The Effect of Group Norms and Personal Work Values on Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors: An Empirical Study of St. Lucia’s Young Workers

全文

(1)The Effect of Group Norms and Personal Work Values on Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors: An Empirical Study of St. Lucia’s Young Workers. by Germaine Ann Mitchel. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of. MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: Dr. C. Rosa Yeh, Ph.D. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan June, 2012.

(2)

(3) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like express my heartfelt thanks to my Advisor Dr. Rosa Yeh for her guidance, helpful suggestions and patience. I couldn’t have chosen a better advisor. She always had the answers to my questions, was always willing to help and taught me so much. I would also like to thank Dr. Tsai, Dr. Chang and Dr. Lai, for teaching me about research. I would like to express my appreciation to Taiwan ICDF for making it possible for me to pursue this course of study. Special thanks to the young workers who so willingly participated in this study. Last but not least, I want to thank my family for their support and encouragement. I would also like to say a special thank you to Edwin for his companionship, reassurance and encouragement..

(4)

(5) ABSTRACT This research examined the influence of personal (demographics and work values) and situational (group behavioral norms) factors on the propensity to engage in counterproductive work behaviors (misuse of resources and misuse of information) among Business Administration graduates. A quantitative vignette or factorial survey approach was used in the study. Three questionnaires, containing a subset of vignettes representing different factors of the situational variable, were administered to respondents. A range of statistical analysis methods namely Pearson’s correlation, hierarchical regression, T-tests and one-way ANOVA was used to test the sixteen (16) proposed hypotheses. Results indicate that none of the examined demographic variables had a significant influence on the propensity to engage in CWB. Of the five work values examined, only three had a significant influence on the propensity to engage in CWB. The hypothesized relationships between group behavioral norms and the propensity to engage in CWB received little overall support. In addition, post- hoc interviews found that the study was affected by social desirability bias, Hawthorne effect as well as limitations in design. Keywords: Counterproductive work behavior, Work values. I.

(6) II.

(7) TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ......................................................................................................................I Table of Contents .......................................................................................................III List of Tables ..............................................................................................................V List of Figures ............................................................................................................VII. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1 Background of the Study ...................................................................................1 Problem Statement .............................................................................................2 Sample Setting ...................................................................................................2 Purpose of Study ................................................................................................3 Research Questions ............................................................................................4 Contribution of Study ........................................................................................4 Limitations .........................................................................................................6 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................6. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................. 9 Counterproductive Work Behavior ....................................................................9 Demographics and Counterproductive Work Behavior .....................................18 Group Norms .....................................................................................................20 Group Behavioral Norms and Counterproductive Work Behavior ....................26 Work Values .......................................................................................................30 Work Values and Counterproductive Work Behavior ........................................34 Social Desirability and Response Bias ............................................................38. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 41 Research Framework .........................................................................................41 Hypotheses .........................................................................................................42 Research Method ...............................................................................................43 III.

(8) Sample Setting ...................................................................................................45 Instruments .........................................................................................................45 Data Collection ..................................................................................................48 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................50 Research Procedure ............................................................................................51. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS .............................. 53 Descriptive Statistics ..........................................................................................53 Correlational Analysis ........................................................................................55 Hypotheses Testing ............................................................................................58 Post-Hoc Interviews ...........................................................................................70 Findings..............................................................................................................71 Discussions ........................................................................................................76. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS..................... 81 Conclusions ........................................................................................................81 Practical Implications.........................................................................................82 Research Implications ........................................................................................82 Limitations .........................................................................................................84 Suggestions for Future Research .......................................................................85. REFERENCES........................................................................................ 87 APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE A ...................................................... ...93 APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE B ...................................................... ...99 APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE C ...................................................... ...105 APPENDIX D: LETTER GRANTING PERMISSION ................................ ..111. IV.

(9) LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Categories of Counterproductive Work Behavior .....................................11. Table 2.2. Robinson and Bennett Typology ...............................................................12. Table 2.3. Review of Recent Research on the Antecedents of CWB ........................15. Table 2.4. Definitions of Group Norms .....................................................................20. Table 2.5. Tracing the Concept of Work Values.........................................................30. Table 2.6 Super’s Work Values .................................................................................33 Table 3.1. Results of Reliability Testing for Scale Items ...........................................48. Table 4.1. Results of Descriptive Statistics ................................................................53. Table 4.2. Descriptive Statistics (means and standard deviations) ............................54. Table 4.3. Results of Correlational Analysis ..............................................................57. Table 4.4. Results of Independent Sample T-test (gender) ........................................58. Table 4.5. Results of Linear Regression (religious commitment) .............................59. Table 4.6. Results of One-Way ANOVA (experience and socioeconomic status) .....60. Table 4.7. Results of One-Way ANOVA (factors of group norms) ............................62. Table 4.8. Results of Scheffe’s Multiple Comparison Test ........................................62. Table 4.9. Results of Hierarchical Regression (misuse of resources) ......................66. Table 4.10. Results of Hierarchical Regression (misuse of information) ..................67. Table 4.11. Overview of Hypothesis Testing .............................................................68. Table 4.12. Post-Hoc Interview Participants ..............................................................70. Table 4.13. Reasons for Interviewees’ Responses ...................................................72. Table 4.14. Overview and Frequency of Responses for Question 3 ..........................73. Table 4.15. Responses for Question 3 Classified According to Theory ....................74. V.

(10) VI.

(11) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. Research framework ................................................................................41. Figure 3.2. Data collection process ............................................................................49. Figure 3.3. Research procedure .................................................................................51. VII.

(12) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. This chapter provides a general overview of the study. It includes a brief introduction, problem statement, describes the sample setting and provides details such as the purpose of the study, research questions, and contribution of study, limitations and delimitations as well as definition of key terms.. Background of the Study Counterproductive work behavior is a pervasive and expensive problem that affects organizations all over the world. Much research has focused on studying this issue. However, developing countries are sadly underrepresented and ignored. Moreover, despite the large volume of research carried out over the past decade there is still lots of uncharted territory. Although many situational and personal variables (as well as combinations of these) have been studied, there are still many yet to be examined and methodological approaches that are still underutilized. Research that examines employees’ work behavior is always relevant and in demand. This is because an organization’s success is often heavily dependent on the conduct of individual employees. This is especially true when it comes to counterproductive work behavior (CWB). This study examined the relationship between demographic variables, namely; sex, religious commitment, work experience as well as socioeconomic status and CWB. The other independent variables that were examined with relation to CWB are group behavioral norms (situational factor) and work values (personal factor). Also important is the relationship between the mentioned independent variables and CWB among young workers. Group behavioral norms involve patterns (norms) of CWB behavior which is displayed within a work group. The study examined how these behavioral norms affect a person’s propensity to engage in CWB. Work values are what people consider important to them in a work context. Examples of these are security, economic returns and independence. Several 1.

(13) studies have suggested that there is a link between demographics and CWB. Also documented (by more than five studies), is the relationship between group norms and CWB. Although it appears that there has been no previous research directly examining the relationship between work values and CWB, they appear to be related. This relationship was also examined in this study.. Problem Statement The 19 -25 age group is a vital part of St. Lucia’s workforce. Members of this group occupy many entry –level positions in all economic sectors. Research has suggested that CWB is a major problem in organizations and that most CWB is covert. Moreover, it is suggested that younger workers are more likely to engage in CWB. To date there appears to be no studies on CWB conducted in St. Lucia among young workers. In addition, researchers have yet to determine an exact set of antecedents which contribute to CWB. Consequently, employers have very little knowledge and awareness of CWB and the factors that contribute to it. Also there appears to be no studies examining the combination of antecedents proposed by this study. As a result their impact on CWB is unknown. This study will help to fill in the knowledge void which exists regarding CWB.. Sample Setting St. Lucia is a small nation (population of approximately 165,595) located in the Eastern Caribbean. The country, a former French and then British colony, gained independence in 1979. Many of the social institutions including Government, Judiciary, and Education are patterned after the British system. Compulsory education begins at Primary school and lasts for seven years, this followed by five years of Secondary education at the end of which students write the Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) exams to obtain their first set of work relevant qualifications. Some students (who perform well at CXC) move on to tertiary level studies. The most popular tertiary level programs are Advanced 2.

(14) Level studies in selected subjects and Diploma or Associates degree programs in Business Administration, Hospitality Studies, Technical/Vocational Studies, Agricultural Studies, Nursing and Teacher Education. These programs are all offered by the Sir Arthur Lewis Community College, the only tertiary level institution on the island. It is customary for young people to work after they finish either Secondary school or a two year tertiary level education. Most of them work several years before going back to school for a Bachelors degree. The largest age groups within St. Lucia’s population are 20-24 and 15-19. Less than 1% of the population holds a university degree (stats.gov.lc). These figures draw attention to the importance of young workers to the viability and overall productivity of the workforce. Majority of the entry level positions in all economic sectors are occupied by young people with tertiary and secondary education. The information presented above highlights the importance of examining the influence of personal and situational factors on the propensity to engage in counterproductive work behavior among the Business Administration graduates of the Sir Arthur Lewis community college.. Purpose of Study The main purposes of this study were: 1) To examine/determine the influence of situational factors (group behavioral norms) and personal factors (demographics and work values) on the propensity to engage in counterproductive work behaviors (misuse of resources and information) among Business Administration graduates. 2) To examine the interaction between situational factors (group behavioral norms) and personal factors (work values) on the propensity to engage in counterproductive work behaviors (misuse of resources and information) among Business Administration 3.

(15) graduates.. Research Questions The following research questions guided the study: 1) What influence does the following demographic variables: sex, religious commitment, work experience and socioeconomic status; have on the propensity to engage in CWB (misuse of resources and information) among business administration graduates? 2) What influence does amount and consistency in group norms have on the propensity to engage in CWB (misuse of resources and information) among business administration graduates? 3) What influence does the following work values: security, economic returns, associates and independence; have on the propensity to engage in CWB (misuse of resources and information) among business administration graduates? 4) Are the previously mentioned work values moderated by group norms in influencing the propensity to engage in CWB (misuse of resources and information) among business administration graduates?. Contribution of Study One of the major contributions of this study is that it employs an uncommon, and in some instances, a novel approach to the study of Counterproductive work behavior (CWB). Most of the studies carried out over the past ten years clamp all forms of CWB together. Few existing studies examine specific forms of counterproductive work behavior. The studies that do separate CWB, all focus on the more extreme forms such as theft and violence. This study takes a novel approach by focusing on the more subtle forms, namely misuse of resources and misuse of information. Also, it appears that no previous research has used work values as a personal factor in the study of CWB. In addition, this study uses a new conceptualization of group norms developed by Miles, Paquin and Kivlighan (2011). 4.

(16) This is the first time this is being used to study counterproductive work behavior. Moreover, the proposed quantitative vignette design has not been used very often to study CWB. The other contributions of the study are as follows. First, it is a contribution to the ongoing body of research which examines the influence of personal and situational factors on counterproductive work behavior. It examines a different combination of personal and situational factors and also focuses on less studied forms of counterproductive behavior. Moreover, it will be conducted in a developing country, an area that is underrepresented in this and most other types of research. Second, it is important to examine this issue of personal versus situational factors because such an inquiry can inform the formulation and adoption of organizational policies. This type of research can provide justification for the tailoring of practices within organizations. A tailoring of practices might be as basic as asking a job candidate questions that would help to deduce his/her work values or as complex as administering ethics or personality tests. Other practices might involve monitoring and implementing policies to influence norms so that counterproductive work behavior is discouraged or reduced. In addition, such research builds awareness of counterproductive work behavior among managers and decision makers. This awareness is important since counterproductive work behavior can harm organizations in a variety of ways including affecting the bottom line. Moreover, the less examined, more subtle forms of counterproductive work behavior such as those examined in this research can be just as harmful to organizations. Yet they have not been given as much attention as other more extreme forms of counterproductive work behavior such as theft and violence. This research contributes to this neglected niche. Finally, it is beneficial to carry out this research among Business Administration graduates because this is the most popular area of tertiary level study. Moreover, graduates of this department occupy many of the entry level positions in the public and private sector. 5.

(17) These positions include customer service representatives, tellers, cashiers, sales and accounting clerks, receptionists and administrative and office assistants (salcc.edu.lc “Job Training data”, 2004 - 2010). They can be considered a core or critical group within St. Lucia’s workforce. For all of these reasons, they are worthy of consideration in research such as this, especially since a high level of counterproductive work behavior among this group can be very troublesome for employers.. Limitations This research examined only the listed personal factors (demographics and work values) and situational factors (group behavioral norms) on the propensity to engage in counterproductive work behavior namely, misuse of resources and misuse of information among Business Administration graduates in St. Lucia. Therefore, the findings or results cannot be generalized beyond the given population. The interactions examined are among a limited number of situational and personal factors with a limited number of counterproductive work behaviors and as a result the, findings by no means settle the ongoing debate on which factors (situational or personal) are most dominant in influencing counterproductive work behavior.. Definition of Terms Counterproductive work behavior is “any intentional behavior on the part of an organization member viewed by the organization as contrary to its legitimate interests” (Sackett, 2002, p.5) Personal Factors can be defined as conditions/predispositions/characteristics which exist within or are part of an individual’s make up or psyche. The personal factors examined in this research are demographics and work values. Demographics are descriptive characteristics which can be used to classify individuals. Demographic variables to be examined are gender, religious commitment, work experience and socioeconomic status. 6.

(18) Work values “refer to what a person wants out of work in general and also which components of a job are important to their work satisfaction” (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007, p.359). Work values to be examined are security, economic returns, achievement, associates and independence. Situational Factors are conditions (tangible or intangible) that exist within the work environment. The situational factor to be examined is group behavioral norms. Group behavioral norms are “implicit or explicit shared agreements among group members about relevant behaviors, ways of thinking and modes of affective expression” (Miles, Paquin & Kivlighan, 2011, p.2).. 7.

(19) 8.

(20) CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW. 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; 9.

(21) 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, 10.

(22) 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. 11.

(23) 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 12.

(24) 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 13.

(25) 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 14.

(26) recent research. Table 2.3 Review of Recent Research on the Antecedents of Counterproductive Work Behavior Author Mikulay, Neuman and Finkelstein (2001). Marcus and Schuler (2004). Mount, Ilies and Johnson (2006). Antecedent Personal: integrity Situational: group norms, risk, desirability. CWB. Findings. All forms of CWB. 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 Situational: triggers, All forms of Self-control exerts an influence opportunities CWB on counterproductive behavior. Personal: self-control, The level of influence depends propensities on the values of situational factors particularly opportunity. The effects of the other antecedents depend on the absence of effective internal constraints Personality traits and Interpersonal and Agreeableness had a direct job satisfaction organizational relationship with interpersonal CWB CWB; Conscientiousness had a direct relationship with organizational CWB and job satisfaction had a direct relationship to both interpersonal and organizational CWB. Job satisfaction partially mediated the relationship between Agreeableness and both types of CWB (continued) 15.

(27) Table 2.3 (continued) Author Diefendorff and Mehta (2007). Roberts et.al (2007). Oppler, Lyons, Ricks (2008) Hitlan and Noel (2009). Antecedent Motivational traits: personal mastery, competitive excellence and behavioral activation system (BAS) sensitivity Personality: avoidance motivation Personal: background factors- diagnosed adolescent conduct disorder, criminal conviction records, intelligence, personality traits Situational: work conditions Financial history. Situational: work place inclusion Personal: personality (Big 5). CWB. Findings. Interpersonal and Personal mastery was negatively organizational related to deviance, BAS CWB sensitivity was positively related to deviance and competitive excellence was unrelated to deviance. Avoidance motivation was positively related to organizational deviance. All forms of CWB. People diagnosed with childhood conduct disorder were more prone to commit CWB in young adulthood and these associations are mediated by personality traits. Criminal convictions that occurred before entering the workforce were unrelated to CWB. All forms of Employees with undesirable CWB financial history were significantly more likely to engage in CWB Interpersonal and Exclusion by coworkers was organizational related to interpersonal CWB CWB while exclusion by supervisors was related to organizational CWB. The relationship between exclusion and personality was strongest for employees exhibited less behavioral constraints. (continued). 16.

(28) Table 2.3 (continued) Author. Antecedent. Hung, Chi and Perceived coworker Lu (Taiwan, loafing 2009). Jones (2009). Situational: injustice Personal: desire for revenge. Fine, Horowitz, Weigler and Basis (2010). Personal: integrity, demographics Situational: employee engagement, security control norms. Semmer et. al (2010). Study 1: illegitimate tasks, effort- reward imbalance Study 2: illegitimate tasks, organizational justice and personality (conscientiousness, agreeableness). CWB. Findings. Interpersonal and Perceived loafing was positively organizational related to Organizational and CWB Interpersonal CWB. A revenge motive towards the organization fully mediated the relationship between perceived loafing and organizational CWB. A revenge motive towards coworkers fully mediated the relationship between perceived loafing and Interpersonal CWB Interpersonal and Employees tend to direct their organizational CWB toward the source of CWB perceived mistreatment. Desires for revenge explain part but not all CWB Theft All three variables were moderately related to CWB. Employee engagement and security control norms moderated the relationship between integrity and CWB All forms of Illegitimate tasks were CWB associated with all forms of CWB. Illegitimate tasks were associated more strongly with CWB directed against the organization. Conscientiousness predicted organizational CWB whereas agreeableness predicted interpersonal CWB. Note. This table was compiled by the author for the purpose of this study.. 17.

(29) 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 18.

(30) 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.. 19.

(31) 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 Feldman, 1984 Yalom, 1995. Cialdini & Trost, 1998 Mikulay et. al, 2001. Definition of Group Norms Group norms are the informal rules that groups adopt to regulate and regularize group members’ behavior 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 Group norms are guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable behavior that develop through interactions among group members and are informally agreed on by group members 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 20.

(32) 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 21.

(33) 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 22.

(34) 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 the preceding definitions. These norms serve to predict, govern and guide members’ behavior as well as ensure the survival of the group. An understanding of how these norms develop is important to the overall appreciation of how they work. According to Feldman (1984), most (work) group norms develop in one or more of the following ways; explicit statements by supervisors (or important group members) or coworkers, critical events in the group’s history, primacy and carry-over behaviors from past situations. Supervisors (who are not necessarily part of the group) can establish norms by communicating expectations for the group. Similarly group leaders or important members can explicitly set norms about behaviors such as attendance or absence. Critical events in the group’s history help to establish precedent and also reflect lessons that the group has learnt from the past and as a result are translated into norms that may help to avoid (if the event was negative) or ensure the reoccurrence (if the event was beneficial) of these events. Primacy refers to the first behavior pattern that emerges in a group which tends to set group expectations. Therefore, in order to continue to fulfill these expectations, norms are established. Norms that develop through primacy often do so to simplify what behavior is expected of group members. Carry over refers to situations where individual group members bring with them expectations and behaviors from other work groups that they belonged to previously. If these norms serve the new or current situation then they may take root and become part of the new group (Feldman, 1984).. 23.

(35) Norms and Individual Behavior Norms function through what is referred to as social controls. People have a need to belong and to gain approval and acceptance from others. These basic human needs are the reasons why group norms are so powerful. Norms are enforced through rewards and punishment (Ehrhart & Nauman, 2004). Essentially when a person conforms to group norms they are rewarded with acceptance and social approval. On the other hand, failure to conform to norms might lead to sanctions or punishment such as rejection, isolation and exclusion. One of the key functions of group norms is to define the legitimate power of the group over the individual; this is done through punishing norm infractions (Feldman, 1984). Several theories have been developed to explain how norms influence human behavior. Social Learning Theory developed by Bandura (1971) asserts that people learn appropriate or acceptable behavior through observing and imitating the behavior of others. The desire or motivation to imitate or reproduce others’ behavior is provided through either positive (rewards, social acceptance) or negative (punishment, exclusion) reinforcement. The theory also purports that the more productive the work behavior that is modeled by one’s group members, the more likely it is that one will behave in accordance with these models, especially when the behavior has positive social consequences. For example, seeing others behave counterproductively (with little or no punishment) causes individuals to expect that they will encounter the same situation if they imitate these behaviors (Bandura, 1971). Thus, individuals are likely to engage in CWB if they believe that these behaviors will bring the same (pleasant) consequence that they observed through the behavior of others. According to Social Information processing theory, individuals tend to develop attitudes and behaviors that are aligned with normative group behaviors (Fine et. al, 2010). Both of these theories suggest that individuals are heavily influenced by the behavior of others especially the people they are in constant contact with. 24.

(36) Although not referred to as a theory, the concept of normative conduct was developed and made popular through several studies conducted by Cialdini, Reno and Kallgren. These have contributed to our understanding of how norms work to influence behavior in several ways. Firstly, in response to criticisms that norms are vague and cannot be adequately ascribed as a cause of behavior, they proposed that norms are neither “general nor vague” but rather there are specific types of norms. They argue that once the type of norm is established and made the focal point then the “magnitude of their power to guide human conduct can be appreciated” (Reno, Cialdini & Kallgren, 1993, p. 104). They divided norms into two types; injunctive and descriptive (these were previously defined). These ideas served as the basis for studies conducted by several other scholars who were able to not only prove the existence of these two types of norms but also their ability to influence behavior. Secondly, Cialdini et. al (1990), suggest that in order for norms to work (influence behavior) they have to be activated either by being made salient or by being focused on. One of the ways in which norms can be made salient is if there is clearly observable action. Nine studies on the effect of norms on littering behavior conducted in 1990, set up experiments in which subjects were exposed to several observable behaviors related to littering. Based on the results they concluded that norms “affect human behavior systematically and powerfully” (Cialdini, Kallgren & Reno, 1991, p.230). All of the studies found that when norm salience was high, subjects littered more (Cialdini, Kallgren & Reno, 1991). The idea of norm activation is very useful in designing studies based on group norms in that researchers have to ensure that the norms that they want to study are activated. In this study, the group norms concerning CWB are activated in two ways, first they are made salient (the vignette presents behavior that can be clearly observed) and secondly the situation presented in the vignette causes the respondent to focus on the norms being 25.

(37) displayed.. Group Behavioral Norms and Counterproductive Work Behavior Many scholars suggest that work group behavioral norms are one of the factors that influence counterproductive work behavior. Several studies have examined the influence of work group norms on CWB and other forms of work behavior. Some of these are presented below. One of the first studies to examine the effect of norms on CWB (referred to as deviance in the study) was conducted by Hollinger and Clark (1982). They concluded that informal sanctions and normative behavior by coworkers were more important in explaining both property and production deviance than the formal responses or controls initiated by management. Even before this often cited landmark study, Altheide, Adler, Adler and Altheide (1978) had proposed that normative behavior among fellow employees can determine not only the type but also the amount of CWB in an organization. This conclusion was drawn from a study which showed that individuals will seldom steal from their employers if that type of behavior is not tolerated by their coworkers (cited in Fine et. al, 2010). Another 1988 study also revealed that employees who had a close association with coworkers who stole were more likely to steal (Lau, Au &Ho, 2003). These are all breakthrough studies since at that time the concept of group norms was not as well defined as it is today and yet scholars were already realizing its influence on CWB. In 1991, Kamp and Brooks replicated Hollinger and Clark’s 1983 study of employee theft. Their findings supported most of the conclusions drawn in the earlier study. The study highlighted the importance of informal work group norms in regulating employee theft. It was found that coworker influence was stronger than management sanctions in encouraging and discouraging theft. Moreover, coworkers’ attitudes and behaviors predicted employee counterproductive behavior more strongly than management attitudes in three out of four 26.

(38) cases. Perceived coworker attitudes towards counter productivity helped to determine the employee’s own degree of participation in theft. Results also suggested that informal coworker sanctions are a stronger determinant of theft than formal management sanctions. All of the above conclusions were reached by Hollinger and Clark in 1983. Thus it can be seen that the influence of group norms on employee theft is as strong as ever. Kamp and Brooks (1991) also suggest that within each organization and within each level of the organization there exists a climate that can be unfavorable or favorable towards counterproductive behaviors. Group norms directly contribute to this climate in that if workers believe (perception of group norms) that their coworkers tolerate certain CWB then they are more likely to engage in that behavior. In addition to the findings presented previously, their study also suggests that organizations with a “tolerant climate” towards CWB tend to have higher rates of CWB than organizations with “a less tolerant climate” (p. 10). Mikulay et. al’s (2001) vignette quantitative study on the effect of various situational and personal factors on CWB found that, contrary to their expectations, counterproductive work behavior was not more likely to occur in a work setting where group norms were favorable to CWB. Their study, which focused particularly on absenteeism, theft and vandalism, revealed that these were not more likely to occur in a group environment that was not strongly opposed to CWB. These findings are starkly different from that of other studies on group norms and CWB. In an effort to account for the unexpected findings, the authors suggest that the use of vignettes might not have conveyed the norms in a realistic way and so participants did not internalize them. This is one of the few studies that have used this approach in examining group norms and CWB. Although they did not mention this in their discussion, Mikulay et. al may also consider the fact that they focused on the most socially undesirable forms of CWB (theft and vandalism) and this might have affected how 27.

(39) their vignettes were received by the participants. Perhaps the less severe and more common behaviors to be examined in this study will yield different results. In their 2004 study, Ehrhart and Nauman applied the concept of group norms to the study of Organizational Citizenship behavior (OCB). Their findings suggested that work groups develop norms about exhibiting OCB and these norms directly influenced the type and level of OCB that members engaged in. If group norms can influence OCB then it is not illogical to assume that the same is true for counterproductive work behavior. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that if work groups have norms about OCB then they may also have norms regarding CWB and that these norms would influence the type and level of CWB just as OCB norms influence the type and level of OCB.. Consistency and Amount in Group Behavioral Norms and CWB In their study Miles, Paquin and Kivilighan examined the relationship between group behavioral norms about intimate behavior and individual group members’ intimate behaviors in interpersonal growth groups and trauma recovery groups. They applied the newly developed concept of amount and consistency in group norms to the study. They introduced a new member into each of the two types of groups in order to answer the following questions: (1) if all the members of the group are engaging in all or most of the intimate behaviors (consistency in group norm) then would the newcomer consider this behavior to be a group norm and therefore engage in it as well? (2) what would the newcomer do if some of the group members engage in a large number of intimate behaviors and other members are engaging in few or no intimate behaviors? The results of the study suggested that amount was more influential than consistency. In essence the study does validate the proposed conceptualization and does suggest that this approach is beneficial for use in other studies. However, it is important to note that this was the first study to conceptualize group norms in this manner and also that it was carried out in groups that are 28.

(40) made up of people who would not necessarily fit popular societal stereotypes (inmates at a correctional facility and people attending therapy sessions). Using this concept to study work groups may yield different results. For the purpose of this study amount and consistency is defined as follows. Amount refers to a situation where the group mean of CWB is high, some of the group members frequently engage in a large number of CWBs while other members engage in a few or no CWBs (just as used in the study by Miles, Parquin and Kivlighan (2011). Consistency refers to a situation where standard deviation is low, the group mean is low/moderate and all the members of the group engage in all or most of the CWBs to be studied. Based on the findings of the many studies discussed previously, it is reasonable to assume that group norms have a direct relationship to CWB and that if an individual witnesses or observes coworkers engaging in CWB then he/she is more likely to engage in CWB. Moreover, the amount and consistency of CWB norms displayed within a group will influence a person’s propensity to engage in this behavior. Therefore the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 2: Amount and consistency in CWB group norms will have an effect on the propensity to engage in CWB. Hypothesis 2a: Consistency in CWB group norms will be positively related to the propensity of an individual to engage in both misuse of resources and misuse of information. Hypothesis 2b: Amount of CWB group norms will be positively related to the propensity of an individual to engage in both misuse of resources and misuse of information.. 29.

(41) Work Values The concept of work values has existed for several decades. Its definition, measurement and study have amassed a substantial body of research over the years. Table 2.5 traces the emergence of the concept of work values. Although it stops at 1985, researchers today are still using the measures and concepts of these early scholars to refine and contribute to the existing body of knowledge on Work values. Table 2.5 Tracing the Concept of Work Values Author. Year. Contribution. Super. 1950. From a study of career development of young men, he concluded that differences in values are indicators of different satisfactions individuals seek and derive from work (Zytowski, 1994) Term “work values” was used. Work values was considered as important as abilities and interests in an individual’s career development (Zytowski, 1994) First formal assessment of work values (Work Values Inventory WVI). He named 15 work values. (Grace & Lee, 1976) Raised the question of how many work values there are (Zytowski, 1994). 1957. 1970. Zytowski. 1970. Ginzberg, Alderfer. 1972. Identify two or three types of work values 1) Intrinsic 2) Extrinsic 3) Social/Relational (Ros, Schwartz & Surkiss, 1999). Rounds. 1981. Developed a measure for work values (MIQ) (Zytowski, 1994). 1983. Developed a measure for work values (WAPS) (Zytowski, 1994). 13 work values were used.. 1984. Added a fourth type of work value (Prestige) to the existing three (Ros et. al, 1999). Pryor. Elizur. 30.

(42) Values are defined as “desirable states, objects, goals, or behaviors, transcending specific situations and applied as normative standards to judge and to choose among alternative modes of behavior” (Busacca, Beebe and Toman, 2010, p.3). Busacca, et. al. (2010) described values as an important determinant of human behavior, playing a role in the establishment of personal goals and work-related motivations. They also found values to be empirically linked to organizational behavior, academic performance, career decision making, marital satisfaction, and various demographic variables. Work values emerge when general values are projected onto the domain of work. They govern the contexts of work, vocational and occupational (Busacca et. al, 2010). Work values “refer to what a person wants out of work in general and also which components of a job are important to their work satisfaction” (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007, p.359). Ordered by importance, work values serve as guiding principles for evaluating work outcomes and settings and for choosing among work alternatives (Ros et. al, 1999). These values represent relatively stable goals that people attempt to reach through their participation in work. Therefore, work values directly influence an individual’s work behavior. Looking for a job, taking part in training, changing jobs and balancing work and family all depend more on work values than on general values (Busacca et. al, 2010). Studies have supported the idea that values, and by extension work values, are learned during formative years and remain fairly consistent over the course of a person’s life (Parry & Urvin, 2011). This is an important consideration when examining individuals’ work values. Much attention has been given to measuring and documenting the work values of various groups including students, managers, nurses, engineers, generations (Barnes, 2003; De Cooman, Gieter, Pepermans, DuBois, Caers & Jegers, 2008; Frieze, Olson, Murrell & Selvan, 2006; Nejati, Salamzadeh & Farzad, 2010; Zhang, Wang, Yang & Teng, 2007). 31.

(43) Inevitably, it was realized that work values are by no means homogeneous and vary among individuals as well as within groups. This is because, at any one point in time, a person can be placed into different groups or categories based on gender, age, culture, occupation, socioeconomic status, generational cohort and educational background among others. Due to varied group membership and consequently varied influences, a person may develop several layers of or variations in values (Nejati et. al, 2010). In his article, Work values: Some demographic and cultural correlates, Peter Warr (2008) highlighted some of the variables that may influence work values. These are culture and the demographic variables: gender, education and age. Similarly, Nejati, Salamzadeh and Farzad (2010) examined the influence of four demographic variables, namely, age, gender, education, position, and work experience on five work values. It was found that all of these exert some influence over work values. Moreover, different variables exerted influence over different values.. Measuring Work Values Super’s Work Values Inventory is still being used by researchers today (Barnes, 2003; Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007; Zytowski, 1994) and is considered to be one of the most effective measures of work values (Zytowski, 1994). Super proposed the existence of 15 work values. These are as follows: altruism, security, aesthetics, surroundings, creativity, supervisory relations, intellectual stimulation, associates, independence, variety, management, and way of life, achievement, prestige and economic returns. Five of these (security, associates, independence, achievement and economic returns) are examined in this study. These were chosen because a preliminary qualitative inquiry of ten St. Lucian workers revealed that these were consistently ranked among the top ten. Table 2.6 defines the 15 work values.. 32.

(44) Table 2.6 Super’s Work Values Defined Work Value Altruism Esthetic Creativity Intellectual stimulation Achievement Independence Prestige Management Surroundings Economic returns Security Supervisory relations Associates Way of life Variety. Definition a work value present in work enabling one to contribute to the welfare of others a value inherent which permits one to make beautiful things and to contribute beauty to the world a value associated with work which permits one to invent new things, design new products or develop new ideas associated with work which provides opportunities for independent thinking and for learning how and why things work a value associated with work which gives one a feeling of accomplishment in doing a job well associated with work which permits one to work in his own way, as slowly or as fast as he wishes associated with work which gives one standing in the eyes of others and evokes respect associated with work which permits one to plan and lay out work for others a value associated with work which is carried out under pleasant conditions, environmental in nature a value or goal associated with work which pays well and enables one to have the things he wants a value of goal associated with work which provides one with the certainty of having a job even in hard times a value associated with work which is carried out under a supervisor who is fair and with whom one can get along a value characterized by work which brings one into contact with fellow workers whom he likes associated with the kind of work that permits one to live the kind of life he chooses and to be the type of person he wants to be associated with work that provides the opportunity to do different types of jobs. Note. Adapted from “Work Values of Community College students,” by J. Grace. 1974, Published by Middlesex Community College, Massachusetts.. 33.

(45) Work Values and Counterproductive Work Behavior Several scholars have proposed that work values affect work behavior. This idea is well documented in the findings of research. Schwartz (1994), who is one of the leading scholars in values research, argues that values “guide [the] selection or evaluation of behavior” (p.23). Three separate studies conducted in the 1990’s (Dose, 1997; Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Roe & Ester, 1999) all concluded that work values “play a functional role in work-related central processes and outcomes” (Zhang et. al, 2007). Before that, England (1967) suggested that values “enable the understanding of individual’s behaviors at work.” Later, Warr (2008) stated that work values are important because they “both directly influen[ce] employee behavior and experiences and also act as significant moderators” (p.753). Since work values are said to influence work behavior then one can assume that this also includes counterproductive work behavior. This assumption is further supported by the list of work behaviors that research has suggested is linked to work values. Zhang et. al (2007), citing previous research, point to work behaviors or outcomes such as job satisfaction, motivation, organizational commitment, work performance and vocational streaming. Warr (2008) added job attitudes and vocational interests to this list. In their 2006 longitudinal study investigating the relationship between work values and work behavior as well as work outcomes, Frieze et. al. found that certain work values were related to higher salary levels and the number of hours worked. Behaviors such as changing companies and receiving more promotions were also found to be significantly related to work values. Earlier studies had already generated similar findings, in 1974 England and Lee found that less financially successful managers placed low value on achievement and greater value on security (Frieze et. al, 2006). Overall, there is sufficient empirical evidence to link work values to work outcomes and behavior. Work values affect work behavior because according to Warr (2008) “individuals seek 34.

(46) to attain what they value [ and as a result] activities are initiated and sustained”(p.752). This suggests that individuals will behave and continue to behave in certain ways if that behavior will help them attain what they value. It is important to point out that in his explanation Warr never defines or categorizes the “activities”. Therefore one can assume that a person (in a work context) might engage in productive as well as counterproductive behaviors in order to attain or fulfill his or her work values. Two studies indirectly linked work values to CWB. Locke (1976) and later Mitra, Jenkins and Gupta (1992) suggest that when individuals cannot use or express their work values in a particular job, this may cause feelings of dissatisfaction which may result in withdrawal from work, absenteeism, tardiness or intentions to leave. These individuals may also experience jealousy and envy and that may affect not only their performance but that of coworkers as well. Although these studies did not directly set out to investigate work values and CWB, the listed behaviors that result from unexpressed or unfulfilled work values are notably counterproductive. Moreover, both of these studies imply the need for a direct investigation into work values and CWB. Security, Economic Returns, Associates, Achievement, Independence and CWB Although no studies that directly examined work values and CWB were uncovered, other studies point to the possibility that they are related. Roberts et. al (2007) proposed that the fear of losing one’s job serves as a deterrent for engaging in CWB. The work value of security includes the fear of losing one’s job and so they provide some justification for assuming that this work value will negatively affect the propensity to engage in CWB. Roberts et. al (2007), also found that work autonomy was negatively related to CWB. Work autonomy is similar to the work value of independence as it entails a worker being largely responsible for his/her own work. Again it can be assumed that a person with a high value for independence will be less likely to engage in CWB. Traits such as the need for achievement 35.

(47) and desire for financial gain have been found to influence CWB such as theft and fraud (Marcus and Schuler, 2001). Need for achievement and desire for financial gain are closely related to the work values of achievement and economic returns. A relationship is therefore implied just as in the previous examples. Studies of group norms and CWB (Hollinger and Clark, 1982; Kamp and Brooks, 1991; Ehrhart and Nauman, 2004 ) point to the strong influence that coworkers have on individuals. It is not illogical to assume that a person who has a high value for associates would be even more susceptible to their influence. With regard to the relationship between work values and counterproductive work behavior, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 3: Work values will have an effect on the propensity to engage in CWB. Hypothesis 3a: A high value for economic returns is positively related to the propensity of an individual to engage in both misuse of resources and misuse of information. Hypothesis 3b: A high value for independence is negatively related to the propensity of an individual to engage in both misuse of resources and misuse of information. Hypothesis 3c: A high value for associates is positively related to the propensity of an individual to engage in both misuse of resources and misuse of information. Hypothesis 3d: A high value for security is negatively related to the propensity of an individual to engage in both misuse of resources and misuse of information. Hypothesis 3e: A high value for achievement is negatively related to the propensity of an individual to engage in both misuse of resources and misuse of information.. Interaction Between Group Norms and Work Values Many scholars concede that CWB is influenced by a combination of personal and situational factors (Appelbaum & Shapiro, 2006; Fine et. al, 2010; Hitlan & Noel, 2009; Kamp & Brooks, 1991; Lau et. al, 2003; Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Milkulay et. al, 2001; Semmer et. al, 2010; Smithikrai, 2008; Spector, 2011). Many studies of CWB have 36.