Investigating the role of perceived career growth as a mediator in linking job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, and LMX to workplace deviance

Abstract

Background

This study postulates a theoretical framework based on social determination theory, suggesting that employees’ likelihood of workplace deviance can be reduced by their satisfaction with needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Thus, we propose that job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, and leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships are negatively related to workplace deviance. Additionally, perceived career growth is proposed to mediate these relationships.

Methods

The data were collected from 305 employees working in high-tech firms in Jiangsu province, China, through self-reported questionnaires during the two distinct periods. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to analyze the data.

Findings

The results supported the proposed hypotheses. Job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, and LMX had a negative effect on workplace deviance. Moreover, job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, and LMX positively affected perceived career growth. Finally, perceived career growth negatively mediated the effect of job autonomy, LMX, and occupational self-efficacy on workplace deviance.

Conclusion

The study concludes that perceived career growth is a significant mediator between job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, LMX, and workplace deviance. This finding offers key implications for both theory and practice.

Introduction

Workplace deviance has been an area of concern for organizational management. It refers to negative behavior that adversely affects employees, employers, and the workplace, such as theft, sabotage, work withdrawal, absenteeism, leaving early, and even physical and verbal aggression [1]. Its consequences are diverse, ranging from financial loss to reduced emotional and mental well-being. For instance, psycho-social aggression, a form of workplace deviance, costs organizations from $114.64 million to $35.9 billion annually [2]. A report revealed that workplace deviance costs enterprises $3.7 trillion worldwide (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 2016). Despite the tremendous efforts by organizational management to control workplace deviance, it has been increasing continuously. A study revealed that 75% of employees reported experiencing workplace hazing [3]. Workplace deviance is a global phenomenon that transcends national and industrial boundaries. Therefore, researchers regularly strive to investigate factors that can cause or control such behavior.

A significant cause of workplace behavior is the individuals’ lack of motivation and the associated feelings of detachment from their work, resulting from their frustration with their basic psychological needs [4, 5]. Consequently, they resort to deviant behavior to show frustration or satisfy their needs, including thrill-seeking, pleasure, attention-seeking, revenge, release, or escape [6]. A fundamental question, therefore, arises: what factors can circumvent such behavior? By addressing this question, we draw upon the self-determination theory (SDT) to examine how the employees’ core need fulfillment can minimize their tendency towards workplace deviance. According to SDT, when individuals’ basic needs, including autonomy, competence, and belongingness, are satisfied, they either engage in positive behavior or reduce their likelihood of negative behavior [7]. Our proposed variables, including job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, and LMX, foster the supportive conditions that help employees satisfy their needs for autonomy, competence, and belongingness. The SDT further assumes that psychological needs satisfaction fosters growth tendency, learning, goal pursuit, and self-development among individuals [8, 9]. SDT builds on career literature by asserting that employees’ beliefs regarding career growth act as developmental outcomes of their core needs satisfaction [4]. Due to changes in the social environment and shifts in personal interests and values, individuals emphasize personally meaningful factors in career development, such as continuous learning, personal growth, and self-fulfillment, rather than solely depending on employers [10]. Satisfying core needs at work enables employees to tackle their varied career aspirations and goals, resulting in their perceptions of career growth. This alleviates the employees’ career-related concerns and tendency towards negative workplace behavior [11].

Accordingly, this study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, this study extends the applicability of SDT to the career literature by examining the role of perceived career growth in mediating the relationships of LMX, job autonomy, and occupational self-efficacy with workplace deviance. We focus on the developmental and growth outcome of psychological need satisfaction by examining perceived career growth—an area that has been overlooked—since prior research has primarily examined the proximal and behavioral outcomes of need-satisfying factors such as intrinsic motivation, well-being, and job satisfaction [7]. We contend that employees’ satisfaction with their needs for autonomy, mastery, and social relatedness strengthens their beliefs in their career growth. Perceived career growth guides employees towards appropriate behavior and diminishes their tendency towards negative workplace behavior by lowering their detachment from work and organization [4]. Hence, we aim to develop an effective intervention based on the growth perspective of SDT to reduce workplace deviance by integrating the literature on SDT, career growth, and workplace deviance.

Second, the research integrates job autonomy with perceived career growth within a single framework. The antecedents of career growth mainly pertain to individual or social factors. The job factors are a significant omission in the career development literature [12]. This can result in underestimating the significance of work factors when designing career development programs for employees. By exploring the relationship between job autonomy and perceived career growth, we aim to investigate how the interventions around job autonomy can increase individuals’ perceptions of career growth. Individuals with job autonomy align their job responsibilities and work goals with their career expectations and goals, thereby increasing their chances for career development [13, 14]. Third, the study examines the relationship between perceived career growth and workplace deviance. Based on SDT, the beliefs regarding career growth reduce the feelings of detachment from the work and employers, which employees develop due to the lack of purpose and reward in their work. As a result, their likelihood of workplace deviance is significantly reduced [4]. This approach broadens the factors regulating workplace deviance by including the career domain. This helps organizations save on the cost of controlling workplace deviance, which can sometimes result from employees experiencing career plateauing, a state of dissatisfaction with their career growth [11, 15]. This reflects a significant contribution to the literature by underscoring the significance of career growth in behavioral ethics, which has received scant attention from research scholars.

Theoretical framework and hypothesis development

Social determination theory

Social determination theory (SDT) deals with how humans’ satisfaction with their three core psychological needs, including autonomy, competence, and relatedness, is essential for their growth, development, and well-being [16]. People have inherent tendencies to satisfy these needs, since they are necessary for their personal growth and form the basis for their self-motivation and regulation of behavior. Individuals satisfied with their core needs in a particular context foster intrinsic motivation toward a specific behavior. Intrinsic motivation internalizes regulating a behavior such that behaving in a certain way emanates from the sense of self [16]. Notably, these three needs operate independently and collectively contribute to the outcomes rather than substituting for each other or operating hierarchically or conditionally [17, 18]. Unlike Maslow’s need hierarchy theory, which focuses on fulfilling needs in a hierarchy, such as people do not pursue meeting higher-order needs unless lower-order needs are met, the three needs in SDT are equally essential for optimal human functioning and regulation [19]. This is because each of the three needs addresses a separate and essential psychological function required for human development and functioning. These studies also suggest that the full satisfaction of these needs leads to optimal outcomes, yet their partial fulfillment can also have a meaningful impact on human functioning.

An essential part of the SDT emphasizes that social and personal factors can either satisfy or frustrate these needs [20]. Supportive conditions are required to elicit and sustain the individuals’ intrinsic motivation, which can be diminished by unsupportive conditions [21]. Employees strive to satisfy their core needs to achieve work goals and foster personal growth within the work context. Factors that satisfy these needs result in positive outcomes, while the factors that frustrate these needs lead to adverse outcomes [22]. Recently, scholars have examined the relationship between the two extremes of the continuum, showing that employees’ satisfaction with their core needs diminishes their detachment from work and subsequent workplace deviance [4]. Previous studies examined that job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, and LMX foster the conditions required for employees’ satisfaction with their needs at work [23–25]. Job autonomy satisfies employees’ need for autonomy by giving them control over their tasks, flexibility, a sense of choice, and the opportunity to align their work with their values and interests [26]. Employees with high occupational self-efficacy perform their work effectively, successfully navigate work challenges, seek improvement opportunities, and handle complex problems [27, 28]. This results in cultivating a sense of mastery, confidence, and capability, satisfying employees’ need for competence. LMX addresses the employees’ need for relatedness by fostering the emotional bond between leaders and subordinates, providing personalized support, mentorship, and social reciprocity [25].

In line with the context of the study, the SDT and career growth literature suggest that perceived career growth closely resembles the growth tendency and the sense of personal growth resulting from need satisfaction [8, 29]. Fulfilling employees’ core needs at work gives them a sense of career growth, which directs employees toward accomplishing their career goals and regulates their behavior accordingly. The endeavors toward career success become internalized in employees’ actions, reinforcing their sense of purpose and commitment to attaining career goals. Employees develop a strong connection to their work, which has significant potential to reduce their likelihood of engaging in workplace deviance.

Workplace deviance

Workplace deviance refers to displaying negative behavior with varying degrees of adverse consequences, such as spreading rumors, mocking someone, taking excessive lunch breaks, engaging in abusive behavior, and participating in online activities like cyberbullying or cyberloafing [30]. According to the SDT, individuals engage in deviant work behaviors due to their unmet needs at work and their resulting lack of motivation, in which individuals feel detached from their work [7]. On the other hand, when the individuals’ basic needs for autonomy, competence, and mastery are satisfied, their tendency towards negative work behavior reduces [20]. Based on the framework of SDT, scholars have examined different individual, social, and work factors that satisfy or frustrate individuals’ basic needs [31].

Among the personal factors, individuals with high occupational self-efficacy feel satisfied with their need for competence because they believe in their abilities to accomplish their work tasks successfully [32]. They engage in actions and behavior that conform to their sense of competence. Hence, occupational self-efficacy is anticipated to minimize the likelihood of workplace deviance, which typically appears when individuals feel incompetent in performing their work tasks or have lower control over negative work behavior [33]. For instance, incompetent individuals may blame their colleagues or employer for their failure and its adverse consequences and, therefore, engage in bullying towards them.

The employees’ need for autonomy is satisfied by granting autonomy at work, which fulfills their desire to have personal agency and to act in a way that agrees with their sense of self. Employees feel empowered when they have more discretion over their work, such as decision making, scheduling tasks, and the way of doing the work. As such, the employees’ feelings of powerlessness decrease, which might otherwise contribute to workplace deviance [34]. Empirical research has established an inverse relationship between job autonomy and workplace deviance [35].

LMX is a reciprocal relationship where subordinates respond to their leaders with either good or bad behavior based on the treatment they receive from their leaders [36]. High LMX involves trust, liking, professional respect, and locality, leading to socio-emotional relationships between leaders and subordinates. LMX also involves close mentorship through which leaders support subordinates by developing them to deal with challenges in their work [37]. This satisfies the employees’ need for relatedness and belongingness, as they feel supported and cared for by their superiors. The norms of reciprocity oblige employees to refrain from actions that could directly or indirectly harm the organizational leaders. Research has found a negative relationship between LMX and workplace deviance [38, 39]. Hence, it is proposed that:

Hypothesis 1a

Job Autonomy negatively affects workplace deviance

Hypothesis 1b

Occupational self-efficacy has a negative effect on workplace deviance

Hypothesis 1c

LMX negatively affects workplace deviance

Perceived career growth and workplace deviance

Perceived career growth refers to employees’ belief that they are progressing in their careers through the ongoing accrual of abilities and knowledge required for career success in the long term [40]. The notion of perceived career growth manifests in other concepts of career development, including career development expectations, career satisfaction, and positive career attitudes [41]. The traditional way of progressing along a linear path is no longer relevant for indicating career growth. Instead, employees pursue meaningful, self-directed careers that fulfill personal needs, prioritize personal goal achievement, pride, and psychological success. Therefore, career growth has become more dynamic and influenced by various factors, including personality traits, psychological attributes, as well as social and work factors [13, 42].

The perceived career growth conceptually differs from other related concepts, such as career satisfaction, promotion prospects, career plateauing, career success, and protean career. Career satisfaction refers to the extent to which employees feel satisfied with their career achievements and progress, including both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of their career [43]. Promotion prospects are more related to the likelihood of upward mobility in measurable terms, such as a pay raise and promotion [44]. This is also called objective career success. Career success refers to achieving desired career outcomes, either subjectively (e.g., achievement of some meaningful goals) or objectively (e.g., pay raise or promotion) [42]. Career plateauing concerns with individuals’ perceptions of diminished opportunities for promotion and personal growth [45]. Finally, a protean career is the one driven by individuals’ values and choices instead of organizational factors such as job titles or organizational hierarchies [10]. Table 1 explains the difference between different career concepts.

Table 1.

Differences in career concepts

Dimension	Perceived Career Growth	Career satisfaction	Promotion Prospects	Career Success	Career Plateauing	Protean Career
Type	Perceptions	Affective & Judgmental	Expectations	Outcome	State/ Perceptions	Trait
Time Orientation	Future	Present	Near Future	Past	Present/Future	Life Long
Focus	Future-oriented development	Evaluation of career success in the present or near past	Upward mobility expectation	Career Outcomes	Stagnation in career growth	Self-managed career goals and targets
Indicators	Potential for growth, skills acquisition, and Learning	Sense of satisfaction with career progress	Likelihood of promotion due to the excellent performance appraisal or the achievement of work targets	Promotion, pay raises, recognition, and actual career goal gain	Lack of promotions and personal growth	Personal growth, autonomy in goal setting, and career adaptability

The integrated literature on career and SDT suggests that perceived career growth results from individuals’ sense of core needs fulfillment, and leads employees to experience meaningful work and positive attitudes and behaviors towards their work [24]. In other words, perceived career growth reflects the self-development aspect of core needs satisfaction within the framework of SDT, as need satisfaction at work fosters adaptive self-development and an innate drive for personal growth [8, 9]. Consequently, employees construe it as a better alignment between their career goals and their expectations from the employer, which can reduce their inclination to engage in negative workplace behavior that might jeopardize this alignment. For instance, when individuals envision career growth in their jobs, they enter into a personal commitment with their employers, adhere to the organizational rules, and are committed to avoiding behavior, including workplace deviance, that otherwise can compromise their relationship with the employer [46]. Conversely, employees who perceive limited career growth often exhibit negative workplace behavior as a way to ease their frustration, depression, and distress, and to show their displeasure [11].

Hypothesis 2

Perceived career growth has a negative effect on workplace deviance

Job autonomy and perceived career growth

Job autonomy refers to the freedom granted to employees to exercise control over different aspects of their work, including decision-making, work scheduling, and the way of doing work [47]. The individuals’ need for autonomy manifests in their desire for personal agency and to act at work in a way that conforms to their self-orientation. Job autonomy significantly affects individuals’ perceptions and beliefs about career growth. The dynamic and competitive business landscape has changed the sense of career growth, as individuals consider career progress as learning-oriented, meaningful, and a way to achieve personal goals. This requires a continuous adjustment in employees’ job demands, resources, and roles, which are deeply entrenched in their job autonomy [48].

Job autonomy increases employees’ sense of control over their jobs, specifically regarding the decisional, informational, and process aspects of their work [49, 50]. For instance, the decision-making authority enables individuals to work with different stakeholders within and outside their organizations and expand their networks. This increases employees’ visibility to stretch assignments, mentors, and promotion, which can significantly foster the sense of career growth [51]. Job autonomy also challenges employees by requiring them to assume new responsibilities in their work [52]. Workers must think outside the box when making decisions, bear responsibility for work outcomes, continuously learn new skills to adapt to changing situations, and manage uncertainty. Such challenging work allows employees to progress toward their targets, thereby enhancing their perceptions of career growth [11]. Moreover, the SDT suggests that job autonomy satisfies people’s need for autonomy, which denotes the experience of volition and self-direction in their thoughts, feelings, and actions. This motivates employees to actively pursue self-directed goals, thereby promoting self-development and self-fulfillment [53]. Self-development enables employees to proactively get feedback from others, establish self-development goals, and participate in activities that support personal growth [54, 55]. As such, employees develop self-directed career orientation in which they feel ownership over their careers and tend to pursue their career goals within the domain of their job autonomy.

Hypothesis 3a

Job autonomy positively affects perceived career growth

Occupational Self-Efficacy and perceived career growth

The protean career perspective suggests that career growth is a self-directed process, emphasizing personal responsibility for career development rather than solely relying on organizations [10]. This requires individuals to continuously develop their knowledge, skills, and abilities in their occupation. Therefore, employees’ belief in their career growth is also affected by the extent to which they believe in their job competencies, known as occupational self-efficacy, which refers to the individuals’ confidence in their ability to complete their work tasks and meet expectations successfully [56].

In the current context, occupational self-efficacy is a dispositional trait developed over time through repeated exposure of individuals to challenging tasks and their successful accomplishment of the tasks, rather than something that is contextually induced [57]. Over time, employees internalize their successful task experiences, reinforcing their belief that these outcomes result from their own abilities rather than external factors. From the SDT perspective, individuals’ satisfaction with their competence needs stems from their sense of capability, driven by feeling competent and effective rather than external factors such as rewards and structural conditions [8]. The SDT further suggests that internalizing the satisfaction of competence need promotes self-regulated motivation by fostering individuals’ intrinsic drive for growth and self-improvement [8]. This applies to occupational self-efficacy since the sense of mastery underlying individuals’ occupational self-efficacy motivates them to pursue the endeavors that promote personal development and growth [27]. For instance, individuals’ convictions in their occupational abilities to excel in their jobs increase their likelihood of higher job performance [58, 59]. As a result, they are more likely to catch the promotional opportunities within their organizations, which are typically determined by employees’ performance appraisals. Moreover, occupational self-efficacy reflects individuals’ awareness of their occupational interests, abilities, goals, and values. These individuals understand their career domain well and employ career self-management strategies to advance their careers [60]. These strategies include self-visibility and self-positioning, such as letting their supervisors and other influential people know about their accomplishments, developing the skills necessary for career advancement, and networking with people who can give valuable advice on their careers.

People with high occupational self-efficacy can also overcome the challenges in their work [61]. For instance, a software engineer who is well aware of his/her abilities can swiftly diagnose the root cause of a disruption in a software system, provide a quick temporary solution, and have a predefined solution for an expected disruption. Such individuals are proactive towards their work and have the ability to adapt to their occupation, bearing a positive impact on their career [28]. The empirical research has established a linkage between occupational self-efficacy and the subjective assessment of career progress, such as career satisfaction [62]. These arguments collectively suggest that occupational self-efficacy satisfies employees’ need for competence, which prompts them to engage in efforts that help them attain their long-term career goals.

Hypothesis 4a

Occupational self-efficacy has a positive effect on perceived career growth

LMX and perceived career growth

Career development programs, such as coaching, professional skill development, and special education, are deeply entrenched in social relationships [63, 64]. LMX refers to the dyadic relationship that develops over time through interactions and mutual exchanges between supervisors and subordinates (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), potentially contributing to employees’ career growth. The high-quality LMX involves trust, affectivity, obligations, work roles, and loyalty between the two parties [65]. The LMX relationship benefits employees in their career development and growth. Organizational leaders have an active role in facilitating employees’ career development, as they have the primary authority for supporting and allocating the different resources (e.g., financial, informational, and social) required for career development and growth [66]. These include recommending employees for training and specific roles, financial support for further education, access to significant insider information regarding potential opportunities, knowledge transfer, and career counseling [67, 68]. Employees having good relationships with organizational leaders are more likely to get such resources. Moreover, due to the involvement of trust and obligations in high-quality leader-subordinate relationships, leaders assign challenging and stretching assignments to the employees, which greatly enhance their portfolios of professional skills and competencies [69]. This increases employees’ marketability, employability, and demand both within and outside the organization, yielding significant career benefits for them [70]. The social-emotional aspect of LMX relies on close mentorship, where leaders use the knowledge, skills, and experience they have acquired during their entire professional tenure to develop their subordinates [37]. Employees involved in strong mentoring with their leaders report experiencing a sense of career growth, including career satisfaction and prospects [71]. Hence, employees who enjoy a good relationship with their leaders will likely have a positive outlook on their personal and career development. More specifically, the empirical research has found a direct relationship between LMX and employees’ optimism regarding career growth [72]. From the SDT perspective, employees’ satisfaction with their need for relatedness due to LMX fosters their perceptions of career growth as they believe their social network supports their professional development and career advancement. Hence, we propose that:

Hypothesis 5a

LMX has a positive effect on perceived career growth

Perceived career growth as the mediator

The preceding discourse suggests that employees’ satisfaction of core needs at work, including autonomy, competence, and relatedness, enhances their perceptions of career growth. This mainly aligns with the basic assumption of the SDT that individuals experience self-development and personal growth when they are satisfied with their core psychological needs [8, 29]. Hence, perceived career growth reflects the developmental and growth outcome of the need fulfillment. The preceding discussion also suggests that perceived career growth activates the regulatory orientation among employees, which reduces their tendency towards negative behavior resulting from unmet needs, frustration, stagnation, and lack of organizational support. Hence, the SDT suggests that perceived career growth mediates the relationship between the need-supportive conditions and negative workplace behavior. Previous studies support the mediating role of perceived career growth. For instance, employees experience the alignment between their work and career goals due to job autonomy that inhibits them from workplace deviance to secure their investment in career-developing endeavors [46]. Conversely, individuals perceive career plateauing, the feelings of lower career growth, when they lack challenging work, which leads them to engage in negative workplace behavior [11]. Similarly, occupational self-efficacy motivates employees towards positive workplace behavior to pursue their career goals, thereby reducing their choice of workplace deviance [32]. Similarly, LMX, when helping employees advance their careers, motivates them to work in the organization’s best interest as a way of reciprocating to the organizational leaders [70]. This can include avoiding negative work behavior, besides endorsing the positive actions.

Hypothesis 3b

Perceived career growth negatively mediates the effect of job autonomy on workplace deviance

Hypothesis 4b

Perceived career growth negatively mediates the effect of occupational self-efficacy on workplace deviance

Hypothesis 5b

Perceived career growth negatively mediates the effect of LMX on workplace deviance

Please refer to Fig. 1 for the theoretical framework of the study.

Fig. 1.

Theoretical Framework

Methods

Study sample and data collection process

The proposed study model was tested using the quantitative research design. The study population comprises employees in the high-tech industry, including firms dealing in integrated circuits, semiconductors, and software research and development, located in Jiangsu province of China. The primary reason for choosing the industry and the firms therein is the accessibility of the researchers to the areas where these firms are located. Cities such as Nanjing and Suzhou are home to high-tech firms. Second, the dynamic nature of high-tech firms has changed the employment relationship, skill set, work-life balance, and job security [73], significantly affecting the employees’ career and work behavior, and therefore increasing the industry’s relevance to the study’s objectives.

The respondents for the study were selected based on the personal and professional networks of the researchers; hence, the convenient sampling method was adopted to choose the respondents. The data collection process was carried out by hiring three research assistants. Before data collection, the research team informed the prospective respondents about the purpose of the study. Participation in the survey was optional, and the respondents were free to withdraw at any stage. After obtaining the written consent, data were collected from the respondents through pen-and-paper questionnaires. The questionnaire was closed-ended and translated into Chinese by translation and back translation methods.

All the possible control measures were adopted during data collection to control for the biases associated with the survey, such as common method bias and social desirability bias, as suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie [74]. For instance, the questionnaires were collected in closed envelopes to ensure the respondents’ anonymity. The respondents were also instructed that there are no right or wrong answers and that they can choose what they deem appropriate. Data concerning predicting and criterion variables were collected from the respondents at two different times to reduce the common method bias, which usually results when all variables are assessed at the same time. The questions were provided randomly to the respondents to mitigate the effect of context that may arise from the sequential layout of questionnaire items.

The data were gathered in two phases. Data on demographics and predicting variables (Job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, and LMX) were gathered in the first phase, in which 379 respondents participated (T1). This was followed by the second phase, in which 345 respondents took part in the survey to record their responses on the study’s outcome variables (T2). The time lag between the two phases was almost one month. The responses from both phases were matched with a unique identifier assigned to every respondent. During the data screening stage, we excluded 56 respondents for the following reasons: 34 did not participate in both phases, 13 completed the questionnaire in less than 90 s, and 9 recorded a standard deviation of less than 0.5 across all the scales. Hence, the data screening reduced the number of final respondents to 305. As a token of appreciation for participating in the survey, we gave the respondents a monthly data package for their mobile phones.

The sample’s demographic profile is illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographic profile of the respondents

Measures	Item	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	172	56.39
	Female	133	43.60
Education	Bachelor	113	37.04
	Master	179	58.68
	PhD	13	4.26
Age	21–30	160	52.45
	31–40	111	36.39
	41–50	32	10.49
Job Experience	1–5 years	119	39.01
	6–10 years	107	35.08
	11–15 years	37	12.13
	16–20 years	25	8.19
	21–25 years	17	5.57

Scale measurement

The scales for all the study variables were chosen from previous studies. To ensure alignment with industry practices and confirm the questionnaire’s face validity, we hired two expert panels to review and recommend the items for the final questionnaire. The first panel comprised five academic professors in the relevant area, whereas the second panel consisted of ten individuals from the prospective respondents. After their thorough review and repeated interaction, the following scales were employed for the current research. Notably, all the scales were anchored using a 7-point range, with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 7 indicating strongly agree.

We employed a three-item scale to measure job autonomy, developed by Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger [47]. The sample item is “I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job”. LMX was assessed using the scale established by Liden and Maslyn [75], which consisted of 11 items. The item, such as “I like my supervisor very much as an individual,” comprises the scale. Occupational self-efficacy was evaluated using a 6-item scale [53]. The example of the items included is “I meet the goals that I set for myself in my job”. We measured perceived career growth using three items from Kraimer, Seibert [76]. The scale was specifically tailored to capture the subjective perceptions of career growth. The sample item of the scale included, “There are career opportunities within my company that are attractive to me”. Workplace deviance was measured using 10 items selected from Aquino, Lewis [77]. The item, such as “I intentionally arrive late for work” was part of the scale.

Demographic factors as control variables

There is a notable shift in the workforce demographics, such as an increasing proportion of the aged workforce, the entry of the female workforce, especially in leadership positions, and the changing requirement for education and training. Gender differences significantly affect career growth perceptions among individuals. For instance, females can have lower perceptions of career growth for higher positions than males, as gender-based prejudices and stereotypes about females in leadership positions still exist [78]. Similarly, women often consider diverse factors in their career development due to family responsibilities than men, who rely more on hierarchical promotions [79, 80]. Regarding age, younger employees are more likely to focus on adaptability and personal growth, whereas older employees prefer stability in their jobs [81]. Similarly, higher education is directly related to increased perceptions of career growth in contemporary economies [81], since it accumulates career-related knowledge and skills and therefore enables employees to develop relevant career development goals and strategies. Finally, the work experience can also affect perceptions of career growth. Employees with shorter job tenure feel a need for career growth and therefore engage in pursuits that increase their perceptions of career growth [79]. On the other hand, longer job tenure can diminish the perceptions of career growth since employees foresee limited advanced opportunities after achieving key career goals, a phenomenon known as career plateauing. Alternatively, greater work experience can positively influence perceived career growth as individuals enhance skills, get promotions, and take on extended responsibilities, all of which can reinforce the perceptions of career growth.

The demographic factors also have a substantial impact on workplace deviance. Gender significantly affects workplace deviance, with females inclining towards minor workplace deviance and males engaging in severe deviant behavior [82]. Older and experienced employees are less likely to engage in workplace deviance than younger and short-tenured employees, as the former are more committed to their employer than the latter [83]. Similarly, higher education can significantly reduce workplace deviance among employees [84]. Therefore, employees with higher education are less likely to engage in deviant behavior than those with lower education. Therefore, we consider demographic factors as control variables for career growth and workplace deviance.

Common method bias

In addition to the procedural measures adopted during data collection to control for common method bias, we employed statistical tests after data collection, including Harman’s single factor test and common latent factor test, to assess its extent. Harman’s single-factor test demonstrated that a single latent factor accounts for 26.6% of the total variance. The resulting variance was lower than the threshold level of 50% [74]. The common latent factor test carried out during CFA revealed that a single factor constituted 15.5% variance, a value below the threshold of 25% [85]. These tests demonstrate that the common method variance does not have a meaningful impact on the main results of the study.

Analysis and results

We employed Structural equation modelling (SEM) through AMOS to analyze the data. First, the measurement model was assessed, which involved evaluating the model’s fitness and analyzing the reliability and validity of the latent factors. This was followed by verifying the proposed relationship between the latent factors.

Measurement model testing

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to assess the model’s fitness and the latent factors’ reliability and validity. The model’s fit indices in the CFA exceeded the recommended threshold values (χ² = 842.81, χ2/DF = 1.28, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.03). Furthermore, the standardized factor loading of the observed variables on their corresponding latent factors exceeded 0.6. This shows that the proposed model is compatible with the data.

Afterward, the constructs were examined for their reliability and validity (See the values in Table 3). The Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) for the latent factors spanned from 0.80 to 0.95 and 0.88 to 0.96, respectively. These scores suggest that the latent factors have an acceptable level of reliability [86, 87]. The average variance extracted (AVE) was above the minimum required threshold of 0.5 [86], indicating that the latent factors had an acceptable level of construct validity. Besides, the standardized loadings of the observed variables on their respective latent variable exceeded 0.6, providing additional evidence of construct validity [88]. Finally, using the Fornell-Larker criterion [86], the squared AVEs of the constructs were higher than their correlation with each other (the squared AVEs are indicated in bold in Table 3), demonstrating an acceptable level of discriminant validity.

Table 3.

Descriptive, reliability, validity, and correlation estimates

	M	SD	α	CR	AVE	JA	WD	LMX	OSE	PCG
JA (T1)	5.20	1.21	0.81	0.82	0.60	0.77
WD (T2)	2.34	1.11	0.92	0.95	0.57	˗ 0.14*	0.75
LMX (T1)	5.44	1.03	0.91	0.92	0.5 0	0.05	˗ 0.19**	0.71
OSE (T1)	5.68	1.21	0.90	0.91	0.62	0.04	˗ 0.26**	0.01	0.79
PCG (T2)	5.95	1.19	0.79	0.80	0.57	0.017**	˗ 0.21**	0.15**	0.18**	0.75

Note: M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation, α = Cronbach’s Alpha, CR = Composite Reliability, AVE = Average Variance Extracted, JA = Job Autonomy, WD = Workplace Deviance, LMX = Leader-Member Exchange, OSE = Occupational self-efficacy, PCG = Perceived career growth, ^**p < .01 , *P < .05

Structural model testing

The structural model was evaluated by the predictive and explanatory power of the model [89]. All control variables, except gender, had no significant relationship with endogenous variables. Gender had a significant effect on perceived career growth (β = 0.20, p < .05) and workplace deviance (β = ˗0.27, p < .01). Job autonomy (β = ˗0.14, p < .05), occupational self-efficacy (β = ˗0.23, p < .01), and LMX (β = ˗0.11, p < .01) exhibited a significant negative effect on workplace deviance. These results support the proposed hypotheses 1a-1c. The effect of perceived career growth on workplace deviance was significantly negative (β = ˗0.12, p < .05). Hence, hypothesis 2 stands valid. Furthermore, the study found that all three exogenous variables had a positive effect on perceived career growth. Job autonomy exhibited a positive and substantial effect on perceived career growth (β = 0.14, p < .05). This supports hypothesis 3a. Occupational self-efficacy positively affected perceived career growth (β = 0.16, p = .01), supporting hypothesis 4a. LMX demonstrated a positive effect on perceived career growth (β = 0.15, p < .05). This supports hypothesis 5a. In addition, the exogenous and control variables collectively accounted for a 12.5% variance in perceived career growth (R² = 0.125). The collective variance in workplace deviance accounted for 16.7%. Table 4 depicts the results of the structural model. Besides, the variance inflation factor (VIF) values of the exogenous factors, a measure of multi-collinearity in the structural model, were less than the threshold level of 3, indicating that the multi-collinearity is not a serious problem in the structural model. The VIF values were as follows: JA = 1.02, OS = 1.03, LMX = 1.02, and PCG = 1.08).

Table 4.

Structural model estimates

Hypothesis	Path		Standardized Estimate ( β)	Standard Error (SE)	Critical Ratio (C.R)	P-value
	Age → WD	˗ 0.13		0.02	˗ 1.01	0.31
	Gender → WD	˗ 0.14		0.11	˗ 2.26	0.02
	Edu → WD	˗ 0.03		0.04	˗0.44	0.65
	Tenure → WD	0.23		0.02	1.79	0.07
	Age → PCG	˗ 0.19		0.02	˗ 1.36	0.17
	Gender → PCG	0.11		0.13	1.91	0.05
	Edu → PCG	0.02		0.05	0.29	0.77
	Tenure → PCG	0.04		0.02	0.27	0.79
H1a	JA → WD	˗ 0.14		0.05	˗ 2.24	0.02
H1b	OSE → WD	˗ 0.23		0.04	˗ 3.74	< 0.01
H1c	LMX → WD	˗ 0.11		0.06	˗ 1.81	0.05
H3a	JA→ PCG	0.17		0.60	2.51	0.01
H5a	LMX → PCG	0.15		0.06	2.44	0.02
H4a	OSE → PCG	0.16		0.05	2.75	0.02
H2	PCG→ WD	˗ 0.12		0.05	˗ 1.81	0.05

Note: WD = workplace deviance, PCG = perceived career growth, JA = job autonomy, LMX = leader-member exchange, OSE = occupational self-efficacy, Edu = Education

The mediating effect of career growth

The bootstrapping method was used to estimate the mediating effect of perceived career growth between job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, LMX, and workplace deviance. We employed 5,000 bootstrapped samples and a 95% confidence interval (CI) to estimate the mediating effects. The SEM bootstrapping method provides a more precise estimation of the mediation effect as compared to partial correlation and hierarchical regression models [90]. The results aligned with the proposed hypotheses (Refer to Table 5 for the mediation results). Perceived career growth significantly and negatively mediated the effect of job autonomy on workplace deviance (β = ˗0.02, SE = 0.02, CI [˗0.06, ˗0.01]), thereby supporting hypothesis 3b. The effect of occupational self-efficacy and workplace deviance was mediated by perceived career growth (β = ˗0.01, SE = 0.01, CI [˗0.067, ˗0.003]). This supports our proposed hypothesis 4b. Additionally, perceived career growth negatively mediated the effect of LMX on workplace deviance (β = ˗0.01, SE = 0.04, CI [˗0.076, ˗0.004]). Hence, hypothesis 5b stands validated.

Table 5.

Mediating effect of perceived career growth

Hypothesis	Path	Total Effect		Direct Effect			Indirect Effect
		β	SE	β	SE	β		SE	P-value	95% CI
H3b	JA→ PCG → WD	-0.16	0.06	-0.14	0.06	-0.02		0.02	0.05	-0.065, -0.01
H4b	OS→ PCG → WD	-0.24	0.05	-0.23	0.05	-0.01		0.01	0.04	− 0.0067, -0.003
H5b	LMX → PCG → WD	-0.12	0.06	-0.11	0.06	-0.01		0.04	0.05	-0.076, -0.004

Note:β = standardized estimate, SE = standard error, CI = confidence interval, WD = workplace deviance, PCG = perceived career growth, JA = job autonomy, LMX = leader-member exchange, OSE = occupational self-efficacy

Discussion

The primary finding of the research pertains to the negative effect of job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, and LMX on workplace deviance, as proposed by hypotheses 1a-1c. The results suggest that when employees’ basic needs for autonomy, competence, and belongingness at work are satisfied, they tend less towards workplace deviance. This is because implementing interventions around core need satisfaction reduces the employees’ amotivation, a state in which individuals lack a sense of purpose, competence, and control [91], resulting from frustration with basic needs, and leads to workplace deviance since individuals feel detached from work in this state [4, 5].

The negative effect of perceived career growth on workplace deviance, postulated by Hypothesis 2, suggests that employees’ beliefs in their career progression increase career satisfaction and motivate them towards attaining work goals. This narrows the employees’ focus on achieving work goals and reduces their tendency toward workplace deviance, which often results from feelings of detachment from work [4]. This is analogous to the finding that career plateauing, an experience where employees perceive the lack of career growth, leads to negative work behavior [11]. This finding extends the understanding of how career growth perceptions affect workplace deviance, a topic that has received limited attention.

The results regarding the direct effect of job autonomy on perceived career growth postulated by hypothesis 3a suggest that job autonomy fosters the sense of career progression since it increases employees’ control over their work, poses challenges in work, and allows them to organize work activities according to their career needs. This is consistent with previous research indicating that individuals craft their jobs to develop a meaningful perspective on their career progress [92]. The finding is significant as it empirically connects job and career factors that has often been overlooked [12, 24]. We, therefore, invite future scholars to integrate these two areas from other theoretical perspectives.

The direct effect of occupational self-efficacy on perceived career growth supports hypothesis 4a. It submits that employees with high occupational self-efficacy believe in their potential for career growth due to their sense of mastery in their work. This mastery enables them to handle work challenges, demonstrate high job performance, and excel in their area of expertise, thereby increasing their chances for promotions and pay raises within organizations. This is consistent with the previous findings showing that individuals with high occupational self-efficacy accrue their estimated ability in their professional domain, which shapes their perception of career growth [32]. Furthermore, based on the SDT, occupational self-efficacy contributes to career satisfaction by enhancing self-worth [28]. This finding contributes to the literature by highlighting the significance of occupational self-efficacy for individuals’ career growth, which is rarely investigated [61, 93].

Moreover, the positive effect of LMX on perceived career growth, supporting hypothesis 5a, implies that the high-quality reciprocal relationship between leaders and subordinates enhances subordinates’ perceptions of career growth. The proximity of employees to organizational leaders enables them to gain certain benefits and incentives closely linked to their career growth. This includes access to organizational resources, mentorship, and engagement in stretching assignments, which help employees in their career prospects. As a result, this finding contributes to our understanding of how developmental networks support employees’ career growth [94]. The finding corroborates prior research indicating that high-quality LMX fosters employability, career satisfaction, and other indicators of perceived career growth [64, 70, 72].

The mediating effect of perceived career growth between job autonomy and workplace deviance proposed by hypothesis 3b suggests that job autonomy increases work meaningfulness and the level of control individuals experience in their jobs, thereby fulfilling their long-term career needs. Consequently, individuals tend to refrain from negative work behavior to avoid disrupting their career progress. This finding resolves the existing inconsistency in the effect of job autonomy on workplace deviance, with positive, negative, or no effect. For instance, some scholars claim that reduced job autonomy increases the likelihood of workplace deviance as employees attempt to reduce their frustration and powerlessness [95]. Other scholars found that highly autonomous individuals may engage in deviant behavior without fearing retribution due to their greater freedom at work [96]. Therefore, perceived career growth due to its strong theoretical base addresses this inconsistency more effectively than other mediating factors explored so far [97].

Similarly, the mediating effect of perceived career growth between occupational self-efficacy and workplace deviance, postulated by hypothesis 4b, poses that the sense of competency and positive self-image due to occupational self-efficacy shape workers’ perceptions of career progress. Employees are better equipped to pursue their career goals in line with their expertise, which instills a sense of ownership in their work. As a result, employees tend to avoid negative workplace behavior, focusing on furthering their career goals within their area of expertise. Hence, this enhances our understanding of the less explored relationship between occupational self-efficacy and workplace deviance.

The mediating effect of perceived career growth between LMX and workplace deviance, as proposed by hypothesis 5b, indicates that employees’ perception of their career progression enhances their feelings of belongingness and relatedness, showing that organizational high-ups support their career pursuits. Consequently, employees are less likely to engage in workplace deviance as a way to show their commitment to their leaders and the organization. This suggests that when individuals’ self-interest is involved through anticipated career growth, LMX reduces the tendency toward workplace deviance. This sharply contrasts with a recent finding that hubristic pride, which develops among subordinates due to LMX, motivates them toward workplace deviance [98].

Overall, the mediating effect of perceived career growth in all the three relationships aligns with the self-development and growth perspective of the SDT. The employees’ satisfaction with their core needs at work reinforces their perception of career growth, which is instrumental in reducing workplace deviance among those with greater job autonomy, high occupational self-efficacy, and LMX. Therefore, we promote a deeper understanding of the growth perspective of need satisfaction, which is rarely understood. Furthermore, we respond to a prior call to examine the antecedents and outcomes of career growth within a single framework [42].

Finally, among the effects of demographic factors, only gender significantly affected the perceived career growth and workplace deviance. The results suggest a significant difference between males and females in perceived career growth and workplace deviance. Women adopt a holistic approach to career assessment, considering job flexibility, relational development, and skill acquisition, whereas males consider career growth in terms of opportunities for promotion and pay raises [79, 80]. Hence, women are more likely than men to report stronger perceptions of career growth. Similarly, the results suggest that females are less inclined toward workplace deviance than males due to their heightened awareness of workplace scrutiny and marginalization. This supports the earlier findings that among demographic variables, gender has a substantial impact on workplace deviance [99].

Theoretical implications

The study primarily contributes to SDT by framing perceived career growth as an outcome of factors that satisfy employees’ core needs at work. Employees’ satisfaction with their core needs for autonomy, competency, and relatedness helps them develop versatile skills, social networks, and a sense of control at work, all of which are essential for meeting the diverse needs of career development. This is consistent with the SDT’s assumption that individuals’ inherent tendency for growth is activated when their core needs are satisfied [8, 100]. Therefore, framing perceived career growth as an outcome of job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, and LMX makes it a natural extension of the SDT framework. While previous studies mainly focused on proximal and behavioral outcomes of need satisfaction, such as intrinsic motivation, well-being, and engagement, the current study emphasizes the self-development and professional growth perspective of need satisfaction. Hence, we contribute to the SDT theory by applying it to career growth literature.

The study also contributes to the literature by exploring perceived career growth as the underlying mechanism through which need satisfaction reduces workplace deviance. The study suggests that need-satisfying factors reduce their inclination toward workplace deviance. Employees’ satisfaction with their core needs at work translates into their beliefs about career growth, indicating that need-supportive conditions foster professional growth and personal development besides the immediate psychological outcomes. Perceived career growth fosters a self-regulatory orientation that reduces workplace deviance, which often results from frustration, disengagement, and lack of growth [46]. As such, this study contributes to the literature by elucidating the indirect effect of the need-satisfying factors on workplace deviance from the lens of career growth perceptions, an area that remained unexplored [4] .

Practical implications

The study provides insights for organizational management, decision-makers, and employees. The findings suggest that need-satisfying factors at work foster the notion of career growth among employees. In other words, they consider career growth a multifaceted phenomenon resulting from their satisfaction with core needs at work, which can help them adapt to changes within and outside their organizations. Hence, organizational management should identify and develop need-supportive conditions in the workplace to develop an integrated approach towards career growth and workplace deviance. In the current context, integrated practices that promote job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, and LMX can be implemented in the workplace.

For instance, the talent development programs can be designed around technical training, coaching, and developmental roles. This would help employees build skills, develop close relationships with seniors, and increase their choice of work. Another example of an integrated strategy could be the execution of cross-functional projects, as this would allow employees to build their skills, foster collaboration, and increase decision-making authority. Internal mobility is another potential strategy integrating job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, and LMX. Internal mobility, such as job rotation, job enrichment, and lateral transfer, increases employees’ span of control, knowledge, competence, and professional network in the workplace [101]. Finally, as perceived career growth substantially reduces workplace deviance, organizations should focus on career development programs such as personalized career plans, since they ultimately benefit the organizations.

Besides, employees themselves need to be proactively involved in managing their careers. For instance, while having job autonomy, workers should engage in challenging tasks and acquire new skills, enabling them to overcome hurdles and grab opportunities in their career path. Moreover, employees can improve the quality of social relationships with people who directly or indirectly influence their career by seeking their advice, engaging in mentorship with them, collaborating on projects, sharing ideas, and solving problems. These proactive measures can reduce their career dissatisfaction [28, 102].

Limitations and future research directions

The present study exhibits certain limitations that could be rectified through future research. The primary limitation of the research lies in its use of a cross-sectional study design. Since the subjective perceptions of career growth, occupational self-efficacy, and LMX change over time, the data cannot accurately reflect fluctuations in these constructs or establish causal relationships. Moreover, the causal relationships among the predicting variables in our model cannot be ruled out, as they are interdependent, especially in their impact on career growth [28]. Therefore, it is recommended that future scholars adopt the longitudinal research design to accurately predict the relationships among the given constructs [103]. Another limitation of the study is its limited generalizability since we collected data from the high-tech industry, which has a distinct work culture driven by work autonomy, rapid innovation, and a less hierarchical structure [104]. These features can significantly influence the relationship between the variables. Therefore, the study’s findings may not fully translate into other sectors, such as the financial or traditional manufacturing, which involve complex hierarchical structures, autonomy norms, and leadership styles. Hence, designing interventions or policies based on the current findings may not be effective across diverse sectors. Therefore, future researchers are advised to test the model across contextual moderators, such as industry type, national culture, and organizational culture. Such moderators would help assess whether the model’s proposed relationships hold across diverse settings. Third, the collective variance of the predicting factors was even less than 20%. This shows that our model did not incorporate other factors that substantially affect perceived career growth and workplace deviance. Therefore, we recommend considering the factors that could increase the model’s predictive power. Another limitation of the study is that we have only considered a one-sided view of the LMX relationship by utilizing the follower perspective. A better approach would involve capturing the two-sided view (both followers and leaders) to accurately predict the dynamics of the dyads and rigorously test the intricate relationship between LMX, perceived career growth, and workplace deviance [70]. We recommend that future studies collect data from supervisors and subordinates to improve the prediction of the relationship between LMX, perceived career growth, and workplace deviance.

Conclusion

Drawing on SDT, the study found that job autonomy, occupational self-efficacy, and LMX are inversely related to workplace deviance. Furthermore, perceived career growth negatively mediated these relationships, suggesting that employees’ satisfaction with their core needs fosters their perceptions of career growth, which in turn lessens their inclination towards workplace deviance. Therefore, managers and decision-makers should address the employees’ diverse needs in their career development programs to reduce workplace deviance, an ultimate benefit for the organization. The mediating role of perceived career growth reflects employees’ developmental perspective of the SDT that connects need-satisfying factors and behavioral outcomes. Moreover, the study underscores the importance of career factors in reducing workplace deviance, potentially helping employers save on controlling costs if employees’ frustration from their unmet career needs leads to such behavior. The study also highlights the importance of job factors in advancing employees’ careers, which has largely been neglected.

The study also has some limitations that future scholars need to address. A longitudinal design should be adopted to capture the variance in the variables of interest over time, allowing for better prediction of the proposed relationships. Additionally, other factors should be explored to increase the model’s predictive power. Finally, due to LMX’s reciprocal nature, it is essential to consider the viewpoints of both employees and managers when predicting its relationship with criterion variables.

Author contributions

Dr. Salim Khan wrote the initial manuscript and analyzed the data. Professor Chen provided the resources and revised the manuscript. Syed Mudasser Abbas and Habib Gul revised the manuscript. Zhou Jian-Ya assisted in data analysis and prepared the figures. Moreover, all authors thoroughly reviewed the manuscript.

Funding

The research has been supported by “Jiangsu Provincial University Philosophy and Social Science Foundation (2019SJZDA029)”.

Data availability

The data and the associated files are available from the corresponding authors on a reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The survey was conducted with the approval from Jiangsu University Ethical research committee. It is to be declared that all relevant ethical norms were followed in accordance with Declarations of Helsinki. The data collected from the respondents were not shared with a third party or were not used somewhere else which conforms to the “privacy and confidentiality” standard of Helsinki. All the respondents gave their free consent by signing a consent form to participate in the study willfully that is in line with the standard of “informed consent” outlined in the declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.