Impact of occupational health coaching on irrational career beliefs and workplace deviant behaviors among school employees: Implications for Educational administrative policy

Background:

Workplace-disruptive behavior is an important public and organizational health issue that calls for public discourse. The high rates in Nigeria and its associated career illogical assumptions among teachers brought about this study to investigate the impact of rational emotive occupational health coaching (REOHC) on irrational career beliefs and workplace deviant behaviors in a sample of Nigerian primary school teachers.

Methods:

A sample of 128 primary school teachers in Nigeria was recruited as participants. They were assigned to REOHC and control groups. Work deviance behavior scale and teacher irrational belief scale were used to assess the participants at 3 points. A pretest-post-test and follow-up design was used in this study.

Results:

The findings indicated that the REOHC program significantly reduced work-deviant behaviors and irrational career beliefs among primary school teachers. The outcome also demonstrates the connection between groups and gender.

Conclusion:

This study concluded that primary school teachers’ work-related deviant behaviors and illogical beliefs were reduced as a result of the REOHC treatment. Therefore, occupational therapists should help teachers with deviant behaviors and irrational beliefs to change using rational emotive behavioral techniques.

1. Introduction

Deviance in workplace behavior is an important public and organizational health issue that calls for public discourse.^[1,2] Workplace deviance is a form of behavior that violates organizational norms and negatively impacts the well-being of organizations and their members.^[3] Organizational norms to Coccia^[4] are sets of “expected behaviors,” languages, principles, and postulations that allow the workplace to perform at a suitable pace. Workplace deviance is seen among workers when their normal work behaviors go outside the norms of the organization. It can also be seen as behavior that is intended to have a detrimental effect on organizations and their members.^[5,6] Others have postulated varying conceptualizations of workplace deviant behavior such as counterproductive workplace behavior^[7] antisocial behavior, organizational misbehavior workplace sabotage,^[8] worker resistance, dysfunctional behavior, or bad behavior in organizations^[9] and non-compliant behavior among others. Despite variations in the terminologies used, the behaviors have common underlying characteristics as violating organization norms, policies, and practices and its consequences are far-reaching and affect all levels of the organization including its decision-making processes, productivity, and financial costs.^[4,10,11]

Workplace deviant behavior has 2 opposite dimensions: constructive and destructive.^[12,13] Constructive deviant behavior, though violates the established norms and policies of an organization, contributes to the well-being of an organization, its members, or both. It is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of behaviors^[14] including whistle-blowing,^[15] some types of prosocial behaviors,^[16] and organizational citizenship behaviors.^[17] Constructive deviant employees especially teachers can thus, be said to deviate in honorable ways will positively affect their institutions in achieving their goals or objectives,^[18] compared to their counterparts in destructive deviant employ, whose behaviors threaten the well-being of their organization.^[5]

Employees who indulge in destructive deviant behavior intentionally violate the organizational norms and internal regulations^[19] by engaging in such behaviors as withdrawal, withholding effort, spreading of rumors, corporate sabotage, disobedient to authorities, and disrespecting coworkers and/or acting rudely with coworkers.^[20] These misconducts have adverse effects on the growth of the organizational system in Nigeria.^[21,22] Employees could be seen as deviants when they refuse to adhere to institutional norms, and values, are and are involved in unethical activities.^[23,24]

In a restaurant in Texas and Florida, Berta^[25] that most of the respondents in a survey admitted to getting involved in workplace deviant behavior such that 21% of them admitted to stealing, 22% reported calling coworkers insulting names, 37% made fun of coworkers or customers’ accents, and 12% prepared or served intentionally contaminated food to customers. Lastly, 24% of the respondents admitted having gave consumed illegal drugs just before coming to work. Among the journalists, a complaint from Texas newspaper led to the revelation of workplace deviant behavior in which a young reporter was found to have lied in print, plagiarized other reporters, and pretended to be at the scenes of breaking stories.^[24] In addition, an evaluation by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States reported that 35% and 75% of all employees have exhibited some aggressive behaviors ranging from fraud, vandalism, sabotage, and thief and that around 75% of these employees steal no less than once,^[25] and around 95% of all organizations encounter stealing by the employee.^[26] A national survey conducted in Australia revealed that about 31% and 35% of employees have had them illtreated verbally by their direct supervisors, and colleagues respectively.^[27] In addition, employees were found to indulge in workplace deviant behavior by cleverly and creatively using the internet to indulge in all kinds of crime-related behavior.^[28,29]

Occupational misconduct has been proven to be high among employees in Nigeria and constituted a serious threat to the delivery of services across different professions.^[30,31] Workplace deviant behaviors are all evident in government agencies and private organizations, as evident in habitual lateness to work, loafing, buck-passing, bribery, corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds, misuse of government property, abuse of power and office among other unethical behavior which have constituted a serious threat to the delivery of quality service in these organizations.^[32]

In the education system, reports on the prevalence of workplace deviant behavior also exist among teachers.^[31,33] Some of the practices recorded include absenteeism, unpunctual to duty, habitual lateness to work, acting rudely, arguing and theft,^[1] poor quality of teaching, misuse of information, and teaching without lesson plan,^[34] incivility, unwanted sexual advances and truant, involvement in examination malpractices as well as suppression of efforts and hostile behaviors in school.^[35,36] Others include leaving school early, taking excessive long breaks, coming late to school, and leaving early.^[37] Moreover, deliberately withholding efforts in teaching and wasting time and institutional resources are instances of deviance. These practices are seen as unethical or organizational misbehavior of teachers^[38] and they have effects on the effectiveness of institutions.^[38,39]

Teachers involve in deviant behavior when they deliberately perform an action that has the intent of destroying or harming institutions or teachers or students within the school. Such behaviors are found to be associated with severe negative outcomes such as decreased teachers’ performance and poor service reputation,^[40] lack of smooth functioning of schools,^[41] short chains the purpose of education, impacting negatively on teaching and learning in school,^[42,43] affect their rankings, including decision-making.^[44] It was also found to create damage to the organizational well-being, staff quality of work-life, and the students.^[21,45] It is possible that students of such teachers may experience dropout, poor self-esteem, insecurity, and psychological pains.

Studies have identified job stressors,^[6,46] and negative job cognition^[47] as factors that sustain workplace deviant behavior among workers. Others revealed that a combination of personal and work situations can predict workplace deviance among staff.^[48,49] Relating to the workplace situation, when teachers are not satisfied with the attention and respect are given to him,^[36] feel that he is not treated fairly, and the norms and rules of the institution are not respected,^[50] and when the principals do not accomplish the expectations of the teacher^[51] they will not respond positively in fulfilling their responsibilities, thereby would show deviant behaviors in the school.

On the other hand, personal characteristics that can distort workplace progress can range from the locus of control, sex, age, and marital status to career beliefs. Employees’ career beliefs can be rational in which case, it leads to flexible, logical, appropriate, and adaptive emotions (e.g., feelings of sadness or regret for not reaching the desired goals) toward the progress of the organization.^[52,53] It can as well be irrational in which case, such belief is not anchored on empirical reality and is always related to rigid, illogical, and non-extreme views (e.g., feelings of depression, anger, or humiliation of not reaching goals) which are bound to hinder the attainment of organizational objectives.^[54,55]

An irrational belief is seen in employees when they hold views that are basically controlled by their personal tendency and interest toward self, others, or situations in life (e.g., my colleagues “should, ought, or must always respect me”), hence, may always deviate from organizational norms or policies that do not support their beliefs. Some employees interpret work responsibilities as being dreadful, terrible, or impossible than reality (e.g., it is awful if my colleagues do not respect me). Others may always doubt their capabilities in the face of challenging tasks (e.g., “I can’t bear the burden of handling a large class alone,” “I cannot stand if colleagues do not respect me”). Finally, others may tend to generalize negative issues across the board (e.g., “My colleagues are bad if they do not respect me”).^[56,57] A better understanding of the relevance of different categories of irrational beliefs employ display and their associated workplace deviant behavior would help to focus on the intervention. These assumptions of employees’ workplace deviant behavior may result from irrational beliefs whereby they may hold some views (ideas, feelings, beliefs, thoughts, attitudes, opinions, biases, prejudices, or values) about their profession which may contravene the organizational ethics.

Workers’ irrational beliefs about problem-solving, emotional problems, time and workload pressure and problems with school administration are core areas in which their irrational beliefs^[58] will be a colossal threat to the achievement of set goals. Such irrational beliefs according to Bernard and Joyce^[59] include: I must have constant approval from others. Events must go exactly the way I want them to.

Irrational beliefs are found to be associated with several mental health and behavioral problems such as emotional stress,^[60] resistance hostility, weakness, unhappy.^[61] According to Neenan,^[62] irrational belief could result in destructive conduct in the workplace and home. Thus, whenever these irrational beliefs are dominated, emotional disorder continues. This follows the underlying principle of rational-emotive behavior therapy (REBT) which maintains that irrational cognitions play a critical role in causing emotional distress and self-defeating behaviors.^[63] Holding the same perspectives, past studies have demonstrated the association between irrational beliefs and unethical behaviors that could lead to poor performance.^[64]

Based on the relationship, using REBT intervention for career counseling helps to replace negative perceptions responsible for workplace deviant behaviors with beliefs that are more adaptive and helpful.^[65,66] By so doing the therapists help clients cope with emotional upsets, attain self-realization, and experience healthy emotional and behavioral wellbeing.^[67] Evidence-based effectiveness of REBT-related interventions’ application to career has been reported by researchers.^[68,69] Owing to its effectiveness in reducing stress among police officers the present study investigated the effectiveness of rational emotive occupational health coaching (REOHC) on workplace deviant behavior and irrational career belief among teachers. We, therefore, hypothesized that REOHC significantly reduced workplace deviant behavior among teachers. REOHC will significantly dispute irrational career beliefs among teachers. REOHC will significantly reduce workplace deviant behavior and irrational career beliefs among teachers at follow-up intervention.

2. Research methods

2.1. Ethical approval

Research ethics as proposed by the Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association^[70] were strictly adhered to in the conduct of this research. Finally, we obtained written informed consent from the participants and the procedure for the conduct of the study was approved by the ethics committees of the Faculty of Education, University of the corresponding author.

2.2. Participants

The participants recruited for the study were 128 teachers in Nigeria. In this study, teachers represented teaching staff at tertiary, secondary, and primary educational levels. The demographic characteristics of the study participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the participants.

Demographics	CBT treatment, n/%	Waitlist control, %	χ2	P
Gender
Male	22 (34.4)	23 (35.9)	.034	.853
Female	42 (65.6)	41 (64.1)
Working experience
1–10 yr	28 (43.8)	20 (31.3)	2.194	.334
11–20 yr	19 (29.7)	22 (34.4)
21 and above	17 (26.6)	22 (34.4)
Qualifications
NCE	15 (23.4)	14 (21.9)
Bachelor degree	24 (37.5)	43 (67.2)	15.548	.001
Master degree	25 (39.1)	7 (10.9)

χ² = Chi-Square, NCE = Nigeria Certificate in Education, REOHC = Rational Emotive Occupational Health Coaching.

2.3. Measures

Teacher irrational belief scale (TIBS) by Bernard^[71] is a cognitively worded and 30-item scale to evaluate teachers’ irrational beliefs in relation to teachers’ tasks (classroom management problems, student learning/emotional problems, time and workload pressure and problems with school administration). Hence, TIBS focuses on teachers’ demandingness, low frustration tolerance, awfulizing and global evaluation. Teachers were asked to indicate, on a 5-point scale, the extent to which they agree or disagree with an irrational belief (1 = “strongly disagree”; 2 = “disagree”; 3 = “not sure”; 4 = “agree”; 5 = “strongly agree”). High scores signal high endorsement of irrational beliefs. Subscales score is obtained by adding the scores of items in each subscale. Several studies.^[60,72] have reported the validity and reliability of the use of TIBS in examining irrational beliefs among teachers. An overall reliability index of 0.74 was established by Bora et al^[73] The reliability of TIBS in this study was α 0.76.

Work Deviance Behaviour Scale (WDBS) is a 19-item self-report measure developed by Bennet and Robinson^[5] to measure organizational deviance. 12 items from the scale measured organizational deviance, while 7 items measured interpersonal deviance. Participants were asked to rate how often they engaged in each behavior, from 1 (never engaging in the behavior) to 7 (engaging in the behavior daily). Where a higher score indicates high engagement in workplace deviant behavior and a low score depicts less engagement. Unit average of organizational deviance (0.81α) and interpersonal deviance (0.78α) scale scores were used to compute the overall workplace deviance among teachers.^[5] The reliability coefficient of WDBS was established by Berry et al.^[21] In this study, we recorded an internal consistency of α 0.79.

2.4. Procedure

A written informed consent letter was sent to 202 teachers through their e-mail addresses and phone numbers obtained from the sampled schools used for the study. Measures (TIBS and WDBS) were also sent to 165 of them that completed the written informed consent letter. This is to ascertain the baseline of their workplace deviant behavior and irrational beliefs. Out of the 165 teachers, 143 teachers found to display workplace deviant behavior and at the same time have irrational beliefs were invited for briefing. 132 teachers were in attendance and were admitted using the study’s inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria are must show wiliness to participate till the end of the program, the teachers must be in public schools, must have at least 5 to 25 years of teaching experience, and appointment must have been confirmed by the employer. Participants who did not meet up with inclusion criteria were excluded based on the following exclusion criteria: teachers receiving therapeutic treatment elsewhere, those who did not indicate their interest for participation, those whose responses did not indicate their involvement in workplace deviant behavior, absence irrational beliefs, those whose teaching experiences are below 5 years, and teachers who did not attend to 8 treatment sessions were excluded at the data analysis level. Out of 132 teachers in attendance, 128 who met the study inclusion criteria were randomly assigned into study groups. This gave rise to assigning 64 participants to the treatment group and 64 participants to the waitlist control group with the aid of a simple random allocation sequence. The recruitment process is demonstrated in Figure 1. The researchers were able to do this by simply getting a coin on which they labeled one side of it “T” (depicting the treatment group) and another side “W” (depicting waitlisted control group). The researchers further asked participants to come out in twos to make their choices regarding the sides of the coin. One of the researchers throw up the coin and assigned participants based on the side of the coin that fell upward or downward form (upward form = T-group, while downward form = W-group). A total of 128 participants were assigned to the 2 groups (T-group = 64 and W-group = 64) (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Participants’ eligibility flowchart.

Participants in the treatment group were further divided into 2 sub-groups (group 1 = 32 participants, group 2 = 32 participants). The participants in T-group were given REBHC intervention. REBHC lasted for 3 months (September–October 2019). Each therapy session lasted for 90 minutes. The participants in the waitlisted control group did not receive REBHC intervention until after Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3. The researchers used the first session of the research to get themselves familiarized with the participants, get acquainted with the research environment, set research guiding principles, state the objectives of the study, and brief introduction of participants along with the establishment of rapport and plan for the next session. In the subsequent sessions (2–5), the researchers gave the conceptual meanings of workplace deviant behavior, and irrational beliefs. Following these, sessions 6 to 8 helped the participants to identify and discuss their behavioral and emotional implications for learning and career health. Participants’ perceptions of the implications of variables to learning were appraised. In sessions 9 to 11, the therapists listed and discussed the relevant skills needed to stop automatic thought patterns, how to deal with unethical practices, how to choose the best alternative plan, act out the plan, and assessment of the chosen plan, change behavior patterns, and rational-emotive skills. Lastly, session 12 focused on the review of the previous sessions and exercises and termination. Thereafter, the researchers met the participants 3 months later for a follow-up evaluation (see Fig. 1).

During the follow-up, the participants and the therapists had 4 sessions via Whatsapp considering the concerns raised by the participants. Some highlighted that due to their personal engagements, they would be absent from the follow-up meetings. During the sessions of the follow-up, participants were engaged with a series of exercises on how to use mood monitoring, self-help, motivational interviewing and enhancement, relapses, etc. As these sessions ended, the participants were assessed at the third point.

2.5. Therapists and fidelity of the treatment

The rational emotive behavioral health coach was delivered by counseling psychologists whose aims were to motivate clients towards initiating occupational behavioral changes that will help improve their health and career life using the English Language as the main language of instruction. The coach and counseling psychologists have basic training in cognitive-behavioral and rational-emotive and had practiced for more than 3 years. Despite the experiences of the therapists, they were a team of observers who were recruited by the researchers to monitor the implementation process of the treatment.

2.6. Recruitment, response, and attrition rates

Out of the 202 schoolteachers who were invited to participate in study 74 (74.74%) turned down because they did not want to attend the invitation. Then those (165 teachers) who responded to the consent form and inclusion criteria, 37 (61.05%) were excluded from the study. As a result, 128 (211.2%) of all enrolled participants (165) were included in the research. However, only 5 (3.2%) teachers assigned to the treatment group were reported as attrition rate while 59 (39.76%) were response rate. All of the subjects who took part in the pretest completed all of the study sessions without fail. It’s possible that this is due to the financial incentives associated with involvement.

2.7. Design and data analysis

A pretest-post-test and follow-up design was used for the present study. This design aids researchers in determining the efficacy of an intervention when it is implemented in real-world settings. The participants were split into 2 groups: urgent intervention and wait-list control. To determine the initial difference in occupational stress between the individuals in the immediate intervention and wait-list groups, we used an independent sample t test with bootstrap at a 95% CI. The effects of baseline, post-intervention, and follow-up data were determined using a analysis of Covariance.

3. Results

Table 1 shows that the CBT group and waitlisted control group has no significant difference with regard to the participants’ gender (χ² = 0.034, P = .853) and working experience (χ² = 2.194, P = .334). On the hand, it showed a significant difference with regard to participants’ qualifications (χ² = 15.548, P = .001).

Table 2 indicates the reduced work deviance behavior of primary school teachers following their participation in the REOHC treatment and those in the waitlisted control group at 3 points. After the treatment, a second assessment (Time 2) shows that the REOHC treatment had a significant effect in decreasing work deviance behavior in participants as measured by WDBS, F(1, 119) = 946.363, P = .001, $\underset{p}{\overset{2}{\eta }}$ = 0.888, ∆R² = 0.896; and subsequently, the participants were assessed at third point (Time 3) and the result remains consistent that REOHC treatment had a significant effect in decreasing work deviance behavior in participants’ as measured by WDBS, F(1, 119) = 1024.890, P = .001, $\underset{p}{\overset{2}{\eta }}$ = 0.896, ∆R² = 0.905.

Table 2.

Analysis of covariance (multivariate) for the effect of REOHC on Work Deviance Behaviour Scale (WDBS).

Measures	Time	Group	Gender	Mean (SD)	F	P	$\underset{p}{\overset{2}{\eta }}$	∆R2
WDBS	Time 1	REOHC		79.29 (2.61)	0.493	.484	0.004	0.007
		Control		78.67 (2.98)
	Time 2	REOHC		58.69 (2.49)	946.363	.001	0.888	0.896
		Control		77.99 (3.87)
	Time 3	REOHC		53.82 (3.48)	1024.890	.001	0.896	0.905
		Control		77.54 (4.23)
Gender	Time 1	REOHC			0.086	.770	0.001
		Control
	Time 2	REOHC			0.273	.602	0.002
		Control
	Time 3	REOHC			2.383	.125	0.020
		Control
Groups * Gender	Time 1	REOHC	Male	78.65 (2.84)	2.315	.131	0.019
			Female	79.61 (2.45)
		Control	Male	79.08 (3.51)
			Female	78.43 (2.65)
	Time 2	REOHC	Male	59.02 (2.48)	0.070	.792	0.001
			Female	58.52 (2.49)
		Control	Male	78.09 (4.79)
			Female	77.93 (3.31)
	Time 3	REOHC	Male	55.20 (3.06)	1.727	.191	0.014
			Female	53.11 (3.50)
		Control	Male	77.65 (5.16)
			Female	77.48 (3.68)

$\underset{p}{\overset{2}{\eta }}$ = Partial Eta Square (effect size), REOHC = Rational Emotive Occupational Health Coaching, WDBS = Work Deviance Behaviour Scale.

The result also shows that there is no interaction effect of groups and gender at Time 2, F (1119) = 0.070, P = .792, $\underset{p}{\overset{2}{\eta }}$ = 0.001. The effect size of the REOHC treatment at the second assessment (Time 2) for the work deviance behavior was 0.001. This value indicates that the REOHC treatment accounted for a huge effect in decreasing work deviance behavior in participants.

Table 3 indicates the decreased teacher irrational belief of primary school teachers following their participation in the REOHC treatment and those in the waitlisted control group at 3 points. After the treatment, a second assessment (Time 2) shows that the REOHC treatment had a significant effect in decreasing teacher irrational belief in participants as measured by WDBS, F(1, 119) = 525.026, P = .001, $\underset{p}{\overset{2}{\eta }}$ = 0.815, ∆R² = 0.824; and subsequently, the participants were assessed at third point (Time 3) and the result remains consistent that REOHC treatment had a significant effect in decreasing teacher irrational belief in participants’ as measured by PEDI, F(1, 119) = 1174.441, P = .001, $\underset{p}{\overset{2}{\eta }}$ = 0.908, ∆R² = 0.913.

Table 3.

Analysis of covariance (multivariate) for the effect of REOHC on teacher irrational belief.

Measures	Time	Group	Gender	Mean (SD)	F	P	$\underset{p}{\overset{2}{\eta }}$	∆R2
TIBS	Time 1	REOHC		107.51 (6.30)	0.013	.910	0.000	−0.011
		Control		108.01 (5.77)
	Time 2	REOHC		76.96 (8.31)	525.026	.001	0.815	0.824
		Control		107.50 (5.59)
	Time 3	REOHC		74.30 (4.61)	1174.441	.001	0.908	0.913
		Control		107.55 (5.57)
Gender	Time 1	REOHC			0.497	.482	0.004
		Control
	Time 2	REOHC			0.705	.403	0.006
		Control
	Time 3	REOHC			1.343	.249	0.011
		Control
Groups * Gender	Time 1	REOHC	Male	108.83 (3.20)	1.056	.306	0.009
			Female	106.84 (7.36)
		Control	Male	107.78 (5.76)
			Female	108.15 (5.84)
	Time 2	REOHC	Male	76.04 (8.05)	0.040	.842	0.000
			Female	77.43 (8.50)
		Control	Male	106.95 (6.13)
			Female	107.81 (5.31)
	Time 3	REOHC	Male	73.29 (3.69)	0.172	.679	0.001
			Female	74.82 (4.98)
		Control	Male	107.08 (6.10)
			Female	107.81 (5.31)

$\underset{p}{\overset{2}{\eta }}$ = Partial Eta Square (effect size), REOHC = Rational Emotive Occupational Health Coaching, TIBS = teacher irrational belief scale.

The result also shows that there is no interaction effect of groups and gender at Time 2, F (1119) = 0.040, P = .842, $\underset{p}{\overset{2}{\eta }}$ = 0.001. The effect size of the REOHC treatment at the second assessment (Time 2) for the teachers’ irrational beliefs was 0.001. This value indicates that the REOHC treatment accounted for a huge effect in decreasing teacher irrational belief in participants.

4. Discussion

The result showed that the REOHC treatment had a significant effect in decreasing work deviance behaviors and irrational beliefs in primary school teachers. The result also shows that there is no interaction effect of groups and gender This value indicates that the REOHC treatment accounted for an effect in decreasing work deviant behaviors and irrational beliefs in primary school teachers. Teachers who have irrational beliefs and thoughts about their careers often engage in workplace deviant behaviors compared with those who have rational beliefs and thoughts.^[60] Thus, studies show that teachers are more likely to use irrational thinking in the course of their career pursuit.^[74–76] Studies have also recorded several cases of irrational career beliefs among Nigerian teachers.^[77,78] Such beliefs among teachers can result from a disconnection between their cognitive representation of the events within their workplace and the actual or expected existence suitable for the ideal workplace and teacher welfare. When employees’ work expectations are not met, they may tend to develop mental health problems (e.g., anxiety, depression, tension, frustration, stress, and irritability),^[79] which will negatively impact their lives and productivity of employees.^[80,81]

Workplace requirements can be intrinsically stressful, in most situations employees create their own negative emotions because they evaluate the situation in a certain way in which their dysfunctional reactions (deviant behavior) stem directly from their beliefs. Given the effect of irrational career beliefs in undermining Nigerian employees’ ethical administration of their professional duties, mental health, and the continued poor state of the nation’s workforce, including the education sector. It is penitent that employees, especially teachers are exposed to career beliefs and health coaching counseling programs that will have significant impacts on their cognitive and behavioral changes towards their profession.^[82]

REBT can also be applied in the educational field and in organizations. In the work field and occupational health, is represented by REOHC.^[83] Research in this area focuses on the relationship between irrational beliefs and employees’ behavioral outcomes. Being that many health coaching interventions have proved to be effective in the short term, the long-term effectiveness seems to be unclear.^[84,85]

4.1. Conclusion

Deviance in workplaces is a serious issue and strong efforts should be made to curb the high rates. This study has suggested the benefits of REOHC in changing the behaviors and belief systems of teachers. The outcome of the intervention showed that REOHC is an effective strategy in altering irrational career beliefs and working deviant behaviors to better ones. Therefore, it is important to refer teachers who are deviant to rational-behavioral therapists for counseling.

4.2. Implication for practice

The practical implications of the present findings are resounding and as such practitioners should utilize the REOHC when dealing with irrational beliefs and deviant behaviors in work settings. Some teachers resign from their workplaces due to irrational beliefs while others engage in activities that do not promote the core values of their workplaces. Doing these could result in sanctions, prosecution, and trials, hence, the attention of psychological experts will be needed to help such individuals replace those automatic beliefs and behaviors with better ones. It is understandable that the Nigerian work environment is hazardous and such conditions could amplify the deviant behaviors exhibited by primary school teachers.^[86] The government should be consulted by school administrators to build any necessary infrastructure and, more likely than not, reduce tension in the classrooms. Each school administration should take steps in collaboration with occupational therapists to prevent overburdening teachers with work by managing each staff member’s workload. If not, it will result in role reversals, irregularities, absenteeism, and office abuse.

4.3. Limitation

Like other quantitative studies, this study is limited to primary school teachers only. We should have extended the population to other career workers in Nigeria. In this study, possible moderators were not considered to understand factors that could have influenced the effectiveness of the intervention. We enjoin future researchers to consider these in subsequent studies related to teachers’ career irrational beliefs and work deviant behaviors.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Joy O. Oneli, Prince O. Nweke.

Data curation: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Joy O. Oneli.

Formal analysis: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Joy O. Oneli.

Funding acquisition: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Emmanuel Chukwuma Eze, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Patricia Nwamaka Aroh, Joy O. Oneli, Prince O. Nweke, Chinwe Enyi.

Investigation: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Emmanuel Chukwuma Eze, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Patricia Nwamaka Aroh, Joy O. Oneli, Chinwe Enyi.

Methodology: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Emmanuel Chukwuma Eze, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Patricia Nwamaka Aroh, Joy O. Oneli, Prince O. Nweke, Chinwe Enyi.

Project administration: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Patricia Nwamaka Aroh, Joy O. Oneli, Prince O. Nweke, Chinwe Enyi.

Resources: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Patricia Nwamaka Aroh, Joy O. Oneli.

Software: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Patricia Nwamaka Aroh, Joy O. Oneli, Prince O. Nweke, Chinwe Enyi.

Supervision: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Patricia Nwamaka Aroh, Joy O. Oneli.

Validation: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Patricia Nwamaka Aroh, Joy O. Oneli.

Visualization: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Emmanuel Chukwuma Eze, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Patricia Nwamaka Aroh, Joy O. Oneli.

Writing – original draft: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Emmanuel Chukwuma Eze, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Patricia Nwamaka Aroh, Joy O. Oneli, Prince O. Nweke, Chinwe Enyi.

Writing – review & editing: Hope Uchechukwu Ekwueme, Moses Onyemaechi Ede, Emmanuel Chukwuma Eze, Daniel I. Mezieobi, Patricia Nwamaka Aroh, Joy O. Oneli, Prince O. Nweke, Chinwe Enyi.