LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR, DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND

COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK PLACE BEHAVIOUR IN THE UGANDA POLICE

FORCE: A CASE STUDY OF KAMPALA EXTRA REGION

AKULLO GRACE

BBA (HONS)

MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED AS PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENT

OF THE AWARD OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION OF MAKERERE

UNIVERSITY

DECEMBER 2011
 i

ABSTRACT

The Uganda Police Force was characterised by high rate of corruption, alcohol use and other

forms of indiscipline. Unfairness of the leaders in handling formal procedures was suspected

to be a contributory factor. The study examined the relationship between leadership

behaviour, distributive justice, procedural justice and counterproductive workplace behaviour

in the Uganda Police Force.

Cross sectional survey design was used to clarify on the subject. Quantitative design was

used to determine the frequencies and predominance of issues under study. The key finding

was a positive relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Procedural Justice.

However, acts of Counterproductive Workplace Behaviour still exist among the

subordinates. The subordinate police officers appreciated the ability of their leaders in

ensuring that procedural justices in determination of distribution of outcomes are a point

of reference.

The existence of Procedural Justice such as following procedure for selection for

promotion, allocation of accommodation and further training led to fair distribution of

those outcomes. The respondents were aware of the policies in place to determine the

distribution of outcomes in the Uganda Police Force. The study recommends that the

elements of leadership behaviour like active management by exception should be

practiced by the middle level managers for potential deviations from rules and standards

by the subordinates and take corrective actions.

 ii

STATEMENT OF DECLARATION

I, Akullo Grace do declare that this dissertation is my original work as a result of my

independent investigation except where I have acknowledged. I also do declare that this

work has not been presented or submitted elsewhere for any academic qualification and/ or

for research purposes.

Name of candidate: Akullo Grace

Signature:……………………..

Date:…………………………..
 iii

APPROVAL

This research dissertation has been submitted with our approval as the University

Supervisors.

Name of Supervisor: Prof: Dr. J.C Munene

Signature……………………

Date:………………………..

Name of Supervisor: Dr. Muhammed Ngoma

Signature:.........................................................

Date:.................................................................
 iv

ACRONYMS

ACP Assistant Commissioner of police

ACP/T Assistant Commissioner in charge of Transport

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

AIGP Assistant Inspector General of Police

AIP Assistant Inspector of Police

ASP Assistant Superintendent of Police

CID Criminal Investigation Department

CPL Corporal

CPS Central Police Station

CWB Counter productive Workplace Behaviour

DIGP Deputy Inspector General of Police

D/IP Detective Inspector of Police

DPC District Police Commander

IGP Inspector General of Police

IP Inspector of Police

IPAC Institute of public Accountants of Canada

RPC Regional Police Commander

SGT Sergeant

SP Superintendent of police

SSP Senior Superintendent of police

UPF Uganda Police Force

OC Officer in Charge
 v

LIST OF TABLES

Title Page

Table 1: Reliability Analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient …………………….. ….27

Table 2: Age group of respondent ……….……………………………………………. 28

Table 3: Marital status of respondents ………………………………………………... .29

Table 4: The rank the respondents joined the Uganda Police Force ............................... .29

Table 5: The current rank of respondents ........................................................................ .30

Table 6: The number of years the respondents……........................................................ 31

Table 7: Correlation between variables ........................................................................... 32

Table 8: Correlation between variables (After factoring the variable leadership) .......... 34

Table 9: T-test ................................................................................................................. 38

Table 10: Analysis of variance: The age of the respondents ……………...……………40

Table 11: Analysis of variance: The marital status of the respondents ........................... 43

Table 12: Analysis of variance: The rank the respondents joined the UPF …………... 45

Table 13: Analysis of variance: The current rank of the respondents ............................ 47

Table 14: Analysis of Variance: The number of years the respondents have worked with the

UPF .................................................................................................................................. 49

Table 15: Rotated component matrix for leadership ....................................................... 52

 vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual framework showing relationship between variables …10

 vii

TABLE OF CONTENT

Item Page

Abstract ........................................................................................................................... i

Declaration ……………………………………………………………………………... ii

Approval .……………………………………………………………………………… iii

Acronyms ……………………………………………………………………………… iv

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………… v

List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………… vi

Table of Content ……………………………………………………………………… vii

Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………………………… xii

Dedication ....................................................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Background to the study ........................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem statement ..................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Purpose of the study .................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................. 5

1.5 Research questions .................................................................................................... 6

1.6 Significance of the study ........................................................................................... 6

1.7 Justification of the study ........................................................................................... 8

1.8 Scope of the study ..................................................................................................... 9

1.8.1 Geographical scope ................................................................................................ 9

 viii

1.8.2 Content scope ......................................................................................................... 9

1.9 Conceptual frame work ............................................................................................. 10

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE……………………………………11

2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 11

2.1.Concept of leadership behaviour ............................................................................... 11

2.2 Concept of distributive justice ................................................................................... 12

2.3.Concept of procedural justice .................................................................................... 13

2.4. The concept of counterproductive workplace behaviour ......................................... 13

2.5 Relationship between leadership behaviour and procedural justice .......................... 15

2.6Relationship between leadership behaviour and distributive justice………………... 17

2.7 Relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice ............................. 19

2.8. The relationship between procedural justice and counterproductive

Workplace behaviour…………………………………… …………………………20

2.9 Relationship between distributive justice and counterproductive workplace

behaviour………………………………………………………………………………21

2.10. Relationship between leadership behaviour and counterproductive

workplace behaviour …………………………………………………………………21

 ix

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………….23

3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 23

3.1.Research Design ........................................................................................................ 23

3.2 Study population....................................................................................................... 23

3.3 Sample size .............................................................................................................. 24

3.4 Measurement of the variables.................................................................................... 24

3.5 Sources of data .......................................................................................................... 25

3.6 Data collection instruments ....................................................................................... 25

3.7 Procedure of data collection ...................................................................................... 26

3.8 Data analysis.............................................................................................................. 26

3.9 Reliability of the Instruments………………………………………………………. 27

3.10 Limitation to the study ............................................................................................ ..27

CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS……………………………………………………28

4.0. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 28

4.1. Cross tabulation ........................................................................................................ 28

4.2. Person’s M correlation …………………………………………………………… 31

4.3.Summary of the relationships among variables ……………………………………. 35

4.3.1.The relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Procedural Justice……… . 35

4.3.2The relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Distributive Justice ……… 35

4.3.3The relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice ……………. 35

 x

4.3.4The relationship between procedural justice and CWB ………………………….. 35

4.3.5The relationship between distributive justice and CWB………………………….. 36

4.3.6.The relationship between leadership behaviour and CWB ………………………. 36

4.3.7.The relationship between leadership behaviour and transformation leadership …..36

4.3.8.The relationship between transformation and procedural justice …………… …. 36

4.3.9.The relationship between CWB and kinship responsibility ……………………….36

4.3.10.The relationship between transformation leadership and populism ………… … 37

4.3.11.The relationship between populism and leadership behaviour ………………… .37

4.3.12 The relationship between leadership behaviour and transactional leadership …… 37

4.4. The T-Test …………………………………………………………………………. 38

4.5.The Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA). ………………………………………………40

4.6. Rotated component factor analysis ……………………………………………… .52

CHAPTER FIVE

INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS …………………………54

5.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 54

5.1. The relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Procedural Justice …………..55

5.2.The relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Distributive Justice ………….57

5.3.The relationship between Procedural Justice and Distributive Justice …………….. 58

5.4.The relationship between Procedural Justice and CWB …………………………… 59

5.5.The relationship between Distributive Justice and CWB ………………………… 60

5.6.The relationship between Leadership behaviour and Counterproductive

Workplace Behaviour ……………………………………………………………...........61

 xi

5.7. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 62

5.8. Recommendation ………………………………………………………………….. 64

5.9. Areas for further research …………………………………………… ……....65

References ……………………………………………………………………… ….67

Questionnaire ……………………………………………………………………. .82

 xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Conducting this research and writing out this dissertation has been one of the most

challenging periods in my life. It has been very hard work because of having at the same

time a full time job and a family to look after. So, without the support from my husband,

supervisors, parents, family and friends, the work on this dissertation would have been

impossible. The confidence shown to me by dear husband provided a special kind of

motivation to get this work done, I am grateful to him. He is my inspiration, my goal and

my light. I acknowledge him most sincerely.

Throughout the period of this MBA programme, my supervisors Prof Dr Munene, Dr

Tamwesigire and Dr Muhammed Ngoma demonstrated endless faith in my ability. The

confidence I have gained in working with them is something that will remain with me for the

rest of my career. Thank you for all your advice and support, and especially for your

perseverance. The assistance of the many other members of the Business School as well as

fellow MBA students was invaluable.

 xiii

DEDICATION AND MEMORIAM

To my late Mother, Sister and Brothers who never got chance to see my efforts.
 -1-

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Background to the study

The Uganda Police Force (UPF) is established under the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of

Uganda. The Police Statute (1994) and Article 212 of the 1995 Constitution mandates the

UPF to carry out among others the following functions: to protect life and property, prevent

and detect crime and preserve law and order. To carry out the functions, the UPF operates

under the leadership of the Inspector General of Police (IGP); Deputy Inspector General of

Police (DIGP); Assistants Inspector General of Police (AIGP) / Directors; Regional Police

Commander (RPC); District police commander (DPC); and Officers In Charge of Sections /

Police Posts (OC). In carrying out their leadership functions, the commanders/leaders are

guided by the Police Statute (1994) and the Police Code of Ethics. The commanders/leaders

use different leadership behaviours in management of officers under their command.

Despite the laid down procedures on selection for deployment, transfer, promotion and

recruitment of in-service officers to sections of the Force, there exist unfairness on decisions

made by the police commanders/leaders concerning these issues. For instance, the

commission of inquiry into corruption in the police force of 2000 was informed by disgruntled

police officers that an in-service officer must pay a bribe to be recruited into the traffic

department. The commission was further informed that for a traffic officer to be deployed on

a “wet” road, he must pay a bribe of Ug Shs 20,000 – Ug Shs 50,000 daily to the officer in-
 -2-

charge traffic of that district/division. The officer in-charge traffic was also stated to pay a

bribe of Ug Shs 0.5 million – Ug Shs 1 million, monthly to the Assistant Commissioner of

Police in-charge of Traffic and Road Safety (ACP/T) to be deployed / transferred to a “wet”

(profitable) district (Sebutinde et. al., 2000).

The 2000 commission was informed that the Criminal Investigation Directorate(CID) is rife

with malpractice such as high-handedness, extortion of bribes from suspects and victims of

crime, preferring of bogus charges against innocent citizens, abuse of police bond procedures,

torture of suspects and gross discourage of justice. The commission was further informed that

corruption has been institutionalised as it permeates through all levels of the CID, and the

force has shifted from delivering quality services to personal gain. This grim state of affairs

has inevitability caused a public out cry against the CID and the police force in general, and

has eroded the effectiveness of the CID.

The Sebutinde Commission of 2000 further found out that the police leadership then left

corruption unchecked at all levels and were not taking firm action against corrupt and

undisciplined officers. For example Odomel, then IGP did not discipline Bakiza then

Director CID when the latter defied his orders in respect of disciplining Inspector of Police

Kasango. The commission further noted that managers who are to be role models in an

organization set-up cannot expect ethical behaviours from subordinates if they do not behave

ethically themselves.
 -3-

The unfairness by the leaders in handling these formal procedures have led to

Counterproductive Workplace Behaviours (CWB) in the UPF. Such behaviours negatively

affect morale and the image of an organisation (Solar 1989). Some of the CWB that exist in

the UPF are corruption, alcoholism/ drunkardness, fraud, desertion and other forms of

indiscipline. Sebutinde et. al. (2000) defines corruption as any conduct or practice by a

police officer serving in the Uganda police force done in flagrant violation of established

regulations to the prejudice of the public interest or for self gain. Police records show that,

between May 2002-May 2004, 699 police officers from all over the country were identified by

their unit commanders as habitual drunkards and were sent to police training school Kibuli for

rehabilitation exercise.

Cairo International Bank complained to the commission of inquiry into corruption in UPF in

2000, that it had reported a case of robbery of Ug Shs 218 million in May 1999. The police

community liaison officer later announced recovery of Ug Shs 213 million. The anti-robbery

squad that was concerned with the handling of the case declared only Ug Shs 5.5 million.

(Sebutinde et. al., 2000). These and other cases led to recommendation by the commission

for dismissal of the senior police officers and subsequent retirement of six senior officers and

fresh appointments were made. However, this did not give a lasting solution.

The Inspectorate of Government (IG) report (July to December 2003) to Parliament ranked

UPF as fourth most corrupt department out of 85 in the country. The second national integrity

survey (2003) also ranks UPF as the department to which most bribes are paid with 68.7

percent cases reported to the Inspectorate of Government. The third national integrity survey
 -4-

carried out by the IG ranked the UPF as the most corrupt of the public institution in Uganda

with 80.7 per cent rating.

The judicial commission of inquiry into alleged mismanagement of global fund to fight

HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in Uganda of 2006 found out that the defective Police

Officers who were assigned duties to conduct investigation as a follow-up of suspicious

accountabilities submitted by recipients of the funds (suspects) were compromised by the

suspect. For instance detective Inspector Police (D/IP) George Komurubuga was alleged to

have received Ug Shs 5 million to alter, destroy and /or otherwise interfere with the

commission evidence in trying to help Ms. Paula Turyahikayo, a project management unit

(PMU) staff. The commission further found out that Detective Assistant Inspector of Police

Faustine Echengu received a bribe of Ug Shs 20 million to help Dr. W. Kirungi a medical

officer of the Ministry of Health to cover up evidence of suspicious accountabilities he had

submitted to the commission (Ogola et. al. 2006).

Sebutinde et. al. (2000) found out that there was malpractice in the methods of deployment

and recommendation for promotion of police officers which seems to rely on discretion of

senior officers rather than established procedures and guidelines. The commission observed

that there was laxity by the supervisors because they were sheltering subordinates who give

them part of the bribes after extorting from the public. Police management is aware of the

various CWB that exist in the UPF but if proper ways are not designed on how some of these

formal procedures are to be handled, then the officers will still be counterproductive.
 -5-

1.2 Problem Statement

Leadership behavior, distributive justice and procedural justice are intended to benefit the

organization, and counterproductive workplace behavior is intended to harm the organization

(Dalal, R.S., 2005). However, in the Uganda Police Force as an organization, a lot of people

have spoken negatively about the Force. More generally, the Force was reported to be

characterized by behavior such as weak leadership, stealing, corruption, vandalism, ignoring

instructions, and spreading malicious rumors among co-workers as “opposite” of behavior

such as praising the organization to outsiders, doing everything a “good” employee would do,

and helping co-workers (Sebutinde et. al., 2000). There was therefore a gap from what is

expected and what actually happened in the Uganda Police Force. It was therefore imperative

to examine the relationship among leadership behavior, distributive justice, procedural justice

and counterproductive workplace behavior in the Uganda Police Force as there were no

studies carried out to fully understand the situation in the Police Force.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between leadership behaviour,

distributive justice, procedural justice and counterproductive workplace behaviour in the

Uganda Police Force.

1.4 Objectives of the study

The study objectives were to:

(i) establish the relationship between leadership behaviour and procedural justice;

(ii) establish the relationship between leadership behaviour and distributive justice;
 -6-

(iii) establish the relationship between distributive justice and procedural justice;

(iv) establish the relationship between distributive justice and counterproductive

workplace behaviour;

(v) establish the relationship between procedural justice and counterproductive

workplace behaviour; and

(vi) establish the relationship between leadership behaviour and counterproductive

workplace behaviour.

1.5 Research questions

The study was guided by the following research questions:

(i) what is the relationship between leadership behaviour and procedural justice?

(ii) what is the relationship between leadership behaviour and distributive justice?

(iii) what is the relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice?

(iv) what is relationship between procedural justice and counterproductive workplace

behaviour?

(v) what is the relationship between distributive justice and counterproductive

workplace behaviour?

(vi) what is the relationship between leadership behaviour and counterproductive

workplace behaviour?

1.6 Significance of the study

The concepts of leadership behaviour, counterproductive work place behaviour, distributive

justice and procedural justice are relatively new to the Uganda Police Force, hence this study
 -7-

provides a basis for a pool of literature in the subject. The handful of officers in the Uganda

Police Force who have chosen to embrace the concepts and try to address counterproductive

work place behaviour in the Force, will find the results of this study of much use to them.

Therefore, this study will also help to raise awareness among those who are unacquainted with

leadership behaviour, counterproductive work place behaviour, distributive justice and

procedural justice concepts.

This study is also of significance to Police Trainers who want to learn more about leadership

behaviour, counterproductive work place behaviour, distributive justice and procedural justice

in the Uganda Police Force enabling them to set up process and application possibilities

during police staff trainings at various levels.

The study results will as well be of use to Special Interest Groups by offering members

ongoing access to relevant data on the subject for better work with the police force. In

addition, over the past decade, there has been an increased attention to counterproductive

workplace behaviors including violence, stealing, dishonesty, volitional absenteeism, drug and

alcohol abuse, and aggression, many of which have been addressed in this study.

Accompanying the attention to these specific types of behaviors has been a proliferation of

theories developed to explain, understand, and manage counterproductive behavior. While

these theories have addressed many apparently divergent types of behaviors, many similarities

exist between and among these various perspectives. In this study, the researcher integrated

these various perspectives into a causal reasoning framework, proposing that individuals‟
 -8-

attributions about the causal dimensions of workplace events are a primary factor motivating

both the emotions and behaviors that result in counterproductive workplace behaviors. The

study confirmed the theories, added to the existing literature on subject, created knew

knowledge, and the findings will enhance effective planning and decision making in the

Force.

1.7. Justification of the study

The theories underpinning the study have neither been proven true nor false in Uganda Police

Force and hence the need for this study since no one has ever carried out a similar study

within the geographical and contextual scope, being part of its uniqueness. The relationship

study was supported by principles of evaluation which state that the successes or the failures

of a particular intervention or theory must be assessed so that lessons can be learnt for

improvement in future policies, interventions and programmes. This study has therefore

contributed into verification of the concepts and theories concerning counterproductive

workplace behavior, leadership behavior, procedural justice and distributive justice in Uganda

Police Force. It has provided answers as to why counterproductive behavior exists in the

Uganda Police Force and how junior officers perceive their leaders. The study has also

brought out the perception of the Police on the policies, procedures and outcome of the Force.

All these provided a strong justification for the study.

 -9-

1.8. Scope of the Study

1.8.1. Geographical scope

The study was conducted in Kampala extra-region which is comprised of eight divisions:

namely:- Jinja Road, Old Kampala, Kampala Central Police Station(CPS), Kiira division,

Kawempe, Wandegeya, Kiira Road and Katwe Police Stations.

1.8.2 Content scope

The scope of the study focused on leadership behaviour, distributive justice, procedural justice

and counterproductive workplace behaviour. It was a cross sectional survey and had samples

drawn from the population of all ranks of the Uganda Police Force (UPF) in Kampala extra-

region.
 - 10 -

1.9. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1: Conceptual framework showing relationship between variables

Leadership Procedural Counterproductive

Behaviour Justice Workplace
Behaviour

Distributive
Justice

Source: Self generated from existing literature (Penney, L.M. et. al., 2007) and (Dalal R.

S., 2005)

The above Figure shows the conceptual framework between variables. Leadership behaviour

is the independent variable; counterproductive workplace behaviour is the dependent variable

while procedural justice and distributive justice are mediating variables. A good leader

follows laid down procedures to make decision such as following policies for promotion

provides similar outcomes to employees and creates committed employees. Unfairness in

administering organisational policies and procedures results into counterproductive workplace

behaviours such absenteeism and theft. Therefore good leadership is expected to have positive

relationship with procedural justice, distribution justice and negative relationship with

counterproductive workplace behaviour.

 - 11 -

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0. Introduction

This chapter reviews the related literature of the study as put forward by different scholars and

researchers. It looks at relational literature on leadership behaviour, procedural justice,

distributive justice and counterproductive workplace behaviour. There are a lot of

classifications concerning the dimensions of organizational justice. Although there are various

typologies in the related literature, a theoretical frame involving all types of justice has not

been formed (Penney, L. M., et. al., 2007). Nevertheless, the most common classification of

organizational justice is distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice. This

study concentrated on distributive justice and procedural justice. These were handled with

leadership behaviour and counterproductive work place behaviour due to lack of studies done

on them within the Uganda Police in Uganda.

2.1. Concept of leadership behaviour

McCann, (2008) explained that the link between effective leadership behaviour and

organizational performance must be determined to help firms compete in this challenging

environment. Leadership types represent how managers and employees interact with each

other. Employees‟ innovation does not frequently occur within an organization, and managers

play the important role of guiding employees‟ performance and innovation. (Hamel, 2009)

points out that leader are no longer treated as extraordinary and brilliant visionaries, wise
 - 12 -

decision-makers, and tough rulers. Instead, the job of a leader is to create an environment that

allows all employees to work together, innovate, and perform well. Therefore, a manager‟s

leadership behaviour is the key to the future development of an organization.

(Krause, 2005) considers that transactional-leadership focuses on the relationship between

performance and rewards as well as the relationship between the leader and the subordinate;

transactional-leadership is also referred to as task-oriented leadership. Reform-oriented

leadership focuses on the development of future strategies and encouraging employees to

increase organizational revenue. Herold, Fedor, Caldwell & Liu (2008) state that

transformational leadership is especially effective during change, since subordinates tend to

follow the leader with whom they have a long term and trusting relationship.

Transformational leadership is seen as true people oriented leadership behaviour.

2.2. Concept of distributive justice

Distributive justice deals with the outcomes fairness i.e. appraisal ratings in performance

appraisal context (Jawahar, 2007). Distribution of the rewards that are based on the equity

theory of Adams involve input and output as (Adams, 1965) describes that a person will be

given rewards for his contribution towards the output. Adams discussed equity theory that the

employees are satisfied when they feel that the rewards have been equally given according to

their input and there is no difference as compared to the others. If rewards are not allocated

equally and there may be the unpleasant atmosphere and the result will be in the form of de-

motivation of employees. Therefore, distributive justice finally deals with the degree of

perceived fairness in distribution and allocation of outcome, as an organization refers with

 - 13 -

input of employees. (Fortin, 2008) proposes that “distributive justice” is the perception of

justice in the outcome of distribution, such as the perception of compensations or the decision

of dismissal. It is perceived as being fair if the result of distribution is consistent with the

distribution of the workload.

2.3. Concept of procedural justice

Procedural justice is associated with the fairness perceptions of the standards followed,

methods and processes used for appraising performance of employees (Jawahar, 2007).

Procedural justice refers to the fairness of decision making. There should be consistency

across individuals and times in shape of promotions and outcomes among the employees and

that employee of any organization prefer fair outcomes followed by fair procedure. Hence the

desire of procedural justice in an organization is the desire of every fair employee. Procedural

justice refers to the procedure or method while making a decision. Tendency of employees to

form evaluation of supervisors has strong relationship with procedural justice. When

employee‟ experience high level of procedural justice, evaluation of supervision is higher

across all levels of distributive justice. Thus it can be concluded that procedural justice is

about means while distributive justice is about ends. (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005) state that

distributive justice items are measured by asking about outcomes while procedural justice

items ask about process control, decision control and voice.

2.4. The concept of counterproductive workplace behaviour

Counterproductive workplace behaviour (CWB) consists of intentional acts by employees that

harm organizations or their stakeholders. Included under Counterproductive work behaviour

 - 14 -

are acts of physical violence against people, as well as milder forms of aggressive behaviour

such as verbal aggression and other forms of mistreatment directed toward people.

Counterproductive work behaviour also includes acts directed toward organizations rather

than people (although people are often indirect targets). This includes destruction and misuse

of organizational property, doing work incorrectly, or failing to notify superiors about

mistakes and work problems (e.g., a machine malfunction), and withdrawal (e.g., calling in

sick when not ill), Neuman and Baron‟s (2005).

Bauer, & Fox, (2010) state that unethical behaviour at work can be manifested by

Counterproductive Workplace Behaviour such as volitional behaviour that harms or intends to

harm organizations or people in organizations. Fleeson & Noftle, (2009) indicates that

Counterproductive Workplace Behaviour is an aggregated set of behaviours, rather than single

type behaviour. Aggregated behaviours are more consistent across time and situations

compared to single behaviours, and they can be predicted more reliably by personality and

situational variables.

The categories that comprise Counterproductive work behaviour are: (1) Abuse toward others

(e.g., starting or continuing a damaging or harmful rumour at work; being nasty or rude to a

client or customer); (2) Production deviance (e.g., purposely doing your work incorrectly;

purposely working slowly when things need to get done); (3) Sabotage (e.g., purposely

wasting your employer‟s materials/supplies; purposely damaging a piece of equipment or

property); (4) Theft (e.g., stealing something belonging to your employer; putting in to be paid

for more hours than you work); and (5) Withdrawal (e.g., coming to work late without
 - 15 -

permission; staying home from work and saying you were sick when you weren‟t). Although

Counterproductive work behaviour is comprised of five categories Spector et al., (2006), most

research that assesses the construct uses total (sum) scores rather than subscale scores (e.g.,

Dalal, 2005; Fox et al., 2011; Spector et al., 2010; Zettler & Hilbig, 2010).

2.5. Relationship between leadership behaviour and procedural justice

Geddes (2005) noted that the move to governance is commonly associated with neo liberalism

and that governance practices do not necessarily result in the revival of localities. Instead, he

argues, the rise of governance approaches often results in the stripping away of previous

institutional structures and an intensification of competition between places. The „roll out‟ of

neo liberal policies in Australia was accompanied by a further centralisation of power in

Australia, with the shift from Keynesian to monetarist economic management resulting in

reduced public sector borrowings and expenditure and micro economic reforms – such as the

privatisation of government trading enterprises - that adversely affected some regions,

especially non metropolitan places.

Erdogan and Liden, (2006), state that an important antecedent of justice perceptions in

organizations is the leader and therefore employees‟ justice perceptions are related to the

attitudes and behaviours of the leader. Colonel Williams (2005) argued that toxic leaders are

not necessarily all-bad, and the army, as a system, may unsurprisingly be producing these

individuals. She questioned if toxic leaders are the extreme result of the army‟s focus of

leaders who are confident, decisive, and demonstrate control. Taken to the extreme, such
 - 16 -

leaders can be self-serving and arrogant, rigid and unwilling to admit mistakes, and unwilling

to develop others, and micromanage instead.

Williams, (2005) stated that toxic leaders are usually not incompetent or ineffective leaders in

terms of accomplishing explicit mission objectives. Many times they are strong leaders who

have the right stuff, but just in the wrong intensity, and with the wrong desired end-state,

namely self-promotion above all else. Hannah et al. (2010) concludes that abusive leaders

are toxic to units. Not only do they create a negative culture and climate in their unit, but our

results showed that they increase ethical transgressions. The Army should develop leaders

who understand the line between being firm yet caring, and being abusive; and identify and

separate those found to be abusive.

Padilla et al. (2007) also suggested that some environments are simply more likely to

facilitate toxic leadership including unstable environments with many perceived threats,

organizations with low or poor cultural values, organizations that have a lack of checks and

balances, and organizations that are perceived as struggling and appear ineffective and

inefficient.

Hannah et al. (2010) indicated subordinates unwillingness to report serious ethical violations

and problems stemming from a superior. (Keller-Glaze et al., 2010 and Riley, Hatfield,

Nicely, Keller-Glaze, & Steele, 2011) demonstrated that most learning occurs through

informal paths (e.g., job experience, informal mentoring, etc.) and that subordinate leaders

who see senior leaders model a behaviour are inclined to emulate that behaviour, and even
 - 17 -

though they do so with much greater frequency for constructive behaviours, some also do so

for toxic behaviours.

McCain, Tsai and Bellino‟s (2010) indicated a positive relationship between Procedural

justice and ethical behaviour. Eberlin and Tatum (2008) found that when managers

inadvertently make biased decisions or cognitive errors that lead to adverse results, their

subordinates may perceive these acts as unfair and unjust even when no injustice was

intended. Hence, employees have a strong sense of fairness and justice, and the leader needs

to consider these perceptions when making decisions. (Erdogan and Liden, 2006) state that the

relationship between the quality of leader-member exchange and organizational justice may

depend on the cultural values of subordinates.

Størseth (2006) showed that people oriented leadership behaviour, which focuses on

improving employee‟ skills and motivation reduce the perceived job insecurity and are likely

to reduce the negative consequences of job insecurity. This decrease in perceived job

insecurity and its negative consequences is caused by two main features of people oriented

leadership styles.

2.6. Relationship between leadership behaviour and distributive justice

Geddes (2005) noted that the move to governance is commonly associated with neo liberalism

and that governance practices do not necessarily result in the revival of localities. Instead, he

argues, the rise of governance approaches often results in the stripping away of previous

institutional structures and an intensification of competition between places. The „roll out‟ of
 - 18 -

neo liberal policies in Australia was accompanied by a further centralisation of power in

Australia, with the shift from Keynesian to monetarist economic management resulting in

reduced public sector borrowings and expenditure and micro economic reforms – such as the

privatisation of government trading enterprises - that adversely affected some regions,

especially non metropolitan places.

Soturatua (2010) has argued that, there are new ways of understanding leadership as a

process, rather than as an outcome, that acknowledges and privileges the role of public service

professionals and managers in ways that conflict with m ore conventional accounts of

leadership. (Yan & Hunt, 2005) states that employees with a masculine orientation can be

assumed to mainly focus on the distribution of material objects as they are characterized as

achievement oriented. They are expected to accord lower importance to personal interactions

with supervisors than to the allocation of rewards. Thus, it is more likely that they feel treated

unjust when they are not among the ones who receive benefits rather than when interpersonal

relationships with supervisors lack dignity and respect. Based on the above presented

arguments, it is hypothesized.

(Loi, Hang-Yue, & Foley, 2006) managers should increasingly consider the possible effects of

their interpersonal treatment with employees in practice. As a result, managers should realize

that efforts toward distributive and procedural justice can be obsolete without placing the

same importance on interactions with their workforce.

 - 19 -

Kroehn et al (2011) examined two instances of regional leadership in Australia‟s rural

periphery – the Wheatbelt of Western Australia and in Port Lincoln on South Australia‟s Eyre

Peninsula. In the former instance leadership was associated with the emergence of a potential

new industry –the commercialisation of products from oil melees – with a number of public

sector actors playing an important role in fostering the emergence of this new industry.

Burton et al., (2008; Piccolo et al., (2008), showed that employees in low-quality leader

member exchanges perceived less fairness in distributive justice, and procedural justice.

2.7. Relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice

Lambert et al. (2005) also established significant positive associations of employees‟

perceptions of distributive and procedural justice with commitment to the organization.

Lambert et al. (2005) also argued that perceptions of procedural justice have a greater impact

on organizational commitment of employees than perceptions of distributive justice. Latham

and Pinder, (2005) state that organizational justice is one of the predictor that has also a

relationship with the outcomes. When employee perceives that they are treated unfair, their

behaviour is affected. Moreover procedural justice has an impact on organization outcome.

Lee et al. (2010) found that subordinates in a high supervisor-subordinate relationship

perceive greater distributive and procedural justice. Bakshi, Kumar and Rani (2009) reported

that procedural and distributive justice both were significantly correlated with the

organizational commitment of the employees in India.

 - 20 -

2.8. The relationship between procedural justice and counterproductive workplace

behaviour

Kurtzberg et al. (2005) argues that it is tremendously difficult for individuals to remain

objective about a situation when they feel that others are disagreeing, or even disapproving, of

their point of view. Somech et al. (2009) explains that a cooperative team more often sees an

issue as a common problem that needs to be dealt with. In comparison a team that‟s more

competitive focused sees the problem as threat against their personal goals. Somech et al.

(2009) also argue that competitive behaviour hinders communication, creativity and

knowledge sharing which negatively affects the performance of the team. Bolton and

Grawitch (2011) states that creating an ethical climate may help to prevent the influence and

spread of a potentially dysfunctional culture in an organisation, because the behaviour of one

employee is provoked by the behaviour of co-workers.

(Latham, 2007) stated that the appearance of justice is just as, or more important than, the

actual concept of justice because it is what inspires reaction. Cheng and Chan (2008) found a

negative relationship between job insecurity and work performance, whereas Probst et al.

(2007) found a positive relationship between job insecurity and employees‟ productivity and a

negative relationship between job insecurity and counterproductive work behaviour.

Kivimäki et al., (2005) states that recent medical research indicates that recurrent perceptions

of injustice at work – no doubt experienced by targets of bullying– are associated with chronic

stress, high blood pressure, and increased risk of coronary heart disease. (Tangney et al.,

2007) indicated that guilt proneness predisposes people to think, feel, and act in morally-

relevant ways.
 - 21 -

2.9. Relationship between distributive justice and counterproductive workplace

behaviour

Somech et al. (2009) also found research that supported the belief that high task

interdependence and intense interaction among team members promotes collaborative

behaviour through increased communication and joint planning. Somech et al. (2009)

expresses that competitive styles are most common in the early stages of team development

and when there is a competition for project resources. Later on when the team has developed

further and roles and relations have been created, cooperative styles tend to evolve.

Hamel (2009) indicates most organizations rely too much on punishments in order to force

their employees to conform, which reflects an organization‟s lack of faith in its employees.

Only in a corporate culture where there is a high degree of trust and low degree of fear can an

organization‟s adaptation and innovation continue to grow. Therefore, while an individual

may have creativity, an organization is needed in order for creativity to become innovation.

Further, innovation must also rely on an organization‟s culture, system, and belief.

2.10. Relationship between leadership behaviour and counterproductive workplace

behaviour

Keller, (2006) stated that employees who experience a people oriented leadership behaviour

have the feeling that their leader will act in their best interest. A people oriented leader builds

long lasting personal relationships with employees. Therefore employees will be more
 - 22 -

committed to the company, especially to their manager, and will less often call in sick or be

absent, and have less turnover intentions.

Padilla et al. (2007) review found that followers who are low in maturity, and have poorly

developed ethics and values, or who hold a similar Machiavellian view reinforce toxic

leadership. As a result of their positive organizational intentions (and either negative or lack

of consideration of their subordinates), some toxic leaders may not even be aware of their

negative behaviours and harmful effects.

Trickett et al (2008), suggests that there are „new‟ complexities being encountered by leaders

outside the single organisational context; leaders find themselves representing places rather

than organisations; there are more uncertainties to be accommodated as outcomes are difficult

to pin down and there are more unknowns; leaders are increasingly required to lead initiatives

without formal power but with responsibility.

Hilgenkamp & Steele, (2010) indicated that the field believes that much of derailment is

caused by personal issues and not living up to Army values. Additional indicators included

reckless behaviours of alcohol/substance abuse and adultery/fraternization, or personality

conflicts and politicking. (Flynn and Schaumberg, 2011), stated that highly guilt-prone

employees work harder at their jobs (i.e., they expend more effort at work), and this effort is

associated with increases in affective organizational commitment.

 - 23 -

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0. Introduction

This chapter covers the methodology that was used in the study and explains the area of study,

research design, sample size, method and determination, measurement of variables, sources of

data, procedure of data collection, target population, and sampling strategies, data collection

and Instruments, data analysis and interpretation, reliability of the instruments and limitation

of the study.

3.1. Research Design

The cross sectional survey design helped the researcher to collect descriptive information so

as to clarify on the subject of study. Quantitative design was used to determine the frequencies

and hence determine the predominance of issues under study.

3.2. Study population

The target population for the study was 1,266 police officers of Kampala Extra region. This

comprised of police officers from the ranks as follows: Police Constable (PC), Corporal,

(CPL), Sergeant (SGT), Assistant Inspector of Police (AIP), Inspector of Police (IP), Assistant

Superintendent of Police (ASP) and Superintendent of Police (SP).

 - 24 -

3.3. Sample size

The study population was stratified according to ranks and sample size was 297 respondents

chosen using Morgan and Kerjie formula. The respondents were conveniently selected basing

on those available at the stations but mindful of the different strata. This was to ensure

respondents were divided into different homogenous strata of smaller characteristics so as to

ensure external validity of the study. A total of 255 out of 297(85.8%) responded as follows:

Police Constable (PC), Corporal, (CPL), Sergeant (SGT), Assistant Inspector of Police (AIP),

Inspector of Police(IP), Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) and Superintendent of

Police(SP). These were considered authoritative, articulate and had reliable and effective

information on the subject of study.

3.4. Measurement of the variables

Structured questionnaires were used to measure the variables. The questionnaires were self

administrated and provided for respondents to select a suitable number on a five point Likert

scale to establish their existence in the population sample chosen for the study. Respondents

were asked to respond to the statements by: indicating the extent to which:-they agreed with

them for leadership behaviour, procedural justice and counter productive work place

behaviour variables and the fairness in pay and benefits for distributive justice variable.

For each of the statements respondents were asked to circle one of the five alternatives which

were: strongly disagree (0), agree (1) neither (2), disagree (3) and strongly disagree (4). Under

counter productive work place behaviour the alternatives were: strongly disagree (1), disagree

(2), not sure (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). For procedural justice the alternatives
 - 25 -

were: - I do not agree at all (1), I do not agree (2), I am not sure (3), I agree (4), and I strongly

agree (5). For distributive justice the alternatives were: very unfair (1), not sure (2), quite fair

(3), very fair (4) and extremely fair (5).

The measurements were:-

 Leadership behaviour derived from Bass et all 1990

 Procedural justice and distribute justice using Deutches‟ 1995 measure.

 Counter productive work place behaviour using Robinson and Bennett measure of

1995.

3.5. Sources of data

Both primary and secondary data were used. The main source of data was primary data got

from respondents. Secondary data was obtained from Police Human Resource Department,

publications, internet and the Makerere University and Makerere University Business School

libraries.

3.6. Data collection and instruments

The researcher used questionnaires and documentary analysis in collecting data. Semi-

structured questionnaires were used with both closed and open-ended items so as to balance

between qualitative and quantitative data. Data was collected on details of individual officers,

leadership behaviour, procedural justice, distributive justice, promotion opportunities, and

chances of personal growth and recognition and counterproductive workplace behaviours.

 - 26 -

Documentary analysis of available staff records on their work performance was analysed so as

to validate information provided in questionnaires and interview.

3.7. Procedure of data collection

The researcher obtained letter of introduction from Makerere University Business School and

proceeded to the field to administer the questionnaires and gather the data. The researcher

personally delivered the questionnaires. The researcher explained the purpose of the study to

the respondents and allowed them to complete the questionnaires. The researcher personally

collected the completed questionnaires.

3.8. Data analysis

The data collected was edited to ensure completeness, accuracy, and consistency. Open-

ended questions were coded before analysis to ensure that various responses were classified

into meaningful and exhaustive forms to bring about their essential patterns. The quantitative

data was organised in such a way to allow interpretation of analysis. Data was analysed with

help of a computer package Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS). This package was

used because it is the most commonly used as it quickens data analysis. Data was

categorized and coded and then entered into the package for analysis. Frequency tables,

percentages, and graphs were used to help interpret and discuss the findings. Data collected

was presented using simple percentages.

 - 27 -

3.9. Reliability of the Instruments

To establish whether the instruments were reliable, reliability test was carried out using

Cronbach‟s Alpha coefficient. The result of this test showed that the instruments were

reliable in measuring the variables. The reliability results are shown in the Table 1 below:

Table 1: Reliability Analysis (cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient)

Variable No. of item No. of cases Alpha
Leadership Behaviour 29 160 0.885
Procedural Justice 8 217 0.514
Distributive Justice 7 222 0.812
Counter Productive Work Place 11 191 0.793
Behaviour
Transformation Leadership 14 193 0.859
Populism 10 190 0.708
Transactional Leadership 5 211 0.588
Source: Primary data

3.10. Limitations of the study

It was difficult to get respondents at their stations as their work involves a lot of field

movements especially those involved in investigations, traffic and patrol duties. The

researcher handled this problem by timing them before their departure for field assignment.

The sample size of 297 respondents was not obtained as initially planned by the researcher. A

sample of 255 was instead obtained because they were the ones who filled and could be traced

to retrieve the questionnaires.

 - 28 -

CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

4.0. Introduction

This chapter covers the presentation of the results of study. The results were obtained after

analysing the data by the use of various tests which included cross tabulation, Pearson M

correlation, t-test, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and factor analysis.

4.1. Cross Tabulations

In this section, the demographic characteristics of the respondents are presented. They

include:- sex, age, marital status, the number of spouses, number of children, the number of

relatives‟ children the respondents look after, number of dependants, the rank the respondents

joined the Uganda Police Force, current rank and the number of years the respondent worked

with the Uganda Police Force.

Table 2: Age of the Respondents

Title Age of Respondents
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40-55 Total
Sex Male Count 20 32 18 46 37 155
Row % 14.2 20.6 11.6 29.7 23.9 100.0
Column % 62.9 78.0 72.0 68.7 78.7 72.1
Total % 10.2 14.9 8.4 21.4 17.2 72.1
Female Count 13 9 7 21 10 60
Row % 21.7 15.0 11.7 35.0 16.7 100.0
Column % 37.1 22.0 28.0 31.0 21.3 27.9
Total % 6.0 4.2 3.3 9.8 4.7 27.9
Total Count 35 41 67 25 47 215
Row % 16.3 19.1 31.2 11.6 21.9 100.0
Column % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total %
Chi-square =3.627, df =4 , P=0.459
Source: Primary data
 - 29 -

The results in Table 2 show that there is no significant difference between the male and female

respondents in terms of age. The majority of the respondents are between 36 – 40 years of age.

Table 3: Marital status of the respondents

Title Marital status
Single Married Widow Others Total
Sex Male Count 24 135 2 1 162
Row % 14.8 83.3 1.2 0.7 100
Column % 63.2 76.3 66.7 33.3 73.3
Total % 10.9 61.1 0.9 0.5 73.3
Female Count 14 42 1 2 59
Row % 23.7 71.2 1.7 3.4 100
Column % 36.8 23.7 33.3 66.7 26.7
Total % 6.3 19.0 0.5 0.9 26.7
Total Count 38 177 3 3 221
Row % 17.2 80.1 1.4 1.4 100
Column % 100 100 100 100 100
Total % 17.2 80.1 1.4 1.4 100
Chi-squared =5.312, df=3, P=0.150
Source: Primary data

The results in Table 3 show that there is no significant different between the male and female

respondents in terms of marital status. The majority of respondents are married.

Table 4: Rank the Respondents joined the Uganda Police Force

Title Constables Cadet Learner Assistant Inspector of Police Total
Sex Male Count 155 4 0 159
Row % 97.5 2.5 0 100.0
Column 73.8 57.1 0 72.6
%
Total % 70.8 1.8 0 72.6
Female Count 55 3 2 60
Row % 91.7 5.0 33 100.0
Column 26.2 42.9 100.0 27.4
%
Total 25.1 1.4 0.9 27.4
Total Count 210 7 2 219
Row % 95.9 3.2 9 100.0
Column 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
%
Total % 95.9 3.2 0.9 100.0
Chi-square =6.295, df=2, P=0.043
Source: Primary data
 - 30 -

The results in Table 4 shows that there is significant difference between the male and female

respondents in terms of rank they joined the Uganda Police Force. The majority of both male

and female respondents joined UPF as constables. The number of female respondents who

joined as cadets into the UPF is more than that of males. More female respondents also joined

as Learner Assistant Inspectors of Police compared to male respondents. Generally, there are

more male than female officers in the UPF.

Table 5: The Current Rank of Respondents

Title Assistant Sear gent Inspector of Corporal Constable Total
Superintendent & Police
Superintendent of
Police
Sex Male Count 5 13 14 33 97 162
Row % 3.1 8.0 8.6 20.4 59.9 100.0
Column % 45.5 65.0 82.4 78.6 72.9 72.6
Total % 2.2 5.8 6.3 14.8 43.5 72.6
Female Count 6 7 3 9 36 61
Row % 9.8 11.5 4.9 14.8 59.0 100.0
Column % 54.5 35.0 17.6 21.4 27.1 27.4
Total 2.7 3.1 1.3 4.0 16.1 27.4
Total Count 11 20 17 42 133 223
Row % 4.9 9.0 7.6 18.8 59.6 100.0
Column % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total % 4.9 9.0 7.6 18.8 59.6 100.0
Chi-squared = 6.236, df=4, P=0.182
Source: Primary data

The results in Table 5 show that there is no significant difference between the current rank of

both male and female respondents. The majority of both male and female respondents are

constables.
 - 31 -

Table 6: Number of years’ the respondents worked with the Uganda Police Force
Title How many years have you worked with the Uganda Police Force?
0-1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11 and Total
above
Sex Male Count 20 17 15 17 91 160
Row % 12.5 10.6 9.4 10.6 56.9 100.0
Column% 71.4 81.0 71.4 68.0 72.2 72.4
Total % 9.0 7.7 6.8 7.7 41.2 72.4
Female Count 8 4 6 8 35 61
Row % 13.1 6.6 9.8 13.1 57.4 100.0
Column% 28.6 19.0 28.6 32.0 27.8 27.6
Total % 3.6 1.8 2.7 3.6 15.6 27.6
Total Count 28 21 21 25 126 221
Row % 12.7 9.5 9.5 11.3 57.0 100.0
Column% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total% 12.7 9.5 9.5 11.3 57.0 100.0
Chi-squared =1.036, df =4, P=0.904
Source: Primary data

The results in Table 6 show that there is no significant difference between male and female

respondents in terms of the number of years they have worked with the Uganda Police Force.

The majority of male and female respondents have worked with the UPF for 11 years and

above.

4.2. Person’s M correlation

This section contains a presentation of results that established the relationships of the study

variables. The correlation was carried out to answer the six objectives of the study. These

were:

(i) The relationship between leadership behaviour and procedural justice

(ii) The relationship between leadership behaviour and distributive justice.

(iii)The relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice.

 - 32 -

(iv) The relationship between procedural justice and counterproductive workplace

behaviour.

(v) The relationship between distributive justice and counterproductive workplace

behaviour.

(vi) The relationship between leadership behaviour and counterproductive workplace

behaviour.

Table 7: Correlation between variable

Variable Leadership Procedural Distributive Counter Kinship

behaviour justice justice productive responsibility
workplace
behaviour

Leadership behaviour 1 .
160
Procedural justice .075 1
.178
154 217
Distributive justice .018 .401** 1
.411 .000
155 211 222
Counter productive -.081 .108 -.021 1
workplace behaviour .170 .075 .388
140 .181 187 191
Kinship responsibility .114 .031 -.106 .137* 1
.081 .331 .063 .032
152 .206 211 184 221

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)

The results in Table 7 shows a positive relationship between procedural and distributive

justice (r=0.041**, P≤0.01). The results further show that there is a positive relationship

between kinship responsibility and counter productive workplace behaviour (r=0.137*,

P≤0.05). The table does not show the relationship between other study variables. Factor
 - 33 -

analysis was then carried out on the independent variable leadership behaviour. Three other

variables were then introduced namely transformational leadership, transactional leadership

and populism.
 - 34 -

Table 8: Correlation between variable (After factoring the variables)

Variable Leadership Procedural Distributive Counter Kinship Transformational Populism Transactional
behaviour justice justice productive responsibility leadership leadership
workplace
behaviour
Leadership behaviour 1
160
Procedural justice .075 1
.178
154 217
Distributive justice .018 .401** 1
.411 .000
155 211 222
Counter -.081 .108 -.021 1
productive workplace .170 .075 .388
behaviour 140 181 187 191
Kinship responsibility .144 .031 -.106 .137* 1
.081 .331 .063 .032
152 206 211 184 221
Transformational .921** .130* .037 -.051 .104 1
leadership .000 .040 .307 .256 .079
160 182 186 165 184 193
Populism .787** -.067 .042 -.111 .080 .544** 1
.000 .186 .286 .080 .142 .000
160 180 182 161 182 169 190
Transactional leadership .608** .117* -.058 .017 .010 .453** .293** 1
.000 .049 .206 .413 .446 .000 .0000
160 201 204 177 202 182 179 211
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)
 35

4.3. Summary of the relationships among variables

4.3.1. The relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Procedural Justice.

The results in Table 8 shows that there is no significant difference between leadership

behaviour and procedural justice (r = 0.075, P<0.05). This implies that the leadership

behaviour in the UPF has no relationship with procedural justice.

4.3.2 The relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Distributive Justice

The results shows that there in no significant difference between leadership behaviour

and distributive justice, (r = 0.081, P< 0.05). This implies that leadership behaviour

has no relationship with the distribution of goods and conditions that affect

individuals in the UPF.

4.3.3 The relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice

The result shows that there is positive relationship between procedural justice and

distributive justice in the UPF (r=0.401**, p<0.05). This implies that procedural

process a relation with distribution of goods and conditions in the UPF.

4.3.4 The relationship between procedural justice and CWB

The results show that there is moderate relationship between procedural justice and

CWB. (r = 0.108, P≤0.05). This implies that procedural justice in the UPF influences

CWB.
 36

4.3.5 The relationship between distributive justice and CWB

The result shows that there is insignificant difference between the two variables (r=-

0.021, P<0.05). This implies that that the variables do not influence each other.

4.3.6. The relationship between leadership behaviour and CWB

There is insignificant relationship between leadership behaviour and CWB (r=-0.01).

This means that the leadership behaviour has no relationship with the negative

behaviour of the Police Officers of the UPF

4.3.7. The relationship between leadership behaviour and transformation

leadership

The result in Table 14 shows that there is a significant positive relationship between

leadership behaviour and transformational leadership (r = 0.921*, p≤0.01).

4.3.8. The relationship between transformation and procedural justice

There is moderate relationship between the two variables. (r=0.031, P<0.01)

4.3.9. The relationship between CWB and kinship responsibility

There is a significant positive relationship between counter productive workplace

Behaviour and kinship responsibility (r = 0.137, p< 0.01)

 37

4.3.10. The relationship between transformation leadership and populism

There is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and populism (r =

0.453**, p<0.01). This implies that leaders who use transformation leadership skills

in the UPF are popular among their juniors.

4.3.11. The relationship between populism and leadership behaviour

There is a positive relationship between populism and leadership behaviour

(r=0.787**, p<0.01).

4.3.12. The relationship between leadership behaviour and transactional

leadership

There is a positive relationship between transactional and leadership behaviour (r=

0.60,8 p≤0.01).
 38

4.4. The T-Test

This was used to compare whether there is a significant difference between two

groups male and female respondents in relationship to the variables namely: -

leadership behaviour, procedural justice, distributive justice and counter productive

workplace behaviour.

Table 9: T-Test
Variable Gender N Mean Std. t. df Sig.
Deviation (2-tailed)
Leadership behaviour Male 120 2.9040 .64009 -1.362 151 .175
Female 33 3.0784 .69032 -1.305 48.197 .198
Procedural justice Male 150 2.4717 .65445 -.003 206 .997
Female 58 2.4720 .56441 -.003 119.334 .997
Distributive justice Male 158 1.8409 .76888 -1.707 212 .089
Female 56 2.0485 .81783 -1.658 91.705 .101
Counter productive Male 134 2.0380 .62182 .190 183 .850
workplace behaviour Female 51 2.0178 .70653 .179 81.174 .858
Transformational Male 140 2.9413 .78533 -2.275 183 .024
leadership Female 45 3.2524 .83683 -2.201 70.645 .031
Populism Male 139 2.8158 .63785 -.571 181 .569
Female 44 2.8841 .84163 -.495 59.445 .622
Transformational Male 151 3.0185 .87494 .196 200 .845
leadership Female 51 2.9922 .67760 .222 110.489 .824
Kinship responsibility Male 156 1.9824 .42323 1.298 211 .196
Female 57 1.8991 .38919 1.349 107.591 .180
P≤0.05
Source: Primary data

The results in Table 9 show that there is no significant difference between the male

and female respondents in the way they perceive the leadership behaviour of their

leaders and the way they exhibited leadership behaviour. The male respondents

exhibited the highest levels of leadership behaviour than female in the UPF.
 39

The results further show that there is no significant difference between the male and

female respondents in the way they perceive procedural justice in the Uganda Police

Force. The female have the highest level of perception compared to males.

There is also no significant difference between the male and female respondents in the

way they perceived distributive justice in the UPF. Female respondents have the

highest perception about the fairness in the distribution of benefits compared to the

males.

The results further show that there is no significant difference between the male and

female respondents about their perception of CWB in the Uganda Police Force. Male

respondent exhibited higher levels of perception about CWB than the females.

The results further show that there is significant different between males and female

respondents in the way they feel about transformational leadership and the way they

feel their leaders‟ exhibit transformational leadership. Both male and female

respondents exhibited the same level of perception of transformational leadership of

their leaders.

The results also show that there is no significant different between male and female

respondents in the way they feel about the level of populism of their leaders. The

female respondents exhibited the highest level of perception about the level populism

of their leaders than the male respondents.

 40

There is no significant different between the respondents in the way they feel about

the level of transactional leadership exhibited by their leaders. The males exhibited

the highest level of perception about their leaders‟ level of transactional leadership

than the female respondents.

There is no significant difference between the respondents in the way they assume

responsibilities of their families. The male respondents had the highest level of

kinship responsibility compared to the female respondents.

4.5. The Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA).

This was used to compare variances of variables.

Table 10: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results of age of respondents

Variable Age N Mean Std df Mean F Sig.
(Years) Deviation square
Leadership 20-25 21 2.9836 .79629 4 1.309 3.055 .019
behaviour 26-30 32 2.9353 .50053 148 .428
31-35 49 2.8670 .63975 152
36-40 18 3.4406 .88228
40-55 33 2.8224 .56088
Total 153 2.9551 .67194
Procedural justice 20-25 34 2.4449 .62704 4 .320 .818 .515
26-30 37 2.5608 .70503 201 .391
31-35 66 2.5152 .66090 205
36-40 23 2.3043 .44247
40-55 46 2.4049 .57746
Total 206 2.4636 .62412
Distributive 20-25 35 2.1551 .79568 4 1.901 3.209 .014
justice 26-30 38 2.1015 .83755 206 .592
31-35 66 1.8658 .77109 210
36-40 24 1.5774 .75414
40-55 48 1.7411 .69653
Total 211 1.8951 .78563
Counter 20-25 27 2.1279 .68089 4 .383 .879 .478
productive 26-30 33 2.0083 .58888 177 .435
workplace 31-35 59 2.1464 .68739 181
behaviour 36-40 22 1.8636 .67084
40-55 41 2.0333 .65232
 41

Total 182 2.0589 .65880

Transformational 20-25 27 3.0185 .82413 4 2.538 4.027 .004
leadership 26-30 33 2.9221 .64394 180 .630
31-35 58 2.8756 .76119 184
36-40 24 3.6161 .96703
40-55 43 2.9718 .81622
Total 185 3.0232 .81958
Transactional 20-25 28 3.0000 .74685 4 1.736 3.600 .008
leadership 26-30 37 2.9054 .49718 176 .482
31-35 61 2.7541 .66272 180
36-40 20 3.2300 .85907
40-55 35 2.5686 .77754
Total 181 2.8398 .71427
Populism 20-25 31 3.1806 .87537 4 1.055 1.547 .190
26-30 38 2.9947 .57982 195 .682
31-35 61 3.0557 .89452 199
36-40 24 3.2750 1.04642
40-55 46 2.8217 .73543
Total 200 3.0360 .83027
Kinship 20-25 34 1.5588 .36442 4 2.848 23.077 .000
responsibility 26-30 39 1.7372 .28068 205 .123
31-35 67 2.0597 .35646 209
36-40 25 2.0800 .40646
40-55 45 2.2167 .35596
Total 210 1.9548 .41902
Source: Primary data

The results show that there is a significant difference between respondents of different

age group. Respondents between the 31 – 35 years feel their leaders exhibit the highest

levels of transformational leadership feel those between 36 – 40 years have the lowest

level of transformational leadership.

The results also show that here is a significant difference between respondents of

different groups in terms of their Leadership Behaviour. Respondents in the age, group

31-35 years exhibit and feel their leaders exhibit the highest level of leadership

Behaviour in the Uganda Police Force.

 42

The results also show that there is a significant difference between respondents of

different age groups in terms of their transactional leadership Behaviour. Respondents in

the age group 31-35 exhibit and feel their leaders‟ exhibit highest level of transactional

leadership Behaviour in the UPF.

The results also show that there is a significant difference between respondents of

different age group in terms of populism. Respondents in the age group 31-35 years

perceived their leaders relate well with their juniors.

There is no significant difference between respondents of the different age groups in

terms of procedural justice. Those between 26 -30 years had the highest mean score.

The results further show that there is significant difference between respondents of

different age groups in terms of kinship responsibility. The respondents in the age group

40-55 years have the highest mean score. This indicates high level of kinship

responsibility.

There is no significant difference between respondents of different age groups in terms of

CWB. Respondents between 20-25 years have the highest mean score while those

between 26-30 years have the least mean score.

 43

Table 11: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of marital status of respondents

Variable Marital N Mean Std. df Mean f Sig.
Status Deviation square
Adequacy Single 21 2.9475 .74682 3 .129 .282 .839
Leadership Married 135 2.9303 .66390 155 .456
behaviour Widow 1 3.5172 - 158
Others 2 2.7931 .73149
Total 159 2.9345 .67100
Procedural Single 36 2.4722 .60806 3 .048 .118 .949
leadership Married 173 2.4509 .64258 211 .404
Widow 3 2.5833 .38188 214
Others 3 2.2917 .68845
Total 215 2.4541 .63151
Distributive Single 37 2.1158 .85173 3 .774 1.276 .283
leadership Married 177 1.8563 .76848 216 .607
Widow 3 1.7143 .37796 219
Others 3 1.6667 .59476
Total 220 1.8955 .78038
Counter productive Single 26 2.0944 .89164 3 .033 .075 .973
workplace behaviour Married 158 2.0288 .62329 185 .439
Widow 2 2.0000 .12856 188
Others 3 2.0303 .45757
Total 189 2.0375 .65802
Transformational Single 31 3.0300 .77542 3 .198 .288 .834
leadership Married 158 2.9855 .83322 188 .686
Widow 1 3.7143 - 191
Others 2 3.1071 1.36371
Total 192 2.9978 .82338
Populism Single 28 2.8107 .63790 3 .228 .452 .716
Married 157 2.8376 .72531 185 .504
Widow 2 3.1500 .49497 188
Others 2 2.3500 .07071
Total 189 2.8317 .70707
Transactional Single 33 3.1576 .91482 3 .394 .565 .638
leadership Married 171 2.9778 .82446 205 .697
Widow 3 3.2667 .30551 208
Others 2 2.8000 .56569
Total 209 3.0086 .83212
Kinship Single 37 1.4730 .28127 3 3.607 27.723 .000
responsibility Married 177 2.0593 .37785 215 .130
Widow 2 2.2500 .00000 218
Others 3 1.7500 .00000
Total 219 1.9578 .42186
Source: Primary data

The results in Table 9 show that there is no significant difference between respondents of

different marital status. The highest level of Leadership Behaviour is exhibited among the
 44

widowed. The widowed also feel that their leaders have the highest level of Leadership

Behaviour.

There is also no significant difference between respondents of different marital status in

terms of Transactional Leadership. Highest level of Transactional Leadership is exhibited

among the single respondents. The single respondents feel the leaders have the highest

level of Transactional Leadership.

There is also no significant difference between respondent of different marital status in

terms of populism. The highest level of Populism is exhibited among the widowed. The

widowed also feel their leader have the highest level of populism.

There is no a significant difference between respondent of different marital status in terms

of Transformational Leadership. Those who are single exhibit the highest level of

transformational Leadership. The single respondents also feel their leaders have the

highest level of Transformational Leadership.

There is no significant difference between respondents of different marital status in terms

of their perception of procedural justice. The widowed had the highest level of perception

of procedural justice in the UPF while the respondents with undefined marital status had

the least score.

 45

There is also no significant difference between respondents of different marital status in

their level of perception of CWB in the UPF. Single respondents had the highest mean

score while the widowed respondents had the least.

There is no significant difference between the respondents of different marital status in

their perception of distributive justice in the UPF. Single respondents have the highest

mean score while other respondents with undefined marital status had the least.

Table 12: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the Rank of the respondents joined the
Uganda Police Force
Variable Designation/title N Mean Std df Mean f Sig.
Deviation square
Leadership Constable 149 2.9151 .66541 2 .789 1.788 .171
behaviour Cadet 7 3.3990 .63235 154 .441
Learner Assistant 1 2.8276 156
Inspector of Police
Total 157 2.9361 .66750
Procedural Constable 205 2.4433 .62786 2 .314 .792 .454
justice Cadet 7 2.6429 .63092 211 .396
Learner Assistant 2 2.8750 .88388 213
Inspector of Police
Total 214 2.4539 .62879
Distributive Constable 209 1.8592 .75716 2 3.134 .5353 .005
justice Cadet 8 2.7500 .97416 215 .586
Learner Assistant 1 2.2857 217
Inspector of Police
Total 218 1.8938 .78039
Counter Constable 179 2.0584 .66067 2 .438 .999 .370
productive Cadet 7 1.7013 .63357 185 .438
workplace Learner Assistant 2 1.9545 .96424 187
behaviour Inspector of Police
Total 188 2.0440 .66183
Transformational Constable 181 2.9708 .81225 2 1.855 2.801 .063
leadership Cadet 8 3.6429 .85031 187 .662
Learner Assistant 1 3.5000 189
Inspector of Police
Total 190 3.0019 .82142
Populism Constable 177 2.8215 .70048 2 1.693 3.475 .033
Cadet 8 3.2375 .63231 183 .487
Learner Assistant 1 1.4000 185
Inspector of Police
Total 186 2.8317 .70727
 46

Transactional Constable 198 3.0111 .83653 2 .089 .127 .881

leadership Cadet 7 2.8571 .79762 204 .699
Learner Assistant 2 3.1000 .98995 206
Inspector of Police
Total 207 3.0068 .83268
Kinship Constable 207 1.9638 .41573 2 .616 3.580 .030
responsibility Cadet 8 1.5938 .39950 214 .172
Learner Assistant 2 2.2500 .35355 216
Inspector of Police
Total 217 1.9528 .41987
Source: Primary data

The results in Table 12 show that there is no significant difference between police

officers who joined UPF at different levels. The respondents who joined the Uganda

police force as cadet exhibit the highest level of transformational leadership while those

who joined as Assistant Inspector of police exhibit the lowest level of transformational

leadership.

The result also shows that there is no significant difference between respondents in the

way they perceive the leadership behaviour of their supervisors in the UPF. The

respondents who joined as cadets exhibit the highest level of leadership behaviour while

those who joined as Assistant Inspector of police exhibit the lowest of leadership

behaviour.

The results further show that there is a significant difference between respondents in their

level of populism in the UPF. Those who joined as cadets are more popular while those

joined as constables are less popular.

 47

Table 13: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Current Rank of Respondents

Variable Designation/title N Mean Std df Mean f Sig.

Deviation square
Leadership ASP &SP 8 3.3664 .59267 4 2.024 4.977 .001
behaviour Sear gent 15 2.5103 .40929 155 .407
Inspector of Police 16 2.7565 .49275 4
Corporal 25 2.6676 .51009
Constable 96 3.0643 .71341
Total 160 2.9347 .66889
Procedural ASP & SP 11 2.5795 .71430 4 .191 .478 .752
leadership Sear gent 19 2.5526 .53085 212 .399
Inspector of Police 16 2.5703 .52633 216
Corporal 40 2.4063 .55884
Constable 131 2.4265 .66882
Total 217 2.4522 .62888
Distributive ASP & SP 12 2.5714 .95541 4 2.347 4.071 .003
justice Sear gent 20 1.8429 .65202 217 .576
Inspector of Police 16 1.9911 .71803 221
Corporal 42 1.6020 .62273
Constable 132 1.9210 .79751
Total 222 1.8938 .78000
Counter ASP & SP 10 1.8818 .73237 4 .439 1.015 .401
productive Sear gent 18 1.8131 .59202 186 .432
workplace Inspector of Police 17 1.9465 .43129 190
behaviour Corporal 35 2.0831 .74294
Constable 111 2.0975 .65941
Total 191 2.0433 .65740
Transformational ASP & SP 10 3.7000 .81775 4 2.848 4.533 .002
leadership Sear gent 18 2.6071 .69695 188 .628
Inspector of Police 17 3.0042 .90155 192
Corporal 34 2.7080 .68992
Constable 114 3.0846 .81538
Total 193 2.9985 .82130
Transactional ASP & SP 10 2.9100 .88876 4 3.322 7.613 .000
leadership Sear gent 17 2.5882 .40602 185 .436
Inspector of Police 16 2.2063 .80122 189
Corporal 31 2.5774 .54937
Constable 116 3.0164 .67437
Total 190 2.8326 .70530
Populism ASP & SP 11 2.8364 .72010 4 .713 1.036 .389
Sear gent 19 2.6737 .65730 206 .688
Inspector of Police 17 3.0118 .57215 210
Corporal 38 3.0474 1.0969
Constable 126 3.0603 .79489
Total 211 3.0076 .82965
Kinship ASP& SP 12 1.8125 .52359 4 .441 2.571 .039
responsibility Sear gent 20 1.9625 .35610 216 .172
Inspector of Police 17 2.1176 .29471 220
Corporal 40 2.0938 .36112
Constable 132 1.9072 .43838
Total 221 1.9570 .42018
Source: Primary data
 48

The result in Table 13 shows that there is significant difference between respondents of

different ranks in terms of their perception of the leadership behaviour of their leaders.

ASP and SP have the highest perception of leadership behaviour while sergeants have the

lowest level of perception of leadership behaviour in the police force.

Table 13 further shows that there is significant difference in perception among the

respondents of the various ranks. ASP and SP respondents exhibited the highest level of

transformational leadership while the sergeants exhibited the least level of

transformational leadership.

The results further reveal that there is significant difference in perception of distributive

justice among the respondents of the various ranks. ASP and SP had the highest mean

score while the corporal had the least.

The results also show that there is significant difference in the level of assuming family

responsibility among respondents of various ranks. IP had the highest level of kinship

responsibility while ASP and SP had the least.

The result further reveals that there is no significant difference among the respondents of

various ranks about their perception of CWB in the UPF. Constables had the highest
 49

level of perception about the prevalence of CWB in the UPF while sergeants had the least

perception.

The results also show that there is no significant dereference between respondents of

various ranks in terms of populism. The constables had the highest mean score while the

sergeants had the least score.

The results further reveal no significant difference in terms of perception of procedural

justice. ASP and SP had the highest mean score.

The result show insignificant relationship among the respondents of various ranks in

terms of transactional leadership.

Table 14: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of Number of years the Respondents

have worked with the Uganda Police Force
Variable Work N Mean Std. df Mean f Sig.
experience Deviation square
in years
Leadership 0-1 22 3.0737 .76887 4 1.057 2.436 0.05
behaviour 2-3 15 3.1747 .51353 154 .434
4-5 14 3.2635 .63520 158
6-10 17 2.9554 .73572
11 and 91 2.8098 .63975
above
Total 159 2.9362 .67072
Procedural 0-1 26 2.4808 .61815 4 .374 .954 .434
leadership 2-3 21 2.5595 .64786 211 .393
4-5 20 2.2125 .56647 215
6-10 26 2.5096 .76642
11 and 123 2.4461 .60120
above
Total 216 2.4473 .62626
 50

Distributive 0-1 28 2.2704 .89792 4 1.566 2.649 .034

behaviour 2-3 21 1.9524 .79325 215 .591
4-5 20 2.0429 .75891 219
6-10 26 1.9121 .97569
11 and 125 1.7749 .68398
above
Total 220 1.8955 .78038
Counter 0-1 24 1.9053 .72255 4 .381 .882 .476
productive 2-3 15 2.1091 .48859 184 .431
workplace 4-5 18 2.1566 .60608 188
behaviour 6-10 20 1.8591 .57683
11 and 112 2.0722 .68097
above
Total 189 2.0394 .65604
Transformational 0-1 27 3.1402 .92444 4 1.143 1.738 .143
leadership 2-3 16 3.2321 .61859 186 .658
behaviour 4-5 16 3.2946 .65251 190
6-10 22 3.0130 .94263
11 and 110 2.8721 .79775
above
Total 191 2.9918 .81740
Populism 0-1 25 3.0160 .67000 4 1.359 2.836 .026
2-3 20 3.0600 .48818 184 .479
4-5 17 3.0647 .65664 188
6-10 20 2.9800 .64039
11 and 107 2.6888 .74090
above
Total 189 2.8360 .70566
Transactional 0-1 27 3.0222 .78119 4 1.722 2.635 0.35
leadership 2-3 20 3.3400 .65887 204 .653
4-5 18 3.3000 .73324 208
6-10 24 2.6667 .70690
11 and 120 2.9517 .86267
above
Total 209 2.9952 .82098
Kinship 0-1 29 1.5000 .35355 4 2.571 19.353 .000
responsibility 2-3 21 1.9167 .54962 214 .133
4-5 19 1.7368 .29432 218
6-10 25 1.8900 .30687
11 and 125 2.1160 .34859
above
Total 219 1.9566 .42140
Source: Primary data

The results in Table 14 show that there is no significant difference between respondents

who worked with UPF for various years. The respondents who had spent 2-3 years in
 51

the UPF had the highest mean score of 3.3400 while those who had worked for 6-10

years had the lowest score of 2.6667 for transactional leadership.

The results show a significant difference between respondents who have worked with

UPF for various years in terms of their perception about distributive justice. Those who

had worked for 0-1 years had the highest level of perception.

The results further reveal that there is no significant difference between respondents who

worked for various durations in terms of leadership behaviour. The respondents who had

worked 4-5 years had the highest mean score of 3.2635 while those who had worked for

11 years and above had the lowest mean score of 2.8098 for leadership behaviour.

The results also show a significant difference in perception about populism among

respondents. Those who had worked for 2-3 years had the highest level of perception

while those who had worked for 11 years and above had the least.

The results also show that there is no significant difference between the respondents who

had worked for various durations. Respondents who had worked for 4-5 years had the

highest mean score of 3.2321. While those who had worked for 11 years and above had

the least mean score of 2.8721 for transformational leadership.

The results show no significant difference in perception about CWB among the

respondents. Those who had worked for 4-5 years had the highest score while those who

had worked for 0-1 years had the least.

 52

The results further show no significant difference in perception about procedural justice

among the respondents who had worked for various years in the UPF. Those who had

worked for 2-3 years had the highest mean score while those who had worked for 4-5

years had the least.

The results also show insignificant difference of the level of kinship responsibility among

the respondents who had worked for various years in the UPF

4.6. Rotated component factor analysis

This test was used to show characteristics of the Eigen values, percentage. The variables
for which constructs was shown is leadership behaviour as shown in Table 15 below

Table 15: Rotated components for matrix leadership

Item Transformation Populism Transactional
leadership leadership
I place strong emphasis on careful problem solving before 0.677
taking action
I get them to identify key aspects of complex problems 0.649
I get them to use reasoning and evidence to solve problems 0.609
I provide them with reasons to change the way they think 0.606
about problems
I require them to back up their opinions with good reasoning 0.600
I give personal attention to those who seem neglected 0.599
I get them to look at problems as learning opportunities 0.594
I express my appreciation when they do a good job 0.582
I emphasise the use of intelligence to overcome obstacles 0.551
I let them know how they are doing 0.518
I increase their optimism for the future 0.452
When they do good work I commend them 0.439
I defend my subordinates actions to others in the organisation 0.429
if they made an honest mistake
I treat each of them as an individual 0.292
My subordinates are impressed with the knowledge of the job 0.664
My subordinates like me very much 0.627
My subordinates respect my competence of the job 0.599
My subordinates admire my professional skills 0.582
My subordinates would like to have me as a friend 0.499
 53

My subordinates feel I am a lot of fun to work with 0.448

I make sure they think through what is involved before taking 0.428
action
I avoid intervening except when there is a failure to meet 0.406
objectives
A mistake has to occur before I take action 0.373
I defend the action of my subordinates to a superior even 0.224
without complete knowledge of the issue in question
Provide them with new ways of looking at problems which 0.623
initially seemed puzzling to them
My subordinates are willing to apply extra effort beyond those 0.598
normally required to meet the work goals
My subordinates do not mind working hardest 0.597
My subordinates do work that goes beyond what is specified 0.513
in the job description
I communicate expectations of high performance to them 0.436
Total Eigen values 4.923 3.132 2.880
% of variance 16.074 10.800 8.206
Cumulative % 16.074 27.774 35.981
Source: Primary data

Rotational component factor analysis results for leadership behaviour revealed three

factors namely: - Transformational leadership, populism and factor 3.

Transformational leadership has the Eigen value of 4.923 and a percentage variance of

16.072, populism has an Eigen value of 3.132 and percentage value of 10.800. factor 3

has an Eigen value of 2.880 and a percentage variance of 8.206. Overall these three

factors contribute to 35.981% of the variance in leadership behaviour.

 54

CHAPTER FIVE

INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

5.0. Introduction

This chapter covers the interpretation and discussion of findings. The researcher carried

out the study to examine the relationship between the leadership behaviour and

counterproductive workplace behaviour. Other variables such as procedural Justice and

Distributive Justice were considered as mediating variables and they formed conceptual

frame work on page 8 which the research questions were based. In this chapter, the

findings of the study which are presented in chapter four are interpreted and discussed in

relation to the research questions listed below. The conclusion and some

recommendations are given at the end of the discussion basing on the following

questions:

i. what is the relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Procedural Justice?

ii. what is the relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Distributive

Justice?

iii. what is the relationship between Procedural Justice and Distributive justice?

iv. what is the relationship between Procedural Justice and Counterproductive

Workplace Behaviour?

v. what is the relationship between Distributive Justice and Counterproductive

Workplace Behaviour?
 55

vi. what is the relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Counterproductive

Workplace Behaviour?

5.1. The relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Procedural Justice

Initially there was no significant relationship between leadership behaviour and

procedural Justice(r=0.075, P<0.05), however after factoring (as shown in Table 15)

the variable leadership to show characteristics of the Eigen values, a relationship

developed between transformational leadership and procedural justice (r=0.130, P<0.05)

and transactional leadership and procedural justice(r=0.117, P<0.05).

This implies that leadership Behaviour in the UPF has a relationship with procedural

justice.

The result is in disagreement with the findings of Geddes (2005) who argued that, the rise

of governance approaches often results in the stripping away of previous institutional

structures and an intensification of competition between places. The „roll out‟ of neo

liberal policies in Australia was accompanied by a further centralisation of power in

Australia, with the shift from Keynesian to monetarist economic management resulting in

reduced public sector borrowings and expenditure and micro economic reforms – such as

the privatisation of government trading enterprises - that adversely affected some regions,

especially non metropolitan places.

 56

However, the finding is in agreement with Erdogan and Liden, (2006), who noted that an

important antecedent of justice perceptions in organizations is the leader, and therefore,

employees‟ justice perceptions are related to the attitudes and behaviours of the leader.

The findings is also in agreement with Collinge and Gibney (2011) who noted that, issues

of the adequacy and effectiveness of leadership are now seen as helpful in seeking to

explain policy and implementation deficits associated with recent urban and regional

innovations. The restructuring of key parts of the economy has also called into question

„the efficacy of contemporary arrangement for local and regional economic

development......and is placing „formal‟ political and executive leadership...under the

spotlight. Further, the result is in agreement with Colonel Williams (2005) who argued

that some leaders can be self-serving and arrogant, rigid and unwilling to admit mistakes,

and unwilling to develop others, and micromanage instead.

It is also in agreement with Hannah et al. (2010) who concluded that abusive leaders are

toxic to units. Not only do they create a negative culture and climate in their unit, but our

results showed that they increase ethical transgressions. The finding is also in agreement

with Eberlin and Tatum (2008) who found that when managers inadvertently make biased

decisions or cognitive errors that lead to adverse results, their subordinates may perceive

these acts as unfair and unjust even when no injustice was intended. Hence, employees

have a strong sense of fairness and justice, and the leader needs to consider these

perceptions when making decisions. Further, the result is in agreement with the findings

of Størseth, (2006) which found out that people oriented leadership behaviour, which

focus on improving employee‟ skills and motivation, reduce the perceived job insecurity
 57

and are likely to reduce the negative consequences of job insecurity. This decrease in

perceived job insecurity and its negative consequences is caused by two main features of

people oriented leadership styles. The result supports the findings of Lee et. al., (2010)

who found that subordinates in a high supervisor-subordinate relationship perceive

greater procedural justice.

5.2. The relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Distributive Justice

Initially the results shows that there is no significant relationship between leadership

behaviour and distributive justice, (r = 0.081, P< 0.05). ), even after factoring (as

shown in Table 15) the variable leadership to show characteristics of the Eigen values,

there is still no relationship developed between transformational leadership, transactional

leadership and populism and distributive justice. This implies that leadership behaviour

has no relationship with the distribution of goods and conditions that affect

individuals in the UPF.

The results is in support with the findings of Soturatua (2010) who argued that, there are

new ways of understanding leadership as a process, rather than as an outcome, that

acknowledges and privileges the role of public service professionals and managers in

ways that conflict with more conventional accounts of leadership. The results also is in

support with the findings of Yan & Hunt, (2005) who stated that employees with a

masculine orientation can be assumed to mainly focus on the distribution of material

objects as they are characterized as achievement oriented. They are expected to accord

lower importance to personal interactions with supervisors than to the allocation of

 58

rewards. Thus, it is more likely that they feel treated unjust when they are not among the

ones who receive benefits rather than when interpersonal relationships with supervisors

lack dignity and respect. The result supports the findings of Lee et al. (2010) who found

that subordinates in a high supervisor-subordinate relationship perceive greater

distributive.

5.3. The relationship between Procedural Justice and Distributive Justice

The result shows that there is significant relationship between Procedural Justice and

Distributive Justice in the UPF (r=0.401**, p<0.05). This means that the more fair

procedures are used in the UPF to determine resource allocation the more equitable

would be the distribution of those resources. The results is in support with Burton et

al., (2008); Piccolo et al., (2008) who noted that employees in low-quality leader member

exchanges perceived less fairness in distributive justice, and procedural justice.

The result is also in support with Bakshi, Kumar and Rani (2009) who reported that

procedural and distributive justice both were significantly correlated with the

organizational commitment of the employees in India. The results is also in support with

Lambert et al. (2005) who established that significant positive associations of employees‟

perceptions of distributive and procedural justice with commitment to the organization.

The findings also supports the study by Lambert et. al., (2005) who argued that

perceptions of procedural justice have a greater impact on organizational commitment of

employees than perceptions of distributive justice. The results is also in support with the
 59

findings of Loi, Hang-Yue, & Foley, (2006) who noted that managers should increasingly

consider the possible effects of their interpersonal treatment with employees in practice.

Although one may think that material outcomes and the procedures used to distribute

those matter more to employees than the way this is communicated.

5.4. The relationship between Procedural Justice and CWB

The results show that there is significant relationship between procedural justice and

CWB. (r = 0.108, P≤0.05). This implies that procedural justice in the UPF influences

CWB.

The results concurs with Kurtzberg et. al., (2005) who argued that it is tremendously

difficult for individuals to remain objective about a situation when they feel that others

are disagreeing, or even disapproving, of their point of view. The result concurs with the

findings of Somech et. al., (2009) when they explained that a cooperative team more

often sees an issue as a common problem that needs to be dealt with. In comparison a

team that‟s more competitive focused sees the problem as threat against their personal

goals. Somech et. al., (2009) they further argued that competitive behaviour hinders

communication, creativity and knowledge sharing which negatively affects the

performance of the team.

The result concurs with the findings of Bolton and Grawitch (2011) who stated that

creating an ethical climate may help to prevent the influence and spread of a potentially

dysfunctional culture in an organisation, because the behaviour of one employee is

 60

provoked by the behaviour of co-workers. The result also concurs with the findings of

Latham, (2007) who stated that the appearance of justice is just as, or more important

than, the actual concept of justice because it is what inspires reaction. The result also

supports the findings of Latham and Pinder, (2005) who stated that when employees

perceive unfair treatment at workplace, their outcome will be in negative emotion and

behaviour.

The results is in support to the findings of Kivimäki et. al., (2005) who stated that recent

medical research indicates that recurrent perceptions of injustice at work – no doubt

experienced by targets of bullying– are associated with chronic stress, high blood

pressure, and increased risk of coronary heart disease.

5.5. The relationship between Distributive Justice and CWB

The result shows that there is insignificant relationship between the two variables

(r=-0.021, P<0.05). This implies that that the variables do not influence each other.

On the contrary Somech et. al., (2009) found that high task interdependence and intense

interaction among team members promotes collaborative behaviour through increased

communication and joint planning. The results also does not concur with the findings of

Hamel (2009) who indicates most organizations rely too much on punishments in order to

force their employees to conform, which reflects an organization‟s lack of faith in its

employees. Only in a corporate culture where there is a high degree of trust and low

degree of fear can an organization‟s adaptation and innovation continue to grow.

 61

5.6. The relationship between Leadership behaviour and Counterproductive

Workplace Behaviour

Initially, there is no relationship between leadership behaviour and Counterproductive

Workplace Behaviour (r=-0.081, P<0.05), even after factoring (as shown in table 15)

the variable leadership to show characteristics of the Eigen values, there is still no

relationship developed between transformational leadership (r=-0.051, P<0.05)

transactional leadership (r= 0.017, P<0.05) and Populism (r= - 0.111, P<0.05) and

Counterproductive Workplace Behaviour. This means that the leadership behaviour

has no relationship with the negative behaviour of the Police Officers of the UPF.

The result does not concur with the findings of Keller, (2006) who stated that employees

who experience people oriented leadership behaviour have the feeling that their leader

will act in their best interest. A people oriented leader builds long lasting personal

relationships with employees. Therefore, employees will be more committed to the

company, especially to their manager, and will less often call in sick or be absent, and

have less turnover intentions.

The result does not concur with the findings of Kroehn et al (2011) who examined two

instances of regional leadership in Australia‟s rural periphery – the Wheatbelt of Western

Australia and in Port Lincoln on South Australia‟s Eyre Peninsula. In the former instance

leadership was associated with the emergence of a potential new industry the
 62

commercialisation of products from oil mallees – with a number of public sector actors

playing an important role in fostering the emergence of this new industry.

The result does not concur with the findings of Størseth (2006) who showed that the style

of leadership may influence the experienced job insecurity, and probably moderate the

relationship between perceived job insecurity and employees‟ work performance.

5.7. Conclusion

The study was set to establish the relationship between Leadership Behaviour and

Counterproductive Workplace Behaviour in the Uganda Police Force. Other mediating

variables namely Procedural Justice and Distributive Justice were included in the study

and their relation were tested using Pearson‟s M Correlation coefficient.

(i) The findings established that there is no significant relationship between

Leadership Behaviour and Counterproductive Workplace Behaviour. After

the variable leadership was factored to introduce other elements of

leadership behaviour transformational, transactional leadership and

populism, the relationship still does not exist. The officers have remained

counterproductive irrespective of proper leadership. The findings had

established that there is a relationship between Kinship responsibility and

Counter productivity. In the UPF the more dependents an officer has the

more counterproductive he becomes. Further the ability of the leader to

appeal to higher ideals and values of subordinate police officers by creating

 63

a feeling of justice, loyalty and trust does not bar the subordinate officers

from being counterproductive;

(ii) The findings also established that there is a relationship between

Leadership Behaviour and Procedural Justice. The subordinate police

officers appreciate the ability of their leaders in ensuring that procedural

justices in determination of distribution of outcomes are followed;

(iii) The findings also established that Leadership behaviour relates negatively

with Distributive Justice in the UPF. A leader in the UPF ensures that at the

level he commands, there is fairness in following procedure for the

distribution but cannot determine the final disposal of outcome;

(iv) It is also concluded that there is a significant relationship between

Procedural Justice and Distributive Justice in the Uganda Police Force. The

existence of Procedural Justice like following procedure for selection for

promotion, allocation of accommodation and further training leads to fair

distribution of those outcomes. The respondents are aware that there are

policies in place to determine the distribution of outcomes in the Uganda

Police Force;

(v) It is also concluded that there is significant relationship between Procedural

Justice and Counterproductive Workplace Behaviour in the Uganda Police

Force. In the UPF the laid down procedures to ensure fair distribution of

outcomes are followed by the leaders; the police officers have continued to

be counter productive; and

 64

(vi) It is further concluded that there is significant relationship between

Distributive Justice and Counterproductive Workplace Behaviour in the

Uganda Police Force. There is coexistence between fair distribution of

outcomes and counter productive workplace behaviour in the UPF. Much

as the police officer are promoted, considered for training, paid fair

salaries like any other public servant, they have continued to act contrary to

the goals of the UPF like practicing alcoholism, corruption, and

absenteeism.

5.8. Recommendation

(i) The findings established that there is a relationship between leadership

behaviour and procedural justice. The researcher recommends that, all

leaders in the police force should enhance their application of

procedural justice so as to sustain the appreciation among the junior

officers in that respect;

(ii) It is also concluded that there is a significant relationship between

procedural justice and distributive justice in the Uganda Police Force.

The respondents were aware that there are policies in place to

determine the distribution of outcomes in the Uganda Police Force.

The researcher recommends that outcomes in the police force should

continue to be determined while following the laid down procedures

and following the policies with improvements to take time changes into

consideration; and
 65

(iii) The findings further reveal that much as there is procedural justice and

distributive justice in the UPF, there exist acts of Counterproductive

Workplace Behaviour. The researcher recommends that the elements of

leadership behaviour like active management by exception should be

practiced by the middle level managers whereby they (the Managers)

search for potential deviations from rules and standards by the

subordinates and take corrective actions. The police management

should also emphases inspirational motivation whereby the

subordinates are inspired through goal-setting, visionary behaviour and

role modelling. The police leadership should also transform the

subordinate police officers by inducing them to transcend their own self

interest for the sake of the organisation objectives.

5.9. Areas for further research

(i) This research covered mid level leadership of the UPF which show no

relationship between Transformation Leadership and Distributive Justice. I

suggest that a study be carried out covering top level leadership of UPF to

determine the relationship between transformation leadership and distributive

justice since distributive justice is determine at higher level leadership;

(ii) The research also revealed the fact that police officers have remained counter

productive despite the fact that proper procedures are followed to determine

fair distribution of outcomes. A study should be carried out to find out the
 66

reasons why police officers have remained counter productive despite the fact

that there is fair distribution of outcomes and proper procedures are followed

to determine the distribution of those outcomes; and

(iii) Despite perceived existence of procedural and distributive justice, counter

productive work place behaviour still exists in the UPF as a result of existence

of dependants among the police officers. A study should therefore be carried

out to determine appropriate counselling and guidance programmes for police

officers with many dependants so as to help the UPF management address

existence of Counterproductive workplace behaviour.

 67

REFERENCES

Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances

in Experimental Social Psychology (2), 267-299. New York: Academic Press.

Anderson, C. & Pontusson, J. (2007). „Workers, Worries and Welfare States:

Social Protection and Job Insecurity in 15 OECD Countries‟. European Journal of

Political Research 46 (2), 211–35.

Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. 2005. Distributive and procedural justice:

Construct distinctiveness, construct interdependence, and overall justice. In J. Greenberg

& J. Colquitt (Eds.) The handbook of organizational justice: 59-84. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Mawheh: New Jersey.

Ambrose, S., Huston, T., & Norman, M. (2005). A qualitative method for

assessing faculty satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 46, 803–830.

Amin, M.A. (2005). Foundation for statistical inferences for the social sciences.

Kampala, Makerere University.

Aritzeta, A., Ayestaran, S. and Swailes, S. (2005) „Team role preference and

conflict management styles‟, The International Journal of Conflict Management, 16 (2),

pp. 157-182 [Online] Available at:

http://nuweb.northumbria.ac.uk/library/norapowersearch/index.html (Accessed: 21 of

January 2011).

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related

criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality. Journal of Research in

Personality, 42(5), 1216-1228. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.006

 68

Bakshi, A., Kumar, K., & Rani, E. (2009). Organizational justice perceptions as

predictor of job satisfaction and organization commitment. International Journal Business

Management, 4(9): 145-154.

Baran, B., & Adelman, M. (2010). Preparing for the unthinkable: Leadership

development for organizational crises. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:

Perspectives on Practice and Science, 3(1).

Baron, R. A., Branscombe, N.R. & Byrne, D. (2009). Social Psychology. Boston,

MA: Pearson

Bauer, & Fox, (2010) Measurement artefacts in the assessment of

counterproductive work behaviour and organizational citizenship behaviour: Do we know

what we think we know? Journal of Allied Psychology, 97 781-790

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, 85, 410-424. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410

Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace:

Conceptual, ideological, and empirical issues. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.),

Counterproductive work behaviour: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 65–81).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Blau, G., & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace

incivility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 595–614.

Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim‟s

perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,

998–1012.
 69

Bryant, M., & Higgins, V. (2010) Self-confessed troublemakers: An interactions

view of deviance during organizational change. Human Relations, 63, 249-277. doi:

10.1177/0018726709338637

Burke, R. J. (2006). Why leaders fail. Exploring the dark side. In R. J. Burke & C.

L. Cooper (Eds.), Inspiring leaders. London: Routledge.

Burton, J.P., C.J. Sablynski, and T. Sekiguchi, (2008). “Linking Justice,

Performance, and Citizenship Via Leader-Member Exchange”, Journal of Business and

Psychology 23, pp. 51-61.

Burroughs, S. M., & James, L. R. (2005). Advancing the assessment of

dispositional aggressiveness through conditional reasoning. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector

(Eds.), Counterproductive work behaviour: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 127–

150). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Chang, K., & Smithikrai, C. (2010) Counterproductive behaviour at work: an

investigation into reduction strategies. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 21, 1272-1288. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2010.483852

Cheng, G. & Chan, D. (2008). 'Who Suffers More from Job Insecurity? A Meta-

Analytic Review.' Applied Psychology: An International Review 57(2): 272-303.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J.S. (2007) Does perceived unfairness exacerbate

or mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work behaviours related to envy? Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92, 666-680. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.666

Collinge, C. and Gibney, J. (2011) Place Making and the Limitations of Spatial

Leadership: Reflections on the Oresund, pp 109-24 in Collinge, C. Gibney, J. and Mabey,

C. 2011 Leadership and Place, Routledge, Abingdon.

 70

Collinge, C. Gibney, J. and Mabey, C. (2011) Leadership and Place, Routledge,

Abingdon.

Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D.E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of

organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34-48.

Dalal, R.S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational

citizenship behaviour and counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90, 1241-1255. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241

Day, D. (2010). The difficulties of learning from experience and the need for

deliberate practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Practice

and Science, 3(1).

De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., Vander Elst, T. and Handaha, Y. (2010), „Objective

Threat of Unemployment and Situational Uncertainty During A Restructuring:

Associations with Perceived Job Insecurity and Strain.‟ Journal of Business Psychology,

25, 75-85.

DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. (2010). Power to people: Where has personal

agency gone in leadership development? Industrial and Organizational Psychology:

Perspectives on Practice and Science, 3(1).

DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The

role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 94:4, 859-875.

Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P., Russel, J., & Oh, I. (2009). Understanding managerial

development: Integrating developmental assignments, learning orientation, and access to

 71

developmental opportunities in predicting managerial competencies. Academy of

Management Journal, 52:4, 731-743.

Desivilya, H.S. and Yagil, D. (2005) „The role of emotions in conflict

management: The case of work teams‟, The International Journal of Conflict

Management, 16 (1), pp. 55-69 [Online] Available at:

http://nuweb.northumbria.ac.uk/library/norapowersearch/index.html (Accessed: 21 of

January 2011).

Desivilya, H.S. and Eizen, D. (2005) „Conflict management in work teams: The

role of social self-efficacy and group identification ‟, The International Journal of

Conflict Management, 16 (2), pp. 183-208 [Online] Available at:

http://nuweb.northumbria.ac.uk/library/norapowersearch/index.html (Accessed: 21 of

January 2011).

Dominick, P., Squires, P., & Cervone, D. (2010). Back to Persons: On social-

cognitive processes and products of leadership. Industrial and Organizational

Psychology: Perspectives on Practice and Science, 3(1).

Eberlin, R.J., and B.C. Tatum, (2008). “Making Just Decisions: Organizational

Justice, Decision Making, and Leadership”, Management Decision 46, pp. 310-329.

Erdogan, B., and R.C. Liden, (2006). “Collectivism as a Moderator of Responses

to Organizational Justice: Implications for Leader-Member Exchange and Ingratiation”,

Journal of Organizational Behaviour 21, pp. 1-27.

Erdogan, B., R.C. Liden, and M.L. Kraimer, 2006. “Justice and Leader-Member

Exchange: The Moderating Role of Organizational Culture”, Academy of Management

Journal 49, pp. 395-406.

 72

Ferris, D.L, Brown, D.J., & Heller, D. (2009) Organizational supports and

organizational deviance: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 279-286. doi:

10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.09.001

Ferris, D.L, Brown, D.J., Lian, H., & Keeping, L.M. (2009) When does self-

esteem relate to deviant behavior? The role of contingencies of self-worth. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 94, 1345-1353. doi: 10.1037/a0016115

Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. (2008). The end of the person–situation debate: An

emerging synthesis in the answer to the consistency question. Social and Personality

Psychology Compass, 2(4), 1667-1684.

Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. E. (2009). In favour of the synthetic resolution to the

person-situation debate. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(2), 150-154.

Flynn, F. J., & Schaumberg, R. L. (2011). When feeling bad leads to feeling good:

Guilt proneness and affective organizational commitment. Journal of Applied

Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0024166

Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005). Beyond counterproductive work behaviour:

Moral emotions and deontic retaliation vs. reconciliation. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector

(Eds.), Counterproductive work behaviour: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 83-

105). Washington, DC: APA Press.

Fox, S. (2005). The good, the bad (and this may get ugly): Do good citizens

perform counterproductive work behaviour? Academy of Management, Honolulu,

August, 2005.
 73

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., Bruursema, K., & Kessler, S. R. (2011). The

deviant citizen: Measuring potential positive relations between counterproductive work

behaviour and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02032.x

Fox, S. (2009). Bullying in academia: Distinctive relations of power and

control. Loyola University, Chicago.

Fox, S. and Spector, P. (Eds) (2005). Counterproductive Work Behaviour.

Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Fox, S. & Spector, P. E. (2005). Counterproductive work behaviour:

Investigations of actors and targets. American Psychological Association, NE.

Geddes, M.(2005) Neoliberalism and Local Governance – Cross National

Perspectives and Speculations, Policy Studies, 26:3/4, pp 359-377.

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational

behaviour. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479-514.

Gruman, J. A., Saks, A. M., & Zweig, D. I. (2006). Organizational socialization

tactics and newcomer proactive behaviours: An integrative study. Journal of Vocational

Behaviour, 69, 90-104.

Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,

Sixth Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Hampson, S. E. (2011). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality

traits “get outside the skin" Annual Review of Psychology. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-

120710-100419
 74

Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with

abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on

negative employee outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 264–280.

Hausknecht, J.P., Sturman, M.C., & Roberson, Q.M. (2011). Justice as a Dynamic

Construct: Effects of Individual Trajectories on Distal Work Outcomes. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 96(4), 872-880.

Herold, D., Fedor, D., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). ‟The effects of

transformational and change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A

multilevel study.‟ Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (2), 346-357.

Hergenrader, Susan M. (2010) An Experimental Study of the Effect of

Addressing Non-conscious Factors in Ethical Decision Making During Ethics Training in

Public Administration, Ph. D in Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Dallas.

Hershcovis, S. M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness,

M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 228–238.

Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2007). Towards A relational model of

workplace aggression. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper, & R. Klimoski (Eds.),

Dysfunctional Workplace: Management Challenges and Symptoms (pp. 268–284).

Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to

workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators.

Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 31, 24–44.

 75

Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre´, K. E., & Inness,

M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 228–238.

Hilgenkamp, H., & Steele, J.P. (2010). 2009 Center for Army Leadership Annual

Survey of Army Leadership (CASAL): Qualitative findings of talent management,

broadening, and leader derailment. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Center for Army Leadership.

Hughes, R. Ginnett, R. and Curphy, G. (2009) Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons

of Experience. 6th edn. New York: McGraw Hill.

Inspectorate of Government (2003); the second national integrity survey

Inspectorate of Government (2008; the third national integrity survey

Jawahar, I. M. (2007). The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance

appraisal reactions. Journal of Labour Research, 28(4), 735-754.doi:10.1007/s12122-007-

9014-1

Jones, Gareth R. (2007). Organizational Theory, Design, and Change, 5th Ed.,

Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Jung D, Wu A, Chow CW (2008). Towards understanding the direct and indirect

effects of CEO‟s transformational leadership on firm innovation. Leadership Quart.,

19(5): 582-594.

Keashly, L. and Harvey, S. (2005). „Emotional abuse in the workplace‟. In Fox, S.

and Spector, P. (Eds), Counterproductive Work Behaviours. Washington, D.C.: American

Psychological Association, 201–36.

Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2008). Workplace Behaviour Project Survey.

Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2009). Building a constructive communication

 76

climate: The Workplace Stress and Aggression Project. In P. Lutgen- Sandvik & B.

Sypher (Eds.), Destructive organizational communication: Processes, consequences

Keashly, L. and Neuman, J. H. (2005). „Bullying in the workplace: its impact and

management‟. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 8, 335–73.

Kefela GT (2010). Understanding Organizational Culture and Leadership -

Enhance Efficiency and Productivity. PM World Today,12(1): 1-14.

Keller, R. (2006). „Transformational Leadership, Initiating Structure, and

Substitutes for Leadership: A Longitudinal Study of Research and Development Project

Team Performance.‟ Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202-210.

Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T., & Hochwarter, W. (2009). The

interactive effects of psychological contract breach and organizational politics on

perceived organizational support: Evidence from two longitudinal studies. Journal of

Management Studies, 46, 806–834.

Kivimäki, M., Ferrie, J. E., Brunner, E., Head, J., Shipley, M. J., Vahtera, J., et al.

(2005). „Justice at work and reduced risk of coronary heart disease among employees‟.

Archives of Internal Medicine, 165, 2245–51

Krause, K. (2005). The changing student experience: Who‟s driving it and where

is it going? Keynote paper presented at Student Experience Conference: Good Practice

iUniversity, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, 5-7 September 2005.

Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The First Year

Experience in Australian Universities: Findings from a decade of national studies.

Canberra: DEST. [Available online: http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au]

 77

Latham, G. P. (2007), Work motivation: history, theory, research and practice,

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Lee, R. T., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2006). When prey turns predatory: Workplace

bullying as a predictor of counter aggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 352–377.

Loi, R., Hang-Yue, N., & Foley, S. (2006). Linking employees' justice

perceptions to organizational commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of

perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 79(1), 101-120.

Makri M, Scandura TA (2010). Exploring the effects of creative CEO leadership

on innovation in high-technology firms. Leadersh. Quart., 21(1): 75-88.

McCormack, D., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N., & Yang, L. (2006). The concurrent

effects of workplace bullying, satisfaction with supervisor, and satisfaction with co-

workers on affective commitment among school teachers in China. International Journal

of Conflict Management, 17, 316–331.

McGonagle, A. K., Dugan, A., Gallus, J. A., Johnson, N. C., Magley, V. J., &

Bunk, J. (2008). Protection from workplace incivility: The role of personal power.

Presented at the 7th Annual Work, Stress, & Health Conference, Washington, DC.

McCain, Tsai and Bellino‟s (2010) Nicholas, Organizational justice, employees`

ethical behaviour, and job satisfaction in the casino industry, International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22, No. 7: 992-1009

McCall, M. (2010). Recasting Leadership Development. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Practice and Science, 3(1).

 78

McCann J (2008). Leadership in the apparel manufacturing environment: An

analysis based on the multifactor leadership questionnaire. SAM Adv. Manag. J., pp. 20-

50.

McGonagle, A. K., Dugan, A., Gallus, J. A., Johnson, N. C., Magley, V. J., &

Bunk, J. (2008). Protection from workplace incivility: The role of personal power.

Presented at the 7th Annual Work, Stress, & Health Conference, Washington, DC.

Neuman, J. H. and Baron, R. A. (2005). „Aggression in the workplace: a social-

psychological perspective‟. In Fox, S. and Spector, P. (Eds), Counterproductive Work

Behaviours. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 13–40.

Norman, M., Ambrose, S., & Huston, T. A. (2006). Assessing and addressing

faculty morale: Cultivating consciousness, empathy, and empowerment. Review of

Higher Education, 29, 347–379.

Ogola et. al. (2006). Report on Judicial Commission of Inquiry into alleged

Mismanagement of Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria,

Government of Uganda

Penney, L. M., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., Hunter, E. M., & Turnstall, M. (2007). A

motivational analysis of counterproductive work behaviour (CWB). Unpublished

manuscript, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.

Ponnu CH, Chuah CC (2010). Organizational commitment, organizational justice

and employee turnover in Malaysia. Afr. J. Bus. Manag., 4(13): 2676-2692.

Probst, T., Stewart, S., Gruys, M., & Tierney, W. (2007). „Productivity,

counterproductivity and creativity: The ups and downs of job insecurity.‟ Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 479-497.

 79

Rayner, C., & Keashly, L. (2005). Bullying at work: A perspective from Britain

and North America. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behaviour.

Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 271-296). Washington DC: American

Psychological Association.

Robbins SP (2005). Organizational behaviour (11th ed). Prentice Hall

International, New Jersey, NJ.

Sebutinde et al (2000); Report on Judicial Commission of Inquiry into corruption

in the Uganda Police Force.

Somech, A., Desivilya, H.S. and Lidogoster, H. (2009) „Team conflict

management and team effectiveness: the effects of task interdependence and team

identification, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 30, pp. 359-378 [Online] Available

at: http://nuweb.northumbria.ac.uk/library/norapowersearch/index.html (Accessed: 21 of

January 2011).

Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artefacts in the

assessment of counterproductive work behaviour and organizational citizenship

behaviour: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4),

781-790. doi: 10.1037/a0019477

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2008). Counterproductive behaviour and organizational

citizenship behaviour: Complimentary or reciprocal? Unpublished manuscript, University

of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.

Spector, P. E., Coulter, M. L., Stockwell, H. G., & Matz, M. W. (2007). Perceived

violence climate: Aggression, and their potential consequences. Work & Stress, 21(2),

117-130.
 80

Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S.

(2006). The dimensionality of counterproductively Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68,

446–460.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of

counterproductive work behaviour. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive

work behaviour (pp. 15174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Størseth, F. (2006) „Changes at work and employee reactions: Organizational

elements, job insecurity, and shortterm stress as predictors for employee health and

safety.‟ Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, (6), 541-550

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral

behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345-372.

Trickett, L. Lee, P. And Gibney, J.( 2008) Why Place Matters, What it Means for

Leadership, 7th International Conference on Studying Leadership, pp 1- 26, 8-9

December, University of Auckland, Auckland.

Uganda Government (1995), Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.

Reproduced by the Law Development Centre.

Uganda Government (1994). Police Statute Cap. of the Laws of Uganda

Uganda Police (2008). Nominal roll for Kampala Extra Region for the month of

June 2008.

Wendt, H., Euwema, M. C., & van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2008). Leadership and team

cohesiveness across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 358-370.

Williams, D. F. (2005). Toxic leadership in the U.S. Army. Strategic research

project Carlisle Barracks: US Army War College, 1-27.

 81

Walumbwa FO, Wu C, Orwa B (2008). Contingent reward transactional

leadership, work attitudes, and organizational citizenship behaviour: The role of

procedural justice climate perceptions and strength. Leadersh. Quart., 19(3): 251-265.

Yan, J., & Hunt, J. G. (2005). A cross-cultural perspective on perceived

leadership effectiveness. Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5(1), 49-66.

Yost, P., & Plunkett, M. (2009). Real time leadership development. Chichester,

West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.

Yost, P., & Plunkett, M. (2010). Ten catalysts to spark on-the-job development in

your organization. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Practice

and Science, 3(1).

Yukl, G., M. O‟Donnell, and T. Taber, (2009). “Influence of Leader Behaviours

on the Leader-Member Exchange Relationship”, Journal of Managerial Psychology 24,

pp. 289-299.

Yukl, G. & Lepsinger, R. (2008): „Capital ideas: Enhancing the power of human

assets.‟ Leadership in action, 28 (2), 3-24.

Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2005). Mobbing at work: Escalated conflicts in

organizations. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behaviour (pp.

237-270). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Zettler, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2010). Honesty-Humility and a person-situation

interaction at work. European Journal of Personality, 24, 569-582.

 82

APPENDIX 1
QUESTIONNAIRE

MAKERERE UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

TOPIC: LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR, DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE
WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR, A CASE STUDY OF UGANDA
POLICE)

Dear Respondent,

I am a student of Makerere University Business School carrying out a research on the

above-named topic.

Kindly spare your valuable time and respond to the following questions. The purpose of
the study is to examine the relationship between leadership behaviour, procedural
Justice, distributive justice and counter-productive workplace behaviour in the Uganda
Police Force.

Your answer will not be disclosed to any one and thus there is no need to write your
name on the questionnaire.

Kindly fill the questionnaire as honestly as possible.

Thank you for your co-operation.

AKULLO GRACE
25th - Oct – 2010
 83

QUESTIONNAIRE (TO BE FILLED BY POLICE OFFICERS)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
(Tick the correct box where appropriate)

1. Sex Male 2. How old are you?

Female 20 – 25 yrs
26 – 30 yrs
36 – 40 yrs
31 – 35 yrs
42 – 40 yrs
3. What is your marital status?

Single Married Widow others

4. How many spouses

None 1 2 3 4.

5. How many children do you have? 1 -3

None 1–3 4–5 6 and others

6. How many relatives' children's do you look after?

None 1–3 4–5 6 and others

7. Do you have other dependants?

Yes No

8. What rank did you join Uganda Police Force?

Constable Learner Assistant

Cadet Inspector of Police

9. What is your current rank; ...............................................

10. How many years have you worked with Uganda Police Force?

0-1 yrs 2-3yrs 4-5yrs 6-10yrs 11 and above

 84

TO BE FILLED BY JUNIORS:
A. LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR:

Please respond to the following statement by circling the number that best represents
what you are and what you think people who lead you think or feel about you.

Please use the following in responding to the items.

Strongly Disagree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly agree
0 1 2 3 4

1. I like my supervisor very much as a person.

0 1 2 3 4
2. My supervisor is the type of person one would like to have as a friend
0 1 2 3 4
3. My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with
0 1 2 3 4
4. My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior, even without complete
knowledge of the issue in question
0 1 2 3 4
5. My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest
mistake
0 1 2 3 4
6. I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my job
description
0 1 2 3 4
7. I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to meet my
supervisors work goals
0 1 2 3 4
8. I do not mind working my hardest for my supervisor
0 1 2 3 4

9. I am impressed with my supervisor's knowledge of his/her job

0 1 2 3 4
 85

10. I respect my supervisors' knowledge of and competence on the job

0 1 2 3 4
11. I admire my supervisors professional skills
0 1 2 3 4
My supervisor.

12. Has a sense of mission, which he communicate to us

0 1 2 3 4
14. Trust my ability to overcome any obstacle
0 1 2 3 4
15. Communicate expectations of high performance to me.
0 1 2 3 4
16. Provide new ways of looking at problems, which initially seemed puzzling to them
0 1 2 3 4
17. Provide us with reasons to change the way we think about problems.
0 1 2 3 4
18. Emphasize the use of intelligence to overcome obstacles.
0 1 2 3 4
19. Require the juniors to back up their opinions with good reasoning.
0 1 2 3 4
20. Get them to identify key aspects of complex problems.
0 1 2 3 4
21. Place strong emphasis on careful problem solving before taking action
0 1 2 3 4
22. Make sure the juniors think through what is involved before taking action
0 1 2 3 4
23. Get the juniors to use reasoning and evidence to solve problems.
0 1 2 3 4
24. Give personal attention to those who seem neglected.
0 1 2 3 4
25. Get them to look at problems as learning opportunities
0 1 2 3 4
26. Let them know how they are doing
0 1 2 3 4
27. Treat each of them as an individual
 86

0 1 2 3 4
28. Express his/her appreciation when they do a good job.
0 1 2 3 4
29. When the juniors do good work. He/she commend them
0 1 2 3 4
30. Avoid intervening except when there is a failure to meet objectives
0 1 2 3 4
31. A mistake has to occur before s/he takes action
0 1 2 3 4
B. Procedural justice

Please respond to the following statements by ticking that best represents what you feel
about fairness in procedure in your organisation

Please use the following in responding to the items

I don't agree at all I don't agree I am not sure I agree I strongly

agree

1 2 3 4 5

1. This organization shows favouritism in disciplinary procedures

1 2 3 4 5
2. Management tries to be fair in its promotion decision

1 2 3 4 5
3. Personal motives influence salary increments in this organization

1 2 3 4 5

4. Management here explains to use decisions which may affect us

1 2 3 4 5
 87

5. Questions about staff pay and benefits are always answered in this organisation

1 2 3 4 5
6. This organization allows me to express my opinions about management decisions

1 2 3 4 5
7. The organization applies the same standards throughout when evaluating staff
performance

1 2 3 4 5
8. Rules in this organization apply to everyone in the same way

1 2 3 4 5
 88

C. Distributive justice (Fairness in pay and benefits)

Please respond to the following statements by ticking that best represents what you feel
about fairness in pay and benefits

Please use the following in responding to the items

Very unfair Not sure Quite Fair Very Fair Extremely
Fair

1 2 3 4 5

1. How fair has the organization been in rewarding you when you consider the
responsibilities you have?

1 2 3 4 5
2. How fair has the organization been in rewarding you when you take into account
the level of education and training you have?

1 2 3 4 5
3. How fail has the organization been in rewarding you when you consider your work
load

1 2 3 4 5
4. How fair has the organization been in rewarding you when you consider the stress
and strains of your job?

1 2 3 4 5
5. How fair has the organization been in rewarding you when you consider the work
you have done well?

1 2 3 4 5
 89

6. How fair has the organization been in providing you with other privileges such as
housing, transport, entertainment and medical care?

1 2 3 4 5
7. How fair is your level of pay

1 2 3 4 5
 90

D. Counter Productive Workplace Behaviour:

Please respond to the following statements by circling the number that best represents
what you feel about your behaviour in the organization

Please use the following in responding to the items

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly
Agree

Do you agree that you;

1) Exaggerate about your work hours,
1 2 3 4 5
2) Start negative rumours about your organization
1 2 3 4 5
3) Gossip about co workers.
1 2 3 4 5
4) Cover up your mistakes
1 2 3 4 5
5) Compete with your co-workers in an unproductive way
1 2 3 4 5
6) Gossip about your supervisor.
1 2 3 4 5
7) Stay out of sight to avoid work.
1 2 3 4 5
8) Take organization equipment or merchandise
1 2 3 4 5
9) Blame your co-workers for your mistakes.
1 2 3 4 5
 91

10) Intentional work slowly

1 2 3 4 5
11) Violates established laid down regulations for personal gain
1 2 3 4 5

Thank you