This chapter presents the theoretical basis of the study by presenting existing literature on the variables to be examined. It provides detailed definitions, relevant information and explanations on all of the variables and by so doing will enable the reader to fully understand and appreciate the study. More importantly, the hypotheses and the basis from which they were derived are presented in this chapter.
Counterproductive Work Behavior Definition and Categories of CWB
Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is defined as “any intentional behavior on the part of an organization member viewed by the organization as contrary to its legitimate interests.” (Sackett, 2002, p. 5). According to this definition, whether behavior is considered counterproductive would depend on whether or not the organization views it as such.
Therefore, a behavior may be frequently performed by many employees within the organization and as a result is not viewed as deviant among employees because it does violate the group norm. However, this behavior may be considered counterproductive by the organization because it is contrary to its interests (Sackett, 2002). Another important characteristic of counterproductive work behavior is that it represents behaviors that are discretionary, that is, individuals make conscious choices about whether or not to engage in such behaviors (Mount, Ilies & Johnson, 2006).
Although most commonly referred to as counterproductive work behavior (Bayram, Gursakal & Bilgel, 2009; Bowling, Burns & Beechr, 2010; Bowling & Gruys, 2010; Hitlan
& Noel, 2009; Jones, 2009; Khan, Afzal & Zia, 2010; Lau, Au & Ho, 2003; Marcus &
Schuler, 2004; Mikulay, Neuman & Finkelstein, 2001; Sackett, 2002; Semmer, Tschan, Meier, Facchin & Jacobshagen, 2010; Spector, 2011; Spector & Fox, 2010; Wu & Lebreton, 2011) this type of behavior is also called workplace deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000;
10
Diefendorff & Mehta, 2007) as well as deviant workplace behaviors (Appelbaum & Shapiro, 2006). Despite the different terms used to refer to this type of behavior the examples presented are the same. The most commonly cited examples are theft, absenteeism, vandalism, poor performance, gossip and violence (Appelbaum & Shapiro, 2006).
Hollinger and Clark (1983) lay the foundation for the study of counterproductive work behaviors by developing a list of counterproductive behaviors and collecting self-report data from a large number of employees in different industries. They suggested that counterproductive behaviors can be grouped into two categories, namely; property deviance and production deviance. In 1995, Robinson and Bennett developed a typology of workplace deviance in which they classified deviant behaviors along two dimensions based on the severity (minor versus serious) and target (organizational versus interpersonal).
Gruys and Sackett (2003) used existing literature to identify 87 separate counterproductive behaviors which they then categorized into 11 categories based on the domains which the behavior encompassed. Table 2.1 presents these categories.
The categories of interest in this study are misuse of resources and misuse of information. There are thirteen (13) specific behaviors listed in these categories. However, only eight will be examined by this study. The behaviors under misuse of resources to be examined are as follows: spend time on the internet for reasons not related to work, make personal calls at work, make personal copies at work, use email for personal purposes and play computer games during work time. Behaviors under misuse of information to be examined are as follows: discuss clients’ confidential matters with unauthorized personnel, lie to supervisors to cover up a mistake and intentionally fail to give coworkers necessary information (Gruys and Sackett, 2003).
These categories and particular counterproductive work behaviors were chosen for several reasons. First, they are the more subtle and less studied forms of CWB. Second,
11
these behaviors can be easily described and captured in vignettes. Finally, these behaviors are associated with less negative social desirability then other forms of CWB such as theft and vandalism. If they are viewed as less socially undesirable then respondents may be more willing to admit that they would engage in these behaviors.
Table 2.1
Gruys and Sackett: 11 Categories of Counterproductive Work Behavior
Note. From “Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality”, by J. Wu and J. Lebreton. 2011, Personnel Psychology, 64, p.
595. New York, USA: Wiley Periodicals.
Table 2.2 classifies the category of counterproductive work behavior to be examined in this study as minor in severity with the organization as the target.
12 Table 2.2
Gruys and Sackett 11 Categories of Counterproductive Work Behavior Categorized Using Robinson and Bennett Typology
Note. From “Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality”, by J. Wu and J. Lebreton. 2011, Personnel Psychology, 64, p.
595. New York, USA: Wiley Periodicals.
Effects of CWB
Counterproductive work behaviors are estimated to cost organizations billions each year (Appelbaum, 2006; Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Milkulay et. Al, 2001; Lau et. Al, 2003;
Bowling & Gruys, 2010). Researchers suggest that the total cost lies between $6 to $200 billion annually (Appelbaum, 2006; Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Employee theft alone is estimated to cost between $40 to $120 billion (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). It has also been suggested that these behaviors may be responsible for as much as 30% of all business failures (Fine, Horowitz, Weigler & Basis, 2010). Counterproductive work behavior affects all organizations, in all industries and at all levels. Bennett and Robinson (2000) describe workplace deviance as a “pervasive and expensive problem for organizations (p.349).
According to Bowling and Gruys (2010), the estimates represent “direct costs” (p.54) and do not include or reflect the negative consequences that CWBs have on the well-being
13
of the organizations and their members. They point to the indirect costs which result from CWB. These include loss of productivity, decline in staff morale, damage to the organization’s reputation, loss of customers as well as damage to the mental and physical health of individuals. Jones (2009) suggests that coworkers’ job performance and level of cooperation also suffer when an individual or individuals within a work group engage in CWB. Appelbaum and Shapiro (2006), also include loss of work time, high rate of turnover and employee stress in their list of indirect costs. In their 2010 study on the impact of CWB in Pakistan, Khan et. al. found that CWB has a negative and significant impact on organizational performance. They also suggest that CWB decreases the efficiency of organizations especially as it relates to the utilization of resources. In summary, there is general consensus among scholars that CWB is pervasive and affects organizations directly (financial loss) as well as indirectly. Moreover, the total or overall cost of CWB cannot be accurately estimated and is most likely staggering.
Antecedents of CWB
Most researchers believe that CWB is the manifestation of a latent trait whether individual or situational (Marcus and Schuler, 2004). Robinson and Greenberg (1998) describe antecedents as stemming from three broad sources, namely, individual factors, social factors and interpersonal factors as well as organizational factors. Sackett and Devore (2001) followed suit by presenting six CWB antecedent categories. These are personality variables, job characteristics, work group characteristics, organizational culture, and injustice and control systems. According to Bennett and Robinson (2003) research that (a) considered workplace deviance as a reaction to experiences at work and (b) examined workplace deviance as a reflection of employees’ personality have been most prevalent.
Over the past decade, a large body of research has focused on examining the effects of various personality traits on counterproductive work behavior. These include the five
14
factor model (specifically agreeableness, emotional stability and conscientiousness), trait anger, aggression, negative affectivity, locus of control and self- control (Spector, 2011).Wu and Lebreton (2011) added to this list by suggesting a link with aberrant personality traits, namely; narcissism, machiavellianism and psychopathy. Undoubtedly, personality is one of the most commonly examined antecedents of counterproductive work behavior. Other commonly used personal factors include integrity or honesty (Oppler et. al, 2008), job satisfaction, motivation, demographics (Lau et. al, 2003), revenge motive (Hung, Chi & Lu, 2009) and mental ability (Marcus, Wagner, Poole, Powell & Carswell, 2009).
A wide range of situational factors as antecedents of CWB have also been studied.
These include organizational justice/injustice, stress, coworker/supervisor interaction and group norms. Lau et. al (2003), divided situational variables (factors) into three categories, namely, organizational, work and contextual. Organizational factors encompass supervisory monitoring, group influence, organizational policy and organizational characteristics.
Antecedents related to the job fall under the work category. These include job complexity, high-risk occupations and task independence. The contextual factors category refers to a mix of variables in the environment that is relevant to the individual’s decision to engage or refrain from CWB. These include employment rate, economic prosperity and opportunity.
There is general agreement among scholars that CWB is influenced by both individual and situational factors (Mikulay et. al., 2001). However, there is no conclusive research to suggest which set of factors exert the most influence. This is because there is such a wide range of personal and situational factors as well as combinations of the two to be examined or tested. Thus, there is still a large gap in research and for this reason the personal versus situational factors debate is ongoing.
While it is impossible to review all of the studies examining the antecedents of CWB conducted over the last ten years, the following table (2.3) provides a review of some
15 recent research.
Table 2.3
Review of Recent Research on the Antecedents of Counterproductive Work Behavior
Author Antecedent CWB Findings
Mikulay,
CWB is influenced by both individual characteristics and situational factors. There was limited support for an
interactional relationship between person and situational factors as a motivation for CWB. Integrity of participants had a consistent impact on the likelihood of CWB
The level of influence depends on the values of situational factors particularly opportunity.
The effects of the other antecedents depend on the
16 Table 2.3 (continued)
Author Antecedent CWB Findings
Diefendorff more prone to commit CWB in young adulthood and these
Financial history All forms of CWB
17
Note. This table was compiled by the author for the purpose of this study.
Table 2.3 (continued)
Author Antecedent CWB Findings
Hung, Chi and
Jones (2009) Situational: injustice Personal: desire for revenge
Interpersonal and organizational CWB
Employees tend to direct their CWB toward the source of perceived mistreatment. Desires for revenge explain part but not all CWB
Theft All three variables were moderately related to CWB. associated with all forms of CWB. Illegitimate tasks were
18
Demographics and Counterproductive Work Behavior
Several studies have yielded findings about demographics and counterproductive work behavior. Age, tenure, sex, economic condition, family size, family responsibility, educational level as well as religious participation have all been examined with reference to CWB. Mikulay et. al. (2001), propose that new, younger and part-time workers are most likely to engage in CWB. Hollinger and Clark in their 1983 study also discovered higher levels of CWB among this group. Fine et. al (2010), also concede that this group is more prone to CWB and suggest that this is so because these individuals tend to hold lower status and lower paying jobs and may be less committed, loyal and satisfied than other employees.
In their study of attendance behavior, Bowling, Burns and Beehr (2010) found that when compared with older workers, younger workers were more likely to arrive to work late.
Similarly, Semmer et al. (2010) found that older workers generally engaged in less CWB especially towards the organization. Gruys and Sackett (2003) reported similar findings, specifically a significant negative relationship between age and CWB.
Studies have also found that males engage in more CWB than females (Henle, 2005;
Lau, Au & Ho, 2003). Bowling et. al (2010) found that men were more likely to engage in early departure than women. Diefendorff and Mehta (2007) reported that “sex was a significant predictor of both [interpersonal and organizational] forms of deviance, with men being more likely to engage in deviant behavior” (p.975).
Studies examining the relationship between tenure and CWB have yielded mixed results. In a 1977 study, workers with longer tenure had higher rates of absenteeism, while a 1996 study revealed that workers with shorter tenure were late more often (Lau, Au &Ho, 2003). Milkulay et al (2001) found that tenure had a negative relationship to all forms of CWB, while Diefendorff and Mehta (2007) found that tenure was positively related to interpersonal deviance. Gruys and Sackett (2003) examined both work experience and tenure
19
and reported that both had a negative relationship with all forms of CWB. Educational level was associated with higher CWB towards individuals (Semmer, et. al, 2010).
Economic conditions seem to affect CWB. Poor employees, those undergoing economic hardship as well as those with an unfavorable financial history were found to engage in more CWB specifically, drug and alcohol use, theft and misuse of resources (Lau, Au &Ho, 2003; Oppler et. al, 2008). Bayram et. al, (2009) found a significant negative relationship between monthly income and all forms of CWB.
Family size and family responsibility have also been linked to CWB. A study on absenteeism and lateness found that women with a larger number of dependents, those with elementary school children as well as those with large family sizes had higher rates of lateness and absenteeism. In general, workers with greater kinship responsibilities reported higher absence rates. Religious participation on the other hand showed a negative relationship to certain forms of CWB including, drug and alcohol use and theft (Lau, Au &Ho, 2003).
Having reviewed the findings of many previous studies, the following hypotheses regarding the relationship between demographic factors and CWB are therefore proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Demographics will have an effect on the propensity to engage in counterproductive work behaviors.
Hypothesis 1a: Males will generally display a higher propensity to engage in both misuse of resources and misuse of information.
Hypothesis 1b: Employees with high religious commitment will have a lower propensity to engage in both misuse of resources and misuse of information
Hypothesis 1c: Work experience in negatively related to the propensity to engage in CWB.
Hypothesis 1d: Employees of high socioeconomic status will have a lower propensity to engage in both misuse of resources and misuse of information.
20
Group Norms Defining group norms
Table 2.4 presents four definitions of group norms. These have all been used in various studies and all reflect similar core ideas or concepts about group norms.
Table 2.4
Definitions of Group Norms
Author(s) and Year Definition of Group Norms
Feldman, 1984 Group norms are the informal rules that groups adopt to regulate and regularize group members’ behavior
Yalom, 1995 Group norms are an unwritten code of behavioral rules that are rarely discussed explicitly and learned by observing the behavior of the other group members
Cialdini & Trost, 1998
Group norms are guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable behavior that develop through interactions among group members and are informally agreed on by group members
Mikulay et. al, 2001 Group norms- a normative context created by coworkers on the unacceptability (or acceptability) of a certain behavior
Note. This table was compiled by the author this study.
It should be noted that all definitions include the word behavior. This is because behavior is an essential component of norms and one of the key functions of group norms is to prescribe, regulate and influence behavior.
Group Behavioral Norms
Lieberman, Golant and Altman (2004) define group behavioral norms as “implicit or explicit shared agreements among group members about relevant behaviors, ways of thinking and modes of affective expression” (cited in Miles, Paquin & Kivlighan, 2011, p.2).
This definition is very similar to those of group norms. It is safe to assume then that group behavioral norms, in essence, govern or guide behavior. Although, one can argue that all group norms are essentially behavioral norms in that they all lead to or away from particular behavior. Moreover, all the definitions of group norms presented in table 2.4 include the
21
word “behavior” which suggests the group norms are essentially or primarily concerned with behavior. The focus of this study is group behavioral norms and this appears to be indistinguishable from group norms. Therefore the words group norms and group behavioral norms will be used interchangeably.
Characteristics of Group Norms
Several scholars suggest that the development of group norms is inevitable.
According to Yalom (1995), norms “must be established [to] guide the interaction of the group”. These norms usually develop gradually and informally as group members learn what behaviors are necessary for the group to function effectively. Group norms govern or guide all aspects of the group including relationships, interaction, leadership and behavior.
Norms provide the basis for predicting the behavior of others. They enable group members to anticipate each other’s actions. Norms can also provide justification for group activities to its members, emphasize the informal processes in organizations and reinforce the roles of individual members (Feldman, 1984). Most authors concede that group norms are mostly implicit but nevertheless have a strong and consistent influence on group members’
behavior (Cialdini, Kallgren & Reno, 1991; Cialdini &Trost, 1998; Deutsch & Gerald, 1955;
Feldman, 1984; Smithikrai, 2008; Reno, Cialdini & Kallgren, 1993; Yalom, 1995). The way in which group norms influence behavior will be examined in a separate section, attention will now be given to the various types and categories of norms.
Over the past few decades several authors have introduced ways of conceptualizing norms or refined existing concepts. Cialdini, Kallgren and Reno (1991) proposed the existence of two types of norms (descriptive and injunctive). Descriptive norms develop from observing what other group members do in certain situations. The more the group behaves in the same way in a given situation, the more likely it is that group members will view this behavior as appropriate and as a result are more likely to exhibit this behavior
22
themselves. Injunctive norms on the other hand, do not describe appropriate behavior but prescribes it. This means that group members conform to a certain norm in order to receive social approval.
Pillutla and Chen (1999) categorized group norms as implicit and perceived. Implicit norms refer to the behavioral expectation of what one “ought to do “in a given situation.
Perceived norms on the other hand refer to the observed behavior patterns from others in a given situation. They suggest that perceived norms more strongly influence group member’s behavior than implicit norms.
Miles et. al. (2011) recently developed a totally novel way of conceptualizing group norms. They admit that the old focus (of most past research) which is members’
perceptions of group norms is important however “equally or perhaps more powerful maybe the ways in which these perceptions of behavioral norms relate to the actual observable behaviors within the group” (p.3). Prior to their breakthrough study in 2011; there was “no research on how the observable behaviors of the other group members relates to the behavior of the individual group members” (p.3). In the study, they conceptualized group behavioral norms as consisting of two components: amount and consistency. Amount refers to the average amount of the behavior exhibited in the group where as consistency refers to the extent to which all members exhibit the behaviors. When the amount of a behavior being displayed in a group is high, this means that some members engage in the given behavior very often, others infrequently and others may not engage at all (in such a situation the mean amount is high). When there is consistency in a group behavioral norms it means that all the members engage in the observed behavior at approximately the same amount (in such a situation standard deviation of observed behavior among group members will be low). This new conceptualization has only been investigated in one study and the results prove that this is a valid way to examine the influence of group behavioral norms on
23
individual behavior (Miles et.al, 2011). Amount and consistency are the two factors of group norms which will be investigated in this study.
Group Norms and Work Groups
Group norms within work groups are of particular interest in this study. Like all other groups, work groups develop distinct norms which serve the purposes highlighted in
Group norms within work groups are of particular interest in this study. Like all other groups, work groups develop distinct norms which serve the purposes highlighted in