Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
Personality Traits and Counterproductive
Work Behavior: Moderator Effect of
Perceived Organizational Support
Layth Mohamed Saeed Ahmed Weldali & Zulkarnain Lubis
School of Business Innovation and Technopreneurship
Universiti Malaysia Perlis
Abstract: The present research initiative has been
taken to explore the factors leading to
counterproductive work behavior. From the existing
literature review, personality traits have been chosen
to examine as the potential antecedents of
counterproductive work behavior. While perceived
organizational support is used as the moderator in
the relationship between personality traits and
counterproductive work behavior. The statistical
findings showed that emotional stability, a
personality trait was also found to be significantly
and negatively correlated with counterproductive
work behavior. Findings revealed that perceived
organizational support had moderating effects in
reducing organizational deviant behaviors in
conjunction with agreeableness and consciousness.
The output of this study provided significant insights
regarding the causes of CWBs in organizations. If
organizations know about the reasons of CWBs, they
can work proactively to avoid such types of
occurrences; they can take steps to improve the
relationships with the employees so that the
employees feel more supported and valued by them
and ultimately deviance behavior will be reduced.
1. Introduction
Counterproductive work behaviors are “volitional
acts that harm or are intended to harm organizations
or people in organizations” [48]. The literature in this
area has frequently focused on counterproductive
work behavior’s dispositional and situational
antecedents [8, 20, 33, 53]. Some research has
focused on examining both counterproductive work
behavior that is targeted towards individuals and
counterproductive work behavior that is targeted
towards the organization as a whole [4, 5]. Other
research has examined the complex relationship
between counterproductive work behavior both as an
emotion-based response and a cognition-based
response to perceived injustice [20, 21, 47]. The
presence of counterproductive work behavior can
undermine the organization’s efforts to build and
maintain customer loyalty, as evidenced by the
ability of such behaviors to cost organizations
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
millions of dollars a year [34]. Employees who
interact with customers play the roles of both
businessperson and friend [27]. Counterproductive
work behaviors can be a violation of social trust; in
many cases, a simple apology may be the foundation
upon which customer loyalty may be rebuilt,
following perceived organizational transgressions
[50]. Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) are
an expensive phenomenon for an organization,
costing over four billion dollars in addition to
human-related costs such as low morale and turnover
[24]. Even inoffensive, low-intensity CWBs can have
an effect on targets, including decreased job
satisfaction, job withdrawal, and increased
psychological distress [13]. Both situational and
individual differences can prelude counterproductive
work behaviors, depending on the cognitive
processing of the offender [38].
Counterproductive work behaviour (CWB)
encompasses a wide range of workers’ negative
behaviours that threaten the survival, productivity
and other legitimate objectives of an organization.
The most researched counterproductive work
behaviour include absenteeism [28], theft [24,25],
sabotage [47], drug use [30], and overt acts of
aggression or extreme apathy [38,47]. During the last
decade, research on these behaviors has been
extensively diverse. As a result, the term
‘counterproductive work behaviour’ became the
umbrella of any negative behaviour that is directed
against the workplace such as antisocial behaviours
[47], delinquency [30] deviance, retaliation (47) or
revenge [7]. Indeed, the Middle East has been
essentially left out of the recent surge of international
and cross-cultural research. For example, an analysis
of all articles from the Journal of International
Business Studies from 2009 to 2013 reveals that less
than one percent of the 436 articles published in the
decade focused on a Muslim country in the Middle
East. Indeed, only a handful of organizational
scholars have focused on managerial similarities and
differences across borders and within countries in
this part of the world [54]). The limited research in
the Middle East region is attributed to several factors
Page 521
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
such as burgeoning research costs, funding
difficulties, cultural limitations which limit access to
the adult population (particularly with females), and
data gathering problems that range from sampling to
fieldwork issues [48,49]. As there is a paucity of
research on this area, the present research tries to
explore the link between personality traits of
employees and counterproductive work behavior in
conjunction with perceived organizational support.
So the main objective is to examine the effects of
personality traits on CWBs; and to analyze the
moderating effect of perceived organizational
support on the relationship between personality traits
and counterproductive work behavior.
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 Personality Traits
Typically, personality is conceptualized in terms of a
small set of enduring characteristics, labelled
“factors” or “dimensions” which affect the ways in
which an individual acts in different circumstances
[11]. The Big-Five personality dimensions [22]
represent the culmination of more than 40 years of
research on the emotional, interpersonal,
experiential, attitudinal and motivational disposition
of individuals [55]. The five factor personality
taxonomy comprising of extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, emotional stability and
imagination/intellect has been consistently used to
describe personality in a variety of empirical settings
within different contexts [14, 29]. Its contribution
has been such that it is said to represent a valid
measure of personality at the global level [17,40].
Given the instrument’s common frame of reference
and measurement, there has been a renewed interest
in examining the predictive role of an individual’s
dispositional characteristics on job related constructs
such as performance, satisfaction, turnover, unusual
behavior and training [41]. In particular, a series of
meta-analyses during the past 15 years have
confirmed that personality measures are valid
predictors of job performance in many business
contexts [32,35, 46]. These meta analyses suggest an
emergent consensus that Big-Five traits have been
found to be significant predictors of job performance
in jobs requiring interpersonal interaction between
employees or customers, [40] often a significant
characteristic of organizational deviant behavior
[52]. In this study the link between personality traits
and counterproductive work behavior has been
considered.
2. 2 Agreeableness
Individuals that score high on agreeableness are
likely to be good-natured, friendly, cooperative,
courteous, trusting, flexible, altruistic and tolerant
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
[2]. These individuals possess cooperative values, a
preference for developing positive inter-personal
relationships, and are likely to seek support from
social networks [16,51]. As such, this trait may assist
in fostering cooperative working relationships as
agreeableness will inhibit an individual’s willingness
to drive hard bargains or manipulate others for
personal gain [55]. This has some support in the
commercial friendships literature [42,43] in which
business “friends” were found to more likely to
possess open and helpful attitudes, and display
ongoing loyalty to their business partners. Moreover,
agreeable individuals who are more likely to develop
friendships with their peers are less likely to
encounter role conflict between intrinsic and
instrumental motives [23]. Individuals scoring high
on this dimension will tend to accept suggestions, be
mindful of the needs, motivations and skills of others
and will consider other people’s ideas [30].
Moreover, agreeableness is specifically related to
communication, trust and respect in team
environments and organizational morale. In addition,
highly agreeable people are less likely to be
competitive and engage in conflict [40]. [7]
conducted a meta-analysis of CWBs and personality
traits based on the FFM model. The findings
indicated that agreeableness was strongly related
with interpersonal CWBs, and agreeableness was
strongly related with organizational CWBs. [12]
found that agreeableness was negatively related to
workplace deviance behavior. Agreeable people
(people high in agreeableness) tend to be more
courteous, cooperative, trusting, nurturing, forgiving,
and tolerant (2, 47]. Because of these characteristics,
it is believed that individuals high in agreeableness
are less likely to participate in interpersonal
deviance, even if they do not feel supported by the
organization. On the other hand, individuals low in
agreeableness (disagreeable people) are more likely
to be argumentative, temperamental, antagonistic,
vengeful, inconsiderate, emotional, and
uncooperative [2]. Interpersonal conflict (i.e.,
deviance) is an accepted response in disagreeable
people.
H1: Agreeableness is negatively correlated with
counterproductive work behavior.
2.3 Conscientiousness
Following early disagreement as to the nature of this
dimension [17], there is now general consensus that
conscientiousness incorporates facets such as
dependability, achievement orientation and
perseverance in realizing set goals [17,40]. People
that score highly on this trait have a tendency to set a
limited number of substantive goals, behave dutifully
and morally and display goal-motivated behaviors
[32]. These individuals are hard workers, well
Page 522
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
organized, action-oriented and tend to take
responsibility for their actions [22]. Meta analyses by
[2] and [32] have confirmed that this personality trait
is a valid predictor for job performance across all
occupational groups and assessed job criterion. In a
subsequent study by [2] conscientiousness was found
to be a valid predictor of job performance in highly
autonomous work situations. Individuals rating
highly on this dimension would be likely to set
specific, challenging and accepted goals [49] and
engender trust in the relationship through
consistently realizing these goals. Given that
agreements incorporate discretionary elements [3],
the dependability dimension will be important in
facilitating partner co-operation, power-sharing,
respect and trust [7]. Furthermore, employees would
be more likely to develop an emotional attachment
with consistently reliable individuals that
operationalize their goals. [5] conducted a meta-
analysis of CWBs and personality traits based on the
FFM model. The findings indicated that
conscientiousness was strongly negatively related
with CWBs. People high in conscientiousness are
purposeful, hardworking, achievement oriented,
dependable and persistent [2]. They are also thought
to be dutiful and have a tendency to abide by rules
[2]. As such, those low in conscientiousness are
hypothesized to withhold effort even when they hold
an unfavorable perception of the developmental
environment. Conversely, individuals high in
conscientiousness, due to their tendency to be
achievement oriented and dutiful, and have a strong
tendency to abide by rules are not likely to withhold
effort regardless of whether or not they have a
positive perception of the situation. [12] conducted a
study and it was found that conscientiousness was
negatively related to counterproductive work
behavior.
H2: Conscientiousness is negatively correlated with
counterproductive work behavior.
2.4 Emotional stability
Emotional stability refers to how well an individual
responds to stress [37]. People that score highly on
this factor are more stable, calm and relaxed [14].
They are more able to accommodate stressful
situations, resolve conflicts and handle negative
feedback. Emotional stability is positively related to
problem solving coping strategies [31] and
organizational commitment [39]. People that are high
in neuroticism (the antithesis of emotional stability)
are more likely to appraise stressful situations as
threats rather than challenges, seek out emotional
support and use emotion-focused coping strategies
[14,19]. Alternatively, emotionally stable individuals
tend to have greater self-efficacy and organizational
commitment [36]. [12] also proposed that emotional
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
stability would be negatively related to
counterproductive work behavior. Furthermore, they
hypothesized that emotional stability would
moderate the relationship between perceptions of the
development environment and withholding effort.
Specifically, the relationship between perceptions of
the developmental environment and withholding
effort was hypothesized to be stronger for individuals
low in emotional stability. Individuals low in
emotional stability tends to be anxious, depressed,
angry, emotional, worried and insecure [2]. They
also tend to engage in avoidance-based coping when
faced with a stressful situation [15]. In their study
[12] it was found that emotional stability was
negatively related to counterproductive work
behavior.
H3: Emotional stability is negatively correlated with
counterproductive work behavior.
2.5 Perceived organizational Support
Given that perceptions of the group and supervisory
norms as well as an employee’s perception of the
level of coworker support have been found to be
related to higher levels of counterproductive work
behavior, it is logical to question if perceptions of the
organization contribute to counterproductive work
behavior as well. This issue, perceived organizational
support, has not been investigated much in the
literature. To date, only a few studies have looked at
the relationship between perceived organizational
support and counterproductive work behavior.
Perceived organizational support refers to an
“employees’ general belief that their work
organization values their contributions and cares
about their well-being” [45]. According to
organizational support theory, the development of
perceived organizational support is due, in part, to an
employee’s tendency to assign the organization
humanlike characteristics [18]. Because of this
personification of the organization, employees view
favorable or unfavorable treatment by the
organization as an indication of the extent to which
the organization likes them [45]. Therefore, if
employees feel supported by the organization they
will feel obligated to care about that organization’s
well-being and put forth effort to help the
organization succeed and achieve its goals. This
support interacting with the personality traits will
also result in a better outcome [1]. In addition, some
research has looked at variables that are related to, or
predict, perceived organizational support. The level
of perceived organizational support felt by an
individual is related to such variables as pay, rank,
job enrichment, organizational rewards, promotions,
verbal praise, and one’s influence over
organizational policies [18]. Receipt of praise,
approval and other similar favorable treatments are
Page 523
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

likely to increase the level of perceived Table 4.1: measurement model output
organizational support felt by an employee. For this
reason the present study seeks to see the moderating Variables Items Loadi Cron Com Average
effect of POS in the relationship between personality ngs bach posit Variance
alph e Extracted(
traits and counterproductive work behavior. Hence a Reli AVE)
the following hypotheses have been developed to test abili
POS as the moderator; ty
Agreeable AG2 0.974 0.90 0.92
ness 1 6
H4: Perceived organizational support moderates the AG3 0.948
0.763
relationship between agreeableness and AG5 0.605
counterproductive work behaviour. AG6 0.913
H5: Perceived organizational support moderates the Conscious CONS 0.89 0.92 0.755
relationship between conscientiousness and ness 0.896 3 4
1
counterproductive work behaviour.
CONS
H6: Perceived organizational support moderates the 0.931
2
relationship between emotional stability and
CONS
counterproductive work behaviour. 0.711
4
CONS
3.0 Methodology 5
0.919
The focus of this study is to examine the relationship Emotional 0.84 0.87 0.539
EM1 0.860
between agreeableness, contentiousness, emotional Stability 1 0
EM2 0.883
stability with counterproductive work behaviour.
EM3 0.521
Also, the study investigates the moderating effect of
perceived organizational support in the relationship EM4 0.639
between personality traits and counterproductive EM5 0.831
work behaviour. For the purpose of the study, data EM6 0.583
were collected from 203 respondents using Perceived POS1 0.825 0.82 0.88 0.615
organizati POS2 0.889 3 4
proportionate random sampling. A structured onal POS3 0.733
questionnaire survey was administered to collect the support POS4 0.787
data. The respondents were the public servants of Counterpr 0.93 0.97 0.807
CWB1
United Arab Emirate government. The collected data oductive 0.903 5 8
were analysed with the help of smart PLS software Work CWB2 0.943
Behavior
2.0M3 as the study used partial least square CWB3 0.903
structural equation modelling as a technique of data CWB4 0.943
analysis. There were there independent variables, one CWB5 0.943
moderating variable and one dependent variable in CWB7 0.903
this study. In PLS analysis, at first the measurement CWB8 0.492
model was analysed to confirm the reliability and
CWB1
validity of data and then structural model was 0.943
0
analysed to test the hypotheses of this study.
CWB1
0.943
1
4.0 Findings
CWB1
As the present study used PLS SEM as a 0.935
4
technique of analysing the data, at first the
measurement model output is analysed. Table CWB1
0.925
4.1 shows the output of measurement model. 5

4.1 Reliability Test

In this study reliability test is done and

evaluated using Cronbach alpha values. The table 4.1
depicted the Cronbach alpha values for the constructs
are; 0.901 for agreeableness (AG); 0.893 for
consciousness (CONS); 0.841 for emotional stability;
0.823 for perceived organizational support (POS);
and 0.935 for Counterproductive Work Behavior
(CWB). So all the Cronbach alpha values are above
0.7 which is considered the acceptable reliability

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 524

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
values [16]. In addition to the Cronbach alpha values,
Composite Reliability (CR) was also tested and the
acceptable value of CR is 0.7 (Hair et al, 2010). In
this study all the constructs had composite reliability
more than 0.70. So the data of this study showed
good internal consistency.
4.2 Convergent Validity Test
Convergent validity is tested to see whether the items
represent the constructs or not. In this study
convergent validity was tested by evaluating the
values of items loadings and average variance
extracted (AVE). Usually the acceptable values of
item loading is 0.50 [52,29] but 0.40 is also
acceptable for the validity of data. In this study there
were 32 items and 7 items were deleted due to their
low factor loadings. Table 4.3 shows that all the
items loading are above 0.50 which gives convergent
validity at indicators levels. On the other hand all
the AVE values for the constructs are above the
minimum threshold level which is 0.5. So it can be
concluded on the basis of the findings that the values
of AVE and item loadings are good enough for the
convergent validity of the data.
4.3 Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity was also tested using smart
PLS M2.0 software. Table 4.2 shows the
discriminant validity output of the study. According
to [13], the average variance shared between each
construct and its indicators should be greater than the
variance shared between the construct and other
construct. When the AVE is higher than the
estimated correlations among each pair of constructs,
discriminant validity is established. The
measurement model also demonstrates good
discriminant validity since the square root of the
AVE for each construct was higher than its
correlation with other factors.
Table 4.2: Discriminant validity output
AG CONS EM POS CWB
AG 0.750
CONS 0.361 0.767
EM 0.356 0.059 0.798
POS 0.256 0.362 0.110 0.783
CWB - - - serve as baselines for validating the PLS based
-0.187 0.808
0.245 0.220 0.123
Table 4.2 showed that the values of square root of
AVE for each construct are higher in that particular
diagonal and it indicates good discriminant validity.
So the above description reveals that the values of
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Cronbach alpha are above the minimum level,
composite reliability values for all the constructs are
above the acceptable range, item loading, AVE and
square root of AVE are also within the acceptable
range. Finally it can be said that the data of this study
have good reliability and validity.
4.4 Predictive Relevance (Q2)
The predictive sample relevance technique
(Q2) can effectively be used as a criterion for
predictive relevance. Based on blindfolding
procedure, Q2 evaluates the predictive validity of a
large complex model using PLS. While estimating
parameters for a model under blindfolding
procedure, this technique omits data for a given
block of indicators and then predicts the omitted part
based on the calculated parameters. Thus, Q2 shows
how well the data collected empirically can be
reconstructed with the help of model and the PLS
parameters. The Q2 value more that 0 (zero)
indicates that the model has enough predictive
relevance. The Q2 value of this study is 0.112 which
is an indication of a good predictive relevance
capability of the model.
4.5 Coefficient of Determination (R2)
The coefficient of determination (R2) value
indicates how much variation in endogenous variable
is caused by the exogenous variables. The present
study got a R2 value of 0.249 which indicates that the
dependent variable is influenced by the independent
variables by 24.49%. So the three independent
variables considered in this study have minor
negative effect on the counterproductive work
behavior.
4.6 Goodness of Fit (GoF)
GoF (Goodness of Fit) index is crucial to
assess the global validity of a PLS based complex
model [50]. It is the geometric mean of the average
communality and average R2 for all endogenous
constructs. The GoF index is bounded between 0 and
1. [52] suggest using 0.50 as the cut off value for
communality [50] and different effect sizes of R2
(Cohen 1988) to determine GoF small (0.10), GoF
medium (0.25) and GoF large (0.36). These may
complex models globally. This study obtains a
GoF value of 0.490, which exceeds the cut-off value
of 0.36 for large GoF [48]. So it indicates that the
GOF of this model is quite good.
Page 525
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

4.7 PLS structural model significant factor that negatively influences

In the structural model of PLS analysis,
hypotheses testing can be done. Here the path
coefficient, t statistics, average estimate and error are
considered. Table 4.3 showed the structural model
for hypothesis testing.
Table 4.3: Structural model output
counterproductive work behavior which leads to the
decision that hypothesis 3 is accepted.
4.8 Moderating effects of Perceived
Organizational Support
In this study moderating effect of perceived
organizational support was tested in the relationship
between three personality traits (agreeableness,
consciousness and emotional stability) and
counterproductive work behaviour. Table 4.4 shows
the output of moderating effect test.

Table 4.4: Moderating effect of perceived

organizational support

The above table 4.3 showed the results of hypotheses Relatio Path T P Comments
testing for this study. The explanation for the nship Coefficien statisti val
hypotheses testing is given below. t cs ue
AG*P -1.470 2.198 Significant
0.0
Hypothesis 1: Agreeableness is negatively correlated OS ->
15
with counterproductive work behavior. This CWB
hypothesis is not supported as the table 4.3 depicted CONS -0.767 1.775 Significant
that the path coefficient value is 0.070 and the *POS - 0.0
corresponding t statistics is 0.262 (P, 0.396). So it is > 39
not accepted that agreeableness is negatively CWB
correlated with counterproductive work behavior. EM*P -0.083 0.050 Insignifican
0.9
Here the path coefficient is also not significant as the OS -> t
61
value is less than 0.10 [46]. This finding is CWB
inconsistent with the findings of [30,6] who found
negative relationship between agreeableness and In the moderating effect of perceived organizational
counterproductive work behavior. Moreover, support between agreeableness and
agreeable individuals who are more likely to develop counterproductive work behaviour, it was found that
friendships with their peers are less likely to the interaction path (AG*POS) coefficient was -
encounter role conflict between intrinsic and 1.470. On the other hand the t statistics of the
instrumental motives [23]. So it requires further moderating effect was 2.198 (p, 0.015) which is
studies to investigate the relationship between significant at 5% level. In PLS analysis, moderating
agreeableness and counterproductive work behavior. effect exists if the interaction path is significant. So
Hypothesis 2: Conscientiousness is negatively here the interaction path is significant (p< 0.05)
correlated with counterproductive work behavior. which indicates that perceived organizational support
The path coefficient for this variable is - 0.173 with a moderates the relationship between agreeableness
negative sign. So it is a significant path but the and counterproductive work behaviour. Hence
corresponding t statistics is 0.927 (p, 0.356) which is hypothesis 4 is supported. In the test of moderating
not significant. Therefore, this hypothesis is not effect of perceived organizational support in the
supported. This finding is inconsistent with the relationship between consciousness and
findings of [6,2]. In fact some studies found negative counterproductive work behaviour, it was found that
correlation between use of information technology the interaction path coefficient (CONS*POS) was -
and organizational performance [20,46,50]. So it 0.767 with a t value of 1.775 (p, 0.03). On the other
requires further studies to investigate the relationship hand the direct path coefficient of POS to CWB was
between agreeableness and counterproductive work 0.446 with a t value of 1.803. As the interaction path
behavior. Hypothesis 3: Emotional stability is is significant at 5% level, it indicates that perceived
negatively correlated with counterproductive work organizational support moderates the relationship
behavior. This hypothesis got strong support. The between consciousness and counterproductive work
findings showed that emotional stability is negatively behaviour. So hypothesis 5 is supported. Finally,
and significantly correlated with counterproductive moderating effect of perceived organizational
work behavior. The path coefficient for this variable support was examined in the relationship between
was - 0.575 and the t statistic was 1.964 (P< 0.05). emotional stability and counterproductive work
So the findings revealed that emotional stability is a behaviour. It was found that the interaction path

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 526

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
coefficient (EM*POS) was -0.083 with a t value of
0.050 while the direct path coefficient of POS was -
0.024 with a t value of 0.052. Therefore, it can be
said that perceived organizational support doesn’t
moderate the relationship between emotional
stability and counterproductive work behaviour.
5.0 Discussion and Conclusion
This study tried to examine the influence of
personality traits towards the counterproductive work
behavior; and to investigate whether perceived
organizational support moderates the relationship
between personality traits and (agreeableness,
consciousness and emotional stability)
counterproductive work behavior. Currently,
workplace behaviors are mainly investigated in
different ways to get a more comprehensive
description of which personality traits are influencing
workplace behaviors. It is due to the fact that innate
characteristics of employees determine how they
react to different situations. The present study has
taken three types of personality traits namely
agreeableness, consciousness and emotional stability
as the factors that might hinder the counterproductive
work behavior of employees in any organizations.
The findings of this study revealed that
consciousness and emotional stability are negatively
associated with counterproductive work behavior.
Employees having agreeableness are likely to be
good-natured, friendly, supportive, polite, naive,
flexible, altruistic and tolerant [2]. These
characteristics of employees create cooperative
values in them, and they are less likely to get
involved in deviant behaviors. As such, this trait may
assist in fostering cooperative working relationships
as agreeableness will inhibit an individual’s
willingness to drive hard bargains or manipulate
others for personal gain [55]. This is also found in
this study that employees having agreeableness
characteristics are more likely to possess open and
helpful attitudes, and display ongoing loyalty to their
organizations that reduce the chances to be involved
in counterproductive work behavior. Individuals
scoring high on this dimension will tend to accept
suggestions, be mindful of the needs, motivations
and skills of others and will consider other people’s
ideas [30]. Moreover, agreeableness is specifically
related to communication, trust and respect in team
environments and organizational morale. In addition,
highly agreeable people are less likely to be
competitive and engage in conflict [40]. Because of
these characteristics, it is believed that individuals
high in agreeableness are less likely to participate in
interpersonal deviance, even if they do not feel
supported by the organization.
The second personality trait of this study is
consciousness. It is a character of individuals who
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
are hardworking, well organized and tend to take
responsibility for their actions. The present study
revealed that consciousness personality trait
negatively influences counterproductive work
behavior. Employees who score highly on this trait
have a tendency to set a limited number of
substantive goals, behave dutifully and morally and
display goal-motivated behaviors that are expected
by employers to avoid negative behavioral
consequences in the organizations. As people high in
conscientiousness have a tendency to abide by the
rules, they are less likely to get involved in those
activities that go against the interest of the
organizations. Therefore the findings of this study
evidenced that consciousness of individuals is a
factor that hinder counterproductive work behavior
among employees. Emotional stability is an
important character of employees that help them
accommodate stressful situations, resolve conflicts
and handle negative feedback. Individuals rating
highly on this dispositional trait are more likely to
develop stronger relationships through adopting
rational approaches to partner communication and
minimizing dysfunctional conflict arising from
emotive assessments of organizational situations.
Emotional stability of employees helps them take
rational decisions that are in line with the principles
of the organizations. The present study also revealed
that consciousness personality trait is negatively and
significantly related to counterproductive work
behavior. Therefore, organizations can improve
employee productivity by avoiding
counterproductive work behavior if they can recruit
people scoring high on this personality trait.
If employees feel supported by the organization they
will feel obligated to care about that organization’s
well-being and put forth effort to help the
organization succeed and achieve its goals. And this
perceived organizational support for the employees
creates a feeling among the employees that motivate
them to avoid deviant behaviours. In this study
moderating effect of perceived organizational
support was tested in the relationship between three
personality traits (agreeableness, consciousness and
emotional stability) and counterproductive work
behaviour. The findings showed that perceived
organizational support moderates the relationship
between agreeableness and counterproductive work
behaviour which indicates that when perceived
organizational support is higher, employees are less
likely to get involved in counterproductive work
behaviour. Therefore, counterproductive work
behaviour can be reduced substantially if the
organization supports the employees a lot. The
significant interaction of perceived organizational
support and agreeableness implies the relationship
between perceived organizational support and
organizational deviance varies as a function of
agreeableness in the in-class sample. This suggests
Page 527
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
that when employees understand that their
organization is supporting them, they are less likely
to engage in counterproductive work behavior. It
might be due to the fact that the support received is
from the organization; as a result, employees want to
respond to that support by not engaging in behavior
that would negatively affect the organization. On the
other hand, there was significant moderating effect of
perceived organizational support in the relationship
between consciousness and counterproductive work
behaviour. The study showed that though perceived
organizational support exists, consciousness of
employees motivate them to take rational decisions
which are easily influenced by the organizational
support. Emotional stability among employees helps
avoid counterproductive work behaviour; and
perceived organizational support might strengthen
their emotional stability to avoid such types of
behaviour. But in the present study it was not noticed
significantly. So perceived organizational support is
not am important issue to strengthen the emotional
stability of employees which will provide safeguards
against counterproductive work behaviour in the
organizations. As perceived organizational support
was found to be related to personality traits in
demising work place violence, it suggests increasing
the amount of support an organization exhibits to its
employees is less likely to be related to
organizational deviance. If organizations are having
problems with their employees engaging in
counterproductive work behavior, they should take
steps to improve their relationships with the
employees so that the employees feel more supported
and valued by them. Companies might implement
recognition programs to help show employees that
they are appreciated by the organization; they can
also take other measures to show employees that they
support them. However, it may be more beneficial to
look at other factors that more closely relate to
counterproductive work behavior in order to produce
sustained results.
6. References
[1]Ann Kwak(2006), “The relationships of
organizational injustice with employee burnout and
counterproductive work behaviors: equity sensitivity
as a moderator”. A dissertation submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Psychology,
Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant,
Michigan, February, 2006.
[2]Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Gupta, R.
(2003), “Meta-analysis of the relationshi between the
five-factor model of personality and Holland’s
occupational types”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56,
pp. 45-74.
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
[3]Baucus, D.A., Baucus, M.S. and Human, S.E.
(1996), “Consensus in franchise
organizations: a cooperative arrangement among
entrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.
11 No. 5, pp. 359-78.
[4]Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. 2010).
Development of a measure of Workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360.
[5]Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R.
(2009). Interpersonal deviance, organizational
deviance, and their common correlates: A review
and meta- analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 410-424.
[6]Berry CM, Sackett PR, Tobares V. (2007, April).
A meta-analysis of conditional reasoning tests of
aggression. Poster session presented at the 22nd
Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, New York City, NY.
[7]Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (2012).
At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics
of revenge in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & J.
Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in
organizations (p. 43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[8]Bolton, L. R., Harvey, R. D., Grawitch, M. J., &
Barber, L. K. (2012). Counterproductive work
behaviors in response to emotional exhaustion: A
moderated meditational approach. Stress and Health,
28, 222-233.
[9]Bowling, N.A., Burns, G.N., Stewart, S.M., &
Gruys, M.L. (2011). Conscientiousness and
agreeableness as moderators of the relationship
between neuroticism and counterproductive work
behaviors: A constructive replication. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 320-330.
[10]Catino, R. (1992), Selecting SMWT Members,
Self-Managed Work Teams Newsletter, Vol. 2,
Center for the Study of Work Teams, University of
North Texas, Denton, TX, p. 4.
[11]Cattell, R.B. (1957), Personality and Motivation
Structure and Measurement World Book, Yonkers-
on-Hudson, New York, NY.
[12]Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt,
L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Inter-active effects of
personality and perceptions of the work situation on
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89(4), 599-609.
[13]Cortina, L. M. & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns
and profiles of response to incivility in the
workplace. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 14, 272-288.
[14]Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised
NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO,
Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional
Manual, PAR, Odessa, FL.
[15]Cullen MJ, Sackett PR. (2003). Personality and
counterproductive behavior workplace behavior. In
Barrick M, Ryan AM (Eds.), Personality and work.
New York JosseyBass-Pfeiffer
Page 528
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
[16]David, J.P. and Suls, J. (1999), “Coping efforts
in daily life: role of Big Five traits and problem
appraisals”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp.
265-94.
[17]Digman, J.M. (1990), “Personality structure:
emergence of the five-factor model”, Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 417-40.
[18]Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S.,
& Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–
507.
[19]Endler, N.S. and Parker, J.D. (1990),
“Multidimensional assessment of coping: a critical
evaluation”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 844-54.
[20]Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A. &
Bruursema, K. (2009). Does your coworker
know what you’re doing? Convergence of self-
and peer-reports of counterproductive work
behavior. International Journal of Stress
Management 14, 41-60.
[21]Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2010). A model of
work frustration-aggression. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931.
[22]Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative
“description of personality:” The big-five factor
structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
[23]Grayson, K. (2007), “Friendship versus business
in marketing relationships”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 71, October, pp. 121-39.
[24]Greenberg, J. (2012). Employee theft as a
reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost
of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-
568.
[25]Greenberg, J. (2011). On the apocryphal nature
of inequity distress. In R. Folger (Ed.), The Sense
of Injustice. (pp. 167-188). NY: Plenum.
[26]Greenberg, J. (2010). Stealing in the name
of justice: Informational and interpersonal
moderators of theft reactions to underpayment
inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 54, 81-103.
[27]Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (2012). General
attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An
evaluation of a causal model. Journal of
VocationalBehavior, 39, 110−128.
[28]Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences:
Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations Across Nations: Sage Publications,
Incorporated.
[29]Hofstee, W.K.B., Kiers, H.A.L., De Raad, B.,
Goldberg, L.R. and Ostendorf, F. (1997). “A
comparison of Big-Five structures of personality
traits in Dutch, English and German”, European
Journal of Personality, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 15-31.
[30]Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J. and Hogan, J. (1994),
“What we know about leadership: effectiveness and
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
personality”, American Psychologist, Vol. 49, pp.
493-504.
[31]Hooker, K., Frazier, L.D. and Monahan, D.J.
(1994), “Personality and coping among caregivers of
spouses with dementia”, The Gerontologist, Vol. 34,
pp. 386-92.
[32]Hough, L.M., Eaton, N.K., Dunnette, M.D.,
Kamp, J.D. and McCloy, R.A. (1990), “Criterion-
related validities of personality constructs and the
effects of response distortion on those validities”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 581-95.
[33]Jensen, J.M., & Patel, P.C. (2011). Predicting
counterproductive work behavior from the
interaction of personality traits. Personality and
Individual Differences, 51, 466- 471.
[34]Johnson, P. R., & Indvik, J. (2001). Rudeness at
work: Impulse over restraint. Public Personnel
Management, 30, 457-465.
[35]Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J. and
Barrick, M.R. (1999), “The Big-Five personality
traits, general mental ability, and career success
across the life span”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52
No. 3, pp. 621-53.
[36]Kelly, E.L. and Conley, J.J. (1987), “Personality
and compatibility: a prospective analysis of marital
stability and marital satisfaction”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 27-
40
[37]Locke, E.A. (2000), The Prime Movers: Traits of
Great Wealth Creators, AMACOM,New York, NY.
[38]Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S.
C. (2011). Toward an integrative theory of
counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal
reasoning perspective. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 10, 36–50.
[39]Morrison, K.A. (1997), “How franchise job
satisfaction and personality affects performance,
organisational commitment, franchisor relations and
intention to remain”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 35, pp. 39-67.
[40]Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R. and Stewart, G.L.
(1998), “Personality predictors of performance in
jobs involving interactions with others”, Human
Performance, Vol. 11, pp. 145-66.
[41]Peeters, M.A.G., Rutte, C.G., van Tuijl, H.F.J.M.
and Reymen, I.M.M.J. (2006), “TheBig-Five
personality traits and individual satisfaction with the
team”, Smal Group Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp.
187-211.
[42]Price, L.L. and Arnould, E. (1999), “Commercial
friendships: service provider-client relationships in
context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, October, pp.
38-56.
[43]Reohr, J.R. (1991), Friendship: An Exploration
of Structure and Process, Garland Publishing,
New York, NY.
[45]Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S.
(2002). Affective commitment to the organization:
Page 529
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

The contribution of perceived organizational support.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825–836.
[46]Salgado, J.F. (2003), “Predicting job
performance using FFM and non-FFM personality
measures”, Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 323-
46.
[47]Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (2012). Retaliation
in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of
AppliedPsychology, 82, 434–443.

[48]Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2009). The stressor-

emotion model of counterproductive work behavior
(CWB). In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.),
Counterproductivework behavior: Investigations
of actors and targets (p. 46). Washington,
DC:American Psychological Association.

[49] Thoms, P., Moore, K.S. and Scott, K.S. (1996),

“The relationship between self-efficacy for
participating in self-managed work groups and the
Big Five personality dimensions”,Journal of
Organisational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 349-62.

[50]Trevino, L. K. (2010). The social effect of

punishment in organizations: A justice perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 17, 647-676.
[51]Vickers, R.R., Kolar, D.W. and Hervig, L.K.
(1989), “Personality correlates of coping with
military basic training”, Report 89-3, Naval Health
Research Centre, San Diego, CA.
[52]Weaven, S., Grace, D. and Manning, M. (2009),
“Franchisee personality: an examination in the
context of franchise unit density and service
classification”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 1/2, pp. 90-109.
[53]Wu, J., & Lebreton, J.M. (2011). Reconsidering
the dispositional basis of counterproductive work
behavior: The role of a berrant personality.
Personnel Psychology, 64, 593-626.
[54]Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. (2010).
Time scales and organizational theory. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 725-741.
[55]Zhao, H. and Seibert, S.E. (2006), “The Big-Five
personality dimensions of entrepreneurial status: a
meta-analytical review”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 259-71.

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 530