Antecedents of Counterproductive Behavior at Work: A General Perspective.

Abstract

Counterproductive work behaviors have predominantly been investigated at relatively narrow levels, with the focus limited to subsets of the behavioral domain as well as to specific explanatory approaches. This study took a broader perspective with respect to both dependent and independent variables. A sample of German employees from 2 organizations reported on their levels of general counterproductive behavior (GCB). In predicting GCB, M. R. Gottfredson and T. Hirschi's (1990) theory of self-control as a general explanation for deviant acts was tested and compared with several alternative approaches. Results from simple and moderated hierarchical multiple regression analyses involving 24 predictors of GCB strongly support hypotheses derived from self-control theory. Little support is found for any effects on individual differences in GCB beyond the direct and conditional impact of internal control.

The job demands–resources model and counterproductive work behaviour: The role of job-related affect

“…Indeed, research has shown a clear link between work stressors such as interpersonal conflict, workload, role conflict, and role ambiguity, on the one hand, and CWB on the other (for a review, see . Personal factors such as self-control (Marcus & Schuler, 2004) and negative affectivity (Douglas & Martinko, 2001) may also be important factors in this process. A limitation of the available research in this area is that a comprehensive model which tries to explain the process leading to CWB has not yet been attempted.…”

Identifying Key Workplace Stressors Affecting Twentieth Air Force: Analyses Conducted from December 2012 Through February 2013

“…That is, when employees encounter what they perceive to be injustice (e.g., unfair compensation, lack of respect), they may take actions to help to restore justice by acting in ways that intentionally hurt an organization (Fox, Spector, and Miles, 2001;Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001;Marcus and Schuler, 2004). Perceptions of justice are divided into three distinct types: distributive justice (fairness of distributions of rewards or resources); procedural justice (fairness of the way outcomes are determined and whether one has a voice in the process); and interactional justice, which is divided further into interpersonal justice (treating people with dignity and respect) and informational justice (receiving clear explanations about the procedures used to determine an outcome) (Greenberg, 1993;Colquitt, 2001;Fox, Spector, and Miles, 2001;and Morrison and Robinson, 1997).…”

Boundary conditions of the emotional exhaustion-unsafe behavior link: The dark side of group norms and personal control

“…Opportunity is a necessary precondition for deviant behav ior to occur (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, I 990;Marcus & Schuler, 2004). Because, personal control entails extensive discretion at work, it therefore affords individuals greater opportunity to engage in unsafe behavior and take shortcuts without interference from others.…”

“…With less oversight and supervision, individuals are more likely to develop bad habits and can more easily bypass or ignore regulations as they have both less fear of reprisal and greater occasion to develop alternative, and possibly unsafe, methods of perfom1ance. Conversely, low levels of personal control wi ll curtail chances to perfom1 deviant behavior (Marcus & Schuler, 2004), as employee behaviors w ill be monitored and high ly regulated. There fore, similar to findings that job autonomy strengthens the relationship between job stressors and deviant behavior (Fox et al, 2001 ), we suggest that personal control provides emotionally exhausted workers the means necessa1y to alleviate strain by developing and enacting unsafe shortcuts and workarounds.…”