Download - Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
1/108
"
Doctorate in
PROSOCIALITY, INNOVATION AND COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN EDUCATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS
XXIV course
Doctoral Dissertation
Counterproductive Work ehaviors
and Moral Disengagement
Mario Gualandri
Tutor Correlatore
Prof. Francesco Avallone Prof. Massimo Bellotto
Co-Tutor
Dott.ssa Roberta Fida
March 2012
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
2/108
#
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I General Introduction page 3
CHAPTER II The dimensionality of CWB Checklist page 11 and Validation of its Italian version
CHAPTER III The CWB through job satisfaction page 37
and moral disengagement
CHAPTER IV Organizational Moral Disengagement page 70 and Counterproductive Work Behaviors
CHAPTER V General Conclusions page 104
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
3/108
$
CHAPTER I
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
4/108
%
General Introduction
In recent years counterproductive work behavior (CWB) has become an increasingly
popular topic of study among organizational researchers (Penny & Spector, 2005; Yang &
Diefendorff, 2009). The peculiarity of CWB is that they differ from common negative acts since
they are not accidental and are intended specifically to damage by purposeful action even if
unintentionally (Spector & Fox, 2005). These behaviors may include acts such as direct aggression,
theft, purposely failing to follow instructions or to perform work incorrectly, in the interest of
violating significant organizational norms (Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh, & Kessler,
2006), reducing the efficiency and job performance of its members (Hollinger & Clark , 1982), and
basically threatening the health and well being of the organizations and its members.
The latest financial scandals affecting American and European stock markets, as well as the
increase of deviant behavior in organizations have raised questions about the ethics in the working
context highlighting the need to understand these occurrences in order to prevent and tackle them
(Chappell & Di Martino, 2006; Fox & Spector, 2005; Greenberg, 1997; Vardi & Weitz, 2004;
Wellen, 2004). In fact, several studies showed that those behaviors are one of the most serious
problems that organizations are facing in many countries (Chappel & Di Martino, 2006). US studies
showed that only theft costs annually billions of dollars to organizations (Camara & Schneider,
1994; Greenberg, 1990, 1997) and the overall losses, caused by other forms of CWB, are
bewildering. These behaviors not only affect the productivity but they create also discomfort to
individuals or groups, compromise the quality of organizational life and damage property (material
damage), hurting organization’s reputation as a whole (Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Overall CWB, both
toward organizations and toward people in the organizations, violating organizational norms, harm
directly or indirectly, their legitimate interests (Sackett & DeVore, 2002), reduce the efficiency and
job performance of its members (Hollinger & Clark, 1982) and basically they threaten the health
and well being of the organization and its members.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
5/108
&
Generally, the literature distinguishes between CWB directed towards organization (CWB-
O) and CWB towards people in the organizations (CWB-P; Robinson & Bennett, 1995).
Specifically, CWB-O target the organizations. They are acts such as sabotage, fraud and theft or
leaving early from work, taking excessive breaks, deliberately working slowly, wasting resources
and so on. CWB-P are acts exclusively directed to people working within organizations such as
sexual harassment, verbal abuse, stealing among colleagues and even choosing favorites, peddling
gossip and insulting colleagues. Although these two categories of behaviors are positively
correlated (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002), they have different relations with other
variables (e.g. citizenship behaviors, perceived justice, situational constraints, personal traits; Berry,
Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Hershcovis, Turner, Barling, Arnold, Dupré, Inness, et al., 2007)
Several authors have focused on understanding the antecedents of CWB as well as on the
processes that lead to such behaviors. Specifically, researchers have investigated the role in CWB
process of both situational and personal factors. Among the theoretical models that focusing on
CWB, the stressor-emotion model developed by Spector and Fox (2005) has the merit to consider
both these two factors. The situational factors considered are job stressors. In line with this model,
any frustrating condition in organizational life interfering with goals and job performance increase
the likelihood to act CWB (see Figure 1). Whenever such stressors occur, individuals may
experience negative feelings which may in turn, promote people to enact aggressive behavior as a
strategy to reduce the emotionally unpleasant condition (Penney & Spector, 2005; Spector, 1998).
Figure 1 – The stressor-emotion model
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
6/108
'
This model (Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999, Spector, 1975, 1978, 1997;
Storms & Spector, 1987) describes the processes that foster forms of aggression that are typically
impulsive and are performed for the purpose of causing harm and releasing frustration. The
literature on aggression has distinguished between impulsive (or reactive) aggression – based on
negative affect that may lead to offensive reactions beyond one’s own control – and instrumental
(or proactive) aggression – having to do with aggression that is purposefully carried out in
accordance with one’s personal goals (see Fontaine, 2007). It seems likely that, CWB may share
qualities that are attributed to both impulsive and instrumental subtypes of antisocial behaviors. For
example, people who engaged in CWB may act out impulsive anger, but also with an intent of
hurting a coworker so that he or she gains leverage in the work hierarchy. Thus, the present
dissertation considers the possibility to extend the stressor-emotion model including cognitive
processes that could capture the intentional and, sometimes, instrumental nature of CWB.
Specifically we integrate two important traditions of research on aggressive behavior: 1) the
frustration-aggression hypothesis, focusing on effects that negative emotions and affect regulation
exert on aggression, and 2) the social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1990), addressing processes
that promote or justify aggression. In particular this research proposes moral disengagement (MD)
as a specific social-cognitive construct in the organizational context that may intervene in the
process from perceived stressors to CWB, by promoting or justifying aggressive responses to
frustrating conditions or events. In fact MD construct has proved to be an important variable in
deviant and aggressive behaviors. (Bandura, 1986; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli,
1996; Caprara, Fida, Vecchione, Tramontano, & Barbaranelli, 2009).
This integrative approach may be extremely productive and promising for defining
organizational strategies aimed at discouraging and contrasting CWB. In fact, unlike emotions, MD
mechanisms are “malleable” to the reciprocal influences between individuals and context and can
be learned (Moore, 2008). On the one hand, this means that it is likely that these individual
cognitive maneuvers become crystallized over time when repeatedly dealing with job stressors,
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
7/108
(
legitimizing recourse to aggressive and transgressive behaviors (Paciello, Fida Tramontano,
Lupinetti, & Caprara, 2008). On the other hand, it is plausible that a context in which misconduct is
frequently enacted through moral cognitive distortions, without being sanctioned, may in turn create
a collective MD i.e. a kind of “morally disengaged culture” or “organizational moral
disengagement” in which those mechanisms could be socialized, learned and activated, legitimizing
CWB (Farnese, Tramontano, Fida, & Paciello, 2011). Furthermore, it is plausible that CWB could
be the result of unethical decisions deriving from a distorted interpretation and application of shared
norms and in a long-time perspective, these negative models may make easier and obvious the
adoption of MD, contributing in turn to the creation of a “organizational moral disengagement”.
In this theoretical framework we designed three studies presented as follows. In each study
we aimed to predict CWB by understanding the motivational factors preceding it.
The aim of the first study is to investigate the psychometric properties, in terms of factorial
structure, reliability and pattern of correlations of the Spector and Fox’s CWB inventory and to
present the validation of the Italian version of this scale. Specifically, both the factors structure of
CWB Checklist and the nomological validity of this measure have been tested using a cross-
validation approach and the analysis of correlation.
The second study integrating two important traditions of research on aggressive behaviors,
the stressor-emotion model (Spector & Fox, 2005) and the social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986),
aims to test an integrative model of the stressor-emotion model that considers both attitudinal
evaluations (Job Satisfaction) and social cognitive mechanisms (Moral Disengagement) as
mediators of the relationship between workplace job stressors and both CWB towards organization
(CWB-O) and persons (CWB-P).
The aim of the third study is to investigate whether a form of an organizational moral
disengagement (MD-O) could be measured and then to examine the role of such dimension in the
stressor-emotion model tested in my previous study. Specifically, whether organizational moral
disengagement affects both personnel moral disengagement (MD-P) and CWB. In particular, we
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
8/108
)
expect that both job stressors and MD-O contribute to a lower job satisfaction that in turn affect
CWB both directly and through the agency of MD-P.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
9/108
*
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory .
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in terrorism. In W. Reich, Origins of
terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, states of mind. New York, Cambridge University Press,
161-191.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanism of moral
disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71 (2), 364-374.
Berry, C.M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett P.R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance,
and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 410-424.
Camara, W. J., & Schneider, D. L. (1994). Integrity tests: Facts and unresolved issues. American
Psychologist , 49 (2), 112-119.
Caprara, G. V., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Tramontano, C., & Barbaranelli, C. (2009). Assessing
civic moral disengagement: Dimensionality and construct validity. Personality and
Individual Differences, 47, 504-509.
Chappell D., & Di Martino V. (2006) Violence at Work , 3rd Edn., International Labour Office,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal,
theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 65, 177-184.
Farnese, M. L., Tramontano, C., Fida, R., & Paciello, M. (2011). Cheating behaviors in academic
context: does academic moral disengagement matter? Procedia Social and BehavioralScience, 29, 356-365.
Fontaine, R. G. (2007). Disentangling the psychology and law of instrumental and reactive subtypes
of aggression. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13 , 143-165.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of
Organizational Behavior , 20 (6), 915-931.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of
pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (5), 561-568.
Greenberg, J. (1997). The STEAL motive: Managing the social determinants of employee theft. In
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
10/108
"+
R. A. Giacalone, J. Greenberg, R. A. Giacalone, J. Greenberg (Eds.) , Antisocial behavior in
organizations (pp. 85-108). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007).
Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228-
238.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1982). Employee deviance: A response to the perceived quality of
the work experience. Work and Occupations, 9 (1), 97-114.
Judge T. A., Scott B. A., Ilies R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a
multi-level model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126-138.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behaviour and workplace deviance: The
role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.
Moore, C. (2008). Moral disengagement in processes of organizational corruption. Journal of
Business Ethics, 80, 129-139.
Paciello, M., Fida, R., Tramontano, C., Lupinetti, C., & Caprara, G. V. (2008). Stability and Change
of Moral Disengagement and Its Impact on Aggression and Violence in Late Adolescence.
Child Development , 79 (5), 1288-1309.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive workplace
behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26 (5), 777-796.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2002). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S.
Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & V. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and
organizational psychology, Vol. 1 (pp.145-164). London: Sage.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-
dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal , 38, 555-572.
Spector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions
of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (5), 635-637.
Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: a model and review of the literature. Personnel
Psychology, 31 (4), 815-829.
Spector, P. E. (1997). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work. In R. A. Giacalone, J.
Greenberg, R. A. Giacalone, J. Greenberg (Eds.) , Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp.
1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and
strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
11/108
""
Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 3, 356-367.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). A model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox, & P. E.
Spector (Eds.). Counterproductive workplace behavior: Investigations of actors and targets
(pp. 151-174). Washington, DC: APA.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The
dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?
Journal of Vocational Behavior , 68 (3), 446-460.
Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported
behavioral reactions: The moderating effect of perceived control. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 60, 227-234.
Yang, J., & Diefendorf, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behaviors
with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong
Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62 (2), 259-295.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management .
Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Wellen, J. M. (2004). From individual deviance to collective corruption: A social influence model
of the spread of deviance in organizations. Social Change in the 21st Century Conference,
Centre for Social Change Research, Queensland, University of Technology.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
12/108
"#
CHAPTER II
THE DIMENSIONALITY OF CWB
CHECKLIST AND VALIDATION OF ITS
ITALIAN VERSION
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
13/108
"$
The dimensionality of CWB Checklist and Validation of its Italian version
Abstract
Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) are pervasive in the workplace and are characterized by
intentional and volitional (i.e. non accidental) harmfull behaviors, aimed at damaging the
organizations and people involved in it. They represent one of the most serious problems facing
today’s organizations in many countries (Chappell & DiMartino, 2006). The purpose of this study is
to examine through a cross-validation approach the suitability of the two versus five –factor
structure CWB-checklist and subsequently to examine its validity in the Italian context (856 Italian
individuals, 52.5% females) through the study of the correlations between the CWB dimensions and
both stressors and job satisfaction. Results support for the two factor structure. Specifically, CWB
toward organization and CWB toward people emerged. Furthermore, the reliability, in terms of
internal consistency, and validity, in terms of correlation with both stressors and job satisfaction,
were confirmed.
Keywords: Counterproductive work behaviors; Validation; job stressors; job satisfaction;
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
14/108
"%
Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) are pervasive in the workplace (Greenberg, 1997;
Vardi & Weitz, 2004) and represent one of the most serious problems facing today’s organizations
in many countries (Chappell & DiMartino, 2006). According to the literature, these behaviors
consist of volitional acts that harm or intend to harm organizations or people in organizations such
as clients, coworkers, customers and supervisors (Dalal, 2005; Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Robinson &
Bennett, 1995; Sackett & DeVore, 2002; Spector & Fox, 2005; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). These
behaviors have been labelled in different ways such as organizational delinquency (Hogan &
Hogan, 1989), organization-motivated aggression (O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996),
organizational retaliatory behaviors (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), workplace aggression (Baron &
Neuman, 1996), workplace deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Bennett & Robinson, 2000).
Different are also the perspectives from which the study of such behaviors has been addressed.
A first group of researches focused on single elements, defining narrowly behaviors such as
aggression (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Fox & Spector, 1999; Neuman & Baron, 1997; O’Leary-
Kelly, Grifn, & Glew, 1996), mobbing and bullying (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003; Zapf, Knorz, &
Kulla, 1996), deviance (Hollinger, 1986; Robinson & Bennett, 1995), client abuse (Perlow &
Latham, 1993), theft (Greenberg, 1990), retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), revenge (Bies,
Tripp, & Kramer, 1997) or absence (Dalton & Mesch, 1991). Other studies addressed the study of
broader categories, emphasizing the common elements underlying the different CWB (Chen &
Spector, 1992; Gruys, 1999; Hanisch, Hulin, & Roznowski, 1998; Hollinger & Clark, 1982, 1983a,
1983b; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector & Fox, 2005).
Some researchers attempted to classify the different types of CWB within a taxonomy
(Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Sackett & DeVore, 2002; Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh, &
Kessler, 2006). Among them Spector and Fox proposed one of the most complete classifications of
CWB, including different types of CWB (Fox & Spector, 1999; Spector, et al., 2006). The
advantage of this taxonomy, in comparison to other (Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Sackett & DeVore,
2002) that have been proposed, is its parsimony and its generalizability as it has been confirmed in
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
15/108
"&
several studies (O’Brien & Allen, 2008). Along with the development of this taxonomy of CWB,
the authors proposed a model for the genesis and regulation of CWB (the so called “stressor
emotion model”) and developed an instrument, the CWB checklist, for the assessment of such
behaviors. The present study deals with the examination of CWB psychometric properties in the
Italian context.
The CWB checklist
According to Spector and Fox (2005), CWB are different from common negative acts since
they are not accidental and are intended specifically to damage by purposeful action the
organizations, the people in organization or both. These behaviors have multiple origins, since they
can arise from organizational factors (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001), as well as from personality
characteristics (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Bowling, 2010; Dalal, 2005; Fox & Spector, 2005;
Salgado, 2002; Spector et al., 2006). The Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C) is
the final result of several revisions made on its first version, that have been used by Spector since
1975. In his first seminal study investigating the reactions to frustration in workplace, the author
hypothesized that big frustrations experienced by an employee on job would be associated with
potentially detrimental behaviors such as aggression against others or sabotage. The scale consisted
of 35 items indicating how often an employee had performed each one of the listed behaviors
(Spector, 1975).
After several revisions of the scale, a final CWB-C scale was comprised 45 items. These
items have been combined differently to give a measure of: a) two dimensions reflecting Robinson
and Bennett’s (1995) distinction of CWB towards organization and CWB towards persons; b) five
dimensions measuring typical actions described by specific behavior such as abuse (harmful and
nasty behaviors that affect other people), production deviance (purposely doing the job incorrectly
or allowing errors to occur), sabotage (destroying the physical environment), theft and withdrawal
(avoiding work through being absent or late; Fox & Spector, 1999; Spector et al., 2006). Although
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
16/108
"'
the 2-dimension based scores have been widely used in literature (e.g., Bayram, Gursakal, & Bilgel,
2009; Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006; Fox et al., 2001; Penney & Spector, 2005; Yang & Diefendorff,
2009) instead of the 5-dimension scores, that has been rarely used (Spector et al., 2006), there are
no empirical evidence of such structure.
CWB Dimension
Among the first, Hollinger and Clark (1982, 1983a, 1983b) proposed that counterproductive
behaviors could be grouped into two broad categories: 1) “property deviance”, involving misuse of
employer assets (e.g., theft, property damage, and misuse of discount privileges) and 2) “production
deviance”, involving violating norms about how work is to be accomplished (e.g. absence,
tardiness, long breaks, drug and alcohol use, intentional slow or sloppy work). Later Robinson and
Bennett (1995) noted that in this categorization the interpersonal CWB were missed. So the authors
proposed a different two-dimensions categorization: 1) CWB toward organization (Hollinger and
Clark's production and property deviance) and 2) CWB interpersonally oriented, that is toward
members in the organization, such as co-workers, customers, supervisors and so on (e.g.,
harassment, gossip, verbal abuse).
Spector and Fox (2005) based on Robinson and Bennett typology (1995) sorted the 43 othe
45 items of their CWB-C into categories according to target, specifically CWB-O directed toward
organization and CWB-P directed toward people in the organization. Some example of CWB-O are
taking excessive breaks, working on a personal matter instead of working for the employer, or
intentionally working slow. CWB-P refer to acts of aggression toward fellow coworkers, as verbal
insults, spread false rumors about others, and withhold crucial information from others. Similarly
Spector and Fox’s checklist can be interpreted, within the hierarchical model by Sackett and
DeVore (2002), specifically as a single general factor defined by two more specific sub-factors
representing organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
17/108
"(
Afterwards, Spector and colleagues (2006) questioned whether the two broad categories of
CWB that have been already discussed, might obscure relationships of potential antecedents with
more specific forms of behavior. Specifically, they highlighted that the distinction of five specific
CWB could be more useful for the understanding of the different processes leading to different
forms of CWB. In that work subject matter experts (industrial/organizational psychology doctoral
students) placed the specific behaviors into the five categories (abuse, production deviance,
sabotage, theft and withdrawal) for which they computed subscale scores. Although the authors
demonstrated different patterns of correlations of each five-dimension-CWB no empirical evidence
of such structure has been provided.
Organizational and individuals correlates of CWB
Several studies reported that the major organizational correlates of CWB are job stressors,
that is, any frustrating condition in organizational life that substantially interferes with work goals,
job activities and/or job performance. Specifically, the studies on CWB focused on different
situations or conditions that are potentially potent stressors such as organizational constraints,
unmanaged conflicts, work overload, role conflict and ambiguity, and lack of autonomy and support
(Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox et al., 2001; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox,
2002; Peters & O’Connor, 1980; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988; Greenberg, 1990; Penney &
Spector, 2002, 2005; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999). In general,
organizational stressors (such as organizational constraints) were more closely associated with
CWB-O than CWB-P, and interpersonal conflict was more closely associated with CWB-P than
CWB-O. Spector and Fox in their stressor-emotion model of CWB asserted that whenever such a
stressor is perceived, an individual may experience negative feelings that, in turn, may promote him
or her to enact aggressive behavior as a strategy to reduce the emotionally unpleasant condition
(Fox & Spector, 1999, 2001; Spector 1975, 1978).
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
18/108
")
Within this theoretical framework, these authors mainly focused on interpersonal conflict,
organizational constraints and workload as the most frequently reported job stressors in
organizations associated with the various forms of CWB (Spector & Fox, 2005). Interpersonal
conflict refers to how well an individual gets along with others at work, such as minor
disagreements between co-workers or physical assaults against others (Spector & Jex, 1998). Chen
and Spector (1992) showed that interpersonal conflict has a significant positive correlation with
sabotage, interpersonal aggression, hostility and complaints, and intention to quit. Indeed, conflict
has been found positively and significantly related to both organizational and interpersonal types of
CWB (Bruke-lee & Spector, 2006). For example, Frone (2000) in her work, found that conflict with
supervisors affects outcomes of organizational relevance while conflict with coworkers impacts
those of personal relevance. Additionally Duffy, Ganster, and Pagon (2002) looked at the effects of
social undermining by supervisors and reported that these were predictive of passive CWB. In their
study, these behaviors were considered similar to those of organizational CWB such as taking
longer breaks and being lazy on job task (Duffy et al., 2002). Also Bruke-Lee and Spector (2006),
through CWB checklist, found that conflict with coworkers resulted in CWB directed toward
people (CWB-P), whereas conflict with supervisors was more likely to result in CWB directed
toward organization (CWB-O).
Organizational constraints refer to situations at work that interfere with an individual’s task
performance, such as a lack of time, resources, inadequate equipment or supplies, organizational
rules and procedures, understaffing, or help from others (Peters & O'Connor, 1980). Several studies
showed that this stressor has different relationships with the two categories of CWB (Bayram,
Gursakal, & Bilgel, 2009; Fox et al., 2001; Spector, et al., 2006). Indeed the organizational
constraints have been found to be more related to CWB-O rather than CWB-P (Fox et al., 2001).
Workload can be considered in terms of number of hours worked, level of production, or
even the mental demands of the work being performed. While constraints and conflict can be
considered as psychosocial stressors mainly arising from interactions among people (Spector & Jex,
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
19/108
"*
1998), workload is more related to tasks. A high workload is likely to make feel workers uncertain
about whether they can get all of the work done (Beehr & Bhagat, 1985). Indeed, Krischer, Penney,
& Hunter (2010) showed that workload would lead more likely to act CWB toward organization
rather than toward organizational members.
Not only organizational, but also personal dimensions can be considered as correlates of
CWB. In this regard, some authors showed that job satisfaction, that is “a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976; p. 1304),
is associated to low CWB (Bayram, et al., 2009; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006; Spector & Jex,
1998). Moreover the social exchange theory (Gould, 1979; Levinson, 1965) and the norm of
reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) showed that when individuals are dissatisfied with the organization,
their boss or coworkers, they may reciprocate with negative work behaviors such as withholding
effort, arriving late at work, taking longer break times, leaving early, or engaging in CWB directed
to people, such as playing mean pranks, cursing at them, or even sabotaging their work. Moreover,
Judge and colleagues (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001) and Dalal (2005) reported a
negative correlation between overall job satisfaction and a measure of deviant behavior. Judge,
Scott and Ilies (2006), as well as, in a recent repeated-measures (longitudinal) field study, found
that employees engaged more likely in CWB on days when they were less satisfied with their jobs,
compared to days when they were more satisfied. Moreover the patterns of correlations with job
satisfaction are quite similar across the two CWB measures, but CWB-O tended to correlate more
strongly with job satisfaction than did CWB-P (Spector, et al., 2006).
The aim of this paper
The general purpose of this study is to investigate the psychometric properties, in terms of factorial
structure, reliability and pattern of correlations of the Spector and Fox’s CWB-C and to present the
validation of the Italian version of this scale. Specifically, we aim to examine through a cross-
validation approach the suitability of the two versus five –factor structure and then to examine its
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
20/108
#+
validity in the Italian context through the study of the correlations between the resulted CWB
dimensions and both stressors and job satisfaction. In line with literature we hypothesized that even
in this cultural context job stressors would be positively related to both CWB-O and CWB-P and
job satisfaction negatively related to them. Furthermore we expect that interpersonal stressor
(interpersonal conflict) would be more related to CWB-P and organizational stressor (organizational
constraints) and job satisfaction more related to CWB-O.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 856 Italian individuals (52.5% females), ranging in age from 17 to 66
years (M = 39.6, SD = 11.35). The 65.9% of participants have permanent contracts full time job
and 6.6% have permanent contracts part time job (35.4% in Italian public organizations) and the
average of total work years is 16.3 years (SD = 10.91) with average of week job hours of 34.9 (SD
= 10.76). The 15.9% of participants have a second job and average of week second job hours of 5.8
(SD = 9.95).
It was a convenience sample of employees recruited by a group of 15 bachelor trained
psychology students as part of their bachelor thesis. Each student contacted and assessed a
minimum of 60 employees from one or more organization, which resulted in a sample with very
heterogeneous jobs. Each employee filled in the questionnaire individually and returned it the same
day they received it. Before starting, the researcher explained to them that their responses would be
absolutely confidential and that the research was not commissioned by the organization for which
they worked. Participants were not paid for their participation in this study.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
21/108
#"
Measures
The anonymous self-report survey included measures of job stressors, job satisfaction, CWB
and other measures that were not considered in this study.
Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C; Spector et al., 2006) is composed of
45 items. The items ask respondents to indicate how often they have done each behavior at work,
and it can be used to indicate the behavior of others, as coworkers or subordinates. Response
choices range from 1 (Never) to 5 (Every day).
The Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS; Spector & Jex, 1998) is composed of 11 items
based on constraint areas identified by Peters and O’Connor (1980), measured the frequency with
which employees encountered barriers to job performance, such as rules and procedures,
availability of resources, co-workers, interruptions, and inadequate training. Response choices
range from 1 (less than once per month or never) to 5 (several times per day). Spector and Jex
(1998) reported a mean internal consistency reliability (coefficient !) of .85 across eight samples.
The Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS; Spector & Jex, 1998) is composed of 4
items. These items measured the frequency with which the employee experienced arguments,
yelling, and rudeness in interactions with co-workers. Five response choices are given, ranging
from 1 (rarely) to 5 (very often). Spector and Jex (1998) reported an average internal consistency
reliability (coefficient !) of .74 across 13 studies.
The Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI; Spector & Jex, 1998) is composed of 5 items.
These items scale designed to assess the amount or quantity of work in a job, as opposed to the
qualitative workload, which is the difficulty of the work. Each item is a statement about amount of
work, and respondents indicate how often each occurs, from 1 (less than once per month or never)
to 5 (several times per day). Spector and Jex (1998) reported an average internal consistency
reliability (coefficient !) of .82 across 15 studies.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
22/108
##
Job Satisfaction (Avallone & Paplomatas, 2005) is composed of 18 items. The items were
designed to investigate the worker’s perception about their well being and unease in the work place.
Response choices range from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Avallone and Paplomatas (2005) reported
internal consistency reliability (coefficient !) of .90.
Analytical Strategy
The factors structure of CWB Checklist version has been tested using a cross-validation
approach, therefore our sample was divided in two random halves. The first sub-sample served as a
generative sample to examine CWBs dimensionality through exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
The second sub-sample served as a validation sample where confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was used as a test of replicability of the factor model (Bollen, 1989; Thompson, 1994). The EFA
and CFA analyses were performed using MPLUS 6.1 software (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2007).
Two alternative EFA models were hypothesized: (a) a five-factor solution, each factor
related to a specific form of CWB according to Spector and colligues (2006), and (b) a two-factor
solution, that is CWB-O and CWB-P. To identify the best solution, we analyzed the scree-plot of
eigenvalues (Cattell & Vogelmann, 1977) and considered the standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1984) and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA; Steiger, 1990) as indices of goodness of fit.
The total sample was used to evaluate the nomological validity thought correlation CWB
with organization and individual variables (interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints,
workload, job satisfaction).
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
23/108
#$
Results
Dimensionality of CWB
Descriptive statistics of the CWB items are presented in Table 1. Due to the nature of the
behaviors investigated, several items presented a very skewed distribution (with at least 80% of
frequencies in a single categories) Following Muthén (Muthén & Kaplan, 1985)
we preferred to
transform these items (1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,
39,, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44) into dichotomies: to this aim the lower category (“Never”) was re-coded
with the score of 0, and all the other categories were re-coded with the score of 1. Accordingly,
EFA on the first sub-sample (N = 437, 52% females, Mean age = 38, SD = 11.5) and CFA on the
second sub-sample (N = 425, 53% females, Mean age = 40, SD =11.2) were performed using robust
weighted least squares estimator (WLSMV, Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2007).
The first ten eigenvalues of the correlation matrix were: 8.81, 2.99, 2.20, 1.54, 1.17, 1.08,
.982, .923, .864, .7.96. The five-factor solution did not converge. The analysis of eigenvalues
suggested a two-factor solution. Loadings on the first factor ranged from .33 to .84 with a mean of
.63 (SD= .16), loadings on the second factor ranged from .36 to .91 with a mean of .64 (SD= .17).
The fit of EFA factor solution was " 2(94, N= 437) = 219.718; p < .001; RMSEA = .055; SRMR =
.104. Since 3 items (11, 29, 41) have high loadings in two factors and 9 items (3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15,
16, 42) had salient loadings in a factor not corresponding to the item content: all these items were
dropped from the analysis. As shown in Table 2 a second factor analysis was performed on the
remaining 30 items. This final two-factor solution accounted for 32,8% of the variance and
demonstrated a good fit to the data: " 2(80, N= 437) = 201.973 p = .001, RMSEA= .059 and SRMR
= .98.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
24/108
#%
TABLE1
Items CWB Checklist
N M SD Skewness Kurtosis
cwb_1 856 1.26 .617 2.733 8.485
cwb_2 856 1.74 .938 1.025 0.187cwb_3 856 1.75 .898 1.149 0.955
cwb_4 856 1.43 .842 2.128 4.205
cwb_5 856 1.22 .668 3.623 14.100
cwb_6 856 1.64 .924 1.426 1.469
cwb_7 856 1.34 .705 2.202 4.595
cwb_8 856 1.05 .309 7.428 64.544
cwb_9 856 1.06 .301 6.097 49.591
cwb_10 856 1.10 .403 4.549 23.681
cwb_11 856 1.15 .468 4.162 22.047
cwb_12 856 1.42 .662 1.624 3.023
cwb_13 856 1.32 .697 2.708 8.352cwb_14 856 1.39 .675 1.850 3.684
cwb_15 856 1.15 .482 3.950 18.432
cwb_16 856 1.14 .514 4.755 26.554
cwb_17 856 1.75 .875 1.077 0.836
cwb_18 856 1.18 .468 2.746 7.221
cwb_19 856 1.38 .750 2.317 5.865
cwb_20 856 1.25 .630 3.089 11.269
cwb_21 856 1.21 .585 3.306 12.235
cwb_22 856 1.20 .553 3.384 13.637
cwb_23 856 1.51 .792 1.539 1.872
cwb_24 856 1.14 .537 4.605 23.243cwb_25 856 1.03 .223 9.727 104.831
cwb_26 856 1.59 .840 1.490 2.145
cwb_27 856 1.29 .640 2.738 9.035
cwb_28 856 1.14 .491 4.240 21.283
cwb_29 856 1.28 .576 2.368 6.669
cwb_30 856 1.11 .409 4.484 23.521
cwb_31 856 1.72 .840 1.077 0.958
cwb_32 856 1.05 .309 7.992 79.821
cwb_33 856 1.31 .639 2.264 5.354
cwb_34 856 1.19 .609 3.733 14.821
cwb_35 856 1.08 .357 5.838 40.852cwb_36 856 1.12 .406 4.056 20.226
cwb_37 856 1.10 .436 5.511 35.128
cwb_38 856 1.11 .458 5.038 28.598
cwb_39 856 1.08 .377 6.246 48.502
cwb_40 856 1.10 .400 4.660 25.471
cwb_41 856 1.04 .331 9.503 97.110
cwb_42 856 1.12 .431 4.611 26.349
cwb_43 856 1.06 .336 7.209 63.687
cwb_44 856 1.16 .495 4.193 22.072
cwb_45 856 1.50 .780 1.587 2.290
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
25/108
#&
TABLE 2
EFA two factor solution
CWB-O CWB-P
CWB_1D .444 .186
CWB_2 .811 -.206
CWB_4 .346 .169
CWB_6 .700 -.168
CWB_7 .660 -.002
CWB_10D .635 .060
CWB_17 .762 -.055
CWB_18D .426 .241
CWB_19 .720 -.031
CWB_20D -.012 .810
CWB_21D .311 .528
CWB_22D .651 -.013
CWB_23 .734 .026
CWB_24D .651 .132
CWB_26 .075 .581
CWB_27 .063 .719
CWB_28D .100 .659
CWB_30D .217 .628
CWB_31 .133 .454
CWB_32D -.040 .768
CWB_33 .097 .672
CWB_34D .068 .669
CWB_35D -.222 .966
CWB_36D -.109 .902
CWB_37D .074 .749
CWB_38D -.025 .856
CWB_39D .194 .764
CWB_40D .149 .627CWB_43D -.003 .869
CWB_44D .008 .738
Factor loadings ranged from .34 to .81 for the first factor with a mean of .63 (SD =.14) and
from .45 to.96 with a mean of .72 (SD =.13) for the second factor; the internal consistency
(Cornbach’s alpha coefficient) was .80 for the first factor and .89 for the second. The items that
loaded on the first factor were related to CWB directed towards the organization; the items loading
the second factor CWB towards persons.
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the second half of the sample with
the aim of cross-validating the factor structure found by means of EFA. The two-factor model
showed an adequate fit, " 2(74, N = 425) = 209.493; p < .001; CFI = .882; TLI = .939; RMSEA =
.066; WRMR = 1.27. As shown in Table 2, all the loadings of the two-factor CFA solutions were
statistically significant (p < .01) and were all > .40. Correlation between the factors was .68. Two
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
26/108
#'
alternative models were tested, positing respectively: (a) one factor model and (b) second order
factor with two primary factors. All alternative models did not fit the data adequately: a) " 2(74, N =
425) = 304.384; p < .001; CFI = .799; TLI = .897; RMSEA = .086; WRMR = 1.625 and b) " 2(74, N
= 425) = 209.493; p < .001; CFI = .882; TLI = .939; RMSEA = .066; WRMR = 1.353. In light of
these results, the two-factor model can be considered the best one.
Internal consistency
The Cronbach’s alpha of the CWB-O for the whole sample (N= 856) was .80. Corrected
item-scale correlations ranged from .27 to .56, with a mean of .45 and a standard deviation of .09.
The Cronbach’s alpha of the CWB-P for the whole sample (N= 856) was .89. Corrected item-scale
correlations ranged from .41 to .68, with a mean of .56 and a standard deviation of .07.
TABLE 3
CFA two factor solution
CWB-O CWB-P
CWB_1D .402 -
CWB_2 .536 -
CWB_4 .548 -
CWB_6 .603 -
CWB_7 .552 -
CWB_10D .629 -
CWB_17 .697 -
CWB_18D .730 -
CWB_19 .695 -
CWB_22D .762 -
CWB_23 .783 -
CWB_24D .748 -
CWB_20D - .598
CWB_21D - .672
CWB_26 - .742
CWB_27 - .813
CWB_28D - .771
CWB_30D - .759
CWB_31 - .622
CWB_32D - .635
CWB_33 - .785
CWB_34D - .779
CWB_35D - .787
CWB_36D - .749
CWB_37D - .828
CWB_38D - .786
CWB_39D - .677
CWB_40D - .805CWB_43D - .831
CWB_44D - .838
The all parameter estimations is statistically significant to p < .01
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
27/108
#(
Correlation between CWB and both stressors and job satisfaction
According to the literature the analysis of correlation among both CWB-P and CWB-O and
both job stressors (namely Interpersonal Conflict, Quantitative Workload and Organizational
Constraints) and job satisfaction was investigated to ascertain the validity of this dimension in the
Italian context. As shown in Table 3, the correlations between both CWB-O and CWB-P and three
stressors are positive and the correlations between CWB and Job Satisfaction is negative. In line
with literature interpersonal conflict showed a higher correlation with CWB-P rather than with
CWB-O, similarly even if slightly organizational constraints showed a higher correlation with
CWB-O. Quantitative Workload did not correlate with CWB-P and showed lower correlation with
CWB. Finally as expected job satisfaction negatively correlate with both CWB-O and CWB-P and
showed higher correlation with the organizational oriented CWB.
TABLE 4
Correlation matrix
Interpersonal
Conflict
Organization
Constrains
Quantitative
Workload
Job
SatisfactionCWB-O CWB-P
Interpersonal Conflict -
Organization Constrains .429**
-
Quantitative Workload .259**
.356**
-
Job Satisfaction -.266**
-.544**
-.150**
-
CWB-O .299**
.299**
.090**
-.284**
-
CWB-P .376**
.241**
.061 -.152**
.542**
-**
The correlation is significant to .01
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the factorial structure of the Spector and Fox’s
CWB-C within an Italian context and to provide an empirical investigation of the dimensionality of
this scale. Overall, our results are in line with previous literature, suggesting the presence of two
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
28/108
#)
underlying dimensions of CWB (Hollinger & Clark, 1982, 1983a, 1983b; Martinko, et al., 2002;
Miles, et al., 2002; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector & Fox, 2005) specifically CWB-O directed
toward organization and CWB-P directed toward people. In fact, as in literature, the items reflecting
behaviors such as taking excessive breaks, working on a personal matter instead of working for the
employer, or intentionally working slow loaded together on a factor (CWB-O), while items
reflecting acts of aggression toward fellow coworkers, as verbal insults, spread false rumors about
others, and withhold crucial information from others clustered together on another factor (CWB-P).
The psychometric properties of the scale seem well supported from the results of this study.
Indeed the descriptive statistics and internal reliability of the two subscales are similar to those
reported by Spector and colleagues (2006), even if the number of items is lower. The two-factor
structure also through CFA was confirmed rather than a five factor model. As the literature showed,
also the correlations obtained among the two subscales suggest that the CWB measures are not
entirely orthogonal but yet distinguishable, indicating that individuals tend to employ a variety of
different behaviors to deal with organizational stressors, which are not mutually exclusive. More
specifically, in line with literature CWB-O and CWB-I tend to co-occur (Dadal, 2005; Judge, Scott,
& Ilies, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002; Mount et al., 2006) and showed different and specific patterns of
correlations with relevant organizational and individual variables (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007;
Hershcovis, Turner, Barling, Arnold, Dupré, Inness et al., 2007; Spector & Fox, 2005).
Specifically: a) Interpersonal Conflict has positively correlation to both organizational and
interpersonal types of CWB (Bruke-lee & Spector, 2006: Duffy et al., 2002; Frone, 2000) and even
more with CWB-P (Bayram, Gursakal, & Bilgel 2009; Bowling & Eschleman, 2010; Fox, Spector
& Miles, 2001; Spector, et al., 2006); b) Organizational Constraints positively related to both
dimensions of CWB and higher to CWB-O (Bayram, Gursakal & Bilgel, 2009; Fox et al., 2001;
Spector, et al., 2006); c) Workload related lower and only to CWB-O (Bayram, Gursakal, & Bilgel,
2009; Beehr & Bhagat, 1985; Krischer, Penney, & Hunter, 2010; Spector & Jex, 1998). Moreover
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
29/108
#*
Job Satisfaction positively related to both organizational and interpersonal types of CWB (Judge,
Scott, & Ilies, 2006) and more strongly with CWB-O (Spector, Fox, et al., 2006).
In conclusion the CWB checklist and its two broad dimensions reflect Spector and Fox's theorizing
with regard to the counterproductive behaviors and their stressor-emotion model. Furthermore, the
scale and its two subscales have also been described and used in many studies but in this research
the empirical structure has been analyzed for the first time. Moreover, studing empirically its
dimensionality study allowed us to eliminate some items that were to heterogeneous with regard to
the contents of the scale. Further researches could continue in this direction to offer new
opportunities for CWB checklist. This study can represent a further contributions to both national
and international research providing evidence of validation of CWB checklist as conceptualized by
Spector and Fox and confirming its two dimensional structure.
Some limits of the present study need to be noted. Although the sample size was
considerable, we used a convenience sample that cannot be representative of the Italian workers. It
is questionable whether our results can be extended to populations outside of Italy, or to a different
culture. The scale would receive stronger support from future research that tests the scale in
different populations and in different languages. Moreover, only part of the nomological network
involving CWB in stressor-emotion model was tested. The negative emotions were not examined,
but it should be the focus of future research. Examining a larger nomological network, including
negative emotions, would provide more understanding and validity of CWB checklist and its two
dimension. Another limitation of this research is the use of self-report instruments: however, Fox
Spector, Goh and Bruursema (2007) demonstrated the convergence between self- and peer-reports
of the majority of stressor-emotion model measures.
We encourage other researchers to build on the empirical results of this study by
investigating the stucture of CWB-Checklist to confirm the two factors structure instead of five
factors.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
30/108
$+
References
Avallone F., & Paplomatas A. (2005). Salute Organizzativa, Milano Raffaello Cortina Editore.
Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence of
their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior , 22, 161-173.
Bayram, N., Gursakal, N., & Bilgel, N. (2009). Counterproductive work behavior among white-
collar employees: A study from Turkey. International Journal of Selection and Assessment ,
17 (2), 180-188.
Beehr, T. A., & Bhagat, R. S. (1985). Human stress and cognition in organizations: An integrated
perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance,
and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 410-424.
Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social
dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R.A. Giacalone and J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial
behavior in organizations (pp. 18-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bollen, K.
A, (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bowling, N. A., & Eschleman, K.J. (2010). Employee personality as a moderator of the
relationships between work stressors and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 15 (1), 91-103.
Bruk-Lee, V. & Spector, P. (2006). The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviors link: are
conflicts with supervisors and co-workers the same?. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 11, 145-156.Cattell, R. B., & Vogelmann, S. (1977). A comprehensive trial of the scree and KG criteria for
determining the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 289-325.
Chappell D., & Di Martino V. (2006) Violence at Work, 3rd Edn., International Labour Office,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal,
theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 65, 177-184.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
31/108
$"
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.
Dalton, D. R., & Mesch, D. J. (1991). On the extent and reduction of avoidable absenteeism: an
assessment of absence policy provisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 810-817.
Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the
prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4 , 547-559.
Duffy, M., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M., (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of
Management Journal , 45 (2), 331-351.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of
Organizational Behavior , 20 (6), 915-931.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to
job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy
and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 59 (3), 291-309.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2007). 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.
Frone, M. (2000). Work-family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The National
Comorbidity Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (6), 888-895.
Gould, S. (1979). An equity-exchange model of organizational involvement. Academy of
Management Review, 4, 53-62.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review, 25 , 161-178.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of
pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (5), 561-568.
Greenberg, J. (1997). The STEAL motive: Managing the social determinants of employee theft. In
R. A. Giacalone, J. Greenberg, R. A. Giacalone, J. Greenberg (Eds.) , Antisocial behavior in
organizations (pp. 85-108). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc.
A. Gruys, M. L. (1999). The dimensionality of deviant employee performance in the workplace.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnessota, Minneapolis.Gruys, M. L., &
Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11 (1), 30-41.
Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importance of individuals’ repertoires
of behaviors: the scientific appropriateness of studying multiple behaviors and general
attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19 , 463-480.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
32/108
$#
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007).
Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228-
238.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance.
Deviant Behavior , 7, 53-75.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1982). Employee deviance: A response to the perceived quality of
the work experience. Work and Occupations, 9 (1), 97-114.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983a). Theft by employees. Social Forces, 62, 398#418. Toronto,
ON: Lexington Books.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983b). Deterrence in the workplace: Perceived certainty,
perceived severity and employee theft. Social Forces, 62, 398-418.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). Lisrel VI. Analysis of linear structural relationships by
maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods, Mooresville,
Indiana, Scientific software.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,
127, 376-407.
Judge T. A., Scott B. A., & Ilies R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of
a multi-level model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126-138.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace
bullying. Chapter in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf., & C. Cooper. Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace: International research and practice perspectives. London, UK:
Taylor Francis.
Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive work behaviors be
productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
15 (2), 154-166.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behaviour and workplace deviance: The
role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 9 , 370-390.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
33/108
$$
Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Counterproductive workplace behavior:
A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 10, 36-
50.
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 citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 10,
51-57.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive
work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59 (3),
591-622.
Muthén, B., & Kaplan D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of
non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
38, 171-189.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998-2007). Mplus User’s Guide. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles,
CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R. Giacalone & J.
Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 37–67). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
O’Brien, K. E., & Allen T. D. (2008). The Relative Importance of Correlates of Organizational
Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior Using Multiple Sources of
Data. Human Performance, 21 (1), 62-88.
O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: a
research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21, 225-253.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do
bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 10,
126-134.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive workplace
behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26 (5), 777-796.
Peters, L. H., & O'Connor, E. J. 1980. Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of
a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5 (3), 391-397.
Perlow, R., & Latham, L. L. (1993). Relationship of client abuse with locus of control and gender:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 831-844.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
34/108
$%
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-
dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal , 38, 555-572.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2002). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S.
Ones, H. K., Sinangil, & V. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and
organizational psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 145-164). London: Sage.
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The big five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117-125.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship
between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100-108.
Sector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions
of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (5), 635-637.
Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: a model and review of the literature. Personnel
Psychology, 31 (4), 815-829.
Spector P. E., Dwyer D. J., & Jex S. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and
performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 11-19.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and
strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative
Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 3, 356-367.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). A model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox, & P. E.
Spector (Eds.). Counterproductive workplace behavior: Investigations of actors and targets
(pp. 151-174). Washington, DC: APA.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The
dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?
Journal of Vocational Behavior , 68 (3), 446-460.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation
approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25 (2), 173-180.
Thompson, B. (1994). Guidelines for authors. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 54 (4),
837-847.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management .
Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
35/108
$&
Yang, J., & Diefendorf, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behaviors
with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong
Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62 (2), 259-295.
Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job
content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 5, 215-237.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
36/108
$'
Appendix
Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C) (45-item)
Copyright 2002 Suzy Fox and Paul E. Spector, All rights reserved.
How often have you done each of the following things on your
present job?
N e v e r
O n c e o r T w i c e
O n c e o r T w i c e p e r m o n t h
O n c e o r t w i c e p e r w e e k
E v e r y d a y
1.
Purposely wasted your employer’s materials/supplies 1 2 3 4 5
2.
Daydreamed rather than did your work 1 2 3 4 5
3. Complained about insignificant things at work 1 2 3 4 5
4.
Told people outside the job what a lousy place you work for 1 2 3 4 5
5. Purposely did your work incorrectly 1 2 3 4 5
6. Came to work late without permission 1 2 3 4 5
7. Stayed home from work and said you were sick when you
weren’t
1 2 3 4 5
8. Purposely damaged a piece of equipment or property 1 2 3 4 5
9.
Purposely dirtied or littered your place of work 1 2 3 4 5
10.
Stolen something belonging to your employer 1 2 3 4 5
11.
Started or continued a damaging or harmful rumor at work 1 2 3 4 5
12.
Been nasty or rude to a client or customer 1 2 3 4 5
13.
Purposely worked slowly when things needed to get done 1 2 3 4 5
14. Refused to take on an assignment when asked 1 2 3 4 5
15. Purposely came late to an appointment or meeting 1 2 3 4 5
16. Failed to report a problem so it would get worse 1 2 3 4 5
17. Taken a longer break than you were allowed to take 1 2 3 4 5
18. Purposely failed to follow instructions 1 2 3 4 5
19. Left work earlier than you were allowed to 1 2 3 4 5
20. Insulted someone about their job performance 1 2 3 4 5
21.
Made fun of someone’s personal life 1 2 3 4 522. Took supplies or tools home without permission 1 2 3 4 5
23. Tried to look busy while doing nothing 1 2 3 4 5
24. Put in to be paid for more hours than you worked 1 2 3 4 5
25. Took money from your employer without permission 1 2 3 4 5
26. Ignored someone at work 1 2 3 4 5
27. Refused to help someone at work 1 2 3 4 5
28. Withheld needed information from someone at work 1 2 3 4 5
29. Purposely interfered with someone at work doing his/her job 1 2 3 4 5
30. Blamed someone at work for error you made 1 2 3 4 5
31.
Started an argument with someone at work 1 2 3 4 532.
Stole something belonging to someone at work 1 2 3 4 5
33.
Verbally abused someone at work 1 2 3 4 5
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
37/108
$(
How often have you done each of the following things on your
present job?
N e v e r
O
n c e o r T w i c e
O n c
e o r T w i c e p e r
m o n t h
O n c e o r t w i c e p e r
w e e k
34. Made an obscene gesture (the finger) to someone at work
35. Threatened someone at work with violence 1 2 3 4 5
36. Threatened someone at work, but not physically 1 2 3 4 5
37. Said something obscene to someone at work to make them feel bad 1 2 3 4 5
38. Hid something so someone at work couldn’t find it 1 2 3 4 5
39.
Did something to make someone at work look bad 1 2 3 4 5
40.
Played a mean prank to embarrass someone at work 1 2 3 4 5
41.
Destroyed property belonging to someone at work 1 2 3 4 5
42.
Looked at someone at work’s private mail/property without permission
1 2 3 4 5
43. Hit or pushed someone at work 1 2 3 4 5
44. Insulted or made fun of someone at work 1 2 3 4 5
45. Avoided returning a phone call to someone you should at work 1 2 3 4 5
To score the CWB-C, sum responses to items shown below for each subscale (organizational versus
person), or all the items for the total score.
CWB Organization: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25.
CWB Person: 11, 20, 21, 26-44.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
38/108
$)
CHAPTER III
THE CWB THROUGH JOB
SATISFACTION AND MORAL
DISENGAGEMENT
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
39/108
$*
The CWB through job satisfaction and moral disengagement
Abstract
Several researchers have highlighted the importance of examining moral disengagement (MD) to
understand instrumental aggression and deviant conduct across different contexts. In the present
study, we investigate the role of MD in organizational context as a specific social-cognitive
construct that may intervene in the process leading to counterproductive work behaviors (CWB).
Within the stressor-emotion model of CWB, this study hypothesized that MD partially mediates the
relation from job satisfaction in reaction to perceived stressors to CWB, by promoting or justifying
aggressive responses to frustrating context. In a sample of 943 Italian workers (50.4% women) we
tested a structural equations model. Results confirmed our hypothesis: the more workers react to
stressors with low job satisfaction, the more they need to make recourse to MD, the more they act
CWB.
Keywords: Moral disengagement, Counterproductive work behavior, Job satisfaction; Job stressors,
Incivility.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
40/108
%+
The latest financial scandals affecting American and European stock markets, as well as the
increase of deviant behavior occurring in organizations have raised questions about the ethics in the
working context, highlighting the need to understand these occurrences in order to prevent and
tackle them (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006; Fox & Spector, 2005; Greenberg, 1997; Vardi & Weitz,
2004; Wellen, 2004). In the last decades, several studies have been done for undestanding the
processes leading to organizational misbehaviors such as fraud, corruption, theft and aggressive
behaviors (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006; Fox & Spector, 2005; Greenberg, 1997; Vardi & Weitz,
2004; Wellen, 2004), and more in general counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). Specifically,
CWB are behaviors that share the characteristics of being intentional and volitional (i.e. non-
accidental) harmful, aimed at damaging the organization and people (clients, coworkers, customers,
and supervisors) involved in it (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997; Keashley, 1998; Knorz & Zapf,
1996; Neuman & Baron, 1997, 1998; O’Leary, Griffin, & Glew, 1996; Robinson & Bennett, 1995;
Spector & Fox, 2005). Thus, all those acts against the organization or its members that are carried
out unconsciously or do not have that aim, are excluded from CWB.
Several studies showed that these behaviors are one of the most serious problems the
organizations are facing in many countries (Chappel & Di Martino, 2006). Some US studies
showed that only theft costs billions of dollars annually to organizations (Camara & Schneider,
1994; Greenberg, 1990, 1997) and the overall losses caused by other forms of counterproductive
behaviors are bewildering. These behaviors not only affect the productivity but they create
discomfort to individuals or groups, compromise the quality of organizational life and damage
property (material damage) and hurt organization’s reputation as a whole (Vardi & Weitz, 2004). In
particular, CWB, both on organizations and persons in the organizations, violating norms of
organization, harm either directly or indirectly, the legitimate interests of the organizations (Sackett
& DeVore, 2002), reduce the efficiency and job performance of its members (Hollinger & Clark,
1982) and basically threaten the health and well being of the organization and its members.
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
41/108
%"
Generally, the literature distinguished between CWB directed towards organization (CWB-
O) and CWB towards people within the organization (CWB-P; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector
& Fox, 2005). CWB-O have the organization as target, they are acts such as sabotage, fraud and
theft, or leaving early from work, taking excessive breaks, deliberately working slowly, wasting
resources and so on. CWB-P are acts directed against people working in the organization such as
sexual harassment, verbal abuse, stealing from colleagues and even choosing favorites, peddling
gossip and insulting colleagues. Although these two categories of behaviors are positively
correlated (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002), they have different relations with other
variables (such as citizenship behaviors, perceived justice, situational constraints, personal traits;
Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Hershcovis, Turner, Barling, Arnold, Dupré, Inness, et al., 2007).
Among the authors who have studied these behaviors, Spector and colleagues (Fox, Spector,
& Miles, 2001; Spector & Fox, 2002, 2005) developed a model to understand CWB considering
both situational and individual factors as antecedents, and more generally to understand the
underlying processes fostering to such behaviors. The authors, starting from frustration-aggression
theory by Dollard and colleagues (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939) and from work
stress theory, (Jex & Beehr, 1991; Spector & Fox, 2005), view counterproductive work behaviors as
an individual response to the frustrations generated by stressful organizational conditions (Fox &
Spector, 1999, 2001; Spector 1975, 1978). Specifically, they hypothesized that any frustrating
condition in organizational life may be considered a stressor if it substantially interferes with work
goals, job activities and/or job performance. Consequently, the researchers have shown that work
environment characterized by the presence of unmanaged conflicts, lack of autonomy and support
and low equity (Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox, et al., 2001; Miles, Borman,
Spector, & Fox, 2002; Peters & O’Connor, 1980; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988), increase the
negative emotion that in turn increase the likelihood to act aggressive behaviors as a strategy to
cope with the negative emotion experienced in reaction to these stressful organizational conditions
(Fox & Spector, 1999, 2001; Spector 1975, 1978).
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
42/108
%#
These authors (Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999, Spector, 1975, 1978, 1997;
Storms & Spector, 1987) describe the processes that foster forms of aggression that are typically
impulsive and are performed for the purpose of causing harm and releasing frustration. The
literature on aggression has distinguished between impulsive (or reactive) aggression – based on
negative affect that may lead to offensive reactions beyond one’s own control – and instrumental
(or proactive) aggression – having to do with aggression that is purposefully carried out in
accordance with one’s personal goals (see Fontaine, 2007). It seems likely that CWB may share
qualities that are attributed to both the impulsive and instrumental subtypes of antisocial behavior.
For example, individuals who engaged in CWB may do so out of impulsive anger, but also with the
interest of hurting a coworker so that they gainleverage in the work hierarchy. Therefore, we
considered the possibility of extending the stressor-emotion model by including cognitive processes
that could capture the intentional and sometimes instrumental nature of CWB. Specifically, in the
present study, we adopted the Social Cognitive Theory framework (Bandura, 1986, 1990) and
proposed moral disengagement (MD) as a specific social-cognitive construct in the organizational
context that may intervene in the process from perceived stressors to CWB, by promoting or
justifying aggressive responses to frustrating conditions or events.
MD construct (Bandura, 1986) has proved to be an important variable in predicting deviant
behaviors, especially if all those instrumentals, allowing to explain the determinants and social
cognitive mechanisms that can facilitate aggressive and deviant behavior through a kind of
“divorce” between moral thought and moral action (Bandura, 1991; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara,
& Pastorelli, 1996). Bandura refers that these MD mechanisms represent the set of social-cognitive
internal devices, learned and socially constructed, that allow individuals to be free from feelings of
self-condemnation, conflict and guilt or remorse, detrimental to self-esteem, when is less than the
internal standards and social rules (Bandura, 1986). In line with other studies (Barsky et al ., 2006;
Pauli & Arthur, 2006) we believe that MD could facilitate the resort to CWB in reaction to a
negative emotion due to a series of aspects related to work (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992) deriving
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
43/108
%$
from stressors, by changing trasgressive behaviors in acceptable behaviors. In this way through
MD, individuals could view aggressive behavior and its negative consequences to organization and
its members in a socially and morally favourable way that may not need the abandon of
organizational and social rules. This could be particularly critical if we consider that when
aggression is considered a socially and morally acceptable behavior is more likely to act it (Crane-
Ross, Tisak, & Tisak, 1998; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997; Keltikangas-Järvinen, 2001).
The process of CWB
CWB represents an inefficacious behavioral response of strain aimed at managing a stressful
situation and at reducing the consequent unpleasant negative emotional reactivity, even though, in
doing so, it threatens the well-being and reduces the effectiveness of the organization and of its
members (Chen & Spector, 1992; Cullen & Sackett, 2003; Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox, Spector, &
Miles, 2001; Ito & Brotheridge, 2003; Krischer, Penney, & Hunter, 2010; Neuman & Baron, 2005;
Penney & Spector, 2007, 2008; Rodell & Judge, 2009; Spector, 1975, 1978, 1997).
Several studies have investigated how different job situations or job conditions foster their
implementation: such as organizational constraints, unmanaged conflicts, work overload, and lack
of autonomy and support (Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox, et al., 2001; Kahn,
Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Penney &
Spector, 2002; Peters & O’Connor, 1980). Among these studies, several researchers focused on the
interpersonal relationship in the work environmental and organizational justice (Bayram, Gursakal
& Bilgel, 2009; Bechtoldt, Welk, Hartig, & Zapf, 2007; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Bowling &
Eschleman, 2010, Fox et al., 2001, De Jonge & Peeters, 2009; Spector & Jex, 1998). These studies
showed how conflict in the relationship with bosses and/or colleagues are considered among the
main sources of stress (Bayram, Gursakal, & Bilgel, 2009; Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling,
1989; Keenan & Newton, 1985;) and the research has also shown how interpersonal conflict had a
significant positive correlation with CWB, more closely associated with CWB-P than CWB-O
-
8/19/2019 Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB
44/108
%%
(Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006; Fox, Spectors, & Miles, 2001; Fox & Spector, 1999; Miles, Borman,
Spector, & Fox, 2002; Penney & Spector, 2002; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1998). Similarly j other
authors have showed that also the perception of injustice affects CWB (Fox, Spector, & Miles,
2001; Bechtoldt, Welk, Hartig, & Zapf, 2007). Indeed when the employees, perceiving they are
treated unfairly in terms of outcomes, are more likely to engage in misbehavior, such as theft
(Greenberg, 1990), vandalism, sabotage, reduction of citizenship behaviors, withdrawal (Jermier,
Knights, & Nord, 1994), absenteeism (Johns, 2006, 2008) and resistance or harassment to restore
equilibrium between their inputs and outputs (Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002). These
measures can show the dimensions of social climate that has been studied on several outcomes
(Ostroff et al., 2003; Schneider, 2000). Moreover few authors referring to the impact of context on
organizational behavior, argued that a set of factors, considered together as a whole, will show a
more theoretically meaningful result than the study of independent variables (Cappelli & Sherer,
1991; Johns, 2006; Rousseau & Fried, 2001).
Other authors extended the seminal works on CWB by considering work incivility
(Andersson & Person, 1999), new for this literature, as a potential stressors (Penney & Spector,
2005). These authors showed that high levels of perceived work incivility predict high levels of
both CWB-O and CWB-P. In particular, when workers suffer or see undergo inconsiderate,
impolite behaviors, or aggressive conduct, that violate individuals’ dignity and that indicate lack of
loyalty from the others, they may be more prone to respond with both CWB-O and CWB-P (Penney
& Spector, 2005).
The studies on CWB showed that these job stressors increase the likelihood to act aggressive
behaviors throught the negative emotional response in reaction to these negative working factors
(Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox, et al., 2001; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Spector & Fox,
2005). Spe