Measuring Production Deviance

This research used the PD scale of Stewart et al. (2009), who, in turn, adapted it from Bennett and Robinson's (2000) WD scale, adding and validating two new items in the PD dimension. With Bennett and Robinson's (2000) WD scale, the answers were given in the self-reported model. In contrast, Stewart et al. (2009) used a non-self-self-reported model, meaning that a person reports a colleague's behavior. These authors justify their change as follows:

"Further, deviant behaviors that individuals are unwilling to disclose on a self-report might be captured on a non-self-self-report measure. Self-protecting ego biases that can harm the accuracy of self-reports of workplace deviance are also much less likely to influence reports. In these respects, non-self-reports of deviance may be more accurate than self-non-self-reports." Stewart et al.

(2009, p. 208)

Admittedly, self-report is susceptible to social desirability responding (Chan, 2009) and has been problematic in WD. Bing et al. (2012, p. 29) affirmed: "people may be reluctant to admit to negative attributes and behaviors." Berry et al. (2012, p. 614) wrote: "unlike many variables in applied psychology, CWB involves highly sensitive inquiries about potentially self-incriminating information." Finally, Greco et al. (2015, p. 76) also confirmed: "the nature of CWB items influence people to underreport their engagement in CWB."

Stewart et al. (2009) noted a problem, but their solution does not meet our study objectives because it only includes others' reports. However, Fisher (1993) proved that respondents project their evaluations when responding to indirect questions. The results of his research "suggest that indirect questioning operates to mitigate social desirability bias and does not systematically affect the means of variables that are independent of social influence"

(Fisher, 1993, p. 307). Boddy (2005, p. 240) also stated: "projective techniques are thus techniques that enable research participants or subjects to respond in ways in which they would otherwise not feel able to respond."

Congruent with these ideas, we adapted the preface of the scale's questionnaire to permit that every respondent could include themselves in their responses. With this change, we assumed that the reactions to the PD scale represented mainly the respondent's PD. Following Zhuang and Tsang (2008), we used the third-person technique projection instead of directly asking ethically sensitive questions. Thus, instead of presenting PD items as "other members of my organization," as Stewart et al. (2009) did, we introduced them just as "members of my organization." For example, the first item became "members of my organization put little effort into their work." This change aimed to stimulate the respondent to indirectly include themselves in the response, without being affected by social desirability. Following Fisher (1993), we assumed that each respondent indirectly projects their behavior into the phrase "members of my organization," as they are, in fact, one of these members.

Table 4.1 presents this adapted PD scale. Respondents assessed each item in the Likert-5 model. The possible answers generate points, as follows: 1 (never), 2 (few times), 3 (monthly), 4 (weekly), and 5 (daily). The final average of points represents the employee's PD score. Lower scores express a lower incidence of PD.

Table 4.1

Production Deviance scale

Item PD scale adapted from Stewart et al. (2009)

1 Members of my organization put little effort into their work.

2 Members of my organization intentionally worked slower than they could have worked.

3 Members of my organization spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working.

4 Members of my organization took an additional or a longer break than is acceptable at their workplace.

5 Members of my organization left their work for someone else to finish.

6 Members of my organization worked on a personal matter instead of work for [company name].

7 Members of my organization came in late to work without permission.

Note. Source. Adapted from Stewart, S. M., Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Woehr, D. J. & Mcintyre, M. D. (2009).

In the eyes of the beholder: A non-self-report measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 207–215.

5.3.4 Validation of scales

We submitted the data to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). According to Lewis (2017, p. 239), scholars use both techniques complementarily "to verify the number of underlying latent variables (factors or constructs) and the pattern of observed variable–factor relationships." This use permits the confirmation of the suitability of the factorial structure of the studied constructs. We then analyzed the constructs' reliability in terms of internal consistency based on the composite reliability index (Valentini & Damásio, 2016).

5.3.5 Hypotheses testing

We used the Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) to test the differences in PD latent means between the groups of low and high idealism, low and high relativism, and low and high ethical climate. The MGCFA is a technique of structural equations of CFA that allows a researcher to evaluate the measurement invariance (MI) of a model in different groups. Thus, before assessing equivalences or differences in means between groups, it tests whether the psychometric instrument model is valid for both groups studied. Such analysis permits checking, among other things, if the factorial structure is similar between two groups, and if those items have equivalent factor loadings (Damásio, 2013).

Thus, the MGCFA proceeds with MI analysis. Cheung and Rensvold (2002, p. 233) recognize the importance of this methodology:

"Social science researchers are increasingly concerned with testing for measurement invariance; that is, determining if items used in survey-type instruments mean the same things to members of different groups. Measurement invariance is critically important when comparing groups. If measurement invariance cannot be established, then the finding of a between-group difference cannot be unambiguously interpreted. One does

not know if it is due to a true attitudinal difference or to different psychometric responses to the scale items."

Therefore, only after confirming the MI is it possible to compare latent variable's means between groups. Otherwise, we would discuss different models for different groups, comparing means previously biased (Byrne, 2010).

For this reason, Damásio (2013) states that MGCFA is superior to other mean comparison tests (e.g., T-test, ANOVA, MANOVA, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis). The problem is that when performing the standard comparison tests of means without first confirming the MI between groups, one can find results that do not correspond to reality since two groups may structurally measure the same construct in different ways (Damásio, 2013).

Thus, MGCFA carries out tests that evaluate MI before conducting the comparison of means.

If the MI is not confirmed, the testing for latent mean differences cannot proceed. According to Damásio (2013) and Byrne (2010), MGCFA comprises steps, as summarized in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2

Steps of MGCFA

Test Step To analyze Indicators

Construct measure

2nd Metric invariance Invariance related to the factor loadings

Δχ2 p-value; ∆CFI (Byrne, 2010)

3rd Scalar invariance Intercepts level invariance Δχ2 p-value; ∆CFI (Milfont and Fischer, 2010)

Means comparison 4th Latent means equivalence

Latent mean differences between groups

critical ratio (CR.) (Byrne, 2010)

5.3.5.1 Division of groups

One of the premises of the MGCFA is that the analysis can only be performed for comparisons between two groups (Byrne, 2010). Thus, we decided to divide the sample into groups based on the extreme results found in each construct before conducting the MGCFA to compare PD means between these groups. Therefore, after the initial results related to idealism, relativism, and ethical climate scores, we divided the sample into quartiles and considered the groups of extreme values to be used in the analyses. Table 4.3 summarizes the composition of the groups.

intermediate 2 between the 2nd and the 3rd Q 103 discarded intermediate 1 between the 1st and the 2nd Q 103 discarded

low idealism below the 1st Q 102 used in MGCFA

Relativism

high relativism above the 3rd Q 102 used in MGCFA

intermediate 2 between the 2nd and the 3rd Q 103 discarded intermediate 1 between the 1st and the 2nd Q 103 discarded

low relativism below the 1st Q 102 used in MGCFA

Ethical climate

high ethical climate above the 3rd Q 102 used in MGCFA intermediate 2 between the 2nd and the 3rd Q 103 discarded intermediate 1 between the 1st and the 2nd Q 103 discarded

low ethical climate below the 1st Q 102 used in MGCFA

TOTAL SAMPLE 410

5.4 Results