Mediating role of self-regulatory efficacy on the relationship between punishment certainty, punishment severity and organizational deviance

Article history: Received July 28, 2013 Accepted 14 January 2014 Available online February 27 2014 Employee deviance is prevalent and could have significant consequences to organizations and/or its members. Drawing upon deterrence theory, this study examined the mediating role of self-regulatory efficacy on the relationship between punishment certainty, punishment severity and organizational deviance. The participants were 197 employed postgraduate students who enrolled in the Master of Business Administration programme at two universities located in the north-west geopolitical zone of Nigeria. The model tested suggests that both punishment certainty and punishment severity predict organizational deviance through the influence of selfregulatory efficacy. Results suggest that self-regulatory efficacy partially mediates the relationship between punishment certainty and organizational deviance. Similarly, results suggest that the relationship between punishment severity and organizational deviance was partially mediated by self-regulatory efficacy. © 2014 Growing Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Empirical research suggests that punishment certainty and punishment severity play an important role in minimizing deviant behaviour at work (e.g., Cole, 1989;D'Arcy, Hovav, & Galletta, 2009;Hollinger & Clark, 1983;Liao, Luo, Gurung, & Li, 2009;Ugrin & Pearson, 2008). Punishment severity refers to the nature and extent of punishment for committing deviant behaviour at work (Tittle, 1980)., while punishment certainty is defined as making sure that punishment takes place whenever an individual engage in deviant behaviour at work (Onwudiwe, Odo, & Onyeozili, 2005). These studies proposed general deterrence perspective that the greater the certainty and severity of punishment for a deviant act, the less likely individuals will engage in that act (GDT; Beccaria, 1963;Gibbs, 1968;Gibbs, 1975).
Despite these empirical studies on the role of punishment certainty and punishment severity in explaining the likelihood employees to engage in workplace deviance, however, less attention has been paid to the fundamental reason why these two variables (i.e., punishment certainty and punishment severity) minimize individual's tendency to engage in deviant behaviour at work. We argued that self-regulatory efficacy, broadly defined as individual capacity to resist temptation or pressure to behave deviant way may be a key mechanism in explaining organisational deviance. Selfregulatory efficacy is a well established factor that exerts a significant influence on variety of behaviours, including technology adoption behaviour (Igbaria & Iivari, 1995;Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), career choice behaviour (Betz & Hackett, 2006;Mau, 2000), newcomers' adjustments to organizations (Saks, 1995), group performance (Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson, & Watson, 2003;Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005) and deviant behaviour among others (Caprara, Regalia, & Bandura, 2002;Caprara, Scabini, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Regalia, & Bandura, 1998). According to Bandura (1992), perceived self-efficacy is an important consideration in understanding the levels of motivation and performance accomplishments; because it is able to shape the way individuals feel, think, and behave. The logic here is that self-regulatory efficacy is the fundamental reason why punishment certainty and punishment severity predicts organisational deviance at work. This line of argument is consistent with the tenets of self-efficacy theory that self-regulatory efficacy mechanism may have wide explanatory power in explaining goal-related behaviour (Bandura, 1978(Bandura, , 1982Bandura, 1992). The purpose of this study was to examine the mediating role of self-regulatory efficacy on the relationship between punishment certainty, punishment severity and organizational deviance in Nigerian public sector. Drawing upon deterrence theory and self-efficacy theory, it was hypothesized that selfregulatory efficacy would mediate the relationship between punishment certainty, punishment severity and organizational deviance.

Data collection and sample
Participants were 197 employed postgraduate students who enrolled in the Master of Business Administration (MBA) programme at two universities located in the north-west geopolitical zone of Nigeria. Of 197 participants, 65.5% were male and the remaining 34.5% were female. The mean age of the participants was 38 years. The participants were predominantly of Yorubas (53.8%), next in terms of frequently were Hausa/Fulani, Minority Ethnic makeup and Igbos with 33.5%, 6.6% and 6.1% respectively. Majority of the participants (71.6%) got married, while the remaining 28.4% were single. In terms of job position, 66.5% were Managers, and 33.5% were non-managerial employees. Most participants worked in public sector (66%) and the remaining 34% worked in private sector.

Punishment certainty
Punishment certainty was measured with the average of 4-items from Grasmick and Bursik's (1990) Punishment Certainty Scale. Responses were given on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from (1) = "definitely would not" to (5) = "definitely would"). A sample Punishment Certainty Scale item is "Do you think you would get punished if you left work early without permission?"

Punishment severity
Punishment severity was measured with the average of 5-items from Grasmick and Bursik's (1990) Punishment Severity Scale. In all cases, we asked the participants to indicate their responses on 5point Likert scale ranging from (1) = "no problem at all" to (5) = "a very big problem"). A sample Punishment Severity Scale item is "If you were caught taking undeserved breaks to avoid work… how severe this act may be?"

Self-regulatory efficacy
Self-regulatory efficacy was assessed based on Bandura's (1990) Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy. All items used for the self-regulatory efficacy scale were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) = "not well at all" to (5) = "extremely well"). A sample self-regulatory efficacy item is "How well can resist temptation for making unauthorized use of organizational property?"

Results
To test the mediating effects of self-regulatory efficacy on the relationship between punishment certainty, punishment severity and organizational deviance, we followed bootstrapping technique for procedures for estimating the direct and indirect effects in simple mediation models (Preacher & Hayes, 2008;Preacher & Hayes, 2004). First, we assess the significance of the direct effect without incorporating mediating variable in the model. Second, we created another PLS model by incorporating mediating variable and assess the significance of the indirect effect. Finally, we assess the variance accounted for (VAF) to ascertain whether the mediating effect is either full or partial or even no mediation at all. We estimated two models using this procedure. Firstly, we tested the mediating effect of self-regulatory efficacy on the relationship between punishment certainty and organizational deviance. Secondly, the mediating effect of self-regulatory efficacy on the relationship between punishment severity and organizational deviance was tested. Figure 1 depicts the results of the two models. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations between the study variables. Punishment certainty correlated negatively with organizational deviance, r = -0.35, p<.001, punishment severity was related negatively to organizational deviance, r = -0.23, p<.001, but positively to punishment certainty, r = 0.18, p<.001. Self-regulatory efficacy correlated with negatively with organizational deviance, r = -0.39, p<.001. Furthermore, Self-regulatory efficacy was positively correlated with both punishment certainty and punishment severity, having r = 0.63, p<.001 and r = 0.18, p<.001, respectively. Table 1 also shows that internal consistency reliability coefficient of each study variable was greater than the minimum acceptable level of 0.7, suggesting adequate internal of the measures adapted in this study (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Regarding the mediating effect of self-regulatory efficacy on the relationship between punishment certainty and organizational deviance, the bootstrapping results showed that the total effect of punishment certainty on organizational deviance (total effect of punishment certainty = − 0.36, p < 0.01) decreased when the self-regulatory efficacy was incorporated into the model (direct effect of punishment certainty = − 0.18, p < .05). Furthermore, the indirect effect (i.e., total minus direct effects) of punishment certainty on organizational deviance behaviour through the self-regulatory efficacy was found to be significant (ß = -0.18, p < 0.01, VAF = 50%). This suggests that selfregulatory efficacy partially mediates the relationship between punishment certainty and organizational deviance since 20%  VAF  80% (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2013;Shrout & Bolger, 2002).

Fig. 1. The results of mediation analyses, based on 5000 bootstrap samples
The path values represent unstandardized regression coefficient, while entries in parentheses represents the direct effect of punishment certainty and punishment severity on organizational deviance after incorporating self-regulatory efficacy into the model. * p<0.05, **p<0.01(1-tailed).
A similar pattern of results was also found for punishment severity. The bootstrapping results demonstrated that the total effect of punishment severity on organizational deviance (total effect of punishment certainty = − 0.25, p < 0.01) decreased when the self-regulatory efficacy was incorporated into the model (direct effect of punishment certainty = − 0.18, p < .05). Furthermore, the indirect effect (i.e., total minus direct effects) of punishment certainty on organizational deviance behaviour through the self-regulatory efficacy was found to be significant (ß = -0.07, p < 0.01, VAF = 71%). This suggests that the relationship between punishment severity and organizational deviance was partially mediated by self-regulatory efficacy, since 20%  VAF  80% (Hair et al., 2013;Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Regarding the R-squared values, the research model explains 21% of the total variance in organisational deviance, suggesting that punishment certainty and punishment severity collectively explain 21% of the variance of organisational deviance. . Falk and Miller (1992) recommended 10% as acceptable R-squared value. Therefore, following this criteria, the R-squared value of 21% can be considered acceptable.

Discussions
The main objective of this study was to examine self-regulatory efficacy as mechanism explaining the relationship between punishment certainty, punishment severity and organizational deviance. Overall, the mediating results appear to be consistent with the view that self-regulatory efficacy is an important cognitive resource that can motivate individual to refrain from engaging in deviant acts (Bandura, 1986;Caprara et al., 2002), self-regulatory efficacy was not only negative related to organizational deviance, but, it also mediates the relationship between punishment certainty and organizational deviance as well as the relationship between punishment severity and organizational deviance. This suggests that employees who are high in self-regulatory efficacy are less likely to engage in organizational deviance because they are capable of resisting the influence of situational factors.
Therefore, the results of the current study appear to have important implications for the organizations and managers. First, the finding that self-regulatory efficacy was negatively related to organisational deviance demonstrates that the personality trait (i.e., perception of self-regulatory efficacy play a significant role in influencing behaviors at work. This finding can help management to identify employees who are more likely to engage in organisational deviance. The finding suggests that management should consider personality factors during recruitment, selection, induction and periodic performance appraisal.
Furthermore, while the results of this study provide further support for a number of the hypothesized relationships between the exogenous and endogenous variables, however, it would be relevant to note some of its limitations. First, the present study adopts a cross-sectional design, which does not allow causal inferences to be made from the population. Therefore, future research is needed using a longitudinal design, in order to measure the theoretical constructs at different points in time to confirm the findings of the present study.
Second, the workplace deviance was assessed using self-report measures. According to Bennett and Robinson (2000) self-report measures are valid in assessing deviant behaviour at work, particularly when anonymity was assured during the data collection. Nevertheless, the use of self-reports is associated with common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) and social desirability bias (Dodaj, 2012;Podsakoff & Organ, 1986;Randall & Fernandes, 1991). Although this study attempts to reduce these problems by ensuring anonymity and improving scale items (Podsakoff et al., 2003;Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012), however, it is possible that the participants in this study might have under-reported their deviance on survey questionnaires. Therefore, in the future, researchers may wish to employ other strategies to assess workplace deviance. More specifically, supervisor ratings of workplace deviance and peers reporting of workplace deviance should be used to control for the common method variance and social desirability bias.

Conclusions
This study was an attempt to examine self-regulatory efficacy as a mediator on the relationship between punishment certainty, punishment severity and organizational deviance. The findings from the current research suggest that self-regulatory efficacy mediates the relationship between punishment certainty and organizational deviance as well as the relationship between punishment severity and organizational deviance. This study also emphasizes the importance of punishment certainty and punishment severity as determinants of organizational deviance. Taken together, the findings suggest that punishment certainty, punishment severity and self-regulatory efficacy are effective in minimizing the tendency of employees to engage in deviant acts.