants 5. Researcher- this research will be their guidelines soon on how to make thesis and the right format.

Scope and Limitations This study is limited to the profile of respondents in terms of age, gender, Position and length of service. The respondents of the study were composed of 100 randomly, selected Employees and applicants of DBP Service Corporation The venue of the DBP Service Corporation 2 nd floor EBC Bldg, Gil Puyat Avenue, corner Makati avenue, Makati city, The period covered is year 2015.

Definition of terms: We use the terms above and we give the meaning of it for easy to understand for readers. 1. Aggression- hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront 2. Behavior- the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others. 3. Counterproductive- having the opposite of the desired effect.

4. Counterproductive behavior is employee behavior that goes against the legitimate interests of an organization. 5. Deviance- the fact or state of departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior. 6. Employee – A person employed for wages or salary. Especially in non executive level. 7. Employer – A person or organization that employs people. 8. Manifested- display or show (a quality or feeling) by one's acts or appearance; demonstrate. 9. Organization- A social unit of people that is structured and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals. 10. Paradigm - is a distinct set of concepts or thought pattern, including theories. 11.

Retaliation is an act of revenge.

12. Researcher - is someone who conducts research, i.e., an organized and systematic investigation into something. 13. Respondents - a person who replies to something, especially one supplying information for a survey or questionnaire or responding to an advertisement. 14. Workplace- a place where people work, such as an office or factory. 15. Workplace deviance- refers to deliberate, malicious attempts to sabotage an organisation by causing problems in the workplace. 16. Workplace revenge are behaviour by employees intended to hurt another person who has done something harmful to them.

17. Theoretical framework - is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. It introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists.

Theoretical Framework

This Theory is anchored by the book written by Tomas

Quintin D Andres (2001) entitled Filipino behavior at work: Human relations & organizational behavior in the Philippine setting that An organization consists of individuals with different tasks attempting to accomplish a common purpose. this purpose is the creation and delivery of goods or services for its customers. Organizational behavior is the study of how individuals and groups perform together within an organization. It focuses on the best way to manage individuals, groups, organizations, and processes. Organizational behavior is an extensive topic and includes management, theories and practices of motivation, and the fundamentals of organizational structure and design. From the smallest non profit to the largest multinational conglomerate, firms and organizations all have to deal with the concept of organizational behavior. Knowledge about organizational behavior can provide

managers with a better understanding of how their firm or organization attempts to accomplish its goals. This knowledge may also lead to ways in which a firm or organization can make its processes more effective and efficient, thus allowing the firm or organization to successfully adapt to changing circumstances. This chapter will help you better understand the theories and structures of organizational behavior. The chapter begins by discussing some of the basic characteristics of managers and management. It then describes some of the popular theories and practical applications related to motivation and helps answer the question “What motivates employees and why does it motivate them?” The chapter then examines some of the fundamentals of organizational structure and de scribes ways in which organizational structures differ from on another. Finally it discusses a few methods by which organizations can ontrol processes and outcomes.

CHAPTER 2 Related Literature and Studies LOCAL LITERATURES Counterproducive behavior in philippine organizaions much like employees in the west, employees in the philippines want to do excelent work and perform well in their assigned duties. yet the country is no exception to counterprodutive behaviors. Like workers all over the world, Filipino workers also exhibit behaviors that run agains the organization's goals or agains persoanal efficacy, How different are filipino's counterprodutive behavior compared to those in the West?

Filipino anthropologist F. Landa Jocano explained that, being in a collectivist society, consider workmates as friends and that relationshops go beyond work to affect personal lives. Likewise, Saito e al. suggested that Filipinos tend to be more motivated and productive when working in groups or teams with face-to-face interaction. Given this collectivist culture, counterproductive behaviors may involve interaction with other people or may be motivated by social relationships. An example is the Filipino value of pakikisama, which means to be concerned about, to the supportive of, and to concede to public opinioin social situations in order to achieve group cohesion. This value has two faces: one which allows smooth interpersonal relationships to occur, whie the other would be groupthink or cohesion so strong, it may actually encourage counterproductive behavior.

The Civil Service Commission of Philippines defined an unethical behavior as any behavior prohibited by law. In a dynamic business environment, a “large gray area” exists that makes it difficult and unclear to distinguish what is ethical. An unethical behavior would therefore be defined as one that is not morally honorable or one that is prohibited by the law. Many behaviors will fall in the classification including corruption, mail and wire fraud, discrimination and harassment, insider trading, conflicts of interest, improper use of company assets, bribery and kickbacks, compliance procedures, ethical relations with others, disciplinary action, fraud, illegal business donations, patent infringement and product liability (Barrcus & Near, 1991, 12). Unethical behaviors that stimulated interest in ethics include Watergate events, Lockheed Scandal, the 1972 United States presidential election, illegal business donations and bribery of foreign officials in order to induce business abroad (Carroll, 1978, 5). Today, the most common ones are false communication, collusion, conflicts of interest, gifts and kickbacks, health services providers’ unfair practices, insider trading, discrimination and harassment, and embezzlement


In recent years, counterproductive work behaviors research has proliferated in organizational behavior literature. Counterproductive behavior broadly are defined as unproductive activities Pelin Kanten and Funda Er Ülker, The Macrotheme Review 2(4), Summer 2013 148 that are damaging to organizational goals and harmful to the organization by directly affecting its functioning or property, or by hurting employees in a way that will reduce their effectiveness (Mann et al., 2012: 142; Klotz and Buckley, 2013: 115). Robinson and Bennett (2000) defined counterproductive behaviors as voluntary behavior that violates important organizational norms and threatens the well-being of organizations, its members, or both (Yen and Teng, 2012: 2). The common underlying themes of counterproductive behaviors harm the organization by directly affecting its functioning or property, or by impacting on employees in a way that reduces their effectiveness (Roy et al., 2012: 1342). However, there has even been disagreement about what to call this set of behaviors. In literature these negative oriented behaviors have been labelled antisocial organizational behavior, organizational misbehavior, organizational deviance, employee withdrawal, dishonesty, dysfunctional behavior, counterproductive behavior (Everton et al., 2007: 118). Today, counterproductive behaviors have become an important concern for organization because of their impact on organizations and employees. Several researchers documented that counterproductive behaviors have financial, social and psychological effects on both organizations and employees. (Fagbohungbe et al., 2012: 208). In other words, counterproductive behaviors induce increasing organizational costs, decreasing commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, and productivity. On the other hand, it brings about lateness, absenteeism and turnover (Brooks, 2012: 238). Because of the counterproductive behaviors significance and its costs, these behaviors properly manage by the organizations and managers. However, organizations make an effort to identify factors which are conducive to such behaviors. (Biron,2010: 876).

Researches in this area suggest that two group of factors are causes of counterproductive behaviors in organizations. These factors are based on individual-related factors and organizationalrelated factors. The individual-related factors include conscientiousness, negative affectivity, agreeableness, moral philosophy, age, gender, education level, seniority, marital status and emotional intelligence. Organizational-related factors comprise organizational justice, perceived organizational support, social pressures to conform, negative and untrusting attitudes from managers/co-workers, disagreement with organizational goals and expectations, ambiguity about jobs, management styles, organizational ethical climate, organizational climate. Organizations are characterizing forums where a variety of different behaviors are expressed, each with a different consequence to the individuals within the organization as well as the entire organization. These behaviors usually harmonize with the organizational climate. Organizational climate includes organizational norms which are a grouping of expected behaviors, languages, principles and postulations that allow the workplace to perform at a suitable pace (Appelbaum et al., 2007: 587). Besides, organizational climate is formed of sharing values, beliefs and behavioral norms in an organization (Ahmad et al., 2012: 11880). Concordantly, it can be said that organizational climate occurs as a result of attitudes, behaviors and emotions of employees and adopted rules of organization. Due to this feature, organizational climate is expected to affect Pelin Kanten and Funda Er Ülker, The Macrotheme Review 2(4), Summer 2013 146 the employees’ attitudes and behaviors. When employee’s expectations are met with organizational goals and they perceive support, they feel organizational climate positive, thus exhibit positive behaviors. On the other hand, when their expectations uncomfortable with the organization’s mission and they perceive unpleasant working conditions, they tend to show counterproductive behaviors. In this work, primarily we will explain concepts of organizational climate and counterproductive behaviors.

Counterproductive behaviors have been classified based on different views in the literature. For example, theft, destruction of property, misuse of information, misuse of time and resources, unsafe behavior, poor attendance, poor quality work, alcohol use, drug use, and inappropriate physical actions, lateness, rude and cynic behavior to workmates like etc. (Mann et al., 2012: 143). Because of diversity, there has even been disagreement about these behaviors. This lack of agreement means that researchers use different theoretical frameworks to discuss these behaviors. Therefore, typology of counterproductive behaviors is most widely used in organizational behavior researches since it includes all of these behaviors. However, this typology has allowed researchers to present and discuss the information in an organized way and it presents broad and comprehensive perspective (Everton et al., 2007: 119). In addition, this typology can be used to classify counterproductive behaviors according to organizational climate (Appelbaum et al, 2007: 589). Consequently, we will examine counterproductive behaviors in accordance with Robinson and Bennett’s typology. With reference to this typology, there are two specific types of counterproductive behaviors. One of them is interpersonal counterproductivebehaviors aimed at individuals; the other is organizational counterproductive behaviors targeting the organization (Klotz and Buckley, 2013: 115).  Interpersonal counterproductive behaviors: these behaviors are displayed between individuals in the workplace and involve behaviors such as: belittling others, playing pranks on others, acting rudely, arguing, and physical aggression. Interpersonal-directed aggression includes minor normative violations labelled as political deviance (i.e., favoritism and gossip) and serious violations labelled as personal deviance (i.e., verbal abuse etc).  Organizational counterproductive behaviors: these are directed against the organization and include such actions as stealing, withholding effort, sabotage, lateness. Organizationaldirected aggression, on the other hand, includes minor normative violations labelled as production deviance (i.e.,leaving work early and taking excessive

breaks) and serious violations labelled as property deviance (i.e., sabotaging equipment and stealing) (Appelbaum et al., 2007: 587-588; Scheuer, 2010: 7; Yen and Teng, 2012: 2). Counterproductive behavior has gained importance due to its influences on organizations and employees. Recently, researches have conducted studies which show its causes on individual and organizational levels (Appelbaum et al., 2007: 592). Individual and organizational factors are known to influence the behavior and attitudes of the employees. One organizational factor that has been demonstrated to have a significant effect on employee behavior is the organizational climate (Peterson, 2002: 49). It is plausible that perceived organizational climate influence the attitudes and behaviors of employees in organizations as climate perceptions are believed to be the functional link between the employees and objective characteristics of the work environment like formal and informal policies, procedures, and practices (Scheurer, 2010: 10). Organizational climate is the extent in which employee expectations from the organization are being met, so when employee’s expectations for receiving support for their performance are perceived to be met, they both feel “good” about the organization’s climate and effectively perform their tasks. Thus, when the climate is “employee oriented”, the employee would orient his or her behavior to attain organization goals. But when the climate is mainly directed toward obtaining organization goals and not to take any notice of employee’s wellbeing, employees will generate more negative behaviors such as counterproductive behaviors (Vardi, 2001: 327-328).

LOCAL STUDIES Although counterproductive work behavior (CWB) has long been established as a broad domain of job behaviors, little agreement exists about its internal structure. The present research addressed alternative models of broadly defined CWB according to which specific behaviors can be grouped into (a) one general factor, or into (b) two, (c) five, or (d) eleven narrower facets, and a number of possible integrations of these models. First, conceptual differences between these models (including the nature of overall CWB as implying a reflective or formative model, boundaries of the domain, and relations among

specific facets) are reviewed with regard to theoretical and practical implications. In Study 1, structural meta-analysis was then used to test whether a reflective higher-order factor underlies meta-analytically constructed correlation matrices of five CWB facets. Analyses supported a general factor model. For Study 2, a primary data set (N = 1,237 employees) was collected in order to test alternative structural models and possible integrations of these models. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the best fit was for a bimodal (nonhierarchical) model in which individual CWBs simultaneously load on one of the eleven facets describing their content (e.g., theft, absenteeism) and on one of three factors describing the target primarily harmed (organization, other persons, self). Less support was found for hierarchical models and for models involving fewer content factors. These findings suggest that CWB is best described by a reflective higher-order factor at the general level and by a complex set of bimodal facets at the more specific level (Mann et al., 2012: 143). Counterproductive work behavior is detrimental to the organization or to coworkers. It includes both breaking rules or laws, as well as social norms. Many authors show a negative relationship between this behavior and work satisfaction, surmising that the lack thereof – and the ensuing desire to ‘get back’ at the employer – are the seeds of workplace deviance. A study carried out in Polish organizations found this relationship to be less clear. The study concerned work satisfaction and counterproductive behavior, organizational justice, stress at work and propensity for aggressive behavior. A cluster analysis identified a group of individuals in whom relatively high levels of job satisfaction are nevertheless accompanied by proclivity for counterproductive behavior. The configuration of results suggests that this group resorts to counterproductive behavior because of an inability to balance difficulties at work with personal inclinations. The implications of these results for personal management is discussed in the conclusions. Because of the counterproductive behaviors significance and its costs, these behaviors properly manage by the organizations and managers. However, organizations make an effort to identify factors which are conducive to such behaviors (Brooks, 2012: 238).. (Brooks, 2012: 238). In other words, counterproductive behaviors induce increasing organizational costs, decreasing commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, and productivity. On the other

hand, it brings about lateness, absenteeism and turnover. Because of the counterproductive behaviors significance and its costs, these behaviors properly manage by the organizations and managers. However, organizations make an effort to identify factors which are conducive to such behaviors.

FOREIGN STUDIES Counterproductive work behavior consists of intentional acts by employees that harm organizations or their stakeholders. Included under CWB are acts of physical violence against people (Type 3 violence), as well as milder forms of aggressive behavior such as verbal aggression and other forms of mistreatment directed toward people. CWB also includes acts directed toward organizations rather than people (although people are often indirect targets). This includes destruction and misuse of organizational property, doing work incorrectly, or failing to notify superiors about mistakes and work problems (e.g., a machine malfunction), and withdrawal (e.g., calling in sick when not ill). CWB has been studied from a variety of perspectives, using different terms to refer to a partially overlapping set of harmful acts. This includes aggression (Neuman & Baron, 2005; Spector, 2006), deviance (Hollinger, 2001; Robinson & Bennett, 2002), retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), and revenge (Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 2000). Acts directed specifically at people have been studied as bullying (Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999), emotional abuse (Keashly, 2003), and mobbing (Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996). Researchers who have studied these various related phenomena have taken a variety of theoretical positions that give different emphasis to emotions. Neuman and Baron’s (2009, 2010, 2012) work, based on the human aggression literature, considers the role of negative emotions in affective aggression. They provided an integrated model of aggression (Neuman & Baron, 2005) in which negative emotion (hostility, anger, and shame) plays a central role. According to this model, aggression is triggered by environmental conditions and stressors, including situational frustration, injustice, insults, and presence of things associated with aggression. These lead to negative emotions and aggressive

cognitions that together lead to appraisal of the situation and decisions about whether or not to respond aggressively. Their model draws upon a cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis of aggression (Anderson, Anderson, & Deuser, 2002; Anderson, Deuser, & DeNeve, 2002; Berkowitz, 1990). Situational variables (such as perceived threat, mistreatment, or frustration resulting from thwarted goals) may lead to primary and secondary appraisal and on to aggressive behavioral choices by one or more of three paths: cognition (excitation of hostile thoughts, memories, or aggression scripts), affect (priming hostile or angry feelings), and/or arousal (excitation transfer). Through accessible hostile schemata, these paths may lead to more hostile interpretation of ambiguous events and ambiguous affective states. It is noteworthy that anger can play several causal roles in this process (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Workplace deviant behavior (WDB) and counterproductive work behavior (CWB) are used interchangeably in the literature. While CWB and WDB are similar, CWB is broader in concept than WDB (Hogan & Hogan, 1989). Counterproductive work behavior is defined as a potentially destructive behavior (such as sabotaging work equipment, cheating or intentionally breaking work rules) that is intended to have harmful consequences on coworkers and the organization (Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001); whereas workplace deviant behavior is defined as “voluntary behavior of organizational members that violates significant organizational norms, and in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization and/or its members” (Robinson & Bennett, 2008, p. 556). Two important forms of deviant behavior are very much related to our proposed typology of workers‟ response to monetary incentives. Production deviance involves breaking work rules, shirking or withholding effort (Peterson, 2002; Robinson & Bennett, 2004), and pursuing one‟s self-interest (Peterson, 2002). Property deviance involves destroying the physical property of the company (Spector et al., 2006) such as in the sabotage of work equipment and in the depletion of organizational resources (Robinson & Bennett, 2002). Although there are very few typologies (e.g., Robinson & Bennett, 2002) that exist regarding workers‟ deviant behavior in

organizations, not one of these typologies has dealt with the counterproductive work behavior that the monetary incentive systems generate. Researchers often use the framework developed by Fox and Spector (1999) when discussing CWB. CWB is behaviour intended to hurt the organization or other members of the organization. Therefore, it can be categorized around the target of the behaviour: The organization (CWB-O) and other individuals (CWBI). Acts such as aggression and hostility are directed at people (CWB-I). While others, such as doing task incorrectly or sabotage, are directed at organizations (CWB-O). Further classification was developed by Spector (2006), that categorizes CWB into five dimensions; abuse - harmful and nasty behaviours that affect other people; production deviance - purposely doing one‟s job incorrectly or allowing error to occur; sabotage – destroying organizational property; theft – wrongfully taking the personal goods or property of another; and withdrawal – avoiding work through being late or absent. Another dimension CWB can be categorized is according to its severity, ranging from minor to severe. Some deviant behaviour, such as worker talking with coworkers instead of working, would be classified as a minor deviant act,whilst, other incidents such as physical assault, would be classified as severe (Hollinger, 2001). According to Kelloway (2010), CWB can be viewed as a form of protest within organizations, stemming from having a high degree of identification with a victim of injustice. It was also suggested that CWB can be both individually and collectively enacted. Collective CWB would be like work-slow campaigns, work to rule, bullying, and collective acts of violence that occur in the context of labour dispute

Synthesis of the Review Literature and Studies The related studies review by the researchers include the Counterproductive Behavior in Marketing Professional in DBP Service Company. This studies of some researchers are related to the present study since they all dealt on Counterproductive Behavior in organization. However, they differ from the present in terms of the focus: The Counterproductive Behavior Manifested among the Marketing Professional.

Bibliography Areeg I. Barakat* and Faten M. Moussa. Patterns of workers’ Counterproductive Work Behaviour under the monetary incentive systems (2002). Edgar F. Huse and James L. Bow-ditch. Behavior in Organization a system approach to managing (second edition). Jerald Greenberg, Robert A Baron. Behavior in Organization: Understanding and Managing the Human side of wor. 6 th Edition, New york Prentice-Hall (2001) John W. Newstron and Keith Davis. Organizational Behavior (Human Behavior at Work) 2008. Landa F. Jocano, M.R Hechanova, M Teng-calleha, & V. Villaluz. J. Understanding the Filipino Worker and Organization(2014). Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R. J. “A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study,” Academy of Management Journal (38:2), April 1995, pp. 555-572. Rowena S. Dimaano, (2012) Human Behavior in Organization. Paul E. Spector, Suzy Fox, Theresa Domagalski. Emotions, Violence, and Counterproductive Work Behavior, 2011.

Chapter III Methodology The way in which research is conducted may be conceived of in terms of the research strategy employed and so the research instruments utilized in the pursuit of the goal – the research objectives and the quest for the solution of the problem. We have outlined our research questions and objectives in chapter 1. The purpose of this chapter is to: 

Expound our research strategies, including the research methodologies

adopted. Introduce the research instruments that we have developed and utilized in the pursuit of our goals.

Research Method Descriptive type of research used to describe the following situations. Used of questionnaires to solve the questions that are outlined in chapter 1. It is also known as statistical research, describes data and characteristics about the population or phenomenon being studied. Descriptive research answers the questions who, what, where, when and how. Thus, on the basis of the above, the two research designs were appropriate for the present

study as it was important to gauge the various project specific risks that impact the software projects and also understand the dynamics of organization’s climate on these software projects. The focus of qualitative research is not only to describe but also to analyze the study.

Respondent of the study The respondents of this study are the marketing manager and some employee in the marketing department DBP Service Corporation. They are the ones who are the knowledgeable enough to answer the problems posed in the present study.

Sampling procedure The group used Simple Random Sampling. In this sampling technique, the group got random samples in a population which was composed of several DBP Service Corporation employee that is 70 persons regardless of their genders.

Instrument and techniques Used 1. Questionnaire- this is a list of planned, written questions, related to a particular topic with space provided for indicating response to each question intended for submission to a number of people for a reply. 2. Interview- this is a purposeful face-to-face relationship between person, one called the interviewer who asks questions to gather

information and the other one called the interviewee or the respondent who supplies the information asked for. 3. Documentary Analysis- is a form of qualitative research in which documents are interpreted by the researcher to give voice and meaning around an assessment topic. Analyzing documents incorporates coding content into themes similar to how focus group or interview transcripts are analyzed. 4. Observation- is a type of correlational (i.e., nonexperimental) research in which a researcher observes on going behavior. There are a variety of types of observational research, each of which has both strengths and weaknesses.

Data Gathering Procedure The data for this research were collected using a survey questionnaire. The survey was created using suitable questions modified from related research and individual questions formed by the researcher. The survey was comprised of several questions, which were related to the participant’s perception regarding Counterproductive Behavior. In the questionnaire. After the professor validated

Statistical Treatment In getting the sample size, the group used the Percentage and weighted mean formula. The data collected were tabulated and analyzed. Analyses of data were guided by mean and percentage. Quantitative analysis is applied. The survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics, based around a number of propositions that the study identified. Weighted mean and percentage and median are calculated. The following statistical formulae are utilised:

Where: N -total number of respondents

n – number of responses e = margin of error 1. Percentage – to determine the magnitude of the responses to the questionnaire. n % = -------- x 100 ; n – number of responses N N – total number of respondents 2. Weighted Mean f1x1 + f2x2 + f3x3 + f4x4 + f5x5 x = ---------------------------------------------; xt where: f – weight given to each response x – number of responses xt – total number of responses

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.