The Influence of Perceived Organizational Support and Leader

Member Exchange Against Cunter-Productive Work Behaviors on

Civil Servants in Organization X

Mochammad Zainuddin Arif

, Pinky Saptandari Endang Pratiwi

and Dewi Retno Suminar

Postgraduate, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Keywords: Perceived Organizational Support, Leader Member Exchange, Counter-Productive Work Behavior.

Abstract: This study aimed to determine the influence between Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Leader

Member Exchange (LMX) to Counter Productive Behavior on civil servants in Organization X. This study

used a quantitative approach. The number of respondents in this study is 271 employees with civil servant

status who have the position of executor. Based on the result of the research, the result of Perceived

Organizational Support (POS) and Leader Member Exchange (LMX) has negative effect on

counterproductive work behavior either simultaneously or partially. In addition, Perceived Organizational

Support (POS) and Leader Member Exchange (LMX) had an effect of 84.1% on counter-productive work

behaviors. Dimension of Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Leader Member Exchange (LMX)

such as dimension of Perceived Fairness of Treatment, dimension of Perceived Supervisor Support, and

dimension of Perceived Organizational Rewards and Job Conditions, Affect dimension, loyalty dimension,

and professional respect dimension have a significant effect on counter-productive work behavior. On the

other hand, the contribution dimension does not affect the counter-productive work behavior.

1 INTRODUCTION

Negative work behaviors such as frequent truancy,

gossip during effective working hours, prolonged

rest time, to more often using internet to find

information that has nothing to do with work, give

negative effects for the organization. Negative work

behaviors done by employees that harm the

organization is called counter-productive work

behavior. Spector and Fox (2005) describe counter-

productive work behaviors as a set of voluntary

behaviors aimed at harming organizational and

organizational stakeholders, such as clients, co-

workers, customers and superiors. Ulker (2013, in

Octavia, 2016) explained that counter-productive

work behavior is influenced by two factors, namely

individual factors and organizational factors. One of

the organizational factors is Perceived

Organizational Support, while individual factor is

how the quality of Leader Member Exchange

between leader and member.

Perceived organizational support (POS) is to

reward employees' contributions, hear employee

complaints, feel proud of the performance results or

achievements of employees and meet employee

needs (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). The

treatment of organizations to the employees will

foster a certain level of trust among them which can

be seen from the valuation of employee's

contribution and the care about the employee's

wellbeing.

Meanwhile, Leader Member Exchange (LMX) is

how a leader and member develop a harmonious

relationship that creates a positive relationship.

When the Leader Member Exchange (LMX) quality

are developed better, then the leaders will show

positive behaviors so that they will be able to work

productively. On the other hand, if the Leader

Member Exchange (LMX) quality is worse, it will

lead to less productive behavior of the workers

(Kreitner & Kinicki, 2007).

Based on the explanation of the issues, the

authors are interested to conduct a research related

Arif, M., Pratiwi, P. and Suminar, D.

The Inﬂuence of Perceived Organizational Support and Leader Member Exchange Against Cunter-Productive Work Behaviors on Civil Servants in Organization X.

DOI: 10.5220/0007552008150819

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Postgraduate School (ICPS 2018), pages 815-819

ISBN: 978-989-758-348-3

815

to the influence of Perceived Organizational Support

and Leader Member Exchange to Behavior Counter

Productive Work in the environment of the

organization x. It is important to see which

independent variables are more influential on

counter-productive work behavior.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Counter-Productive Work Behavior

Counter-productive work behavior is a series of

voluntary behaviors which aims to harm

organization and organizational stakeholders, such

as clients, co-workers, customers and superiors.

Spector and Fox (2005) pointed out that counter-

productive work behaviors can be in the form of

abusive behavior toward others, aggression (verbal

or non-verbal), deliberately making mistakes during

work, sabotage, theft and withdrawal (absence,

coming late and out of organization).

2.2 Perceived Organizational Support

Perceived Organizational Support (POS) is a support

with a global belief about the extent to which the

organization assesses contributions, concerns about

welfare, listens to complaints, takes care of life and

considers objectives to be achieved and can be

trusted to treat employees fairly. Perceived

Organizational Support (POS) consists of three

dimensions, namely Perceived Fairness of Treatment

dimension, Perceived Supervisor Support

dimension, and Perceived Organizational Rewards

and Job Conditions dimension (Eisenberger, 2001).

2.2 Leader Member Exchange

Sparrowe and Liden (in Palacios Jr., 2010) explained

that the Leader Member Exchange consists of three

components: the leader who is the boss (supervisor),

the member who is the subordinate of the

supervisors, and the exchange that describes the

number of mutual interaction between both parties,

such as sharing suggestions and making friends, as

well as the frequency and quality of communication

between two parties. According to Dienesch &

Liden (in Carlos, 2010 and Palacios Jr, 2010),

Leader Member Exchange has four dimensions:

affect, loyalty, contribution, professional respect.

3 METHOD

Sampling method used in this study is Proportionate

Stratified Random Sampling technique of total

population of 897. At the end, there are 271 samples

used in this research.

The research instrument to collect data used by

writer is the SPOS questionnaire containing 36 items

and has a reliability value of 0.936 to measure

Perceived Organizational Support (POS), LMX-S

questionnaire containing 12 items and has a value

reliability of 0.925 to measure Leader Member

Exchange (LMX) as well as CWB-C questionnaire

containing 32 items and has a reliability value of

0.949 for measuring counter-productive work

behavior.

Table 1: Regression table.

Variable

Counter Productive Work Behavior

Abuse

Sabotage

Theft

Production

Deviance

Withdrawal

Constant

125.002

70.347

.000

Perceived

Organizationa

l Support &

Leader

member

Exchange

.765

.000

.566

.000

.732

.000

.556

.000

.626

.000

706.809

.841

Perceived

Organizationa

l Support

-.868

.000

-.747

.000

-.842

.000

-.737

.000

-.771

.000

-.580

-26.48

.000

.828

Percvd.

Fairness

-.821

.000

-.797

.000

-.809

.000

-.694

.000

-.763

.000

-1.019

-10.18

.000

462.854

.771

Percvd.

Suppervisor

Support

-.821

.000

-.660

.162

-.772

.000

-.697

.000

-.682

.109

-.472

-5.760

.000

.712

Percvd.

Reward & Job

Condition

-.787

.003

-.650

.507

-.778

.000

-.672

.035

-.719

.001

-.306

-3.661

.000

.684

Leader

Member

-.621

.000

-.392

.000

-.639

.000

-.541

.000

-.615

.000

-.280

-4.675

.000

.424

ICPS 2018 - 2nd International Conference Postgraduate School

816

Exchange

Affect

-.472

.886

-.322

.410

-.497

.619

-.449

.185

-.477

.951

-.580

-2.533

.012

53.502

.255

Loyalty

-.583

.004

-.366

.132

-.607

.000

-.505

.028

-.580

.004

-.808

-2.593

.010

.374

Contribution

-.572

.158

-.342

.980

-.560

.994

-.479

.673

-.575

.052

-.259

-.773

.440

.350

Professional

Respect

-.603

.000

-.374

.023

-.625

.000

-.504

.004

-.575

.003

-.778

-2.818

.005

.392

4 RESULT

Based on the calculations performed, a significance

value of 0.000 (<0.05) is obtained then H0 rejected.

Thus, partially Perceived Organizational Support

influences (R

=0.828) on Counter-Productive Work

Behaviors (has a negative effect). Perceived

Organizational Support (POS) affects the counter-

productive work behavior without any other

variables. For Leader Member Exchange variables, a

significance value of 0.000 (<0.05) is obtained then

H0 rejected. Thus partially Leader Member

Exchange has an effect (R

=0.424) on Counter-

Productive Work Behaviors (have negative effect)

For the simultaneous test, the significance value

is 0.00 <0.05 then H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted.

This indicates that Perceived Organizational Support

and Leader Member Exchange simultaneously or

together have an effect (R

=0.841) on Counter-

Productive Work Behaviors.

5 DISCUSSION

The results of this study support the previous studies

such as researches conducted by Fox, et al (2001),

Devonish & Greenidge (2010), Mingzheng, et al

(2014), Novrianti & Claudius (2014), and Rauf

(2015). Abas, et al. (2016) in his research explained

that Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and

Counter Productive Behavior have interaction

relations that affect each other. The role of Perceived

Organizational Support (POS) means that the low

Perceived Organizational Support (POS) will

create a high enough risk or trend towards the

emergence of Counter Productive Behavior. The

emergence of an unproductive behavior is based on

how donations or organizational support are owned

by employees. An organization's support will form a

positive perception if the support is high, and will

instead form a negative perception if the support

tends to be low. From the employee's perception

then an employee will bring up a certain work

behavior. Behavior productive work will be formed

from a positive perception and vice versa, Work

Behavior Counter Productive will be formed from a

negative perception.

Furthermore, results on leader member exchange

also support the pre-existing studies such as

researches conducted by Bauer, et al (2006);

Dunegan, et al (2002); Janssen & Van Yperen,

(2004); Kacmar,at al (2003); Liden, et al (1993);

Schriesgheim, et al (1998); Wang, et al (2005).

The interaction between leaders and employees

is not entirely only in the cash and carry, or

transactional relationships, i.e. restoring the

assistance provided. The interaction has done social

exchange, an exchange of emotions and mutual

influence between individuals. The exchange is

evidenced by the presence of help and as well as

communication provided and performed not only for

the work but also the personal problems of the

employees. With the exchange of emotions and

mutual influence has been done by distributing the

leader's value of working optimally and emphasize

the value of discipline so that a negative behavior

will be controlled. Negative behaviors that can be

controlled are such as high absenteeism, work at

will, not responding to work, selfish, problem-

solving in case of problems, avoidance of duties, or

other unproductive behaviors (Suyani & Remiayasa,

2016).

This study also provides information that the

three dimensions possessed by Perceived

Organizational Support (POS) has significant

influence or contribution to the counter work

behavior productive. In addition, the Perceived

Fairness of Treatment dimension has the strongest

influence in predicting counterproductive work

behavior. For the Leader Member Exchange (LMX)

dimension, there are three dimensions that have a

significant influence on counter-productive work

behavior, and the largest contribution was

contributed by Professional Respect dimension.

However, the contribution dimension has no effect.

This is contrary to Liden and Maslyn's (1998)

research in which they explained that the four

dimensions of Leader Member Exchange (LMX)

have an influence on counter-productive work

behavior.

This can be due to the leadership style used.

With the leadership model, a pattern of relationships

developed will be different. Leaders who have a

transformational style will further develop an intense

relationship than those who have the transactional

style. The concept discusses that leadership

The Inﬂuence of Perceived Organizational Support and Leader Member Exchange Against Cunter-Productive Work Behaviors on Civil

Servants in Organization X

817

orientation cannot only be seen on the job-only basis

(task-oriented), but also interpersonally (employee-

oriented). However, it is possible that an employee

tends to prioritize or build relationships in a work /

professional value. This is because they are more

comfortable with a relationship that is not too deep

and does not interfere with their personal affairs so

that they can work productively and consider the

relationship too deeply will have a negative impact

on their work, although they also need a positive

affective relationship between employers and

employees (Hutama & Goenawan, 2017).

6 CONCLUSION

There is a negative influence between Perceived

Organizational Support (POS) and Leader Member

Exchange (LMX) on counter-productive work

behavior of civil servants in Organization X, both

partially and simultaneously. Also, there are

influences from the three dimensions of Perceived

Organizational Support (POS) on counter-productive

work behavior, where Perceived Fairness of

Treatment has the greatest contribution to the

emergence of counter-productive work behavior.

In addition, in Leader Member Exchange (LMX)

dimension there is influence of the three dimension

to Counter-Productive Work Behaviors. However,

the Contribution dimension does not give effect to

Counter-Productive Work Behaviors. As well as of

the three influential dimensions, the Professional

Respect dimension has the greatest contribution to

the emergence of counter-productive work behavior.

REFERENCES

Abas, C., Omar, F., Halim, F.W., Hafidz, Sarah W.M.

(2016). The role of Emotional Tiredness and Self-

Esteemed Vote of the Organization in Relation

between Organizational Support and Non-Productive

Work Behavior. Journal of Constitution 48 (2016) 73 -

88. Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities,

University Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Bauer, T.N., & Erdogan, B. (2015). Leader-member

exchange (lmx) theory. International Encyclopedia of

the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 13 (2), 641-647.

Carlos, J. (2010). The relationship of job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, and leader member

exchange in predicting turnover intentions of front line

retail managers in the auto parts industry. Dissertation

of Argosy University. ProQuest database.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D.,

& Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of Perceived

Organizational Support. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86.

Fox, S., Spector, P.E., Miles, D. (2001).

Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) In

Response to Job Stressors and Organizational Justice:

Some Mediator and Moderator Tests for Autonomy

and Emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59,

291-309.

Hutama, Patrick., Gunawan, Rocky. (2017). Effect of

Leader Member Exchange on Employee Performance

at Hotel X Surabaya. Faculty of Economics, Petra

Christian University. Vol 05. No. 2.

Kacmar, K.M., Witt, L.A., Zivnuska, S., Gully, S.M.

(2003). The Interactive Effect of Leader Member

Exchange and Communication Frequency on

Performance Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,

88, 764-772.

Kreitner, R. Kinicki, A. (2007) Organizational Behavior (7

ed). New York: McGraw-hill. Dialed by Erly Suandy.

Jakarta. Publisher Salemba Four.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S.J., & Stiwell, D. (1993). A

Longitudinal Study on The Early Development of

Leader-Member Exchange. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78: 662-674.

Liden, R.C., & Maslyn, J.M. (1998). Multidimensionality

of Leader-Member Exchange: An Empirical

Assessment through Scale Development. Journal of

Management, 24 (1), 43-72.

Mingzheng, Wu, Sun Xiaoling, Fu Xubo, Liu Youshan.

(2014). Moral Identity as a Moderator of the Effects of

Organizational Injustice on Counterproductive Work

Behavior among Chinese Public Servants. Public

Personnel Management.

Novrianti, D., Claudius, B.S. (2014). The Role of

Transformational Leadership as a Moderating Variable

for the Relationship of Justices and Counter-

Productive Work Behavior at the Public Organization.

Tokyo Business Research Conference, Tokyo.

Palacios Jr, J.A. (2010). Job role ambiguity as a mediator

between workplace communication and positive work

outcome. Thesis. California State University.

ProQuest database.

Rauf, F.H. Abdul. (2015). Behind Emotion:

Organizational Injustice Practices As a Key

Antecedent of Counterproductive Work Behaviors. 5th

International Symposium 2015.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., (2002). Perceived

Organizational Support: A Review of the Literature.

Journal of Applied Psychology.

Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., Cogliser, C.C. (1999).

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Research: A

Comprehensive Review of Theory, Measurement, and

Data AnalyticPractices. Leadership Quarterly.

Spector, P.E., Fox, S. (2005). The Stressor-Emotion

Model of Counterproductive Work Behavior. In S.

Fox & P.E. Spector (Eds), Counterproductive work

behavior. Investigation of actors and targets.

Washington DC.

Suyani, Y.E., Remiasa, M. (2016). Descriptive Analysis

Implement Leader Member Exchange at Lippo Plaza

ICPS 2018 - 2nd International Conference Postgraduate School

818

Batu. Journal of Business Management Program.

AGORA Vol. 4, No. 2.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., Chen, Z.

X. (2005). Leader-Member Exchange as a Mediator of

the Relationship between Transformational Leadership

and Followers' Performance and Organizational

Citizenship Behavior. Academy of Management

Journal.

The Inﬂuence of Perceived Organizational Support and Leader Member Exchange Against Cunter-Productive Work Behaviors on Civil

Servants in Organization X

819