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


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


3/108

$

CHAPTER I

GENERAL INTRODUCTION


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.


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


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,


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


8/108

)

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.


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


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


11/108

""

Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health


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


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.


12/108

"#

CHAPTER II

THE DIMENSIONALITY OF CWB

CHECKLIST AND VALIDATION OF ITS

ITALIAN VERSION


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;


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


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


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.


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).


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,


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


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.


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.


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).


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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



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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


38/108

$)

CHAPTER III

THE CWB THROUGH JOB

SATISFACTION AND MORAL

DISENGAGEMENT


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.


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.


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).


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


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


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

Documents

Mario Gualandri Tesi Dottorato CWB