Change management practices are several interventions instituted by an organization to facilitate the organizational change process (Meyer and Stensaker, 2006). Often those who are at the nexus of directing the change process forget these practices, resulting in inefficiencies in the process. Numerous authors propose these practices. For example, Hastings and Schwarz (2021), Buchanan et al. (2005) argue that the one practice involves a period of preparation and diagnosis of an organization and its environment. Some authors (Shaikh, 2020; Whelan-Berry et al., 2003) suggest the inclusion of a detailed plan on how change will be implemented. Included in some literature is the need to understand the needs of different stakeholders, to prepare to respond to their reactions, thereby eliminating any possible resistance to the process (Warrick, 2023; Holt et al., 2007). Literature also proposes some practices that are linked to the implementation of change. For example, Shulga (2020) states that facilitating communication during the change process enables different stakeholders to understand the need and participate fully in the change process. Some authors (Phillips and Klein, 2023) emphasize the role of leaders, arguing that employees who receive the impact of change must perceive the leader as committed to the change process. All these practices have been found to have a significant impact on the accomplishment of change programme objectives (Raineri, 2011).

The concept of counterproductive work behavior has received much attention in literature since its inception and has been labeled differently by authors such as Hollinger and Clark (1982); Robinson and Bennett (1995), as well as Gruys and Sackett (2003). As a result of these grounding authors, the commonly labeled dimensions are counterproductive work behavior directed at the organization (CWBO) and that directed at fellow employees (CWBI). The occurrence of counteractive work behavior is explained by several theoretical departure points, from stimulus response effect (Thorndike, 1905), social learning (Bandura, 1977) to organizational interactionism (Mead, 1934). Framed from these theoretical perspectives, studies have shown that counterproductive behavior can be a function of individual differences in personality and locus of control (Hafidz, 2012). Other studies (Afshar-Jalili et al., 2021) found organizational factors such as leadership as a factor of counterproductive work behavior. Failure to deter counterproductive work behavior leads to several negative outcomes. For instance, Sabokro et al. (2021) found that both typologies of counterproductive work behaviors can damage an organisation's relationship with internal and external stakeholders. Within the higher education sector, evidence shows that deviant behavior by academics results in bad institutional reputation, weakening of academic integrity, and loss of revenue (Obalade et al., 2024). Finding several strategies for reducing its occurrences is therefore critical.

Change management practices entail several management interventions to facilitate change process (Kanter et al., 1992). Counterproductive work behaviors are harmful actions by employees against organization or employees (Spector, 2021). The correct application and fairness in the use of change management practices to facilitate change can result in several employee-related outcomes (Iyaji et al., 2024). Literature has demonstrated that unfair treatment of employees impacts some organizational outcomes (Lind and Tyler, 1988). There is evidence that when employees sense unfairness in management processes that impact how they work, they tend to exhibit deviant behavior in the workplace (Abbasi et al., 2020; Dora and Azim, 2019). Within the higher education context, research by Mandal et al. (2023) has demonstrated that the way management dealt with the new normal of working from home during COVID-19 had an impact on academic employees' deviant behaviors. These studies suggest that deviant behavior among academics may be a function of their perceptions of how they are treated during the change process. In tandem with the Equity Theory (Adams, 1965), employees compare the ratio of their inputs to outcomes. When they experience inequity, they may feel frustrated and tend to restore equity by engaging in deviant behaviors (Colquitt et al., 2001). In the same vein, changing management practices that are used by management and creating dissonance among academics in terms of how much they are investing in their work and what they are getting in return may lead to counterproductive work behavior.

The role of gender in counterproductive work behavior is vital. Musetsho et al. (2021) found that gender equality in and outside the workplace is still gloomy, as men still dominate women. The link among change management practices, gender and counterproductive work behavior can therefore be based on the argument that when employees feel management is using wrong practices or using correct practices wrongly to drive change, they may feel unfairly treated and often attempt to retaliate with acts that are harmful to the organization (Henle, 2005). The expression of unhappiness through counterproductive work behaviors is framed within the Social Exchange Theory. Despite this, some studies have noted that people react differently when exposed to same stimulus (Del Popolo Cristaldi et al., 2021). This entails that whether academics will react defiantly or not to how management uses change management practices is a function of numerous variables, gender included. Counterproductive work behavior is an organizational matter that gender has been used to moderate. Lipińska-Grobelny and Narska (2021) found that the role of gender in the relationship between organizational climate and counterproductive work behavior was achieved for sabotage and withdrawal behaviors. A study by Ozturk (2021) emphasized the role of gender in the positive relationship between dark triad personality and counterproductive work behaviors, with males and females' differences noted in personality, as well as in counterproductive work behaviors. In Indonesia, Wati et al. (2024) found that gender amplifies the impact of organizational justice on counterproductive work behavior. Males felt unjustly treated than females and therefore had an increase in engaging in counterproductive work behaviors. These studies, although different from the present one in terms of context, sample, and independent variables used, offer insights into the role of gender differences in counterproductive work behavior investigations. Against this background, seeks to provide answers to the following research questions and test hypotheses.

The primary research question of this study is to what extent does gender moderates the relationship between change management practices and counterproductive among academics in higher education institutions in South Africa.

The subsidiary research questions include the following:

A structured, closed-ended questionnaire was used to collect data. Four research assistants were recruited, trained, and helped with data collection for 2 months. The Change Management Practices were measured using the 42-item Change Management Questionnaire by Beitsch and Moran (2017). Respondents were asked to choose the best response that describes their feeling about change management practices in their organization on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly agree to (6) I don't know. Counterproductive work behavior was measured using an instrument developed by Spector et al. (2010). The scale had 32 items, 17 items measured interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors with statements like ‘started an argument with someone at work', 16 items measured counterproductive work behaviors directed at the organization, with items such as ‘left work earlier I am allowed to'. Respondents were asked how often they do each of these items at work on a 5-point Likert scale ranging as follows:1—Never; 2—Once or Twice; 3—Once or Twice per month; 4—Once or Twice per week; 5—Everyday. Where necessary, items in each scale were adjusted to suit the context of the study.

The internal consistency and validity of Change Management Practices (CMP), Counterproductive work behavior directed at fellow individual employees and organization (CWBI and CWBO) were assessed using Cronbach's Alpha (CA), Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). Discriminant validity was also evaluated to confirm construct distinctiveness and was assessed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion. All values met acceptable thresholds, indicating reliable and valid measurement, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 shows that all constructs meet the required reliability and validity criteria. Cronbach's alpha values for CMP (0.985), CWBI (0.881), and CWBO (0.920) are all above the recommended threshold of 0.70, indicating strong internal consistency (Hair et al., 2019a). Composite Reliability (CR) values for CMP (0.985), CWBI (0.908), and CWBO (0.935) also exceed the 0.70 cutoff, confirming the reliability of the constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for CMP (0.628), CWBI (0.623), and CWBO (0.674) are greater than the minimum acceptable level of 0.50, demonstrating good convergent validity (Hair et al., 2019b). Discriminant validity is supported as the square root of each construct's AVE, shown in bold on the diagonal, is greater than its correlations with other constructs, meeting Fornell and Larcker's (1981) criterion. In Table 2, the factor loadings for each item of CMP, CWBI, and CWBO are illustrated with each exceeding the threshold of 0.5. These results confirm that the measurement model is both reliable and valid. The R² values for the endogenous constructs CWBI (0.090) and CWBO (0.070) are both above zero, indicating that the model has some predictive relevance, according to Briones-Penalver et al. (2018).

The Partial Least Squares (PLS) model's predictive significance was assessed primarily through R² values, key model performance indicators. To evaluate the overall predictive power, the Goodness of Fit (GoF) index, as proposed by Tenenhaus et al. (2005), was calculated following the method outlined by Wetzels et al. (2009). The GoF is computed as:

This value lies between the thresholds for small (0.10); medium (0.25) and large (0.36) effect sizes suggested by Akter et al. (2011), indicating that the model possesses moderate explanatory power. Thus, the results support the developed PLS model's global validity and predictive relevance.

The data collected revealed that 69 (53.5%) were males and 60 (46.5%) were females. In terms of title, 73 (56.6%) were Lecturers, 30 (23.3%) were Senior lecturers, 15 (11.6%) were Junior Lecturers, 6 (4.70%) were Full Professors, only 5 (3.9%) were Associate professors. With regards to tenure, 81 (62.8%) had been at the university for 11–15 years, 18(14%) had spent 16 or more years, while 30 (23.2%) were at the university for 60–10 years and < 5 years, respectively. Age-wise, the largest group fell within the 46–54 age range (34.1%).

The data were analyzed using SmartPLS software, employing the partial least squares (PLS) method to examine relationships among the measured variables. Structural Equation Modeling's (SEM) distinctive capability allows researchers to test comprehensive theories and complex models by estimating the combined relationships between constructs (Gil-Garcia, 2009). The structural model results from the PLS analysis are summarized in Table 3.

The results presented in Table 3 show that CMP significantly and positively influences CWBI (β = 0.345, p = 0.005). This implies that ineffective or poorly communicated change management practices may increase interpersonal counterproductive behaviors among employees. Similarly, CMP positively affects CWBO (β = 0.299, p = 0.020), indicating that change management practices influence organization-directed counterproductive behaviors. Both hypotheses H1 and H2 are supported.

The third and fourth hypotheses examine the moderating role of gender on the relationship between change management practices (CMP) and counterproductive work behaviors. Specifically, these hypotheses test whether the impact of CMP on CWBI and CWBO differs between male and female employees.

The results in Table 4 show that gender significantly moderates the relationship between CMP and CWBI (β = −0.372, p = 0.034), supporting Hypothesis H3. This indicates that the effect of change management practices on interpersonal counterproductive work behavior differs between males and females. However, gender does not significantly moderate the relationship between CMP and CWBO (β = −0.258, p = 0.156), so Hypothesis H4 is not supported. This suggests that the impact of CMP on organizational counterproductive behavior is similar for both genders.

Figure 2 further illustrates the complete model, including all coefficients and factor loadings, providing a visual summary of these findings.

The labels “ORD” and “0|1” in the blue nodes indicate that the variables were measured on ordinal and binary scales. The model results show that CMP explains approximately 9% of the variance in CWBI. CMP explains about 7% of CWBO, suggesting a modest but meaningful predictive power of change management practices on both types of counterproductive work behavior. Furthermore, all factor loadings exceed 0.5, indicating that the observed indicators reliably represent their respective latent constructs and confirm the measurement model's validity.

Given the significant moderating effect of gender on the relationship between CMP and CWBI, a slope analysis was conducted to determine which gender shows a more potent effect. Figure 3 illustrates these results, highlighting the differences in the impact of CMP on CWBI between males and females.

The results indicate a significant moderating influence of gender on the relationship between CMP and CWBI. As illustrated in Figure 3, the graph shows a steeper and more positive slope for female employees than male employees

The current wave of counterproductive work behavior among academics is not good, and ways to address it should be sought. Based on the results of this study, there are some deficiencies in current change initiatives within the institution, hence increased counterproductive work behaviors. Practically, it means organizations must be clear and transparent about change. For academic institutions, the increased involvement of academics in the change process to foster ownership may reduce counterproductive work behaviors such as resistance to the change process. The provision of training, mentoring, and some psychological support may make employees ready for change and avoid detrimental actions. Tailor-made change management practices for academics may also help ensure they enjoy their academic freedom and collegiality. Lastly, organizations should be gender-sensitive in any management process, at the same time upholding the egalitarian principles.

Counterproductive behaviors like gossip, resistance to change, absenteeism and others have negative repercussions for both employees across gender and organizations or institutions, which contribute to suboptimal performance by perpetrators. These employees lose focus on individual performance, team and organizational goals or targets, and are disruptive to the productive efforts of other employees, leading to below par organizational productivity and profitability as well as institutional ineffectiveness and inefficiency. These unbearable results may hurt employees in the form of layoffs or retrenchments as organizations and institutions attempt to stay afloat. Poor performance of organizations or institutions has a negative bearing on any country's national economy. It is for these reasons that social science researchers must engage robustly in research to unravel the dynamics of counterproductive behaviors and their ramifications in the workplace.

To turn the tide, managers need to have a deeper understanding of this phenomenon and develop strategies to counter its occurrence in workplaces. As this study has demonstrated, counterproductive behaviors can manifest differently across genders contingent upon cultural norms or social conditioning. In societies that emphasize patriarchy, male workers may exhibit outright defiance characterized by confrontation and unproductive dominance whereas their female counterparts may show counterproductive behaviors in a somehow passive way through negative gossiping and silent resistance to change. It is without doubt that these complex behaviors require managers to be trained to observe, identify and deal effectively with counterproductive behaviors geared toward obliterating or undermining change initiatives. Avoiding gender stereotypes, effective communication, conflict resolution that exist between genders through inclusive dialogue, zero-tolerance policies, and providing psychological safety are some of the strategies managers can utilize to deal with counterproductive behaviors; hence continued research in this field is imperative.

The study used a cross-sectional design, with academics who had different work and tenure experiences. These were not included and controlled for in the analysis and could have confounded the results. Future studies could control other demographic variables, such as years of experience. The focus was only on one academic institution. This means the results cannot be generalized, as organizational cultures about change management are not the same. Also, the use of self-report is another limitation. This could have led to common method bias and impression management when responding to the counterproductive work behavior items. Future studies should consider using multiple data sources to curtail this limitation.