The direct and interactive effects of job insecurity and job embeddedness on unethical pro-organizational behavior

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine both the direct effects and the interactive effects of job insecurity and job embeddedness on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected, using established scales, from employees of different Indian organizations. In all, 346 responses were collected. The data were analyzed using a stepwise multiple regression technique. Findings The results of the analysis reveal that both job insecurity and job embeddedness are positively linked to unethical pro-organizational behavior. Further, the relationship between job insecurity and unethical pro-organizational behavior is moderated by job embeddedness. Research limitations/implications The study’s results indicate that managers should be aware that employees who run the risk of losing their jobs might be inclined to perform pro-organizational behavior that could be unethical. Intrinsically, such acts could be detrimental to the organization’s long-term health and therefore managers should be vigilant and timely in discouraging this behavior. Originality/value Unethical pro-organizational behavior as a means used by employees to combat job insecurity has not previously been addressed by researchers. Thus, this study contributes to the literature through its empirical examination of the role of job insecurity and job embeddedness as factors influencing unethical pro-organizational behavior.

The Contagion of Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: From Leaders to Followers

“…It would be interesting if future studies were to explore the contagion of UPB from employees to leaders. Secondly, we used the willingness scale to measure participants’ UPB, and while adopting this scale to measure UPB is consistent with the definition of the behavior emphasizing an intention to benefit organizations ( Umphress and Bingham, 2011 ), and although the scale has been widely used as a substitute for actual behavior ( Miao et al, 2013 ; Kalshoven et al, 2016 ; Ghosh, 2017 ), future research should explore whether measuring actual UPB might lead to different results from those obtained through the present study. Thirdly, although recent research has theoretically explained that LUPB can provoke subordinates to perform similar UPB, it is possible that an unethical organizational culture could also cause LUPB and EUPB to be related, as an individual’s unethical behavior decisions might be influenced by environmental characteristics ( Kish-Gephart et al, 2010 ).…”

The moderating role of corporate reputation and employee-company identification on the work-related outcomes of job insecurity resulting from workforce localization policies

“…Although several studies have examined the impact of job insecurity on employees' work related outcomes (for instance Bosman, 2005, Gosh, 2017Niesen, et al, 2018;and Piccoli et al, 2017), the key constructs that reduce negative employee outcomes, and/or increase positive employee related outcomes amid policy-induced job insecurity have not been identified. The current study therefore offers an important contribution by examining the impact of job insecurity caused by localization policies on expatriate (immigrant) workers.…”

“…Individuals experience job insecurity as threatening, and it is one of the most important work-related stressors (De Witte, 1999). Even though it may sometimes result in stress induced pro-organizational performance by employees, this is also detrimental for organizations in long-term (Gosh, 2017) as job insecurity can result in a deterioration of somatic or mental health (Ashford et al, 1989;Cobb & Kasl, 1977;Hartley et al, 1991). It is also related to negative behaviors such as disengagement, increased burnout, and intention to quit (Ashford et al, 1989;Cuyper et al, 2008;Hallier & Lyon, 1996;Meyer & Parfyonova, 2010), as well as a decline in job satisfaction, organizational commitment and employee attachment (Furaker & Berglund, 2014;Hallier & Lyon, 1996;Hartley et al, 1991).…”

The Effect of Supervisor Identification on Unethical Pro-Supervisor Behavior: The Moderating Role of Employability Perceptions

“…In other words, individuals who feel fear of loss or exclusion can participate in pro-group behaviors for the benefits of their groups. And, according to some empirical studies, these individuals go further into unethical behaviors that contribute to the interests of the group and organization (and members of the organization) to which they belong, but undermine higher values [14,42]. Considering that the supervisors' job are to create and manage the groups' performances, and that the supervisors' authorities are to evaluate and compensate for each individual's contributions to the groups' performances [43], It can be inferred that the individuals who feel fear of loss or exclusion can even take unethical behaviors for their supervisors who are a more specific object than the groups.…”