HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 19(4), 441–464

Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Citizenship and Counterproductive

Behavior: Clarifying Relations Between
the Two Domains
Paul R. Sackett, Christopher M. Berry,
and Shelly A. Wiemann
University of Minnesota

Roxanne M. Laczo
Personnel Decisions International

Competing viewpoints exist as to whether organizational citizenship behaviors

(OCB) and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) are best viewed as behaviors
located on a single continuum or as distinct constructs. Reliable and established mea-
sures of OCB, CWB, and the Big Five were administered to a large and diverse em-
ployee sample. Confirmatory factor analysis supports differentiating between facets
of OCB and CWB. In addition, OCB and CWB were moderately negatively corre-
lated and had a number of different personality correlates. This lends support to OCB
and CWB representing two distinct constructs instead of a single continuum.

Research on job performance commonly differentiates between task and nontask

performance. Two relatively independent bodies of literature exist: one focuses
primarily on positive nontask behavior, commonly using labels such a citizenship
or contextual performance, and the other focuses on negative nontask behavior,
commonly using labels such as counterproductive work behavior. Our goal is in-
creased understanding of the relationship between these two domains. We begin by
briefly outlining key features of each.
A series of interrelated frameworks have been offered that focus on a set of be-
haviors variously labeled as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB; Smith,
Organ, & Near, 1983), prosocial behaviors (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), and con-

Roxanne M. Laczo is now at the United Health Group.

Correspondence should be sent to Paul Sackett, University of Minnesota, Department of Psychol-
ogy, Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0344. E-mail: psackett@tc.umn.edu
442 SACKETT, BERRY, WIEMANN, LACZO

textual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). What these have in common is
a primary focus on positive behaviors that contribute to organizational effective-
ness, but that do not reflect core job tasks. These include helping others, persis-
tence and extra effort, and supporting the organization. Although there are differ-
ences in emphasis in these different frameworks (e.g., some frameworks require
that a behavior be discretionary; that is, not formally rewarded by the organization,
whereas others do not include this restriction), the behavioral domains covered by
these frameworks are largely overlapping. An emerging literature differentiates
and contrasts the task performance domain and the OCB, prosocial, and contextual
performance domain, referred to here as OCB as a term to reflect the broad domain
(e.g., Conway, 1999; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994).
From the earliest days of research on OCBs (Smith et al., 1983), distinctions
have been noted between individually oriented OCBs (e.g., helping others, exhibit-
ing courtesy and tact toward others) and organizationally oriented OCBs (e.g., sup-
porting organizational initiatives). Although differing perspectives exist on the
number of dimensions that best reflect the OCB domain (Lepine, Erez, & Johnson,
2002), the individual versus organizational distinction is commonly observed. The
instrumentation used in this research was developed on the basis of the theoretical
position of Coleman and Borman (2000), who identified three dimensions of citi-
zenship behaviors: Personal Support (reflecting individually oriented OCBs), Or-
ganizational Support (reflecting organizationally oriented OCBs), and Conscien-
tious Initiative (reflecting persistence in the face of obstacles and proactive efforts
beyond routine assigned duties).
Although the OCB domain is commonly regarded as multidimensional, it is
nonetheless routine for an overall OCB score to be computed and used (e.g., Allen
& Rush, 1998; Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002).
Such an overall score is, in our opinion, best viewed as an aggregate of these vari-
ous facets of OCB, reflecting the sum of the individual’s contributions to the OCB
domain (i.e., positive behaviors that contribute to organizational effectiveness, but
that do not reflect core job tasks). The computation and use of an overall OCB
measure does not necessarily imply a belief in unidimensionality on the part of the
researcher computing such a measure, or a belief that a latent OCB construct
causes the behaviors making up each OCB facet.
There is also a growing body of literature on counterproductive workplace be-
havior (CWB). One perspective defines this as voluntary behavior that violates sig-
nificant organizational norms, and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the
organization or its members, or both (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Many differ-
ent aspects of CWB have been studied, with differing labels sometimes given to
similar phenomena. There are ongoing efforts to clarify the differences between
these constructs (e.g., Griffin & Lopez, 2005, differentiate between deviance, ag-
gression, antisocial behavior, and violence). Although a considerable amount
of research focuses on individual categories of CWBs (e.g., theft, absence, safety
 CITIZENSHIP AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR 443

violations), recent work has emphasized an integrative perspective (Griffin,

O’Leary-Kelly, & Collins, 1998; Hollinger & Clark, 1982; Robinson & Green-
berg, 1998). As in the case of the OCB domain discussed earlier, a common empir-
ical finding is the differentiation between behaviors aimed at individuals and be-
haviors aimed at the organization. Researchers in this domain have differentiated
between individually oriented CWBs (e.g., acting rudely toward others) and orga-
nizationally oriented CWBs (e.g., taking property without permission, intention-
ally doing low quality work; Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Bennett & Stamper,
2001). Also as in the case of the OCB domain, an overall composite CWB score is
commonly computed, despite the evidence of multidimensionality (e.g., Duffy,
Ganster, & Shaw, 1998; Lee & Allen, 2002; Miles et al., 2002). Sackett and
DeVore (2001) offered a hierarchical model of CWBs, with individual behaviors
(theft, absence) at the lowest level, individually oriented and organizationally ori-
ented CWB dimension scores at an intermediate level, and overall CWB aggre-
gated across dimensions at the highest level. They argued that researchers and
practitioners may choose to focus at differing levels of this hierarchy for different
purposes. A researcher designing a narrow, targeted intervention aimed at one be-
havior (e.g., absenteeism) may focus at the lowest level of the hierarchy; a practi-
tioner interested in a summary index reflecting the aggregate of an employee’s
negative contribution to the organization may choose to focus at the highest level.
At an even more general level, recent work by Rotundo and Sackett (2002) sug-
gests a broad conception of three primary performance domains: task perfor-
mance, OCB, and CWB, and posits that an individual’s overall contribution to the
organization can be conceived of as a composite of these three performance do-
mains. This prompts questions as to relationships between these domains. Of inter-
est in this article is the relationship between OCB and CWB. There are competing
perspectives in the literature. The first is that OCB and CWB do not really repre-
sent distinct performance domains; rather, behaviors in the OCB and CWB do-
mains can be located at differing points on a single continuum (e.g., Bennett &
Stamper, 2001; Collins & Griffin, 1998; Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997). Under
such a perspective, performance would be broadly conceptualized as “task perfor-
mance” and “nontask performance,” with nontask performance including behav-
iors in both the OCB and CWB domains. The other perspective is that OCB and
CWB do indeed make up distinct performance constructs, and that they should be
considered separate dimensions (e.g., Drimmer, 1991; Hunt, 1996; Kelloway,
Loughlin, Barling, & Nault, 2002; Molitor, 1998; Sackett & DeVore, 2001).
There are a number of bases for the single continuum position. One is semantic:
OCB and CWB are alternately labeled prosocial and antisocial behaviors, with
these labels making it somewhat intuitive to view these as polar opposites. Another
is a particular research paradigm which produces results consistent with the single
continuum theory. Drawing on existing scales of organizational citizenship behav-
ior and workplace deviance, Bennett and Stamper (2001) compiled a list of 50
444 SACKETT, BERRY, WIEMANN, LACZO

items and asked participants to evaluate these behaviors according to the perceived
similarity of the behaviors. These similarity ratings were then subjected to multidi-
mensional scaling analysis, which produced a two-dimensional solution. The first
dimension represented a continuum ranging from positive behaviors to negative
behaviors. The second dimension paralleled the results of Robinson and Bennett
(1995), and represented a continuum ranging from behaviors targeted at individu-
als to behaviors targeted at the organization. Thus, the finding of a positive–nega-
tive dimension in this scaling research is consistent with the single-continuum
view.
However, as noted by Gruys and Sackett (2003), the rating task in the Bennett
and Stamper (2001) study consisted of asking respondents to assess the perceived
similarity of pairs of behaviors without specifying the basis for similarity judg-
ments. This may in part explain the finding of a continuum of positive to negative
behavior: respondents may have rated OCB behaviors as highly dissimilar from
CWB because at face value, many of these types of behaviors naturally seem dis-
similar to one another. However, the fact that OCB and CWB are judged as dissim-
ilar to one another does not address the key issue, which is the covariation in the
performance of these behaviors. That behaviors can reliably be placed on a single
positive–negative continuum does not speak to the dimensionality of performance
in the OCB and CWB domains. Note that the Gruys and Sackett argument is not
per se an argument against the single continuum position, but rather one that posits
that the scaling data do not actually speak to the issue of covariation among behav-
iors in the OCB and CWB domains.
The two distinct constructs perspective does not view CWB and OCB as behav-
iors that can be placed on a single continuum. Rather, it conceptualizes each do-
main as a separate continuum, with location on the continuum determined by the
frequency and consistency with which a person exhibits the behaviors in question.
Under a distinct constructs perspective, it is at least conceptually possible for an in-
dividual to exhibit high levels of both OCB and CWB.
One question is whether existing theory and research on the antecedents of
OCB and CWB bolster one position or another as to the relationships between
OCB and CWB. There are both similarities and differences in the theoretical per-
spectives used to understand the two. The two major classes of antecedents that
have generated the most research in the OCB literature are arguably job attitudes
and perceptions (e.g., Satisfaction, Organizational Justice, Organizational Com-
mitment), and personality (cf. Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine,
& Bachrach, 2000). Job attitudes and personality are also two of the most common
classes of antecedents of CWB (e.g., Sackett & DeVore, 2001). Empirically, how-
ever, there has not been a consistent focus on common personality variables across
the two domains. In contrast to their similar antecedents, there are antecedents in
the CWB literature that do not have direct analogues in the OCB literature. For ex-
ample, Sackett and DeVore (2001) reviewed research on the effects of control sys-
 CITIZENSHIP AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR 445

tems (physical or procedural entities within the workplace, meant specifically to

diminish the occurrence of counterproductive behaviors through increasing the
risk of detection or increasing the penalties for counterproductive behaviors) on
CWB. It is difficult to imagine a similar “control system” antecedent of OCB.
Also, Marcus and Schuler (2002) postulated that self control, defined as the ten-
dency to avoid acts whose long-term costs exceed momentary advantages, is the
driving force behind CWB. They propose that individuals engage in CWB because
of a lack of self-control resulting in a failure to consider the long-term costs of their
actions. There is no such self-control mechanism postulated to be antecedent to
OCB. The variety of perspectives on antecedents of OCBs and CWBs, and the de-
veloping nature of empirical research on these perspectives, are such that one can-
not use such existing work to draw strong a priori inferences about the nature of the
relationship between OCB and CWB.
Data on the issue of the strength of OCB–CWB relationships focus on aggre-
gate level relationships. Some studies report a very high correlation between the
two constructs, consistent with the single continuum theory. For example, Puffer
(1987) reported a correlation of –.74 in a study of sales workers rated by their su-
pervisors. Sackett and DeVore (2001) summarized findings from two primary
studies: (a) value of –.59 from the military’s Project A, and (b) a value of –.67 de-
rived from findings in Hunt (1996). In addition to these primary studies, a meta-
analysis by Viswesvaran, Schmidt, and Ones (1999) reported a value of .57. In
contrast, Miles et al. (2002) reported a correlation of –.11 in a study of self-ratings
from a diverse sample of workers across industries. Kelloway et al. (2002) reported
a correlation of –.20 in a study of self-ratings from a large sample of public sector
employees; and Bennett and Robinson (2000) reported correlations of –.35 and
–.28 between OCB and interpersonal and organizational CWBs in a study of
self-ratings of a large multiorganizational sample. Thus, multiple studies exist
which find strong relationships, and multiple studies exist which find weak rela-
tionships. A meta-analysis completed while this manuscript was in the review pro-
cess reports a mean of –.32, corrected for measurement error, and a 90% credibility
interval ranging from –.89 to .24 (Dalal, 2005).
A layer of complexity is added to the discussion of the relationship between OCB
and CWB by the fact that, as discussed earlier, although a single value is often com-
puted to represent individuals’ overall standing on OCB or on CWB, both domains
have been found to be multidimensional. It may be the case that subdimensions of
OCB and CWB are strongly related to each other. As noted earlier, in both the OCB
and CWB domains, a common empirical finding is the differentiation between be-
haviors aimed at individuals and behaviors aimed at the organization.
This raises questions about the relationships between these differing sub-
dimensions of OCB and CWB. It may be that interpersonally oriented OCBs and
CWBs are positive and negative manifestations of a single construct, which might
be labeled individually oriented nontask behavior. Under such a perspective, em-
446 SACKETT, BERRY, WIEMANN, LACZO

ployees would be located on a continuum from helping to harming other individu-

als at work. Similarly, organizationally oriented OCBs and CWBs may be positive
and negative manifestations of another single construct, which might be labeled
organizationally oriented nontask behavior, with employees located on a contin-
uum from helping to harming the organization. Such a perspective views other in-
dividuals and the organization as different targets of employee behavior. As one
can readily imagine scenarios where an individual has strong positive attitudes to-
ward the immediate work group, but negative attitudes toward the broader organi-
zation (e.g., “my teammates are great, but upper management consistently sets
policies that are unfair to employees;” cf. Spector & Fox, 2002), it is relatively easy
to envision employees with performance at opposite ends of these individually ori-
ented and organizationally oriented continua. Alternatively, these subdimensions
may prove not to be strongly related, such that individuals may be simultaneously
high on individually oriented OCBs and individually oriented CWBs. We believe
that an examination of the relationship between dimensions of OCB and CWB
would be useful to understand the relationships between these commonly studied
domains.
In sum, we believe that answering these questions is of considerable theoretical
and applied value. The field of Industrial and Organizational psychology has come
to recognize that the job performance domain is multidimensional, but has yet to
reach consensus on the fundamental domains that make up job performance.
Rotundo and Sackett (2002) posited three major domains: task performance, citi-
zenship, and counterproductivity. One possibility is that this is unnecessarily com-
plex, and a two-domain model of task and nontask performance will suffice, with
citizenship and counterproductivity viewed as the positive and negative poles of
the nontask domain. Another possibility is that citizenship and counterproduc-
tivity aimed at individuals form one domain, whereas citizenship and coun-
terproductivity aimed at organizations form another. Clarification of these issues
will affect our mental map of the criterion space. It will aid attempts at summariz-
ing existing knowledge, as when meta-analysts examine relationships between in-
dividual difference variables and organizational interventions and job performance
outcomes. It will affect applied validation and criterion development work, as in
the case where psychologists attempt to represent all important domains of job per-
formance in a study.
At least two approaches appear useful for evaluating the relationship between
OCB and CWB. One is to directly examine the relationship between measures of
OCB and CWB, both in the aggregate (e.g., overall OCB and overall CWB) and at
the level of subdimensions (e.g., organizationally oriented and individually ori-
ented OCB and CWB). At the aggregate level, the correlation between OCB and
CWB can be examined to determine the amount of common variance between the
two domains. At the level of subdimensions, correlations and structural equations
models can be examined to compare the viability of models which (a) characterize
 CITIZENSHIP AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR 447

the domain as interpersonally oriented nontask behavior versus organizationally

oriented nontask behavior, and (b) characterize the domain as OCB versus CWB.
This correlational analysis can be usefully augmented with a descriptive analysis
of the frequency with which various levels of OCB and CWB occur (e.g., how of-
ten do patterns such as simultaneously high levels of OCB and CWB occur)?
The second type of data that speak to the question of the dimensionality of OCB
and CWB involve relationships between various individual difference variables
and OCB and CWB. If behaviors in both domains load in a similar fashion on a
common dimension, a given individual difference variable should have compara-
ble correlations with OCB and CWB (after correcting for error of measurement),
although with opposite signs. In contrast, a finding of meaningfully different cor-
relations between individual difference variables and OCB and CWB would indi-
cate that the two types of behavior have different antecedents, and thus should be
treated as distinct constructs.
Again, one can find instances in the literature of individual difference variables
producing both similar and different correlations with OCB and CWB. For exam-
ple, Puffer (1987) reported that need for achievement and need for autonomy pro-
duce similar correlations with OCB and CWB. In contrast, Miles et al. (2002) the-
orized that OCB and CWB have different antecedents, and reported that negative
emotion and trait anger are related to CWB, but not to OCB.
In this research, we examine the relationship between the Big Five personality
dimensions and the OCB and CWB domains. We used the Big Five for two rea-
sons. First, limits on the number of items we could include on our questionnaire
precluded separate measures of a wider range of personality constructs, whereas a
short measure of the Big Five fit our constraints. Second, note that the goal of this
research is not a complete explication of the personality correlates of the OCB and
CWB domains. What we needed for our research was a set of variables, some vari-
ables which are known to have strong relationships to one domain (e.g., CWB),
and others known to have weak relationships. This would permit the determination
of whether a parallel set of relationships is observed with the other domain (e.g.,
OCB), as would be the case if the single continuum position proves correct, or
whether a differing pattern occurs (i.e., strong relationships with one domain, but
weak relationships with the other), as would be the case if the separate constructs
position proves correct. Prior research in the CWB domain leads us to believe that
the Big Five is well-suited for this purpose. Three of the Big Five dimensions
(Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability) have been shown to
be consistent correlates of both overall indexes of CWB and individual CWBs
(Berry, Ones, & Sackett, in press; Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001). The other Big Five
factors, namely, Extraversion and Openness to Experience, exhibit weak relation-
ships with CWBs. Less is known about Big Five-OCB relationships, as research
tends to focus on a subset of the Big Five factors (e.g., Conscientiousness and
Agreeableness), rather than including all five dimensions (Borman, Penner, Allen,
448 SACKETT, BERRY, WIEMANN, LACZO

& Motowidlo, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Measuring the entire Big Five, and ob-
taining measures of OCB and CWB using the same sample of employees and using
common measurement methods for OCB and CWB, will provide a strong basis for
determining similarities and differences in the relationship of the Big Five to OCB
and CWB, thus shedding light on the competing positions regarding the di-
mensionality of OCB and CWB.
The aforementioned discussion focuses on the OCB and CWB domains in the
aggregate. Questions can also be asked about differential relationships between
Big Five factors and subdimensions within the OCB and CWB domains. Within
the OCB domain, two personality factors stand out as potential candidates for dif-
ferential relationships. First, Conscientiousness is strongly conceptually linked to
the OCB facet of Conscientious Initiative. Organ (1994) comments on the similar-
ity of items used to measure Conscientiousness and Conscientious Initiative (e.g.,
punctuality, rule compliance). Thus, Conscientiousness could be posited as more
strongly related to Conscientious Initiative than to the other facets of OCB. Sec-
ond, Agreeableness is strongly conceptually linked to the Personal Support facet
of OCB. Organ (1994) commented that it is hard to imagine a personality factor
more strongly linked to constructive gestures targeting specific individuals.
Similar patterns are conceptually plausible within the CWB domain. Although
Agreeableness has been consistently linked to overall measures of CWB, on
conceptual grounds one would expect stronger relationships with interpersonally
oriented CWB (e.g., verbal or physical aggression) than with organizationally-ori-
ented CWB (e.g., work rule violations). In parallel, one would expect Con-
scientiousness to be more strongly linked to organizationally oriented CWB (e.g.,
rule violation) than to interpersonally oriented CWB.
This study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between the
OCB and CWB domains by using reliable and established measures of OCB and
CWB in a large sample of employees across a variety of jobs to examine the corre-
lations between aggregate and facet level OCB and CWB, to examine alternate
models of the relationship between OCB and CWB subfacets, and to examine the
relationship between the Big Five personality measures and OCB and CWB.

METHOD

Participants
An invitation to participate in a Web-based survey was sent via e-mail to 4,218
full-time employees at a large university in the Midwest. E-mail addresses and
names were obtained from the Human Resources Department at the university. In
several cases, the invitation e-mail was sent back to the principal investigator as
undeliverable, thus the effective sample size for the study was 4,210. Of the 4,210
 CITIZENSHIP AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR 449

e-mails that were successfully sent, 965 individuals participated in the study for an
initial response rate of 23%. Note that it is impossible to know how many individu-
als on the participant list actually used their e-mail accounts or how many individu-
als actually viewed the invitation to participate. Due to missing or duplicate data
(discussed shortly), 65 individuals were deleted from the analysis for a final re-
sponse rate of 21% (N = 900).
Participants were sampled from 11 nonacademic units within the university.
The most prominent occupational groups were clerical and office (31.9%), techni-
cal (17.3%), or noninstructional professional (14.8%). The mean age of partici-
pants was approximately 44 years (SD = 10.85). The majority of participants were
women (75.9%), White (88.8%), married or living with a partner (60.2%), and had
completed at least an undergraduate degree (49.6%). Participants worked an aver-
age of 41 hr per week (SD = 5.83), and had an average tenure at their current job of
approximately 8 years (SD = 8.02).

Materials
Survey development. A Web-based self-report questionnaire was adminis-
tered to the participants. We used a well-known data collection and management
company to administer the survey online. Participants could access the survey by
entering a unique username and password (provided at first contact). Individual re-
sponses were transmitted to a password-protected site that was accessible only by
the researchers and Web programmers.
The Web-based questionnaire was comprised of 95 questions from four areas of
interest: demographic information, the Big Five personality dimensions, CWB,
and OCB.

Demographic information. General demographic information was gathered

from participants: gender, race, age, marital status, highest educational degree ob-
tained, occupational area, hours a week one typically works, number of years of
higher education completed, current job tenure (years), and career tenure (years).

Big Five. Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) is a 50-item,

self-report instrument in the public domain. The IPIP measures the Big Five di-
mensions (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness, Emotional Stability, and Con-
scientiousness) using a Likert-type response format: 1 indicates a statement is a
very inaccurate description of oneself, whereas 5 indicates a statement is a very ac-
curate description of oneself.

OCB. OCB was measured with 15 items from a measure developed by Laczo
(2002). Items were drawn from a pool of 124 items originally developed by
Borman, Hanson, Kubisiak, and Buck (2000). These 124 items represented behav-
450 SACKETT, BERRY, WIEMANN, LACZO

iors in each of Coleman and Borman’s (2000) three dimensions of citizenship be-
haviors (Personal Support, Organizational Support, and Conscientious Initiative),
and were developed on the basis of more than 2,000 performance examples ob-
tained from prior research (Borman et al., 2001). The 15 items were selected from
the larger set on the basis of (a) the accuracy with which a group of judges assigned
the item to its intended dimension, and (b) the magnitude of factor loadings of the
items on the intended dimensions. Examples of items from Laczo (2002) are
“show determination to stay with the organization despite hardships,” and “are
courteous and tactful, even when especially busy or stressed.” Participants indi-
cated the extent to which they performed OCBs on a 4-point scale (1 = Never, 2 =
Rarely, 3 = Occasionally, 4 = Frequently).
To determine if this three-factor structure was reflected in the OCB items used
in this study, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were performed on the 15 OCB
items, using LISREL software. Because of this study’s large sample size, the data
were split in half and initial CFAs were performed using 450 participants. Thus if
any modifications to the initial models were deemed necessary, modified models
could be tested on the remaining 450 participants, retaining the confirmatory na-
ture of the analyses. Both a three-factor model, as described earlier, and a one-fac-
tor model were tested on the initial sample, and one item (exhibiting extremely low
variance) was dropped on the basis of modification indexes. In the cross-validation
sample, the three-factor model displayed markedly better values on a variety of fit
measures relative to a single-factor model, as is shown in Table 1. Therefore, a
three-factor model of OCB, reflecting the facets of Conscientious Initiative, Orga-
nizational Support, and Personal Support, was most appropriate for these data.

CWB. CWB was measured using 18 statements referencing several types of

counterproductive behaviors drawn from Bennett and Robinson (2000). To facili-
tate comparison between responses to the OCB and CWB scales, participants indi-
cated the extent to which they performed CWB on a 4-point scale (1 = Never, 2 =
Rarely, 3 = Occasionally, 4 = Frequently) instead of using Bennett and Robinson’s
original 7-point scale.
Bennett and Robinson (2000) developed a 19-item measure of workplace devi-
ance. This study incorporated 18 of these items and excluded the item “cursed at
someone at work.” This item was dropped due to its similarity with an item in-
cluded in another part of our survey, which is not part of the analyses reported in
this article or in other published research. Thus we had two options: use the similar
item as a proxy for the omitted item in computing CWB scores, or compute CWB
scores omitting the item. The correlation between CWB scores with and without
the item was r = .996. Given the magnitude of this correlation, we concluded that
study outcomes would not be affected by the choice.
Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) scale was designed to reflect two underlying
facets of CWB: Interpersonal Deviance and Organizational Deviance. Interper-
 CITIZENSHIP AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR 451

TABLE 1
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Fit Indexes

χ2 RMSEA RMR CFI NFI GFI AGFI

Structure of OCB
1 Factor 448.20 .110 .077 .87 .85 .86 .81
3 Factors 235.38 .071 .066 .94 .92 .93 .90
Structure of CWB
1 Factor 390.14 .100 .076 .86 .83 .87 .82
2 Factors 177.73 .048 .050 .96 .92 .95 .93
Structure of nontask behavior
omitting conscientious initiative
1 Factor 2,455.53 .120 .096 .51 .48 .75 .71
2 Factors: Interpersonal versus 2,046.33 .110 .088 .60 .57 .78 .74
organizational
2 Factors: OCB versus CWB 1,608.93 .092 .070 .70 .66 .83 .80
4 Factors: CWB-interpersonal, 778.32 .052 .050 .88 .84 .93 .91
CWB-Organizational,
OCB-Personal support,
OCB-Organizational support
Structure of Nontask behavior
Including conscientious initiative
1 Factor 3,072.86 .110 .093 .78 .76 .73 .69
2 Factors: OCB versus CWB 2,040.26 .082 .069 .86 .84 .83 .80
5 Factors: CWB-Interpersonal, 1,081.43 .049 .052 .94 .91 .92 .90
CWB-Organizational,
OCB-Personal support,
OCB-Organizational support,
OCB-Conscientious initiative

Note. χ2 = Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approxi-
mation; RMR = Root Mean Residual; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; NFI = Normed Fit Index; GFI =
Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; OCB = Organizational Citizenship Be-
haviors; CWB = Counterproductive Work Behaviors.

sonal Deviance refers to behaviors that are harmful to individuals in an organiza-

tion such as making fun of someone or playing a mean prank on someone. Organi-
zational Deviance refers to behaviors that are harmful or counterproductive to the
organization itself such as destruction or theft of organizational property, littering,
discussing confidential information, or putting little effort into one’s work.
To determine if this two-factor structure was reflected in the CWB items used in
this study, CFAs were performed on the 18 CWB items, using LISREL software.
As with the OCB items, the data for the CWB items were split in half so that initial
CFAs were performed using the first half of participants and these results, along
with any modifications suggested by LISREL’s modification indexes, were then
452 SACKETT, BERRY, WIEMANN, LACZO

cross-validated on the second half of the participants. Both a two-factor model, as

described earlier, and a one-factor model were tested on the initial sample. Based
on these initial results, three Organizational Deviance items were dropped; these
items exhibited essentially zero variance in this sample. In the cross-validation
sample, the two-factor model displayed a markedly better fit than a single-factor
model as shown in Table 1. Therefore, a two-factor model of CWB, reflecting the
facets of Interpersonal Deviance and Organizational Deviance, was most appropri-
ate for these data.

Procedure
Participants were initially contacted by the principal investigator via e-mail. Indi-
viduals who chose to participate in the study were directed to a secure Web site that
contained a consent statement and the study questionnaire. Final contact with par-
ticipants was a reminder e-mail thanking them for their participation in the study,
and requesting their participation if they had not already done so.

Missing Data
Data for 65 individuals were eliminated at an early stage of analysis. This small
group of participants had left more than 95% of the survey blank or completed the
questionnaire more than once. Of the remaining 900 participants that completed
the questionnaire from beginning to end, approximately 30% had random missing
data. Because there was no basis for estimating missing demographic data, there
were 791 complete cases for the full set of demographic variables. In contrast,
missing data were estimated for multiple-item scales through the technique of
multiple imputation using the NORM software package (see Graham, Cumisille,
& Elek-Fisk, 2003). This approach iterates between using all other variables to es-
timate a missing value on a given variable, and then reestimating the regression
model based on the imputed data. This resulted in 900 complete cases for the Big
Five, CWB, and OCB scales. In analyses where demographic data were included,
sample size varied from 791 to 805.

Analyses
We computed zero-order correlations between OCB, CWB, the Big Five personal-
ity variables, and demographic variables. Structural equations models for the OCB
and CWB item set were run (e.g., comparing alternate two-factor models: OCB vs.
CWB, and interpersonal-oriented nontask behavior vs. organizationally oriented
nontask behavior). Multiple regression analyses were performed to contrast com-
peting models for predicting OCB and CWB. Last, significance tests were per-
formed for dependent correlations and standardized beta coefficients.
 CITIZENSHIP AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR 453

RESULTS

Table 2 lists means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas (where applicable), and
intercorrelations for the demographic variables (except, in the interest of space, for
Occupation), the Big Five personality dimensions, composite OCB and CWB, and
the facets of OCB and CWB. Correlations between the Big Five, OCB, and CWB
measures were also corrected for error of measurement.

Dimensionality of Nontask Behavior

To examine the viability of the perspective that the OCB and CWB domains are
better characterized as interpersonally oriented nontask behavior and organiza-
tionally oriented nontask behavior, a set of CFAs were conducted. For these analy-
ses, items dealing with the OCB facet of Conscientious Initiative were excluded, as
these items are not relevant to the individual versus organizational distinction.
First, a one-factor model was fitted, which represented nontask performance as
unidimensional. Then two competing two-factor models were fitted, one model
representing nontask performance as consisting of an interpersonally oriented be-
havior facet and an organizationally oriented behavior facet, and one model repre-
senting nontask performance as consisting of an OCB facet and a CWB facet.
Finally, a four-factor model was fitted, which represented nontask performance as
consisting of four facets: Interpersonal Deviance, Organizational Deviance, Orga-
nizational Support, and Personal Support. As Table 1 shows, the one-factor model
performed poorly relative to the other models. Of the two-factor models, the OCB
versus CWB model exhibited better fit index values than the interpersonal versus
organizational perspective. Additional insight into the relative merits of these two
positions is gained by examining the reliability-corrected correlations between
OCB and CWB facets. The correlation between the Personal and Organizational
Support OCB facets is .49, the correlation between the Organizational and Individ-
ual CWB facets is .58, the average cross-correlation (i.e., OCB facet with CWB
facet) is .24. Thus within-OCB and within-CWB correlations are markedly higher
than OCB–CWB correlations. In contrast, the correlation between organization-
ally oriented OCB and CWB facets is .36, the correlation between individually ori-
ented OCB and CWB facets is .12, and the mean cross-correlation (i.e., an individ-
ually oriented facet correlated with an organizationally oriented facet) is .39. Thus
the cross-correlations exceed the within-perspective correlations. In short, CFAs
and examination of patterns of correlations do not support the perspective of col-
lapsing across OCB and CWB domains and viewing the domains instead as indi-
vidually oriented versus organizationally oriented nontask behavior.
Although the comparison of the competing two-factor models show the relative
merits of the OCB–CWB perspective over the individual–organizational perspec-
tive, Table 1 also shows that a four-factor model (CWB-Interpersonal, CWB-Indi-
454

TABLE 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations Between OCB, CWB, Personality and Demographic Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. Age (years) 43.39 10.83 —

2. Gender (0 = Female, .25 .43 .03 —
1 = Male)
3. Race (0 = Other, .89 .31 .01 .05 —
1 = Caucasian)
4. Years of higher 4.80 3.70 .01 .03 –.04 —
education
5. Current job tenure 8.45 8.02 .46 .05 .07 –.07 —
(years)
6. Extraversion 3.12 .76 –.12 –.05 –.03 .03 –.11 (.88) .36 .30 .25 .05 .28 .33 .27 –.02 –.13 .35 –.13
7. Agreeableness 4.16 .52 .14 –.22 –.03 –.02 .04 .30 (.81) .24 .23 .26 .34 .38 .52 –.40 –.28 .48 –.38
8. Openness to 3.86 .55 –.10 .14 .01 .17 –.20 .25 .19 (.80) .02 .05 .37 .22 .35 –.07 –.03 .37 –.08
Experience
9. Emotional Stability 3.54 .74 .12 .02 –.03 .00 .08 .22 .19 .02 (.87) .29 .17 .22 .26 –.37 –.30 .22 –.39
10. Conscientiousness 4.06 .53 .15 –.19 .00 .00 .06 .04 .27 .04 .24 (.78) .42 .20 .25 –.30 –.54 .35 –.52
11. OCB-Conscientious 3.29 .42 .18 –.10 –.01 .09 .06 .21 .25 .31 .13 .30 (.66) .57 .73 –.11 –.42 1.0 –.35
initiative
12. OCB-Organizational 3.42 .60 .18 –.09 .05 .03 .05 .27 .30 .17 .18 .15 .40 (.75) .49 –.21 –.36 .91 –.35
support
13. OCB-Personal support 3.58 .37 .09 –.04 –.02 .03 .02 .22 .40 .27 .21 .19 .51 .36 (.73) –.22 –.27 1.0 –.29
14. CWB-Interpersonal 1.51 .36 –.03 .13 .08 –.01 .02 –.02 –.33 –.06 –.29 –.22 –.06 –.13 –.16 (.71) .58 –.46 1.00
deviance
15. CWB-Organizational 1.67 .39 –.09 .13 .07 .02 –.01 –.15 –.21 –.04 –.26 –.42 –.30 –.30 –.19 .41 (.74) –.44 1.00
deviance
16. Citizenship behaviors 3.42 .35 .19 –.10 .01 .07 .06 .29 .39 .32 .21 .28 .86 .71 .78 –.14 –.34 (.82) –.39
(OCB)
17. Counterproductive 1.61 .32 –.08 .15 .09 .01 .00 –.11 –.30 –.06 –.32 –.41 –.25 –.27 –.21 .75 .91 –.31 (.79)
work behaviors
(CWB)

Notes. OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behaviors; CWB = Counterproductive Work Behaviros. N = 805 (listwise) for any correlation involving demographic variables,
otherwise N = 900 (listwise); rs ≥ .07 are significant at p < .05 and rs ≥.09 are significant at p < .01. Coefficient alphas (computed with N = 900) are shown in parentheses on the
diagonal where applicable. The lower triangle contains zero-order uncorrected correlations. Correlations listed in the upper triangle were corrected for unreliability in both x and
y. Differences between correlations of overall OCB and CWB, and between OCB and CWB facets, were significant at p < .05, df = 897. Elsewhere, dependent correlations were
significantly different at p < .05 if they varied by r ≥ .10.
455
456 SACKETT, BERRY, WIEMANN, LACZO

vidual, OCB-Personal Support, OCB-Organizational Support) exhibits substan-

tially better fit on all indexes than either of the two-factor models. Thus, the model
of choice is one that not only differentiates between OCB and CWB, but that also
differentiates between subfacets of each of these. This perspective is paralleled in
the findings from a final set of CFAs. Recall that the OCB-Conscientious Initiative
items were omitted from the prior analysis to conduct a focused test of the individ-
ual versus organizational perspective. The final set of CFAs included the Consci-
entious Initiative items, and compared one-factor, two-factor (OCB vs. CWB), and
five-factor (two CWB facets and three OCB facets) models. As with the prior anal-
ysis, the five-factor model exhibited markedly better values for all fit indexes rela-
tive to the one- and two-factor models.
Thus this five-factor model is our best representation of the nontask behavior
domain in this sample. We do note that although the data support differentiating
among these five factors, researchers and practitioners may have an interest in ag-
gregate indexes of OCB and of CWB. We note that the mean reliability-corrected
correlation between OCB facets is .60, and between CWB facets is .58, with a
mean cross-correlation (OCB facet with CWB facet) of .36. Thus, although the
five-factor model is the best representation of the data, we examine personality
correlates of both the five factors and the aggregate OCB and CWB indexes.

Personality Correlates of OCB and CWB

We focus first on correlations involving composite OCB and CWB, and then turn
to correlations involving facets of OCB and CWB. As can be seen in Table 2, sev-
eral significant correlations were found between OCB or CWB and demographic
variables. First, Age was positively correlated with OCB and negatively correlated
with CWB. Second, Gender was negatively correlated with OCB and positively
correlated with CWB (meaning that men report fewer OCBs and more CWBs than
women). Finally, Race was positively correlated with CWB (meaning that Whites
report slightly higher levels of CWB).
We next focus on the correlations the Big Five personality dimensions exhibited
with composite OCB and CWB, respectively; and the correlation between OCB
and CWB. Each of the Big Five personality dimensions was significantly posi-
tively correlated with OCB and negatively correlated with CWB, with the excep-
tion of Openness to Experience, which was not significantly correlated with CWB.
Tests of the significance of the difference between absolute values of dependent
correlation coefficients revealed statistically significant differences between each
Big Five personality measure’s correlations with OCB versus CWB (p < .05). With
such a large sample, statistical significance does not always guarantee practical
significance; however, it is clear that this is not simply a case of small differences
reaching significance due to a large sample size. We call particular attention to cor-
relations involving Extraversion (.29 with OCB vs. –.11 with CWB) and Openness
 CITIZENSHIP AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR 457

(.32 with OCB vs. –.06 with CWB). These findings offer evidence that several of
the Big Five personality measures correlate differentially with OCB and CWB.
Turning to facets of OCB and CWB, each of the Big Five personality dimen-
sions was significantly associated with each facet of OCB, whereas three of the
Big Five dimensions were related to both facets of CWB. Consistent with the re-
sults for overall OCB and CWB, results indicated that OCB and CWB facets were
also differentially associated with the Big Five dimensions. Examples of differen-
tial patterns were observed for Openness (.17–.31 with OCB facets vs. –.04 and
–.06 with CWB facets) and Extraversion (.21–.27 with OCB facets vs. –.02 and
–.15 for CWB facets). All differences between absolute values of dependent corre-
lations of .10 or greater were statistically significant at p < .05. These findings offer
additional evidence for differentiating between OCB and CWB, rather than view-
ing the two domains as reflecting a single continuum.
Table 3 lists the results of seven different hierarchical multiple regressions.
Each multiple regression included three types of variables thought to predict com-
posite OCB and CWB. The first set of predictors included demographic variables
Age, Gender, Race, Education, and Tenure. Second, the Occupation group was en-
tered into each multiple regression. (Occupation was dummy-coded creating 11
Occupation groups and clerical-office, the largest occupation group, served as the
omitted group. This was done for ease of interpretation; the coefficients for each
occupation indicate the difference in the extent of OCB and CWB between that oc-
cupation and the clerical-office occupation.) Finally, the Big Five personality di-
mensions in addition to the demographic variables and occupation were entered
into each multiple regression. Standardized beta coefficients were listed to facili-
tate comparisons between the OCB and CWB models.
Results indicated that demographic variables significantly predicted both
composite OCB and CWB, respectively. The addition of Occupation to the re-
gression equations explained significantly more variance in OCB than CWB.
The addition of the Big Five personality measures to the prediction of both OCB
and CWB accounted for incremental variance above and beyond what could be
explained by the demographic variables measured in this study. This supports
the notion that the Big Five personality dimensions are important predictors of
OCB and CWB.
Results largely parallel the correlations in Table 2. We call particular attention
to the differential prediction of facet-level OCB and CWB by Openness, Ex-
traversion, and Emotional Stability. Whereas Openness significantly predicted all
OCB dimensions, it was unrelated to both CWB dimensions. Extraversion showed
positive and significant relations with OCB Conscientious Initiative, OCB Organi-
zational Support, and CWB Interpersonal Deviance. In contrast, Extraversion was
unrelated to OCB Personal Support or CWB Organizational Deviance. Finally,
Emotional Stability was unrelated to two of three facets of OCB, and was a signifi-
cant and negative predictor of both dimensions of CWB. These results suggest that
 TABLE 3
Multiple Regression Results of Models Predicting Overall
and Facet-Level Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
and Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors

Standardized Beta Coefficients

OCB CWB OCBCI OCBOS OCBPS CWBID CWBOD

Demographic variables
Age (years) .169** .001 .167** .179** .041 .049 –.029
Gender (0 = women; –.074* .070* –.095** –.065 –.003 .049 .067
1 = men)
Race (0 = other; 1= .019 .063* –.003 .062 –.007 .061 .050
White)
Years of higher .008 .021 .032 –.004 –.019 –.014 .038
education
Current job tenure .010 .032 .019 –.006 .006 .026 .028
(years)
Occupation
Craft and trades .035 –.038 .060 .023 –.011 –.010 –.047
Healthcare .030 .003 .021 .071* –.020 .075* –.042
nonprofessional
Law Enforcement .008 .007 .023 .010 –.019 .008 .004
Managerial .123** –.052 .092** .118** .083* .021 –.085**
Noninstructional .104** .003 .084* .110** .052 .052 –.027
professional
Nursing .009 –.014 .019 .006 –.008 .007 –.024
professional
Service, .014 .013 .028 –.021 .019 .079* –.031
maintenance, or
labor
Supervisory .097** .011 .074* .085* .071* .061 –.023
Technical .090** –.071* .103** .057 .041 .048 –.128**
Other .073* –.085* .063 .101** .007 .007 –.122**
Big Five personality
variables
Openness to .228** –.020 .244** .105** .166** –.044 .000
Experience
Conscientiousness .140** –.311** .219** .018 .051 –.111** –.361**
Extraversion .154** .011 .123** .181** .061 .142** –.072*
Agreeableness .235** –.169** .097** .187* .304** –.266** –.070*
Emotional stability .043 –.208** –.024 .047 .100** –.243** –.137**
R2 dems only .055 .038 .053 .046 .012 .025 .030
R2 dems + occ .092 .058 .079 .081 .037 .046 .063
R2 dems + occ + personality .307 .276 .247 .204 .224 .209 .254
F dems only 9.175** 6.150** 8.703** 7.483** 1.907 4.103** 4.900**
F dems + occ 5.249** 3.189** 4.432** 4.576** 1.964* 2.470** 3.484**
F dems+occ+personality 18.438** 14.638** 12.609** 9.865** 11.101** 10.164** 13.072**
∆R2 occ .037** .020 .027** .036** .025* .020 .033**
∆R2 personality .232** .218** .168** .123** .187** .163** .190**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Note. OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behaviors; CWB = Counterproductive Behaviors;
OCBCI = Conscientious Initiative; OCBOS = Organizational Support; OCBPS = Personal Support;
CWBID = Individual Deviance; CWBOD = Organizational Deviance.
 CITIZENSHIP AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR 459

OCB and CWB (measured in terms of both overall constructs and at facet-level)
are separate but related constructs with different patterns of correlates.

Co-Occurrence of High Levels of OCB and CWB

A question of interest is whether it is possible to simultaneously exhibit high levels
of both OCB and CWB. This would not be possible under a perspective that views
these two domains as behaviors that can be located on a single continuum. At the
aggregate level, OCB and CWB correlate –.39, corrected for error of measure-
ment. Thus they are related, but not at the level that would preclude high levels of
both from simultaneously occurring. As a further analysis, we divided our sample
into thirds on OCB and CWB, and on OCB and CWB facets. We then determined
the number of individuals in the sample simultaneously high (top third) in OCB
and high (top third) in CWB. We also examined the converse: the number simulta-
neously low in CWB and low in OCB. At the aggregate level, 8.7% of our sample
was simultaneously high on both OCB and CWB, and 8.1% was simultaneously
low on both OCB and CWB; similar findings result when various OCB and CWB
facets are paired. Thus although it is intuitively easier to imagine someone high on
interpersonal OCB and organizational CWB than someone high on both interper-
sonal OCB and interpersonal CWB, both patterns are equally likely. This docu-
mentation of the nontrivial rate of co-occurrence of high OCB and high CWB fur-
ther supports the value of differentiating between the domains.

DISCUSSION

This research sheds new light on competing theoretical perspectives and previous
empirical findings concerning the relationship between OCB and CWB. Although
a number of scholars have endorsed locating behaviors in the OCB and CWB do-
mains on a single continuum, our findings offer multiple arguments against such a
position.
First, confirmatory factor analysis reveals that a one-factor model (i.e., a single
continuum model) does not fit the data well. Although a better fit is obtained with a
two-factor model differentiating between OCB and CWB, a five-factor model re-
flecting two facets of CWB (organizationally oriented CWB and individually ori-
ented CWB) and three facets of OCB (Conscientious Initiative, Personal Support,
and Organizational Support) receives the strongest support.
Second, correlational analyses revealed a moderate negative relationship be-
tween aggregate OCB and aggregate CWB (–.39, corrected for error of measure-
ment), supporting the notion that OCB and CWB, although negatively correlated,
are distinct constructs. Data further show a nontrivial rate of co-occurrence of high
levels of OCB and high levels of CWB. In our sample, 8.7% emerge as simulta-
460 SACKETT, BERRY, WIEMANN, LACZO

neously good citizens and engaging in high levels of CWB. This further supports
the value of differentiating between the two domains. We note that current mea-
sures do not differentiate between behavior aimed at members of one’s work group
from behavior aimed at other organization members; such a distinction may prove
useful in understanding the co-occurrence of OCB and CWB.
Third, the personality correlates of OCB and CWB were different, further sup-
porting the separate construct perspective. For instance, although aggregate OCB
was predicted by Agreeableness, Openness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness,
aggregate CWB had modest and negative relationships with Openness and Ex-
traversion, and was strongly negatively predicted by Conscientiousness, Emo-
tional Stability, and Agreeableness.
We also believe that the pattern of findings relating personality to different fac-
ets of OCB and CWB offers support for the distinct constructs perspective. Al-
though Conscientiousness is the strongest predictor of aggregate CWB, its predic-
tive power comes largely from its relationship with organizationally oriented
CWB. Agreeableness and Emotional Stability, on the other hand, are stronger pre-
dictors of interpersonally oriented CWB. Similarly within the OCB domain, the
link between Conscientiousness and aggregate OCB is driven by its relationship
with the Conscientious Initiative facet, and the link between Agreeableness and
composite OCB is driven largely by its relationship with the Personal Support
facet. This pattern of differential relationships is hard to reconcile with a single
construct perspective. The differential pattern of relationships between personality
and OCB and CWB facets indicates the value of carefully identifying the facets
of interest for future investigation. An organization interested in focusing its selec-
tion efforts, for example, on reducing Organizational Deviance, would choose
a very different course of action than one interested in reducing Interpersonal
Deviance.

Limitations
This study used self-reports to collect data from participants on both the personal-
ity predictors and the OCB and CWB criteria. The domain of CWB is one where
there is a long history of concern over appropriate measurement methods, as a con-
siderable number of behaviors in the CWB domain are intended as private and
unobservable. Consider the following items used in this study: “take office sup-
plies from the company,” “deface, damage, or destroy company property,” or
“leave work early when your supervisor is gone.” It is not clear that a supervisor
has a basis for reporting the incidence of these behaviors for a great many employ-
ees. Of course, some behaviors in the CWB domain are quite public, primarily
those in the Interpersonal Deviance category (e.g., “publicly embarrassed some-
one at work”).
 CITIZENSHIP AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR 461

We carefully considered possible threats to the study’s findings due to the deci-
sion to use self-reports. The first is the possibility of common method variance.
Note, however, that the key finding of the study is a pattern of differential relation-
ships between personality, OCB, and CWB, where common method variance
would be expected to contribute to similarity of relationships. The second is the
possibility of intentional distortion, particularly regarding CWB. There are several
features of our results that argue against this. First, underreporting (i.e., denying
wrongdoing) would reduce variance, making it less likely to find relationships be-
tween CWB and other variables. However, correlations between personality and
CWB are similar in magnitude to correlations between personality and OCB. Sec-
ond, patterns of personality correlates of CWB mirror prior research using nonself
report measures of CWB. Note that the primary personality correlates of CWB
found in this research (Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeable-
ness) are those that Ones (1993) found to underlie integrity tests and to account for
the relationship between integrity tests and CWB.
One question is whether our findings are specific to the instrumentation used
here, rather than fully reflecting the OCB and CWB domains. Our data collection
included a second unpublished CWB measure in addition to the Bennett and Rob-
inson (2000) measure (a measure from Laczo, 2002). Despite covering a largely
nonoverlapping set of CWBs (the two measures had one redundant item), the two
scales correlate .80; correcting for unreliability raises this to .99. We do not have a
second OCB measure. Although we are confident that our OCB measure does re-
flect current thinking, we acknowledge the value of further research with other in-
strumentation. We do note that there is convergence between various findings in
this study and previous literature. For example, the pattern of correlations between
the Big Five and CWB correspond closely to the meta-analytic findings of Ones
and Viswesvaran (2001), and the relationship between Conscientiousness and
OCB corresponds closely to the findings of LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002).
We offer the observation that OCB–CWB relationships seem much smaller when
self-reports are used (e.g., this study; Laczo, 2002; Miles et al., 2002) than when su-
pervisor reports are used (e.g., Hunt, 1996; Puffer, 1987; Viswesvaran, Schmidt, &
Ones, 1999). It may be that these differences are an artifact of the differences in mea-
sures used in the various studies, as none of the studies cited here used a common set
of OCB and CWB measures. One possibility is that because supervisors have limited
opportunities to observe some OCBs and CWBs, their ratings are heavily influenced
by halo error. We concluded that a systematic comparison of self and supervisor as
the source of information about CWB and OCB, differentiating between more ob-
servable and less observable behaviors, would be valuable. While this manuscript
was in the review process, Dalal (2005) acknowledged our suggestion and reported a
meta-analytic examination of the OCB–CWB relationship using self versus super-
visor ratings. He reported much stronger relationships (mean r = –.60) for supervisor
ratings than for self-ratings (mean r = –.12).
462 SACKETT, BERRY, WIEMANN, LACZO

REFERENCES

Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance
judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247–260.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.
Bennett, R., & Stamper, C. L. (2001). Corporate citizenship and deviancy: A study of discretionary
work behavior. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (in press). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance,
and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Borman, W. C., Buck, D., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2001). An exami-
nation of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using com-
puterized adaptive rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 965–973.
Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., Kubisiak, U. C., & Buck, D. E. (2000). Computerized adaptive rating
scales (CARS): Development and evaluation of the concept (Institute Rep. No. 350). Tampa, FL: Per-
sonnel Decisions Research Institutes.
Borman , W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in
organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., and Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictions of
citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52–69.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management
Review, 11, 710–725.
Chen, X., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover:
Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
922–931.
Coleman, V. L., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship per-
formance domain. Human Resources Management Review, 10, 25–44.
Collins, J. M., & Griffin, R. W. (1998). The psychology of counterproductive job performance. In R. W.
Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent
and deviant behavior (pp. 219–242). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial
jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 3–13.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior
and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255.
Drimmer, L. B. (1991). Job stress: An investigation of professional and organizational commitment as
moderators and relationships to organizational citizenship behavior and misbehavior. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Cleveland State University, Ohio.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Positive affectivity and negative outcomes: The role
of tenure and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 950–959.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Graham, J. W., Cumsille, P. E., & Elek-Fisk, E. (2003). Methods for handling missing data. In J. A.
Schinka & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology (pp.
87–114). New York: Wiley.
Griffin, R. W., & Lopez, Y. P. (2005). “Bad behavior” in organizations: A review and typology for fu-
ture research. Journal of Management, 31, 988–1005.
Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-Kelly, A., & Collins, J. (1998). Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations.
In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 65–82). New York:
Wiley.
 CITIZENSHIP AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR 463

Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work be-
havior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 30–42.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1982). Formal and informal social controls of employee deviance. The
Sociological Quarterly, 23, 333–343.
Hunt, S. T. (1996). Generic work behavior: An investigation into the dimensions of entry-level, hourly
job performance. Personnel Psychology, 49, 51–83.
Kelloway, E. K., Loughlin, C., Barling, J., & Nault, A. (2002). Organizational citizenship and counter-
productive behaviors: Separate but related constructs. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 10, 143–151.
Laczo, R. (2002). An examination of the dimensionality of non-task performance. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of
affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citi-
zenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65.
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2002). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general per-
spective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 647–660.
Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrative model of extra
role work behaviors: A comparison of counterproductive work behavior with organizational citizen-
ship behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 51–57.
Molitor, D. D. (1998). An examination of the effects of personality and job satisfaction on multiple
non-workrole organizational behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University,
Ames.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance can be distinguished
from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.
Ones, D. S. (1993). The construct validity of integrity tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Iowa, Iowa City.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Integrity tests and other criterion-focused occupational person-
ality scales (COPS) used in personnel selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
9, 31–39.
Organ, D. W. (1994). Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 20,
465–478.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of
organizational citizenship behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future re-
search. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance among com-
mission salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 615–621.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995) A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimen-
sional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants, and
dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in
organizational behavior (pp. 1–30). New York: Wiley.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproduc-
tive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 87, 66–80.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. Ones,
H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), International handbook of work psychology (Vol. 1, pp.
145–164). London: Sage.
464 SACKETT, BERRY, WIEMANN, LACZO

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and an-
tecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some paral-
lels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Re-
source Management Review, 12, 269–292.
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (1999). The role of halo error in interdimensional rat-
ings: The case of job performance ratings examined via meta-analysis. Manuscript submitted for
publication.