1. Introduction
Efficiency and effectiveness are essential factors for the management of the public sector. Indeed, the organizations that constitute it have the obligation to constantly increase performance levels. For the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (IESP), the performance of the public sector is the result of activities and actions related to goods and services aimed at the population, as well as actions related to the function of the internal administration of the government. In this sense, the dimensions that evaluate the performance of this sector are (1) effectiveness, which implies the fulfillment of objectives, the sustainability of results, and the quality of the service; (2) efficiency, which refers to actions, benefits, and service provisions using the minimum possible resources; and (3) economy, which refers to the adequate mobilization of financial resources, as well as the reduction of costs [1].
According to what is established by [1], as well as the changes experienced by the public sector (size, complexity, and functionality) because of economic development, technological innovation, and the evolution of contemporary society, it has been necessary to take the private sector as an example to evaluate the functioning of the public administration and, consequently, improve its performance and results. That is, the public sector today must develop efficient and quality practices, as well as reduce costs, increase productivity, and satisfy its users (internal and external) [2]. In general, it is necessary to improve the performance of this type of organization to seek economic and social well-being in a holistic way—employees, organizations, and society [3,4,5].
To increase performance levels, organizations must consider and understand various factors, external (environment) and internal (organizational intangibles), that are related to and influence performance [6,7,8,9]. The internal factors considered for this research are work alienation and deviant work behavior because they are a serious threat to organizations in social and economic terms (e.g., internal theft, sabotage, and weak employee relations). Indeed, these kinds of attitudes and behaviors affect the results and success of organizations. Overall, it is established that individual dispositions (attitudes and/or behaviors) affect the performance of tasks, which has a significant impact on the achievement of organizational objectives. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the underlying predictors and the attitudinal and behavioral causes that contribute to organizational performance [7,10,11,12].
Work alienation has drawn attention from within the social sciences; however, it has not been widely studied by the organizational discipline. Despite the previous argument, its analysis is important within the scope of organizations, because it is a feeling that limits the individual from fulfilling labor requirements in a systematic and mechanized manner. This is because involve the isolation of employees and their work attributes that leads them not to become fully involved in their activities and to make very little effort to achieve their work objectives. In addition, it leads them to experience suffering and resentment towards the organization [13,14,15,16,17,18,19].
On the other hand, there are emerging and informal behaviors that negatively influence organizational efficiency and effectiveness [20,21,22]. It has even been established that behaviors are observed as part of individual performance [7]. In this sense, deviant, anti-social, or counter-productive behavior [22,23,24,25,26] are types of behavior that substantially affect organizations in various aspects, either financially, derived from low productivity, theft of supplies and products, and the sabotage of production by employees, or interpersonally, through abuse, intimidation, violence, or sexual harassment by peers or superiors [23], and there are even repercussions on customers or users of the organization [15,27]. Consequently, the implications of this type of behavior for organizations have increased the interest in analyzing its antecedents and consequences [15,28,29,30,31,32].
Due to the above, it is established that there is evidence that work alienation and deviant workplace behavior can influence individual and organizational performance. Under this frame of reference, the research phenomenon is explained by the theoretical perspective of the vision of the strategy based on knowledge, which seeks a change in the current organizational scheme, as well as integral prosperity, which includes the well-being of the individuals, organizations, and society, having the human being as the main factor of change [3]. In this sense, it can be established that the analysis of attitudes and/or behaviors (properties of the human being) within public sector organizations (performance) can achieve the comprehensive well-being suggested by this perspective.
This article aims to analyze to what extent, and in what way, work alienation and the deviant behavior of employees are related to each other, and how these elements influence the performance of public sector organizations. The sample for carrying out the analysis includes 229 observations collected in 10 public sector organizations in Mexico.
This empirical study contributes to the available literature on work alienation, deviant workplace behavior, and organizational performance through the knowledge-based strategy approach, which postulates that strategies should focus on human factors (attitudes and behaviors) to achieve the integral prosperity of organizations (expected performance). Likewise, the current literature does not reveal that the topic has been explored in depth in the context of public organizations, focusing more on productive and private sectors [13,17,19]. Consequently, the proposed theoretical model aims to take up the (neglected) concept of work alienation [33,34] by conceptually showing and empirically examining its causal and predictive relationship with deviant workplace behavior and performance in public organizations, as well as the underlying relationships between the variables (Figure 1).
The document is organized as follows. The first section presents the literature review, which includes the conceptual elements of work alienation, deviant workplace behavior, and organizational performance, as well as the theoretical arguments of the relationship between variables that lead to the research hypotheses. The second section describes the research design and method, scope of the research, sample, instrument, operationalization of variables, and procedure for data analysis. Subsequently, the results of the analyses carried out are presented. Finally, the discussion, conclusions, limitations, and suggestions of this research are presented.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Work Alienation
According to [13], work is an activity that is against human nature, that is, there is a contradiction between the structure of work and man, where the employer uses the production, processes, workforce, and human potential for their exclusive benefit. This leads individuals to experience feelings of isolation, loss of identity, and lack of authenticity, feeling as though one is more property of the employer. Indeed, these feelings experienced by employees are combined within the concept called work alienation [13,14].
Work alienation is a feeling of the loss of meaningfulness towards the job; this means that an employee will only perceive his job as a way of survival, overlooking factors such as self-fulfillment and satisfaction, which limits the full use of his skills, experiences, and knowledge [35]. In addition, there is a risk that it becomes ingrained in the minds of employees and is reflected in an automatic and systematic response to operational requirements [36,37], in turn affecting both individual performance and organizational performance [38].
For the study of work alienation, three main dimensions have been considered: (1) impotence (powerlessness), which occurs when the employee experiences a lack of control over operating conditions and aspects related to work; (2) meaninglessness, which is observed when the employee does not find meaning in the contribution of his work to the purposes of the organization; and (3) self-distancing (self-estrangement), which occurs when the work only manages to satisfy the needs of the organization (extrinsic features) and does not represent a means to express the maximum of the employee’s human potential [35,38].
2.2. Deviant Workplace Behavior
Employees tend to exhibit certain behaviors within the workplace. Some of them are considered informal, extra tasks, or proactive and are not determined or established by the formal structure of the organization [24,26,39,40]. This type of behavior can take a negative direction and substantially damage the organization [22,23]. An example is the so-called deviant workplace behavior or, additionally, antisocial, aggressive, and counterproductive behavior [22,23,29,32,41,42].
Robinson and Bennett [23] establish that the concept of deviant workplace behavior is defined as intentional behavior by a member of the organization that violates organizational norms and, when occurring, threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, and stakeholders. To understand this kind of behavior, one must consider target orientation and intensity. As for the objective, they are classified into deviant behavior against the organization, against colleagues [23], and against clients or users [15,27]. On the other hand, intensity refers to the severity of the damage and can be presented as minor or major damage to the organization, teammates, or clients. In addition, it considers four kinds of deviation: (1) toward production (e.g., leaving early, taking breaks excessively, intentionally working slowly, and wasting resources); (2) political deviation (e.g., showing favoritism, slander, unfair competition); (3) misuse of property (e.g., sabotaging equipment, accepting kickbacks, lying during hours worked, stealing from the organization); and (4) personal aggression (e.g., verbal abuse, stealing, committing actions that endanger the well-being of others and peers, and sexual harassment) [15,22,23,35].
2.3. Organizational Performance
There are various ways of understanding organizational performance. It can be reflected in qualitative and quantitative results [43], but it is always oriented towards meeting the objectives set by the organization. For example, [44] considers that performance is defined by the following factors: (1) efficiency, which is related to the optimal use of resources and cost reduction; (2) effectiveness, which covers the achievement of objectives, organizational growth, and user satisfaction; (3) financial results, which are related to return on assets, investment, and profit growth; and (4) worker satisfaction, which includes elements linked to the well-being and morale of employees [43,45,46].
When looking at public sector organizations and their activities, it is complicated to look at performance in terms of results such as financial profitability, ROI, or market position. However, performance can be focused on economy (production costs for a given quality), efficiency (cost per unit of output), and effectiveness (achievement of objectives), as well as user satisfaction (internal and external) and compliance with inter-institutional obligations [5,46].
2.4. Work Alienation and Deviant Workplace Behavior as Antecedents of Organizational Performance
The study of employee attitudes within the workplace is an area of interest for organizational studies because it is established that attitudes predict behaviors within the organization. In turn, both attitudes and behaviors influence the performance of organizations [7,32,47,48].
First, when analyzing the incidence of attitudes on behaviors [47,48], it was found that positive attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction) influence positive voluntary behaviors (e.g., citizen behaviors in the organization and organizational commitment). However, in the opposite manner, negative attitudes, such as work alienation, are presented, which leads the employee to experience negative emotions that are reflected in negative voluntary behaviors, such as deviance, with the aim of showing their discontent with the organization or those who integrate it [13,14,15,18,28,30,35,41,49].
Second, it is established that there is a relationship between attitudes, behaviors, and organizational performance [2,7,32,33,34,48,50]. Thus, employees systematically respond only to the requirements of their position and experience feelings of loss of meaning and rejection towards the activity performed caused by work alienation, which limits their capacities. This type of employee regularly underperforms in relation to the objectives of their job and the organization [17,38]. On the other hand, deviant behavior is capable of negatively influencing the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization through employee actions, such as theft of supplies, sabotage, excessive breaks, absences from work, delays, loss of time during working hours, poor attention to users, abusing sick day privileges, and making unethical decisions, among others [15,22,23,26,33,34,42,51,52].
Apart from the background and theoretical consequences of the variables in question, the following hypotheses are presented:
Work alienation has a positive effect on deviant workplace behavior.
Work alienation has a negative effect on organizational performance.
Deviant workplace behavior has a negative effect on organizational performance.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Research, Scope and Design
In order to conduct this research, a quantitative study was carried out. This approach can describe, predict, and explain social phenomena through the measurement of variables with measurement instruments (questionnaires), and the data obtained are analyzed with statistical procedures [53]. The research design is non-experimental, cross-sectional, descriptive, and correlational in scope. The effect and relationship between work alienation and deviant workplace behavior was examined, as well as the effect and relationship of work alienation and deviant workplace behavior on organizational performance within the public sector of the State of Mexico.
3.2. Sample
A non-probabilistic convenience sampling (volunteers) was carried out in 10 public sector organizations in the State of Mexico. Data were collected through an electronic questionnaire applied to public servants. The use of a convenience sample is considered because 200 observations are sufficient for the use of multivariate structural equation modeling (SEM) [54]. The questionnaires were randomly distributed via e-mail in public sector organizations. A total of 360 questionnaires were distributed between April and May 2022, and 229 were returned. The sample consisted of subjects participating in the regular activities of these organizations.
After collecting the data, the characteristics of the respondents indicate that 59% were men. Regarding age, the largest number of participants ranged between 30 and 39 years (27.8%). Regarding seniority, most of the participants did not exceed five years of membership (32.7%). In addition, most had a definitive contract (85.4%).
3.3. Measurement Instrument
The data were obtained through the application of a written and self-administered measurement instrument, elaborated considering the following scales: (1) work alienation [14]; (2) deviant workplace behavior [15]; and (3) organizational performance scale [46]. The work alienation scale was translated from American English to Mexican Spanish, while the other two scales were used in their Spanish versions. Likewise, both scales were adapted to the organizational context [55].
A questionnaire with two sections was constructed. The first section collects the data of the variables under study (work alienation, deviant workplace behavior, and organizational performance) with a total of 42 items (Appendix A). The second section considers demographic data (sex and age) and organizational data (type of employee, seniority, type of contract, and performance incentive). On the other hand, the measurement scale for each of the items in the first section had six Likert-type verbal anchors with a range of 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree).
To determine the reliability and validity of the instrument, various statistical tests were performed. The internal consistency test was performed using Cronbach’s alpha, showing acceptable reliability: work alienation (α = 0.92); deviant workplace behavior (α = 0.90); and organizational performance (α = 0.90). Second, an exploratory factorial analysis was performed in which the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) sample adequacy index and Bartlett’s sphericity test were calculated (testing the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is a matrix of identity). The following was reported for each scale: work alienation (KMO = 0.81); deviant workplace behavior (KMO = 0.91); and organizational performance (KMO = 0.89). The three measurements showed significant Bartlett sphericity (p < 0.001), the criteria of validity and reliability being acceptable for all scales.
3.4. Operational Definition
Work alienation is a feeling that occurs when the employee does not feel intrinsically satisfied and suffers a decrease in morale and potential. Two dimensions were considered for this variable: meaninglessness and self-estrangement [14,35]. This variable was analyzed with 21 items.
Deviant behavior corresponds to voluntary actions that violate the organization’s norms and that are carried out to harm the organization, colleagues [23], and users [15,27] (three dimensions). This variable was analyzed with 13 items [15,26,27,35].
Organizational performance in the public sector is understood through the results of the activities and actions carried out that influence the goods and services provided to the population, as well as the efficient and effective fulfillment of the established objectives. For this variable, a single dimension was analyzed with eight items [46].
3.5. Procedure for Data Analysis
An exploratory factor analysis was performed with the FACTOR 10.1 software [56] for each construct separately to find the most appropriate factorial structure. Horn’s parallel analysis was used to identify the number of factors to extract, the weighted least squares method, and Promin oblique rotation [56]. In addition, a confirmatory structural model was made in the AMOS 5 software (Figure 2). Items 9, 11, 12, and 16 were excluded because they were not representative for the variable (work alienation). Additionally, two dimensions for alienation and four for performance were considered to improve the construct validity of these variables.
A Pearson correlation was performed to determine the relationship between the variables. Subsequently, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used, which is a second-generation multivariate technique that allows for estimating complex relationships between multiple constructs [57].
4. Results
The assumption of normality was verified through the values of asymmetry and kurtosis (Table 1), which are considered to be allowed if they are within the range ±2 [58]. With the results, it is verified that the data of the variables are normal.
To test the assumption of linearity and homoscedasticity, the residuals were plotted against the independent variable: no pattern was observed. The values obtained regarding the inflation value of the variable (FIV) are less than 2, and the tolerance level of the independent variables is greater than 0.1 and less than 1, being acceptable. Therefore, it can be established that there is no multicollinearity between the representative variables in the regression model [59].
Table 2 shows the correlation coefficients for the variables analyzed. The correlations were statistically significant. The coefficients range from 0.23, the lowest, to the highest of 0.57. The statistical significance of the correlation between the variables is 0.01, which corresponds to a confidence level of 99%. Therefore, it is established that the relationship between variables is linear. This allows for testing the level of association between them.
Table 3 shows that the factor loadings are significant and compatible with the standard coefficients of their dimensions. The variance explained by the observed measures with respect to each construct is also shown. All the factors have high values of R2, which shows an acceptable level of reliability.
Table 4 indicates the convergent and discriminant validity of the latent variables. Specifically, it shows the convergent validity (construct reliability) and the variance extracted from the model. The values show an index above the evaluation criteria (0.6) as suggested by Yi [60]. Regarding the variance extracted from the variables, values above the minimum cut-off point of 0.50 are shown [61].
In addition, it shows that the measurement model is adequate. The chi-square value (X2) is 51.95 and shows a difference with the degrees of freedom (X2/GL= 2.16), both values being acceptable. The RMSEA shows a value of 0.07, values ranging between 0.05 and 0.08 being acceptable. Similarly, the model fit shows the following goodness fit values: GFI = 0.95, AGFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.96, and CFI = 0.98, with values close to 1 being acceptable [61]. The results represent the fit of the theoretical model.
The structural model that supports the hypotheses is presented in Figure 3. The factor loads, except for the relationship between deviant workplace behavior and organizational performance, were statistically significant (p < 0.01) and greater than 0.44. Based on the above, the relevance and importance of the model can be observed.
The structural model (Figure 3) allows for testing the proposed hypotheses. The model shows a medium positive effect between work alienation and deviant workplace behavior (β = 0.44, p < 0.01), which supports H1. The relationship between work alienation and organizational performance shows a high positive incidence (β = 0.75; p < 0.01), which does not support H2; however, this result represents an interesting finding because the theoretical review establishes a negative effect between these variables. Finally, the results do not support H3 by not proving the incidence of deviant workplace behavior in organizational performance.
5. Discussion
This study aimed to determine the levels of work alienation of public sector employees and to measure its effects on the level of deviant workplace behavior and organizational performance. In this regard, the vision of the knowledge-based strategy suggests the possibility of reshaping organizational conditions to achieve the integral wellbeing of the stakeholders, as well as directing actions to improve the organization’s performance in terms of effectiveness and efficiency [4,5]. The assumption proposed by this perspective points out that the human being (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) is at the center of any organizational change and strategy. Therefore, the result of the analysis of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors within the organization and their impact on organizational results contribute to the improvement of public management.
The results show that work alienation has a positive relationship and effect on deviant behaviors in the organization. Therefore, perception of the relationship with the organization is a predictor of attitudes and in turn is a predictor of behaviors. To understand it better, employees’ perception of the way they are treated by their organization (positive or negative) will provoke feelings that will lead employees to deviant behaviors against the organization (e.g., sabotage), against colleagues (minor and major aggressions), or against customers (e.g., providing bad service) [15,18,19,27,62]. This finding provides evidence on the relationship between these variables in the context of public sector organizations.
Efforts to improve employee attitudes correspond to the goal of generating greater benefits for the organization [7]. Theoretical evidence suggests the relationship between employee attitudes and organizational performance [7,47,48,51]. In this regard, the literature reviewed indicates a negative impact of work alienation on organizational performance [17,18,38]. However, the findings of this study show a positive relationship between work alienation and the performance of public sector organizations. Although Hypothesis 2 was rejected, the results demonstrated a statistically significant positive relationship between these variables (p < 0.01). The above is consistent with what was established by [17,33,34,36,37,62], who determined that work alienation can be institutionalized in the worker’s mind and leads them to routinely comply with fulfilling the requirements of their job (objectives) and, at the same time, experience negative emotions against the organization, their colleagues, or users whom they blame for feeling these negative feelings. Therefore, this finding can be interpreted as follows: for the context of the public sector, employees, despite experiencing feelings of alienation from their work, show high levels of performance derived from the fact that the nature of their activity makes them experts, since it is common for their work to be routine and not very demanding.
Overall, this model can support inquiring into the possible antecedents of performance, and public managers can develop and implement some strategies to prevent alienation and possible deviations at work. For example, they can focus on periodically analyzing these and related variables, or they can implement career plans to provide opportunities, as well as establish an environment in which employees can feel involved in some decision-making processes.
6. Conclusions
The results of this study underscore the importance of understanding the status of work alienation, as well as its implications. Therefore, to improve the performance of public organizations, it is necessary to keep the level of alienation at bay to avoid deviations by employees and to constantly improve the performance of the public sector. It is concluded that public sector organizations must seek the prosperity of their employees, because perceiving a state of well-being and individual satisfaction will have a positive impact on organizational performance, not only in a systematic way, but with conviction towards the fulfillment of its objectives and organizational requirements. Therefore, they will influence the satisfactory response to the internal and external demands and society in general.
Despite the findings, the research is not free of limitations. First, we only sought to test the direct effects between variables, which opens the possibility of inquiring into mediating and moderating effects, as well as including situational and contextual variables that may affect the relationships. Second, the present study will complement its purpose when the model is tested in different public sector contexts. Finally, this study collected data from several sources, but only once. Therefore, other longitudinal data may be useful to establish causal relationships and understand the effects between variables.
Conceptualization, R.G.-C. and J.P.M.-C.; methodology, R.G.-C. and J.P.M.-C.; software, R.G.-C.; validation, R.G.-C. and J.P.M.-C.; formal analysis, R.G.-C. and J.P.M.-C.; investigation, R.L.M.-C., E.L.-L. and H.B.-Q.; resources, R.L.M.-C., E.L.-L. and H.B.-Q.; data curation, H.B.-Q.; writing—original draft preparation, R.L.M.-C.; writing—review and editing, E.L.-L.; visualization, R.G.-C., J.P.M.-C., R.L.M.-C., E.L.-L. and H.B.-Q.; supervision, R.G.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis. Note: Work alienation (WA). Deviant workplace behavior (DWB). Organizational performance (OP). Items with negative variances are excluded.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. The explained variance is noted within the parentheses. * Significance p < 0.01.
Normality analysis.
| Variables | Asymmetry | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|
| Work alienation | 0.421 | 0.171 |
| Deviant workplace behavior | 0.183 | 0.587 |
| Organizational performance | 0.031 | 0.941 |
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
| Variables | Mean | SD | α | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Work alienation (1) | 4.14 | 0.54 | 0.92 | 1 | ||
| Deviant workplace behavior (2) | 4.51 | 0.82 | 0.90 | 0.34 ** | 1 | |
| Organizational performance (3) | 4.01 | 1.05 | 0.90 | 0.57 ** | 0.23 ** | 1 |
SD: standard deviation. Note: ** Significant correlations (p < 0.01).
Factor loadings and R2 of the model.
| Variable/Factors | Non-Standardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | Standard Error | p < 0.01 | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Work alienation | |||||
| WA1 | 0.91 | 0.76 | 0.11 | *** | 0.57 |
| WA2 | 1.00 | 0.70 | 0.49 | ||
| Deviant behavior | |||||
| AO | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.57 | ||
| AC | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.07 | *** | 0.62 |
| AU | 0.64 | 0.82 | 0.06 | *** | 0.67 |
| Organizational performance | |||||
| OP1 | 1.00 | 0.87 | 0.75 | ||
| OP2 | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.05 | *** | 0.75 |
| OP3 | 0.95 | 0.87 | 0.05 | *** | 0.75 |
| OP4 | 1.01 | 0.83 | 0.06 | *** | 0.69 |
*** (p < 0.001).
Convergent validity and goodness fit indices.
| Variable | Convergent Validity | Extracted Variance |
|---|---|---|
| Work alienation | 0.88 | 0.61 |
| Deviant workplace behavior | 0.83 | 0.63 |
| Organizational performance | 0.86 | 0.66 |
| Goodness fit index | ||
| X2 | 51.95 | |
| X2/GL | 2.16 | |
| RMSEA | 0.07 | |
| GFI | 0.95 | |
| NFI | 0.96 | |
| CFI | 0.98 | |
| AGFI | 0.91 | |
Appendix A
| Work Alienation |
| I have great liberty in the execution of my daily work. |
| I can use my own judgment at work. |
| I have little control over how I carry out my daily work. |
| I take most work decisions without consulting my supervisor. |
| I am not able to make changes regarding my work activities. |
| My daily activities are largely determined by the work of others. |
| I make my own decisions about the performance of my work. |
| My work is an important contribution to the efficient operation of the organization. |
| Sometimes I am not sure I fully understand the purpose of what I do in my organization. |
| My job is very important and worthwhile. |
| I often wonder if my work is important. |
| I often feel that my work counts for very little. |
| I understand how my role at work relates to the overall functioning of the organization. |
| I understand how my work relates to the work of other members of the organization. |
| I do not have a sense of accomplishment with the work I do. |
| My salary is the most rewarding aspect of my job. |
| My work gives me a sense of personal fulfillment. |
| I have little opportunity to use my real skills and abilities in the work I do. |
| My work is a self-fulfilling experience. |
| My work is often routine and boring, and I have little opportunity to be creative. |
| My work is interesting and challenging. |
| Deviant Workplace Behavior |
| I spend a lot of time fantasizing and thinking about personal things. |
| When I know I will arrive late I do not call in to inform. |
| I have worked less than I should. |
| I have not followed, for different reasons, the instructions of my bosses. |
| I have put little effort into my tasks. |
| I have taken too much free time. |
| I have argued with a colleague. |
| I have not spoken very well of a colleague. |
| I have had a bit of fun joking around with a colleague. |
| I have treated a colleague badly. |
| I have argued with a customer. |
| I have had a bit of fun joking around with a customer |
| I have treated a customer badly. |
| Organizational Performance |
| In general, my organization largely meets the needs of its customers (internal and external). |
| In general, the needs of other agencies making use of the services of my organization are met to a high degree. |
| Last year, my organization’s overall performance met expectations. |
| I consider that, in general, middle managers and managers are satisfied with the overall performance of the organization. |
| I consider that, in general, the organization satisfactorily meets the proposed targets. |
| In general, performance targets are met in all the different areas of work. |
| In general, the individuals who work here feel happy. |
| Do you consider that in the future, your organization’s performance will be safe and efficient? |
References
1. Instituto Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Planificación Económica y Social. Evaluación de Programas. Notas Técnicas; CEPAL-Series de Gestión Pública; Instituto Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Planificación Económica y Social: Santiago, Chile, 2007.
2. Malacina, I.; Karttunen, E.; Jääskeläinen, A.; Lintukangas, K.; Heikkilä, J.; Kähkönen, A.K. Capturing the value creation in public procurement: A practice-based view. J. Purch. Supply Manag.; 2022; 28, 100745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100745]
3. Takeuchi, H. Knowledge-Based View of Strategy. Univ. Bus. Rev.; 2013; 40, pp. 69-78. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4451450 (accessed on 10 March 2022).
4. Vargas, D.; González, J.C. El efecto de las instituciones en el crecimiento económico de América Latina. Perf. Latinoam.; 2018; 26, pp. 329-349. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18504/pl2651-013-2018]
5. Uvalle-Berrone, R. Dinámicas de la administración pública en las transformaciones de la vida estatal contemporánea. Rev. Electrónica Del Cent. Estud. Adm. Pública; 2019; 32, pp. 24-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fcpys.20071949e.2019.32.69030]
6. Gomes, G.; Wojahn, R.M. Organizational learning capability, innovation and performance: Study in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMES). Rev. Adm.; 2017; 52, pp. 163-175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.12.003]
7. Judge, T.A.; Weiss, H.M.; Kammeyer-Muller, J.D.; Hulin, C.L. Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: A century of continuity and of change. J. Appl. Psychol.; 2017; 102, pp. 356-374. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000181] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28125260]
8. Torre-Ruiz, J.M.; Vidal-Salazar, M.D.; Cordón-Pozo, E. Employees are satisfied with their benefits, but so what? The consequences of benefit satisfaction on employees organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2019; 30, pp. 2097-2120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1314315]
9. Machado, I.A.; Cacsire, G.D.; Jugend, D.; Cauchick-Miguel, P.A. Organizational factors influencing project success: An assessment in the automotive industry. Production; 2019; 29, e20180108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20180108]
10. Sackett, P.R.; Lievens, F.; van Iddekinge, C.H.; Kuncel, N.R. Individual differences and their measurement: A review of 100 years of research. J. Appl. Psychol.; 2017; 103, pp. 254-273. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000151]
11. Sait Dinc, M. Organizational Commitment Components and Job Performance: Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci.; 2017; 11, pp. 773-789. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/188316 (accessed on 15 March 2022).
12. Cho, H.; Lee, P.; Ho Shin, C. Becoming a sustainable organization: Focusing on process, administrative innovation and human resource practice. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 3554. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11133554]
13. Marx, K. Early Writings; Penguin Books: London, UK, 1975.
14. Mottaz, C.J. Some determinants of work alienation. Sociol. Q.; 1981; 22, pp. 515-529. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1981.tb00678.x]
15. Zoghbi, P.; Camaño, G. El impacto de la alienación laboral sobre las conductas desviadas en el trabajo: Un estudio exploratorio. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Organ.; 2010; 26, pp. 79-92.
16. Valikhani, M.; Soltani, E. Investigating the Effect of Job Alienation on the Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Branches of Sepah Bank in Shahreza and Dehaghan as Case Study). Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci.; 2015; 5, pp. 277-286. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v5-i1/1427]
17. Kaynak, R.; Toklu, A.T.; Elci, M.; Toklu, I.T. Effects of Occupational Health and Safety Practices on Organizational Commitment, Work Alienation, and Job Performance: Using the OLS-SEM Approach. Int. J. Bus. Manag.; 2016; 11, pp. 146-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v11n5p146]
18. Halkias, D.; Santora, J.; Harkiolakis, N.; Thurman, P. Work Alienation and Organizational Leadership; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315591766]
19. Sanwar, A.; Zakariya, R.; Afshari, L.; Ishaq, E. But I´ve got my powers: Examining a moderated mediation model of punitive supervision, work alienation and well-being in hospitality industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.; 2022; 51, pp. 303-311.
20. Kanfer, R.; Chen, G. Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes; 2016; 136, pp. 6-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.002]
21. Dunst, C.J.; Bruder, M.B.; Hamby, D.W.; Howse, R.; Wilkie, H. Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Different Leadership Practice and Organizational, Teaming, Leader, and Employee Outcomes. J. Int. Educ. Leadersh.; 2018; 8, pp. 1-45. Available online: http://www.jielusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Dunst45Fall2018.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2022).
22. Bennett, R.J.; Marasi, S.; Locklear, L. Workplace Deviance. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.111]
23. Robinson, S.L.; Bennett, R. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad. Manag. J.; 1995; 38, pp. 555-572. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/256693]
24. Eldor, L.; Harpaz, I. A process model of employee engagement: The learning climate and its relationship with extra-role performance behaviors. J. Organ. Behav.; 2015; 37, pp. 213-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2037]
25. Baharom, M.N.; Bin Sharfuddin, M.H.; Iqbal, J. A Systematic Review on the Deviant Workplace Behavior. Rev. Public Adm. Manag.; 2016; 5, 3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2315-7844.1000231]
26. Capitano, J.; Cunningham, Q.W. Suspicion at Work: The Impact on Counterproductive and Citizenship Behaviors. Organ. Manag. J.; 2018; 15, pp. 174-185. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15416518.2018.1528858]
27. Zoghbi, P. Anomic employees and deviant workplace behaviour: An organisational study. Stud. Psychol.; 2008; 29, pp. 181-195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021093908784485129]
28. Yıldız, B.; Alpkan, L. A Theoretical Model on the Proposed Predictors of Destructive Deviant Workplace Behaviors and the Mediator Role of Alienation. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2015; 210, pp. 330-338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.373]
29. Marcus, B.; Taylor, O.; Hasting, S.; Sturm, A.; Weigelt, S. The structure of counterproductive work behavior: A review, a structural meta-analysis and a primary study. J. Manag.; 2016; 42, pp. 203-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503019]
30. Hasnawi, H.A.; AbdulHasan, A.T.; Abbas, A. The effect of hostile work environment on organizational alienation: The mediation role of the relationship between the leaders and followers. Asian Soc. Sci.; 2016; 13, pp. 140-158. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v13n2p140]
31. Vardi, Y.; Weitz, E. Misbehavior in Organizations: A Dynamic Approach; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, London, UK, 2016.
32. Mackey, J.D.; McAllister, C.P.; Ellen, B.P.; Carson, J.E. A Meta-Analysis of Interpersonal and Organizational Workplace Deviance Research. J. Manag.; 2019; 20, pp. 597-622. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206319862612]
33. Khan, M.A.S.; Jianguo, D.; Mann, A.; Saleem, S.; Boamah, K.B.; Javed, U.; Usman, M. Rejuvenating the Concept of Work Alienation; Through Job Demands-Resources Model and Examining Its Relationship with Emotional Exhaustion and Explorative And Exploitative Learning. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag.; 2019; 12, pp. 931-941. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S204193]
34. Shantz, A.; Alfes, K.; Bailey, C.; Soane, E. Drivers and Outcomes of Work Alienation: Reviving a Concept. J. Manag. Inq.; 2015; 24, pp. 382-393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492615573325]
35. García-Contreras, R.; Fierro-Moreno, E. Comportamiento desviado en el trabajo y compartir conocimiento: La relación t el efecto mediador de la alienación laboral. Pensam. Gestión; 2019; 46, pp. 108-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14482/pege.46.2107]
36. Basten, D.; Haamann, T. Approaches for Organizational Learning: A Literature Review. SAGE Open; 2018; 8, 2158244018794224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244018794224]
37. Odor, H.O. A Literature Review on Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Sci.; 2018; 7, 494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2162-6359.1000494]
38. Özlem, O.; Ugurlouglu, O.; Saygili, M.; Songur, C. The impact of work alienation on organizational health: A field study in health sector. Int. J. Healthc. Manag.; 2019; 12, 1312804. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20479700.2017.1312804]
39. Caillier, J.G. Does Public Service Motivation Mediate the Relationship between Goal Clarity and Both Organizational Commitment and Extra-Role Behavior?. Public Manag. Rev.; 2016; 18, pp. 300-318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.984625]
40. Ingrams, A. Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Public and Private Sectors: A Multilevel Test of Public Service Motivation and Traditional Antecedents. Rev. Public Pers. Adm.; 2020; 40, pp. 222-244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18800372]
41. Bauer, J.A.; Spector, P.E. Discrete Negative Emotions and Counterproductive Work Behavior, Human Performance. Hum. Perform.; 2015; 28, pp. 307-331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2015.1021040]
42. Waseem, M. Deviant Workplace Behaviors in Organizations in Pakistan. Labore J. Bus.; 2016; 4, pp. 93-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35536/ljb.2016.v4.i2.a5]
43. Olson, E.; Stanley, F.; Slater, G.; Hult, T. The performance implications of fit among business strategy, marketing organization structure, and strategic behavior. J. Mark.; 2005; 69, pp. 49-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.3.49.66362]
44. Gopalakrishnan, S. Unravelling the links between dimensions of innovation and organizational performance. J. High Technol. Manag. Investig.; 2000; 11, pp. 137-153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(00)00024-9]
45. Jones, G.; George, J. Administración Contemporánea; McGraw Hill: Mexico City, Mexico, 2014.
46. Fierro-Moreno, E.; Martínez-Ávila, M.; García-Contreras, R. Can gender be a determinant of organizational performance and knowledge sharing in public sector organizations?. AD-Minister; 2018; 32, pp. 137-158. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17230/ad-minister.32.6]
47. Inuwa, M. The Impact of Job Satisfaction, Job Attitude and Equity on Employee Performance. Int. J. Bus. Manag.; 2015; 3, pp. 288-293.
48. Van Iddekinge, C.H.; Aguinis, H.; Mackey, J.D.; DeOrtentiis, P.S. A Meta-Analysis of the Interactive, Additive, and Relative Effects of Cognitive Ability and Motivation on Performance. J. Manag.; 2018; 44, pp. 249-279. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206317702220]
49. Robinson, M.D.; Persich, M.R.; Stawicki, C.; Krishnakumar, S. Deviant Workplace Behavior as Emotional Action: Discriminant and Interactive Roles for Work-Related Emotional Intelligence. Hum. Perform.; 2019; 32, pp. 201-219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2019.1664548]
50. López-Cabarcos, M.Á.; Vázquez-Rodríguez, P.; Quiñoá-Piñeiro, L.M. An approach to employees’ job performance through work environmental variables and leadership behaviors. J. Bus. Res.; 2022; 140, pp. 361-369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.006]
51. Rahman, M.H.; Rahman, S.; Uddin, A. Deviant Workplace Behavior and Job Performance: The Moderating Effect of Transformational Leadership. Iran. J. Manag. Stud.; 2018; 11, pp. 147-183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22059/IJMS.2018.226143.672514]
52. Muhammad, L.; Sarwar, A. When and why organizational dehumanization leads to deviant work behaviors in hospitality industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2021; 99, 103044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103044]
53. Creswell, J.W. Investigation Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009.
54. Ruiz, M.A.; Pardo, A.; San Martín, R. Structural Equation Models. Pap. Psicólogo; 2010; 31, pp. 34-45. Available online: https://www.papelesdelpsicologo.es/English/1794.pdf (accessed on 13 August 2022).
55. Heggestad, E.D.; Scheaf, D.J.; Banks, G.C.; Hausfeld, M.M.; Tonidandel, S.; Williams, E.B. Scale Adaptation in Organizational Science Research: A Review and Best-Practice Recommendations. J. Manag.; 2019; 45, pp. 2596-2625. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206319850280]
56. Lorenzo-Seva, U.; Ferrando, P.J. Assessing the Quality and Appropriateness of Factor Solutions and Factor Score Estimates in Exploratory Item Factor Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas.; 2017; 78, pp. 236-240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164417719308]
57. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
58. Pérez, C.M. Minería de Datos: Técnicas y Herramientas; Ediciones Paraninfo: Alicante, Spain, 2008.
59. Martín, Q.; Cabero, A.; de Paz, Y.R. Tratamiento Estadístico de Datos con SPSS; Thomson Learning: Madrid, Spain, 2008.
60. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2012; 40, pp. 8-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x]
61. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Análisis Multivariante; Prentice Hall: Madrid, Spain, 2008.
62. Tummers, L.; Bekkers, V.; van Thiel, S.; Steijn, B. The Effects of Work Alienation and Policy Alienation on Behavior of Public Employees. Adm. Soc.; 2015; 47, pp. 596-617. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0095399714555748]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Barrios-Quiroz, Héctor 3 1 Department of Business, Autonomous University of the State of Mexico, Toluca 50100, Mexico
2 Department of Business, Technological University of the Metropolitan Zone of the Valley of Mexico, Hidalgo 43816, Mexico
3 Doctoral Program in Administrative Sciences, Azcapotzalco Unit, Metropolitan Autonomous University, Mexico City 02200, Mexico
4 Department of Information Technology, Autonomous University of the State of Hidalgo, Hidalgo 43800, Mexico