Introduction

Often paralleled with counterproductive work behaviour, organizational deviance, a well researched topic, is commonly deemed as being purposefully damaging for the organization as well as its stakeholders (Bolton, Becker, & Barber, 2010; Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Fox & Spector, 2006; Hafidz & W, 2012; Levy & Tziner, 2011; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector et al., 2006). Organizational deviance has two significant components: interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Interpersonal deviance pertains to harmful acts directed at others at work, such as acting rudely, deliberately humiliating or hurting, and playing pranks on others at work. Organizational deviance concerns destructive behaviours directed at the organization, such as purposely showing up late for work, spoiling the work environment, taking long breaks, and stealing work property (Bennett et al., 2000). Other discernable deviant acts include physical mistreatment, voiced abuse, calculated errors or harm, robbery, destroying or wasting property, failure to report work-related problems, quitting work, estrangement inclusive of absenteeism and sluggishness, and reduced performance evaluations (Bolton et al., 2010; Kelloway, Francis, Prosser, & Cameron, 2010; Kuenzi, Brown, Mayer, & Priesemuth, 2019; Spector & Fox, 2005; Sulea, Pitariu, & Maricutoiu, 2009; Tiwari & Jha, 2021). Well-documented effects of this organizational malpractice include delaying work processes, efficiency, and financial output (Aube, Rousseau, Mama, & Morin, 2009; Hollinger & Adams, 2010) that point to a need for eliminating this malpractice, as organizations where deviance is a norm pay a considerable price. Therefore, such organizations must commit to eliminating or minimizing factors that precede or trigger deviant acts in employees.

The preceding discussion elucidates that organizations must recognize antecedents to organizational deviance and identify buffering factors to offset the triggering of deviant acts in employees for sustained performance. Yet, there seems to be a dearth of studies on the topic. Albeit a substantial body of literature has focused on examining correlates of organizational deviance, including antecedents to organizational deviance such as personal differences (Hsi, 2017; Lugosi, 2019; Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002), organizational citizenship behaviours (Fox, Spector, Goh, Bruursema, & Kessler, 2012), trait aggression and emotional instability (Clark, 2013; Zhang, Crant, & Weng, 2019) as well as situational factors including organizational justice (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001), and work stressors (Roxana, 2013). These studies demonstrate that negative, undesirable workplace occurrences are responsible for deviant acts of employees at work. More substantial evidence for this claim lies in the study by Scott and Barnes (2011), which found that negative emotions fully mediated social injustice at work and organizational deviance. Similarly, (Metofe, 2017) concluded that deviant acts respond to negative emotions elicited by situations, such as anger and frustration. In sum, relevant literature demonstrates that negative occurrences and emotions at work trigger deviant acts. Few Asian-based studies on organizational deviance (Dar & Rahman, 2019; Fatima, Iqbal, & Imran, 2013; Khan, Quratulain, & Crawshaw, 2013; Rahim, Shabudin, & Nasurdin, 2016) also fall short of identifying organizational factors that may trigger organizational deviance.

Moreover, current literature lacks studies investigating means and ways to offset destructive bullying outcomes. Arguably, gratitude presents a positive employee strength (Emmons & Stern, 2013) that may buffer the relationships between workplace bullying and organizational deviance. Some recent empirical studies (Cunha, Pellanda, & Reppold, 2019; Witvliet, Richie, Luna, & Tongeren, 2018) establish that gratitude enhances happiness, life satisfaction, positivity and suppresses sadness and negativity pointing to a constructive role of gratitude. Yet no study could be located that has suggested gratitude as a means to diminish negative, destructive bullying outcomes, specifically organizational deviance, through the employment of gratitude, a positive psychological variable.

Given the research gaps explained above, the present study aims to propose and test whether bullying at the workplace elicits deviant acts among bullied workers and whether gratitude moderates the relationship between workplace bullying and organizational deviance. This study contributes to the existing literature in two ways: first, by empirically testing organizational deviance as a bullying outcome and testing a possible moderating effect of gratitude on the workplace bullying and organizational deviance relationship.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Methodology

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, internal consistency, and bivariate correlations among all study variables. As the table shows, the mean age of respondents was 35+ 2.4 years, the mean organization tenure was 5.41 years, and most held a master’s degree. As for correlations, workplace bullying correlated negatively with gratitude (γ=-.45, p<.05) and positively with organizational deviance (γ=.52, p<.05). Also, gratitude correlated negatively with organizational deviance (γ=-.40, p<.05). All correlations were in the predictable direction, implying support for both study hypotheses.

Table 2 presents results of linear regression analysis to test the hypothesised workplace bullying – organisational deviance relationship. As maybe seen, the hypothesised relationship was significant (R² =.42, p<.000, β=.45, p<.01) indicating that workplace bullying accounted for 42% variance in organisational deviance, thereby confirming hypothesis 1.

Table 3 presents results of hierarchical regression to test moderating effect of gratitude on the workplace bullying — organisational deviance relationship. As is evident from theTable 3, the interaction term of workplace bullying and gratitude was significant (R²=.52, β=-.20, p<.005) indicating that gratitude indeed buffered the workplace bullying–organisational deviance relationship (Baron et al., 1986). Specifically, gratitude brought 2% significant additional variance ( $∆$ R²=.02, p<.005) in the regression model. Hypothesis 2 thus found full support.

Discussion

The present study sought to theoretically and empirically test whether workplace bullying triggered organizational deviance and whether gratitude, a positive variable, moderated the relationship between workplace bullying and organizational deviance. Results confirmed both study hypotheses. The finding of this study is that organizational deviance is indeed caused by bullying at work, and the relationship between workplace bullying and organizational deviance is moderated by gratitude in such a way that it is strongly positive for bullied employees with low gratitude and weakly positive for bullied employees with high gratitude. 

Support for hypothesis 1 suggested that workplace bullying and organizational deviance would positively extend the literature on workplace bullying by proving that organizational deviance is a notable bullying outcome. Due to ongoing organizational changes, external and internal transformations, and work design shortcomings, higher-ups are inclined to pressure employees to follow through with work assignments and projects (Feijo, Graf, Pearce, & Fassa, 2019), fostering a bullying prone work context. As a reaction to recurrent bullying, employees subsequently experience feelings of negative payback and vengeance toward the organization and its people. Specifically, bullied employees indulge in damaging, retaliatory behaviours that harm the organization, its property, resources, and people, i.e., they indulge in deviant behaviours to purposefully cause organizational harm. This finding agrees with earlier studies that have reported damaging effects of bullying on physical and mental health (Djurkovic, Mccormack, & Casimir, 2004), organizational commitment (Bulutlar & Oz, 2009), and environmental factors (Akella, 2016; Appelbaum, Semerjian, & Mohan, 2012).

Another important finding of this study is that gratitude moderates the workplace bullying and organizational deviance relationship such that bullied employees with high gratitude indulge in lesser deviant acts as an outcome of bullying, unlike bullied workers with lower gratitude, for whom the relationship is stronger, implying that these bullied employees indulge in more deviant acts as a form of vengeance to bullying. In concurrence with this finding,Mccullogh et al. (2002) suggested that gratitude thwarts cynical feelings as antagonism and resentment. As such, gratitude assists in valuing constructive aspects of life, cherishing blessed features of one’s life, encourages constructive analysis of harmful occurrences (Emmons et al., 2013; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006; Tsang, 2006), and boosts individual and organizational well-being (Ting, 2017).

The present study adds to contemporary literature establishing that bullying triggers deviance in bullied employees, while gratitude, a positive variable, moderates the workplace bullying — organizational deviance relationship, such that bullied workers who are high on gratitude experience lesser deviance in response to bullying as opposed to bullied employees who are lesser on gratitude and indulge in more deviant acts in response to bullying.

This study was guided by two aims: first, to empirically examine if workplace bullying triggers counterproductive acts in bullied employees; second, to empirically test if gratitude, being a positive employee strength, moderates the workplace bullying — counterproductive work behaviour relationship. Results confirmed both proposed hypotheses. Overall, findings of this research indicate that bullied workers indulge in damaging, harmful acts directed at the organization and other workers as revenge for the bullying experienced (counterproductive work behaviours), yet this association is stronger for those bullied employees who are low on gratitude, while the association is weaker for those bullied employees with high gratitude levels. In sum, these results emphasize that bullying is an organizational menace with destructive consequences for individuals and organizations. Positive virtues, specifical gratitude, ought to be nurtured and fostered in employees and organizational settings to offset its harmful effects.

Organiz ational Implications

Organizations may take essential measures in light of the results of this study. Firstly, despite the rapid, unexpected changes in the corporate world, steps must be taken to reduce bullying within the work environment. Managers should recognize that along with a change comes the increased risk of bullying incidents, as managers are rushed to goal attainment and success in pursuit of which they bully their subordinates. Policymakers and human resource managers also need to understand that bullying subordinates would trigger a revengeful mindset in bullied employees, and they would indulge in deviant acts to harm the organization and its members. Policies and strategies, as well as workshops and training, should be held in organizations, particularly those that consistently change, to create awareness of deviant actions; this would help bullied employees remain mindful and conscious of their actions. In addition, managers should design and implement policies to keep a check and balance to decrease deviant employee acts, such as implementing timed breaks, offering counseling services for maltreated workers, dealing with increased absenteeism and tardiness, etc. Further, as a training intervention strategy, training must be planned to enhance employee gratitude towards the organizations, work, and general.

Strengths and limitations

This study has important strengths. First, well-established, validated instruments with good psychometric properties were used to measure the study variables, giving good confidence in the findings. Second, data were collected from two work contexts, i.e. the telecommunication and health sectors, both likely to endure frequent pressure and change that arguably makes them bullying–prone work settings. Hence, study hypotheses have been tested in the matching corresponding work environments.

The limitations of this study should also be recognized. First, this study used a cross-section study design that is viewed as restricted for addressing causal relationships (Zapf, Dorman, & Frese, 1996). Secondly, the R² should be acknowledged as being a small effects size (Cohen, 1988). However, according toDarlington (1968) moderation effects are always slight — probably as the moderation testing procedure involves creating a product term of the independent and moderation variable (Baron et al., 1986).

Future Recommendations

Future research should examine other possible effects of bullying, for which there is a growing need in Pakistan due to the scarcity of studies. A longitudinal study design is more likely to clarify causal relationships, so it is recommended for future studies. Future studies can also examine other positive variables that are likely to influence the effect of workplace bullying on deviant acts. Further, studies may logically employ a mediator related to work design to help better comprehend relationships between bullying, its outcomes, and how these relationships are influenced by work design and positive variables.