Modern Organisational Injustice Affecting Counterproductive Work Behaviour Among Generation Z: A Conceptual Review

Counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) involves intentional employee actions that harm organizations and their members. In today work environment, workplaces in Malaysia face rising issues like "quiet quitting" and low engagement among Generation Z employees. Thus, it is important to understand how specific workplace factors cause these negative reactions. Based on the reviews past and current literature on CWB, appearance-based discrimination, strict bureaucracy, lack of resources, and generational differences in values are factor influencing CWB. Social Exchange Theory is used as the underpinning theory, where perceived injustices and workplace constraints drain psychological resources and breach reciprocal trust. The review identifies three distinct workplace factors acting as modern injustice antecedents to CWB. Firstly, lookism as individual factor, secondly rigid rules as organisational factor and organisational constraints as situational factor. It proposes that these unfair conditions cause job stress, which then pushes employees to engage in deviant behavior as a coping mechanism. A conceptual framework is developed to map the direct effects of these three injustice factors on CWB, alongside the mediating role of job stress. The paper concludes that Malaysian organisations must modernize HR policies, prioritize mental well-being, and address unregulated biases to restore engagement. This conceptual paper aims to explain CWB among Gen Z employees by examining modern forms of organizational injustice which are lookism, rigid rules, and organizational constraints, along with the role of job stress as mediating factor. Future research should empirically test this framework to validate these modern behavioural dynamics.

Counterproductive work behaviour, organizational injustice, lookism, organizational constraint

1. Becton, J. B., Gilstrap, J. B., & Forsyth, M. (2023). Preventing and correcting workplace deviance: The role of autonomy and organizational rules. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(2), 150–168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Goh, Z., & Lee, A. (2023). Understanding 'quiet quitting' and counterproductive work behaviours among Generation Z in Southeast Asia. Journal of Asian Business Strategy, 13(2), 45–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ibrahim, N. H., Makhbul, Z. K. M., & Ayob, A. H. (2023). Systematic literature review: Affective experiences as a predictor of counterproductive work behaviour. International Journal of Professional Business Review, 8(3), e1191. https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i3.1191 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Jamaludin, A., Hassan, N., & Othman, R. (2024). Public sector constraints and workplace deviance in Malaysia's healthcare system. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 46(1), 112–130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Jamaludin, N., & Hashim, R. (2025). Contextualizing survey instruments for Southeast Asian organizational research: Validity and cultural adaptation. Malaysian Journal of Management, 40(1), 77–92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Karamath Basha, S., & Pathania, A. (2025). Quiet quitting as a response to burnout: A functional coping mechanism in toxic work cultures. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 15(1), 22–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Lim, K. Y., & Chen, X. (2025). Bridging the gap: Job stress as a mediator between organizational injustice and workplace deviance. Journal of Management and Psychology, 40(2), 210–228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Neupane, S., Takala, E. P., & Descatha, A. (2024). The psychosocial working environment: Organizational constraints and counterproductive work behaviour in SMEs. Occupational Health Science, 8(1), 55–73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1-2), 126–134. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Rahman, M. A., & Alias, N. (2024). Cultural shifts and high power distance: The impact of rigid hierarchy on employee behavior in Malaysia. Journal of Asian Management Research, 12(4), 301–318. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Rosalina, M., & Jusoh, M. (2024). Counterproductive work behavior in organizations: The role of perceived injustice and workplace adversity in Malaysia. Malaysian Management Review, 59(1), 15–32. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2005). Counterproductive work behavior: The role of individuals and situations. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (pp. 145–164). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Shao, Y., Zhang, L., & Chen, Y. (2022). The impact of voluntary harmful intent on counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 175(3), 567–582. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Sharma, P., & Singh, R. (2021). Lookism: A wrongful discrimination and its impact on workplace inequality. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 40(6), 710–725. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Spain, S. M. (2019). Counterproductive work behaviors: Understanding the dark side of personalities in organizations. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Teng, Y., Wei, X., & Liu, Y. (2022). Cyberloafing and quiet quitting: Modernizing counterproductive work behavior for the digital era. Computers in Human Behavior, 131, 107228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ülbeği, İ. D., & İplik, E. (2025). Exploring the unethical conduct and harmful intent behind counterproductive work behaviours. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 40(1), 88–105. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Veeriah, J., Tan, S. K., & Lim, H. L. (2023). The rising trend of workplace misconduct in Malaysia: Impact on productivity and morale. Journal of Southeast Asian Business, 29(2), 199–215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Wang, Y., & Chen, H. (2024). Lookism, a leak in the career pipeline? Consequences of lookism climate and workplace incivility. Career Perspective Studies, 19(3), 405–422. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Is Strike Relevant in the Modern Era? Evidence from Indian Manufacturing, IT/Ites, FMCG, Electronics and Emerging Sectors
• A Qualitative Exploration of Work-Life Balance Among Private Universities Lecturers in Klang Valley
• Leadership Styles and Employee Motivation: Examining the Impact on Job Satisfaction and Turnover
• Human Resource Management, Organizational Culture, and Good Governance Practices: A Structural Equation Model on Service Orientation among Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation in Davao Region
• Cost of Silence: Exploring the Impact of Organisational Silence on Employee Engagement