Professional Documents
Culture Documents
University of Lausanne
*
The authors contributed equally to this work.
This chapter may not exactly replicate the final version published in Responsible
Management Practices for the 21st Century (pp. 151-159). Paris: Pearson
1
Introduction
company officials about disciplinary problems. According to his friends and relatives,
he had repeatedly complained to management about racist remarks and insults coming
employee who apparently felt deeply misunderstood and dissatisfied. Employees may
forms, ranging from relatively mild forms (e.g., ignoring colleagues or coming in late)
Employee surveys suggest that CWB are widespread 1. For organizations, they
are a source of concern, as they threaten the well-being of the organization and its
stakeholders. Managers play a key role in dealing with and preventing CWB. This is
the focus of this chapter. In the first part, we provide an overview over various forms
1
e.g., Hoel & Cooper, 2000
2
CWB are volitional [acts that] harm or intend to harm organizations and/or
understanding the nature of CWB, three criteria are crucial: Firstly, CWB have at
least the potential to harm and thus cover a wide array of negative behaviors, ranging
from relatively mild instances like intentionally omitting to return a phone call or
sabotage of organizational equipments that may endanger the safety of an entire team.
Secondly, CWB are purposeful. They stem from harmful intent or cause harm by a
purposeful action. Thus, they differ from accidents where harm is, for example, the
organization (also called organizational CWB; e.g., sabotage) or its stakeholders (also
can be further broken down into theft, sabotage, production deviance, and
withdrawal 3. Theft and sabotage both contain ideas of actively causing harm and are
(in most contexts) illegal. Withdrawal and production deviance encompass acts like
purposely working incorrectly or failing to follow instructions and are thus somewhat
more passive.
CWB constitute one facet of work performance. They are part of the so-called
context in which the more technical part of work performance, that is, task
performance is achieved 4. They relate more closely to how the task is done than to
what the task is. As such, they are rarely included in formal performance appraisals
2
p. 447, Spector et al., 2006
3
Ibid.
4
Collins, & Griffin, 1998
3
What are the consequences of CWB? Consequences have been observed at
several levels. Firstly, CWB threaten the well-being of the organization and its
affective commitment, high turnover intentions, and high rates of absenteeism. They
Interestingly, victims of CWB are also more likely to engage in CWB themselves.
These reactions are generally stronger if the aggressive acts come from somebody
within the organization (e.g., the supervisor or a co-worker) than from somebody
outside of the organization (e.g., a client) 5. Secondly, CWB engender costs for
organizations, both directly and indirectly. Indirect costs are caused through negative
outcomes of CWB victims (for example, through high absence rates) or through
reputation loss (see also chapter in this book). Other costs are direct. For instance,
in the US retail industry, employee theft makes up almost half of total thefts 6.
Similarly, in the fast food industry, CWB have been shown to explain parts of
satisfaction 7. Some research suggests that the (negative) impact of CWB rates on
behavior rates 8.
employees' performance 9. Employee CWB even have a greater impact on the way
5
Hershcovis & Barling, 2010
6
Hollinger & Langton, 2007
7
Detert, Trevio, Burris, & Andiappan, 2007
8
Dunlop & Lee, 2004
9
Rotundo & Sackett, 2002
4
behaviors like helping co-workers or suggesting improvements of procedures. CWB
also affects team functioning. CWB of an individual employee can spread to the entire
team 10 and thus become a collective phenomenon, poisoning team climate and
For being able to effectively manage CWB, one needs to understand their
antecedents. What factors in the work environment give rise to CWB? What factors
the last two decades, this research has accumulated conclusive evidence that provides
clear answers to the crucial questions above. Moreover, based on this evidence,
working conditions and appropriate rules, and engaging in responsible leadership are
Before outlining the three key points for managerial action, we would like to
point out that CWB does not only result from these factors. More specifically, one
stream of research shows that CWB is also related to personality traits of individual
control are less likely to engage in CWB 12. What are the managerial implications of
such findings? One implication that immediately comes to mind would be to select
through training. However, at least the latter is ethically questionable and both are
illegal in some contexts. For this reason, in this chapter, we focus on antecedents of
10
Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006
11
Cole, Walter, & Bruch, 2008
12
e.g., Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007 ; Marcus & Schuler, 2004
5
CWB that managers have a direct impact on. Nevertheless, this focus does not
reduce CWB.
Organizational justice
the following example. A company lost a series of important contracts. To deal with
the financial loss, management decided to cut wages by 15%, for 10 weeks, in two of
their factories. Teaming up with Jerald Greenberg, a work psychologist from Ohio
manners 13. In the first factory, a company vice president announced the pay-cuts to
his employees by explaining that wage cuts were inevitable but helped to exclude lay-
offs. Also, he said that he realized that this wasnt easy but that reductions were an
unfortunate fact of life in this business. Then, he offered to answer a few questions
from the floor, making clear that he would have to leave soon for another meeting.
Following this announcement, employee theft rates increased dramatically for the
period of the 10-weeks, as did employees' feelings of being treated unfairly. In his
analysis of the case, J. Greenberg suggests that through the vice president's brief and
subsequently tried to restore fairness, that is to get even, by engaging in CWB such
as theft.
Things went quite differently in the second factory where the president used
different words to announce the pay-cuts, as illustrated further below. But before
13
Greenberg, 1990
6
turning to this side of the story, it is important to note that numerous studies have
revenge through CWB. This is true for low distributive justice (e.g., unfairness in
terms of pay or workload), low procedural justice (e.g., unfairness in terms of the
procedures used to take decisions about employees), and low interpersonal justice
supervisors) 14. When perceiving unfairness, employees do not only retaliate against
the organization but also against individuals they hold responsible for unfair
outcomes 15. This is especially likely if employees have the impression that they dont
have an impact on the organization. Under this condition, together with low
especially likely 16. Further, as mentioned above, personality traits can have an impact
negatively to low organizational justice and are thus less likely to engage in CWB 17.
should be a key concern, in every organization. Special attention should be paid to the
instauration of fair systems for the distribution of resources such as pay or workload
(distributive justice), fair procedures used to make decisions about employees such as
14
Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Berry, et al., 2007; Greenberg, 1990
15
Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999
16
Hershcovis, et al., 2007
17
Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006 ; Yang & Dieffendorf, 2009
7
influence than others because they can be easily implemented in everyday practice.
For example, for managers, it might be easier to enhance procedural and interpersonal
justice than distributive justice. Procedural justice can be enhanced, for example, by
rendering the decision making process and decision criteria transparent and by giving
employees voice; that is a say during the process 18. Interpersonal justice can be
consideration for their situation 19. One example is the one mentioned at the beginning
of this section. In this example, the company had to install wage cuts to reduce
costs 20. Hence, managers had little impact on distributive justice. Nevertheless, they
second factory, the president delivered the news on the pay-cuts differently. As in the
first factory, he told his employees that the reductions were inevitable and helped to
exclude lay-offs. But at the same time, he provided more detailed information,
presenting the rationale for the decision with graphs and charts. Also, he expressed his
deep regrets, showed serious consideration for and solidarity with the employees at
several times during his speech and subsequent interactions with the employees.
Taken together, though his behaviour, the president respected basic principles of
rates as well as employees' feelings of being treated unfairly were considerably lower
than in the first factory despite the fact that in both factories, employees were facing
The close link between organizational fairness and CWB described above
suggests that factors in the organizational context can have an important impact on
18
van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997
19
Greenberg, 2006
20
Greenberg, 1990
8
CWB occurrence. When considering organizational context more broadly, the most
obvious and easiest solution to reduce CWB seems the implementation of sanctions
for CWB. But sanctions are a double-edged sword. Of course, aversive consequences
for a behavior are a powerful mechanism to reduce the occurrence of the same
elicit anger and retaliation in employees and might thus backfire 22. Moreover,
because many CWB are performed in private and outside the view of managerial
oversight. Hence, some organizations might try to control CWB by simply increasing
sanctions more rapidly and consistently. But again, even though increased oversight
somewhat helps in reducing organizational CWB 23, the risk of potential backlash is
violating organizational justice and may thus raise the likelihood of aggressive
suggest that their impact is limited. They are more effective if coupled with effective
reward systems and clear sanctions that are applied if codes are violated 25.
and procedures because social control from other co-workers is a powerful deterrent
21
e.g., Bennett, 1998
22
Ball, Trevio, & Sims, 1994 ; Bennett, 1998
23
Detert, et al., 2007
24
Dupre & Barling, 2006
25
e.g. Petersen & Krings, 2009 ; Trevio, Butterfield, McCabe, 1998
9
of CWB 26. Promoting a sense of collective responsibility (in contrast to individual
could be achieved by creating a sense of responsibility for what happens within the
organization, among its employees at all levels, so that this task is not left to certain
people (e.g., ethics officers or team leaders). Sense of responsibility should be shared
among all members of the organization, ultimately creating an ethical climate that
conditions. If working conditions are bad, the risk of CWB increases. For example, if
employees perceive that the organization does not fulfil its due obligations (e.g., in
terms of working environment, growth opportunities or training), or they feel that the
organization violates the (implicit) contract it has with its employees, they may, as a
consequence, react negatively towards the organization. Indeed, research has shown
training opportunities increase the likelihood of CWB 27. Again, employee personality
also plays a role: Employees who are able to effectively engage in self-control are less
the working environment. For example, one study showed that the more an
(especially those low in conscientiousness) tend to withhold effort 29. The same study
26
Hollinger & Clark, 1982
27
Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001
28
Bordia, Restubog, & Tang, 2008
29
Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004
10
also revealed that if, management consistently supports its employees, even
Effective leadership
employee behavior and thus on CWB. For example, abusive supervision a repeated
supervisor more often refuse to perform supervisor requests, show high rates of
But being the target of abusive behaviors does not only lead to interpersonal
aggression. Aggressive managers are aggressive role models, and employees copy
their behaviors 32. Also, employees working in work groups where aggressive
behaviors are normative react aggressively more often 33. Those who become the
target of undermining behaviors from their supervisors or their colleagues too tend to
CWB are particularly likely if the employee feels singled out, that is, he or she is
more often the target of abusive supervision than his or her colleagues 35. Even low
30
Inness, Barling, & Turner, 2005
31
for a review, Tepper, 2007
32
Aquino & Douglas, 2003
33
Glomb & Liao, 2003
34
Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002
35
Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, & Pagon, 2006
36
Cortina & Magley, 2003
11
These findings suggest that for managers, refraining from behaviors that are
part of the abusive behavioral repertoire is decisive for preventing CWB. Managers
therefore have a responsibility to act as positive role models and maintain good,
is also crucial. If managers give clear recommendations about what is right and what
is wrong but at the same time are perceived as not practicing what they preach, the
well-intentioned clear recommendations might not only have no effect at all but even
increase CWB 37. Thus, it is important that managers engage in leadership behaviors
that are part of an ethical leadership style. Managers practicing ethical leadership are
behavior in their subordinates through rewards and punishments 38. Needless to say,
leadership is not only important for line managers but also for top managers, as
leadership typically trickles down from top management to direct supervisors and
Conclusion
Low organizational justice is one of the most critical factors for the emergence
treatment has been consistently shown to give rise to CWB. Also, CWB emerge under
as a reaction to working conditions that are sorely bearable. For organizations, the
seemingly easiest solution to control CWB is, at first sight, the instauration of strict
rules and sanctions when rules are violated. But as illustrated in this chapter, sanctions
and rules can be risky because their effectiveness depends on a number of other
12
Taken together, these points suggest that for managers wanting to effectively
manage CWB, it is particularly important to act as positive role models that speak to
all employees, and to contribute to creating and maintaining fair systems and
procedures within their organization. Ideally, the latter should involve employees
from early onwards, thus promoting a sense of collective responsibility and ethical
climate two factors whose benefits can be expected to go well beyond reducing
CWB.
References
Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in
organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive
modelling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 90, 195-208.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative
affectivity and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073-1091.
Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P. (1994). Just and unjust punishment -
influences on subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 299-322.
Bennett, R. J. (1998). Taking the sting out of the whip: Reactions to consistent
punishment for unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology-
Applied, 4, 248-262.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees strike back:
Investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1104-1117.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social
learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004).
Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609.
13
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking
dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation
study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 945-958.
Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events
following mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 8, 247-265.
Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial
modes of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal
business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 993-1005.
Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and
behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 622-635.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the
workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The
social context of undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 101, 105-126.
Dupre, K. E., & Barling, J. (2006). Predicting and preventing supervisory workplace
aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 13-26.
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples
spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. In
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 27 (Vol. 27, pp. 175-222).
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB)
in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and
moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
59, 291-309.
Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social
influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal,
46, 486-496.
14
Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenuating
insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in
interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 58-69.
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupr, K. E., Inness, M., et
al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 228-238.
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. UK:
UMIST.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1982). Formal and informal social controls of
employee deviance. The Sociological Quarterly, 23, 333-343.
Hollinger, R. C., & Langton, L. (2007). National Retail Security Survey: Final
Report. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace
deviance: test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126-
138.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How
low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1-13.
Petersen, L. E., & Krings, F. (2009). Are ethical codes of conduct toothless tigers for
dealing with employment discrimination? Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 501-
514.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship,
and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A
policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66-80.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 434-443.
15
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006).
The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors
created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446-460.
Trevino, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical context in
organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 8, 447-476.
van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge
my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the
fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034-
1046.
16
Index
consequences conscientiousness, 5, 10
costs, 4 hostility, 7
teams, 5 justice
well-being, 4 distributive, 7
CWB interpersonal, 7
criteria, 3 procedural, 7
leadership, 12 sanctions, 9, 12
responsibility, 10 effectiveness, 9
17