See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317416722

Counterproductive Behaviors and Employee Discipline

Chapter · May 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 4,263

2 authors, including:

Emerald Jay D. Ilac

Ateneo de Manila University
12 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Emerald Jay D. Ilac on 09 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHAPTER 11

COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR
AND EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE

Emerald Jay D. Ilac

Helen C. Salvosa

*published in "Understanding the Filipino Worker and Organization (2nd ed)" by M.R. Hechanova, M. Teng-Calleja, and
V. Villaluz (2017, pp.176-193), printed by the Ateneo de Manila University Press in Quezon City, Philippines

EMPLOYEES ARE IMPORTANT for the success of organizations. They perform jobs as
required of them, sometimes work beyond what is expected to support institutional goals,
and even actively seek ways of improving systems and processes. However, there are times
when employees behave in ways that seem inappropriate or that go against the goals of the
organization. These actions may involve behaviors damaging to inter-employee
relationships, organizational productivity, efficiency, or even company image. These may
even include actions detrimental to themselves.
This chapter reviews both Western and Philippine studies that examine the array of
counterproductive behaviors observed in organizations. In doing so, it aims to clarify the
differences between the Western and Philippine understanding of these behaviors, exploring
ways these may be effectively dealt with and managed by organizations.

Defining Counterproductive Behaviors

Counterproductive behaviors have been defined as behaviors that explicitly run counter
to the goals of an organization (Jex 2002). The most commonly studied counterproductive
behaviors have been tardiness and absenteeism and their impact on organizational
commitment and withdrawal (Shapira-Lishchinsky and Even-Zohar 2011); alcoholism and
its relationship with increased absence from work (Bacharach, Bamberger and Biron 2010);
and the effect of substance abuse on work performance and increasing antagonistic
behaviors (Jex 2002).
Other forms of counterproductive behavior include gambling in the workplace (such as
using the internet to gamble), its financial, legal, and psychosocial consequences on the
employee, and the adverse effects on the workplace (Nower 2003); as well as how
employees plan and commit theft (Iboro 2011). Recently, Western literature began to focus
on less common counterproductive behaviors, such as gossiping and its impact on
organizational influence (Labianca, Grosser, and Lopez-Kidwell 2010) and on the dynamics
of organizational power (Clegg and van Iterson 2009). Another is racial discrimination and
how it affects supervisor satisfaction and the perceived organizational tolerance of
discrimination (Buchanan and Fitzgerald 2008).
Other topics related to counterproductive behaviors include sexual harassment and how
it is related to gender and ethnicity (Bergman and Henning 1994), favoritism (Gomes,
Owens, and Morgan 2006) and the organization’s moral compass (O’Leary-Kelly and
Bowes-Sperry 2001); workplace bullying (Bashir and Hanif 2011); and even how red tape
alienates dysfunctional managers (DeHart-Davis and Pandey 2005).

Counterproductive Behavior in Philippine Organizations

Much like in the West, the Philippines is no exception to counterproductive behaviors.

Like workers all over the world, Filipino workers also exhibit behaviors that run against the
organization’s goals or against personal efficacy. How different are Filipinos’
counterproductive behavior compared to those in the West? Filipino anthropologist F. Landa
Jocano (1999) explained that, being in a collectivist society, Filipinos give higher
importance to interpersonal relations than Westerners. Employees consider workmates as
friends and that relationships go beyond work to affect personal lives. Likewise, Saito et al
(2011) suggested that Filipinos tend to be more motivated and productive when working in
groups or teams with face-to-face interaction. Given this collectivist culture,
counterproductive behaviors may involve interaction with other people or may be
motivated by social relationships. An example is the Filipino value of pakikisama, which
means to be concerned about, to be supportive of, and to concede to public opinion in social
situations in order to achieve group cohesion (Jocano 1999). This value has two faces: one
that allows smooth interpersonal relationships to occur, and the other that may create
groupthink or cohesion so strong, it may actually encourage counterproductive behavior.
There is relatively little scholarly work on counterproductive behavior in the
Philippines. This chapter discusses local studies on job turnover and burnout, relational
aggression, discrimination, and sexual harassment. It likewise presents the results of a study
conducted by the authors on trends in counterproductive behaviors.

Employee Turnover
According to the 2011 Labor Turnover Survey conducted among 700 large enterprises
in Metro Manila, turnover rate across industries is at 8.5 percent. However, the story is
different in the call center industry where about 27 percent of call center agents leave their
companies only after six months to a year of service.
Employee turnover remains a fundamental concern for organizations because of its
costs. Since an organization will have to rehire and retrain new employees to fill in a
position, turnover costs include lost productivity—what would have been productive time
had the employees not left the organization in the first place. New employees will also need
time to adjust to their work and to meet organizational standards and goals.

Predictors of Turnover. Although most organizations still assume that pay and benefits
are the keys to retaining employees, a local study conducted by Carbonell in 2008 found that
there are other factors that Filipino employees look for in their companies. The study
involved 1,678 employees including human resource managers, development
representatives, line managers, and rank-and-file employees from 60 different private
companies in Metro Manila and in nearby Export Processing Zones. It asked the participants
in the study to rank 20 factors in terms of importance to staying in an organization, and
which would predict the intent to quit. Of those factors, eight predicted the intention to quit:
quality of compensation package, quality of company vision/strategy, opportunity for
growth, internal politics or bureaucracy, the level of challenge in work, the amount of job
stress, the clarity of the link between pay and individual contributions, and the company’s
responsiveness to employee needs.
The results also showed that an employee’s age and position in the organization is an
added factor in staying or quitting—older Filipino employees tend to stay in the
organization. Managers also tend to stay longer than those in non-managerial roles.
Interestingly, the results showed that the top five retention factors that make employees
stay are: the level of cooperation within the organization, opportunities for growth and
enhancement, quality of the relationship with their respective supervisor or manager, quality
of the compensation package, and trust among employees. Of these five, three are relational
in nature: cooperation, supervisor or manager relationships, and trust between employees.
This echoes Jocano’s (1999) stipulation regarding the emphasis on smooth interpersonal
relationships within organizations. However, the study also shows that trust and cooperation
are not enough to retain employees. An employee’s intention to quit is also influenced by
their perceived opportunities for growth, advancement, and quality of compensation.
Another study identified work-life conflict as a predictor to turnover. A study conducted
among 337 customer service representatives in two call centers found that work-life conflict
is significant, albeit weakly correlated, to turnover intent. Although work-life conflict does
not differ according to gender, there appears to be differences according to age—younger
participants report greater work-life conflict compared to older workers. The top five
retention factors in this study were organizational growth, compensation, company
responsiveness to needs, work-life balance, and challenging work. It was also mentioned that
the less supportive an organization is perceived to be, the more likely that the employees will
intend to leave (Bacud 2005).

Turnover, Job Fit, and Organizational Commitment. A number of local studies have
found that other factors such as job fit and organizational commitment have a strong impact
on turnover. A study conducted among 140 employees of a multinational company in the
Philippines found that poor organizational commitment, job satisfaction, supervision, and
teamwork contribute to turnover intent. The study also found that teamwork, cooperation,
job satisfaction, and role clarity predict the organizational commitment of employees
(Lombos 2004).
Another study conducted among 556 workers from 25 different organizations showed
that demands-abilities fit (the match between the demands of work and the abilities of
employee) predicts job satisfaction and turnover intent—the more their individual abilities fit
into the organizational demands, the more employees will like their work (Castroverde
2006). To reduce turnover, there must be an increase in self-worth, competency, and
meaning in tasks required.
Burnout
Burnout is defined as “a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and
reduced personal accomplishment” (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli 2001).
Intention to quit is high when employees feel too exhausted or burnt out from labor. There
are a number of variables found to influence burnout. For example, a study done by Cera
(2005) among 124 teachers found that educators’ experiences of emotional exhaustion are
negatively related to workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values. This means
that these factors lead to varying levels of job burnout or emotional exhaustion, which
influence the teachers’ intention to quit.

Relational Aggression
Relational aggression is aggression demonstrated between groups or individuals with the
intention of destroying relationship structures in the organization. It can take the form of
verbal or non-verbal action meant to utilize sociability processes to create animosity. A
study done among college student trainees from various universities in Manila showed the
prevalence of rumors, silent treatment, and backstabbing as counterproductive relational
behaviors (Filho, Purunggan and Sanchez 2004).

Rumors
Spreading rumors can be either positive or negative. However, the majority of rumors
are typically negative, sometimes leaning on the offensive or the derogatory. These rumors
can range from valid and reliable facts, to false information aimed to destroy reputations.
The study affirmed that rumors can be a method of socialization into a particular social
environment. Rumors provide an avenue for members of groups to interact with each other.
The study found that the degree of social environment (familiarity of territory) and the
degree of friendship or camaraderie (familiarity of relationship) affect the likelihood of
rumors spreading. The more familiar one is with the social environment; the more likely
rumors will spread. Similarly, the more familiar people are with each other, the higher the
likelihood that rumors will occur. This is because of the principle that a rumor will have
credibility if it comes from someone the listener knows (Filho, Purunggan and Sanchez
2004).
Furthermore, rumors tend to be about acquaintances rather than about friends—the less
familiar someone is to an in-group, the higher the risk that rumors about that person will
spread. This may explain the propensity of employees to spread initial impressions and
assumptions about a new employee.

Silent Treatment
Another relational aggression behavior is silent treatment, or the exclusion of one’s
rivals, making sure that they are “out of the loop” and are thus less likely to influence agenda
(Jex 2002). By undercutting individuals and making sure that they are out of the group,
individuals affected by the silent treatment are ousted in social environments and are left to
work on their own. In a collectivist society such as the Philippines, this can be a painful
ordeal. According to the same study by Filho et al (2004), participants utilize silent treatment
depending on the type of social environment and the presence of other people.
Backstabbing
The study also looked at individuals who were the subject of rumors. They were
reported to have low sociability scores that may have led to little interaction with other
members of the organization. The participants also reported that they would engage more in
backstabbing individuals with high sociability. Since they cannot spread rumors because of
the lack of people who will listen, they end up demonstrating behaviors meant to sabotage
tasks or duties of the in-group. These behaviors can range from demeaning actions to
spreading of rumors to produce public shame.

Sexual Harassment
Considered one of the severe forms of counterproductive behavior, sexual harassment
takes on various forms: it can begin as cracking sexual jokes, sexual statements such as
sharing one’s sexual activities, passing notes with sexual innuendo, and can move on to
making sexual advances, asking for sexual favors, or even the extreme of touching oneself
sexually in front of the one being harassed. It not only affects the harasser, whose efforts to
harass another equates to lost productivity at work, but more importantly, it affects the
person harassed on all aspects (Hechanova and Sy 2007).
A study revealed that three-fourths of Philippine organizations do not have policies
regarding sexual harassment; among companies that have policies, not all employees are
aware of the policies’ existence (Hechanova and Sy 2007). However, the Republic Act 7877
of 1995 clearly stipulated that:

sexual harassment is committed in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment, or continued

employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms of
conditions, promotions or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favors resulting in
limiting, segregating, or classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive
or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee… impairing
rights or privileges under existing labor laws… or resulting in an intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the employee.

Such acts are penalized with imprisonment of one to six months, or fined between
P10,000 to P20,000, or both. Despite this legal protection, a study shows that two-thirds of
those who experience sexual harassment would do something about about it. Intended
actions range from confronting the perpetrator to filing lawsuits. Explicit harassment tends
to be more reported and rectified versus implied harassment. Men are less likely to report
harassment cases, and as for those women who are harassed, many tend not to complain
because of embarrassment (Hechanova and Sy 2007).

Discrimination
Discrimination is defined as “the applied prejudice in which negative social definitions
are translated into action” (Feagin and Eckberg 1980). Those perceived to have less
influence, power or authority in a social setting tend to be more prone to discrimination.
Discriminated individuals or groups may find restrictions to their privileges and rights.
Although there are numerous types of discrimination (such as race, gender, age, religion,
disability), the most common in the Philippine workplace appears to be related to gender,
gender identity, and school discrimination.
 Gender Discrimination. One of the most common types of discrimination in
organizations is leveled against women workers. For instance, according to Bureau of Labor
and Employment Statistics released in 2011, the rate of unemployment for women in 2010 is
lower on the average compared to men. The labor market also continues to be segmented,
with more women working for wholesale and retail of household goods (60.1 percent),
hotels and restaurants (54 percent), financial intermediation organizations (56.5 percent), in
education (74.6 percent), in health and social work (71.6 percent), and in private household-
keeping with employed persons (84.4 percent). Discrepancies also abound in wages—in all
industries from professional work to clerical and service workers, farmers, fishers, traders,
and even plant and machine assemblers. Women have an average wage of P349.06 while
men enjoy an average wage of P412.62.
Edralin (2003) assessed the working conditions of women in the provinces of Cavite,
Laguna, Batangas, and Rizal in terms of (1) recruitment and selection, (2) working
conditions, (3) compensation, (4) development, (5) special working conditions, (6) health,
dental, and occupational safety, (7) labor relations, (8) post-employment, (9) the impact
of globalization on their socioeconomic life, and (10) the significant differences in their
situation based on the characteristics of their company. A total of 327 women workers
participated from 172 firms in the Philippine Economic Zone Authority. The study showed
that women felt discriminated against in terms of promotion. They perceived that
“connections” or a palakasan system was at play for promotions: men who knew people or
had connections with top management officials were the first who received raises or
increases in job levels. Women felt discriminated against because they lacked padrinos
(patrons) or were not favored by their supervisors (Edralin 2003). The women also
mentioned encountering various difficulties after promotion, especially concerning
competition and difficulty adjusting to environments when they were transferred. Similarly,
Lim and Hechanova (2008) examined the leadership stereotypes and discrimination against
women as perceived by Filipino managers. Results suggested that female managers
perceived that women are penalized more for mistakes than men, are excluded by men from
informal networks, and have a harder time finding mentors than men. On the other hand,
male managers felt that men are given more responsibilities than women in the same
position. Thus, with regards to organizational advancement, it appears that the glass ceiling
for women still prevails in certain industries in the Philippines.
Another type of discrimination that exists in Philippine organizations is against
homosexuals. A survey conducted in 2008 by Hechanova and Soriano showed that although
69 percent of heterosexual workers feel comfortable working with gays or lesbians, 31
percent are willing to do so as long as they act “straight” with them. The same study
revealed that although only 3 percent explicitly state that they do not want homosexuals in
their organization, 60 percent of the respondents will accept a homosexual into their
organization provided the applicant is very competent. Only 37 percent say sexual
preference is not an issue.
From the homosexuals’ point of view, a survey conducted in 2009 revealed that homo-
sexuals feel that “they do need to work harder to achieve the same things and are penalized
more for the same mistakes than straight people. When it comes to promotions, homosexuals
feel that they are not treated seriously and prioritized less as potential candidates compared
to straight people” (Concordia, Cortez, Panaligan and Velasco 2011). Given this fear of
discrimination towards sexual orientation, homosexuals report continuing to hide their true
orientation, which is physically, mentally, and emotionally exhausting. The study also
revealed that homosexuals who voluntarily disclosed their sexual orientation perceived less
discrimination than those who remained mum about their gender. However, this may reflect
the fact that homosexuals will tend to come out when they perceive their environment is
supportive (Concordia, Cortez, Panaligan and Velasco 2011).

School Discrimination. Another common discrimination occurring in organizations is

based on perceptions and biases on schools. A study conducted by Ortega-Go, Drilon, and
Mier in 2008 on job advertisements for entry-level managerial positions showed that 37
percent expressed implicit preference for particular schools tagged as “reputable or
prestigious.” Seven percent of these organizations mentioned the “Big 3” schools—Ateneo
de Manila University, De La Salle University, and the University of the Philippines as
preferred, with the occasional addition of University of Santo Tomas and the University of
Asia and the Pacific.
Interviews with recruiters reveal that one reason for this preference is their previous
experience with graduates from these schools. Their performance was found exceptional
compared to those from other schools. Another reason given for the preference is that
applicants from these schools tend to perform better in selection interviews and tests.
Organizations want the best employees, and those who top the pre-employment exams tend
to come from the abovementioned schools.
Although employers do have the right to choose their employees, the bigger picture is
that such stereotyping results in the rejection of thousands of graduates year after year
simply because they did not graduate from the Big 3 schools. This propensity may increase
the unemployment gap between those who can afford premium education and those who
cannot. Although the interviews revealed that some institutions accept honor students from
the non-preferred schools, it also suggests that graduates from the non-preferred schools
have to work harder to penetrate the corporate world.

Prevalent Counterproductive Behaviors in the Philippine Workplace

Among counterproductive behaviors, which are most prevalent in Philippine
organizations?
Tardiness. A survey conducted by the authors among sixty participants from various
industrial, academic, government, and non-profit organizations showed that participants
observe tardiness as the most prevalent counterproductive behavior. When asked what
counterproductive behaviors they themselves are doing, the participants admitted that being
tardy at work tops their list. A common reason cited for tardiness is commuting and traffic.
On top of commuting, the increase in dual-career couples appears to be a factor that may
contribute to tardiness. Younger dual-earning couples, especially those with family life
obligations such as tending to younger children, experience delays in leaving the house.
The concept of Filipino time, the Filipino habit or tendency to be thirty or more minutes
late than the prescribed or standard time of arrival, may also be another factor contributing to
the tardiness of employees. Filipinos have become so notorious for their tardiness that the
late Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago filed Senate Bill no. 1585, also known as the One
 Time Philippines Act. This bill aims to synchronize the functions of government agencies
through a single time reference in order to remove inefficiencies brought about by the
different time interpretations.
Gossiping. Second in the survey was gossiping among members of the organization.
This is rooted from the societal and collectivist nature of the Filipino, as described earlier in
this chapter.
Internet Use. Ranked third was accessing social networking sites while working.
Though most would consider this a way of de-stressing during work breaks, this eats away at
company time. When an employee gets too engrossed in accessing a site, this causes
prolonged breaks. Some employees deliberately access such social websites even during
regular work hours, resulting in lowered productivity. They also confessed that they access
social networking sites because it is more discreet compared to gossiping, which is easier to
spot (a group of people huddled and talking together during a break). The participants also
admitted that downloading materials from the internet is a common counterproductive
behavior. These can include videos, songs, flash games, and documents from various
websites. Though some of these materials maybe needed for work, the majority of files
downloaded are for personal use or pleasure.
Absenteeism. The fourth behavior most prevalent is absenteeism. This is related to
tardiness, where the employee may need time away from work to deal with family affairs or
care for young children. The employees admitted that their reasons for absenteeism are
similar to what they observe from their officemates.
Favoritism. The fifth, interestingly, is the occurrence of favoritism in the workplace.
This is particularly evident when employees struggle for the same or for limited positions
within an organization. By playing favorites with their bosses, they, at the very least, become
familiar to their superiors, and at most are considered during succession planning. This gives
them the advantage of being at their boss’s “top-of-mind.” However, being the favorite
comes at a price. They can become criticized by other members of their organization and
may even feel isolated because of their actions.
Close to 70 percent of survey respondents admitted that they were not caught doing any
of these counterproductive behaviors. This means that monitoring and tracking of
employees’ work behaviors is not being done across industries and organizations; these are
ignored and can be found inconsequential to the overall company objectives. In addition, this
might also signify that these behaviors are widely accepted in Philippine organizations and
are accepted as usual and part of work norms.

Workplace Application 11-1: Discipline Without Punishment

in the Ditus Sapientia Holdings Corporation
Melissa Bugagao and Ralph Ivan Gutierrez

Managing hotel operations and delivering excellent products and services to the guests is quite a
challenge. Whether they are business or leisure, budget or luxury travelers, guests expect to feel
special, to have their expectations met, and to have their experiences built around them. Imagine the
difficulties of having to deliver consistent and exceptional service 24/7. Even when policies,
procedures, standards, and work processes are in place, because employees are human, errors,
negligence, and inconsistency remain to be obstacles in running a 24/7 hotel operation.
Disciplinary Problems at Ditus Sapientia Holdings Corp.—Victoria Group of Companies
The Ditus Sapientia Holdings Corporation (DSI) runs the Victoria Group of Companies. To
ensure consistent service quality, it has a Code of Discipline that it implements consistently. In the
past five years, DSI has averaged more than 200 employee infractions on the company’s Code of
Discipline. This is more than half of the total population of the company.
The company had followed the traditional way of “correcting” these behavioral misdemeanors.
After conducting a thorough investigation and administrative hearing, an employee found guilty
received either written reprimands or suspension. The progressive approach usually started with an
oral warning, followed by a written warning, and if the problem continued, the supervisor suspended
the employee without pay. If the individual still did not correct the behavior, the possibility of
termination followed. Despite the use of the traditional progressive disciplinary action (DA) process,
DAs steadily increased and the DA process itself had been inherently distasteful to most employees.

Discipline Without Punishment System

The problem with the traditional progressive discipline system was that it forced supervisors and
managers to become the employees’ adversary. Supervisors took on the role of bad cops and hated the
fact that they dispensed punishment. Employees felt resentful because getting a reprimand, being
suspended, or being fired was unpleasant and would give them a bad employment record. Punishment
became the be all and end all of the entire disciplinary action process. The idea was to punish people
into compliance—but people cannot be punished into commitment.
During a trip abroad, DSI Managing Director and Owner, Ian Angelo R. King, came across a
book called Discipline Without Punishment by Dick Grote. This book challenged the traditional
paradigm of the disciplinary process and suggested a non-punitive approach. This was the start of the
company’s journey towards positive discipline.
According to the Discipline Without Punishment paradigm, if employees are treated as mature,
responsible and trustworthy individuals, they will respond accordingly. The new procedure eliminates
warnings and reprimands and unpaid suspensions (the final step is even a paid suspension). Instead,
the focus is on performance coaching and commitment building by the immediate superior. It also
emphasizes individual responsibility and decision-making on the part of the employee. The whole
system demonstrates good faith to employees because instead of focusing on punishments and
procedural compliance, employees are treated as mature individuals with the intention to correct the
behavior through performance improvement discussions and regular coaching sessions. This method
makes employees take full responsibility for their own behavior and performance.
This paradigm now guides how DSI handles employees’ counterproductive behaviors,
specifically violations of the company’s Code of Discipline. DSI has begun the initial phase of the
implementation of Discipline Without Punishment (DWP). Three task forces were created: Policy
Task Force, Communication Task Force, and Coaching Circle. Each task force is tasked to prepare the
logistics, align policies and procedures, create awareness through teasers, come up with a
communication plan, and most importantly, prepare the top and middle managers for their coaching
roles. Training programs are lined up for the top and middle management to equip them with the right
skills and mindset. Systems and structures such as quality management, risk-based processes,
performance management, rewards and recognition, and labor relations, among others, are being
aligned with DWP. The Managing Director himself is on top of all the video shoots that are being
produced as learning tools for both employees and managers.
The cultural change that the company is embracing aims to change the way they do things.
Beyond the new discipline system, the company is working on building a culture of open and honest
communication that will foster accountability, commitment, and trust. The end goal is to reduce
violations, to reach the staff’s optimum performance, and create a positive relationship between the
management, staff, as well as union officers and members.
Source: Ditus Sapientia Holdings Corporation, “Ditus Sapientia Holdings Inc.,” Best Job Philippines,
http://www.best jobs.ph/bt-empd-ichietamoria.htm

Dealing with Counterproductive Behaviors

Respondents in the study shared that the time-tested process of talking directly to the
person is still the number one choice for correcting counterproductive behavior. This is done
by inviting the erring individual to his or her direct superior’s office, to the Employee
Relations office, or to any higher office as necessary. As an alternative, superiors can talk to
the employee on the spot to rectify the actions.
Other procedures used are reprimanding the employee, either through written or verbal
means, conducting investigations as part of the due process, and dismissing grave offenders.
Interestingly, 68 percent of the respondents admitted that they do not use closed circuit TV
cameras (CCTV) in their offices and therefore allow the prevalence of these behaviors sans
monitoring.

Labor-Management Relations
Dealing with counterproductive behaviors needs to take into consideration governing
laws. Labor-management relations or LMR refers to the rules and policies that govern and
organize employment, how these are established and implemented, and how they affect the
needs and interests of employees and employers. The focus of LMR has broadened from the
formation and operation of national and local institutions and collective bargaining to
strategic human resource policies (Von Otter 2007). Disciplining and opposing
counterproductive behaviors, is hinged on rights of both employer and employees and should
be done within the limitations set by law.
Management has the legal right to:
1. Hire employees; as subjected to the limitations found in law, a collective bargaining
agreement and general principles of fair play and justice
2. Change the working hours of the employees; for the advancement of the employer’s
interest and not for the purpose of defeating the rights of the employees
3. Prescribe rules; as deemed necessary and proper for the conduct of its business and
to provide certain disciplinary measures in implementing these to assure that they
will be complied to. If the rules are violated, then management has the right to
discipline its employees.
4. Transfer or reassign employees provided there is no demotion in rank or a
diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges. The only time the employer
cannot exercise this right is where it is vitiated by improper motive and is merely a
disguised attempt to remove or punish the employee to be transferred.
5. Demote any employee provided it is not tainted with unfair labor practice.
Employees can be demoted, but without reduction in salary due to failure to observe
proper diligence at work, habitual tardiness or absences and indolence.
6. Dismiss an employee pursuant to company rules and regulations. This must be done
without abuse of discretion. Further, management is bound to exercise caution in
terminating employees especially when there is a labor union acting according to the
collective bargaining agreement. Legally, sources or grounds for employee
 discipline and termination are Articles 282 to 284 of the Philippine Labor Code, the
contract that binds the employee-employer relationship, and the company rules.

On the other hand, specific rights of the employees are:

1. Self-organization as mentioned in Article 243 of the labor code; this right to
organize cannot be bargained away and in fact middle managers can form their own
labor organizations as they see fit. However, confidential employees such as
managers are not eligible to form, join or assist labor organizations.
2. Conduct collective bargaining or negotiation with management, as stipulated in
Article 255 of the labor code. Though the labor organization designated or selected
by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall
be the exclusive representative of the employees, any individual employee or group
of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their
employer. The goal of the labor union is part of a mutual obligation to meet and
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith with the employers over various
concerns involving their needs. The outcome of the collection bargaining is an
agreement
3. Engage in concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
It should be stressed that the main purpose of going on a strike is to enforce their
demands. There are two accepted forms of strike according to the labor code:
a. Economic strikes whose purpose is to clamor for higher wages or for other
immediate conditions such as shorter workday, higher rate of overtime
compensation, and other economic benefits.
b. Unfair labor practice strikes where the strike is held because of unfair labor
practices of the employer and is done with the purpose of desistance from
further committing them.
4. Enjoy security of tenure which is a right of paramount value recognized and
guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution. It demands that workers should be
dismissed only for just or authorized causes and after due process.
5. Work under humane conditions, which would be:
a. Not exceeding eight (8) hours of work in a day
b. Paid night differential
c. Compensated overtime work beyond the regular hours of work
d. A rest period of not less than twenty-four (24) consecutive hours after every
six (6) consecutive normal work days
e. Additional compensation for rest day, Sunday or holiday work
f. Employees who have rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled
to a yearly service leave of five days with pay
g. Maternity leave of 60 days for normal deliveries and 78 for Caesarian;
paternity leaves of 7 days; solo parent leaves of up to 7 days
h. No woman, regardless of age, shall be employed or permitted or suffered to
work, with or without compensation
i. No child below fifteen (15) years of age shall be employed, except when he
works directly under the sole responsibility of his parents or guardian, and
his employment does not in any way interfere with his schooling
 j. Any person between fifteen (15) and eighteen (18) years of age may be
employed for such number of hours and such periods of the day as
determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations
k. Any child’s employment or participation in public entertainment or
information through cinema, theatre, radio or television must have an
employment contract approved by the child’s parents or legal guardian,
with the express agreement of the child concerned, if possible, and the
approval of the Department of Labor and Employment (Republic Act 7658)
l. Safety from sexual harassment acts
6. Living wage or the amount of family income needed to provide for the family’s
food and non-food expenditures with sufficient allowance for savings and
investments for social security. Meaning, living wage should enable any family of
six (6) members to live and maintain a decent standard of human existence beyond
mere subsistence level, taking into account all of the family’s physiological, social
and other needs. It should be noted that:
a. The minimum wage rates in every region of the country shall be prescribed
by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board
b. The employer may not unilaterally eliminate or diminish wage and other
benefits enjoyed by the employees
c. Bonuses are an act of generosity and cannot be demanded as a matter of
right from any employer
d. The wages shall be paid at least once every two weeks or twice a month
e. The employer can make necessary salary deductions if they are consented
by the employee, if these are union dues, if these are withholding taxes,
social security, PhilHealth or Home Development Fund (Pag-Ibig)
contributions, if they are due to an employee cooperative, if it is a payment
for a loss or damaged property due to the employee, and if it is because of
absences
f. The annual 13th month pay is required to be paid to the employee not later
than December 24 of each year with the employee having rendered at least
one month of service. Even employees who have resigned terminated or
retired at any time before the time of payment of the 13th month pay is
entitled to this benefit in proportion to the period he worked during the year
g. Overtime pay stipulates that the employer may require an employee to work
on regular holiday but the employee shall be paid twice or 200% of his
regular rate. If the holiday work falls on the scheduled rest day, the
employee gets 260% of his regular wage. If an employee does not work on
a double holiday, he gets 200% of his regular wage; but if he works, he gets
400% of his regular wage.
h. Retirement benefits are in intended to help the employee enjoy the
remaining years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying his financial
support, and are form of reward for his loyalty and service to the employer.
Retirement is optional at 60 years of age, but compulsory at 65.
7. Participate in policy decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as
may be provided by law. Employee has a right to participate in the policy decision
 making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. At
the very least, organizations need to inform employees. It does not mean that
employees should interfere with management prerogatives nor ask for a seat in the
Executive Board.
Thus in terms of legality, both the employer and the employee have rights and privileges
accorded to them by law. These rights both give the freedom and constrict either parties to
behave in accordance to what the system provides them.

Employee Discipline and the Labor Code

Beyond rights accorded to employers and employees, the implementation of employee
discipline is hinged on the Philippine Labor Code. The social justice provision of 1987
Philippine Constitution provides that “those with less in life should have more in law,”
echoing the credo of President Ramon Magsaysay. The labor code stresses that “construction
[of the law is] in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved
in favor of labor” (Philippine Labor Code Article 4 1974). Thus the law is in favor of the
laborer and can exercise their full legal rights in accordance to the Code. It also stipulates
that it is responsibility of management or the company to protect the rights of both the
company and its employees. Their management prerogative to discipline must be done in
good faith. The Constitution emphasizes that though management can discipline its own
workers, “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”
(Section 1 Article III Philippine Constitution 1987).
The concept of due process is defined in the labor code as “simply an opportunity to be
heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an
opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.” It demands two
requirements: that of notification (the employee in question is informed that a case is filed
against him or her), and hearing (both the employee in question and the one filing the case
have the right to be listened to in formal proceedings before a tribunal). However, the right
to due process is not violated where a person is not heard because he chose not to be heard;
nor is it violated where a person is not heard because he had chosen, for whatever reason, not
to be heard. Meaning if an employee opts to be silent where he had a right to speak, he
cannot later on complain that he was unduly silenced.
During hearings, evidences are critical in substantially proving the error of the employee
(substantive cause) and should be showcased in the rightful manner (procedural due
process). For instance, in dismissing an employee from work, two notices are required to be
given to the erring employee: [1] the intention to dismiss, indicating acts or omissions
complained against; and [2] notice of the decision to dismiss and an opportunity to answer
and rebut the charges against him. Usually notices or show cause memos require the
employee to sign as proof of receiving, reading and understanding the notice; in some
instances witnesses are needed to validate the receipt of the memo by the erring employee. In
this light, due process would require administrative hearings or investigations to happen so
the erring employee can air his side of the case; hearings are therefore indispensable in
termination cases. As part of the administrative process, most employees up for dismissal
cases are temporarily suspended from work; known as preventive suspension, this is not a
penalty but a mere positive action so the employee will no longer pose a threat to the
employer or its employees. Such preventive suspensions should last no longer than 30 days,
but is done without remuneration.
The law (Article 282 of the Labor Code) provides some instances where employees can
be outright dismissed from their respective institutions:
1. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of
his employer or representative in connection with his work
2. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties
3. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer
or duly authorized representative
4. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his
employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
representative
Employees in managerial or middle management posts may be dismissed merely on the
grounds of loss of confidence. Loss of confidence should not be simulated, nor used as a
subterfuge for causes improper, illegal, or unjustified. It may not be arbitrarily asserted in the
face of overwhelming evidence of the contrary, and it must be genuine and not a mere
afterthought just to justify actions done in bad faith by the employer.
There are of course cases when after dismissal, employees may file a legal case against
their prior employer if they perceive they were illegally dismissed. In this case, if the
employee wins, he can be reinstated where the employer must immediately reinstate the
former employee to his/her former position without loss of seniority rights or diminution of
salaries and benefits. Back wages and indemnities will also be granted back to the reinstated
employee, as well as the company paying for damages and attorney’s fees.

Implications
This chapter shed light on various Western and Philippine studies on counterproductive
behaviors. It discussed common behaviors and conceptual differences between the literature:
Western studies have focused more on the individualistic practices of counter-productivity
while Filipino literature has stressed how social and interpersonal relationships come into
play. Philippine studies on job turnover and burnout, relational aggression, discrimination,
and sexual harassment were discussed, and a study conducted by the authors highlighted the
current trends in counterproductive behaviors. As previously mentioned, the prevalent
counterproductive behaviors in the Philippines are tardiness, absenteeism, gossiping,
accessing social networking sites, and favoritism in the workplace.
Although it may be impossible to totally eliminate counterproductive behaviors, there
are measures and interventions that organizations may take to decrease and discourage these
behaviors. Given the issues with tardiness and absenteeism, organizations may opt to explore
different types of work schedules for their employees, offering flextime or compressed work
schedules so employees can balance both work and family obligations. As for accessing
social networks and downloading various online paraphernalia, organizations can have
various websites and social networks blocked or password protected, preventing employees
from accessing them. As previously mentioned, installing closed circuit TV cameras
(CCTV) in the offices may also help decrease these behaviors. Gossiping and favoritism in
the workplace, however, are more difficult to handle, especially if already entrenched in the
organization’s culture. Having effective organizational communication strategies and a
competency-based promotions system may also help organizations manage
counterproductive behaviors.
The chapter ends with a discussion on how organizations deal with counterproductive
behaviors from a legal perspective. The legal rights of both employees and employers as
well as labor code provide limits on how counterproductive behaviors can be appropriately
addressed.

Discussion Questions:
1. Define counterproductive behavior and enumerate the factors that contribute to it.
2. Compare and contrast counterproductive behaviors in the Philippines and in the West.
What are common and what are unique to each group? Where does the difference stem
from?
3. In your current organization, what are the counterproductive behaviors present? What is
the impact on your organization?
4. Aside from those mentioned in the chapter, what are some other ways that aid
organizations in curbing counterproductive behavior?

References:

Bacharach, Samuel, Peter Bamberger and Michal Biron. 2010. “Alcohol Consumption and Workplace
Absenteeism: The Moderating Effect of Social Support.” The Journal of Applied Psychology 95
(2): 334–348.
Bacud, Katrina Mae. 2005. “Work-Life Conflict and Work-Life Balance as Predictors of Turnover
Intent Among Customer Service Representatives.” Master’s thesis, Ateneo de Manila University.
Bashir, Aneeza and Rubina Hanif. 2011. “Prevalence and Forms of Workplace Bullying among
Telecommunication Personnel in Pakistan.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research
in Business 3 (5): 634–647.
Bergman, Mindy E. and Jaime B. Henning. 2008. “Sex and Ethnicity as Moderators in the Sexual
Harassment Phenomenon: A Revision and Test of Fitzgerald et al. (1994).” Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology 13 (2): 152–167.
Buchanan, Nicole and Louise Fitzgerald. 2008. “Effects of Racial and Sexual Harassment on Work and
the Psychological Well-being of African American Women.” Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology 13 (2): 137-151.
Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics. 2011. “Labor Turnover Statistics.” Accessed May 1, 2012,
http://www.bles.dole.gov.ph/PUBLICATIONS/LABSTAT%20UPDATES/vol16_14.pdf
Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics. 2011. “2011 Gender Statistics on Labor and
Unemployment.” Accessed May 29, 2012, http://www.bles.dole.gov.ph/PUBLICATIONS/
2011%20Gender%20Stat/Chapter%205. html
Carbonell, Rachel Marie. 2008. “Factors Influencing Employees’ Intention to Quit.” Master’s thesis,
Ateneo de Manila University.
Castroverde, Karen. 2006. “The Impact of Person-Job Fit on Employee’s Well-Being, Work-related
Attitude and Behaviors.” Master’s thesis, Ateneo de Manila University.
Cera, Mildred S. 2005. “Relationship Between the Levels of Job Burnout to Job Engagement and the
Areas of Worklife of the Teachers of Rizal High School Annex Pinagbuhatan.” Master’s thesis,
Ateneo de Manila University.
Clegg, Stewart and Ad van Iterson. 2009. “Dishing the Dirt: Gossiping in Organizations.” Culture &
Organization 15 (3): 275–289.
Concordia, Kristine, Noel Cortez, Jenny Rose Panaligan and Baldwin Velasco. 2011. “No Gays
Allowed.” In Workplace Wisdom, edited by Ma. Regina. Hechanova, Mendiola Teng-Calleja, and
Renee A. Ortega-Go, 97-98. Manila, Philippines: Rex Publishing.
Congress of the Philippines. 1995. “Republic Act No. 7877. An Act Declaring Sexual Harassment
Unlawful in the Employment, Education or Training Environment, and for Other Purposes.”
Accessed June 4, 2012, http://www.chanrobles.com/legal4antisexualharassment act.html
DeHart-Davis, Leisha and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2005. “Red Tape and Public Employees: Does Perceived
Rule Dysfunction Alienate Managers?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15
(1): 133–148.
Demerouti, Evangelia, Arnold Bakker, Friedhelm Nachreiner and Wilmar Schaufeli. 2001. “The Job
Demands-Resources Model of Burnout.” The Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (3): 499–512.
Edralin, Divina M. 2003. “Assessing the Situation of Women Working in CALABARZON.” Manila,
Philippines: Philippine APEC Study Center Network.
Executive Boutique. 2011. “Attrition: Challenge in Philippine Call Centers.” Accessed May 1, 2012,
http://ebcallcenter.com/blog/attrition-challenge-in-philippine-call-centers
Feagin, Joe R. and Douglas Lee Eckberg. 1980. “Discrimination: Motivation, Action, Effects and
Context.” Annual Review of Sociology 6: 1–20.
Filho, Moises Kirk, Ma. Aurora Purugganan, and Marinella Jessica B. Sanchez. 2004. “Relational
Aggression among Filipino On-the-Job Training Students.” Philippine Journal of Psychology 36
(2): 120–138.
Gomes, Glenn, James M. Owens, and James F. Morgan. 2006. “The Paramour’s Advantage: Sexual
Favoritism and Permissibly Unfair Discrimination.” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal
18: 73–88.
Hechanova, Ma. Regina and Belinda M. Chionglo Sy. 2007. “Awareness Prevents Sexual Harassment.”
In Pinoy @ Work, edited by Ma. Regina Hechanova, Edna P. Franco, and Regina G. Reyes, 112—
114. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Iboro, F.A. 2011. “Perceived Psycho-emotional Influence of Aesthetics, Affluence and Environmental
Sophistication on Employees’ Theft Behaviors in the Workplace.” IFE Psychologia 19 (1): 507–
528.
Jex, Steve. 2002. Organizational Psychology. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Jocano, F. Landa. 1999. Towards Developing a Filipino Corporate Culture. Quezon City, Philippines:
Punlad Research House.
Labianca, Giuseppe, Travis Grosser, and Virginie Lopez-Kidwell. September 2010. “Defend Your
Research: It’s Not ‘Unprofessional’ to Gossip at Work.” Harvard Business Review: 28–29.
Lim, Abigail Ruth L. and Ma. Regina M. Hechanova. 2008. “Reexamining the Glass Ceiling.” In
Leading Philippine Organizations in a Changing World, edited by Ma. Regina Hechanova and
Edna P. Franco, 106-107. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press
Lombos, Emily Ann. 2004. “Predictors of Organization Commitment and Turnover Intent in a
Multinational Organization in the Philippines.” Master’s thesis, Ateneo de Manila University.
Nower, Lia. 2003. “Pathological Gamblers in the Workplace: A Primer for Employers.” Employee
Assistance Quarterly 18 (4): 55–72.
O’Leary-Kelly, Anne M. and Lynn Bowes-Sperry. 2001. “Sexual Harassment as Unethical Behavior:
The Role of Moral Intensity.” Human Resource Management Review 11: 73–92.
Ortega-Go, Renee Ann, Carisse Diana Drilon and Andrew Gordon Mier. 2011. “It’s the School that
Matters.” In Workplace Wisdom, edited by edited by Ma. Regina Hechanova, Mendiola Teng-
Calleja, and Renee A. Ortega-Go, 93-95. Manila, Philippines: Rex Publishing.
Saito, Isamu, Taiko Imamura and Mariko Miyagi. 2010. “Filipino Personality Traits and Value for
Social Support: FOW as Human Resources for Work Life Balance in Japan.” The Journal of the
Institute of Psychology, accessed September 28, 2011,
http://risshinri.jp/publication/pdf/laboratory/08.pdf#page=2
Senate of the Republic of the Philippines. 2010. “Senate Bill No. 1585, One Time Philippines Act.”
Accessed on February 15, 2013, http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?
congress=15&q=SBN-1585
Shapira-Lishchinsky, Orly and Shmuel Even-Zohar. 2011. “Withdrawal Behaviors Syndrome: An
Ethical Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 103 (3): 429–451.
Soriano, Eric Daniel and Ma. Regina Hechanova. 2007. “Are Homosexuals Accepted in the
Workplace?” In Pinoy @ Work, edited by Ma. Regina Hechanova, Edna P. Franco, and Regina G.
Reyes, 122—123. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Von Otter, Casten. 2007. “Labor-Management Relations.” In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of
Sociology, edited by George Ritzer. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Suggested Further Readings

Jocano, F. Landa. 1999. Towards Developing a Filipino Corporate Culture. Quezon City, Philippines:
Punlad Research House.
Hechanova, Ma. Regina, Edna P. Franco, and Regina G. Reyes. 2007. Pinoy @ Work. Quezon City,
Philippines: Office of Research and Publications, Ateneo de Manila University.
Hechanova, Ma. Regina and Edna P. Franco. 2008. Leading Philippine Organizations in a Changing
World. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Hechanova, Ma. Regina, Mendiola Teng-Calleja, and Renee Ann Ortega-Go. 2011. Workplace
Wisdom. Manila, Philippines: Rex Publishing.

View publication stats