Individual and Situational Antecedents of Counterproductive Work Behaviors.
| Autor | de Oliveira, Lucia Barbosa |
| Cargo | Research Article |
INTRODUCTION
Considerable attention has been given in the management literature to counterproductive work behaviors (CWB), as they are harmful to organizations and detrimental to individual and collective performance. In the last decades, several studies have identified a variety of individual and situational antecedents of CWB. However, authors such as Cohen (2016) note that we still lack a proper understanding of counterproductive work behaviors, especially as far as the predictors of such behaviors are concerned.
Both individual traits and situational factors have been connected to CWB. For instance, evidence suggests that personality traits affect how people interpret and react to the situations they face, and thereby, can influence the display of deviant behaviors (Dalal, 2005; Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006; Salgado, 2002). As far as situational variables are concerned, empirical studies have linked perceived organizational justice and leadership to CWB (Colquitt et al., 2013; El Akremi, Vandenberghe, & Camerman, 2010; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Holtz & Harold, 2013a, 2013b).
Despite the growing interest in counterproductive work behaviors, assessments of the joint effects of different types of antecedents are scarce (Hershcovis et al., 2007; Holtz & Harold, 2013a). As several of such factors have been shown to be correlated--including organizational justice, leadership, and personality traits (Chernyak-Hai & Tziner, 2014; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012)--, studies that take into consideration only a few of those variables may estimate effects on CWB that are inflated by the simultaneous influence of omitted antecedents on exogenous and endogenous variables. Thus, our understanding of how different individual and situational factors lead to counterproductive work behaviors cannot advance without empirically assessing their combined influence.
In this study, we address this issue by integrating two personality traits (agreeableness and neuroticism) and two situational variables (perceived organizational justice and leader-member exchange quality) in a causal model that explains CWB. The influence of these constructs on counterproductive work behaviors have been investigated in the literature, but not in tandem. Furthermore, drawing on social exchange theory and on the stream of the human resource management (HRM) literature that discusses the role of immediate superiors as gatekeepers of organizational policies, we elucidate the causal links that connect LMX, organizational justice, and CWB, arguing that LMX behaves as a mediator of the influence of organizational justice on CWB (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2008; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Sikora & Ferris, 2014). The associated hypotheses were statistically tested with data collected from 527 employees of a large Brazilian organization, using partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling techniques.
The present study contributes to the literature on deviant behaviors by extending previous models that investigated the Justice-LMX-CWB relationship (Chernyak-Hai & Tziner, 2014; El Akremi et al., 2010). It also adds to the literature on leadership by addressing the role LMX plays in deviant behaviors, as well as the impact of organizational justice on LMX. From a practical standpoint, the findings can help organizations develop better HRM policies and practices to mitigate counterproductive work behaviors in their ranks.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
Counterproductive work behaviors
Counterproductive work behaviors have been defined as deliberate employee acts that violate organizational norms, are socially reproved, and harm organizations' legitimate interests, profitability, and reputation (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Cohen, 2016; Ng, Lam, & Feldman, 2016).
There is no consensus in the literature regarding the structure of the CWB construct (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007). Robinson and Bennett (1995) proposed a typology based on two dimensions (minor versus severe, interpersonal versus organizational), and, in a follow-up study, the authors developed a scale based only on the interpersonal versus organizational dichotomy (Bennett & Robinson, 2000).
Berry, Ones, and Sackett (2007) suggest that the availability of the scale may have helped popularize studies focused on this duality, although it has been questioned in the literature. Lee and Allen (2002), for example, could not find a distinction between the CWB-I and CWB-O factors. Berry et al. (2007) reported ID and OD to be highly correlated ([rho] = .62), while Dalal (2005) proposed that "the precise importance of the targets of behavior has not yet been conclusively established." (Dalal, 2005, p. 1242). More recently, researchers have called attention to other possible sub-dimensions of CWB (e.g., Bowling & Gruys, 2010). Given the lack of consensus, we chose to perform an exploratory factor analysis to evaluate the dimensionality and structure of the construct (Brown, 2015).
Over the past 30 years, several studies, including a handful of meta-analyses (Berry et al., 2007; Dalal, 2005; Hershcovis et al, 2007; Salgado, 2002) have examined the antecedents of CWB. Regarding situational variables, researchers have given considerable attention to organizational justice (Berry et al, 2007; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al, 2013; Holtz & Harold, 2013a; Mendonca & Tamayo, 2004; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), as well as interpersonal conflict, situational constraints, and job dissatisfaction (Hershcovis et al, 2007). From an interpersonal perspective, Townsend, Phillips, and Elkins (2000) found that deviant behaviors were related to low-quality leader-member exchange relationships, although studies relating LMX and CWB are still scarce (Colquitt et al, 2013).
Concerning individual differences, personality traits, negative affectivity, and self-control have been found to be related to CWB (Berry et al, 2007; Hershcovis et al, 2007; Mount et al, 2006). Gender and CWB also seem to be correlated, with men being more likely to engage in deviant behaviors than women (Berry et al. 2007; Hershcovis et al, 2007; Ng et al, 2016).
Scholars have also investigated the joint effects of individual and situational variables. Henle (2005), for example, found interactive effects of interactional justice and two personality traits (socialization and impulsivity) in predicting workplace deviance. Hershcovis et al. (2007) showed the relevance of both individual and situational antecedents of CWB and called for more research examining both types of predictors. In the present study, we investigate how personality traits, organizational justice, and leader-member exchange may interact to affect CWB, as discussed next.
Personality traits
Personality traits are defined as a relatively stable configuration of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that lead the individual to respond in specific ways to particular circumstances (Roberts, 2009). The five-factor model (FFM or Big Five) has been generally accepted as a valid structure of personality traits and widely adopted by organizational researchers (Salgado, 2002; Spector, 2011). Agreeableness is related to cooperativeness, good-nature, and kindness; conscientiousness to achievement orientation, persistence, dependability, and orderliness; extraversion to a preference for social interactions and need for stimulation; neuroticism to anxiety, hostility, and a general inability to deal with negative emotions; and finally, openness to experience to exploratory behaviors, active imagination, autonomy, and nonconformity (Barrick & Mount, 1991, Mount et al., 2006; Salgado, 2002).
Regarding the influence of personality traits on CWB, Salgado (2002) found that agreeableness and conscientiousness were valid predictors of deviant behaviors, while Berry et al. (2007) showed that among the Big Five, only agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were significantly related to CWB. Spector (2011) suggests that personality affects CWB through cognitive-emotional processes and, in line with the cognitive-motivational-relational theory (Lazarus, 1991a, 1991b), we propose that agreeableness and neuroticism are predictors of CWB. A person who is cooperative and kind is less likely to respond negatively to situations she/he encounters than an antagonist. Likewise, a person who is predominantly anxious and negative towards life in general tends to experience more negative emotions, leading her/him to be more prone to deviant behaviors.
Hypothesis 1a: Agreeableness has a negative direct effect on CWB. Hypothesis 1b: Neuroticism has a positive direct effect on CWB. Organizational justice
Perceived organizational justice is defined as how employees evaluate whether they have been treated fairly, an assessment that tends to influence their attitudes and behaviors (Moorman, 1991). In this study, we adopt the four-dimensional structure of the organizational justice construct, including distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational components (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013). Distributive justice reflects the perception of how fair is the distribution of organizational resources, and procedural justice relates to the procedures followed in allocating such organizational resources. Interpersonal justice involves the degree to which the superior treats the employee respectfully and adequately, and informational justice refers to the degree to which the superior provides adequate and timely information about the allocation of organizational resources (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013).
Researchers have found empirical evidence for a direct negative effect of organizational justice on CWB (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2013; El Akremi et al. 2010). If employees believe that the organization is fair, they will be more likely to present positive attitudes and behaviors towards the organization, their...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
