Examining the moderating role of work engagement in predicting deviant behaviour: a study of work culture and organisational injustice among police officers

Abstract

Deviant workplace behaviour is a significant concern in law enforcement, where misconduct can undermine public trust and institutional effectiveness. This study investigates how work culture and perceived organizational injustice contribute to deviant behaviour among personnel in a national law enforcement agency, and whether work engagement moderates these relationships. The research draws on organizational justice theory and integrates cultural dimensions using the Competing Values Framework to explore how structural norms, fairness perceptions, and psychological states interact in a hierarchical policing environment. A total of 417 officers from 16 police districts participated in the study. Validated instruments were translated and adapted for cultural relevance, and data were analysed using multiple and hierarchical regression techniques. Results showed that adhocracy and hierarchy cultures were negatively associated with deviant behaviour, while market culture and perceived injustice were positively associated. Clan culture, which emphasizes shared values and interpersonal support, showed no significant effect. Its lack of influence may reflect contextual limitations or the dilution of clan principles in mixed cultural environments. Perceived injustice emerged as a strong independent predictor, particularly in areas related to favouritism, inequitable punishment, and lack of recognition. Work engagement moderated the relationship between adhocracy culture and deviance, with a stronger protective effect observed under low engagement conditions. However, engagement did not moderate the link between perceived injustice and deviance, suggesting that in rigid institutional settings, engagement may not buffer the behavioural consequences of unfair treatment. The coexistence of high engagement and deviance among some officers points to a possible disconnect between task performance and emotional alignment, highlighting the complexity of behavioural regulation in command-driven environments. These findings underscore the importance of cultivating participatory cultures, promoting fairness through transparent policies, and fostering meaningful engagement to reduce misconduct. While the study is context-specific and cross-sectional, it offers valuable insights for institutional reform and contributes to broader efforts to build effective, accountable, and inclusive public institutions.

Background

Deviant workplace behaviour is a pervasive organisational issue, ranging from minor infractions such as time wastage and poor performance to serious misconduct including fraud, theft, aggression, and harassment [1]. According to Bujang et al. [2] and Aleksić et al. [3], workplace deviance has a negative impact on both individual well-being and safety, as well as social and psychological dynamics outside work. Martinko et al. [4] emphasise that workplace deviance arises from complex interactions between individuals and their organisational environments, where cultural norms and perceptions of fairness strongly shape behavioural outcomes. Deviant tendencies can be either reinforced or mitigated by organisational dynamics, which encompass internal policies, leadership styles, and situational influences [5]. This is consistent with ecological systems theory, which posits that an individual’s behaviour is directly and indirectly influenced by their social and organisational environment [6]. Employee conduct on duty may be influenced by an organisational culture that is conducive to workplace deviance, which may also extend into personal life, influencing familial interactions and overall psychological well-being [7]. The economic repercussions of workplace deviance are significant, encompassing considerable losses attributed to violence, theft and different forms of misconduct [1, 2, 8]. In government agencies, deviance poses broader societal risks by undermining national stability, public welfare and governance effectiveness [9].

The implications of workplace deviance are even more pronounced in police organisations due to the unique nature of policing work. Officers operate with coercive authority, high public visibility and substantial discretionary power, which means that even minor forms of deviance can undermine public trust, weaken institutional legitimacy and reduce community cooperation, all of which are essential for effective law enforcement [10]. Research further shows that perceptions of organisational injustice are especially damaging in policing; unfair treatment, inconsistent discipline or biased supervisory practices reduce officers’ willingness to comply with rules, report wrongdoing or uphold ethical standards [11, 12]. Consequently, internal fairness becomes a critical determinant of behavioural norms, accountability and officers’ commitment to lawful and procedurally just practices within police institutions [13]. These concerns highlight the need for empirical research in law enforcement institutions where structural and hierarchical features may shape behavioural patterns.

Workplace deviance has been shown to be significantly influenced by organisational culture [1, 14]. While some research highlights individual characteristics such as age, gender and personality traits as strong predictors of both organisational and interpersonal deviance [15], the role of cultural context remains critical. Several studies, including those by Načinovi´ et al. [15], Di Stefano et al. [14] and Aleksić et al. [3], draw upon the Competing Values Framework (CVF) developed by Cameron and Quinn [16] to examine workplace culture. These studies consistently demonstrate that deviant behaviour is significantly associated with both market and hierarchical cultures. Hierarchical cultures with their emphasis on efficiency tend to correlate with elevated levels of deviance, while market cultures which emphasise clear role expectations and accountability appear to suppress such behaviours. Other cultural dimensions have also been explored in relation to deviant behaviour. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara and Ting-Ding [17] found that clan and adhocracy cultures reduce interpersonal conflicts and enhance organisational credibility, factors often linked to deviance mitigation.

Supervisory and institutional support structures also play a crucial role in reducing workplace deviance. Higher levels of perceived support from supervisors and the organisation have been shown to diminish deviant behaviour [18]. These support mechanisms frequently influence employees’ views of cultural aspects, hence impacting behavioural results. Di Santo et al. [19] found that control‑oriented cultures increase stress and turnover intentions, which in turn contribute to deviant behaviour. This is particularly relevant in the context of police organisations, which often operate under strict hierarchies and formalised command structures that emphasise obedience, discipline and procedural compliance [20]. While such a structure is essential for operational effectiveness, it may inadvertently foster a high-pressure environment with limited psychological flexibility. In the absence of organisational support or relational trust, these rigid settings can heighten feelings of alienation or disengagement, potentially prompting deviant coping responses [21]. Thus, balancing command and control systems with meaningful support structures is vital to reducing workplace deviance within law enforcement agencies.

This pattern is particularly salient in policing contexts. Helfers et al. [22] highlighted the association between organisational justice, self-protective attitudes and perceived support among police officers. Their findings suggest that a stronger sense of justice enhances perceptions of organisational support, ultimately reducing self-protective behaviours that contribute to deviance. Similar observations were made by Lim and Sloan [23] who noted that organisational factors influence supervisors’ willingness to report misconduct. Furthermore, Rahmah et al. [24] stated that the application of ethical practices inside police departments is heavily influenced by the organisational culture. The success of such ethical integration is determined by whether the prevailing unit culture encourages or discourages individual commitment to ethical action.

Organisational justice theory posits that employees’ perceptions of fairness strongly influence deviant behaviour [25]. According to this viewpoint, employees may experience emotional strain and dissatisfaction when they perceive unjust treatment in relation to reward distribution, organisational procedures or interpersonal interactions. This, in turn, can result in deviant responses which can range from subtle actions such as decreased productivity to more overt behaviours such as violating organisational rules [2]. Employees generally adhere to directives from their superiors with the expectation of receiving rewards for their compliance [26, 27]. When a sense of organisational injustice is perceived, compliance may decrease leading to a higher likelihood of deviant workplace behaviours [25]. Deviant acts may serve as emotional release or expressions of anger in response to perceived injustice [28]. These behaviours, whether organisational or interpersonal, may function as a mechanism for employees to restore a sense of justice in the workplace, particularly by rebalancing the effort-reward exchange [25].

A substantial body of research has examined the link between organisational justice and deviant workplace behaviour [29–35] Findings consistently show that perceptions of injustice can heighten criticism, jealousy and emotional exhaustion, ultimately manifesting in deviant behaviour [33]. Supporting this, Khattak and Abukhait [29] found that interactional injustice positively predicts interpersonal deviance, while distributive injustice is significantly associated with organisational deviance.

Despite these valuable insights, prior studies often adopt a limited conceptual scope, focusing on narrowly defined variables and overlooking the broader interplay between different dimensions of injustice and deviant behaviour [2]. Addressing this limitation, the present study proposes a more integrated framework that considers both organisational and interpersonal forms of deviance as potential outcomes of perceived injustice. Moreover, by situating the investigation within the distinctive sociocultural and hierarchical context of the government policing organization, this study contributes a much-needed perspective from a non-Western institutional setting, offering fresh insights into how structural and cultural conditions shape employee behaviour.

This study advances the literature in three important ways. First, it integrates cultural dimensions from the Competing Values Framework with Organisational Justice Theory to provide a more holistic explanation of deviant behaviour, addressing recent calls for multi-level models that capture both structural and psychological antecedents of misconduct [36, 37]. Second, it examines these relationships within a Southeast Asian and hierarchical policing institution, an organisational context that remains significantly underrepresented in contemporary deviance research despite increasing global attention to police integrity and accountability [38]. Third, by testing the moderating role of work engagement, the study contributes to emerging evidence suggesting that engagement may not uniformly buffer negative organisational experiences, particularly in public sector institutions with stringent operational expectations [39, 40].

Work culture and perceived organisational injustice represent distinct yet interrelated antecedents of deviant workplace behaviour. Work culture reflects enduring norms and practices that shape expected behaviours [1, 41, 42]. When this culture becomes toxic, overly rigid or lacks psychological safety, it can foster environments where deviant acts are more likely to occur. In contrast, perceived organisational injustice functions as a situational factor arising from employees’ subjective evaluations of unfair treatment in specific contexts, whether through biased procedures, inequitable resource allocation or disrespectful interpersonal interactions [2, 29, 43, 44]. When these perceptions occur within an unsupportive culture, their combined influence may intensify psychological strain and motivate deviant behaviour.

In the law enforcement community, workplace culture is a critical determinant of behavioural norms, yet it is not adequately investigated among organisational influences [14]. Malaysian government agencies, particularly police forces, are frequently subjected to scrutiny as a result of workplace malfeasance reports [45]. Although law enforcement organisations are distinguished from other public service sectors by their distinctive work culture, their correlation with workplace deviance remains insufficiently understood [3]. Conducting empirical research on this relationship offers valuable insights into the development of policies and organisational management.

Despite extensive research on organisational culture, justice and deviance, the interplay of these elements in command‑driven workplaces like policing remains unclear. The primary research question driving this study is: To what degree can work culture and perceived organisational injustice predict deviant workplace behaviour among police officers and does work engagement serve as a moderating factor in these relationships? This study examines the influence of work culture and perceived organisational injustice on deviant workplace behaviour among officers in a public security institution, as well as the moderating role of work engagement in these relationships. Findings from this study can inform targeted interventions to strengthen ethical conduct, accountability and institutional trust within police forces. By promoting fair and inclusive work environments, the study contributes to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), particularly in enhancing transparency, reducing corruption and fostering safe, dignified and productive working conditions in public security institutions.

Engagement’s buffering role

This study also examines the role of work engagement as a moderator, evaluating whether employee engagement mitigates or exacerbates workplace deviance. Moderator effects are essential in organisational psychology research, as behavioural interactions seldom adhere to direct causal patterns [46–48]. By exploring the buffering or amplifying influence of engagement, the analysis seeks to clarify how positive psychological states may alter the trajectory from negative organisational experiences to deviant outcomes. Although this study employs a cross-sectional design which is widely used in organisational behaviour research, it is important to recognise that such a design captures work engagement at a single point in time. Engagement can vary across different organisational experiences and therefore the present findings reflect the stable patterns observable within the measurement period. Recent research has noted that engagement may also demonstrate short term fluctuations and future studies using longitudinal or experience-based methods may provide additional insight into these temporal dynamics [49, 50]. The current design remains appropriate for examining the overall moderating role of engagement within the organisational context under investigation.

Work engagement has been identified as a key organisational resource that fosters psychological resilience, motivation, and ethical conduct [51]. Employees with high work engagement demonstrate greater commitment, increased job satisfaction, and lower tendencies toward workplace deviance [52]. Conversely, low work engagement has been linked to withdrawal behaviours, reduced performance, and heightened deviant acts [53]. Work engagement is a significant concept that has been at the forefront of organisational development over the past two decades [54]. According to Bedarkar and Pandita [55], organisations utilise work engagement as a strategic business tool, as it can instil in employees a sense of pride in their tasks and responsibilities. Similarly, Robbins and Judge [45] associate work engagement with employee emotions and behaviours, including feeling needed, satisfied and enthusiastic about their work. Work engagement is thus regarded as a strong and far-reaching foundation that positively influences various workplace phenomena and impacts multiple variables that help organisations achieve their desired goals [54].

Bujang et al. [2] underscore the significance of third-variable effects in workplace deviance research, noting that moderators like work engagement are essential in influencing behavioural outcomes. The findings indicate that employees exhibiting higher engagement levels are less prone to workplace deviance, even in contexts characterised by perceived organisational injustice [35]. In contrast, diminished work engagement can exacerbate adverse reactions to unfair work conditions, thereby reinforcing deviant behaviours as a means of retaliation or withdrawal [56]. This study establishes a basis for comprehending the interaction between organisational factors, situational factors and employee motivation, highlighting the importance of investigating work engagement as a protective mechanism against workplace misconduct.

Situational resource variables such as supervisor support, coworker support, and job autonomy were not included in the present model. These variables were excluded to maintain theoretical parsimony and to ensure that the analysis remained focused on organisational level antecedents specifically work culture and perceived injustice, together with an individual level psychological resource namely work engagement. Including additional resource variables would have created conceptual overlap with the injustice and culture constructs and would have reduced clarity in interpreting the moderating mechanism. This approach is consistent with recent organisational behaviour research that emphasises the importance of isolating theoretically central predictors when modelling complex behavioural outcomes [57, 58].

The moderating role of work engagement is further substantiated by empirical evidence demonstrating its capacity to buffer the adverse psychological effects of toxic leadership and organisational stressors. For instance, Ahmed et al. [59] found that emotional exhaustion significantly mediates the relationship between toxic leadership and workplace deviance, while organisational cynicism moderates this pathway, suggesting that positive psychological states can attenuate deviant tendencies. This aligns with the Conservation of Resources theory, which posits that engaged employees possess greater psychological capital to withstand stressors and maintain ethical conduct [60]. Moreover, Lang et al. [61] revealed that even under algorithmic control and burnout conditions, gig workers with high engagement levels continued to demonstrate resilience and task commitment, reinforcing the notion that engagement can serve as a stabilising force in volatile work environments.

Conversely, the absence of engagement may amplify deviant responses to organisational injustice. Wang et al. [62] emphasised that unethical leadership erodes psychological empowerment and fosters retaliatory behaviours, particularly among employees with low engagement and high financial dependency. This suggests that engagement not only buffers negative outcomes but may also act as a gatekeeper against the normalisation of misconduct. The dual potential of work engagement to mitigate or exacerbate deviance underscores its complexity as a moderator and its strategic relevance in organisational interventions. By integrating engagement into predictive models of workplace behaviour, researchers and practitioners can better anticipate and address the nuanced interplay between organisational dynamics and employee conduct.

In the context of law enforcement, work engagement may significantly shape how officers interpret and respond to organisational conditions, particularly those involving work culture and perceived injustice. Engaged officers, who feel psychologically invested and valued, are more likely to exhibit resilience during adversity, thereby reducing the propensity for deviant workplace behaviour [63, 64]. This reflects broader psychological principles suggesting that individuals with strong internal resources and meaningful work connections tend to regulate stress more effectively and maintain professional conduct [65]. Within high stakes environments such as policing, where exposure to organisational strain is common, engagement functions as a stabilising force that preserves ethical boundaries.

Alternatively, diminished engagement can heighten sensitivity to perceived injustice, triggering coping responses such as retaliation, withdrawal, or ethical disengagement. For example, high profile cases such as the misconduct involving the Minneapolis Police Department during the George Floyd incident have drawn attention to how systemic stressors and disengagement may contribute to deviant behaviour within law enforcement agencies globally [66]. These patterns underscore the need to foster engagement not simply to enhance performance, but to prevent behavioural decline in high-risk roles. Cultivating environments where officers feel psychologically safe and meaningfully involved may therefore serve as a proactive strategy for curbing misconduct and reinforcing institutional accountability.

The present study

This study explores how work culture and perceived organisational injustice contribute to deviant workplace behaviour among personnel in Malaysian enforcement agencies. Given the unique structural and hierarchical nature of police institutions, this research highlights how entrenched cultural norms and employees’ perceptions of fairness can serve as powerful antecedents of deviant conduct. It is posited that negative organisational climates and heightened feelings of injustice will significantly predict such behaviour, while work engagement may buffer these effects, functioning as a protective factor against ethical decline. By examining workplace dynamics in the Malaysian police force, where public accountability, institutional integrity, and peacekeeping are vital, this study not only produces insights for domestic change but also contributes to the worldwide debate on ethical governance. It fills an important gap in cross-cultural research by introducing perspectives from non-Western law enforcement institutions and providing comparative lessons on the psychosocial drivers of deviance. These insights support SDG 16 by contributing to the strengthening of effective, inclusive, and accountable institutions through improved understanding of organisational culture and behavioural norms. Additionally, the study aligns with SDG 8 by promoting safe, dignified, and equitable working conditions that foster decent work, enhance employee engagement, and improve institutional productivity.

Methods

Participants and procedure

In 2025, a stratified random sampling technique was employed to recruit respondents across 16 police districts within a selected contingent of the national law enforcement agency, ensuring adequate representation from each district. Within each stratum, convenience sampling was used to identify participants based on accessibility. To operationalise convenience sampling within each district, the researcher met individually with the designated liaison officer after obtaining formal approval from the Royal Malaysia Police headquarters and the respective State Police Chief. During these meetings, the liaison officers were briefed on the study’s objectives, ethical clearance, confidentiality safeguards, and the anonymous nature of participation. The liaison officers subsequently disseminated this information to their respective districts and coordinated the distribution of the survey link. Within each district, the online questionnaire (accessible via URL and QR code) was shared during routine section briefings, allowing officers who were available and willing to participate to do so voluntarily without disrupting operational duties. This approach ensured practical access to respondents while maintaining ethical standards and minimising interference with policing activities.

The contingent was selected based on disciplinary offence statistics provided by a national law enforcement agency in Malaysia, which informed the relevance of the study context, and was supported by formal authorisation for research access. Stratified sampling improves representativeness by dividing the population into meaningful subgroups and selecting random samples from each, while convenience sampling offers practical efficiency in reaching participants within those subgroups. This hybrid sampling strategy has been validated in public health research for its ability to balance methodological rigour with field feasibility [67]. Although the sampling strategy ensured representation across all sixteen police districts, the overall sample size remains comparatively small when viewed against the total population of officers within the selected contingent. As a result, the findings should be interpreted with caution when considering generalizability to the broader national law enforcement population. Modest sample sizes may limit the stability of parameter estimates and reduce the precision of subgroup comparisons. Nevertheless, the sample remains appropriate for the analytical procedures employed in this study and provides meaningful insight into patterns of workplace deviance within the selected organisational context [68].

Respondents included both senior-ranked and lower-ranking police officers who had served in their designated districts for a minimum of one year. Exclusion criteria were applied to ensure sample relevance: auxiliary police, volunteer corps members, and personnel assigned to full-time external duties such as palace or court security assignments were excluded. The survey was administered via an online platform, and participation was entirely voluntary. Prior to data collection, formal approval was obtained from the relevant law enforcement authority to conduct the study in the selected locations. Supplementary approvals were granted by designated leadership at both state and district enforcement levels. Initial engagement sessions were held with key officials at district enforcement centres to communicate the study’s purpose and significance. Respondents gave informed consent prior to participation. Given the sensitive nature of the topic concerning deviant workplace behaviour, comprehensive assurances regarding confidentiality and data protection were provided. Participants were clearly informed that no disciplinary action would result from any information disclosed. Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of The National University of Malaysia (RECUKM), under reference number JEP-2024-080.

Instruments

The scale of workplace deviance

The Scale of Workplace Deviance was modified from the original tool developed by Bennett and Robinson [69]. This scale consists of two distinct dimensions: organisational deviance and interpersonal deviance. Participants responded to items rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often), with a total of 19 items included in the questionnaire. All items were translated and contextually adapted to ensure relevance for personnel in Malaysian law enforcement settings, thereby strengthening content validity within this occupational context. The scale’s grounding in counterproductive work behaviour theory makes it well suited for capturing both individual‑level and organisationally oriented forms of misconduct. An example item from the translated version is, “Bersikap biadap terhadap orang lain di tempat kerja” (“Acted rudely toward someone at work”). This instrument has demonstrated considerable efficacy and is extensively used in empirical research investigating deviant workplace behaviour [1, 2]. In the current investigation, the scale yielded strong internal reliability, as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.83.

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), developed by Cameron and Quinn [16], is grounded in the CVF. This instrument evaluates organisational culture across six key dimensions: dominant cultural characteristics, organisational leadership, management of employees, organisational glue, strategic emphasis and criteria for success. Each item provides respondents with four definitions of organisation, each reflecting one of the competing cultural values. Respondents are generally required to distribute 100 points among these definitions according to the degree to which each accurately represents their organisation. This study adapted the point allocation method into a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”), to improve scoring consistency and ensure alignment with the CVF and OCAI framework. In total, 24 items were used, consistent with the original instrument, with six items for each of the four competing values. This scoring adaptation follows the precedent set by Di Stefano et al. (2019), who reported satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha coefficients: 0.70 for Clan, 0.72 for Adhocracy, 0.76 for Market, and 0.75 for Hierarchy. The internal consistency of this scale in the present investigation was robust, evidenced by a Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.80 to 0.93. An example item from the translated scale is, “Tempat kerja saya berbentuk sebuah pusat keusahawanan yang dinamik di mana setiap pekerja sanggup berusaha keras dan mengambil risiko” (“The organisation is a very dynamic entrepreneurial place where people are willing to stick their necks out and take risks”).

Perceived organisational injustice

This study utilised the Perceived Injustice scale initially developed by Hodson et al. [70], which was subsequently reviewed and adapted to fit the context of this research. The original items assessed employees’ perceptions of unfair treatment within the workplace (e.g., “Sometimes workers at my workplace are recognised for doing more than what is required”). To enhance the depth and contextual relevance of the construct, five additional items were developed, drawing on the researcher’s professional experience as a senior police officer and refined through consultation with experts in social science and criminology. These new items focused particularly on issues of favouritism and unequal treatment, themes that emerged during preliminary focus‑group discussions. Respondents rated all items on a five‑point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”), resulting in a final nine‑item scale. The reliability of the original instrument has been well-established, with previous studies reporting high Cronbach’s alpha values: 0.95 [35] and 0.86 [44]. Internal consistency in the present study was similarly robust with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92. Additional adapted items reflecting perceived favouritism included “Adakalanya pekerja di tempat kerja saya tidak menerima hukuman setimpal dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan” (“Sometimes employees at my workplace do not receive appropriate punishment for the offences they commit”) and “Terdapat pekerja di tempat kerja saya menerima layanan istimewa kerana mempunyai latar belakang yang tertentu” (“Some employees at my workplace receive special treatment because of their particular background”).

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)

Work engagement was measured using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-17), developed by Schaufeli et al. [71]. This self-administered questionnaire comprises 17 items and captures three core dimensions of work engagement: vigour, dedication, and absorption. The vigour dimension includes items that reflect high levels of energy and resilience at work. An example from the translated scale is, “Saya sentiasa bersemangat di tempat kerja” (“I feel bursting with energy at work”). Dedication and absorption are represented by items reflecting employees’ enthusiasm and deep involvement in their work activities. Respondents indicated the frequency of these experiences using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“never”) to 6 (“always/every day”). The UWES-17 was selected due to its extensive application in prior studies, its robust psychometric validity and its suitability for assessing engagement across diverse occupational groups, regardless of job type or focus [72]. Reliability testing has consistently demonstrated strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values typically falling between 0.80 and 0.90 [73] and reaching 0.94 in more recent evaluations [74]. Furthermore, a systematic literature review encompassing 86 empirical studies confirmed UWES as the predominant instrument used to assess work engagement, with a usage rate of 84.9% [75]. The internal consistency of this scale in the current study was strong, as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89.

Instrument translation and cross-cultural adaptation procedure

To ensure the linguistic and conceptual validity of the instruments in the Malaysian context, all four measures originally developed in English were translated into Bahasa Melayu using the Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting, and Documentation (TRAPD) method proposed by Harkness et al. [76]. This approach is widely recognised for its collaborative and iterative structure, promoting both semantic fidelity and cultural appropriateness in cross-national survey research [77]. The instruments employed in this study included the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) by Schaufeli et al. [71], which assesses employee engagement across dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption; the Perceived Injustice Scale by Hodson et al. [70], measuring employees’ perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional injustice; the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) based on the CVF by Cameron and Quinn [16]; and the Workplace Deviance Scale developed by Bennett and Robinson [78], which was adapted to better reflect behavioural nuances in the Malaysian law enforcement setting.

Prior to translation, formal permissions were obtained from the respective original authors of all instruments. The TRAPD procedure began with independent translations carried out by two bilingual experts experienced in organisational psychology. These versions were then reviewed by a multidisciplinary committee, ensuring that terminologies were contextually appropriate for law enforcement personnel while retaining the intended psychological constructs. Discrepancies or ambiguities were resolved through adjudication, in which committee members deliberated and reached consensus on the most accurate and culturally resonant phrasing. Subsequently, the translated versions underwent cognitive debriefing and pilot testing with a sample of Malaysian police officers to evaluate clarity, comprehension, and construct validity. Feedback from this pretesting phase informed further refinements. All stages of the translation process were meticulously documented, offering transparency and replicability in line with best practices for cross-cultural instrument adaptation [79]. This rigorous approach helped mitigate potential measurement bias and ensured the integrity of psychometric assessments across linguistic boundaries, which is critical when examining constructs like injustice and deviance that are shaped by local sociocultural factors [80].

Data analysis

All statistical procedures were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 26.0. Descriptive statistics were computed to summarise participants’ demographic characteristics and scores on the study variables: workplace deviance, work culture, perceived organisational injustice and work engagement. To examine predictive relationships, standard multiple regression analysis was performed. This method allows for the simultaneous evaluation of multiple independent variables in relation to a single dependent variable, workplace deviance. Specifically, the model assessed whether work culture and perceived organisational injustice significantly predicted workplace deviance and whether work engagement moderated these associations. Model fit was evaluated using the multiple correlation coefficient (R) and the coefficient of determination (R²), which quantifies the proportion of variance in workplace deviance explained by the predictors. Higher R² values indicate stronger predictive accuracy beyond the mean model [81].

Despite utilising a cross-sectional and single-source design, the application of multilevel linear modelling is warranted due to the hierarchical nature of the data. Respondents were situated within sixteen police districts and organisational experiences, including work culture and perceived injustice, are influenced by district-level factors. Multilevel modelling addresses this non-independence by decomposing variance at both individual and district levels, resulting in more precise standard errors and minimising the likelihood of biassed estimates [82, 83]. This methodology enhances the analytical rigour of the study by acknowledging the contextual factors intrinsic to law enforcement institutions even when data are gathered at a singular moment in time.

To test the moderating effect of work engagement, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted. This method involves entering the predictor, moderator, and interaction term in successive steps, allowing the evaluation of whether the inclusion of the interaction significantly improves the model’s ability to explain variance in workplace deviance. Predictor and moderator variables were mean-centred prior to interaction term computation to reduce multicollinearity and improve interpretability [84]. Moderation was considered statistically significant if the interaction term’s 95% confidence interval excluded zero and the p-value was below 0.05, which served as the significance threshold for this study [85]. This analytical approach aligns with the procedure adopted by Kamaluddin et al. [86], who employed hierarchical regression to examine the moderating role of psychosocial factors in relational aggression among Malaysian young adults. Their use of stepwise regression modelling reinforces the methodological rigour and contextual relevance of this study’s moderation testing. All analyses followed established guidelines for regression-based moderation testing, ensuring transparency, replicability, and alignment with best practices in organisational psychology research.

Given that all variables were collected through self-report measures within a single survey administration, the potential for common method bias warrants consideration. Single source data may inflate observed associations due to shared measurement context or respondent tendencies. Several procedural safeguards were implemented to mitigate this risk, including assurances of anonymity, the use of established instruments with strong psychometric properties and clear separation of constructs within the questionnaire. These steps reduce the likelihood of systematic response bias, although the possibility of residual common method variance cannot be fully excluded [87, 88]. Future studies may benefit from incorporating multi source or multi wave designs to further minimise this concern.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Participant demographics

The study comprised 417 personnel from a Malaysian law enforcement agency, encompassing both senior officers and lower-ranked officers. As shown in Table 1, the sample included 317 male participants (76.0%) and 100 female participants (24.0%). The age distribution ranged from 21 to 59 years (M = 35.28, SD = 7.859), with the majority aged between 26 and 40 years (70.6%), reflecting the operationally active segment of the force. In terms of religious affiliation, most respondents identified as Muslim (87.3%), followed by Christian (8.4%), Hindu (3.6%), Buddhist (0.5%), and other (0.2%). Regarding educational attainment, the largest group held the Malaysian Certificate of Education (70.0%), followed by those with a Diploma (17.3%), a Bachelor’s degree (9.1%), and a Master’s degree (2.2%). A small proportion reported lower-level education (1.4%).

Table 1.

Participant demographics

Characteristics	n	%
Gender
Male	317	76.0
Female	100	24.0
Age
25 and below	36	8.6
26-30	92	22.1
31-35	90	21.6
36-40	112	26.9
41-45	46	11.0
46-50	20	4.8
51 and above	21	5.0
Religion
Islam	364	87.3
Christian	35	8.4
Hindu	15	3.6
Buddhist	2	0.5
Other	1	0.2
Highest Education Level
Lower Level	6	1.4
Certificate of Education	292	70.0
Diploma	72	17.3
Bachelor’s Degree	38	9.1
Master’s Degree	9	2.2

The demographic composition of the sample reflects the structural and operational realities of the agency. The predominance of male participants is consistent with gender distributions typically observed in enforcement institutions, while the concentration of personnel within the 26 to 40 age range suggests a workforce in its prime years of service, likely engaged in frontline duties. The religious breakdown mirrors national demographics, with Islam as the majority faith, yet the presence of other religious affiliations highlights the agency’s multicultural makeup. Educational attainment levels indicate that most personnel possess foundational academic qualifications, with a notable proportion holding tertiary degrees. This diversity in educational background may influence perceptions of organisational justice and workplace dynamics, particularly in relation to career progression, role expectations, and exposure to institutional policies.

Inferential statistics

Table 2 presents findings from regression analyses examining the impact of organisational culture dimensions and perceived organisational injustice on deviant workplace behaviour among personnel in a Malaysian law enforcement agency. The multiple regression model assessing four cultural subtypes, namely flexible, market, hierarchy, and clan, was statistically significant, 𝐹 (4,412) = 7.758, p < .001, accounting for 7.0% of variance in deviant behaviour (𝑅²=0.070, Adjusted 𝑅²=0.061). Specifically, flexible culture (β = –0.211, p = .002) and hierarchy culture (β = –0.165, p = .016) were negatively associated with deviance, suggesting that cultural environments emphasising autonomy and structural discipline may suppress counterproductive behaviour. In contrast, market culture (β = 0.180, p = .003) showed a positive association, potentially indicating that performance-oriented cultures may inadvertently intensify deviant tendencies. Clan culture showed no significant effect (β = 0.001, p = .981). Collinearity statistics indicated model stability, with Tolerance values ranging from 0.481 to 0.602 and VIFs between 1.660 and 2.078.

Table 2.

Multiple regression

Variables	B	SE B	β	t	Sig
Work culture
Clan	0.000	0.021	0.001	0.024	0.981
Adhocracy	-0.061	0.019	-0.211	-3.176*	0.002
Market	0.054	0.018	0.180	2.940*	0.003
Hierarchy	-0.054	0.022	-0.165	-2.414*	0.016
Perceived organisational injustice	0.089	0.015	0.288	6.121*	0.000

*P<.05

A separate simple linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the effect of perceived organisational injustice on deviant workplace behaviour. The model was statistically significant, 𝐹 (1, 415) = 37.470, p < .001, accounting for 8.3% of the variance in deviant behaviour (𝑅² = 0.083, Adjusted 𝑅² = 0.081). Perceived organisational injustice was positively associated with deviances (β = 0.288, p < .001), indicating that higher levels of perceived unfairness correspond to increased workplace deviances among personnel in a Malaysian law enforcement agency. The standard error of estimate (0.25395) reflected a stable model fit, and with only one predictor included, multicollinearity was not a concern. These findings reinforce the role of perceived injustice as a significant standalone predictor of deviant behaviour, complementing the influence of organisational culture dimensions. Together, the results underscore the layered complexity of workplace deviance in policing environments and provide empirical grounding for the subsequent moderation analysis involving work engagement.

In the hierarchical regression analysis, only variables that reached statistical significance in the multiple regression model were incorporated into the moderation models. These included adhocracy culture, market culture, hierarchy culture, and perceived organisational injustice. Table 3 presents the results of the hierarchical regression examining whether work engagement moderates the relationship between work culture and deviant workplace behaviour. In Model 1, the main effects of adhocracy culture, market culture, hierarchy culture, and work engagement were entered. The model was statistically significant, F (4, 412) = 8.664, p < .001, accounting for approximately 7.8% of the variance in deviant behaviour (R² = 0.078). Among the predictors, adhocracy culture (β = –0.223, t = − 3.496, p = .001), market culture (β = 0.194, t = 3.169, p = .002), and hierarchy culture (β = –0.179, t = − 2.719, p = .007) were statistically significant. Work engagement, however, was not a significant predictor (β = 0.017, t = 0.317, p = .752).

Table 3.

Hierarchical regression (work culture)

Variables	B	SE B	β	t	Sig
Model 1
(Constant)	27.074	1.360		19.915	0.000
Adhocracy	-0.188	0.054	-0.223	-3.496	0.001
Market	0.170	0.053	0.194	3.169	0.002
Hierarchy	-0.170	0.063	-0.179	-2.719	0.007
Work engagement	0.005	0.016	0.017	0.317	0.752
Model 2
(Constant)	26.948	1.438		18.738	0.000
Adhocracy	-0.194	0.054	-0.230	-3.611	0.000
Market	0.163	0.054	0.187	3.027	0.003
Hierarchy	-0.160	0.064	-0.168	-2.515	0.012
Work engagement	0.007	0.016	0.023	0.420	0.674
Adhocracy X Work engagement	0.008	0.004	0.151	2.119	0.035*
Market X Work engagement	-0.007	0.004	-0.130	-1.826	0.069
Hierarchy X Work engagement	-0.001	0.004	-0.011	-0.172	0.863

*P<.05

In Model 2, interaction terms between work engagement and each significant culture dimension were added. This model also reached statistical significance, F (7, 409) = 5.715, p < .001, with a nominal and not statistically meaningful increase in explained variance (R² = 0.089), indicating that the addition of interaction terms did not substantially improve overall model fit, representing a 1.1% improvement over Model 1. Among the interaction terms, only the interaction between adhocracy culture and work engagement was statistically significant (β = 0.151, t = 2.119, p = .035), indicating that work engagement moderated the relationship between adhocracy culture and deviant behaviour. These findings are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4.

Model summary (work culture)

Variables	R 2	Adjusted R2	ΔR²	F Change	P(ΔR²)
Model 1	0.078	0.069	-	-	-
Model 2	0.089	0.074	0.11	1.72	0.16

To further interpret this interaction, a slope analysis was conducted (Fig. 1). The results revealed that the negative relationship between adhocracy culture and deviant behaviour was evident at both low and high levels of work engagement, but slightly stronger when engagement was low (slope = − 0.404) compared to when it was high (slope = − 0.372). This suggests that while adhocracy culture consistently predicts lower deviant behaviour, its protective effect is relatively stable across engagement levels, with a marginally steeper decline in deviance under low engagement conditions. The interaction between market culture and work engagement approached significance (β = –0.130, t = − 1.826, p = .069), while the interaction between hierarchy culture and work engagement was not significant (β = –0.011, t = –0.172, p = .863). Although the inclusion of interaction terms slightly improved model fit, the overall change in explained variance was not statistically significant (ΔR² = 0.011; F Change = 1.72, p = .160), suggesting that the moderating role of work engagement may be constrained or shaped by contextual factors within a Malaysian law enforcement setting.

Fig. 1.

Simple slope analysis for the interaction between adhocracy culture and work engagement in predicting deviant workplace behaviour. The figure illustrates the regression slopes at high (+ 1 SD) and low (–1 SD) levels of work engagement. In both conditions, higher adhocracy culture is associated with lower deviant behaviour, with the slope slightly steeper under low engagement, indicating a marginally stronger protective effect when engagement is low. The relative similarity of the slopes reflects the nominal nature of the moderation effect despite its statistical significance

In line with best practices for moderation testing, only organisational culture dimensions that demonstrated statistically significant main effects in the initial multiple regression model were retained for subsequent moderation analyses. This approach reduces model complexity, avoids unnecessary inflation of interaction terms and ensures that moderation is examined only for theoretically and empirically relevant predictors [89]. For all moderation models, the change in explained variance (ΔR²) associated with the addition of interaction terms was explicitly evaluated. Although Model 2 showed a slight increase in R² for both the work culture and organisational injustice models, these increments were not statistically significant, indicating that the inclusion of interaction terms did not meaningfully improve overall model fit. Importantly, this does not contradict the presence of a significant specific interaction effect. While the overall ΔR² was small, the interaction between adhocracy culture and work engagement remained statistically significant, demonstrating that work engagement moderates this particular relationship even though the combined set of interaction terms did not substantially increase the total variance explained. To enhance interpretability and reduce multicollinearity, all continuous predictors included in the hierarchical moderation analyses namely adhocracy culture, market culture, hierarchy culture, perceived organisational injustice and work engagement were mean‑centred prior to creating interaction terms [89].

Although Model 2 showed a slight increase in explained variance, the change was nominal and not statistically meaningful, indicating that the addition of interaction terms did not substantially enhance overall model fit. Importantly, this does not negate the presence of a significant specific interaction effect. While the overall ΔR² remained minimal, the interaction between adhocracy culture and work engagement was statistically significant, demonstrating that work engagement moderates this particular relationship even though the combined interaction block did not meaningfully increase total variance explained.

For transparency, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for all regression coefficients. In the work culture model, the significant predictors demonstrated CIs that did not cross zero. Specifically, adhocracy culture showed a negative association with deviant behaviour (β = –0.223, 95% CI [–0.294, − 0.102]), while market culture exhibited a positive association (β = 0.194, 95% CI [0.071, 0.317]). Hierarchy culture also demonstrated a significant negative effect (β = –0.179, 95% CI [–0.304, − 0.054]). The interaction between adhocracy culture and work engagement yielded a significant positive coefficient (β = 0.151, 95% CI [0.010, 0.292]), indicating a reliable moderation effect. In the organisational injustice model, perceived organisational injustice remained a significant predictor, with its CI similarly excluding zero (β = 0.289, 95% CI [0.197, 0.381]). In contrast, all non‑significant predictors and interaction terms produced CIs that crossed zero, consistent with their non‑significant p‑values.

In a separate hierarchical regression analysis, perceived organisational injustice was examined alongside work engagement to determine whether the latter moderates its relationship with deviant workplace behaviour. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 5. Model 1 included the main effects of perceived organisational injustice and work engagement. The model was statistically significant, F (2, 414) = 19.289, p < .001, accounting for approximately 8.5% of the variance in deviant behaviour (R² = 0.085). Among the predictors, perceived organisational injustice emerged as a significant positive predictor (β = 0.289, t = 6.063, p < .001), whereas work engagement was not statistically significant (β = –0.018, t = –0.374, p = .708). In Model 2, the interaction term between perceived organisational injustice and work engagement was added. The model remained statistically significant, F (3, 413) = 12.896, p < .001, with a negligible increase in explained variance (R² = 0.086), representing only a 0.1% improvement over Model 1. The corresponding model summary is detailed in Table 6. The interaction term was not statistically significant (β = –0.021, t = –0.431, p = .667), indicating that work engagement did not moderate the relationship between perceived organisational injustice and deviant workplace behaviour.

Table 5.

Hierarchical regression (perceived organisational injustice)

Variables	B	SE B	β	t	Sig
Model 1
(Constant)	19.947	1.399		14.253	0.000
Perceived organisational injustice	0.174	0.029	0.289	6.063	0.000
Work engagement	-0.005	0.015	-0.018	-0.374	0.708
Model 2
(Constant)	19.832	1.426		13.906	0.000
Perceived organisational injustice	0.174	0.029	0.289	6.060	0.000
Work engagement	-0.004	0.015	-0.014	-0.283	0.777
Perceived organisational	-0.001	0.002	-0.021	-0.431	0.667
Injustice X Work engagement

Table 6.

Model summary (perceived organisational injustice)

Variables	R 2	Adjusted R2	ΔR²	F Change	P(ΔR²)
Model 1	0.085	0.081	-	-	-
Model 2	0.086	0.079	0.001	0.186	0.667

Discussion

The present study investigated deviant workplace behaviour among a diverse cohort of personnel (N = 417) from a national law enforcement agency, predominantly male (76%) and Muslim (87.3%), with most holding secondary-level education and earning below RM5,250 monthly. Respondents represented diverse departments and operational roles with nearly one-third engaged in administrative functions. Regression analyses indicated that specific organisational culture dimensions, including adhocracy, hierarchy, and market cultures, were significant predictors of workplace deviances. Additionally, perceived organisational injustice emerged as a strong independent predictor. Moderation analyses further indicated that work engagement significantly moderated the relationship between adhocracy culture and deviance, though its effects were limited across other dimensions. These findings provide a layered understanding of how cultural orientations and injustice perceptions shape behavioural outcomes in law enforcement settings.

Organisational culture dimensions demonstrated varied associations with deviant behaviour. Hierarchy and adhocracy cultures were negatively associated with deviance, suggesting that environments emphasising procedural clarity, structural discipline, and participatory practices may suppress counterproductive conduct. These findings align with prior research indicating that hierarchical cultures foster perceptions of procedural justice and psychological safety [14, 90], while flexible cultures promote trust, autonomy and skill development [91]. The compatibility of hierarchical values with the paramilitary structure of law enforcement may explain their stronger protective effect in this context as more than half of the respondents reported high levels of hierarchical cultural orientation.

Adhocracy culture, though seemingly at odds with the rigid nature of policing, also emerged as a protective factor. This supports the notion that organisational environments valuing collaboration, innovation and human resource development can foster ethical conduct even within highly structured institutions. Di Stefano et al. [14] emphasised that adhocracy cultures enhance employee satisfaction and accountability, which may reduce the likelihood of deviant acts. The prevalence of high adhocracy culture scores among nearly half of the respondents suggests that values associated with innovation and empowerment are present within the organisational environment and may reflect evolving administrative practices that balance engagement with disciplinary expectations. These findings reinforce the idea that flexibility and autonomy can coexist with operational control when strategically integrated.

In contrast, market culture was positively associated with deviant behaviour. This aligns with findings by Aleksić et al. [3] and Otike et al. [92] who observed that performance‑driven environments emphasising competition and productivity can erode trust and equity. Within policing, such cultures may conflict with the collective ethos required for operational integrity, potentially fostering personal rivalry and unethical conduct. Unrealistic performance targets, opaque reward systems and limited employee voice are characteristic of high market culture and have been linked to increased workplace deviances especially when organisational goals neglect social cohesion [91]. These dynamics may be especially problematic in law enforcement, where teamwork and shared responsibility are critical to public safety.

Interestingly, clan culture did not significantly predict deviant behaviour, diverging from studies associating communal values with ethical conduct [14, 93]. This may reflect contextual factors including the limited prominence of clan-based dynamics within the organisational environment and the prevailing influence of hierarchical norms. Aleksić et al. [3] similarly found that clan culture attributes did not significantly predict deviance, suggesting that communalism alone may be insufficient to counteract structural or performance pressures. The absence of a significant effect in this study reinforces the importance of aligning cultural interventions with the specific operational realities and value systems of law enforcement organisations.

Overall, these findings affirm the relevance of the CVF [16] in explaining behavioural outcomes and support broader meta-analytic conclusions that work culture meaningfully influences workplace deviance [1]. The differential effects of culture dimensions highlight the need for organisational strategies that balance control with flexibility and performance with fairness. The demographic and occupational diversity of the sample also suggests that cultural orientation may interact with role‑specific demands, shaping behavioural outcomes. Future research should explore these interactions longitudinally and across enforcement contexts to deepen understanding of how cultural dynamics influence ethical conduct in high-stakes professions.

The study also found a significant positive association between perceived organisational injustice and workplace deviance. The tendency to engage in workplace deviances was higher among officers who perceived inequities in organisational domains including resource distribution, procedural decisions and disciplinary actions. This supports the Equity Theory framework, which posits that perceived imbalance between employee input and organisational reward can lead to retaliatory behaviours aimed at restoring fairness. Similar associations have been reported in prior studies by Khattak and Abukhait [29], Arina et al. [94], Sustiyatik et al. [33], and Reynolds et al. [95], despite variations in how deviance was operationalised across contexts.

Item‑level analysis revealed that many participants perceived injustice in the form of favouritism, inequitable punishment, lack of recognition and disproportionate workload. These perceptions were most pronounced in three core items of the measurement instrument and reflect structural and procedural imbalances within the organisation. This pattern aligns with findings by De Clercq et al. [35] who emphasised that perceived unfairness, particularly in relation to equity and impartiality, can serve as a catalyst for deviant workplace behaviour. The prominence of these injustice dimensions underscores the relevance of Equity Theory in explaining deviance within law enforcement settings.

These findings are consistent with broader empirical evidence. Studies by Kim et al. [96], Macias et al. [97], Khattak et al. [30], Hystad et al. [98] and Michel and Hargis [99] have similarly demonstrated that when employees perceive systemic unfairness, they may resort to deviant behaviours as a form of psychological compensation. These behaviours, while varying in form and intensity, reflect a broader pattern of resistance against perceived organisational imbalance. The present study contributes to this literature by situating these dynamics within the unique cultural and structural context of Malaysian policing.

Taken together, the results highlight the pivotal influence of perceived organisational injustice in shaping behavioural outcomes within high stakes occupational environments. In policing, where hierarchical structure and procedural rigidity are prominent, perceptions of unfairness may be especially influential in prompting workplace deviances. Mitigating these perceptions through transparent decision making, equitable resource distribution and consistent disciplinary protocols could serve as a strategic lever for behavioural reform. These results not only extend the applicability of Equity Theory to law enforcement contexts but also offer actionable insights for institutional policy and organisational development.

The study also examined whether work engagement moderates the relationship between cultural dimensions and deviant behaviour. The inclusion of work engagement as a moderator accounted for an additional 1.2% of the explained variance, suggesting a nominal and not statistically meaningful interpretation. Notably, significant moderation emerged only in the interaction between adhocracy culture and deviant behaviour. As highlighted by Memon et al. [100], moderation effects warrant cautious interpretation, given their potential for complex, non-linear dynamics. To unpack this interaction, simple slope analysis was conducted in accordance with Aiken and West’s [101] guidelines, provided a clearer understanding of how engagement levels shape behavioural outcomes within flexible, innovation‑oriented cultural settings.

The slope analysis revealed that adhocracy culture exerted a stronger negative influence on deviant workplace behaviour when work engagement was low. This suggests that in contexts of low engagement, a dynamic and empowering culture plays a more critical role in curbing deviant tendencies. Although the moderation effect was statistically significant at both high and low levels of engagement, its strength varied. These findings offer a novel contribution to the literature, as prior studies have not directly examined this triadic relationship. Saleem et al. [42], for instance, found that a supportive organisational culture and work environment mitigated the negative impact of workplace violence on engagement, aligning with the current study’s assertion that adhocracy culture, characterised by flexibility and innovation, can enhance engagement and reduce deviance.

The present findings also align with broader evidence. Studies by Parent and Lovelace [102], Li et al. [103] and Kundu and Lata [104] similarly highlight the role of positive organisational culture in fostering engagement and minimising counterproductive behaviours. The consistency across these studies reinforces the validity of the current results and extends theoretical understanding of how flexible cultural norms interact with psychological states to shape behavioural outcomes Notably, most respondents reported moderate to high levels of both adhocracy culture and engagement, supporting the observed interaction effects.

In contrast, the moderation analysis involving perceived organisational injustice revealed no significant interaction effect with work engagement. While injustice was positively associated with deviant behaviour, engagement did not significantly buffer or amplify this relationship. This finding diverges from conventional expectations and suggests a more complex interplay. Prior research, such as Singh and Choudhary [105], identified indirect pathways between injustice and engagement via interpersonal conflict, while Agina et al. [106] highlighted gossip and cynicism as mediators. These studies support the link between injustice and deviance but offer limited insight into engagement’s moderating role.

Theoretically, these findings challenge foundational assumptions within both Equity Theory and Work Engagement Theory. While Kahn [107] proposed that individuals can immerse themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally in their roles, the present results suggest that high engagement does not inherently buffer against the behavioural consequences of perceived injustice. Respondents reported sustained engagement despite experiencing low to moderate injustice, yet deviant behaviour persisted. This paradox may reflect the occupational conditioning of uniformed personnel who are trained to maintain task focus and comply with hierarchical directives regardless of personal sentiments. In such environments, role performance may be decoupled from emotional congruence, allowing individuals to remain engaged in their duties while simultaneously expressing deviance through other behavioural channels [108]. This duality underscores the need for more nuanced theoretical models that accommodate the coexistence of engagement and deviance, particularly within rigid, command driven institutional cultures.

Taken together, these findings underscore the broader significance of the present study for understanding behavioural dynamics within law enforcement organisations. Although the design is cross-sectional, recent scholarship affirms that such designs remain valuable for identifying structural and psychological patterns in high-stakes public institutions, particularly when these contexts are under-represented in global research [109, 110]. By integrating organisational culture, perceived injustice and work engagement into a single explanatory framework, the study offers an empirically grounded account of how institutional conditions shape behavioural tendencies in a command-driven policing environment. This contribution aligns with contemporary evidence showing that organisational culture and fairness perceptions are central determinants of ethical conduct, morale and performance in policing systems worldwide [111].

The study also advances comparative organisational research by providing empirical insights from a non-Western policing context, an area that remains insufficiently examined in recent literature. Systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2025 highlight that cultural norms, hierarchical structures and diversity dynamics influence officer behaviour in ways that differ from Western models, underscoring the need for context-sensitive empirical work [112]. By situating deviant behaviour within the unique cultural and structural realities of Malaysian law enforcement, this study contributes to a more global understanding of organisational deviance and offers a foundation for future longitudinal and multi-level investigations. These insights also carry practical relevance, as international policing research increasingly emphasises the importance of strengthening ethical climates, procedural fairness, and officer well-being to support institutional legitimacy and public trust [113].

Limitations and future research

Two methodological considerations warrant explicit acknowledgment. First, the study relied on a single‑source, self‑report survey design, which may introduce common method variance due to shared measurement context. Although anonymity and validated instruments were used, the possibility of inflated associations cannot be fully ruled out. Second, the cross‑sectional nature of the data restricts the ability to determine temporal ordering among work culture, perceived injustice, engagement and deviant behaviour. These constraints limit causal interpretation and highlight the value of longitudinal and multi‑source approaches in future research.

Beyond these methodological considerations, several additional limitations should be noted. The sensitive nature of deviant workplace behaviour within law enforcement may have contributed to conservative responding, even with confidentiality assurances in place. Respondents may have underreported deviant acts or overstated positive organisational experiences, which could influence the magnitude of observed relationships. Second, the contextual specificity of the study, which focused exclusively on respondents affiliated with a national policing framework, may limit the generalizability of its findings. While the hierarchical and command-driven nature of policing offers a rich setting for examining organisational culture and deviance, findings may not translate seamlessly to other enforcement agencies or public service sectors with differing structural norms. Cultural and institutional factors unique to Malaysian law enforcement, such as disciplinary protocols and reward systems, may shape behavioural outcomes in ways that differ from Western or civilian organisations. Comparative studies across jurisdictions and occupational types could help validate and extend these findings.

Third, practical constraints limited the inclusion of multi-source data. The study relied solely on officer self-assessments, excluding supervisor ratings, peer evaluations, or administrative records that could triangulate behavioural patterns. Moreover, the exclusion of auxiliary and volunteer personnel, while methodologically justified, may have omitted perspectives from peripheral actors who also experience organisational injustice and contribute to workplace dynamics. Future research should consider mixed method approaches and broader sampling frames to enrich data validity and contextual nuance.

Finally, future investigations should explore additional moderators and mediators that may influence the injustice–deviance relationship. While work engagement was examined as a moderator, its effects were limited and context dependent. Variables such as psychological empowerment, ethical climate and leadership style may offer deeper insight into how organisational conditions translate into behavioural outcomes. Moreover, qualitative studies could illuminate the lived experiences of officers navigating injustice and engagement, offering narrative depth to complement statistical findings. Expanding the theoretical lens to include the Conservation of Resources theory or the Social Exchange Theory may also enhance explanatory power and guide more targeted interventions.

Building on these conceptual directions, future research would also benefit from methodological designs that capture the multi-layered nature of organisational behaviour. Longitudinal approaches could track how work culture, perceived injustice and engagement evolve over time, offering stronger causal insights into the development of deviant behaviour. Multi-level and multi-source data such as supervisor evaluations, peer assessments, administrative records and district-level contextual indicators would provide a more comprehensive and triangulated understanding of behavioural patterns within policing environments. Incorporating these richer data structures would help clarify how individual, relational and organisational factors interact to shape deviant workplace behaviour.

Conclusion

These findings carry important theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, they extend the CVF and Equity Theory by demonstrating how cultural and situational factors jointly influence deviance. Practically, they underscore the need for law enforcement agencies to cultivate supportive, participatory cultures and address fairness perceptions through transparent policies and equitable resource distribution. Enhancing work engagement, particularly within rigid institutional settings, may serve as a strategic lever for behavioural reform by fostering psychological investment, reducing alienation, and promoting constructive workplace conduct. While the study’s scope and design were carefully chosen to suit the research context, limitations and future directions have been discussed in detail in the preceding section. These considerations offer fertile ground for continued inquiry and underscore the relevance of this research agenda for both Malaysian law enforcement and broader organisational psychology.

Abbreviations

CVF

Competing Values Framework

OCAI

Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument

RECUKM

Research Ethics Committee of The National University of Malaysia

SDG

Sustainable Development Goals

TRAPD

Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting, and Documentation

UWES

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

Authors’ contributions

MAB refined the survey instrument on perceived organisational injustice to suit the background of police officer respondents and led data collection and analysis. JM, SK, and MNS reviewed the study findings and ensured the methodology aligned with the research objectives. ZK analysed the study’s limitations and formulated recommendations for future research. MRK served as adjudicator in the TRAPD translation process and conducted the final manuscript review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Indexed Journal Publication Fee Assistance Grant: FKK1, provided by Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Ethical approval was obtained from Research Ethics Committee of The National University of Malaysia (RECUKM), under reference number JEP-2024-080. All participants provided informed consent prior to data collection.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.