Explaining the paradigm model of anti-productive behaviors in Sports Boards

Subject Areas : Others

Zainab Badeli ¹ , Asra Asgari ² , Amin Rashid Lamir ³ , Zayalabedi, Falah ⁴ , Taher Behlekeh ⁵

1 - PhD Student in Strategic Management, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan Branch, Gorgan, Iran
2 - Explaining the paradigm model of anti-productive behaviors in Sports Boards
3 - Assistant Professor of Sports Management, Boroujerd University, Boroujerd, Iran
4 - Associate Professor of Sports Management, Islamic Azad University of Gorgan, Gorgan, Iran
5 - Assistant Professor of Sports Management, Islamic Azad University of Gorgan, Gorgan, Iran

Received: 2022-12-30 Accepted : 2023-04-26 Published : 2023-05-22

Keywords: Golestan, Productivity, Grounded Theory, Sports,

Abstract :

The purpose of this study is to explain the paradigm model of anti-productive behaviors in Sports Boards the present study in terms of purpose is Practical and In terms of data collection method Was Descriptive survey. In the first part (qualitative) for conducting field interviews, the statistical population of the study, prominent professors in the field of sports management specializing in organizational behavior and also some managers of sports boards in Golestan province who had doctoral studies, these people purposefully for interviews Qualitative was selected in the research topic (16 interviews with 16 people and continued until theoretical saturation) and in the second part (quantitative) after collecting information from qualitative research, a questionnaire was made and this questionnaire (66 items in 22 components) among managers and employees of sports boards in Golestan province. Distributed randomly (110 samples). Max QDA Pro version software was used to analyze the interviews and extract the research codes. SPSS software version 24, Smart PLS version 0.2 were used to review and answer the research and drawing questions and to formulate the measurement model and structural model. Based on the results of analyzing the qualitative data obtained from the interviews, the paradigm model of behaviors Anti-productive in sports boards containing 28 categories in the form of six dimensions including causal causes (four categories), main phenomenon (four categories), strategy (seven categories), underlying factors (three categories), intervening conditions (two categories) ) And consequence (eight categories).

References:

• Abdul Rahim, A.R., Shabudin, A., Nasurdin, A.M. (2016). Effects of Job Characteristics on Counterproductive Work Behavior among Production Employees: Malaysian Experience. International Journal of Business and Development Studies, 8(1): 117-139. (Persian)


• Bennett, R.J., Robinson, S.L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 349-360.


• Chehrazi, S., Gholipour, A., Pirannejad A. (2014). Investigating the effect of servant leadership style on employees' anti-productivity behaviors. Organizational Behavior Studies, Volume 4, Number 2, pp. 99-118. (Persian)


• Chernyak-Hai, L., Tziner, A. (2014). Relationships between counterproductive work behavior, perceived justice and climate, occupational status, and leader-member exchange. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30: 1-12


• Chirumbolo, A. (2015). The Impact of Job Insecurity on Counterproductive Work Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Honesty-Humility Personality Trait. Journal of Psychology, 149(6):554-569.


• Di Stefano, G., Scrima, F., Parry, E. (2019). The Effect of Organizational Culture on Deviant Behaviors in the Workplace. International journal of human resource management, 30(17): 2482-2503.


• Dineen, B.R., Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 622–635.


• Dischner, S. (2015). Organizational structure, organizational form, and counterproductive work behavior: A competitive test of the bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic views. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(4): 501-514.


• Gruys, M.L., Sackett, P.R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11: 30-42


• Güllü, S. (2018). Counterproductive behaviors: A case study of a private sports business. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 4(2): 393-404.


• Jaffe, R. (2017). The Relationship between perceived gender discrimination and counterproductive work behaviors. University of Central Florida.


• Joe-Akunne, C.O., Oguegbe, T.O., Aguanunu, R. (2014). Exploratory Study of Job Insecurity and Entrepreneurial Intention as Correlates of Counterproductive Work Behavior. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(5): 41-52.


• MacLane, C.N., Walmsley, P.T. (2010). Reducing counterproductive work behavior through employee selection. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1): 62-72.


• Mehta, K.R. (2004). Examining the relationships between motivational traits and counterproductive work behaviors. Master's Theses, Louisiana State University.


• Nusrat Panah, S., Hassani, K, Yazdi, O. (2011). Investigating the relationship between quality of work life and productivity of human resources. Human Resource Management Research, Imam Hossein University, Volume 4, Number 1, pp. 189-206. (Persian)


• Olivira, L.B., Junior, V.A.M, Goncalves, R.C. (2020). Individual and Situational Antecedents of Counterproductive Work Behaviors. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 17(3).


• Pashazadeh, Y., Teymouri Azar, P. (2017). The effect of IT governance on anti-productivity behaviors considering the mediating role of job alienation in professional and machine structures. Productivity Management, Volume 12, Number 46, pp. 129-155. (Persian)


• Penney, L.M., Spector, P.E. (2002) Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1): 59–67.


• Qatnian, S., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Tejari, F., Zarei, A. (2021). Calculating the efficiency, effectiveness and efficiency of sports federations through data envelopment analysis (DEA). Physiology and management research in sports, 13(2): 9-27.


• Ranjbari, R., Baqerzadeh, M. (2013). Ranking of Tabriz Agricultural Bank branches based on manpower productivity and examining its impact on branch performance. Productivity Management, Volume 8, Number 31, pp. 141-157. (Persian)


• Safari Oqjaz, F., Rangriz, H. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relationship between intellectual capital and human resource productivity. Productivity Management, Volume 14, Number 55, pp. 50-71. (Persian)


• Salmani, D., Radmand, M. (2008). Investigating the role of organization and management in the occurrence of deviant work behaviors. Government Management, No. 3, pp. 51-68. (Persian)


• Selvarajan, T.T., Singh, B., Cloninger, P.A., Misra, K. (2019). Work–Family Conflict and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: Moderating Role of Regulatory Focus and Mediating Role of Affect. Organization Management Journal, 16(1): 42-54.


• Spector, P.E., Fox, S., Penney, L.M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68: 446-460.


• Sypniewska, B. (2020). Counterproductive Work Behavior and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Adv Cogn Psychol, 16(4): 321–328.


• Tsekov, V. (2018). Understanding and reducing counterproductive work behaviors in organizations.