This chapter contains a summary of the major findings of the study, followed by an explanation of the practical implications and then a section which details research implications. The latter part of the chapter presents limitations and suggestions for future research.
The design of this study could best be described as quantitative vignette or factorial survey. Three questionnaires were administered to the population (graduates of Business administration who are between the ages of 19-25), one conveying amount in group behavioral norms, another conveying consistency in group behavioral norms and one which served as a control group conveying no group norms. A total of 203 responses were collected. Seven post-hoc interviews were conducted after the quantitative data was statistically analyzed to help explain and account for the unexpected results.
Conclusions
The major findings of this study, summarized according to the four research questions presented in chapter one, are as follows. In answer to the first research question, it was found that none of the examined demographic variables (gender, religious commitment, work experience and socioeconomic status) had a significant influence on the propensity to engage in CWB. With regard to the second research question, findings revealed that amount and consistency in group norms had some limited influence on the propensity to engage in CWB. Amount in group norms was significantly negatively related to both forms of CWB and respondents who were exposed to this factor, when compared to the control group, were significantly less likely to engage in misuse of resources. Both of these results are the opposite of what was expected. Moreover, consistency in group norms proved to have very little influence on CWB. In answer to the third research question, the study found that work values do have some influence on the propensity to engage in CWB. Of the five work
82
values examined, only three had a significant influence on the propensity to engage in CWB, namely; achievement, independence and security. With regard to the final research question, the study revealed that work values are not moderated by group norms in influencing CWB.
Post- Hoc interviews found that the study was affected by social desirability response bias, Hawthorne effect as well as limitations in design, all of which contributed to the unexpected or unusual results. Social desirability bias occurred because the counterproductive work behaviors (especially those under the heading misuse of information) examined are socially undesirable and this led to respondents underreporting their propensity to engage. The experimental component as well as the unusual nature of the questionnaire, gave rise to a certain level of Hawthorne effect which affected the results.
The use of vignettes (to convey group norms) did not encourage norm-focus because the situations were not realistic or relatable. This led to results indicating that norms have little to no effect on the propensity to engage in CWB. Despite the mentioned shortcomings, the study has spawned conclusions which can inform business practices as well as guide future research. These conclusions are presented in the subsequent sections of this chapter.
Practical Implications
These findings give rise to some practical implications. Firstly, the research suggests that there are many antecedents of CWB, therefore in trying to reduce CWB managers and supervisors must implement a wide range of practices. Secondly, since the antecedents are so many, managers and supervisors need to examine their own organizations to look for possible causes that may be unique to their organization and come up with solutions that work for them.
Moreover, employers should also expect that employees will not readily admit to engaging in CWB. Therefore, managers may consider implementing measures to detect and monitor CWBs. Implementation of such measures can activate the Hawthorne effect
83
whereby employees, aware of the fact that they are being monitored for CWB, may modify their behavior. This modification can be manifested as reduced engagement in CWB, reduced intension to engage in CWB and also reduced opportunities to successfully execute CWBs. All of these manifestations can result in less CWB.
Finally, since it appears that people who value independence and achievement are less likely to engage in misuse of resources, companies can consider including these work values as selection criteria for employees. Managers and supervisors can help retain employees who display a tendency to value these things by fulfilling their need, for example, allowing them some measure of freedom in performing their duties and giving them constant feedback. This would ensure that these employees do not engage in CWB thus contributing to group norms that do not encourage CWB and serving as role models for others.
Research Implications
This study has examined a novel set of variables in reference to CWB, namely; amount and consistency in group norms and work values. Moreover, it didn’t focus on the perception of group norms by the respondents but rather the actual observable behavior of members of the work group. In so doing, it has added a new dimension to the body of research on this topic.
Despite the somewhat disappointing results, this study made some noteworthy contributions. It has proven that work values do have some influence on the propensity to engage in CWB (specifically achievement, security and independence). Although there appears to be limited support for the two factors of group norms examined in the study, the findings point to the fact that other aspects of group norms such as attraction and group identification (which were not examined in this study), may have stronger influence on individual behavior. Both qualitative and quantitative findings suggest that vignettes should
84
not be used to portray group norms because they are not able to adequately convey important information which is necessary for respondents to focus on the norms and adequately envision its effect on their behavior.
The study has also demonstrated some useful considerations for carrying out research on counterproductive work behavior. The need to minimize and deal with social desirability bias has been emphasized, since it was found to have affected the overall result. The study certainly suggests that any inquiry into CWB should include a measure for social desirability so that it can be detected and possibly dealt with (using some of the procedures presented in chapter two). Therefore, this is an aspect of study design that warrants careful consideration. In addition, if the research design contains experimental components, then allowances should be made for possible Hawthorne effect. This study has shown that this effect can also occur in factorial surveys.
Overall, the findings obtained from this study suggest that there are many other situational and personal factors that influence counterproductive work behavior (misuse of resources and misuse of information) apart from amount and consistency in group norms and work values. Therefore, there is still room for other research examining other combinations of factors.
Limitations
The sample used in this study can be classified as non-random and as a result is not representative of young St. Lucian workers. For this reason, the results are not generalizable.
In addition, the use of single informant reporting could potentially introduce common method bias. The use of vignettes was intended to reduce this potential bias however, success in this regard cannot be proven. Since the hypotheses in this study include variables that are categorical as well as continuous, common method bias cannot be verified with popular tests such as Harmon’s one factor test (Podsakoff, Mackenzie & Podsakoff, 2003).
85
The study only examined a limited number of possible antecedents of CWB which altogether explain a small percentage of the propensity to engage in misuse of resources and misuse of information. Moreover, the results of this study were likely affected by several factors including social desirability response bias and Hawthorne effect. Both of these need to taken into consideration when examining the findings.
Suggestions for Future Research
Future studies of this nature should explore/employ other methodological approaches such as observation and other qualitative methods to study group norms and CWB. Such methods may reduce common method and social desirability bias, both of which this type of research is susceptible to. Moreover, different approaches can be used to convey or explore the existence of group norms. For example, using self report, multiple sources or observation to find out if group norms exist within the respondents’ work environment may be more beneficial and may yield more conclusive results. Perhaps future researchers can focus on respondents’ perception of amount and consistency of group norms within their work group and see how that perception is related to CWB or other types of work behavior.
Also, there are other aspects of group norms not examined in this study (but may have a stronger influence on CWB) that can be considered in future research. These include attraction and group identification. In addition, future researchers may consider examining all 15 work values because the others (not used in the study) may also have an effect on CWB. Finally, researchers who study CWB should include components in their research that makes allowances for social desirability bias. This must include measuring social desirability by including such as measure in the questionnaire or interview and possibly implementing corrective measures if severe bias has been detected.
Despite the numerous challenges and necessary considerations, this area of research is worth pursuing because Counterproductive work behavior is a pervasive problem which
86
negatively affects organizations and any research which aims to uncover its antecedents is beneficial. This study is a contribution to this ongoing effort.
87 REFERENCES
Alexander, C.S., & Becker, H.J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 93-104.
Appelbaum, S., & Shapiro, B. (2006). Diagnosis and remedies for deviant workplace behaviors. Journal of American Academy of Business, 9(2), 14-20.
Atzmuller, C., & Steiner, P.M. (2010). Experimental vignette studies in survey research.
Methodology, 6(3), 128-138. doi: 10.10271614-2241a000014
Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. New Jersey: General Learning Press.
Barnes, S. J. (2003). An examination of multi-generational work values of selected Texas A&M University employees (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest
Dissertations and Theses Database.
Bayram, N., Gursakal, N., & Bilgel, N. (2009). Counterproductive work behavior among white-collar employees: A study from Turkey. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(2), 180-188.
Bennett, R.J., & Robinson, S.L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360.
Bowling, N., Burns, G., & Beehr, T. (2010). Productive and counterproductive attendance behavior: An examination of early and late arrival to and departure from work. Human Performance, 23, 305-322.
Busacca L.A, Beebe R.S, & Toman S.M. (2010). Life and Work Values of Counselor Trainees: A National Survey. The Career Development Quarterly, 59(1), 2-18.
Cascio, W.F. (1973). Value orientation, organizational rewards and job satisfaction (Technical Report). Retrieved from DTIC online. (Accession Number : AD0768878) Christensen, P.N., Rothgerber, H., Wood, W. & Matz, D.C. (2004). Social norms and
identity relevance: A motivational approach to normative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (10), 1295-1309.
Cialdini, R.B. & Trost, M.R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. Vol. 2 (pp.151- 192). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A., & Reno, R.R. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct:
Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A., & Reno, R.R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In M.P.
Zanna (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201-234.
De Cooman, D., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., Du Bois, C., Caers, R., & Jegers, M. (2008).
Freshmen in nursing: Job motives and work values of a new generation. Journal of Nursing Management, 16(1), 56-64.
88
Deutsch, M., & Gerald, H.B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
Diefendorff, J., & Mehta, K. (2007). The relations of motivational traits with workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 967-977.
Dittes, J.E., Kelly, H.H. (1956) Effects of different conditions of acceptance upon
conformity to group norms. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53(1), 100-107.
doi: 10.1037/h0047855
Duffy, R. D., & Sedlacek, W. (2007). The work values of first-year college students:
Exploring group differences. The Career Development Quarterly, 55(4), 59-364.
Ehrhart, M.G., & Naumann, S.E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups:
A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960-974.
England, G. W. (1967). Personal value systems of American managers. The Academy of Management Journal, 10, 107-117.
Feldman, D.C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 47-53.
Fine, S., Horowitz, I., Weigler, H., & Basis, L. (2010). Is good character good enough? The effects of situational variables on the relationship between integrity and
counterproductive work behaviors. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 73-84.
Fisher, R.J., Katz, J.E. (2000). Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 105-120.
Frieze, I. H, Olson, J. E, Murrell, A., & Selvan, M. (2006). Work values and their effect on work behavior and work outcomes in female and male managers. Sex Roles, 54 (2), 83-93.
Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personal, Individual Differences, 7(3), 385-400.
Government of St. Lucia Statistics Department. Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.lc, November 20, 2011.
Grace, J. C. (1974). Work values of community college students: An exploratory
investigation of freshmen at Middlesex Community College, Bedford, Massachusetts (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation And Abstracts International.
Gruys, M., & Sackett, P. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30-42.
Henle, C.A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between
organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(2), 247-263.
Hitlan, R., & Noel, J. (2009). The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work behaviors: An interactionist perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(4), 477-502.
89
Hollinger, R.C., & Clark, J.P. (1982). Formal and informal social controls of employee deviance. Sociological Quarterly, 23, 333-343.
Hung, T., Chi, N., & Lu, W. (2009). Exploring the relationship between perceived coworker loafing and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating role of a revenge motive.
Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 257-270. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9104-6
Jasso. G. (2006). Factorial survey methods for studying beliefs and judgments. Sociological Methods & Research, 34, 334-423. doi:10.1177/0049124105283121
Jetten, J., Postmes, T., Mcauliffe, B.J. (2002). We’re all individuals: group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 189-207. doi:10.1002/ejsp.65
Jones, D. (2009). Getting even with one’s supervisor and one’s organization: Relationships among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 525-542. doi:10.1002/job.563
Kallgren, C.A., Reno, R.R., Cialdini, R.B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct:
When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002-1012. doi:10.1177/01461672002610009
Kamp, J., & Brooks, P.(1991). Perceived organizational climate and employee counterproductivity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5(4), 447-458.
Khan, M., Afzal, H., & Zia.(2010). Impact of counterproductive work behavior in organization performance in Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 1(12), 281-291.
Kiesler, C.A. (1963). Attraction to the group and conformity to group norms. Journal of Personality, 31(4), 559-569.
Lau, V., Au, W., & Ho, J.(2003). A qualitative and quantitative review of antecedents of counterproductive behavior in organizations. Journal or Business and Psychology, 18(1), 73-98.
Locke, E.A.(1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunette (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H.(2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 647-660.
Marcus, B., Wagner, U., Poole, A., Powell, D., & Carswell, J.(2009). The relationship of GMA to counterproductive work behavior revisited. European Journal of Personality, 23, 489-507. doi:10.1002/per.728
Merrett, F. (2006). Reflections on the Hawthorne effect. Educational Psychology, 26(1), 143-146.
Mikulay, S., Neuman, G., & Finkelstein, L.(2001). Counterproductive workplace behaviors.
Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 127(3), 279-300.
Miles, J.R., Paquin, J.D, & Kivlighan, D.M.(2011). Amount and consistency, two components
90
of group norms: An actor partner interdependence analysis of intimate behaviors in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice. doi: 10.1037/a0024676 Mitra, A., Jenkins, D.J. & Gupta, N. (1992). A metaanalytic review of the relationship
between absence and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 897-889.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and
counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personal Psychology, 59, 591–622.
Naumann, S.E. (2010). The effects of norms and self-monitoring on helping behavior.
Journal of Business Behavioral Studies, 2, 1-10.
Nederhof, A.J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263-280.
Nejati, M, Salamzadeh, Y, & Farzad, F.S. (2010). Work values in an Iranian context.
Technics Technologies Education Management,5(1), 166-177.
Ness R.V., Melinsky K., Buff C.L., & Seifert C.F. (2010). Work ethic: Do new employees mean new work values? Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(1), 10-34.
Oppler, E., Lyons, B., Ricks, D., & Oppler, S. (2008). The relationship between financial history and counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(4), 416-420.
Parry, E.,Urvin, P.(2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79-96.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003) Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Reno, R.R., Cialdini, R.B., & Kallgren, C.A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 104-112.
Reynolds, W.M.(1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the
Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119-125.
Roberts, B., Harms, P., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.(2007). Predicting the counterproductive employee in a child-to-adult prospective study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1427-1436.
Robinson, S.L., & Greenberg, J.(1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions,
determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In C.L Cooper & D.M.
Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizational Behavior, Vol.5 (pp. 1-30). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ros, M., Schwartz, S.H, & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 49 -71.
Rossi, P.H., Sampson, W.A., Bose, C.E., Jasso. G. & Passel, J. (1974). Measuring household
91
social standing. Social Science Research, 3, 169-190.
Sackett, P.(2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of selection and Assessment, 10(1), 5-11.
Sackett, P., & Devore, C.J.(2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D.Ones, H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Work, and Organizational Psychology, Vol.1 (pp.145-164). New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human value? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45.
Semmer, N., Tschan, F., Meier, L., Facchin, S., & Jacobshagen, N. (2010). Illegitimate tasks and counterproductive work behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(1), 70-96.
Sir Arthur Lewis Community college website. Retrieved from http://www.salcc.edu.lc, November 20, 2011.
Smithikrai, C.(2008). Moderating effect of situational strength on the relationship between personality traits and counterproductive work behavior. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 11, 253-263. doi: 10.1111j.1467-839X.2008.00265.x
Spector, P.(2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior: An integration of perspectives. Human Resource Management Review,21, 342-352.
Spector, P., & Fox, S.(2010). Counterproductive work behavior and organizational
citizenship behavior: Are they opposite forms of active behavior? Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 59(1), 21-39.
Strahan, R., Gerbasi, K.C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28 (2), 191-193.
Super, D. E. (1970). Manual for the Work Value Inventory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Taylor, B.J.(2006). Factorial surveys: Using vignettes to study professional judgment.
British Journal of Social Work, 36, 1187-1207. doi:10.1093bjsw/bch345
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M.A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 (8), 776-793.
Veal, W.R. (2002). Content specific vignettes as tools for research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(4), 1-37.
Warr, P. (2008). Work values: Some demographic and cultural correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 751-775.
Wu, J., & Lebreton, J.(2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality. Personnel Psychology, 64, 593-626.
Yalom, I.(1995). The practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Zhang, D., Wang, D., Yang, Y., & Teng, F. (2007). Do personality traits predict work values of Chinese college students? Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal,
92 35(9), 1281-1293.
Zytowski, D.G. (1994). A super contribution to vocational theory: Work values. Career Development Quarterly, 43(1), 25 - 35.
93
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE A
Dear Respondent,
Thank you for participating in this study. The topic of my thesis is “The effect of work values and group norms on work behavior: An empirical study of St. Lucia’s young workers”. This questionnaire consists of 4 sections, with a total of 43 items. Your responses will be kept confidential and your feedback is appreciated.
Germaine Mitchel
Section A: Demographics
Sex: Male Female How often do you attend church?
Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Very often
Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Very often