The effects of personality, deviant behavior, and employee engagement on frontline employees' organizational commitment

Article history: Received: June 20, 2020 Received in revised format: August 3


Introduction
PT. Smartfren Telecom Tbk. is one of Indonesian CDMA based telecommunication service providers. This company always strives to provide quality service for its consumers and is committed to being the best affordable quality telecommunication service provider. The key to achieve this commitment prevails in its frontline employees. Frontline employees are those who directly interact with customers. Primarily, they are expected to provide excellent service and assistance to costumers. Their good performance is a result of high organizational commitment (Meyer et al., 1990). Therefore, high organizational commitment is vital for frontline employees to provide the best service for customers. Employee organizational commitment is influenced by the personality of employees, as stated by studies of Erdheim et al. (2006) and Spagnoli and Caetano (2012), the studies show that employee personality has a positive effect on employees' organizational commitment. However, a slightly different examination outcome attested by Farrukh et al. (2017) shows that all personality indicators did not unanimously have a significant positive effect on organizational commitment such as neuroticism and openness to experiences, which negatively affected affective commitment indicator on organizational commitment. The difference in the results of the two studies is the research gap for this study, which is then filled in by incorporating the mediating variable of deviant behavior on the influence of personality toward organizational commitment. According to Brooks (2012), several forms of deviant behavior have a significant effect on organizational commitment. Confirming this result, Wang et al. (2017), Abdullah and Marican (2016), Kozako et al. (2013), and Raman et al. (2016) also showed that personality factors had a significant negative relationship to counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB). In addition to deviant behavior, work engagement can similarly mediate the influence of personality on organizational commitment. In line with Haynie et al. (2017) study that proven employee engagement mediates the influence of proactive personality on affective organizational commitment. Supporting the premise, the research results of Tisu et al. (2020), Caniëls et al. (2018), Ongore (2014), Dikkers et al. (2010), Hirschi et al. (2011), Hanaysha (2016), Basit (2019), Cao et al. (2019), Jung and Yoon, H. (2016), Ogbuanya and Chukwuedo (2017), and Rameshkumar (2019) showed that work engagement has a significant positive effect on organizational commitment. A study by Aryati et al. (2018) put deviant behavior as the dependent variable that is influenced by ethical leadership, ethical climate, and organizational commitment. Another research by Djoemadi et al. (2019) set employee involvement as the dependent variable that is influenced by employee job satisfaction. Furthermore, as for the research originality, this study observed deviant behavior and employee engagement as moderating variables on the influence of personality on organizational commitment. Given the phenomena and research gap, it is necessary to study the role of Deviant Behavior and Work Engagement as the mediating and moderating variables on the influence of Personality toward Organizational Commitment on frontline employees at PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk in Malang City.

Literature review and hypotheses
2.1. Personality Robbins and Judge (2017) define personality traits as the frequently occurred characteristic, which describes an individual's behavior. Personality is a relatively persistent pattern, trait, disposition, or characteristic within an individual that provides some consistent measure of behavior (Feist & Feist, 2017). Mussen (2005) describes that internal factors are a factor that comes from within a person, while external factors are a factor that comes from outside the person, both factors influence the formation of a person's personality. Meanwhile, Robbins and Judge (2017) argue that personality is the result of Heredity and Environment. Research supports that Heredity is more important than the environment. The Five-Factor Model (FFM) is a personality theory developed by McCrae and Costa (1997) states that there are five factors of human personality, namely neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Robbins & Judge, 2017).

Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment is acting as a proper orientation towards the organization in terms of loyalty, relationship, and interaction (Robbins & Judge, 2017). Luthans, (2011), andSoelton et al. (2020) defines organizational commitment as a strong desire to remain a member of a particular organization; Willingness to use all efforts on behalf of the organization; Strong belief and acceptance of the organization's values and goals. Noermijati & Azzuhri (2018) stated that employees who have high organizational commitment are expected to have a high sense of belonging to the organization. In other words, these attitudes reflect employee loyalty to the organization that is a continuous process. The employees' participation expresses their concern for organization success and survival. Meyer and Allen (1991) used three measures of organizational commitment, namely: 1) affective commitment refers to the emotional relationship of members to the organization. 2) Continuance commitment refers to the desire of employees to stay in the organization because of the calculation of the profit and loss of the perceived economic value if they choose to remain compared to leave. 3) Normative commitment, which refers to employees' feelings that they feel obliged to stay in the organization because the organization has done given more benefits to them (Loi et al., 2012;Woods et al., 2012;Philipp & Lopez, 2013). In this study, the variable organizational commitment was measured by indicators of affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Robinson and Bennett (1995) define deviant behavior in the workplace as "the deliberate behavior (of organizational members) that violates organizational norms that negatively impact the well-being of the organization, its members, or both". Negative deviant behavior has several terms such as antisocial behavior (Giacolone & Greenberg, 1997); Organization misbehavior (Vardi & Weits, 2004); workplace deviant (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), and counterproductive behavior (Mangione et al., 2004). A behavior is considered deviant when "organizational customs, policies, or internal regulations are violated by an individual or group that can negatively affect the welfare of the organization or its citizens" (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Robinson and Bennett (1995) classified two types of deviant behavior. First, organizational deviance, which leads to deviations from the target organization such as theft, sabotage, being late at work, leaving early, or trying to resign from work. Second, interpersonal deviance leads to deviant actions affecting colleagues, supervisors, or subordinates, such as slackingoff, malignancy, and physical aggression. Both of these deviant behaviors are destructive with unpleasant repercussions. In this study, deviant behavior is measured by indicators of organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance, referring to Robinson and Bennett (1995).

Employee Engagement
According to Schaufeli et al. (2002) and Nurtjahjani et al. (2020) employee engagement is an employee's positive mental state regarding their work, the ability to utilize their problem-solving capacity and to communicate with others, as well as the ability to develop innovative services. This positive mental state is characterized by enthusiasm, dedication, and appreciation for their work. Employee engagement is characterized by employees who believe in their value and are willing to go beyond the limit of a written contract because employee engagement places more emphasis on psychological contracts (Cook, 2008). Employee engagement includes aspects of think, feel, and do. The thinking aspect puts employees to think of the right ways for the success of their organization. The feeling aspect leads employees to feel that themselves and their work are part of the organization, and it involves emotional attachment. The doing aspect means that employees will make efforts for the success of organizational goals, including how to maintain internal relationships with colleagues and externally with customers (Cook, 2008). Bakker and Demerouti (2007) revealed the factors that influence employee engagement, including job resources, job demands, and personal resources. Employee engagement is also related to the existence of four crucial things in employees, namely persistence, proactive, role expansion, and adaptability (Wiley & Blackwell, 2009). Persistence is a form of employee persistence in doing their job. Proactivity is manifested by employees taking the initiative to take action when needed, such as improving performance when there is a decrease in performance without waiting for orders from superiors. Role expansion is realized by the willingness of employees to assist colleagues who have difficulty carrying out tasks. Adaptability, helps companies anticipate and respond to changes in the scope of competition more quickly, more successfully, and at lower costs. In this study, work engagement is measured by these four indicators.

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework
Previous studies measured personality against organizational commitment. For instance, a study by Erdheim et al. (2006) showed that the five-factor model of personality consists of extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness indicators. These indicators had a significant positive effect on organizational commitment as measured by affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment indicators. In line with these results, the research of Farrukh et al. (2017) shows that extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (the five-factor model of personality) have a significant positive effect on affective commitment (organizational commitment) while neuroticism and openness negatively affect the affective commitment indicator.

H1:
Personality has a significant effect on organizational commitment.
Several studies on the influence of personality on deviant behavior analyzed the mediating role of employee engagements in proactive personality inspectors against counterproductive work behavior (CWB). In particular, in a study by Wang, Z. et al. (2017), where Task Performance and Career Success Potential show that proactive personality has a significant negative direct effect on counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and a direct significant positive effect on employee engagement.

H2:
Personality has a significant effect on deviant behavior.
Previous research by Tisu et al. (2020) examined models of personality characteristics (namely proactive personality, core self-evaluation, and psychological capital) that directly predict employee engagement, indicating that personality characteristics have a significant positive effect on employee engagement. Research by Caniëls et al. (2018) states that employees' proactive personality has a significant positive effect on employee engagement. Kaspar et al. (2016) measured four personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, sensation seeking, and the need for affect) on employee engagement, showing that extraversion and sensation-seeking personality traits had a significant positive effect on employee engagement. Meanwhile, the personality traits of the need for affect do not affect employee engagement. Ongore (2014) stated that the relationship between personality traits and employee engagement shows that there is a significant relationship between personality traits and employee engagement.

H4
: Deviant behavior has a significant effect on organizational commitment. (2016)  Research by Haynie et al., (2017) which examines the simultaneous indirect effects of proactive personality and core selfevaluations (CSE) on work outcomes of employee task performance and affective organizational commitment (AOC) through work engagement. Shows that proactive personality has a significant positive effect on employee engagement. Employee engagement also has a significant positive effect on affective organizational commitment. The results of the direct effect in the study indicate that employee engagement mediates the influence of proactive personality on affective organizational commitment.

Research by Hanaysha
H7: Employee engagement mediates the influence of personality on organizational commitment. (2012)   H9: Employee engagement moderates the influence of personality on organizational commitment.

Methodology
This research was conducted on frontline employees of PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk Malang City. The study population was 105 frontline employees, and all members of the population became the research sample. Thus, the census method is used in determining the sample. The data collection method used a questionnaire with 5 Likert scale to measure respondents' answers. This study used the explanatory research approach. The validity and reliability tests were used to test the research instrument. The collected data were processed using PLS (Partial Least Square) and SPSS software. Willingness to bring about corporate change Actively follow the company system Source: Processed data, 2020 Source: Processed data, 2020

Results and discussion
The majority of the respondents' characteristics are described in Table 2. The dominant condition of the characteristics of PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk Malang City frontline employees are also provided.

Research Instrument Test Results
The results of the validity test show that all tested statement items have a value of r count larger than r Based on the results of the convergent validity test, several items were invalid or had a loading factor value < 0.5 and a pvalue > 0.05, including item Y1.3.1 (difficulty finding a job replacement) and item Y1.3.2 (increased expense if decided to leave the company) is an item of the commitment indicator from the organizational commitment variable. Another invalid item is item Z1.1.4 (physical violence) on the interpersonal deviation indicator of deviant behavior variables. These three invalid items must be eliminated from the research model. As the items do not meet these requirements, it is necessary to revise the model by removing the invalid items. The test results in Table 3 show that all items of the research variable are valid because all items have a Loading Factor value> 0.5 and a p-value <0.005.
Discriminant Validity testing is done by observing the Cross-Loading Factor value. The results of the discriminant validity test by referring to the cross-loading value show that each indicator predicts its latent variable better than the other latent variable indicators. So, it can be concluded that the discriminant validity test has been fulfilled. The results showed that the composite reliability value on all the variables studied, namely Personality (X1), Organizational Commitment (Y1), Deviant Behavior (Z1), and Employee Engagement (Z2) had a composite reliability value above 0.70, which means that Personality, Organizational Commitment, Deviant Behavior, Employee Engagement variables able to measure the latent variables.    The results of testing hypothesis effect between latent variables can also be seen in Figure 1.1 below:

Fig. 1. Structural Model based on WarpPLS
Source: Output warpPLS, 2020 β = Regression coefficients P = Significant coefficient Regression The results of the direct effect hypothesis test in Table 6 show that the p-value of the direct influence of personality on organizational commitment (H1) is 0.25, and the path coefficient value of direct influence is 0.06. then the first hypothesis is rejected because the p-value is more than 0.05. The p-value of the influence of personality on deviant behavior (H2) is 0.1 with a path coefficient value of -0.23. This value indicates that the second hypothesis is accepted because the p-value is less than 0.05. The p-value of the influence of personality on employee engagement (H3) is 0.01, and the path coefficient value is 0.75. Then the third hypothesis is accepted. The p-value of deviant behavior towards organizational commitment (H4) is 0.43, and the path coefficient value is -0.02. Then the fourth hypothesis is rejected. The p-value of the effect of attachment to organizational commitment (H5) is 0.01, and the path coefficient value is 0.75. Then it is concluded that the fifth hypothesis is accepted.
In Table 7, it appears that personality has no effect on organizational commitment, but personality has an effect on deviant behavior, and deviant behavior has no effect on organizational commitment. Based on the analysis of the Sobel Test Calculator, it appears that deviant behavior does not mediate the effect of personality on organizational commitment, as indicated by the p-value of 0.481 and the path coefficient value of 0.0465. Then the sixth hypothesis is rejected. Meanwhile, the analysis of other indirect effects explains that employee engagement mediates the influence of personality on organizational commitment with a p-value of 0.00 and a path coefficient of 53.033. Personality affects organizational commitment through employee engagement. So it can be concluded that the seventh hypothesis is accepted.
The hypothesis test results for the moderation role of deviant behavior on the effect of personality on organizational commitment are shown in Table 8, showing a p-value of 0.32 and a path coefficient of 0.04. Then the eighth hypothesis is rejected because it has a p-value higher than 0.05. The next moderation test is the role of work engagement on the influence of personality on organizational commitment, the p-value is 0.26, and the path coefficient value is 0.06. Therefore, the ninth hypothesis is rejected.

Conclusion
The results of the descriptive analysis show that the personality of the frontline employees is already at a high level, meaning that PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk frontline employees have an excellent ability to manage and support themselves in their activities while working. In general, employees with good personalities also have a high level of work engagement. These are proven by the results of a proper frequency distribution of employee personality variables, followed by a high level of work engagement. High employee engagement means that frontline employees have a high work engagement in the company. The organizational commitment variable is also in the high category, meaning that the frontline employees have a high commitment to the organization. The deviant behavior variable is in a low category, meaning that only a few frontline employees behave defiantly in the workplace. The results of testing the organizational commitment structure model show a value of 0.667, meaning that organizational commitment is influenced by personality by 66.7%, and other variables influence the remaining 33.3%. There are many factors or other variables that can affect the level of organizational commitment for an employee. Organizational commitment can grow, because of its individuals have an emotional attachment to the organization (which includes moral support and accepting the values that exist in the organization as well as a determination to serve the organization), work characteristics, the nature of the rewards received, the existence of alternative employment opportunities, treatment newcomers to the organization, and personal characteristics (Darlis, 2002;Greberg & Baron, 2005). The structural model test result of work engagement shows a value of 0.557, or in other words, deviant behavior can be influenced by the personality of the employee as much as 55.7%, while other factors influence the remaining 44.3%. Various factors can influence employee engagement such as job demands (Demerouti et al., 2001); Personal resources (Bakker, 2011); Job resources (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001); Social Capital (Ko, Choi, Rhee and Moon, 2018). Alternatively, according to Schiemann (2009), many factors influence employee work engagement. These factors are job security, fair treatment, adequate compensation, treatment with respect and dignity, stress-related factors (such as excessive workload, unrealistic performance targets, work and family conflicts caused by imbalances), compensation (positive feedback from the company for its employees' performance) which includes not only attractive wages or benefits, but also skills development, innovative culture, and the availability of certain resources that allow employees to develop.
For deviant behavior, the results of the structural model test show a value of 0.055, or in other words, the deviant behavior can be influenced by the employee's personality of 5.5%, while the remaining 94.5% is influenced by other factors not examined. Many factors can influence counterproductive work behavior or deviant behavior by employees other than personality factors, namely: job characteristics, workgroup characteristics, organizational culture, organizational control system, and organizational injustice (Sackett, & De Vore, 2002).

The Direct Effect of Personality Toward Organizational Commitment
The result of testing the first hypothesis regarding the direct effect of personality on organizational commitment was rejected. This means that the personality of frontline employees does not affect the level of employee commitment to the organization. The results of this study do not support the results of Erdheim et al., (2006), Spagnoli and Caetano (2012), that personality measured using the five-factor model of personality has a significant positive effect on organizational commitment. However, the results of this study support the results of the research of Farrukh et al., (2017), that not all personality indicators have significant positive effects on organizational commitment. Neuroticism and openness to experiences negatively affect the affective commitment (organizational commitment). Although personality does not directly affect organizational commitment, personality becomes influential on organizational commitment when there is employee engagement. It shows that employee engagement has a vital role so that personality can increase employee commitment to the organization.

The Direct Effect of Personality Toward Deviant Behavior
The results of the hypothesis test on the effect of personality on deviant behavior show that personality has a significant negative effect on deviant behavior. It means that a decrease in the level of deviant behavior will follow the better personality become or vice versa. A decline in employee personality will be followed by an increase in deviant behavior by frontline employees. The results are in line with the research of Wang et al. (2017) in terms of the significant negative direct effect of proactive personality on counterproductive work behavior (CWB). Raman et al. (2016), on the study of frontline government officials, also support the finding that there is a negative significant between relationship personality factors (conscientiousness, emotional stability, agreeableness, extraversion, and openness to experience) on CWB. In general, employees with bad personalities have a high potential for deviant behavior. It is reinforced by the results of the frequency distribution that the personality of frontline employees of Malang City's PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk. has been very good given the low level of deviant behavior, only a few employees stated that they had done both interpersonal and organizational deviations.

The Direct Effect of Personality Toward Employee Engagement
The results of the hypothesis test on the effect of personality on employee engagements show that personality has a significant positive effect on employee engagement. It means that an increase will also follow a better personality in the employee engagement of frontline employees and vice versa, a decrease will follow a decline in employee personality in the employee

The Direct Effect of Deviant Behavior Toward Organizational Commitment
The fourth hypothesis regarding the effect of deviant behavior on organizational commitment is not significant / rejected. Deviant behavior has no direct effect on organizational commitment, that the level of deviant behavior of frontline employees does not affect increasing employee commitment to the organization. This deviant behavior does not play a role in increasing organizational commitment. One reason is that the level of deviant behavior is relatively small. Meanwhile, frontline employees already have a high commitment to do the best for the organization, that they have high affective and normative commitment. This result is not in line with the results of research by Brooks (2012) explains that several forms of deviant behavior such as sexual harassment, bullying, and absenteeism have a significant effect on organizational commitment.

The Direct Effect of Employee Engagement Toward Organizational Commitment
The fifth hypothesis regarding the effect of work engagement on organizational commitment is accepted. Whereas when employee engagement increases, the organizational commitment of frontline employees also increases. The level of work engagement of frontline employees is high, that employees always try to improve their work, never give up, try to find the best solution for any occurring problems and always try to help colleagues who are having difficulties in carrying out their duties. The results of this study support the research results of Hanaysha (2016) (2019) show that employee involvement has a positive and active effect on organizational commitment.

The Mediating Role of Deviant Behavior and Employee Engagement on the Influence of Personality toward Organizational Commitment
The results of the analysis of the direct effect of personality on organizational commitment are not significant. Personality has a significant negative effect on deviant behavior, but deviant behavior does not affect organizational commitment. From the perspective of the indirect effect of personality on organizational commitment through deviant behavior, it shows that deviant behavior does not mediate the effect of personality on organizational commitment. Meanwhile, work engagement mediates the influence of personality on organizational commitment. That deviant behavior fully mediates the influence of personality on organizational commitment.
Based on these results, it can be concluded that the role of work engagement is significant so that personality can play a role in increasing employee commitment to the organization, as stated by Darlis (2002) that organizational commitment can grow because individuals have emotional ties to the organization. In order for employees to have a high commitment, the organization also needs to support by providing a fair reward system and providing an enjoyable work characteristic, so that employees will have a high emotional bond with the organization.

The Moderating Role of Deviant Behavior and Employee Engagement on the Influence of Personality toward Organizational Commitment
The results of the moderation role hypothesis test in this study indicate that deviant behavior does not have a moderating role that does not strengthen or weaken the influence of personality on organizational commitment. The existence of deviant behavior does not increase or decrease the influence of personality on organizational commitment. Likewise, the results of the analysis of the role of employee engagement moderation test show that the existence of employee engagement is unable to play a role in increasing or decreasing organizational commitment. It is an interesting finding that the low deviant behavior and high work engagement of frontline employees were not able to play a role in increasing or decreasing the influence of personality on employee commitment to the organization.

Implications
The results of this study criticize the research of Erdheim et al. (2006) and Spagnoli and Caetano (2012), which show that personality has a significant positive effect on organizational commitment as it turns out, in the case of PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk. this study shows that personality cannot increase employee organizational commitment. The results of this study also criticize the research of Brooks, G. (2012)

Limitations
This research was only conducted on a limited object, namely only the frontline employees of PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk. in Malang City. Therefore, the generalization level of research results for telecommunications service providers is generally still low. This research was conducted during a global pandemic. There were obstacles faced by researchers to interact and communicate intensively with respondents or frontline employees. It affected the attempt to explore more additional information beyond the data obtained from the research questionnaire.

Conclusion
Personality does not have a direct influence on frontline employees' organizational commitment of PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk in Malang City. An increase or decrease in organizational commitment level does not follow the employees' good or bad personality. Personality has a positive influence on frontline employees' work engagement. The better the employee's personality will be followed by an increase in the work engagement level of frontline employees. Moreover, employee engagement has a positive influence on the organizational commitment level of frontline employees. The higher the employee's work engagement, the higher the level of organizational commitment. Work engagement mediates the influence of personality on organizational commitment. This means that when employees have a good personality, it is typically followed by increased work engagement. The employee's commitment to the organization will also increase. Deviant behavior does not mediate the influence of personality on the organizational commitment of frontline employees. Deviant behavior and employee engagement do not moderate the influence of personality on organizational commitment. In other words, deviant behavior and employee engagement do not strengthen or weaken the influence of personality on the organizational commitment of frontline employees in PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk Malang City.

Recommendation
PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk Malang City may review the personality scale of employees who have been employed as well as the personality of prospective employees to be hired as personality can directly affect employees' deviant behavior. It will also have an impact on employee work engagement. Measuring the good and bad personality of employees can be done by looking at how these employees behave in managing stress or pressure at work and the level of self-confidence. PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk Malang City can also monitor how employees interact with fellow employees, superiors, and customers. It is suggested to create programs to reduce or even eliminate employee deviant behavior. Based on the results of this study, the level of deviant behavior of employees is already at a low level, but it is necessary to prevent deviant behaviors in the workplace. Therefore, the company needs to handle and strive so that there is no more deviant behavior among frontline employees.
PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk Malang City needs to pay attention to things that can increase work engagement for employees. Employee engagement is proven to have an effect on increasing organizational commitment. One of the important things that can trigger high employee engagement is programs or group activities that can increase employee loyalty to the company. PT. Smartfren Telecom, Tbk Malang City can also design programs to improve communication skills and employee awareness of the company. These programs are expected to trigger employees' sense of belonging in the company, the emergence of employees' willingness to provide input to the company and to be indifferent to the company.

Future Research Suggestions
The results of the research and discussion that have been previously described ultimately recommend several things that need to be considered for future researchers. Further researchers are expected to develop further the scope of research objects and other variables that can increase organizational commitment, employee engagement. Additionally, future research is suggested to observe more variables that can reduce the level of employee deviant behavior, such as job characteristics, nature of rewards received, personal characteristics, as well as factors that can improve employee engagements such as job demands, personal resources, job resources, and social capital.