Linking organizational citizenship behavior and organizational trust towards reducing workplace deviance behavior in higher education

Abstract

Deviance is complex unethical behavior that influences employees, groups, and organizations. When employees misbehave in the workplace, these behaviors can harm the system and prevent organizations from achieving their objectives. This paper examines the impact of trust and citizenship behavior on workplace deviance. It further investigates the mediator effect of organizational citizenship behavior between organizational trust and workplace deviance in tertiary education in Malaysia. The finding of this research from four hypotheses reveals the high impact of organizational trust on organizational citizenship behavior and the contrary effect of trust on deviant behavior in organizations. Our analysis found a significant impact of citizenship behavior as a mediation between organizational trust and workplace deviance, particularly in tertiary education. This study employs a quantitative method to test hypotheses through Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling on 230 respondents from tertiary education in Malaysia. In theory, the current study’s findings have added to deviance as an indication of the unlike impacts of trust and citizenship behavior on workplace deviance. The discovery of the present investigation advocate reducing unethical behavior in higher education, thus improving employees’ efficiency and sustainability in tertiary education.

Keywords:

• organizational trust
• organizational citizenship behavior
• human resource
• workplace deviance behavior
• social exchange theory

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Workplace deviance is complex unethical behavior that influences employees, groups, and organizations. When employees misbehave in the workplace, these behaviors can harm the system and prevent organizations from achieving their objectives. The enormous cost of deviating in the workplace makes this issue one of the vital challenges in the majority of organizations. One of the main reasons for special attention to workplace deviance is the incredible cost that liked with this behavior. Our manuscript examines the impact of trust and citizenship behavior on workplace deviance behavior. Many researchers linked deviant behavior to damages in the organization, for instance, diminished morality and efficiency of workers in the organization.

1. Introduction

The notion that employees are an essential intangible asset is an understatement because an organization’s prosperity is influenced by how the employees implement it. Hence organizations attempt to develop their human resource to grow output and effectiveness by supporting their workforces. This support promotes positive work-related outcomes in which the absence potentially stimulates employees’ workplace deviance (Qi et al., 2020).

As deviant behavior carries contrary implications for employees, groups, and organizations, identifying its predictors is crucial for administrators and human resource managers (Abbasi et al., 2022). Many researchers linked deviant behavior to damages in the organization, for instance, diminished morality and efficiency of workers in the organization (Akanni et al., 2018; Shukla & Kark, 2020). According to (Abbasi et al., 2022), WD has recently been growing and adversely affects employees and groups. Once the staffs misbehave in the workplace, these behaviors might harm the organization and prevent them from achieving its goals (Cioban et al., 2021). Based on Abbasi et al. (2020a), workplace deviance is pervasive and costly for organizations globally, while Cioban et al. (2021) highlighted many different types of deviance. Yusof et al. (2019) found that job tension in the workplace positively impacts WD. However, thoughtful coaching helping was adversely connected with deviance in the organization (Zhang et al., 2022).

Understanding WD’s dynamics is key to businesses’ sustainability (Ilyas et al., 2020) because such understanding will allow firms to intervene in this issue and help their employees cope with it (Jaroenwanit et al., 2022). Initially, one might draw a connection between WD behaviors and company vandalism, theft, sabotage, and other organizational mishaps before understanding the source of these aberrations (Lawrence & Robinson, 2007). Because of this reason, WD behavior resembles behaviors such as antisocial (Wu et al., 2022), abusive (Biron, 2010), or ineffective (Gürlek, 2021). Operationally WD behavior can be classified into organizational and interpersonal deviant behaviors. Organizational WD behaviors are employees’ retaliatory behaviors that may compromise organizational stability. On the other hand, interpersonal WD behaviors are employees’ voluntary behaviors that harm others in the organization; both deviances become an issue that managers must urgently address. (Mackey et al., 2021)

One significant organizational-related factor that measures the expectancy of members’ involvement in misbehavior in the work environment is organizational trust continue Singh (2019). Based on Boštjančič et al. (2020), employee trust in the organization and the prosperity of the organization are interrelated. Trust in the workplace becomes vital between employees and managers (Jain et al., 2019) because it can increase loyalty between employees and contribute to the organization reaching its goal and achieving its visions Hough et al. (2020b). Thus, trust in the workplace is an important asset, and each organization should build and maintain trust Badea (2017). However, the absence of trust causes anger and disgust in organizational members; thus, deviant behavior increases (Too & Harvey, 2012). A similar study proved a negative relationship between organizational trust in high-ranking management and abnormal behavior at work (Kura et al., 2016). Further, the shortage of trust in an organization increases the prone of error among employees, hence deviant behavior (Ilyas et al., 2020).

Workplace deviance is not new in the education industry but so does in the Malaysian education landscape. Despite being on the way to becoming a developed country in South-East Asia in higher education development, tertiary education in Malaysia has experienced two serious challenges relating to diminishing scholars and decreased budget from the Higher Education Ministry. As a result, it created a situation where the employee’s and lecturer’s behavior significantly influenced students’ performance and gratification. Badea (2017) highlighted that research on the impact of trust between higher education employees remains relevant. Further, Mackey et al. (2021) declared deviant behavior requisite for further investigation.

Recent research highlighted that organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and WD are critical issues in higher education (Dirican & Erdil, 2016). Workplace deviance is a reason that leads to uncovering the cost of public universities in Malaysia compared to its neighboring countries like Hong Kong and Singapore. So, public universities in Malaysia must have robust strategic plans to attract local and international students to develop and sustain competitiveness. Implementing this plan requires the cooperation of all public universities to enhance creativity and innovation to develop human capital to release the full potential of their academic and non-academic staff to minimize workplace deviance.

The current paper is arranged as follows. The next segment debates the literature review, theory, and hypotheses. Afterward, the researchers elucidate the methodology employed, then the measurement and structural models. Finally, the researchers present the discussion of the result, theoretical and managerial implications, and end by providing a conclusion to the study.

2. Literature review

The “Social Exchange Theory” attempts to frame personal interaction, communication, and ethical considerations in a circular model that functions in a symbiotic construct. Prior research has shown that the SET plays out and that employees feel a sense of pride when they experience the reciprocity of both parties, namely employee and employer. Social exchange theory covers positive social interchange relationships with others. In other words, SET refers to the inspiration for employee exchange behavior and attitudes (Shore et al., 2009). Based on Pierce and Maurer (2009), SET is one of the best descriptions for employee participation and workers’ normal behavior in the workplace. Likewise, workforces are susceptible to behave permitting to their organizational associations. If they have confidence in their organization’s reciprocal nature, their performance will also consistently with organizational rules (Umphress et al., 2010). Many researchers recently utilized the social exchange theory to elaborate on deviant workplace behavior and organizational factors (Aloustani et al., 2020; Ilyas et al., 2020).

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) reflects a good soldier syndrome being vital for a variety of proper educational functioning. It represents discretionary individual and organizational actions not appreciated by the organization (Podsakoff & Organ, 2006). Blakely et al. (2005) deliberated on personnel with a confident view of expectations in the workplace and the probability of organizational citizenship behavior growing among personnel. Jafari and Bidarian (2012) highlight that personnel who identify the organization’s trust in their workplace have much intention to assist collages and contribute to organizational citizenship behavior. On the other hand, measuring OCB from supervisors’ perspective might identify some contrary impact on organizational citizenship behavior. However, efficiency can be affected if employees neglect their job duties to perform organizational citizenship behavior. Yang et al. (2020) demonstrate that non-financial incentives for organizational citizenship behavior in building projects are apparent.

One significant organizational-related factor that measures members’ misbehavior in the workplace is organizational trust (Fischer et al., 2020). The importance of trust in employees’ efficiency in an organization was evident in the research of Jain et al. (2019). Further, Singh’s (2019) findings showed that organizational trust negatively predicts workplace deviance, while Komodromos et al. (2019) argue that organizational trust enhanced overall employee performance. Likewise, the positive effect of OT on employees’ performance is indirect through workplace optimism (Hough et al., 2020a). Therefore, considering all of this evidence and based on social exchange theory and previous discussion, we assume;

H1: There is a direct correlation (negative) observed between OT and WD

Organizational trust between employees and managers leads to the reciprocation of employees devoting energy to the organization to achieve better efficiency (Salanova et al., 2021). Ozmen’s (2018) findings closely overlap with the relevant literature in which employees’ perceptions of organizational trust depend on their personality and organizational characteristics. Wah et al. (2018) declared that knowledge sharing impacts employees’ trust in the workplace. One of the latest research on organizational trust between employees and supervisors significantly increases the efficiency of employees (Su et al., 2020).

Altuntas and Baykal (2010) declared that organizational trust among the institution’s employees and their managers affects OCB, which would be considered an important activity that impacts the organization’s efficiency and performance (P. Podsakoff et al., 2014). The results of Dirks and Ferrin (2002) examined the trend in organizational trust influencing work behavior. Their main finding is to enhance organizational trust, leading to positive employee behavior. Similarly, some researchers found that organizational trust was related to decreased workplace deviance and increased OCB (Hansen et al., 2011). Duffy and Lilly’s (2013) study indicated that employees need confidence, trust, and power in the workplace. Those who exhibited a low need for control revealed a strengthened relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and trust.

Based on Costa et al. (2018), organizational trust is related to the performance of employees and the growth of workplace efficiency. Also, organizational trust increases employee teamwork and enhances the organizational and interpersonal OCB (Gulati & Nickerson, 2008). Sjahruddin and Sudiro (2013) argue that organizational trust positively affects OCB, whereas Ahmad et al. (2020) presented a significant impact of OT and OCB. Investigators have observed the effects of OCB on organizational trust, indicating a direct consequence of OT and organizational citizenship behavior (Yuen Onn et al., 2018). The findings of Kim and Park (2019) showed that OT positively and significantly affects organizational citizenship behavior. Considering all of this evidence and relying on SET, we assume;

H2: There is a direct correlation positive observed between OT and OCB

Deviance in the workplace and OCB are critical behaviors that impact an organization’s or industry’s sustainability. For example, although Chen et al. (2018) found a significant relationship between individual features, both OCB and workplace deviance, their result indicates that organizational factors strongly impact employees’ OCB and workplace deviance. Likewise, Yang et al. (2020) found that non-economic incentives for OCB in the construction industry are apparent.

The building blocks of OCB are reminiscent of an employee’s altruistic or non-egoistical behavior. To employees with a high degree of OCB, their organization and colleagues are paramount. Therefore, maintaining and improving the organization’s value and facilitating colleagues’ success are considered an objective for the company (Lee & Allen, 2002). As a result, such employee promotes fairness (Organ, 1988). According to Yam et al. (2017), when employees perceive that they received fair treatment, they are inclined to experience good moods. Accordingly, a highly positive mood reduces jealousy and enhances their willingness to help others (Wang et al., 2016), maintains relationship harmony, and, more importantly, avoids negative behaviors (Liu et al., 2020).

Kloutsiniotis and Mihail (2020) declared OCB’s impacts on an organization’s high performance. Additionally, university employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors depend on a respectful environment (R. Amin et al., 2020). Contrariwise, OCB and workplace deviances are separate concepts and structures (Kelloway et al., 2002). Some studies considered the impact of OCB as a critical variable in reducing deviant behavior (Abbasi et al., 2021). Accordingly, considering all of this evidence and based on social exchange theory and previous discussions, organizational citizenship behaviors have an impact on workplace deviance; thus, we assume;

H3: There is a direct correlation (negative) observed between OCB and WD

Previous studies have confirmed the mediating effect behavior has when placed in the context of organizational factors and job engagement (Akoto et al., 2020), locus of control (Mahmoud et al., 2022), and OCB (Alalsheikh et al., 2022). Also, one recent research demonstrates the OCB as a mediator’s impact on WD and justice in an organization (Abbasi et al., 2022). As discussed earlier, a highly committed employee tends to engage in positive behaviors (S. Amin et al., 2021) within the organization and monitor the workplace as a suitable place for them to work. When employees experience a highly positive engagement environment and perceived suitableness, they tend to exercise positive traits, including selflessness, courtesy, veracity, fairness, and affability, to maintain relationship harmony. Such positive traits improve positive behavior (Costa et al., 2018), and mitigate negative behavior (Kloutsiniotis & Mihail, 2020).

Davoudi (2012) declared that organization, coupled with positive citizenship behavior, is one of the core advantages in this competitive work environment. In other words, employees holding positive work attitudes tend to radiate this philosophy throughout their organization beyond their obligated duties. This can translate into a meaningful core competence within an organization. On the other hand, abusive supervision enacts an unwelcoming experience that can turn employees into poor OCB (Hsiao & Wang, 2020). Likewise, organizational citizenship behavior is considerably related to multiple organizational efficiencies hence sustainability (Rice et al., 2020).

According to Hakim and Fernandes (2017), despite sparse research using organizational citizenship behavior as a mediator, learning all aspects of OCB requires further investigation. In this regard, there is a significant connection between trust and OCB, and the constant relationship between OCB and workplace deviance is proven; thus, we assume:

H4: OCB mediates the outcome of OT and WD

2.1. Conceptual Framework

We propose a conceptual framework in Figure 1 based on our recent literature review.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

2.2. Higher-Order Models

Higher-order models primarily include examining second-order structures that contain two layers of a variable. The main reason for comprising the second-order construct in research is to reduce the model’s complexity (Ringle et al., 2012). Recently some research for reducing the model’s complexity utilizes a second-order construct. In this study also, first-order components have been used to reduce model complexity. We analyzed a higher component model by generating two second-order factors, workplace deviance interpersonal and organizational dimensions. Another variable of this study is the organizational citizenship behavior construct also has two dimensions: organizational and interpersonal. Figure 2 highlights the conceptual framework after implementing the second order.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework after second order.

3. Research method

The current investigation employs a deductive methodology for the analysis of hypotheses. Accordingly, deductive research can accelerate the research process faster. However, allocating a large part of the researchers’ time to set up the literature review, collecting and analyzing data. Furthermore, the most important point for selecting the appropriate data collection is the survey strategy, typically associated with the deductive approach. A survey allows the generalization of results and hypothesis testing in the current investigation.

3.1. Data collection

Appropriate data is one of the crucial tools for researchers to get the genuineness result. Therefore, this study strived to utilize some organizational behavior specialists and get their judgment regarding our approach and the instrument’s accuracy in measuring the constructs. This “pretest” stage is to content-validate the items to establish whether they match the operational definition in which we asked the experts to indicate whether each item is a “Perfect match, Moderate Match, or Poor Match.”

In this research, non-probability sampling was utilized for collecting data. The current study applied a drop-off survey, one of the self-administered questionnaires (Trentelman et al., 2016). Respondents received a copy of the questionnaire and information about our study in one envelope with instructions to drop their completed questionnaire in a box for confidentiality. It took 60 days to collect the data. The sample was limited to employees and lecturers of public universities designated as Research Universities. There are five Research Universities in Malaysia with a total of 25,992 employees (Ministry of Higher Education 2020). The researcher distributed 230 questionnaires; from them, 203 were returned.

3.2. Sample size

The commonly utilized smallest-sample-size estimate for Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling is the “10-times rule” technique (Kock, 2018). However, since suggestions of sample size in PLS-SEM build on the characteristics of OLS regression, scientists can go back to more distinguished rules of thumb, including those suggested by Kock (2018). Therefore, the minimum vital sample size will be at the significance level of 5%, the R² value of 0.10, and the 80% level of statistical power. Therefore, based on the chart in Appendix B, as six arrows connect to the dependent variable, the minimum required sample size for this study is 157 for 0.10; considering the 5 % scale minimum R², the obtained number of respondents, i.e., 203, was far above that. Of the collected questionnaires, 14 were blanks, and after data cleaning, four responses (number 1, 33, 82, and 89) were found incomplete, thus leaving 185 questionnaires for analysis.

3.3. Measurement tools

The questionnaire uses items from prior research on OT, OCB, and WD. For example, workplace deviance uses a ten-items adapted from Robinson and Bennett (1995), and the six-item scale measures organizational trust adapted from Whiting Podsakoff et al. (2009). Also, we adapt Lee and Allen’s (2002) 14 items to measure organizational citizenship behavior (Appendix A). Finally, we utilize the five-point Likert scale and ask the target population to evaluate each item from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

3.4. Demographic result

The sample contains 64% females. Almost all the respondents were Malay ethnic (94%). Regarding the position in an organization, 50.3% were academic staff/, around 26.5% were lecturers, and 75.1% were others. Apropos the result of educational background, the majority of respondents had a doctoral and above (82.7%). The demographic outcomes are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics

	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Age	Below 25	18	9.7
	25–34	82	44.3
	35–44	46	24.9
	45–54	29	15.7
	55 and above	10	5.4
Gender	Male	67	36.2
	Female	118	63.8
Marital status	Single	55	29.7
	Married	130	70.3
Education Level	Bachelor/below	10	5.4
	Masters	22	11.9
	Doctoral	153	82.7
Race	Bumiputra	173	93.5
	Chinese	2	1.1
	Indian	3	1.6
	Other	7	3.8
Work Experience	1–3	40	21.6
	4–10	72	38.9
	11–20	54	29.2
	Upper 20	19	10.3
Length of service with the current university	1–2	40	21.6
	3–4	40	21.6
	More than 5	105	56.8
Position	Academic staff	120	64.9
	Lecturer	49	26.5
	Other	16	8.6
	Total	185	100

4. Measurement model

The research models contain two main parts: the measurement and the structural models. The first stage of evaluating PLS-SEM outcomes includes examining the measurement models (J. F. Hair et al., 2019). The measurement model is generally assessed by determining indicator reliability (outer loading), internal consistent reliability (Composite Reliability), convergent validity (Average Variance Extracted, AVE), and discriminant validity (Cross-loadings and Fornell-Larcker’s criterion). The authors checked the three constructs’ internal consistency, reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity through the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The CFA result indicated that the loading for four items, OCB1, OCB8, OCB10, and OT6, was below 0.6 [64] and dropped from the analysis. The outcome highlighted that the data distribution is mostly between −1 to +1. Composite Reliability, Cronbach Alpha, and Average Variance Extracted are highlighted in Table 2.

Table 2. Result of the measurement models

Higher-Order Construct	Construct	Items	Loadings	α	CR	AVE
	Organizational Support	OT1	0.767	0.908	0.932	0.731
		OT2	0.837
		OT 3	0.828
		OT 4	0.865
		OT 5	0.878
Organizational		OCB9	0.867	0.907	0.931	0.729
		OCB11	0.834
		OCB12	0.846
		OCB13	0.859
		OCB14	0.865
Interpersonal		OCB2	0.814	0.901	0.924	0.668
		OCB3	0.828
		OCB4	0.803
		OCB5	0.815
		OCB6	0.843
		OCB7	0.867
	Organizational citizenship	Organizational	0.915	0.904	0.925	0.698
		Interpersonal	0.949
Organizational		WD1	0.899	0.923	0.949	0.730
		WD2	0.868
		WD3	0.854
		WD4	0.857
Interpersonal		WD5	0.854	0.896	0.923	0.707
		WD6	0.818
		WD7	0.882
		WD8	0.859
		WD9	0.793
		WD10	0.849
	Workplace Deviance	Organizational	0.878	0.918	0.936	0.716
		Interpersonal	0.851

4.1. Discriminant validity (FORNELL- LARKERS)

At the construct level, Discriminant Validity in this research was tested using Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion, and the items level was analyzed by criteria (Chin et al., 2003). Table 3 highlighted that no inter-construct correlation value exceeds AVE’s square root and satisfies the discriminant validity criterion.

Table 3. Correlation value (fornell and larcker’s)

	WD-IN	WD-OR	OCB-OR	OCB- IN	OT
WD-IN	0.841
WD-OR	0.722	0.867
OCB-OR	−0.631	−0.613	0.854
OCB-IN	−0.685	−0.682	0.756	0.818
OT	−0.528	−0.514	0.505	0.498	0.834

4.2. Convergent validity

Based on J. F. Hair et al. (2019), one of the common ways is the average variance extracted to evaluate the convergent validity, and an AVE equal to 0.5 or above can be sufficient and show enough convergence details highlighted in Table 4.

Table 4. Average variant extracted, composite reliability, and cronbach’s alpha

Factor	AVE	Composite Reliability	Cronbach’s Alpha
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Organizational)	0.729	0.931	0.907
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Interactional)	0.668	0.924	0.901
Organizational Trust	0.695	0.919	0.890
Workplace Deviance (Organizational)	0.751	0.949	0.948
Workplace Deviance (Interactional)	0.707	0.923	0.896

4.3. Structural equation modelling

Based on J. Hair et al. (2016), SEM tests the model using the alternative models and runs the positive analysis. SEM focuses on causal connections where a shift in one variable leads to a change in another. The present research uses SPSS version 26 and SEM-PLS version 3 to test the mediation impact of organizational citizenship behavior on the relationship between organizational trust and workplace deviance. This study consists of two main parts, measurement models and structural models. In the current study, the structural model consists of three hypotheses, and the main model consists of one hypothesis, explained in the next section.

4.4. Assessment of structural models

According to J. F. Hair et al. (2019) coefficient of determination or R² highlighted the exogenous latent variables combined effects on the endogenous latent variable. Table 5 shows that workplace deviance shared the highest variance (R² = 0.658), followed by OCB (R² = 0.494). These constructs have a large R-squared. R square shown below the 0.494 % of IV can predict by mediators. However, considering OCB as a mediator, 0.658 % workplace deviance described the R² without mediation was 0.544%, which means this model with the mediator will be much more robust (J. F. Hair et al., 2019). Another consideration for evaluating the structural model is to assess the effect size measures the changes and the impact in the R² value of the endogenous construct when a specified exogenous construct is deleted.

Table 5. Structured model results

Construct	R2	Adj. R2	f2	$\hspace{0.17em}{q}^2$	Q2	VIF
WD	0.658	0.646	_	0.368	0.379
OCB	0.494	0.48	0.339	0.028	0.278	2.268
OT			0.021	0.029		2.152

According to Cohen (1988), a guideline for assessing $f^2$ where 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 represent the small, medium, and large impact. Within the structural (inner-) model change in the relationship, we compute the effect size through the function of $f^2$ effect size. As highlighted in Table 5, the effect size of the substantial influence of effect size suggests that including another path or independent factor has a remarkable impact on the shared variance of the dependent factor. For instance, Table 5 indicates that the effect size of organizational trust construct on the endogenous latent variable of workplace deviance is medium. On the other hand, Table 5 shows that the effect size of organizational citizenship behavior is 0.339, which means the OCB mediate effect is too significant between organizational trust and workplace deviance.

Additional guideline for measuring the effect size of predictive relevance (q2) is similar to the measures of $(f^2)$ values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 specify that an exogenous variable has a small, medium, or considerable predictive relevance for a particular endogenous variable (J. F. Hair et al., 2019). Table 5 shows that ${\mathrm{q}}^2$ effect size (a measure used to evaluate the relative predictive relevance of a predictor (or exogenous) construct on an endogenous construct) for the effect of the OCB and organizational trust has a small predictive relevance. An additional procedure is to examine (Stone-Geisser’s) $\hspace{0.17em}{Q}^2$ value to indicate the model’s predictive relevance. This measure is only applicable to reflective measurement model specifications. The $Q^2$ value was obtained using the blindfolding procedure, and values larger than zero signify the path model’s predictive relevance for the construct. J. F. Hair et al. (2019) state that values higher than 0, 0.25, and 0.50 represent small, medium, and large.

Our consequences demonstrate that the Q² values (OCB, 0.278 and workplace deviance, 0.379) are well above the threshold requirement, implying that the model has predictive relevance for these constructs. Furthermore, Table 5 shows that the Q² effect size’ for the impact of OCB and WD has considerable predictive relevance. Such values were beyond the threshold zero level (J. F. Hair et al., 2019). In conclusion, the findings demonstrated that this study model had an acceptable relevance.

4.5. Test of hypotheses model 1 direct effect

This research has four hypotheses in the primary model, highlighting the testing of organizational trust, organizational citizenship behavior with workplace deviance, and testing organizational trust with organizational citizenship behavior, illustrated in Table 6.

Table 6. Second-order path, beta, T-value, P-value

		Beta	SD	T-Value	P-Value
	→IN	0.923	0.014	65.819	<0.001
Workplace Deviance	→OR	0.933	0.011	82.277	<0.001
Organizational Citizenship	→OR	0.93	0.015	61.234	<0.001
Behavior	→IN	0.943	0.013	69.96	<0.001

4.6. Test of hypotheses model 2 indirect effect

The current study tested the mediation of OCB between organizational trust and workplace deviance, as Preacher and Hayes (2008) recommended. This process tests the mediating hypotheses by bootstrapping the indirect impacts. The authors used bootstrapping the indirect impact and 5000 resamples to analyze the significance of the mediation impact of OCB. The bootstrapping analysis presented that the indirect effect of organizational trust on workplace deviance via OCB was significant (SE = 0.033, T-Value = 2.334, P-Value<0.01). Therefore, OCB fully mediates between organizational trust and workplace deviance, all details highlighted in Table 7.

Table 7. Result of hypotheses model 1 (direct effect)

	Relationship	Coefficient	T-Value	P-Value	Supported
H1	OT →WD	−0.188	2.679	0.008***	Yes
H2	OT→ OCB	0.223	2.435	0.015***	Yes
H3	OCB→ WD	−0.479	8.361	<0.001***	Yes

***p < 0.001

Observing the difference between full and partial mediation requires examining direct and indirect results. PLS analysis is designated a full mediation when the direct effect “c” is insignificant. In contrast, the indirect effect a × b is significant, which means only the indirect effect via the mediator exists (Nitzl et al., 2016). The mediator result is illustrated in Table 8 and mediating result for partial and full mediation highlighted in Table 9.

Table 8. Result of hypothesis model 2 indirect effect (mediator test)

	Relationship	OCB (Mediator)				Confidence Interval 2.5% 97.5%
	OT→OCB →WD	SE	Indirect Effect	T-Value	P-Value	Lower	Upper
H4		0.033	−0.077	2.334	0.017	−0.148	−0.049

Table 9. Mediating result (partial or full)

	Path	INDIRECT T-VAL P-VAL		DIRECT T-VAL P-VAL		Decision
H4	OT→OCB→WD	2.334	0.017	1.753	0.08	Support	Full Mediate

4.7. Discussion

Several critical points emerged from the study results. We found that the result supported hypothesis H1. Consistent with earlier literature, there is a negative relationship between organizational trust and workplace deviance (Abbasi et al., 2020b) Altuntas and Baykal (2010) asserted that organizational trust among employees and their managers affects OCB. Based on Dirks and Ferrin (2002), organizational trust influences work behavior, while Duffy and Lilly’s (2013) research indicated that employees need confidence, trust, and power. Those that exhibited a low need for control revealed a strengthened relationship between organizational trust and OCB. Those exhibiting high power need to be directed away from displaying OCB even when the employee’s organizational trust was high.

The current research also provided empirical evidence that H2 was supported. Consistent with previous literature, which declared a direct relationship between organizational trust and organizational citizenship behavior, Dirks and Ferrin (2002); (Fischer et al., 2020; Gulati & Nickerson, 2008); Sjahruddin and Sudiro (2013). Workplace deviance and organizational citizenship behavior are critical to employee behavior and vital to an organization’s survival. While organizational citizenship behavior consists of acts assumed to help the organization and its members, workplace deviance comprises actions believed to affect the workplace and its personnel negatively.

Some investigation has highlighted the strong impact of OCB and the influence of this behavior on workplace deviance (Abbasi et al., 2021). Our results provided empirical evidence that hypothesis H3 was supported. In the same vein, earlier literature signifies a negative relation between OCB and workplace deviance (Haerani et al., 2020; Rice et al., 2020). Thus far, the role of OCB as a mediating effect has received less attention from researchers. However, reviews of organizational citizenship behavior literature showed a persistent relationship between trust and OCB in an organization, supporting the constant correlation between citizenship behavior and workplace deviant behavior. Our study’s results provided empirical evidence that hypothesis H4 was supported.

The research shows that organizational trust and OCB are two factors that impact workplace deviance. The authors suggest that recruiting personnel with more weighty concerns and confidence in their abilities is an appropriate beginning for managers to maximize productivity and minimize deviant behavior in higher education. Likewise, performance improvement is not just a function of selecting higher efficiency employees but rather assigning such people to jobs where they have more autonomy to demonstrate their performance. The current study presents valuable insights for enhancing organizational trust to reduce workplace deviance while enabling organizational productivity and efficiency in tertiary education.

4.8. Implications

The authors strive to amplify the relevance of SET in this study. SET is one of the most usable theories for organizational behavior (Urbonavicius et al., 2021). The theory posits that organizational staff displays workplace deviance when they perceive a shortage of trust in the organization and an absence of support (Alias et al., 2015). The first implication replicates previous findings; however, the application to employees, in particular, should be internalized by organizations’ management and HR departments; this research generated some interesting theoretical implications.

The higher education industry in Malaysia has been facing some serious challenges, which led to the closure of a few universities. Some experience acute financial issues due to a reduction in fee collection. In this interaction, the employee’s and teacher’s behavior significantly and directly inspirations students’ performance and gratification. Consequently, constructing circumstances where the interaction may be compromised.

The present study results show that employees of public universities in Malaysia form the organizational trust factors significantly and negatively influenced by deviant behavior. Therefore, due to the significant validity, the current study has offered a critical perspective to evaluate workplace deviance regarding organizational trust and OCB in public universities in Malaysia.

The outcomes of this research are mainly vital for higher education policymakers and specialists in the service industries segment. The present study consequence demonstrates that employees of public universities in Malaysia form the organizational trust factors that significantly and negatively impact workplace deviance. Therefore, due to the significant validity, the current study has offered a critical perspective to evaluate workplace deviance regarding organizational citizenship behavior and trust in Malaysia’s public universities. By implementing OCB practices, higher education employees might have a solid ethical attitude and cooperation skills and assign themselves some duties to advance sustainability in their higher education.

Furthermore, the recommended model and outcomes contribute to intriguing implications, and these implications will serve as a spark for future research. Beyond theoretical and empirical contributions, the current study suggests practical implications for Deans and deputy deans to enhance their faculties’ performance and optimism are operating mechanisms in promoting behavior. Additionally, the managers in tertiary education may find this study’s results helpful in planning performance improvement of faculty members to minimize deviance. On the other hand, our findings also contribute significantly to employers and managers, especially in higher education settings. Furthermore, the result also assists managers in higher education to elucidate their issues. Moreover, the discovery of the present investigation advocates reducing unethical behavior in higher education, thus improving employees’ efficiency and sustainability in tertiary education. Finally, the consequence of research or during an enhancement experience led to elasticity and optimism are operating mechanisms in promoting the psychological well-being of topics.

5. Conclusion

The research looks through the lens of OT to see what steps management can initiate to strengthen the alignment of individual trust and the goals of the organization while minimizing WD and the ramifications it delivers. Implementing organizational trust in higher education decreased workplace deviance. Still, its effect will be more significant if it considers other antecedents, such as organizational citizenship behavior. This research shows that organizational trust reflected a vital predictor of deviant behavior in higher education.

OCB has been researched under four main categories, and each is essential to drawing connections and understanding OCB. The OCB as a mediating variable was highlighted due to the limited research employing OCB as a mediator variable in WD. OCB is considered a leading predictor of WD, and a growing body of literature recognizes its vital impact on reducing organizational deviance. Therefore, choosing personnel with more substantial concern and belief in their abilities might be a good starting point for HR to enhance the proficiency of the workforce and minimize deviation.

We acknowledged several limitations to the research; therefore, we recommend the following future directions. First, as we focused on organizational trust, we may have overlooked other factors unique to predicting workplace deviance. Otherwise, future studies may include another mediating variable, like work satisfaction or gratification of employees and organizational culture. Second, limiting the data collection to sixty days might have an unequal distribution effect. Upcoming researchers can collect data over two months to analyze employees’ reactions to managers’ decisions or behavior. They can also augment their sample size and analysis of the same model in academic and non-academic, public, and private higher education employees. Third the current research utilizes a reflective-reflective approach to explain the indicators. However, it is essential to highlight that the second-order of the variables is formative due to these factors’ nature (arguably). Therefore, we recommend perhaps looking into the formative-reflective approach.

Finally, the present study exclusively focused on higher education in Malaysia. Therefore, applying these results to different cultural contexts and populations may require appropriate adjustments. Understanding the perspective of respondents from different ethnicities may prove valuable as culture plays a significant role in shaping the mind and behavior of individuals.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Ali Abbasi

Dr Ali Abbasi holds a Ph.D. in Human Resource Management from the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. He is a lecturer in organizational behavior, human resource management, and business management. He has taught undergraduate business courses and MBA at Azad and Payame Noor University of Tehran, Iran. Dr. Abbasi also lectures full-time with the department of Business Management & Accountancy at the University of Khon Kaen.

Wan Khairuzzaman Wan Ismail

Dr. Abbasi conceived the presented idea, developed the theory, performed the computations, derived the models, collected the data, verified the analytical methods, and analyzed the data while Dr. Wan Khairuzzaman Wan Ismail supervised the findings of this work. Dr. Abbasi wrote the manuscript with support from Wan Ismail who contributed to the results’ interpretation and proofread the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final version of the manuscript, and contributed to the design and implementation of the research.

Appendix A

Table

Organizational Citizenship Behavior
1. Help others who have been absent.
2. Willingly give my time to help others who have work-related problems.
3. I adjust my work schedule to accommodate other employees’ requests for time off.
4. I go out of the way to make newer employees feel welcome in the workgroup.
5. I give up time to help others who have work or nonwork problems.
6. I assist others with their duties.
7. I share a personal property with others to help their work.
8. Attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational image.
9. Keep up with developments in the organization.
10. Defend the organization when other employees criticize it.
11. Show pride when representing the organization in public.
12. Express loyalty toward the organization.
13. Take action to protect the organization from potential problems.
14. Demonstrate concern about the image of the organization.
Organizational Trust
1. I feel quite confident that my manager will always try to treat me fairly.
2. My supervisor keeps my interest in mind when making decisions.
3. If my supervisor asked why a problem occurred. I would speak freely even if I were partly blame.
4. I feel that I can trust my manager in organization.
5. My manager would never try to gain an advantage by deceiving workers.
6. Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized person.
Workplace Deviance
1. Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working.
2. Come in late to work without permission or taken a longer break.
3. Neglected to follow his/her supervisor instructions.
4. Littered the work environment.
5. Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked or put little effort into your work.
6. Made fun of someone at work.
7. Said something hurtful to someone at work.
8. Played a mean prank on someone at work.
9. Acted rudely toward someone at work.
10. Publicly embarrassed someone at work.

Appendix B

Sample Size Recommendation in PLS-SEM

Table

Maximum Number Pointing at a Construct	Significance Level
	1%				5%				10%
	Minimum R^2				Minimum R^2				Minimum R^2
	0.10	0.25	0.50	0.75	0.10	0.25	0.50	0.75	0.10	0.25	0.50	0.75
2	158	75	47	38	110	52	33	26	88	41	26	21
3	176	84	53	42	124	59	38	30	100	48	30	25
4	191	91	58	46	137	65	42	33	111	53	34	27
5	205	98	62	50	147	70	45	36	120	58	37	30
6	217	103	66	53	157	75	48	39	128	62	40	32
7	228	109	69	56	166	80	51	41	136	66	42	35
8	238	114	73	59	174	84	54	44	143	69	45	37
9	247	119	76	62	181	88	57	46	150	73	47	39
10	256	123	79	64	189	91	59	48	156	76	49	41

Source: Cohen, 1988)

Appendix C

Table

Organizational trust	OT
Organizational citizenship behavior,	OCB
Human resource	HR
Workplace deviance behavior	WDB
Social exchange theory	SET
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling	PLS_SEM