Journal of Strategic Management Studies

Journal of Strategic Management Studies

Identification and explanation of a job satisfaction model for enhancing organizational performance through human capital synergy among scientific assistants

Document Type : Research

Authors
Samad Rahimiaghdam 1
Mohammad Faryabi 1
Behzad Hajihosseinlou 2
Javad Moghtader Kargaran 3
1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Economics and Management, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
2 MA graduated, Faculty of Economics and Management, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
3 PhD graduated, Researcher and University Instructor, Tabriz, Iran
10.22034/smsj.2025.521446.2147
Abstract
Introduction: The success of an organization largely depends on the efforts of its employees, as they implement strategic action. Just as other social sciences have continued to evolve in their theories and models, organizational behavior has also transformed from a relatively simple discipline with a narrow focus into a much richer and more comprehensive field. A set of new concepts and variables has emerged as part of this evolution in theory and research. Although some of these newly defined behaviors are functional in nature, others are significantly less functional. We call these behaviors the "dark side" of organizational behavior, which includes motivated behaviors by an employee or a group of employees that have negative consequences for an individual in the organization, other groups within the organization, or the organization itself. Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB) encompass a wide range of employee behaviors that are detrimental to organizations. All counterproductive and dysfunctional actions and behaviors share the common characteristic of violating the legitimate interests of an organization and are potentially harmful to its members or the organization as a whole. Research defines dysfunctional work behaviors as actions intended to harm the organization or its other members. Examples of dysfunctional behaviors include aggression, verbal conflicts between employees, gossiping and stealing from colleagues, spreading rumors, theft from the organization, sabotage and destruction of organizational resources, sharing confidential organizational information, and shirking work.

Methodology: The present study is applied in terms of purpose, descriptive in terms of the level of control over variables, and field-based in terms of data collection method, with the data collection tool being a questionnaire. The statistical population of this research includes all employees of the East Azerbaijan Building Engineering Organization, whose number, according to the organization's statistics in the year 1401 (2022-2023), is 205 people. The sample size, calculated using Cochran's formula, was selected as 134 from the aforementioned population. Sampling was done randomly. The research questionnaire contains indicators related to measuring variables to answer the research questions and examine the hypotheses. A questionnaire was used to collect data. The questionnaire used in the study consisted of two types of questions: general and specialized. The first category covered general information about respondents’ individual characteristics such as gender, age, and education level, while the remaining questions were dedicated to the scales related to the research variables. Also, to collect data, the questionnaire developed by Misler et al. (2019) was used to measure the research variables. The questionnaire was based on a five-point Likert scale. All questions were formatted on a 5-point Likert scale, with scores assigned as follows: 5 for strongly agree, 4 for agree, 3 for neutral, 2 for disagree, and 1 for strongly disagree.

Results and Discussion: To examine the assumption of normality of the data distribution, the Shapiro-Wilk test was performed. The results indicated that all research variables follow a normal distribution (significance level > 0.05). Therefore, the use of parametric methods and structural modeling is appropriate. According to Table 5 and the presence of an indirect effect between the perception of organizational policies and individual and organizational counterproductive work behavior, it can be concluded that the impact of the independent variables on the dependent variables is also conditional and indirect. Therefore, the mediating role of employee hostility between the perception of organizational policies and individual and organizational counterproductive work behavior is confirmed, with the magnitude of this indirect effect being 0.248 and 0.177, respectively. The research findings are highly significant for human resource managers and organizational leaders. Creating transparency in decision-making, reducing political behaviors, and promoting organizational justice are among the most important strategies that can mitigate employees' negative perceptions. Furthermore, designing psychological interventions to reduce hostility among employees through training in communication skills and conflict management is recommended.


Conclusion: The present study aimed to examine the effect of employees’ perception of organizational policies on the occurrence of individual and organizational counterproductive behaviors, with hostility as a mediating variable. Data analysis using structural equation modeling showed that all research hypotheses were confirmed. Specifically, the perception of organizational policies has a significant and positive effect on hostility, as well as on individual and organizational counterproductive behaviors. Moreover, hostility, as a mediating variable, strengthens this relationship. These findings indicate that perceived unfair policies within an organization increase tension and hostility among employees, creating a context for the emergence of inefficient and destructive behaviors. This research, conducted for the first time in Iran, demonstrated a positive effect among the study hypotheses and confirmed the mediating role of hostility, which is consistent with similar studies conducted internationally.




Keywords
Perception of organizational policies
Individual counterproductive behaviors
Organizational counterproductive behaviors
Hostility
Subjects
1.    Asadi, F. (2015). A comparison of counterproductive work behaviors among employees with and without aggressive tendencies (Master’s thesis, University of Guilan). [In Persian]
2.    Ashkoor Vakili, M. (2021). The relationship between perception of organizational politics and perceived organizational support with organizational citizenship behavior among Education Department staff in Tonekabon (Master’s thesis, Allameh Tabataba'i University). [In Persian]
3.    Bayramzadeh, S., Karimi Jafari, F., & Ghoroubi, S. (2024). Identifying effective factors, dimensions, and consequences of strategic thinking. Strategic Management Studies Quarterly, 15(60), 117–132. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22034/smsj.2023.396144.1846
4.    Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410
5.    Bodla, M. A., & Danish, R. Q. (2009). Politics and workplace: An empirical examination of the relationship between perceived organizational politics and work performance. South Asian Journal of Management, 16(1), 44.
6.    Borouki Milan, Sh. (2015). The interactive role of perceived organizational politics and cognitive relational capital in professional ethics and turnover intention among University of Kurdistan staff (Master’s thesis, Shahid Madani University of Azerbaijan). [In Persian]
7.    Chen, H., Richard, O. C., Boncoeur, O. D., & Ford Jr, D. L. (2020). Work engagement, emotional exhaustion, and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business Research, 114, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.018
8.    De Clercq, D., Sofyan, Y., Shang, Y., & Romani, L. E. (2021). Perceived organizational politics, knowledge hiding and diminished promotability: How do harmony motives matter?. Journal of Knowledge Management.
9.    Eckhardt, C., Norlander, B., & Deffenbacher, J. (2004). The assessment of anger and hostility: A critical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001
10. Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2013). Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on authentic leadership and organizational deviance. Management Research Review, 36(9), 828–848. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06-2012-0142
11. Fedorowicz, N. (2021). Hostile work climate and counterproductive work behaviors: The role of situational awareness self-efficacy and personality (Doctoral dissertation).
12. Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions.
13. Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Fontaine, R. G., Barbaranelli, C., & Farnese, M. L. (2015). An integrative approach to understanding counterproductive work behavior: The roles of stressors, negative emotions, and moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(1), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2209-5
14. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., Bruursema, K., & Kessler, S. R. (2012). The deviant citizen: Measuring potential positive relations between counterproductive work behaviour and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02032.x
15. Goo, W., Choi, Y., & Choi, W. (2022). Coworkers' organizational citizenship behaviors and employees' work attitudes: The moderating roles of perceptions of organizational politics and task interdependence. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(5), 1011–1035. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2021.14
16. Griffin, R. W., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2004). The dark side of organizational behaviour. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17. Hadlington, L., Binder, J., & Stanulewicz, N. (2021). Exploring role of moral disengagement and counterproductive work behaviours in information security awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106557
18. Jafariani, H., Mortazavi, S., Nazemi, S., & Bull, P. (2012). Political behavior in...
19. Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., Prosser, M., & Cameron, J. E. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior as protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.005
20. Khattak, M. N., Zolin, R., & Muhammad, N. (2020). The combined effect of perceived organizational injustice and perceived politics on deviant behaviors. International Journal of Conflict Management, 32(1), 62–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.005
21. Meisler, G., Drory, A., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2019). Perceived organizational politics and counterproductive work behavior: The mediating role of hostility. Personnel Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2018-0461
22. Miao, Q., & Zhou, J. (2020). Corporate hypocrisy and counterproductive work behavior: A moderated mediation model of organizational identification and perceived importance of CSR. Sustainability, 12(5), 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051847
23. Mohseni, R. (2021). The impact of perceived organizational politics on organizational silence through the mediating variable of organizational cynicism and moderating role of perceived support (Master’s thesis, Payame Noor University, Gilan Province). [In Persian]
24. Moradi, Sh. (2020). The effect of decision-making method (individual or group) and virtual communication on patterns of common resource perception, violence, and hostility in society (Master’s thesis, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies). [In Persian]
25. Moghtaderkargaran, J. (2025). Providing a comprehensive knowledge-based human resource productivity model with a mixed approach. Library and Information Studies, 36(3), 200–223. https://doi.org/10.30484/nastinfo.2025.3662.2301
26. Oghiyan, A., Rezaeian, A., & Gholamzadeh, D. (2023). A multi-level model design for human resource performance management in Tehran Municipality. Strategic Management Studies Quarterly, 15(60), 233–255. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22034/smsj.2023.411980.1921
27. Rahimiaghdam, S., Salehpour, P., & Namvar, R. (2024). Ethical challenges of adopting artificial intelligence in human resource management. Ethics in Science and Technology Quarterly, 19(4). [In Persian] http://ethicsjournal.ir/article-1-3026-fa.html
28. Rahimiaghdam, S., Sanoubar, N., & Ghorbanimoaddab, P.  (2024). Effect of Managerial Coaching on Tour Guides' Turnover Intention: The Mediating Role of Work Engagement and Employability. International Journal of Organizational Leadership 13(First Special Issue - 2024) 140-159.
29. Rasekh, N., Khanmoradi, S., & Zardashtian, Sh. (2019). The impact of perceived organizational politics and organizational support on deviant behaviors in sports organizations of Western Iran. Strategic Studies on Youth and Sports, 18(43), 1–36. [In Persian] https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.2322522.1392.1.0.14.8
30. Rezaeian, A. (2004). Managing political behaviors in organizations. Tehran: SAMT Publications. [In Persian]
31. Royle, M., Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). The interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy on political behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational Analysis, 13(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028991
32. Safarpour, Z. (2016). The effect of job stress and negative emotional reactions on dysfunctional behaviors of employees (Case study: Management and Planning Organization of Fars Province) (Master’s thesis, Allameh Tabataba'i University). [In Persian]
33. Sahi, Q. B., & Ahmad, M. (2019). Impact of job insecurity and moral disengagement on counterproductive work behavior. City University Research Journal, 9(2).
34. Samiri, F. (2018). The impact of behavioral integrity on employees' trust in their manager considering the moderating role of perceived organizational politics (Master’s thesis, Tarbiat Modares University). [In Persian]
35. Smith, T. W. (1992). Concepts and methods in the study of anger, hostility, and health. In Anger, hostility, and the heart (pp. 81–128).
36. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior and organisational citizenship behavior: Are they opposite forms of active behavior?. Applied Psychology, 59(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00414.x  
37. Spielberger, C. D. (1992). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory: Professional manual (Research ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
38. Szostek, D. (2019). The impact of the quality of interpersonal relationships between employees on counterproductive work behavior: A study of employees in Poland. Sustainability, 11(21), 5916. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215916  
39. Tatarka, C. J. (2009). The perceptions of organizational politics in the national guard (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University).
40. Wen-Wei, Y., Shih-Chin, C., & Shih-I, Y. (2009). The impact of perceptions of organizational politics on workplace friendship. African Journal of Business Management, 3(10), 548–554. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM09.001
41. Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800205
42. Zahid, F., Butt, A. N., & Khan, A. K. (2022). Political skill and self-serving counterproductive work behaviors: Moderating role of perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(5), 993–1010. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.35
43. Zhang, Y., Crant, J. M., & Weng, Q. (2019). Role stressors and counterproductive work behavior: The role of negative affect and proactive personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(3), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12252
44. Hosseinian, S., & Sharaiti Jam, H. (2017). Developing a strategy for the human resource retention process. Strategic Management Studies Quarterly, 9(36), 19-39. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.22286853.1397.9.36.2.7
45. Shayanmehr, V., Jafari Nia, S., & Khodami, S. (2025). The Impact of Human Resource Management Strategies on Organizational Resilience with Strategic Agility. Strategic Management Studies Quarterly, 16(63), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.22034/smsj.2024.401628.1871
 
Journal of Strategic Management Studies
Volume 17, Issue 65
Winter 2026
Pages 75-96

  • Receive Date 05 May 2025
  • Revise Date 17 July 2025
  • Accept Date 16 November 2025