CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Counterproductive behavior is employee behavior that goes
against the legitimate interests of an organization. These behaviors
can harm organizations or people in organizations including employees
and clients, customers, or patients. It has been proposed that a personby-environment interaction can be utilized to explain a variety of
counterproductive behaviors. For instance, an employee who is high on
trait anger (tendency to experience anger) is more likely to respond to
a stressful incident at work (being treated rudely by a supervisor) with
CWB.
The Trends of the Counterproductive Behavior term is to subsume
related constructs that are distinct. Workplace deviance is behavior at
work that violates norms for appropriate behavior. Retaliation consists
of harmful behaviors done by employees to get back at someone who
has treated them unfairly. Workplace revenge are behaviors by
employees intended to hurt another person who has done something
harmful to them. Workplace aggression consists of harmful acts that
harm others in organizations.
Lets talk about the problem regarding the Counterproductive
Behaviour, counterproductive behaviour has been a problem since
organizations have hired employees. Recently, there has been
increasing interest in explaining and addressing deviant behavior in the
workplace.
So what can we do to lessen this kind of problems regarding in
Counterproductive Behavior? In my opinion is identify first the ethical
orientation of each job candidate. For example when hiring individuals
who will be working face to face with the public, ask questions
pertaining to integrity and honesty then understand employee
perceptions. Creating a work environment with fair and equitable
policies while also treating employees with respect will engage

employees' involvement. Be a role model. When policies and

procedures are implemented within a facility, those in power need to
follow the same rules. limit the number of personal calls they make or
take per day.

PROCESS

INPUT

Profile of
Respondents

Age
Gender
Position
Length of
service

Strategies
Rules and
Regulation
Profer Training
Be a Role Model

Assessment of the
group respondents
through survey.

Questioner
Interviews
Documentary
Analysis
Gathering
Data

OUTPUT

Having a
Good
Employee
Increasing of
Growth rate
of the
company
Good
Discipline of
Employee

Research Paradigm

Conceptual Framework
In figure 1 show that the input refers to the profiles of
respondents in terms of age, gender, Position and Length of Service.
The Figure 1 paradigm shows the process through assessment of
the group of respondents through survey questioners, interviews,
documentary analysis and gathering of data.
The output is the effects if we reduce the Counterproductive
Behaviours is made the whole company good, Having a Good
Employee, Increasing of Growth rate of the company and Good
Discipline of Employee.

Statement of the Problem

The main problem of the study is to determine the counterproductive
behaviors manifested among the marketing professional of DBP
Service Corporation, Specifically it attempts to answer the following
Questions:
A. What is the Profile of the respondents as to:
A.1 Age
A.2 Gender

A.3 Position
A.4 Length of Service

B. How evident are the manifestations on the Counterproductive

Behaviors among the Marketing Professional?

C. Is there a significant relationship between the manifestation

of the counterproductive behaviors among the marketing professional
and their profiles?

Hypothesis
There is no significant difference on the assessment on the group
of respondent on the Counterproductive Behaviours because they
meet the individuals Expectation.

Significance of the study

The study focused on explaining the Counterproductive
Behaviours manifested among the Marketing Professional of DBP
Service Corporation . Moreover, the results of the study will be
beneficial to the following:
1. DBP Service Corporation - this research will help them to become
knowledgeable the number of applicants, or percentage of total
applicants, its services ratings.
2. Employers- This study will help them on how to use the strategies
wisely and effectively
3. Respondents- The respondents will have awareness on the
importance of IMC

4. Government- this study is important to them because they are

the only one who collected taxes in all kinds of business. they are
also funding some agencies to make the agencies attract
applicants
5. Researcher- this research will be their guidelines soon on how to
make thesis and the right format.

Scope and Limitations

This study is limited to the profile of respondents in terms of age,
gender, Position and length of service. The respondents of the study
were composed of 100 randomly, selected Employees and applicants
of DBP Service Corporation
The venue of the DBP Service Corporation 2 nd floor EBC Bldg, Gil
Puyat Avenue, corner Makati avenue, Makati city,
The period covered is year 2015.

Definition of terms:
We use the terms above and we give the meaning of it for easy
to understand for readers.
1. Aggression- hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward
another; readiness to attack or confront
2. Behavior- the way in which one acts or conducts oneself,
especially toward others.
3. Counterproductive- having the opposite of the desired effect.

4. Counterproductive behavior is employee behavior that goes

against the legitimate interests of an organization.
5. Deviance- the fact or state of departing from usual or accepted
standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.
6. Employee A person employed for wages or salary. Especially in
non executive level.
7. Employer A person or organization that employs people.
8. Manifested- display or show (a quality or feeling) by one's acts or
appearance; demonstrate.
9. Organization- A social unit of people that is structured and
managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals.
10.
Paradigm - is a distinct set of concepts or thought pattern,
including theories.
11.

Retaliation is an act of revenge.

12.
Researcher - is someone who conducts research, i.e., an
organized and systematic investigation into something.
13.
Respondents - a person who replies to something,
especially one supplying information for a survey or questionnaire
or responding to an advertisement.
14.
Workplace- a place where people work, such as an office or
factory.
15.
Workplace deviance- refers to deliberate, malicious
attempts to sabotage an organisation by causing problems in the
workplace.
16.
Workplace revenge are behaviour by employees intended
to hurt another person who has done something harmful to them.

17.
Theoretical framework - is the structure that can hold or
support a theory of a research study. It introduces and describes
the theory that explains why the research problem under study
exists.

Theoretical Framework

This Theory is anchored by the book written by Tomas

Quintin D Andres (2001) entitled Filipino behavior at work: Human

relations & organizational behavior in the Philippine setting that An
organization consists of individuals with different tasks attempting to
accomplish a common purpose. this purpose is the creation and
delivery of goods or services for its customers. Organizational behavior
is the study of how individuals and groups perform together within an
organization. It focuses on the best way to manage individuals, groups,
organizations, and processes. Organizational behavior is an extensive
topic and includes management, theories and practices of motivation,
and the fundamentals of organizational structure and design. From the
smallest non profit to the largest multinational conglomerate, firms and
organizations all have to deal with the concept of organizational
behavior. Knowledge about organizational behavior can provide

managers with a better understanding of how their firm or organization

attempts to accomplish its goals. This knowledge may also lead to
ways in which a firm or organization can make its processes more
effective and efficient, thus allowing the firm or organization to
successfully adapt to changing circumstances. This
chapter will help you better understand the theories and structures of
organizational behavior. The chapter begins by discussing some of the
basic characteristics of managers and management. It then describes
some of the popular theories and practical applications related to
motivation and helps answer the question What motivates
employees and why does it motivate them? The chapter then
examines some of the fundamentals of organizational structure and de
scribes ways in which organizational structures differ from on another.
Finally it discusses a few methods by which organizations can ontrol
processes and outcomes.

CHAPTER 2
Related Literature and Studies
LOCAL LITERATURES
Counterproducive behavior in philippine organizaions much like
employees in the west, employees in the philippines want to do
excelent work and perform well in their assigned duties. yet the
country is no exception to counterprodutive behaviors. Like workers all
over the world, Filipino workers also exhibit behaviors that run agains
the organization's goals or agains persoanal efficacy, How different are
filipino's counterprodutive behavior compared to those in the West?

Filipino anthropologist F. Landa Jocano explained that, being in a

collectivist society, consider workmates as friends and that
relationshops go beyond work to affect personal lives. Likewise, Saito e
al. suggested that Filipinos tend to be more motivated and productive
when working in groups or teams with face-to-face interaction. Given
this collectivist culture, counterproductive behaviors may involve
interaction with other people or may be motivated by social
relationships. An example is the Filipino value of pakikisama, which
means to be concerned about, to the supportive of, and to concede to
public opinioin social situations in order to achieve group cohesion.
This value has two faces: one which allows smooth interpersonal
relationships to occur, whie the other would be groupthink or cohesion
so strong, it may actually encourage counterproductive behavior.

The Civil Service Commission of Philippines defined an

unethical behavior as any behavior prohibited by law. In a
dynamic business environment, a large gray area exists that
makes it difficult and unclear to distinguish what is ethical. An
unethical behavior would therefore be defined as one that is not
morally honorable or one that is prohibited by the law. Many
behaviors will fall in the classification including corruption, mail
and wire fraud, discrimination and harassment, insider trading,
conflicts of interest, improper use of company assets, bribery and
kickbacks, compliance procedures, ethical relations with others,
disciplinary action, fraud, illegal business donations, patent
infringement and product liability (Barrcus & Near, 1991, 12).
Unethical behaviors that stimulated interest in ethics include
Watergate events, Lockheed Scandal, the 1972 United States
presidential election, illegal business donations and bribery of
foreign officials in order to induce business abroad (Carroll, 1978,
5). Today, the most common ones are false communication,
collusion, conflicts of interest, gifts and kickbacks, health services
providers unfair practices, insider trading, discrimination and
harassment, and embezzlement

FOREIGN LITERATURES

In recent years, counterproductive work behaviors research

has
proliferated
in
organizational
behavior
literature.
Counterproductive behavior broadly are defined as unproductive
activities Pelin Kanten and Funda Er lker, The Macrotheme
Review 2(4), Summer 2013 148 that are damaging to
organizational goals and harmful to the organization by directly
affecting its
functioning or property, or by hurting employees in a way that will
reduce their effectiveness (Mann et al., 2012: 142; Klotz and
Buckley, 2013: 115). Robinson and Bennett (2000) defined
counterproductive behaviors as voluntary behavior that violates
important organizational norms and threatens the well-being of
organizations, its members, or both (Yen and Teng, 2012: 2). The
common underlying themes of counterproductive behaviors harm
the organization by directly affecting its functioning or property,
or by impacting on employees in a way that reduces their
effectiveness (Roy et al., 2012: 1342). However, there has even
been disagreement about what to call this set of behaviors. In
literature these negative oriented behaviors have been labelled
antisocial organizational behavior, organizational misbehavior,
organizational deviance, employee withdrawal, dishonesty,
dysfunctional behavior, counterproductive behavior (Everton et
al., 2007: 118).
Today, counterproductive behaviors have become an
important concern for organization because of their impact on
organizations and employees. Several researchers documented
that counterproductive behaviors have financial, social and
psychological effects on both organizations and employees.
(Fagbohungbe
et
al.,
2012:
208).
In
other
words,
counterproductive behaviors induce increasing organizational
costs, decreasing commitment, organizational citizenship
behaviors, and productivity. On the other hand, it brings about
lateness, absenteeism and turnover (Brooks, 2012: 238). Because
of the counterproductive behaviors significance and its costs,
these behaviors properly manage by the organizations and
managers. However, organizations make an effort to identify
factors which are conducive to such behaviors. (Biron,2010: 876).

Researches in this area suggest that two group of factors are

causes of counterproductive behaviors in organizations. These
factors are based on individual-related factors and organizationalrelated
factors.
The
individual-related
factors
include
conscientiousness, negative affectivity, agreeableness, moral
philosophy, age, gender, education level, seniority, marital status
and emotional intelligence. Organizational-related factors
comprise organizational justice, perceived organizational support,
social pressures to conform, negative and untrusting attitudes
from managers/co-workers, disagreement with organizational
goals and expectations, ambiguity about jobs, management
styles, organizational ethical climate, organizational climate.
Organizations are characterizing forums where a variety of
different behaviors are expressed, each with a different
consequence to the individuals within the organization as well as
the entire organization. These behaviors usually harmonize with
the organizational climate. Organizational climate includes
organizational norms which are a grouping of expected behaviors,
languages, principles and postulations that allow the workplace to
perform at a suitable pace (Appelbaum et al., 2007: 587).
Besides, organizational climate is formed of sharing values,
beliefs and behavioral norms in an organization (Ahmad et al.,
2012: 11880). Concordantly, it can be said that organizational
climate occurs as a result of attitudes, behaviors and emotions of
employees and adopted rules of organization. Due to this feature,
organizational climate is expected to affect Pelin Kanten and
Funda Er lker, The Macrotheme Review 2(4), Summer 2013 146
the employees attitudes and behaviors. When employees
expectations are met with organizational goals and they perceive
support, they feel organizational climate positive, thus exhibit
positive behaviors. On the other hand, when their expectations
uncomfortable with the organizations mission and they perceive
unpleasant
working
conditions,
they
tend
to
show
counterproductive behaviors. In this work, primarily we will
explain concepts of organizational climate and counterproductive
behaviors.

Counterproductive behaviors have been classified based on

different views in the literature. For example, theft, destruction of
property, misuse of information, misuse of time and resources,
unsafe behavior, poor attendance, poor quality work, alcohol use,
drug use, and inappropriate physical actions, lateness, rude and
cynic behavior to workmates like etc. (Mann et al., 2012: 143).
Because of diversity, there has even been disagreement about
these behaviors. This lack of agreement means that researchers
use different theoretical frameworks to discuss these behaviors.
Therefore, typology of counterproductive behaviors is most widely
used in organizational behavior researches since it includes all of
these behaviors. However, this typology has allowed researchers
to present and discuss the information in an organized way and it
presents broad and comprehensive perspective (Everton et al.,
2007: 119). In addition, this typology can be used to classify
counterproductive behaviors according to organizational climate
(Appelbaum et al, 2007: 589). Consequently, we will examine
counterproductive behaviors in accordance with Robinson and
Bennetts typology. With reference to this typology, there are two
specific types of counterproductive behaviors. One of them is
interpersonal counterproductivebehaviors aimed at individuals;
the other is organizational counterproductive behaviors targeting
the organization (Klotz and Buckley, 2013: 115).
Interpersonal counterproductive behaviors: these
behaviors are displayed between individuals in the
workplace and involve behaviors such as: belittling others,
playing pranks on others, acting rudely, arguing, and
physical aggression. Interpersonal-directed aggression
includes minor normative violations labelled as political
deviance (i.e., favoritism and gossip) and serious violations
labelled as personal deviance (i.e., verbal abuse etc).
Organizational counterproductive behaviors: these are
directed against the organization and include such actions as
stealing,
withholding
effort,
sabotage,
lateness.
Organizationaldirected aggression, on the other hand,
includes minor normative violations labelled as production
deviance (i.e.,leaving work early and taking excessive

breaks) and serious violations labelled as property deviance

(i.e., sabotaging equipment and stealing) (Appelbaum et al.,
2007: 587-588; Scheuer, 2010: 7; Yen and Teng, 2012: 2).
Counterproductive behavior has gained importance due to its
influences on organizations and employees. Recently, researches
have conducted studies which show its causes on individual and
organizational levels (Appelbaum et al., 2007: 592). Individual
and organizational factors are known to influence the behavior
and attitudes of the employees. One organizational factor that
has been demonstrated to have a significant effect on employee
behavior is the organizational climate (Peterson, 2002: 49). It is
plausible that perceived organizational climate influence the
attitudes and behaviors of employees in organizations as climate
perceptions are believed to be the functional link between the
employees and objective characteristics of the work environment
like formal and informal policies, procedures, and practices
(Scheurer, 2010: 10). Organizational climate is the extent in which
employee expectations from the organization are being met, so
when employees expectations for receiving support for their
performance are perceived to be met, they both feel good
about the organizations climate and effectively perform their
tasks. Thus, when the climate is employee oriented, the
employee would orient his or her behavior to attain organization
goals. But when the climate is mainly directed toward obtaining
organization goals and not to take any notice of employees wellbeing, employees will generate more negative behaviors such as
counterproductive behaviors (Vardi, 2001: 327-328).

LOCAL STUDIES
Although counterproductive work behavior (CWB) has long been
established as a broad domain of job behaviors, little agreement exists
about its internal structure. The present research addressed alternative
models of broadly defined CWB according to which specific behaviors
can be grouped into (a) one general factor, or into (b) two, (c) five, or
(d) eleven narrower facets, and a number of possible integrations of
these models. First, conceptual differences between these models
(including the nature of overall CWB as implying a reflective or
formative model, boundaries of the domain, and relations among

specific facets) are reviewed with regard to theoretical and practical

implications. In Study 1, structural meta-analysis was then used to test
whether a reflective higher-order factor underlies meta-analytically
constructed correlation matrices of five CWB facets. Analyses
supported a general factor model. For Study 2, a primary data set (N =
1,237 employees) was collected in order to test alternative structural
models and possible integrations of these models. Confirmatory factor
analyses revealed that the best fit was for a bimodal (nonhierarchical)
model in which individual CWBs simultaneously load on one of the
eleven facets describing their content (e.g., theft, absenteeism) and on
one of three factors describing the target primarily harmed
(organization, other persons, self). Less support was found for
hierarchical models and for models involving fewer content factors.
These findings suggest that CWB is best described by a reflective
higher-order factor at the general level and by a complex set of
bimodal facets at the more specific level (Mann et al., 2012: 143).
Counterproductive work behavior is detrimental to the
organization or to coworkers. It includes both breaking rules or laws, as
well as social norms. Many authors show a negative relationship
between this behavior and work satisfaction, surmising that the lack
thereof and the ensuing desire to get back at the employer are the
seeds of workplace deviance. A study carried out in Polish
organizations found this relationship to be less clear. The study
concerned work satisfaction and counterproductive behavior,
organizational justice, stress at work and propensity for aggressive
behavior. A cluster analysis identified a group of individuals in whom
relatively high levels of job satisfaction are nevertheless accompanied
by proclivity for counterproductive behavior. The configuration of
results suggests that this group resorts to counterproductive behavior
because of an inability to balance difficulties at work with personal
inclinations. The implications of these results for personal management
is discussed in the conclusions. Because of the counterproductive
behaviors significance and its costs, these behaviors properly manage
by the organizations and managers. However, organizations make an
effort to identify factors which are conducive to such behaviors
(Brooks, 2012: 238)..
(Brooks, 2012: 238). In other words, counterproductive behaviors
induce increasing organizational costs, decreasing commitment,
organizational citizenship behaviors, and productivity. On the other

hand, it brings about lateness, absenteeism and turnover. Because of

the counterproductive behaviors significance and its costs, these
behaviors properly manage by the organizations and managers.
However, organizations make an effort to identify factors which are
conducive to such behaviors.

FOREIGN STUDIES
Counterproductive work behavior consists of intentional acts
by employees that harm organizations or their stakeholders.
Included under CWB are acts of physical violence against people
(Type 3 violence), as well as milder forms of aggressive behavior
such as verbal aggression and other forms of mistreatment
directed toward people. CWB also includes acts directed toward
organizations rather than people (although people are often
indirect targets). This includes destruction and misuse of
organizational property, doing work incorrectly, or failing to notify
superiors about mistakes and work problems (e.g., a machine
malfunction), and withdrawal (e.g., calling in sick when not ill).
CWB has been studied from a variety of perspectives, using
different terms to refer to a partially overlapping set of harmful
acts. This includes aggression (Neuman & Baron, 2005; Spector,
2006), deviance (Hollinger, 2001; Robinson & Bennett, 2002),
retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), and revenge (Bies, Tripp, &
Kramer, 2000). Acts directed specifically at people have been
studied as bullying (Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999), emotional
abuse (Keashly, 2003), and mobbing (Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996).
Researchers who have studied these various related phenomena
have taken a variety of theoretical positions that give different
emphasis to emotions. Neuman and Barons (2009, 2010, 2012)
work, based on the human aggression literature, considers the
role of negative emotions in affective aggression. They provided
an integrated model of aggression (Neuman & Baron, 2005) in
which negative emotion (hostility, anger, and shame) plays a
central role. According to this model, aggression is triggered by
environmental conditions and stressors, including situational
frustration, injustice, insults, and presence of things associated
with aggression. These lead to negative emotions and aggressive

cognitions that together lead to appraisal of the situation and

decisions about whether or not to respond aggressively. Their
model draws upon a cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis of
aggression (Anderson, Anderson, & Deuser, 2002; Anderson,
Deuser, & DeNeve, 2002; Berkowitz, 1990). Situational variables
(such as perceived threat, mistreatment, or frustration resulting
from thwarted goals) may lead to primary and secondary
appraisal and on to aggressive behavioral choices by one or more
of three paths: cognition (excitation of hostile thoughts,
memories, or aggression scripts), affect (priming hostile or angry
feelings), and/or arousal (excitation transfer). Through accessible
hostile schemata, these paths may lead to more hostile
interpretation of ambiguous events and ambiguous affective
states. It is noteworthy that anger can play several causal roles in
this process (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).
Workplace deviant behavior (WDB) and counterproductive
work behavior (CWB) are used interchangeably in the literature.
While CWB and WDB are similar, CWB is broader in concept than
WDB (Hogan & Hogan, 1989). Counterproductive work behavior is
defined as a potentially destructive behavior (such as sabotaging
work equipment, cheating or intentionally breaking work rules)
that is intended to have harmful consequences on coworkers and
the organization (Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Fox,
Spector, & Miles, 2001); whereas workplace deviant behavior is
defined as voluntary behavior of organizational members that
violates significant organizational norms, and in so doing,
threatens the well-being of the organization and/or its members
(Robinson & Bennett, 2008, p. 556). Two important forms of
deviant behavior are very much related to our proposed typology
of workers response to monetary incentives. Production deviance
involves breaking work rules, shirking or withholding effort
(Peterson, 2002; Robinson & Bennett, 2004), and pursuing ones
self-interest (Peterson, 2002). Property deviance involves
destroying the physical property of the company (Spector et al.,
2006) such as in the sabotage of work equipment and in the
depletion of organizational resources (Robinson & Bennett, 2002).
Although there are very few typologies (e.g., Robinson & Bennett,
2002) that exist regarding workers deviant behavior in

organizations, not one of these typologies has dealt with the

counterproductive work behavior that the monetary incentive
systems generate.
Researchers often use the framework developed by Fox and
Spector (1999) when discussing CWB. CWB is behaviour intended
to hurt the organization or other members of the organization.
Therefore, it can be categorized around the target of the
behaviour: The organization (CWB-O) and other individuals (CWBI). Acts such as aggression and hostility are directed at people
(CWB-I). While others, such as doing task incorrectly or sabotage,
are directed at organizations (CWB-O). Further classification was
developed by Spector et.al. (2006), that categorizes CWB into five
dimensions; abuse - harmful and nasty behaviours that affect
other people; production deviance - purposely doing ones job
incorrectly or allowing error to occur; sabotage destroying
organizational property; theft wrongfully taking the personal
goods or property of another; and withdrawal avoiding work
through being late or absent. Another dimension CWB can be
categorized is according to its severity, ranging from minor to
severe. Some deviant behaviour, such as worker talking with coworkers instead of working, would be classified as a minor deviant
act,whilst, other incidents such as physical assault, would be
classified as severe (Hollinger, 2001). According to Kelloway
(2010), CWB can be viewed as a form of protest within
organizations, stemming from having a high degree of
identification with a victim of injustice. It was also suggested that
CWB can be both individually and collectively enacted. Collective
CWB would be like work-slow campaigns, work to rule, bullying,
and collective acts of violence that occur in the context of labour
dispute

Synthesis of the Review Literature and Studies

The related studies review by the researchers include the
Counterproductive Behavior in Marketing Professional in DBP
Service Company. This studies of some researchers are related to
the present study since they all dealt on Counterproductive
Behavior in organization. However, they differ from the present in
terms of the focus:
The Counterproductive Behavior Manifested among the Marketing
Professional.

Bibliography
Areeg I. Barakat* and Faten M. Moussa. Patterns of workers
Counterproductive Work Behaviour under the monetary incentive
systems (2002).
Edgar F. Huse and James L. Bow-ditch. Behavior in Organization a
system approach to managing (second edition).
Jerald Greenberg, Robert A Baron. Behavior in Organization:
Understanding and Managing the Human side of wor. 6 th Edition,
New york Prentice-Hall (2001)
John W. Newstron and Keith Davis. Organizational Behavior
(Human Behavior at Work) 2008.
Landa F. Jocano, M.R Hechanova, M Teng-calleha, & V. Villaluz. J.
Understanding the Filipino Worker and Organization(2014).
Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R. J. A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study, Academy of
Management Journal (38:2), April 1995, pp. 555-572.
Rowena S. Dimaano, (2012) Human Behavior in Organization.
Paul E. Spector, Suzy Fox, Theresa Domagalski. Emotions,
Violence, and Counterproductive Work Behavior, 2011.

Chapter III
Methodology
The way in which research is conducted may be conceived of in terms of the
research
strategy employed and so the research instruments utilized in the pursuit of
the goal the research objectives and the quest for the solution of the
problem. We have outlined our research questions and objectives in chapter
1. The purpose of this chapter is to:

Expound our research strategies, including the research methodologies

adopted.
Introduce the research instruments that we have developed and
utilized in the pursuit of our goals.

Research Method
Descriptive type of research used to describe the following situations.
Used of questionnaires to solve the questions that are outlined in chapter 1.
It is also known as statistical research, describes data and characteristics
about the population or phenomenon being studied. Descriptive research
answers the questions who, what, where, when and how. Thus, on the basis
of the above, the two research designs were appropriate for the present

study as it was important to gauge the various project specific risks that
impact the software projects and also understand the dynamics of
organizations climate on these software projects. The focus of qualitative
research is not only to describe but also to analyze the study.

Respondent of the study

The respondents of this study are the marketing manager and
some employee in the marketing department DBP Service Corporation.
They are the ones who are the knowledgeable enough to answer the
problems posed in the present study.

Sampling procedure
The group used Simple Random Sampling. In this sampling
technique, the group got random samples in a population which was
composed of several DBP Service Corporation employee that is 70
persons regardless of their genders.

Instrument and techniques Used

1. Questionnaire- this is a list of planned, written questions, related
to a particular topic with space provided for indicating response
to each question intended for submission to a number of people
for a reply.
2. Interview- this is a purposeful face-to-face relationship between
person, one called the interviewer who asks questions to gather

information and the other one called the interviewee or the

respondent who supplies the information asked for.
3. Documentary Analysis- is a form of qualitative research in which
documents are interpreted by the researcher to give voice
and meaning around an assessment topic. Analyzing documents
incorporates coding content into themes similar to how focus
group or interview transcripts are analyzed.
4. Observation- is a type of correlational (i.e., nonexperimental) research in which a researcher observes on going
behavior. There are a variety of types of observational research,
each of which has both strengths and weaknesses.

Data Gathering Procedure

The data for this research were collected using a survey
questionnaire. The survey was created using suitable questions
modified from related research and individual questions formed by the
researcher. The survey was comprised of several questions, which were
related to the participants perception regarding Counterproductive
Behavior. In the questionnaire. After the professor validated

Statistical Treatment
In getting the sample size, the group used the Percentage and
weighted mean formula. The data collected were tabulated and
analyzed. Analyses of data were guided by mean and percentage.
Quantitative analysis is applied. The survey data were analysed using
descriptive statistics, based around a number of propositions that the
study identified. Weighted mean and percentage and median are
calculated. The following statistical formulae are utilised:

Where:
N -total number of respondents

n number of responses
e = margin of error
1. Percentage to determine the magnitude of the responses to
the questionnaire.
n
% = -------- x 100
;
n number of responses
N
N total number of
respondents
2. Weighted Mean
f1x1 + f2x2 + f3x3 + f4x4 + f5x5
x = ---------------------------------------------;
xt
where:
f weight given to each response
x number of responses
xt total number of responses