antiocb

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

1/14

Anti-Citizenship Behavior, Employee Deviant Behavior, Organizational

Misbehavior, Dysfunctional Organizational Behavior, and Counterproductive Work

Behavior: A Review, Synthesis and Research Suggestions

Mel E. Schnake, D.B.A.Department of Management

Valdosta State University

Valdosta, GA 31698(229) 245-3822

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

2/14




Abstract

Several different definitions and categorizations of dysfunctional behavior within

organizations have been identified in the literature. Most of these are broad and include

widely different types of dysfunctional behavior within a single category. This paper

proposes a three-dimensional model of dysfunctional behavior, focusing on the

organization and/or its members of targets of these behaviors. A more precise

categorization scheme may lead to more accurate measures of these behaviors and

serve to focus future research. Important measurement issues are also discussed.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

3/14




Organizational science scholars have generally focused their theory and

research on various categories of positive employee behavior, such as employee

motivation and performance, organizational citizenship behavior, pro-social

organizational behavior, and spontaneous performance. While various forms of negative

employee behavior exist in organizations, they have received less theoretical and

empirical attention, although recently this appears to be changing. Of course, some

forms of what might be considered negative employee behavior have been studied in

detail. These would include such behaviors as absenteeism, tardiness, turnover,

unethical behavior and theft. The types of negative behavior which have not received

much research attention include those which are often more subtle such as sabotage,

vandalism, wasting organizational resources, passive aggression, and the like. Murphy

(1993) estimates that such negative employee behaviors cost U.S. businesses between

$6 and $200 billion annually. Harper (1990) found that between 33 and 75 percent of all

employees have engaged in some form of negative organizational behavior, including

theft, sabotage, and vandalism. Clearly, whatever the term chosen for these behaviors,

negative employee behaviors are not uncommon and may take a variety of forms. A

single classification scheme which covers them all may prove to be unwieldy. Further, a

single model may not be appropriate for all forms of negative employee behavior

because of different sets of antecedents and outcomes. However, some form of

synthesis at this stage in the research seems appropriate.

The purpose of this paper is to review the existing theory and empirical evidence

on the various types of negative employee behaviors which have been identified to date,
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

4/14

synthesize these ideas to provide a coherent framework to guide future research,

consider methodological issues inherent in studying these types of behaviors, and

provide suggestions for future research in this area.

Types of Negative Employee Behaviors

Robinson and Bennett (2001, p. 556) define employee deviance as voluntary

behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-

being of an organization, its members, or both. They distinguish between employee

deviance and unethical behavior in that deviance focuses on behaviors which violate

organizational norms, while unethical behavior focuses on behaviors which violate

societal values and laws. However, they note that a behavior could be both deviant and

unethical. Robinson and Bennett (2001) developed a two-dimensional typology (minor

vs. serious and interpersonal vs. organizational) of deviant workplace behaviors. Thus,

workplace deviance falls into one of four categories: production deviance (minor

organizational deviance including leaving early, taking excessive breaks, wasting

resources, intentionally working slowly), property deviance (serious organizational

deviance including sabotaging equipment, lying about hours worked, stealing from

organization), political deviance (minor interpersonal deviance including gossiping about

co-workers, blaming co-workers), and personal aggression (serious interpersonal

deviance including verbal abuse, endangering co-workers). However, this scheme

appears to ignore deviant or dysfunctional behaviors directed at organizational outsiders,

such as customers. Yet, the list of specific behaviors which Robinson and Bennett

(2001) used to develop their taxonomy clearly includes such behaviors (e.g., an

employee verbally abusing customers, an employee physically abusing a customer, an

employee stealing a customers possessions).

Giacalone and Greenberg (1997) define antisocial behavioras behavior that

causes harm or is intended to cause harm to an organization, its employees, or its
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

5/14

stakeholders. Examples of antisocial behavior include arson, blackmail, bribery,

discrimination, espionage, extortion, fraud, interpersonal violence, kickbacks, lying,

sabotage, theft, and violations of confidentiality. This definition incorporates behaviors

aimed at both organizational insiders and outsiders, as well as behaviors which cause

harm to individuals and the organization.

Griffin, OLeary-Kelly and Collins (1998, p. 67) define dysfunctional

organizational behavioras motivated behavior by an employee or group of employees

that has negative consequences for an individual within the organization, a group of

individuals within the organization, and/or the organization itself. They point out that

distinguishes their conceptualizations from others such as antisocial behavior and

workplace deviance is intentionality. That is, the actor must intendthat the act be

harmful to an individual or group within the organization and/or the organization itself.

This framework permits the same behavior to be functional or dysfunctional, depending

on intent. Their framework results in two general categories: whether the behavior

directly harms individuals/groups (i.e., human welfare), or whether it harms the

organization. It is clear that many dysfunctional behaviors may ultimately harm both

individuals andthe organization; however, the emphasis in this classification scheme is

on the direct costs. Drug abuse on the job, for example, harms both the individual

employee and the organization, but it is the individual employee who incurs the greatest

and most direct harm. Dysfunctional behaviors which harm individuals or groups is then

further subdivided into two categories: behaviors that harm others, and behaviors that

harm oneself. Examples of the former category include sexual harassment and physical

violence, and examples of the latter category include drug abuse, unsafe work practices

and suicide. Behaviors which harm the organization are also subdivided into: behaviors

that have specific costs (such as inappropriate absenteeism, theft, destruction of

company property) and behaviors that have general costs (such as dysfunctional
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

6/14

political behaviors, dysfunctional impression management behaviors, and intentional

sub-optimal performance). Behaviors which harm organizational outsiders are ignored

in this framework. This is a very broad framework, perhaps too broad to guide research.

Further, dividing lines between these broad categories are blurred. For example, some

behaviors, such as unsafe work practices, may fall into more than one category.

Finally, the framework results in imprecise categorizations such that smoking and

suicide are included in a category with behaviors intended to harm the organization or its

members.

Spector and Fox (in press) note the parallels between counterproductive work

behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and create a model

based on work place emotions to partially explain both types of voluntary behavior.

CWB is defined as behavior intended to hurt the organization or its employees. OCB is

voluntary, extra-role behavior, aimed at individuals or the organization, which benefits

the organization (Organ, 1988). CWB is a broad category including such behaviors as

avoiding tasks, verbal hostility, physical aggression, sabotage, theft, and intentionally

doing tasks incorrectly. Spector and Fox (in press) present a model which suggests that

positive emotions (e.g., positive mood) result in positive voluntary behaviors such as

OCB, while negative emotions (i.e., anger, frustration) result in negative voluntary

behaviors such as CWB. This approach ignores behaviors which harm organizational

outsiders.

Vardi and Wiener (1996, p. 151) define organizational misbehavior (OMB) as

any intentional action by members of organizations that violates core organizational

and/or societal norms. They distinguish between three types of OMB: Type S which is

misbehavior which is intended to benefit oneself, Type O which is misbehavior intended

to benefit the organization, and Type D which is misbehavior intended to inflict damage.

Similar to Griffin, OLeary-Kelly and Collins (1998), employee intent is an important part

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

7/14

of this definition. However, behaviors which are consistent with organizational values

but inconsistent with societal values (e.g., lying to customers) are considered OMB, as

are behaviors consistent with societal values but inconsistent with organizational values

(e.g., whistle-blowing). This approach includes most types of harmful behaviors; both

those that harm organizational insiders and outsiders as well as those which harm

individuals and those that harm the organization.

Other terms describing similar negative employee behaviors include

organizational aggression (Spector, 1978; Neuman & Baron, 1998), retaliation (Skarlicki

& Folger, 1997) and revenge (Bies, Tripp & Kramer, 1997), workplace incivility

(Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Table 1 provides a summary of definitions for these

various types of negative behaviors.

Table 1

Definitions

Robinson & Bennett, 1995 Employee Deviance Voluntary behavior that violatessignificant organizational norms

and in so doing threatens thewell-being of an organization,

its members, or both.

Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997 Antisocial Behavior Negative behaviors in organiza-

tions which are harmful or have

the potential to cause harm to

individuals and/or the property

of an organization.

Vardi & Wiener, 1996 Organizational Misbehavior Any intentional action by members

of organizations that violates core

organizational and/or societal

norms.

Spector & Fox, in press Counterproductive Work Behavior Behavior intended to hurt the

organization or other members ofthe organization.

Griffin, OLeary-Kelly, Dysfunction Work Behavior Motivated behavior by an

& Collins, 1998 employee or group of employees

that has negative consequences for

an individual within the organiza-
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

8/14

tion, a group of individuals within

the organization, and/or the organi-

zation itself.

Spector, 1978 Organization Aggression

Skarlicki & Folger, 1997 Retaliation

Bies, Tripp & Kramer, 1997 Revenge

Puffer, 1987 Noncompliant Behavior Breaking rules or norms.

Andersson & Pearson, 1999 Workplace Incivility Low intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to

harm the target. (Behavior

characterized by rudeness

and disregard for others.______________________________________________________________________________________

These definitions are all relatively broad and include most deviant or negative

behaviors from gossip or withholding effort to verbal abuse and sabotaging

organizational property. Both legal and illegal behaviors are included in most of these

definitions, as are behaviors which violate organizational norms or policies, and those

which do not violate organizational policies, but inflict harm on others within the

organization. Behaviors aimed at various targets, such as organizational members and

organizational outsiders are also included in many of these definitions. What is needed

is a framework which categorizes these various forms of negative behaviors so that

research efforts can be more clearly focused.

Antecedents of Dysfunctional Behaviors

Few studies address antecedents of dysfunctional behaviors, perhaps in part due

to the lack of clarity of the construct itself. Further, studies which have examined

antecedents have generally focused on a limited range of these behaviors.

In a study examining both prosocial and noncompliant behavior, Puffer (1987)

found noncompliant behavior to be inversely related to need for achievement and

confidence in management Noncompliant behavior was a relatively broad construct
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

9/14

including being late and taking excessive breaks, complaining about the company or

coworkers, violating rules, making unrealistic promised to customers, and failing to do

ones fair share. These behaviors include those which harm the organization and

individuals within the organization, as well as those external to the organization. Thus,

this one measure of noncompliant behavior extends across several categories of

dysfunctional behavior developed by other authors.

Spector, and Fox (in press) develop a conceptual argument identifying negative

emotion as an antecedent to counterproductive work behavior (CWB). CWB is behavior

intended to hurt the organization or its employees, and therefore excludes behaviors

which harm organizational outsiders. Spector and Fox (in press) argue that an

individuals appraisal of a situation is influenced by personality traits such as trait anger,

anxiety, locus of control and delinquency and his/her emotional state. Emotional state

results in a readiness to engage in CWB; individual differences and

environmental/situational factors also influence actual behavior. In other words,

negative emotion makes CWB more likely, however, whether it actually occurs also

depends on situational circumstances (e.g., opportunity).

Kidwell and Bennett (2001) examined several organizational contextual

antecedents of employee job neglect. Job neglect was operationalized as various forms

of shirking or withholding effort, including daydreaming, attending to personal business

on company time, putting forth less effort than the employee knew he or she could,

taking longer breaks than allowed and calling in sick when not sick. They found

employee perceived job neglect to be negatively related to group cohesion, job

satisfaction, organizational, commitment, supervisor consideration, and altruism within

the group. It is important to note that this measure of job neglect emphasized behaviors

which harm primarily the organization.

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

10/14

Construct Clarity

One step toward achieving construct clarity is to distinguish between behaviors

which occur within the organization (i.e., those which harm the organization or its

members), and those which affect organizational outsiders.

Robinson and Bennett (2001) provide a starting point for a categorization

scheme. Using two broad categories, whether the behavior violates societys norms,

and whether the behavior violates organizational norms, creates four relatively general

categories. Behaviors which are compatible with both social norms and organizational

norms are clearly productive and positive behaviors, and would include both in-role job

performance and extra-role performance (i.e., organizational citizenship behaviors).

Behaviors which violate social norms but which are compatible with organizational

norms would include both illegal and unethical behaviors viewed inappropriate by

society, but somehow condoned or even encourage by the organization. Behaviors,

such as over-charging customers, shipping defective products, or sexual harassment or

discrimination may become part of an organizations culture and be subtly encouraged.

Behaviors which are compatible with social norms, but which violate organizational

norms are dysfunctional only within the organization. Examples of such behaviors

include passive aggression actions such as withholding effort, and whistle-blowing.

Behaviors which are incompatible with both social norms and organizational norms are

generally extreme and blatantly illegal actions such as theft and even murder in the

workplace.

Many of these dysfunctional behaviors may be harmful to the organization, while

others harm individuals. Thus, a third dimension, the target of the act, is required to

more fully delineate between various behaviors. Table 2 illustrates this 2 x 2 x 2

classification scheme. Further, many of the behaviors in each of these four categories

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

11/14

may be aimed at organizational insiders or organizational outsiders. Thus, separate

models may be developed for organizational members versus organizational outsiders.

The model proposed here focuses on the organization and individual members or

insiders.

Table 3

3D Model of Dysfunctional

Behavior Within Organizations

The bottom two boxes at the right in Table 3 which have received the least

research attention. Behaviors which are incompatible with both social norms and

organizational norms targeted at individuals include theft of personal property, character

assassination, spreading rumors or gossip, and verbal or physical assault. Behaviors

incompatible with both social norms and organizational norms targeted at an

organization include theft or misuse of organizational property, sabotage, starting

negative rumors about the company, following organizational rules to the letter in order

to intentionally slow down or harm the work process, intentionally making errors, and

coming to work late or leaving work early.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

12/14

Discussion

This paper proposes a three-dimensional categorization scheme or model of

dysfunctional behavior within organizations, focusing on the organization and its

individual members as targets of the behavior. It is hoped that a more precise model of

dysfunctional behavior in organizations will focus research efforts and improve

measurement. Studies attempting to measure relatively broad categories of behaviors,

(for example including behaviors aimed at the organization, individual employees and

customers in the same category) may result in imprecise measures of these

phenomena.

These categories might be more precisely defined by incorporating the intent of

the actor. Although difficult to assess, the actors motive in committing the dysfunctional

behavior may lead to a deeper understanding of the act. For example, taking excessive

breaks motivated by a desire to harm the organization is a different act than taking

excessive breaks due to a physical problem or stress.

While it is hoped that a more precise model of dysfunctional behavior in

organizations will lead to more precise measurement, several measurement issues must

be addressed. The most basic issue is who rates these behaviors; immediate

supervisors, the actors themselves, or some other observer. Some of these behaviors

may be difficult to observe, however, there are obvious problems associated with self-

ratings of these kinds of behaviors. Another possibility is a policy capturing approach

where respondents are presented with a scenario describing conditions in the work

place and then are asked to rate the likelihood of some hypothetical employee engaging

in several acts (the dysfunctional behaviors).
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

13/14

Much work remains to be done in this area of organizational research. However,

the first step is to clean up the construct. We must more clearly define its boundaries

and subcategories, and then develop more precise measures of these phenomena.

References

Andersson, L.M. & C.M. Pearson (1999) Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the

workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24: 452-471.

Bies, R.J., T.M. Tripp & R.M. Kramer (1997) At the breaking point: Cognitive and social

dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R.A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.)

Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 18-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Giacalone, R.A. & J. Greenberg (Eds.) Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997.

Griffin, R.W., A. OLeary-Kelly & J. Collins (1998) Dysfunctional work behavior in

organizations. In C.L. Cooper and D.M. Rousseau (Eds.) Trends in organizational

behavior. Volume 5. John Wiley & Sons.

Harper, D. (1990) Spotlight abuse Save profits. Industrial Distribution, 79: 47-51.

Murphy, K.R. (1993) Honesty in the workplace. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Neuman, J.H. & R.A. Baron (1998) Workplace violence and workplace aggression:

Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of

Management, 24: 391-419.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/2/2019 AntiOCB

14/14

Organ, D.W. (1988) Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Puffer, S.M. (1987) Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance

among commission salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 615-621.

Robinson, S. L. & R.J. Bennett (2001) A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A

multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 555-572.

Skarlicki, D.P. & R. Folger (1997) Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,

procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 424-443.

Spector, P.E. (1978) Organizational frustration: A model and review of the literature.

Personnel Psychology, 31: 815-829.

Spector, P.E. & S. Fox (in press) An emotion-centered model of voluntary work

behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and

organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Human Resources Management Review,

Special Issue on Emotions in the Workplace.

Vardi, Y. & Y. Wiener (1996) Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework.

Organizational Science, 7: 151-165.

antiocb

Documents