Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 25 Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies (JAEBS) Journal homepage: https://pepri.edu.pk/jaebs ISSN (Print): 2523-2614 ISSN (Online) 2663-693X Person-Organization Fit as determinant of Constructive Deviance Behavior: the mediating role of Psychological Ownership and the moderating role of Collectivist Orientation. A Conditional Process Analysis Kamil Hussain1,Saima Aftab2 & Mahwash Ghafoor Chaudhry3 123 Department of Management Sciences, University of Wah, Wah Cantt, Pakistan ABSTRACT Deviant behaviors of employees have been into research considerations for long however, research on constructive deviance behaviors, keeping in view its non-contingency, still needs consideration. This study focuses on determining how Person-Organization Fit (P-O fit) predicts Constructive Deviance Behavior (CDB) among employees. To analyze the mechanism involved, Psychological Ownership (PO) is studied as a mediating mechanism between the direct relationship of person- organization fit and constructive deviance behaviors. Moreover, Collectivist Orientation (CO) is taken as a moderating variable on the relationship of psychological ownership and constructive deviance behaviors. A total of 561 managerial employees from informatics industry were included in the sample. Findings show that person-organization fit, psychological ownership and collectivist orientation were significantly related to constructive deviance behaviors. Psychological ownership mediates the link between person origination fit and construct deviance behaviors, while collectivist orientations moderate the relationship between psychological ownership and constructive deviance behaviors. At the low, moderate, and high levels of collectivist orientation (moderator), conditional indirect effects of person-organization fit on constructive deviance behaviors through psychological ownership (mediator) were significant. Future research studies may examine other antecedents (such as building coalition and networking) of constructive deviance behavior through other mediating mechanism (such as Keywords Person- Organization Fit, Psychological Ownership, Constructive Deviance Behaviours, Collectivistic Orientation JEL Classification D21, D22, D23 Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 26 psychological empowerment), while the consequences (such as creative performance and innovative performance) of constructive deviance behaviors are also needed to be explored to create awareness about the positive side of deviance behaviors. 1. Introduction Workplace deviance is contagious for the organizations Garg et al. (2022). Relationship of workplace deviance behaviors and organizational level outcomes is center of debate for researchers (Garg et al., 2022). Workplace Deviance can be explained as an employee’s voluntary behavior to negate and violate the organizational norms and values and hence potentially risking the very survival of the organization (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Tekmen&Kaptangil, 2022). Behaviors are considered deviant in case of a disregard for organizational and societal rules and regulations (Mishra et al., 2021). Counterproductive work behaviors at individual, group and organizational levels, are synonymously been used by scholars to address deviance behaviors in organizations (Dalal, 2005; Lau et al., 2003; Uggerslev et al., 2012), causing low morals and high stress among employees leading to increased levels of employee turnover (O'Leary-Kelly et al., 1996). However, recent empirical research contests that deviant behavior can be constructive as well as destructive (Martinko et al., 2002). Past studies focused more on negative side of deviance behaviors i.e., counterproductive behaviors and more research studies are needed to explore their positive side i.e., constructive deviance behaviors, as it holds consequences and implications for both individual as well as organizations. Constructive Deviance Behaviors (CDB) can be defined as “voluntary action that violates significant organizational rules while also contributing to the organization's and its members' well-being” (Galperin, 2003). Employees engaged in these behaviors have significant voluntariness and intention to do well (Yildiz et al., 2015). For instance, increase in innovation (Hussain & Rehman, 2020) and creativity (Galperin, 2012; Gino &Wiltermuth, 2014; Krau, 2008; Pascale &Sternin, 2005) are reported as positive consequences of constructive deviance behaviors. Past literature has also discussed some antecedents of CDB such as Person–Organization fit (P-O fit) (Rahman et al., 2022; Ucar et al., 2021). P-O fit can be described as an integration and understanding that exists between the employee and the organization in order to make each of them fulfill the respective needs (Boon and Biron (2016). The P-O fit explains the logic behind the needs- supply fit that is the congruence of the individual’s demand and supply by the organization in response to that demand, an integral part of employment agreement (Ghielen et al., Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 27 2021; Grobler &Holtzhausen, 2018). Once an individual realizes a fit between him and his organization a feeling of psychological ownership (PO) develops (Mehmood et al., 2021). The mediating effect of psychological ownership between the direct relationship of constructive deviance behavior and person organization fit has not been extensively researched. PO can be defined as a psychological compatibility that exists between individual and the organization they work in (Chawla, 2020; Koburtay&Alzoubi, 2021). Individual, cognitive and behavioral tendencies are the key to behavioral outcomes on the job (Rafferty &Minbashian, 2019). Research found that collectivist orientation (CO) is an important factor that impacts an employee’s behaviors to greater extent (Zulfiqar et al., 2019). CO can be defined as views about one’s self, of how his goals and the goals of the group he works in are interdependent (Hagemann et al., 2020). One’s perception about the relationship with other group memebers and group cohesiveness plays a key role in driving human behaviors at work (Hagemann et al., 2020; Hofstede, 2001). The culture of the organizations determines how its people behave (Shahzad et al., 2013). Software housing industry is the fastest developing around the world (Chureemas, 2021). Innovation and creativity is the blood and bones of software houses (Haque &Oino, 2019). Previous research has focused mainly on the negative side of deviance behaviors (Yıldız&Alpkan, 2015), while the focus of this study is to explore the positivity attached with CDB. This area of research is still untapped (Galperin, 2012). This study is taking P- O fit as a predictor of CDB, with a moderating impat of CO on the direct relationship of PO and CDB. In light of the potential and significance the present area of research holds for the academia and in view of the valuable contribution the present the study will make to the in the existing body of knowledge, the present study attempts to study the constructive deviance behaviors. The relationships between the variables of the current study have been taken on the basis of empirical support/explicit theoretical support or implicit theoretical support in the existing literature. Hence, ample literature support has been presented in Table 1 below, to support the logic of the relationships between variables. Table 1: Gap Analysis IV Mediator Moderator DV Empirical support Explicit theoretical support Implicit theoretical support P-O fit CDB - - Elçi et al. (2008) and Liu et al. (2011) P-O fit PO CDB - - Jawad et al. (2013); Cable and Judge (1996); Liu et al. (2011); Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 28 Sharkawi et al. (2013) PO CO CDB Chung and Moon (2011) - - The table above shows that unique relationships studied in this research is novel and needed investigation. These gaps were also suggested to be studied by Chung and Moon (2011) and Yildiz et al. (2015). 1.1 Problem statement According to the World Economic Forum Report (2015), Pakistan ranks 111th out of 139 countries in terms of creativity, according to the Martin Prosperity Institute's Global Creativity Index (2015), and 99th out of 132 countries according to the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) Global Innovation Index (2021), indicating that there are issues in Pakistani organizations that do not allow or give employees the independence to be creative. We are living in such fascinating times that sincere, smart, and honest management of organizations must be willing to take risky judgments and actions that may contradict corporate conventions and policies. Management must re- evaluate and re-construct their approach to management, which may include making difficult decisions. Constructive deviance behaviors are one of those courageous and unpleasant moves that can benefit the organization. Second, there has been very little research in Pakistan on the topic of constructive deviance behaviours. So, the study's purpose was to raise awareness in Pakistan about deviance behaviours, namely that not all deviance behaviours are destructive; some are constructive and can be useful in fostering creativity and innovation in Pakistani organizations, and to close the gap in the area of constructive deviance behaviours and their relationship with the aforementioned independent variable, mediator and moderator. 1.2 Contextual analysis Software development is without a doubt one of the most crucial strategic industries for any country's economic progress. Software, according to (Al-Jaghoub, 2004), can work as a catalyst for any country's economic progress. Acs and Mueller (2008) found that software enterprises make a beneficial contribution to both knowledge and traditional economies. India's software sector is a great illustration of software development's good contribution to practically all of the country's industrial sectors (Nasscom, 2006). According to Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB), Pakistan's IT and ITes export remittances totaled $1.231 billion in 2019, which is significantly less than India's $137 billion in software exports in the same year, accounting for only 5% Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 29 of the country's total exports, according to Pakistan Bureau of Statistics Report (2019). Despite the fact that Pakistan's IT sector is expanding, the country still lags behind its regional counterparts in terms of IT. As a result, Pakistan cannot be regarded a powerhouse in the field of information technology based on its proportion of worldwide IT sales. On the Pakistan Software Export Board, there are currently 4464 IT companies listed, and approximately 20,000 IT graduates enter the market each year. Freelancers account for a significant share of Pakistan's total IT exports. Pakistan is the third-largest source of freelance programmers, trailing only the United States and India. So, while there are indicators of significant progress in the country's IT sector, statistics show that nine out of ten startups fail, while those who survive generate novel and creative goods and services. As a result, only those companies that offer unique and creative products and services succeed, and software development companies are no exception. In fact, compared to other industries, software development organizations are required to come out with innovative goods more frequently. Various academics have suggested focusing on constructive deviance behaviours as a solution (Robbins & Galperin, 2010; Vadera et al., 2013) 2. Review of Literature 2.1 Relationship between P-O fit and CDB Previous studies consider P-O Fit as an important organizational factor and report different micro, meso and macro level impacts. It reportedly has a positive relationship with various job attitudes i.e., job satisfaction , organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, organizational performance (Bretz Jr & Judge, 1994; Elçi et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2010; O'Reilly III et al., 1991) turnover intentions, job satisfaction. (Arthur Jr et al., 2006; Oh et al., 2014), and job performance (Hoffman &Woehr, 2006). However, a few past studies found that a low degree of P-O fit can negatively result in form of dissatisfaction, alienation, increased turnover intentions and counter-productive workplace behaviors (Jawad et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2010; Sharkawi et al., 2013). Though existing research work investigating the relationship between P-O fit with CDB is limited but it still holds potential of further exploration considering the prediction made by the past studies. According to Cable and Judge (1996), P-O fit positively influences various job attitudes. The concept of right person for the right job is the critical philosophy of P-O fit (Yildiz et al., 2015). According to the Person Environment Theory, individuals are always in search of those organizations whose environment is compatible with their personality traits i.e., one’s abilities, values, needs and wants as it gives them opportunities to make best possible use of these personality Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 30 traits (Kristof-Brown &Guay, 2011). P-O fit can be conceptualized as value congruence creating compatibility between an individual and the organization; he/she works in (Kristof, 1996). Boon and Biron (2016) described P-O fit as integration existing between an employee and the organization and measures the extent of integration in terms of similarity that exist between them enabling them to fulfill their respective needs. Uggerslev et al. (2012), suggest that an individual’s intentions to join an organization are influenced by value congruence existing among individual and organization. Unlike the P-O fit focuses on general supply of the demands made by an individual, the needs- supply approach explains the supply of individual demands in context of specific jobs i.e., person-job fit (Kristof-Brown &Guay, 2011; Kristof, 1996). CDB is defined as the deliberate attempt on behalf of organizational employees to defy norms and values aimed at the wellbeing of members and organization as a whole (Galperin (2003); Spreitzer and Sonenshein (2004)). According to Warren (2003) individual expressing CDB hold on strictly to the hyper norms while going against values of the reference group. Constructive deviance being a broad phenomenon encompasses different kinds of deviance behaviors Warren (2003) such as tempered radicalism (Meyerson & Scully, 1995) , whistle-blowing (Near & Miceli, 1985), counter-role behaviors (Staw&Boettger, 1990), exercising voice (Van Dyne &LePine, 1998), principled organizational dissent (Graham, 1986), creative or functional disobedience (Brief et al., 2001), difference types of pro-social behaviors (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Puffer, 1987) and some types of OCB (Van Dyne et al., 1994). Other than these, creative performance (Amabile et al., 1996), extra-role behaviors (Vandyne et al., 1995), pro-social rule breaking (Morrison, 2006) and issue selling (Dutton & Ashford, 1993) have been discussed in literature. Creative performance, pro-social rule breaking, issue selling, and extra-role behaviors were also included under the rubric of CDB by (Vadera et al., 2013). CDB is considered to be a strong prosocial behavior focusing on doing well for others suffering in organization (Galperin (2003); Spreitzer and Sonenshein (2004)). According to Yildiz et al. (2015) a relationship of P-O fit and CDB is possible through various mediating factors. The positive relationship exiting between perception, behaviors and attitudes can be explained in context of the Social Exchange Theory by Blau (1964). Theory of Social Exchange has formed basis of various research works in the discipline of social sciences (Suárez‐Mendoza and Zoghbi‐Manrique‐de‐Lara (2007). The reciprocal nature of the theory explains how negative or positive perception leads to the resultant behavior (positive or negative) through some associated positive or Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 31 negative attitude (Greenberg & Scott, 1996). Considering the social exchange theory explaining reference to the relationship between perception, attitude, and behavior it can be concluded that perception of fit exiting between individual and organization greatly impacts the attitude pertaining to the psychological learning. This influences CDB. Considering the above discussion, the relationship between P-O fit and CDB can be hypothesized as follows. H1: Person-Organization fit has direct positive relationship with constructive deviance behaviors. 2.2 Relationship between P-O fit and Psychological Ownership The concept of PO was presented by Pierce et al. (2001). It can be described as a feeling experienced by individuals giving them a sense of passion and ownership over some target. According to (Reb & Connolly, 2007) an individual experiencing PO develops mental state leading to possessive attitude towards things over which he may or may not have any right or ownership (Park et al., 2013). This feeling of possession can be extended to any object or idea (Baer & Brown, 2012) or job (Wang et al., 2018) eventually resulting in feelings of territorial responses (Kirk et al., 2018). Though the feeling of PO for any object/idea begins with a possessive feeling but afterwards it develops into a positive attitude leading to strong emotions where individuals takes full control and responsibility of the object / idea as he starts visualizing the it as extension of himself (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). The existence of two psychological states i.e., cognitive state and affective state, adds to the complexity of this phenomenon. Under the cognitive state an individual experiences feeling of ownership over an object or idea whereas in affective state individual thinks he has control over the idea or object which conforms to his beliefs, ideas, and thoughts (Pierce et al, 2003). Various scholars have linked idea of P-O fit with recruitment process (Han et al. (2015). Recruiters choose candidates based on their demand-abilities, and applicants choose organizations based on their need-supply (Cable & Judge, 1997; Kristof-Brown, 2000). Organizations are always on the lookout for people whose personality qualities align with the organization's standards and ideals (Morley, 2007) (O'Reilly III et al., 1991). Similarly, applicants exert efforts to select the organizations which are compatible with their personalities (Schneider, 2001). This concept not only facilitates individuals in making decision about joining an organization but it also helps organizations in predicting whether an individual is interested in joining the organization or not (Cable &DeRue, 2002). Previous research studies on the P-O fit find that it has a positive role in reducing turnover intention, increasing job satisfaction and Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 32 individual’s commitment to the organization (Ambrose et al., 2008; Cable & Judge, 1996; Kristof‐Brown et al., 2005) improves organizational performance (Ambrose et al., 2008), enhances extra-role behaviors (Lauver& Kristof-Brown, 2001) and employee trust (Sekiguchi, 2007). According to (Wagner et al., 2003) the sense of ownership and belonging that an individual experiences is dependent on the level of compatibility that exist between an individual and organizations. In view of above arguments theorizing the relationship between P-O fit and PO, following hypothesis is proposed: H2: Person-Organization Fit has a direct positive relationship with psychological ownership. 2.3 Relationship between PO and CDB PO has been the focus empirical research by many researchers (Liu et al., 2012; Mayhew et al., 2007; Ozler et al., 2008; Pierce et al., 2003; Pierce et al., 2004; Sieger et al., 2011; Sieger et al., 2013). PO has extensively been investigated in relation with deviance behaviors (Avey et al., 2009) such as risk-taking propensity (Pierce et al., 2001) extra-role behaviors (O’driscoll et al., 2006) and organizational citizenship behavior (Mayhew et al., 2007). Yet it still lacks rigorous research supporting this relationship based on empirical findings. PO being intensity of possessiveness due to an individual’s psychological attachment and having cognitive and affective elements, results in constructive deviance behavior (Pierce et al. (2003). Previous research studies (Mayhew et al., 2007; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004) have also validated and supported the positive relationship between PO and its behavioural outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organisational commitment (Mayhew et al., 2007; O'driscoll et al., 2006; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). (Dalal, 2005; LePine et al., 2002). An individual’s ability of PO for evaluative judgment due to affective state enables them to engage in activities and behaviors for the organizational benefit (Pierce et al. (2003). However, Avey et al. (2009) made valuable contribution to the research on PO by exploring the negative effect of PO on deviant behaviors. Hence, it can be hypothesized as: H3: Psychological ownership has a direct positive relationship with constructive deviance behaviors. 2.4 PO as a mediating factor between the relationship of P-O fit and CDB The phenomenon of P-O fit can be further extended with its two different characteristics, supplemental and complementary fit, when considering the importance of the right person for the right job (Kristof, 1996). According to Muchinsky and Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 33 Monahan (1987), supplementary fit occurs when an individual's personality traits are similar to those of others in an organizational environment, whereas complementary fit occurs when an individual's personality traits create or contribute to the organizational environment by providing something valuable that was previously lacking. According to needs-supplies view, a perfect match exists between an employee and its organization, if the organization can meet the expectation of its employees. On the other hand, according to demand-abilities perspective a perfect match exits if an employee’s skills and abilities fulfill needs and requirements of the organization (Caplan, 1987). Blau's (1964) social exchange theory, which suggests that people's perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours are all linked, provides a solid theoretical foundation for proposing PO as a mediator in the relationship between P-O fit and CDB. According to Cable and Judge (1996), there is a favorable association between P-O fit and employee attitudes. A direct association between P-O fit and CDB is not achievable, according to Yildiz et al. (2015), and a major mediating component plays a role. When a P-O fit is created, higher quantities of PO are produced, which leads to higher levels of CDB (Ambrose et al., 2008). (Pierce et al., 2003). As a result, based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis can be proposed. H4: Psychological Ownership mediates the relationship between person-organization fit and constructive deviance. 2.5 Role of CO as a moderator on direct relationship of PO and CDB CO happens to be one of the key dimensions of Hofstede (1980) study placing greater emphasis on the goals and well-being of the groups. Individualism versus collectivism dimension is one of the most used dimensions in cross cultural studies among all the rest with salient features of collectivistic/individualistic orientation commonly found in Eastern as well as Western countries. But there exist a tendency of collectivism in Asian countries unlike the inclination towards individualism in western countries (Jun & Lee, 2007). The concept of CO has been the center of attention and research for many scholars in past who investigated this phenomenon in context of the effect of cultural orientation on employee behavior and attitude (Jiang et al., 2020; Ramamoorthy& Flood, 2002, 2004). One of the studies found that the collectivistic orientation impacts the cognitive and behavioral tendencies of an individual which in turn affects their behavioral outcomes. CO is based on the concept on mutual commitment focusing on the establishment of collective goals and desire to getting along well with others in the group (Li and Chen, 2015). Collectivists possess characteristics of being interdependent and in contract to the individualistic, collectivistic prefer the collective over personal benefits Hofstede (2001). One of the Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 34 reason could be the fact that approximately 60 % of individuals, consider themselves as a member of the group, give more importance to goals of the group over their personal ones (allocentric) while in individualistic culture contains approximately 60% self- centered individuals (idiocentric) (Triandis& Suh, 2002). The concept of CO has extensively been explored in connection with people’s motivation, feelings and conduct (Hofstede, 2001). At psychological level of analysis the concept of collectivist can be defined as individual’s keenness and dedication towards the welfare of groups and its members, norms and objectives (Dierdorff et al. (2011). Many scholars investigating the possibility of impact of cultural orientation on resources owned by a person argue that collectivist people being committed to the group and organizational welfare prefer group goals over their personal goals (Jang et al., 2018) which leads to development of close and strong interpersonal relationship among members of the group (Kim et al., 1994) and do not prefer to separate themselves from their group members by competing with them (Kitayama et al., 1995). Therefore, it can be suggested that CO and CDB are negatively associated as it provokes individual’s defiance of organizational norms and values. Yet some past studies report that some types of deviance behaviors such as extra role behavior (Cho &Faerman, 2010), organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ et al., 2005) and taking charge (Love & Dustin, 2014) has a positive relationship with CO. Considering previous literature, the present research attempts to study the effect of CO as a moderator on the relationship of PO and CDB. Hence, it is hypothesized as follows: H5: CO moderates the direct positive relationship of PO and CDB H6: CO negatively moderates the mediational role of PO between P-O fit and CDB. 3. Research Methodology 3.1 Research Design The current study aims to empirically test proposed relationships on basis of testing quantitative data gathered through AMOS software. The nature of the current research is cross-sectional as it involves collecting data on the hypothesized relationships at a specific point in time. 3.2 Sampling and data collection Individuals working in software houses of Rawalpindi and Islamabad region of Pakistan as software engineers, graphics and animation designers, web page developers and others in the same field form population for the present study. The reason for selecting these employees is the fact that due to increasing demands of flexibility, Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 35 innovative change, and creative advancements these employees are most tempted to violate organizational norms and values for the sake of exercising innovative ideas. This stress prompts them to break organizational rules and regulations for the sake of organizational benefit and thus results in expressing CDB. Existing research also suggests on focusing the employees in information sector as they are more likely to exhibit different types of CDB (Yildiz et al. (2015) . A representative sample (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016) from the target population working in software companies in twin cities (Islamabad and Rawalpindi), namely Awamimarkaz software technology park, KSL software technology park, Evacuee complex software technology park and Rose center software technology park, are selected using the judgment sampling technique. The reason of using judgment sampling is that it allows researchers to go directly to their target population of interest and increases the relevance of the sample to the population of interest. As the employees of software houses are most relevant to the population of interest and fit the particular criteria of creativity and innovation which requires the employees to be constructively deviant of the norms and values of the organization for the wellbeing of the organization. A total of 561 full and valid questionnaires were returned from a total of 600 disseminated, resulting in a 93 percent response rate from the respondents. 3.3 Measurement Instruments Questionnaire consisting of a total 26 items is used to collect data. The questionnaire is designed on a 7-point likert scale. A total of 9 items measuring CDB are adapted from the study of Galperin (2012). Sample item includes “Bent a rule to satisfy a customer’s needs”. P-O fit is measured using items adapted from the research work of Valentine et al. (2002). Sample item includes “I feel that my personal values are good fit with this organization”. A seven items scale is used to measure PO adapted from the study of Van Dyne and Pierce (2004). Sample item includes “This is MY organization”, while a seven item scale of CO has been measured by scale adapted from the study of Robert and Wasti (2002). Sample item includes “Employees are taken care of like members of a family”. The measures in this study were tested to ensure reliability and validity since the adapted items taken from previous studies were designed on 5-point likert scale. 3.4 Analysis technique Instrument validation on basis of the convergent and discriminant validity is done using Factor Analysis whereas the techniques of structure equation modeling is used to measure the association between the latent variables (Babin et al., 2008). Structured Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 36 Equation modeling is a second generation multivariate analysis as it has the capability of combining the multiple regression with factor analysis (Hair et al. (2012). 4. Results 4.1 Demographic statistics A representative sample (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016) from the target population working in software companies in twin cities, are selected using the judgment sampling technique. A total of 561 full and valid questionnaires were returned from a total of 600 disseminated, resulting in a 93 percent response rate from the respondents.Percentages calculated on basis of the qualification of respondents indicate that most of the respondents (52%) were bachelor degree holders, 32% were having a master degree and remaining respondents (16 %) of the participants were MS qualified. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 37 4.2 Measurement Model Figure 2 below explicates the measurement model showing correlationamongPO, P- O fit, CDB and CO. Figure 1: Measurement Model Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 38 Table 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 39 4.3 Discriminant and Convergent validity Discriminant validity assesses if a construct has a strong correlation with measurements that are predicted to be different (Churchill, 1999). It is the measurement of how far the model's measurements differ from one another. All discriminant validity difficulties were overcome by removing components that were more linked with other measures than their own.Similarly, "convergent validity" is "the extent to which several ways of measuring a variable provide the same results” (S. W. O'Leary-Kelly &Vokurka, 1998). All the values of AVE were greater than acceptable threshold level of 0.5, ensuring convergent validity of the scale.Reliability of constructs was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha statistics. Results show that CA values lie within the range between 0.756 and 0.925 which were very much in the acceptable range to establish the reliability of constructs (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). 4.4 Correlation Table 3shows the correlation values indicating that there is a significant relationship among all the constructs at a 0.01 level of significance. The researcher rules out the possibility of multi-collinearity which needs to be resolved if correlation values are greater than 0.80 (Hair et al. (2006), which is not the case for this study Table3: Correlation Variables 1 2 3 4 Constructive Deviance Behaviours 1.00 Person-Organization Fit 0.283** 1.00 Psychological Ownership 0.612** 0.322** 1.00 Collectivist Orientation 0.522** 0.482** 0.362** 1.00 **p<0.01 4.5 Model Fitness According Hair et al. (2006) various indices of fit such as GFI, AGFI, CFI and RMSEA that determines the model fits the data.Table 5 provides the goodness of fit indices for the measurement model, with a GFI of 0.95, AGFI of 0.92, CFI of 0.91, and RMSEA of 0.076, all of which are within the acceptable range (Hair et al, 2006). Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 40 Table 4: Goodness of Fit Indices 4.6 Mediation analysis The present study investigates meditational effect of PO on relationship existing between the P-O fit and CDB. Figure 3 below presents path model for the meditational effect. Figure 2: Mediation Path Model Table 5: Goodness of fit indices for mediation path model Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 41 As indicated in the table above, the model fit indices for the mediation model indicates some issues which need to be resolved through of the modification indices. 4.7 Structural Model after Modification Indices Model modification indices suggest the links to change in the model while checking for improvement in Chi square value. Starting with the largest sensible modification and correlating the error terms of same constructs with highest correlational value an improved model was developed. The improvements made in model by introducing modification indices are evident in Figure 4 below, resulting in improved values of the model fit indices of the resultant model. Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 42 Figure 3: Structural Model The value of CMIN/DF increased from 0 to 2.61 which is within prescribed range of 1 to 3 (Hair et al. (2006). Similarly, the modification indices improved other values such as CFI=0.977, GFI=0.957, AGFI=928, and RMSEA=0.046 which also lie within the acceptable range. Table 6: Goodness of fit indices after modification indices 4.8 Standardized Parameter Estimates (Mediation Results) The results of the mediation of PO on relationship of P–O Fit and CDB can be seen in Table 7. Table7:Standardized Direct / Indirect Effect The results in Table 7 indicate significant correlation existing among PO, CDB and P-O fit. P-O fit significantly effects the PO which in turn significantly impacts the CDB. P-O fit also bears a significant direct relationship with CDB. It also has significant indirect relationship with CDB through PO as a mediator. Since both the direct and indirect relationship was significant it means that PO partially mediates the relationship between P-O fit and CDB. Preacher et al. (2007) believes that significance of indirect standardized path is ample to establish mediation effect in a relationship and since they haven’t focused on partial mediation so they ignore the need to focus on the direct path. The results of indirect regression effect indicate that the indirect effect of P-O fit on Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 43 CDB has increased from 0.11 to 0.175. This shows the significance of the mediational impact of PO. 4.9 Moderated Mediation Analysis Results The present study uses Process macro developed by Preacher et al. (2007) for conducting conditional process analysis. Table 8 below provides the results for moderated mediation. Results show that CO moderates the meditational impact of PO on association existing between P-O fit and CDB. Table 8:Moderated Mediation The findings of the conditional process analysis indicate that all the t- values are greater than 2 and all the p-values are less than 0.5. This means that P-O fit, PO, and CO positively and significantly effect CDB. The values of interaction term i.e., Int_1 (PO×CO) having beta values of -0.091 with p-value of 0.001 and t-value of -3.274. The results in Table 8 above indicate that PO and CDB are negatively moderated by the CO. The beta values reduced from 0.085 to 0.059 and to 0.033 with the increasing values of CO (from 3.5 to 4.7 and to 6.0 respectively). 4.10 Hypothesis summary The following table provides a summary of the accepted or rejected proposed hypothesis. Table 9: Summary of Hypotheses Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 44 5. Discussion and Conclusion The current study intended to investigate the role of PO as a mediator between P-O fit and CDB. Furthermore, the current study evaluates the moderation effect of PO on the relationship existing between P-O fit and CDB. Social exchange theory by Blau (1964) explains and establishes the association among perception, attitude and behaviors. This provides a sound foundation for current study by suggesting that perception of individual such as P-O fit can result in CDB. Past research also supports the positive relationship of P-O fit with other variables such as organizational citizenship behavior, satisfaction with job as well as the organization, organizational performance and commitment (Bretz Jr & Judge, 1994; Elçi et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2010; O'Reilly III et al., 1991). It also highlights the relationship of P-O fit and turnover, dissatisfaction, and counterproductive work behaviors. The results of the present study indicate positive relationship of P-O fit, PO and CDB. The meditational role of PO between the P-O fit and CDB proposed by the present study is also proved in the light of the findings. The results indicate that when a P-O fit is established between individual and its organization, it creates feeling of PO, and this induces an individual to engage in CDB. Despite the fact, that limited literature exists on relationship of P-O fit with CDB, yet some of the past studies have reported evidences suggesting the positive relationship of P-O fit with CDB (Chung and Moon Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 45 (2011) and other behaviors such as extra role behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors (Avey et al., 2009; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). Results similar to the present study have been reported by Yildiz et al. (2015) which shows that relationship between P-O fit and CDB is mediated by PO and the individual experiencing high PO behave in a responsible manner and engage in CDB. This relationship between P-O fit and CDB is also supported by the theory of Stewardship, according to which an individual experiencing high PO are like stewards for the whole organization and are dedicated to organizational wellbeing (Davis et al., 1997). The finding of the present study indicate that a significant relationship exists among CO, PO and CDB. Results show that the impact of PO on CDB is reduced by CO, as it negatively moderates the relationship, conforming to similar results reported by study of Chung and Moon (2011). CO prevents employees from setting themselves apart from the their team / groups and abstain from breaking organizational norms and values (Kitayama et al., 1995). This negative moderation effect of CO explains as to why the individuals having collectivistic orientation refrain from constructive deviance behaviors and do not go against the organizational norms and values. According to the conditional process analysis, CO moderates the mediating relationship of PO and CDB. It means the mediation impact of PO on CDB is weekend or reduced by CO. Results suggest that individual sense of PO is based on good fit among individuals and organization (Pierce et al., 2001) which materializes in the form of CDB (Chung & Moon, 2011) as the collectivistic individuals prefer to engage in behaviors of strictly following norms, values, polices and ensuring organizational wellbeing and refrain from action of violating them (Van Dyne &Pierce, 2004). Similar finding were made by (Chung & Moon, 2011), who found that CO negatively moderates between PO and CDB. The phenomenon of constructive deviance has gained considerable attention of the academia, researchers as well as the practitioners in recent times (Neall & Tuckey, 2014; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Limited research has been done by scholars on the investigating and exploring positive side of CDB as compared to the negative side of this phenomenon. This has come as a surprise for the scholars and practitioners because until now it has not been expected that this negative concept could have a positive side also. The present study adds value to the existing research by exploring the untapped research area i.e., the positive side of the CDB. Investigating the benefits associated this variable in relation P-O fit, PO, CO, CDB as well as the dynamic interaction of these constructs with one another provides a way forward for the future researchers to explore Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 46 CDB in relation to other work behaviours and organizational and individual level outcomes. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 47 References Acs, Z. J., & Mueller, P. (2008). Employment effects of business dynamics: Mice, gazelles and elephants. Small Business Economics, 30(1), 85-100. Al-Jaghoub, S. (2004). Building a knowledge-based economy: using ICTs for development and the role of the national state: a case study of Jordan The University of Manchester]. Ambrose, M. L., Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. (2008). Individual moral development and ethical climate: The influence of person–organization fit on job attitudes. Journal of business ethics, 77(3), 323-333. Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 30(2), 173-191. Babin, B. J., Hair, J. F., & Boles, J. S. (2008). Publishing research in marketing journals using structural equation modeling. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 16(4), 279-286. Baer, M., & Brown, G. (2012). Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 118(1), 60-71. Blau, P. M. (1964). Social exchange theory. Retrieved September, 3(2007), 62. Boon, C., & Biron, M. (2016). Temporal issues in person–organization fit, person–job fit and turnover: The role of leader–member exchange. Human relations, 69(12), 2177-2200. Bretz Jr, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resource systems in job applicant decision processes. Journal of Management, 20(3), 531-551. Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of applied psychology, 87(5), 875. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67(3), 294-311. Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of vocational behavior, 31(3), 248-267. Chawla, P. (2020). Impact of employer branding on employee engagement in business process outsourcing (BPO) sector in India: mediating effect of person–organization fit. Industrial and Commercial Training. Cho, T., & Faerman, S. R. (2010). An integrative model of empowerment and individuals' in- role and extra-role performance in the Korean public sector: Moderating effects of organizational individualism and collectivism. International Public Management Journal, 13(2), 130-154. Chung, Y. W., & Moon, H. K. (2011). The moderating effects of collectivistic orientation on psychological ownership and constructive deviant behavior. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(12), 65. Chureemas, R. (2021). Assessing the Application of Intellectual Property Law for Software Development in Relation to International Law and The Industry Response. ABAC Journal, 41(2), 259-270. Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 48 Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 90(6), 1241. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of management review, 22(1), 20-47. Dierdorff, E. C., Bell, S. T., & Belohlav, J. A. (2011). The power of “we”: Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time. Journal of applied psychology, 96(2), 247. Elçi, M., Alpkan, L., & Çekmecelioğlu, H. (2008). The influence of person organization fit on the employee’s perception of organizational performance. 4th International Strategic Management Conference, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovnia, Galperin, B. L. (2003). Can workplace deviance be constructive? In Misbehaviour and dysfunctional attitudes in organizations (pp. 154-170). Springer. Galperin, B. L. (2012). Exploring the nomological network of workplace deviance: Developing and validating a measure of constructive deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 2988-3025. Garg, N., Kumari, S., & Punia, B. (2022). Resolving stress of university teacher: exploring role of workplace spirituality and constructive workplace deviance. South Asian Journal of Business Studies. Ghielen, S. T. S., De Cooman, R., & Sels, L. (2021). The interacting content and process of the employer brand: person-organization fit and employer brand clarity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(2), 292-304. Gino, F., & Wiltermuth, S. S. (2014). Evil genius? How dishonesty can lead to greater creativity. Psychological science, 25(4), 973-981. Greenberg, J., & Scott, K. S. (1996). Why do workers bite the hands that feed them? Employee theft as a social exchange process. Grobler, A., & Holtzhausen, M. M. (2018). Supervisory trust to be earned: The role of ethical leadership mediated by person-organisational fit. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 21(1), 1-11. Hagemann, V., Ontrup, G., & Kluge, A. (2020). Collective orientation and its implications for coordination and team performance in interdependent work contexts. Team Performance Management: An International Journal. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis 6th Edition. In: New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2012). Partial least squares: the better approach to structural equation modeling? Long Range Planning, 45(5-6), 312-319. Han, T.-S., Chiang, H.-H., McConville, D., & Chiang, C.-L. (2015). A longitudinal investigation of person–organization fit, person–job fit, and contextual performance: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Human Performance, 28(5), 425-439. Haque, A. U., & Oino, I. (2019). Managerial challenges for software houses related to work, worker and workplace: Stress reduction and sustenance of human capital. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 19. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 49 Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International studies of management & organization, 10(4), 15-41. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research. International Journal of cross cultural management, 1(1), 11-17. Hussain, K., & Rehman, H. (2020). Antecedents of Constructive Deviance Behaviors and The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment: Conditional Process Analysis. Abasyn University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1). Jang, S., Shen, W., Allen, T. D., & Zhang, H. (2018). Societal individualism–collectivism and uncertainty avoidance as cultural moderators of relationships between job resources and strain. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 507-524. Jawad, M., Tabassum, T. M., Raja, S., & Abraiz, A. (2013). Study on work place behaviour: role of person-organization fit, person-job fit & empowerment, evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 1(4), 47-54. Jun, J. W., & Lee, H. S. (2007). Cultural differences in brand designs and tagline appeals. International Marketing Review. Kim, U. E., Triandis, H. C., Kâğitçibaşi, Ç. E., Choi, S.-C. E., & Yoon, G. E. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Sage Publications, Inc. Kirk, C. P., Peck, J., & Swain, S. D. (2018). Property lines in the mind: Consumers’ psychological ownership and their territorial responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(1), 148-168. Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Lieberman, C. (1995). The collective construction of self esteem. In Everyday conceptions of emotion (pp. 523-550). Springer. Koburtay, T., & Alzoubi, A. (2021). The linkages between person-organization spirituality fit and workers’ psychological well-being. The Journal of social psychology, 161(1), 103- 118. Krau, E. (2008). Work, creativity, inventions and society. Man and Work, 16, 46-54. Kristof‐Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences OF INDIVIDUALS'FIT at work: A meta‐analysis OF person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 281-342. Lau, V. C., Au, W. T., & Ho, J. M. (2003). A qualitative and quantitative review of antecedents of counterproductive behavior in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(1), 73-99. Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees' perceptions of person–job and person–organization fit. Journal of vocational behavior, 59(3), 454- 470. Liu, B., Liu, J., & Hu, J. (2010). Person-organization fit, job satisfaction, and turnover intention: An empirical study in the Chinese public sector. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 38(5), 615-625. Liu, D., Chen, X.-P., & Yao, X. (2011). From autonomy to creativity: a multilevel investigation of the mediating role of harmonious passion. Journal of applied psychology, 96(2), 294. Liu, J., Wang, H., Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2012). Psychological ownership: How having control Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 50 matters. Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 869-895. Love, M. S., & Dustin, S. L. (2014). An investigation of coworker relationships and psychological collectivism on employee propensity to take charge. The international journal of human resource management, 25(9), 1208-1226. Mayhew, M. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., Bramble, T., & Gardner, J. (2007). A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. The Journal of social psychology, 147(5), 477-500. Mehmood, S. A., Malik, M. A. R., Akhtar, M. S., Faraz, N. A., & Memon, M. A. (2021). Organizational justice, psychological ownership and organizational embeddedness: A conservation of resources perspective. International Journal of Manpower. Mishra, M., Ghosh, K., & Sharma, D. (2021). Unethical pro-organizational behavior: A systematic review and future research agenda. Journal of business ethics, 1-25. Neall, A. M., & Tuckey, M. R. (2014). A methodological review of research on the antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(2), 225-257. Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta- analytic review. Work & Stress, 26(4), 309-332. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychological theory. In: New York: McGraw-Hill. O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of management review, 21(1), 225-253. O'Reilly III, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of management journal, 34(3), 487-516. O’driscoll, M. P., Pierce, J. L., & Coghlan, A.-M. (2006). The psychology of ownership: Work environment structure, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 388-416. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage Publications. Ozler, H., Yilmaz, A., & Ozler, D. (2008). Psychological ownership: An empirical study on its antecedents and impacts upon organizational behaviors. Problems and Perspectives in Management(6, Iss. 3), 38-47. Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., & Park, J. W. (2013). From brand aversion or indifference to brand attachment: Authors' response to commentaries to Park, Eisingerich, and Park's brand attachment–aversion model. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 269-274. Pascale, R. T., & Sternin, J. (2005). Your company’s secret change agents. harvard business review, 83(5), 72-81. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of management review, 26(2), 298-310. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of general psychology, 7(1), 84-107. Pierce, J. L., O'driscoll, M. P., & Coghlan, A.-M. (2004). Work environment structure and Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, Volume. 6, Issue 1 (2022) 25-52 https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.612 51 psychological ownership: The mediating effects of control. The Journal of social psychology, 144(5), 507-534. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate behavioral research, 42(1), 185-227. Rafferty, A. E., & Minbashian, A. (2019). Cognitive beliefs and positive emotions about change: Relationships with employee change readiness and change-supportive behaviors. Human relations, 72(10), 1623-1650. Rahman, M. F. W., Kistyanto, A., & Surjanti, J. (2022). Does cyberloafing and person‐ organization fit affect employee performance? The mediating role of innovative work behavior. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 41(5), 44-64. Reb, J., & Connolly, T. (2007). Possession, feelings of ownership, and the endowment effect. Judgment and Decision making, 2(2), 107. Robbins, D. L., & Galperin, B. L. (2010). Constructive deviance: striving toward organizational change in healthcare. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 5, 1. Robert, C., & Wasti, S. A. (2002). Organizational individualism and collectivism: Theoretical development and an empirical test of a measure. Journal of Management, 28(4), 544- 566. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of management journal, 38(2), 555-572. Schneider, S. L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism: Meaning, knowledge, and warm fuzziness. American psychologist, 56(3), 250. Sekiguchi, T. (2007). A contingency perspective of the importance of PJ fit and PO fit in employee selection. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Shahzad, F., Iqbal, Z., & Gulzar, M. (2013). Impact of organizational culture on employees job performance: An empirical study of software houses in Pakistan. Journal of business studies quarterly, 5(2), 56. Sharkawi, S., Rahim, A. R. A., & AzuraDahalan, N. (2013). Relationship between person organization fit, psychological contract violation on counterproductive work behaviour. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(4). Sieger, P., Bernhard, F., & Frey, U. (2011). Affective commitment and job satisfaction among non-family employees: Investigating the roles of justice perceptions and psychological ownership. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2(2), 78-89. Sieger, P., Zellweger, T., & Aquino, K. (2013). Turning agents into psychological principals: aligning interests of non‐owners through psychological ownership. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 361-388. Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. American behavioral scientist, 47(6), 828-847. Suárez‐Mendoza, M. J., & Zoghbi‐Manrique‐de‐Lara, P. (2007). The impact of work alienation on organizational citizenship behavior in the Canary Islands. International journal of organizational Analysis. Tekmen, E. E., & Kaptangil, K. (2022). The Determinants of Constructive Deviant Behaviour Kamil Huusain, Saima Aftab &Mahwash Hussain 52 of Frontline Tourism Employees: An Exploration with Perceived Supervisory Support and Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being, 10(1), 58- 74. Ucar, A. C., Alpkan, L., & Elci, M. (2021). The Effects of Person–Organization Fit and Turnover Intention on Employees’ Creative Behavior: The Mediating Role of Psychological Ownership. SAGE Open, 11(4), 21582440211066924. Uggerslev, K. L., Fassina, N. E., & Kraichy, D. (2012). Recruiting through the stages: A meta‐ analytic test of predictors of applicant attraction at different stages of the recruiting process. Personnel psychology, 65(3), 597-660. Vadera, A. K., Pratt, M. G., & Mishra, P. (2013). Constructive deviance in organizations: Integrating and moving forward. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1221-1276. Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Lucero, M. (2002). Ethical context, organizational commitment, and person-organization fit. Journal of business ethics, 41(4), 349-360. Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(4), 439-459. Wagner, S. H., Parker, C. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2003). Employees that think and act like owners: Effects of ownership beliefs and behaviors on organizational effectiveness. Personnel psychology, 56(4), 847-871. Wang, H. J., Demerouti, E., Blanc, P. L., & Lu, C. Q. (2018). Crafting a job in ‘tough times’: When being proactive is positively related to work attachment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(3), 569-590. Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance tn organizations. Academy of management review, 28(4), 622-632. Yildiz, B., Alpkan, L., Ates, H., & Sezen, B. (2015). Determinants of constructive deviance: the mediator role of psychological ownership. International Business Research, 8(4), 107. Zulfiqar, S., Sadaf, R., Popp, J., Vveinhardt, J., & Máté, D. (2019). An examination of corporate social responsibility and employee behavior: The case of Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(13), 3515.