Some obstacles hindering the achievement of organizational goals may show up, and some of these obstacles can stem from organizational deviant behaviors. [a1] Organizational deviance can be described as the mismatch of employees' behavior with the expectations and rules of the organization. This concept may include various behaviors ranging from the unimportant ones like gossiping or embarrassing the co-workers to the serious ones like theft and sabotage which have important results (Avcı, 2008).

Organizational deviant behaviors are the behaviors like lying, slowdown strike, harassment, gambling, disobedience, violence (Demir, 2009), theft, embezzling, mobbing (O’Neill et al., [u2] 2011) which lead to adversity for organizations. Robinson and Bennet (2000) consider such behaviors as the voluntary acts breaking the organizational norms. Vaguan defines organizational deviance as an activity, situation or formation which deviates from formal goals, normative standards and expectations, and which results in lower outcomes than expected (Brady, 2010). [u3] Deviant behaviors emerge disguised as actions like stealing from the office, sharing

the confidential information with unauthorized people, ignoring the manager and ratting the working environment (Zhang et al., 2008).

Organizational deviance is considered as the act of abnormal organizations. This is because such behaviors are contrary with the usual expectations of the organization (Ermann and Lundman, 1978). [u4] In some cases, deviant behaviors are perceived as non-functional by the organization, they can be considered to be beneficial by the staff. This is because deviant behaviors may contribute to the protection of honesty, self-respect and independence of employees (Lawrence and Robinson, 2007).  [u5] Deviant behaviors that are beneficial for the organization are referred as positive deviant behaviors within the related literature. Some researchers like Spareitzer et al. (2004) have developed a different approach towards organizational deviant behaviors by adding the positive to the organizational discipline.  This approach is based on the assumption that not only the negative but also positive organizational deviant behaviors can be exhibited in the workplace (Appelbaum et al., 2007). Positive deviant behaviors can be exemplified as creative acting, disobeying non-functional orders, criticizing insufficient management, easing things for the organization without permission (Avcı, 2009).            

Researchers working on organizational deviant behaviors have handled these behaviors as the negative ones harming the organization, and so these behaviors have been studied as the negative behaviors within the related literature.  The focus of organizational behaviors are negative behaviors such as absenteeism, withdrawal, concealing, sexual abuse, making unethical decisions, disobeying the instructions of the management, slowdown strike, being late for work, damaging the equipment, gossiping and sabotage (Muafi, 2011).

Bodla and Danish (2011) state that organizational deviance emerges with the violation of the organizational traditions, policies and internal regulations by a person or a group that will jeopardize the welfare of the organization (Parks et al., 2013). Skarlicki and Folger (1997) emphasize the direct relation between people’s organizational behaviors and their rage, anger or resentment towards the organization in cases where equal organizational decisions are not made (Ferris et al., 2012).

Boye and Jones (1997) and Vardi et al. (1996) state that behaviors in the workplace are affected by personal, interpersonal, social and organizational factors (Peterson, 2002). According to the theory of deviation, the tension resulting from the mismatch between the organizational and social regulations and the individual demands and needs leads to these behaviors. The level of satisfaction with their job has a significant effect on people’s lives.  The satisfaction with the job has positive effects both on people’s psychological health and on their physical well-being. Likewise, a lower satisfaction level or dis-satisfaction may cause some problems (Demir, 2009). The studies show that  people  exhibit  deviant  behaviors when they feel themselves or the future of the organization is in danger or when they think they are hard done. [a6]

The deviant behaviors may vary depending on the context it is used. Robinson and Bennett (1995) explain the deviant behaviors [u7] in terms of two factors: violence and target. These factors are defined by Robinson and Bennett (1995) as follows:

1. Violence: This factor is related with whether the behaviors are damaging the organization or the staff while violating the organizational norms. This is related with such behaviors as favoritism or absenteeism without permission. More serious behaviors may include physical anger (reaction) and theft.

2. Target: This factor is related to whether it is towards the organization or the members of the organization. Deviations towards the organization may include vandalism, theft and sabotage. Examples of deviations towards individuals may include gossiping, accusing others and physical attack.

The deviations within these two dimensions make up the four types of deviation. Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) typology of negative workplace which explains workplace behaviors in terms of the target and violence factors are presented in Figure 1.

When they are targeted at the individual, workplace behaviors emerge as behaviors with slight violence (like gossiping and favoritism) or as behaviors with serious violence (like sexual harassment and violence). When they are targeted at the organization, behaviors are categorized as behaviors with slight violence (like absenteeism and being late) or as behaviors with serious violence (like theft and sabotage).

Due to their focus on the output, followers may sometimes deviate from the rules or commit organizational crimes in the competitive business world.  Transformational leadership is different from other leadership types in that it has a particular moral effect on the followers.

That is, both the leader and the followers are carried to a different level of morality and values. The followers of a transformational leader are encouraged to reveal the morality in their actions and to be cautious about their path and deviant behaviors in order to make sure that they are ethical (Pradhan and Pradhan, 2014).

According to Avey et al. (2010) and Bean et al. (1986) there is negative correlation between the control and flexible leadership and organizational deviation; that is, the more the control and flexible leadership is present, the less deviation is observed in the organization (Abdullah and Marican, 2014). It is suggested that the control and flexible leadership should be benefitted from in order to deal with the organizational and interpersonal deviance (Abdullah and Marican, 2014).

As  stated  earlier,  there is a negative relation between some leadership styles and organizational deviation. Within this study, the relations between the multifactor leadership and organizational deviation were revealed. In order to clarify the relation between the multifactor leadership and organizational deviation, a more detailed explanation on the multifactor leadership is provided below:

Theory of multifactor leadership

One of the most accepted theories within situational leadership approach is multifactor leadership presented by Bass (1999). According to this theory, leadership consists of transformational, interactional and laissez-faire styles of leadership. Developing his studies on multifactor leadership in 1978, Bass (1999) has made some changes in his studies. In the beginning of his studies, Bass (1999 mentioned that transformational and interactional leadership are adverse and it is impossible for someone to perform both transformational and interactional leadership behaviors. However, backing down this idea in his final set of studies, Bass (1998) states that one may have both of these leadership behaviors and he explains this matter as situationism (BaloÄŸlu et al., 2009).

Concept of transformational leadership has started to be examined by introducing its differences from interactional leadership. In 1973, Downtown stated that transformational leaders differed from the interactional leaders through their rebellious, revolutionary and reformist features. The concept of transformational leadership was firstly examined in literature by Burns (1978). [u1] Burns (1978) built his theory being affected by Zalenik’s approach that oversees public needs and presents them in a new vision (Avolio and Bass, 2004).  Burns (1978) defined transactional [u2] leadership as connected more to past and traditions, and transformational leadership as focused more on innovation, changing and reforms (Owen et al., 2007). However, these studies of Burns (1978) remained limited because the theory was not clear, and survey tool had not been developed yet. Studies in field of transformational leadership increased after Burns (1978) studies (Eraslan, 2006). This emergent leadership paradigm gained importance subsequent to classification transformational, interactional and laissez faire leadership types.

Transformational leadership is defined as pushing the limit, influence and counseling process in which followers discover their competence (Avolio and Bass, 2004). By continuously developing their capacity, transformational leaders endeavor to direct group for the aims to support their followers. For this, they struggle more than expected. These efforts of transformational leaders increase staff’s motivation, self-competence, pleasure and devotion (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Transformational leaders think it is possible to achieve more when there is more performance than expected before. Because of this reason, they persuade the followers to use their standards of morale and ethic at a high level (Avolio and Bass, 2004). Vision factor made use of motivating. In this process, leaders listen to their staff, and try to figure out values and provision they have (Tanrıverdi and PaÅŸaoÄŸlu, 2014).

A transformational leader enables his/her staff to overcome problems or difficulties that they encounter, and provide them with autonomy for raising their performance and competence (Bass et al., 2003).  As Currie and Loackett (2007) mention, transformational leadership is a kind of leadership that is aware of personal differences, and meets the needs of subordinates. Transformational leadership is generally observed in four dimensions. These are inspirational and intellectual moti-vation, idealized influence and customized importance (Avolio and Bass, 2004). Leader’s determining vision and mission of organization in company with members is called idealized influence. Inspirational motivation is defined as creating team spirit of an organization to reach its aims and increase performance. As for intellectual motivation, it means creating a supportive environment where individual differences are considered. In this way, opinion of subordinates is appreciated (Tourish and Pinnington, 2002).

Transactional[u3]  leadership is built upon an agreement between the leader and his followers based on accomplishing tasks and rewarding when someone is successful (Avolio and Bass, 2004). Transactional leaders want to be sure that their followers’ performance is good enough and they accomplish their tasks. In transactional leadership style, leaders clearly explain what they want from their followers and explain how they are going to be rewarded in return. For Bass (1998), transactional leaders perform these two kinds of behavior: conditional reward and exceptional manage-ment. While conditional reward behavior is based on a leader rewarding his followers in return for desired performance or behavior, exceptional management behavior dwells on a leader’s approach to problems (Bass and Riggio, 2006).

Laissez-faire leaders act as if they need administrative activities least and leave their followers by themselves. Behaviors of laissez-faire leadership can make leaders forget that they have a problem to solve. This matter leads to dissatisfaction of followers. In this type of leadership, it is mentioned that laissez faire leaders are indifferent and they don’t even expose leadership behavior (BaloÄŸlu et al., 2009).

It is possible to argue that organizational deviation behaviors prevent the attainment of the organizational targets. When this process continues, the organizations where there is a high level of deviation can be predicted to collapse. Considering that some leadership styles can decrease the organizational deviation, it is found beneficial to study the relations between organizational deviation and leadership[F4] .

 

Purpose of the study

This research aims to find out relationship between leadership styles and organizational deviant behavior by exploring  school   principals’  leadership  styles,  and  the level of organizational deviant behavior with regard to perceptions of teachers working at Anatolian high schools. In accordance with this aim, these questions will be answered:

1. What is the level of organizational deviant behavior in school according to teachers’ perception?

2. What is the level of school principals’ leadership styles according to teachers’ perception?

3. What kind of relationship exists between organizational deviant behavior and school principals’ leadership styles[u5] ?

 

Multifactor leadership questionnaire was developed by Bass and Avalio (2004) and adapted to Turkish language that was made by Aksu (2015). Scale consists of 34 questions expressing the dimensions of transformational leadership, transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership. Cronbach alpha coefficient is found to be 0.96 for transformational leadership, 0.80 for transactional leadership and 0.83 for laissez-faire leadership. Compliance values obtained from confirmatory analysis are as follows: RMSEA=0.056 GFI=0.87  SRMR=0.065  CFI=0.93 IFI= 0.93 NNFI=0.93 NFI= 0.90

 

Data collection process

 

The data were obtained during the second semester of the 2013 to 2014 academic year. Questionnaires and forms were prepared regarding the total number of the teachers at specific schools. The questionnaires and the forms were to the teachers and taken back with the help of the counselors at the schools. Questionnaires taken from the teachers were evaluated and the ones which had missing or misunderstood parts were eliminated. All in all, 557 questionnaires were evaluated. Questionnaire given to the teachers consists of three sections which are personal information form, Workplace Deviance Scale and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.  Personal information form is used in order to examine the variables to recognize teachers. Workplace Deviance Scale and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is a 5-point Likert-type scale consisting "Strongly Disagree", "Disagree", "Neutral", "Agree," to "Strongly Agree". Teachers are asked to mark the most relevant answer in order to reveal how often they show the behaviors in the scale. [a3]

The analysis of the data

The data obtained in this study were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows 15.0.  Missing and incorrectly filled scales were not included in the scoring process. In the analysis of data, descriptive analysis; such as, arithmetical average and standard were utilized. Pearson correlation analysis was used to examine the relationship between workplace behaviors and multiple leaderships. Regarding the interpretation of the correlation coefficient from 0.00 to 0.30 low level, from  0.30  to  0.70  medium  level  and  from 0.70 to 1.00 are regarded to have a high level correlation (Büyüköztürk, 2010).

The points to be given to the answers of the scale items range from 1.00 to 5.00. Average scores obtained from the scales, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Workplace Deviance Scale, were analyzed in a way that expresses the perceived level of the scales. [a4] According to Tekin (1991), the average score received from the whole scale from 4.20 to 5:00 is regarded to be strongly agree, 3.40 to 4.19 agree, 2.60 to 3.39 neutral, 1.80 to 2.59 disagree, and 1.00 to 1.79 (Ocak and HocaoÄŸlu, 2014).[a5]

 

The first sub-problem of the study is defined as “What is the level of workplace deviant behaviors in schools according to teachers' perceptions?” The results of the descriptive analysis that is made in order to analyze this sub-problem are given in Table 1.

When Table 1 is examined, it is clear that in general teachers perceive workplace deviant behaviors as “disagree" (xÌ… = 1.86). "Individual deviant behaviors" (xÌ… = 2.15) and "workplace deviant behaviors" (xÌ… = 2.07) which are the sub-dimensions of workplace deviant behaviors are also perceived as "disagree". It is seen that the views of teachers on "ethical deviant behaviors” is “strongly disagree "(xÌ… = 1.55).        The second sub-problem of the study is defined as, “What is the level of leadership styles of school managers according to the teachers’ perceptions?” The results of the descriptive analysis that is made in order to analyze this sub-problem are given in Table 2. 

Table 2 shows that, "transformational" leadership style (xÌ… = 3.67) and "transactional" leadership (xÌ… = 3.62) style used by school principals are perceived as agree". Another dimension of multi-factorial leadership scale, “laissez-faire" leadership style is perceived as "disagree" (xÌ…= 2, 37).  The third sub-problem of the study is defined as  "what  kind   of   relationship   is   there   between  the leadership styles of the school principles and workplace deviant behaviors?" In order to analyze this sub-problem, Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis was performed. The analysis results are given in Table 3. 

When Pearson Product-Moment Correlation analysis results are analyzed, there is a moderate negative correlation a) between individual deviant behaviors and transformational leadership (r=-, 426) and transactional leadership styles (r=- 3, 49). However, there is a low level positive correlation between individual deviant behaviors and laissez-faire leadership style (r=, 206. b). A moderate negative correlation is determined between workplace deviant behaviors, transformational leadership (r = -, 394) and transactional leadership styles (r = -, 311). No significant correlation between workplace deviant behaviors and laissez-faire leadership style has been established. A low level negative correlation is determined between ethical deviant behaviors and transformational leadership (r = -, 255) and transactional leadership styles (r = -, 237).  A low level positive correlation (r =, 182) is determined between ethical deviant behaviors and laissez-faire leadership style.

In terms of organizational deviance, a club of researchers focused on taking absenteeism, reluctance, hiding, sexual abuse, and unethical decision making as negative deviant behaviors (Muafi, 2011). In this research, it was found out that teachers perceived organizational deviant behaviors as “don’t agree” through all over the scale (x=1.86). The most frequent deviant behavior was detected in individual deviant behavior subscale (x=2.15), and the less frequent deviant behavior on the other hand was found in ethical deviant behavior subscale (x=1.55). Considering the levels of organizational deviant behaviors, teachers perceive their deviant behaviors at a low level. On the other hand, the necessity of minimizing deviant behaviors for an organization is obvious regarding the devastating effects of those behaviors. Though deviant behaviors seem low on average in the study, it is better to consider keeping those behaviors even lower.

Throughout the relevant literature, organizational deviance has been referred by various disciplines as a topic of investigation and inquiry. To give an example, Bayın and YeÅŸilaydın (2014) explored nurses’ level of organizational deviance as x=1.86 in health care institutions. As a doctoral dissertation in business administration, Ä°yigün and Çetin (2011) likewise investigated staff’s level of organizational deviance working in pharmaceutical industry. The results suggested that participants' perception of general organizational deviance score for their colleagues was 1.58 on average and 1.26 for themselves. The outcomes of the study also indicated a parallelism between the deviant  behaviors  of the teachers working in Anatolian High Schools and the behaviors of nurses serving in health care institutions.

Recently, organizational deviance studies carried out in educational institutions have also been observed. For instance, Aksu et al. (2015) examined supervisors’ deviant behaviors and explored those supervisors’ unethical individual negative behaviors and their deficiencies in training, and their capacities led to deviance in educational institutions. Likewise, a study carried out by Köse (2013) investigated middle school teachers’ perception of deviant behaviors and its relation to administrators’ strategic leadership skills. Findings revealed that teachers’ perceptions of deviance in their schools were at “seldom” level. Thus, the findings of this particular study and those obtained by Köse (2013) overlap.

Levels of leadership styles in multifunctional leadership scale were also detected by this study. Distributed leadership is recognized as guiding followers to realize their abilities, to push their limits and to find new ways and as a process of influencing them (Avalio and Bass, 2004). In terms of distributed leadership, school administrators were found out to be sufficient in the study. It is figured out that administrators were promoted according to certain criteria in the exams, trained in administration or strived to improve their administrative skills.

Transactional leadership style is on the other hand based on the agreement of awarding followers’ achievements and accomplishing their missions (Avalio and Bass, 2004). In the study, administrators with this leadership style were found to have adequate qualifications that can be understood from Table 2. [u1]

Findings of the study acquired from the subjects also suggested that leaders with transformationa[u2] l and transactional styles had good level of leadership. Administrators with laissez-faire leadership were found to act in a liberal way without relying on their administrative powers. These leaders were keeping away from problem solving though, leading to followers’ dissatisfaction. Laissez-faire leaders were not actually considered as leaders (BaloÄŸlu et al., 2009). The results also shows laissez-faire leaders are less in number compared to other leadership styles.

 

Throughout the study, which examined the relationship between leadership styles and organizational deviant behaviors, significant negative multi-way correlations were revealed between organizational deviance and transformational and transactional leadership. A negative correlation between transformational and transactional leadership can be considered as positive contribution for schools. It was discovered that as school administrators’ scores on transformational and transactional increased, deviant behaviors at schools decreased. There is a positive weak correlation between laissez-faire leadership and organizational deviance. This leads to the idea that an increase in laissez-faire leadership styles can have an effect on the increase in deviance.

Considering the literature related to laissez-faire leadership, there appears two different schools of view. First, followers need autonomy and they work more effectively when they are autonomous. Under this leadership style, group members are motivated to improve themselves and sort out problems on their own ways. When they feel the need, group members can create a group with other people and seek to apply their new ideas (Hacıtahiroğlu, 2012). This view suggests realizing organizational effectiveness when laissez-faire leaders have the chance to work with groups having responsibility and initiative for participation in decision-making and delegation of authority. It can be thought that in such groups with laissez-faire leaders, negative deviant behaviors like absenteeism, reluctance, hiding, sexual abuse, unethical decision making, slowing work deliberately, being late for work, damaging tools, gossip and sabotage tend to decrease. In terms of autonomy, the second view of laissez-faire leadership is different from that of Avolio and Bass (2004) (Hacıtahiroğlu, 2012).

This view of laissez-faire leadership is based on the idea that leaders’ hesitation to use their control and authority leads to holes in  organizations,  and the gaps are filled by unauthorized people (Avolio and Bass, 2004). Followers’ perception of autonomy provided by laissez-faire leaders as administrative holes, can yield to harmful consequences for the organizations if unauthorized people attempt to exploit these holes. The results of this study present finding related to organizational deviance caused by laissez-faire leadership styles. It can be suggested that autonomy is interpreted as administrative holes in organizations.

Transformational leaders address their followers’ ethical views by authorizing them in making decisions and presenting opportunities to improve themselves in problem solving (Bass, 1999). The same thing applies for transactional leaders too. They make their followers to be aware of their roles and expressing their expectations from the organization openly. These kinds of leadership styles make teachers turn their directions to the objectives determined by school administration, changing their perceptions and beliefs about participation, commitment and organizational success (Bass et al., 2003). The study has also demonstrated that organizational deviance is decreased in organizations where roles  and   expectations   are  clearly  stated  and followers are supported and motivated by leaders.

Throughout the literature, organizational deviance is viewed that it is negatively related to the concepts of performance and organizational citizenship (Dunlop and Lee, 2004) and strategic leadership (Köse, 2013). The results obviously demonstrated relationships between organizational deviance and leaderships styles. Further, this investigation is thought to contribute to the literature by elaborating the concepts related to organizational deviance.

 

This study aims to determine the level of organizational deviant behaviors and the school managers’ leadership styles in terms of perceptions of the teachers employed at Anatolian High Schools as well as to reveal the relations between them. The results show that the teachers' exhibit low levels of organizational behaviors" (xÌ… = 1.86) and the managers adopt the transformational and transactional leadership style[F1]  (xÌ…_{transformational}  = 3.67; xÌ… _{transactional}= 3.62; xÌ… _{laissez-faire} = 2, 37). The interpretation of the findings has revealed   that    the    leadership   styles    of   the

managers may be effective on the level of their behaviors. The managers with the transformational leadership style who guide and encourage their followers to notice their self-efficacy, push their limits and find new ways, and the ones with the transactional leadership style who increase the performance of the followers by motivating them are capable of decreasing the individual, organizational and ethical deviant behaviors in the organization where they are employed. On the other hand, the managers with the laissez faire leadership style who leave their followers on their own for decisions and practice increase behaviors. The findings of the study point to the need for the training and employing managers who adopt transformational and transactional leadership styles as an effective way to decrease organizational behaviors.

 

Within the scope of the study, the level of deviant behaviors of teachers working at Anatolian High Schools in Izmir province was determined. It is recommended to determine the level of workplace deviant behavior on different school levels, school types and samples. Deviant behaviors, even at low levels, are seen as an important area of research. In addition, as shown in the results of the study, in order to reduce deviant behaviors, it is recommended to train leaders who tend to show transactional and transformational leadership behaviors.

The author has not declared any conflicts of interest.