Polish Journal of Social Science - EUH-E Rachel Paradis, John Tivendell, Neha Kotac, Bogdan Pietrulewicz ecosystem (e.g., air, water, earth; see Chapman, 2007). The concept of envi-ronment

Polish Journal of Social Science

Vol. XI No. 1 2016

ELBLĄG UNIVERSITY OF HUMANITIES AND ECONOMY

Rachel Paradis, John Tivendell, Neha KotacÉcole de psychologie, Université de Moncton, Canada

Bogdan Pietrulewicz* Institute of Psychology, Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz

A Model to Explore Organizational Pollution and its Effect on Employees’ Health & Well-being, and on Organizational Effectiveness

Abstract

The concept of “interpersonal pollution” and its antecedents and effects, i.e. on employ-ees’ health and well-being and on organizational outcomes, was recently investigated (see Paradis, Demers, Dion, Tivendell & Pietrulewicz, 2014). Building upon this work this article proposes a model and tentative definition of a broader construct, i.e. “organ-izational pollution”, and identifies its potential antecedents and explores its impact on employees’ health and well-being and organizational outcomes. In particular our model explores the roles played by both leaders and employees’ dark personalities and lack of environmental concern, by unethical leadership, by both the characteristics of the job (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Karasek, 1979) and the organization, including the latter’s physical (e.g. Leather, Zarola, & Santos, 2010; Seddigh et al., 2015; Smolders & De Kort, 2014; Veitch, Charles, Farley & Newsham, 2007) and ethical environment (Victor & Cul-len, 1988; Treviño, Butterfield, & McCabe, 1998; Debode, Armenakis, Field, & Walker, 2013), and finally their link to organizational pollution (Paradis et al., 2014). This new model’s implications for organizational and environmental psychology are discussed.

Keywords: organizational pollution; employee health and well-being; organizational efficacy.

In the science of environmental psychology, the term pollution refers to the contamination of the environment by substances or actions that are harmful, and thus environmental pollution is associated with an unhealthy

* Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bogdan Pietrulewicz, e-mail: [email protected].

8 Rachel Paradis, John Tivendell, Neha Kotac, Bogdan Pietrulewicz

ecosystem (e.g., air, water, earth; see Chapman, 2007). The concept of envi-ronment encompasses the natural and the built environment, the physical and the social environment, real and virtual environments, as well as a num-ber of more specific environments such as home, school, work, park, city, etc., and finally it also encompasses what is now called the global environment (Bechtel & Churchman, 2002; Gifford, 2014). According to Briner (2000), the concept of work environment is broad and can encompass the physical set-ting (e.g. heat, equipment), the characteristics of the job itself (e.g. workload and task complexity), certain broad features of the organization (e.g. its cul-ture and history) and even aspects of the extra organizational setting (e.g. local labour market conditions, vitality of different industrial sectors and work-family features).

Much as there are different types of environments, one can assume that there are different kinds of pollution. Indeed, recently it has been proposed by Paradis et al. (2014) that interpersonal pollution is yet another source of pollution that can be found in the workplace and that can also be detrimental to the employees and ultimately to the organization. According to these au-thors, interpersonal pollution represents «a broader more global concept» that includes various types of both blatant and subtle organizational mal-treatments. These include all those negative social attitudes and behaviours that can contaminate a workplace environment and which can have a cru-cial negative impact on its employees’ performance and well-being. These interpersonal pollutants refer to several constructs such as harassment, be it sexual, physical or psychological (Carroll, 2006; Hoel & Beale, 2006; Beale & Hoel, 2011; Ramsay, Troth, & Branch, 2010; Rayner & Cooper, 2006; Kel-loway, Barling & Hurrell, 2006). Note that harassment describes a variety of deliberate, offensive and repetitive behaviors which are intended to disturb or upset others (Carroll, 2006; Beale & Hoel, 2011). Psychological harass-ment is also referred to in other terms, such as “bullying” (e.g. Salin, 2003) and “mobbing” (Carroll, 2006; Duffy & Sperry, 2012). Interpersonal pollution also encompasses psychological harassment’s predecessor, incivility (see Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Dion, 2009). Organizational incivility is defined as a low intensity deviant behaviour with an ambigu-ous intent to injure the target, by violating the norms of mutual respect in the organization (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). This would include words or actions that are disrespectful, degrading, rude, discourteous and adopt-ing a condescending attitude toward a co-worker. Interpersonal pollution

9A Model to Explore Organizational Pollution…

also refers to blatant antisocial behaviours (see Babiak & Hare, 2006), on through to the darker forms of supervision and leadership behaviour (see Brown & Mitchell, 2010; Hershcovis, 2011; Tepper, 2007; Tepper & Henle, 2011; Ünal, Warren, & Chen, 2012).

Meanwhile some of these researchers have studied overt and physical types of dark supervisory behaviours, such as sexual harassment, physical violence and overt hostility (Tepper, 2007). Still other researchers, often implying that the more common manifestations of destructive supervisor be-haviour involve non-physical actions, have studied behaviours such as angry outbursts, public ridiculing, scape-goating subordinates and taking credit for a subordinate’s work (see Keashly, Trott, & MacLean, 1994). Indeed Tepper (2007) went on to point out that, whilst many of these latter researchers use labels such as «petty tyranny» (e.g. Ashforth, 1994), «supervisor aggression» (e.g. Schat, Desmarais, & Kelloway, 2006) and a supervisor’s «undermining» attitudes and behaviours (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), most of the work conducted to date use the term «abusive supervision» (Tepper, 2000, Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006) and destructive leadership (Einarsen, Aas-land, & Skogstad , 2007). Finally Brown and Mitchell (2010) have recently suggested that all of these darker supervisory behaviours are unethical and thus fit under the broader umbrella of unethical leadership.

Meanwhile among the sciences, environmental psychology has perhaps primus inter pares examined the dynamic and reciprocal relationships be-tween human behaviours and the environment (Leather, Zarola, & Santos, 2010). Early researchers in the field have argued that the role of individual behaviors is key factors in the preservation of the environment (Levy-Leb-oyer, Bonnes, Chase, Ferreira-Marques, & Pawlik, 1996; Evans, 1982; Stokols & Altman, 1987). For example in the 1980’s professor Bogdan Pietrulewicz (1986), then at the Catholic University of Lublin, also wrote about how organizational decision-makers’ morality could affect what we now call envi-ronmental pollution, as much as can the usual situational and environmental factors (see Paradis, Pietrulewicz, Tivendell, & Lebel, in press). Several other studies in environmental psychology whose aim was to identify the variables motivating individuals to take responsible environmental action also alluded to the importance of considering individual characteristics such as attitudes, values, beliefs and diverse self-constructs including one own personality and contextual variables such as norms. (Sia, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987; Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Lévy-Leboyer et al.,


1996; Dietz, Fitzgerald, & Shwom, 2005; Dietz, Stern, & Guagnano, 1998; Schultz, 2001).)

Note that “other” social scientists have also tried to understand how hu-mans relate to the environment (for a review see Gardner & Stern, 2002). For instance social psychologists have long suggested that most behaviors are the product of an interaction between the characteristics of the person and those of his or her environment (see Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Carroll, 2006; Fiedler, 1967; Martel, 2010) and thus have investigated the social and psychological factors that can influence environ-mental attitudes and behaviours. In a typical interactionist social psychology model of human behaviour, one postulates that individual characteristics (such as personality traits, or attitudes, needs or values) and environmen-tal characteristics (such as size, nature, culture or the normative pressures brought by significant others) will interact to determine the behaviour (e.g. Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Baron & Kenny, 1986). Indeed when some of the earliest versions of these interactionist models (e.g. Fishbe-in & Ajzen, 1975) were applied to the workplace, and since then oodles of workplace related factors that have been identified as pertinent, including organizational structures (Mintzberg, 1993, 2004), organizational climate and culture (Denison, 1996; Fey & Denison, 2003; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton 2001; Xenikou & Furnham, 1996), and more recently ethical culture (e.g. Sims & Brinkmann, 2003).

Having taken these different perspectives into consideration and build-ing upon the work of Paradis et al. (2014), we first proposed the following organizational pollution definition. As work environment can be construed as a system of complex relationships between people and with the phys-ical, psychological and social properties of the workplace (Briner, 2000), we argue that «organizational pollution should encompass individual dark characteristics, physical and interpersonal pollution, as well as some dark el-ements of an organization culture and climate and of the work». A second goal of this article is to propose a theoretical framework, in fact a model for explaining the perceived organizational pollution, and its mediational effect on the employee’s health and well-being and on the organization’s effec-tiveness. As research on organizational pollution is still rather scarce, this article relies on research found in several fields including environmental psychology, social psychology and industrial and organizational psychology in order to develop our model.


QQ Our model

With this latter person-environment perspective in mind and as illus-trated in Figure 1 (below), we suggest that employees’ and leaders’ dark personality characteristics, and their possible lack of pro-environmental con-cerns and finally the leader’s possible unethical leadership, will interact with the physical work environment, the organization’s culture and the character-istics of the work, to cause this organizational pollution, and which in turn will influence both the individual members’ and the organization’s outcomes. However this model also purports to explain (predict) how employees’ per-ception of this organizational pollution will mediate this link (see Figure 1).

QQ Employees’ and leaders’ dark personality

Personality has a long history in our science and in studies of the work-place. Despite the turbulent of much of this history (e.g. see the long standing dispute between Hans Eysenck and Raymond B. Cattell (Adcock, 1965), the research drought post the Walter Michel book (1968), its resurgence linked to the new Five Factor Model (FFM) taxonomies by Lewis Goldberg (1980) and Paul Costa (Costa & McRae, 1985) and the Barrick and Mount (1991) me-ta-analysis which finally re-connected work outcomes to personality. Indeed Barrick and Mount (1991) are perhaps the most influential authors in engi-neering the return of personality to industrial and organizational psychology. Today, the FFM is the preferred approach in applied psychology when meas-uring the person, in other words those individual differences or personal dispositions we call personality traits (Raja & Johns, 2010; Stumpp, Muck, Hulsheger, Judge, & Maier, 2010). In particular researchers using taxonomies based on the various five factor models (see Goldberg, 1980; Costa & McRae, 1985). Indeed Goldberg’s five factor model of personality (1990), and his read-ily available open source measures and data, are actually quite popular among researchers (Tivendell et al., 2013). Studies and reviews continue to link the FFM traits to a gamut of individual and organizational outcomes, including absenteeism, entrepreneurship, leadership, team performance, productivity and job satisfaction (e.g. see Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997; Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004; Peeters, van Tuijl, Rutte, & Reymen, 2006; Zhao,


Indi

vidu

al

char

acte

rist

ics

– Em

ploy

ees’

and

le

ader

s’ d

ark

pers

onal

ity

– Em

ploy

ees’

and

le

ader

s’ la

ck o

f pro

-en

viro

nmen

tal c

once

rns

– U

neth

ical

lead

ersh

ip

Out

com

es (1

)

– Em

ploy

ees’

heal

th

&w

ell-b

eing

– Sa

tisfa

ctio

n

– Pe

rfor

man

ce

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Env

iron

men

t

– Ph

ysic

al w

ork

envi

ronm

ent (

offic

e la

yout

, lig

htin

g)

-Org

aniz

atio

nal c

ultu

re

and

clim

ate;

reso

urce

s

Med

iatio

nal

vari

able

Empl

oyee

s’

perc

eptio

n of

or

gani

zatio

nal

pollu

tion

Wor

k c

hara

cter

istic

s

– Jo

b de

man

ds, d

egre

e of

con

trol,

natu

re o

f the

ta

sks

Out

com

es (2

)

– O

rgan

izat

iona

l Pr

oduc

tivity

– O

rgan

izat

iona

l Ef

fect

iven

ess

Figu

re 1

. A m

odel

to e

xpla

in e

mpl

oyee

s’ pe

rcep

tion

of o

rgan

izat

iona

l pol

lutio

n in

the

wor

kpla

ce, a

nd it

s med

iatio

nal e

ffect

on

both

indi

vidu

al &

org

aniz

atio

nal t

ype

outc

omes


Seibert, & Lumpkin, 2010) and more recently to ethical leadership behav-iours (Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh, 2011; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009; Xu, Yu, & Shi, 2011)

However one will note that the focus in organizational behaviour re-search has most often involved measuring positive personality traits, such as the Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1981) or mostly positive core self-evaluations (Bono & Judge, 2003), and this despite the often disastrous outcomes seemingly linked to individuals and leaders sporting quite nega-tive behaviours in the workplace. Although their use is still relatively scarce, there is a growing interest in traits that describe the darker side of the per-sonality (Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Lebel, Paradis, & Tivendell, 2015; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). For instance Joyce Hogans’ approach is to focus on the negative characteristics that emerge when individuals let down their guard (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Kaiser, LeBreton and Hogan (2015) recently define the darker side of personality as the way we behave when we feel stressed, tired and less alert, and by the way we are being perceived by others. Ac-cording to some, this research area might be seen to fall within the DSM-V’s classification of personality troubles, but others note that the symptoms be-ing considered in the workplace research are less acute (Schyns, 2015). So far a number of different traits can be found in the measures of the darker side of personality, including Narcissism, Hubris, Social Dominance and Machiavelli-anism (see Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009).

For their part Paulhus and Williams (2002) use a three trait taxono-my of these socially undesirable traits, which they call the dark triad, and which now is found in the majority of this research area. Their three traits are: Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy (see Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Paulhus, 2014; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Delroy Paulus’s approach for identifying dark traits was to focus on those pathologies that are characterized by motives to elevate the self and to harm others (Paul-hus & Williams, 2002). For Paulhus and Williams (2002) the first of these three traits is Machiavellianism, which is described by referring to Machia-velli’s The Prince (Machiavelli, 1513), a ruler known for his cold nature and manipulative acts. The second is said to be the subclinical trait of Narcissism which, it is argued, seems to be increasingly present in our society (Raskin & Hall, 1979; Raskin & Terry, 1988). People with a Narcissist personality tend to want to dominate others by most any means, to see themselves as supe-rior, to impose their presence, to constantly aiming for a higher status and to always be the center of attention (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Finally the


third dark trait is Psychopathy, a trait often measured using an adaptation of Robert Hare’s scale (Hare, 2003; Hare & Neumann, 2008) that researchers use to differentiate clinical from subclinical psychopaths (Savard, Brassard, Lussier, & Sabourin, 2015). Note that recently Paulhus (2014) has added a fourth trait, the “everyday sadistic personality”, but its usefulness as well as its reliability and validity are still to be independently tested.

In their review, Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, and Marchisio (2011) links narcissism to bad decision-making (due to over-confidence and impulsivi-ty), higher counterproductive work behaviour (CWB), inflated self-ratings, as well as lower performance where performance is linked to maintaining positive relationships. Another recent review also found a moderately large, positive relationship between dark triad traits and counterproductive work behavior (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). However, of the three dark traits and their behavioral consequences in the workplace, the narcis-sism–CWB relationship seems to be the most promising bivariate association observed to date. Furthermore Narcissism would seem to be the only dark triad trait for which «culture» seems to moderate the relationship with CWB, such that narcissists were found to performe fewer counterproductive behav-iours in collectivist as opposed to individualist cultures (Grijalva & Newman, 2015; O’Boyle et al., 2012). As for Machiavellianism, an overview of previous research by Fehr, Samsom, and Paulhus (1992) found that Machiavellianism is related to unethical behaviour as well as persuasion. Jones and Paulhus (2009) in their review confirm that Machiavellianism is related to interper-sonal manipulations as well as nonaggressive behaviour such as cheating, lying and betrayal and also that it is related to having more negative view of others (Jones & Paulhus, 2009). However, overall, the results for organi-zational behaviour and Machiavellianism seem more mixed and need more future research to clarify relationships than those for narcissism.

Recently a number of studies have pointed towards dark personality as a possible culprit in the ongoing problems with failed leadership in organ-izations (Bentz, 1967, 1985a, 1985b, 1990; Burke, 2006; Dotlitch & Cairo, 2003; Hogan, 1994; Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984; Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996; Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988; McCall & Lombardo, 1983). For example as rather consistent reasons for executives’ derailment have been postulated, some of these overlap strongly with dark personality, especially those problems involving interpersonal relationships (Spain, Harms, & Lebreton, 2013). These include a description of the leader as being insensitive, manipulative, demanding, authoritarian, self-isolating,


aloofness, critical, arrogance, melodrama, volatility, excessive caution, habit-ual distrust, mischievousness, eccentricity, passive resistance, perfectionism, and eagerness to please (Van Velsor & Leslie, 1995; Lombardo & McCauley, 1994; Dotlitch & Cairo, 2003). In a recent meta-analysis, Gaddis and Foster (2015) seemed to have also found a significant and negative relationship be-tween leader dark side personality and leaderhip behaviours that are critical for success, and indeed this effect could be found across several countries. Evidently more research must be done.

Meanwhile Hogan and colleagues (Arneson, Milliken-Davies, & Hogan, 1993; Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990) and others (Benson & Campbell, 2007; Torregiante, 2005), have found negative rela-tions between dark side personality measures and leader performance and it seem that this effect goes above and beyond the usual ones found with FFM measures. Other studies find complex nonlinear relationships where low to moderate scores on dark-side measures are unrelated to managerial per-formance but high scores are associated with lower performance (Benson & Campbell, 2007). Hogan postulated that these complex relationships could be explained in part by the work context. It seems that the context is an im-portant determinant of whether dark personality traits will play a positive or a negative role in determining leadership effectiveness outcomes (Padil-la, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007). Much of the above research, but not all, involved looking at a leader’s Machiavellian or Narcissistic trait (ex Deluga, 2001; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007), and some of the negative consequences of his or her leadership. However, to date, these traits’ influences on leader be-haviours and outcomes remains unclear (Campbell et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2009; Paradis et al., in press).

Meanwhile some studies show that Machiavellian leaders can be profi-cient at forming political alliances, cultivating a charismatic image, serving more years in elected office and having a greater number of legislative achievements (Deluga, 2001; Judge et al., 2009; Simonton, 1986). On a less positive note Judge et al. (2009) describe Machiavellian leaders as seeking control over followers. They also suggest that these leaders have a natural talent for influencing people, for being able to talk others into doing things for the leader’s personal benefit, for sometimes clearly abusing their power in an organization and for being less willing to adhere to formal procedures or to ethical and moral standards, but instead for being concerned with maximizing opportunities to craft their own personal power. Machiavellian leaders also seem to be rated as more abusive by their subordinates than low


Machiavellians (Kiazid, Restubog, Zagenczyk, & Kiewitz, 2010). More recent-ly, Den Hartog and Belschak (2012) suggest that Machiavellians leaders may authentically display ethical leader behaviours if they perceive this is a useful way to reach their goals even though they privately hold less moral beliefs. Support for a moderated or mediation model of this trait has been found. Thus the effect of ethical leader behaviours on engagement was less strong when ethical leaders were high as opposed to low on Machiavellianism.

Finally we should look into the third dark trait, what the famous Canadi-an forensic psychologist Robert Hare called «psychopathy» (see Hare, 2003; Hare & Neumann, 2008). In 2006, Babiak and Hare published their book enti-tled «Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work», in which they suggested that one could observe a presence of “darkness” among those in management positions. Keeping in mind that we are mainly talking about subclinical lev-els of psychopathy, according to Hare and his colleagues about 3 per cent in higher level positions in organizations are psychopaths (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010). Others note that this subclinical form of psychopathy is associated with positive outcomes such as communica-tion skills, and with negative outcomes such as poor management skills and hard manipulation tactics (Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013). While we need more research into psychopathy in the workplace, preliminary evidence suggests that individuals with this subclinical form of psychopathy are likely to be at-tracted to positions of influence and thus might be slightly over-represented in leadership positions and appear to be mainly toxic for an organization.

Reflecting on these inconsistent and sometimes counterintuitive findings, Kaiser, Lebreton, & Hogan (2015) recently suggested that the effectiveness of leader behaviour is typically conceptualized in a linear way where, for in-stance, more consideration or initiation is assumed to be “better”. However, Kaiser et al. (2015) explain that this ignores a key finding in the early derail-ment research, i.e. that strengths can become weaknesses through overuse (McCall & Lombardo, 1983; McCall, 2009). Thus, Kaiser et al. (2015) pro-posed that this may be one reason why leadership research on dark side traits has produced inconsistent findings. In their study, Kaiser et al. (2015) used a measurement methodology that allowed raters to distinguish when managers do too little or too much of specific leader behaviours. Their re-sults demonstrated that scores near the normative mean on the dark-side traits were associated with optimal levels of the leader behaviours, translat-ing into strengths, whereas both high scores and, unexpectedly, low scores were associated with extreme, ineffective leader behaviours, translated into


weaknesses. Note too that support for a moderating effect for Emotional Sta-bility was also found.

In general it thus seems that a leader’s dark personality may, in the short term, be associated with what appears to be a positive relationship with good leadership and both employees and organizational positive outcomes. Howev-er, what appears appealing in the short term may, in the long term, evolve into very toxic and unethical leadership behaviours which in turn will contribute to a more polluted organizational environment. Moreover some research-ers have found that an ethical context and a bright personality dimension such as emotional stability, can moderate the relations between leaders’ dark personality and leadership and outcomes (Hoffman et al., 2013; Kaiser et al., 2015. Thus, much as Hoffman et al. (2013) have suggested, reinforcing an ethical context and having an efficient leader seems to be necessary to avoid having to deal with the devastating consequences of polluted organizations.

QQ Lack of pro-environmental concerns in the workplace

Despite recent calls inviting environmental research on pro-environ-mental behaviours in the workplace (e.g., Klein & Huffman, 2013; Ones & Dilchert, 2012; Spence, Pidgeon, & Uzzell, 2009, all cited in Paillé & Me-jía-Morelos, 2014), this field of study remains fairly underdeveloped (Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014; Steg & Vlek, 2009). As for the few existing studies, different theoretical frameworks to explain pro-environmental behaviours in the workplace have been investigated: for example, there are the Value-be-lief-norm (VBN) theory (Andersson, Shivarajan, & Blau, 2005; Scherbaum, Popovitch, & Finlinson, 2008), the cognitive theory of stress (Homburg & Stolberg, 2006), the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Greaves, Zibarras, & Stride, 2013) and recently social exchange theory (Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014). Studies conducted by Paillé and his colleagues highlighted several limitations and inconsistent results with these different frameworks (Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014). In their studies the Paillé team uses a social exchange theory to explain employees’ willingness to perform pro-environmental be-haviours in a workplace setting (Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014; Paillé & Boiral, 2013) and they found that perceived organizational support has an indirect effect on pro-environmental behaviours through employee commitment to the organization. Additionally, they suggested that organizational support


moderates the effect of a perceived breach on employee job satisfaction (Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014).

Some other researchers explored if personality predicted concern about the environment. For example, Borden and Francis (1978) reported that com-pared to individuals who were low, those who were high in environmental concern were more enthusiastic and extraverted, as well as more conscientious and mature. Similarly Pettus and Giles (1987) found that Conscientiousness, self-confidence (a personality characteristic related to Extraversion) and sin-cerity were related to pro-environmental attitudes. Allen and Ferrand (1999) and Blake (1999) found that individuals who encapsulate a more global con-cern and sympathy for the wider community tend to translate this into ‘actively caring’ for the environment. Other research findings generally support a link between aspects of personality and a lack of concern about the environment, especially traits that reflect the tendency to be self-interested, to take what one can get from others, and to limit investment in social relations. Finally still other researches indicate that individuals who maintain a strong competitive orientation and selfish interest are less likely to act in environmentally friend-ly ways (e.g., Borden & Francis, 1978; Hirsh & Peterson, 2009).

The few studies that have employed broader personality dimensions have also found that they personality is related to environmental engage-ment. Research has shown that Eysenck’s personality factors of Psychoticism (egocentrism, non-conformity, impulsiveness, hostility) and Neuroticism (anx-iety, depression, inferiority, unhappiness) are related to environmental values (Wiseman & Bogner, 2003). Greater Psychoticism was associated with exploita-tion of environmental resources; and greater Neuroticism was associated with enjoyment of nature and conservation of resources. Although Wiseman and Bogner (2003) did not examine other aspects of personality captured by the Big Five framework, their data do suggest that certain aspects of environmen-tal engagement may be linked to global tendencies to experience high levels of anxiety and emotional variability (i.e., greater Neuroticism).

A few researchers have examined the link between the Big Five person-ality and environmental concern. For example, Hirsh and Dolderman (2007) found that Consumerism was negatively associated with Agreeableness, and Environmentalism was positively associated with both Agreeableness and Openness. Hirsh (2010) study revealed that greater environmental concern was related to higher levels of Agreeableness and Openness, with smaller positive relationships emerging with Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. And supporting previous findings Nisbet, Zelenski, and Murphy (2009) found


that Agreeableness and Openness were positively related to nature related-ness. As for Milfont and Sibley (2012), there findings are in line with others showing that environmental engagement is influenced by basic personality traits. Thus, across at least three studies, and for both persons and nations, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience seem to be the three personality traits with higher associations (in terms of effect size) with environmental engagement.

When considering these findings, it seems that a combination of individu-al characteristics (attitudes such as job satisfaction, commitment and specific personality dimension) and organizational factors (organizational support), play a role in influencing pro-environmental behaviours. Thus in our model, we speculate that the presence of dark personalities among employees and leaders will be linked to a tendency to be unengaged and or unconcerned toward pro-environmental behaviours which in turn will influence the em-ployees’ perception of organization pollution. In other words, employees’ with dark personality trait will perceive more organizational pollution than employees with bright personality trait.

QQ Unethical leadership

Although millions of employees are being subjected to unethical behav-iours perpetrated by their supervisors (Andersson & Pearson 1999; Tepper et al., 2006; Tepper & Henle, 2011; Ethics Resource Center, 2014), the research in this area has traditionally focused on its counterpart: the impact of ethical supervisory behaviour and ethical leadership. Only recently have researchers started to pay attention to so-called dark supervision and dark leader behav-iours per se i.e. when exploring the causes and effects of these supervisory and leadership behaviours (see Ünal et al., 2012; Hershcovis, 2011; Tepper & Henle, 2011; Brown & Mitchell, 2010; Tepper, 2007). Brown and Mitchell (2010) define unethical leadership as any behaviour by organizational lead-ers that violates moral or legal standards and that promotes such acts in their followers. Meanwhile Ünal et al. (2012) define unethical supervision as any supervisory behaviour that violates normative standards as opposed to be-ing the absence of exemplary ethical behavior. This latter definition assumes a hierarchical relationship in which the supervisor has formal authority over the subordinates and which involves the use of power and authority in an inappropriate manner or for an improper purpose. When comparing Ünal’s


definition of unethical leadership with Brown and Mitchell’s, one can see the similarity between the two definitions.

According to Ünal et al. (2012), the dark unethical forms of supervisor behaviour are associated with several serious negative consequences. These negative consequences include psychological and emotional distress (Uhl-Bi-en & Carsten 2007, Tepper, 2000), Burnout (Tepper, 2000), helplessness (Uhl-Bien & Carsten, 2007), diminished self-efficacy and increased somatic health problems (Duffy et al., 2002), intentions to leave the organization and deviant behaviors (Tepper et al., 2009), lower levels of job performance (Zel-lars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002), the effects of displaced aggression on the family (Hoobler & Brass, 2006), as well as general job dissatisfaction, a lack of or-ganizational commitment, increased absenteeism, etc. (Ünal, et al.,2012). In addition in the USA the cost of an abusive supervision to organizations has been estimated to be about $ 23.8 billion annually, and ranging from $ 17,000 to $ 24,000 for each severe case (Karpoff, Lee, & Martin, 2008; Sheehan, Mc-Carthy, Barker, & Henderson, 2001; Tepper et al., 2006). Meanwhile Karpoff et al. (2008) also highlighted some significant indirect costs of this abusive supervision, i.e. when an organization’s reputation is damaged and it has subsequent difficulties finding good business partners (Sullivan, Haunschild, & Page, 2007). Giacalone and Promislo (2010; 2013) noted that such unethi-cal behaviour can have adverse effects on the well-being and on the mental (ex. depression and anxiety) and on physical health (e.g. heart disease) for a larger number of people. These unethical behaviours can affect the direct victims of these immoral acts, but they can also affect those that may have witnessed these acts, on those who are the perpetrators themselves, but they can also affect the gamut of the people associated with these victims, witness-es and perpetrators, i.e. such as their friends, colleagues or family members.

Overall the research outlined in this article highlight an important as-pect: that unethical leadership and a toxic polluted organization seem to be linked. Thus, in our model we are also postulated a relation between unethi-cal leadership and employees’ perception of organizational pollution.

QQ Physical work environment

The office is a place supplied by the organization to support individual and group contributions to the organizational mission and goals. The office typically has a physical dimension with features and properties that provide


both functional opportunities and multiple levels of meaningful interactions and feedback for the people who work in them (Leitner, 2015). Traditionally, offices reflected the hierarchy or structure of the organization with the larg-est and most prominent or desirable office location and resources given to the highest-ranking member of the organization (Hameed & Amjad, 2009). In many traditional offices, job titles and office size and furnishings were indications of status. However as corporate structures are changing, offices have become less well defined. Some alternative offices include virtual offices, home offices, and even «hotelling» in which new mobile computers and tele-phone technologies allow work and communication to be done from locations remote from the traditional office. New concepts of flatter, less hierarchical organizational structure have also supported the evolution of new ways of working, as well as new and different use of space (Mitchell Mc Coy, 2002).

In contemporary office design, according to Christina Bodin-Danielsson there are seven office types that can be identified. These are: (1) cell office, (2) shared-room office, (3) small open-plan office, (4) medium-sized open-plan office, (5) large open-plan office, (6) flex-office and (7) combi-office (Bodin Danielsson, Chungkmam, Wulff, & Westerlund, 2014; Bodin Danielsson & Bo-din, 2008). Moreover according to Bodin-Danielsson differences in health status between employees in various office types have been found, with the better health outcomes being found in flex-offices and cell-offices, and the worst in medium-sized open-plan office (Bodin Danielsson & Bodin 2008). The explanation for the equally good health in the former two, very different, office types could be that they both enable personal control, albeit through different means. When investigating the office environment’s impact on em-ployee health and well-being, the concept of «personal control» is of special interest since the need for personal control over the surrounding environ-ment is considered fundamental for human well-being (see, e.g. Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder 1982; Ward, 2012). Personal control is said to be strongly related to office employees’ environmental satisfaction (Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2009), as well as perception of privacy (Haans, Kaiser, & de Kort 2007; Kupritz 1998) and distraction (Lee & Brand 2010). However, according to Pierrette, Parizet, Chevret and Chatillon (2015), the modern partition-less open-space concept has found considerable success in the USA and has be-come much more widespread in Europe since 1980’s.

The open-plan office layout is believed by many to facilitate communi-cation and interaction between co-workers by removing internal walls. It would therefore facilitate team work which should also improve individual


work performance and organizational productivity (see Brand & Smith, 2005; Kupritz, 2003; Pierrette et al., 2015). However there is not much empirical evidence to support these widespread beliefs (Kaarlela-Tuomaala, Helenius, Keskinen, & Hongisto, 2009; Smith-Jackson & Klein, 2009). In their study on how a redesigned environment impacts upon work practices and collabora-tion within a community of researchers, Lansdale, Parkin, Austin and Baguley (2011) conclude that providing open-plan environments is not sufficient to produce more collaborative practices in high education.

Meanwhile a plethora of research papers have also identified negative impacts to open-plan office layout on occupants’ perception of their office environment. For example, some research have demonstrated a significant decline in workspace satisfaction (Sundstrom, Herbert, & Brown, 1982), low-er employee satisfaction and decreased internal work motivation (De Croon et al., 2005; Oldham & Brass, 1979), feeling spied upon (Des Isnards & Zuber, 2008 cited in Pierrette et al., 2015), suffering from a high level of ambient noise (noise annoyance related to the work of the other employees and the equipment) (Pierrette et al., 2015; Kim & de Dear, 2013), increased distrac-tion and loss of privacy (Kaarlela-Tuomaala et al., 2009; Seddigh, Berntson, Bodin Danielson, & Westerlund, 2014; Brand & Smith, 2005; Danielsson & Bodin, 2009; O’Neill & Carayon, 1993; Kim & de Dear, 2013), absence and sickness as indicated in short sick leave spells being observed in small, me-dium and large open-plan offices (Bodin Danielson et al., 2014) and finally perceived performance decrement after relocation of employees from en-closed workplace to open-plan or less enclosed workplace (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002). Still other research studies attribute escalating Sick Build-ing Syndrome (SBS) including symptoms such as distress, irritation, fatigue, headache and concentration difficulties, to open-plan office layout (Klitzman & Stellman, 1989; Pejtersen, Allermann, Kristensen, & Poulsen, 2006; Wit-terseh, Wyon, & Clausen, 2004).

Still other studies report that noise, in particular irrelevant but audible and intelligible speech from co-workers, can disturb and negatively affect individual performance on tasks requiring cognitive processing (Banbury & Berry, 2005; Haka et al., 2009; Smith-Jackson & Klein, 2009; Virjonen, Karä-nen, Helenius, Hakala, & Hongistro, 2007). The loss of productivity due to noise distraction estimated by self-rated waste of working time was doubled in open-plan offices compared to private offices (Haapakangas, Helenius, Keekinen, & Hongisto, 2008 cited in Kim & de Dear, 2013). Evans and John-son (2000) argue that exposure to uncontrollable noise can be associated


with fall in task motivation. They also suggested that open-plan layout often fails to isolate the occupants from unwanted sound (i.e. sound privacy) and unwanted observation (i.e. visual privacy), resulting in the overall feeling of loss of privacy and personal control over their workspace (Brand & Smith, 2005; Danielsson & Bodin, 2009; O’Neill & Carayon, 1993). Consequently, oc-cupants experience excessive uncontrolled social contact and interruptions due to close proximity to others and perceived loss of privacy, known as over-stimulation, which leads to occupants’ overall negative reactions toward their office environment (Maher & von Hippel, 2005; Oldham, 1988). Thus, an ex-tensive research literature consistently identifies noise and lack of privacy as the key sources of dissatisfaction in open-plan office layouts (Danielsson & Bodin, 2009; De Croon et al., 2005; Hedge, 1982; Pierrette et al., 2015).

In a more recent study, Laurence, Fried and Slowik (2013) demonstrat-ed that the experience of privacy is initially affected by architectural privacy and its effect on emotional exhaustion is contingent on (moderated by) personalization of the employee’s personal work area (i.e., quantity of per-sonal items in one’s work area). In other words, higher personalization at work reduced the adverse effect of the experience of low levels of privacy on emotional exhaustion. Other recent studies also observed that larger open-plan office environments may have a more negative effect on employees in comparison to smaller ones (Seddigh et al., 2014; Seddigh et al., 2015). However it was recently found that cell-offices might have negative effects on performance comparable to those of large open-plan offices (Seddigh et al., 2015). These results suggested that cell offices might not be as advan-tageous as previously thought and additional analyses reveal that it is not the number of people around per se that predicts drop in performance, but rather whether or not employees report being disturbed by them. According to Seddight et al. (2014), distractions that are prevalent at work are less re-lated to irrelevant stimuli from other fellow workers/colleagues and more related to other aspects such as telephones (both mobile and desk phones), instant messaging and e-mail which has been related to self-rated cognitive complaints in the workforce (Stenfors, Magnusson Hanson, Theorell, Oxen-stierna, & Nilsson, 2013).

Several field studies have also shown that even lighting can be a po-tential environmental feature impacting office workers’ mental wellbeing, behaviour and performance. More specifically, these studies indicated that the color of white lighting and the type of light source can affect employees’ feelings of alertness, self-reported performance and their need for recovery


during regular working hours (see Mills, Tomkins, & Schlangen, 2007; Smold-ers, De Kort, Tenner, & Kaiser, 2012; Viola, James, Schlangen, & Dijk, 2008). In addition, a large body of research has demonstrated that exposure to higher illuminance levels at night resulted in lower levels of melatonin secretion, increased physiological arousal, higher subjective alertness, and improved sustained attention and cognitive task performance (e.g., Badia, Myers, Boecker, & Culpepper, 1991; Boyce, Beckstead, Eklund, Strobel, & Rea, 1997; Cajochen, Zeitzer, Czeisler, & Dijk, 2000; Campbell & Dawson, 1990; Myers & Badia, 1993; Rüger, Gordijn, Beersma, de Vries, & Daan, 2006). Similar beneficial effects of bright light exposure during daytime have been demon-strated for individuals who had first experienced substantial light and/or sleep deprivation (Phipps-Nelson, Redman, Dijk, & Rajaratman, 2003; Rüger et al., 2006; Vandewalle et al., 2006). A few recent studies also show that bright lighting can have an effect on the health of active people during regular daylight working hours (Smolders, De Kort, & Van den Berg, 2013; Smold-ers, De Kort, & Cluitmans, 2012). Smolders and de Kort (2014) investigated whether a higher illuminance level particularly benefits individuals who suf-fer from mental fatigue, not from sleep pressure, but from mental exertion. Their results showed that participants felt less sleepy, more vital and happier when exposed to bright light.

Thus, the physical workplace is one component of the complex system of relationships that are found in the work environment and that pollution can arise from these physical aspects, in addition to any harmful substances that can be found in the air, in the water or in the building itself (e.g. rodents, mould, bacteria, chemical pollutants and radioactivity). We also think that there might be other physical aspects, including excessive noise, poor light-ning, spatial crowding, inappropriate temperature and certain odors, which can be perceived as pollutants. In our model, we also postulate that such physical work environment features are linked to organizational pollution.

QQ An unethical organizational culture

There is a long scientific tradition of studying the organization’s climate or culture in order to explain and predict the behaviours of managers and employees (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Denison, 1996; Hofstede, 1991; Schein, 1985). Indeed many studies have demonstrated that organizational culture can have a significant influence on employees’ attitudes and behaviours and


on the organization’s productivity and effectiveness (Danna & Griffin, 1999; Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki, 2011; Dextras-Gauthier, Marchand, & Haines, 2012; Dion, 2009; Levesque, 2006; Martel, 2010; Smith & al., 2012; Zheng, Yang, & McLean, 2009). It is also recognized that the organizational environment can have other important effects on its workers, including stress related dis-orders (Nieuwenhuijsen, Bruinvels, & Frings-Dresen, 2010), mental health problems (Szeto & Dobson, 2013) as well as contributing to still other posi-tive and negative behaviours at work (Dion, 2009; Levesque, 2006 & Martel, 2010). For example, previous research has suggested that organizations can increase workplace deviance by creating stressful environments (e.g., Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001) and producing a sense of injustice (e.g., Cohen-Char-ash, & Mueller, 2007) while Van Fleet and Griffin (2006) suggested that organizational cultures, leaders and individual predispositions interact and contribute to or detract from dysfunctional behavior in a variety of ways.

One way researchers can investigate organizational culture is by iden-tifying its elements and dimensions, and then comparing these dimensions across different environments (Delobbe & Haccoun, 2002; Kluckhohn, 1951; Kroeber & Parson, 1958; Pettigrew, 1979). As they relate to organizational culture, a variety of dimensions have been highlighted by different research-ers (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990; O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Cook & Rousseau, 1988; Xenikou & Furnham, 1996; Delobbe & Hac-coun, 2002). As a subset of organizational culture, the ethical culture of an organization is also seen as an important component of the organizational context and possibly accounting for some unethical behaviours (see Casey, Davidson, & Schwartz, 2001; Key, 1999; Ford & Richardson, 1994; Fritzsche, 1991; Sims & Brinkmann, 2003). An ethical organizational culture here can involve various formal and informal systems of behavioural control, or at least of influence, that can promote or discourage ethical or unethical behav-iours in its members (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Debode et al., 2013; Kaptein, 2008, 2011; Treviño & Youngblood, 1990; Treviño et al., 1998). These may include policies (e.g., codes of ethics), leadership style, authority structures, reward systems, training programs and tolerated types of peer behaviours and the formal implementation of certain ethical norms.

Thus, the literature also provides evidence that an ethical organizational culture can positively influence several employee attitudes, behaviours and even their health (Debode et al., 2013; Ethics Resource Center, 2010; Huhta-la, Feldt, Lamsa, Mauno, & Kinnunen, 2011; Kaptein, 2011; Ruiz-Palomino & Martinez-Canas, 2014; Treviño et al., 1998), also promote organizational


effectiveness (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Riivari, 2012) and even encourage an ethical leadership (Toor & Ofori, 2009; Schaubroeck et al., 2012) but neg-atively influence unethical behaviours (Kaptein, 2011). One can imagine that if an organization itself seems to tolerate rudeness and/or harassment type behaviours among its employees, with or in addition to various forms of cor-porate abuse and/or unethical behaviours by its leaders, this will contribute in creating or perpetuating an organizational unethical climate and culture (Peterson, 2002a; Peterson, 2002b; Bolton & Grawitch, 2011), thus creating a polluted organizational environment. Indeed, having an unethical organiza-tional culture has been found to result in unhealthy relationships between its members, and more dissatisfied and less performing individuals (see Dick-son, Smith, Grojean, & Ehrhart, 2001; Schminke, Ambrose, & Neubaum, 2005). It has also been linked to employees’ and leaders’ deviant behaviours and unethical leadership (Peterson, 2002a; Peterson, 2002b; Bolton & Grawitch, 2011). For these reasons we also postulate that an unethical organizational culture will be linked to organizational pollution.

QQ Characteristic of the job

At the heart of one the most popular job characteristics models is the premise that intrinsic motivation of employees can be influence by how the work itself is structured (see Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976). In Richard Hackman’s model, one of the most researched theory of work motivation in the history of industrial and organizational psychology, one seeks to identi-fy the conditions of work, which then would generate a psychological state, which finally is said to stimulate motivation through work enrichment and finally positively influence job performance and job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Although the whole model may not have been validated, the usefulness of the five «conditions of work» taxonomy has itself been often demonstrated; i.e., skill variety, task identity, task signification, autonomy and feedback (Batchelor, Abston, Lawlor, & Burch, 2014). In their meta-analyt-ic examination, Fried and Ferris (1987) found that these five characteristics were strongly related to job satisfaction, growth satisfaction, and internal work motivation, with weaker relationships to job performance and absen-teeism. Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson (2007) replicated and extended Fried and Ferris’s (1987) meta-analytic summary and their results show that motivational characteristics explained 25% of the variance in subjective


performance, 2% in turnover perceptions, 34% in job satisfaction, 24% in organizational commitment, and 26% in role perception outcomes.

Meanwhile Richard Karasek’s demand-control model (DCM; Karasek, 1979, 1998) has also influenced empirical research, particularly research on job stress and health over the past 20 years (see also Cordery, 1997). The central focal point expressed in Karasek (1979; 1998) demand-control model is that it is not high demands per se, but high demands in combination with a lack of control on the job, that are associated with high job strain. Thus, job strain is particularly caused by the combination of these tow job character-istics, i.e. high job demands (particularly work overload and time pressure) and low job control (individual’s potential control over his tasks and his con-duct during the working day; Karasek, 1979). A basic premise in the DCM is that employees who can decide themselves how to meet their job demands do not experience job strain (e.g. job-related anxiety, health complaints, ex-haustion, and dissatisfaction). Finally, research on employee well-being itself has produced a long list of job demands and (lack of) job resources and pro-posed these as potential predictors, not only including high psychological and physical job demands and (lack of) rewards and (lack of) autonomy, but also emotional demands, social support from colleagues, supervisory support, and performance feedback, to name only a few (see Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004; Kahn & Byosserie, 1992; Lee & Ashforth, 1996).

The interaction between job demands and control has been studied fre-quently with respect to job strain (e.g., Ganster & Fusilier, 1989; Karasek, 1979; Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997; Theorell & Karasek, 1996; Wall, Jackson, Mullarkey, & Parker, 1996; Xie, 1996). There is indeed empirical evidence showing that particularly the combination of high job demands and low job control is an important predictor of psychological strain and illness (Karasek, 1979; Schnall, Landsbergis, & Baker, 1994). Later on, in an expended model called Demand-Control-Support Model, Karasek and Theorell (1990) sug-gested that job social support may act as a buffer and facilitate coping with high-strain jobs, thus preventing the harmful effects of high –strain jobs. An-other model, the Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R), proposed that job resources may buffer the impact of job demands on job strain, including burnout (Bakker, Demerouti, De Boer, & Schaufeli, 2003a; Bakker, Demer-outi, Taris, Schaufeli, & Schreurs, 2003b); Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001a, Demerouti, Bakker, De Jonge, Janssen, & Schaufeli, 2001b). Several studies have provided evidence for the hypotheses proposed in the JD-R model (Bakker et. al., 2003a; Bakker et al., 2003b; Bakker, Demerouti,


& Verbeke, 2004; Bakker et al., 2003c; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Thus, we are also hinting that the characteristics of the work being done will also be linked to organizational pollution.

QQ Conclusion: Pollution in organizations, some implications for organizational and environmental psychology

Overall the research outlined in this article attempts to highlight one im-portant aspect: a toxic polluted organization is the result of an interactional process between employees, leaders, an organization environment and work. More specifically we proposed that to understand organizational pollution one must take into account the individual characteristics of both leaders and employees, the characteristics of their physical, psychological and social or-ganizational environment, the characteristics of the work being done and finally their interactions. Hence not only do individual and organizational characteristics, job characteristics too must be taken into account to fully understand and perhaps predict organizational pollution in addition to the usual individual and organizational outcomes.

Meanwhile we noted that some researchers such as Hoffman and Kaiser had already found that the ethical context and at least one so-called bright personality (FFM) dimensions, seem to moderate the relationship between a leaders’ dark personality and some work outcomes (Hoffman et al., 2013; Kaiser et al., 2015). Hoffman et al. (2013) suggest that reinforcing an ethical context and assuring an efficient leader selection process seem to be neces-sary to avoid having to deal with the devastating consequences of polluted organizations. Kaiser went on to add that when selecting leaders it is impor-tant to use a measurement methodology that will allow raters to distinguish when managers do too little or too much of certain specific leader behav-iours already associated with extreme and ineffective leadership behaviours in certain contexts (see Kaiser et al. 2015).

That said the new and still complex and somewhat inconsistent results observed in the literature on leaders’ dark personality, in the literature on the interactional influence of employees and an organizational environment, combined with the possibility that there may be a number of other moder-ator influences, together make organizational pollution a complex dynamic


to study. To further complicate the matter it is important to note that our own recent study, which included many of these factors, suggested that both a bright and dark side personality traits have their own particular pattern of influence on different individual and organizational outcomes (Lebel et al., 2015). In this latter study we suggest that employees’ bright and dark per-sonality traits, work characteristics and organizational characteristics have unique relationships with ethical and unethical leadership as well as with employee’s general health. As of today few such studies take into account simultaneously the bright and the dark side traits, although there are ex-ceptions (see Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Lebel et al., 2015; Schyns, 2015; Youli & Chao, 2014).

At this time our understanding of the relationship between bright and dark personality traits let alone with job and organizational characteristics, and their individual and combined links to organizational pollution, is still very limited (Paradis et al., 2014; Lebel et al., 2015). This article and the model presents is an attempts to enhance our understanding of these rela-tionships. It offers a model, if not a plan, for subsequent research to expand our knowledge of the relation between organizational pollution and environ-mental pollution. However, more studies are needed. This is also very much in line with the recommendations put forth in Ünal et al. (2012), in Ruiz-Pal-omino and Martinez-Canas (2014) and even in Besio and Pronzini (2014) which includes exploring the role that corporate morality, ethics, and values plays in the public debate on environmental issues such as climate change.

QQ References

Adcock, C.J. (1965). A comparison of the concepts of Cattell and Eysenck. British Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 35 (1), 90–97.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Hu-man Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behav-iour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Albert, M. (2011). Étude des causes du roulement du personnel au sein du cadre des instructeurs de cadets. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Moncton, NB : Université de Moncton.

Allen, J.B., & Ferrand, J.L. (1999). Environmental locus of control, sympathy and proenvironmental behaviour. Environment and Behaviour, 31, 338–353.

Andersson, L.M., & Pearson, C.M. (1999). Tit for Tat? The spiraling effects of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.


Andersson, L., Shivarajan, S., & Blau, G. (2005). Enacting ecological sustainability in the MNC: A test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 295–305.

Arneson, S., Milliken-Davies, M., & Hogan, J. (1993). Validation of personality and cognitive measures for insurance claims examiners. Journal of Business and Psy-chology, 7, 459–473.

Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47 (7), 755–778.Babiak, P. & Hare, R.D. (2006). Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. Harper-

Collins, ISBN 0061147893.Babiak, P., Neumann, C.S., & Hare, R.D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the

walk. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 174–193.Badia, P., Myers, B., Boecker, M., & Culpepper, J. (1991). Bright light effects on body

temperature, alertness, EEG and behavior. Physiology & Behavior, 50, 582–588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384 (91)90549-4.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2003a). Dual processes at work in a call centre: an application of the Job Demands-Resources model. European Jour-nal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 393–417.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the Job Demands-Resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83–104.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2003b). Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Voca-tional Behavior, 62, 341–56.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T., Schaufeli, W.B. and Schreurs, P. (2003c). A mul-ti-group analysis of the Job Demands-Resources model in four home care organizations. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 16–38.

Bamber, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behav-iour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14–25.

Banbury, S.P., & Berry, D.C. (2005). Office noise and employee concentration: Iden-tifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics, 48 (1), 25–37.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considera-tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimension and job per-formance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L. & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (1), 43–51.


Batchelor, J.H., Abston, K.A., Lawlor, K.B., & Burch, G.F. (2014). The Job Characteristics Model: An Extension to Entrepreneurial Motivation Small Business. Journal Small Business Institute,10 (1), 1–10. ISSN: 1944-1150/69.

Beale, D. & Hoel, H. (2011). Workplace bullying and the employment relationship exploring questions of prevention, control and context. Work Employment & So-ciety, 25 (1), 5–18. doi: 10.1177/0950017010389228.

Bechtel, R. & Churchman, A. (2002). Handbook of Environmental Psychology. N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-40594.

Benson, M., & Campbell, J. (2007). To be, or not to be, linear: An expanded representa-tion of personality and its relationship to leadership performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 232–249.

Bentz, V.J. (1967). The Sears experience in the investigation, description, and pre-diction of executive behavior. In F.R. Wickert & D.E. McFarlands (eds), Measuring executive effectiveness (pp. 147–206). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Bentz, V.J. (1985a). A view from the top: A thirty-year perspective on research de-voted to discovery, description, and prediction of executive behavior. Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Associa-tion, Los Angeles, CA.

Bentz, V.J. (1985b). Research findings from personality assessment of executives. In J.H. Bernardin & D.A. Bownas (eds), Personality assessment in organizations (pp. 82–144). New York: Praeger.

Bentz, V.J. (1990). Contextual issues in predicting high-level leadership performance. In K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (eds), Measures of leadership (pp. 131–144). West Or-ange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

Besio, C., & Pronzini, A. (2014). Morality, Ethics, and Values Outside and Inside Or-ganizations: An Example of the Discourse on Climate Change. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 287–300.

Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment: The Interna-tional Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 4 (3), 257–278.

Bodin Danielsson, C., & Bodin, L. (2008). Office-Type in Relation to Health, Well-being and Job Satisfaction Among Employees. Environment & Behavior, 40 (5), 636–668.

Bodin Danielsson, C., & Bodin, L. (2009). Differences in Satisfaction with Office Envi-ronment Among Employees in Different Office Types. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 26 (3), 2241–2257.

Bodin Danielson, C., Chungkmam, H.S., Wulff, C., & Westerlund, H. (2014). Of-fice design’s impact on sick leaves rates. Ergonomics, 57 (2), 139–147. DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2013.871064.

Bolton, L.M. & Grawitch, M.J. (2011). When good employees go bad: How organi-zations maybe facilitating workplace deviance (March edition). St.-Louis: MO:


Organizational Health Initiative: St.-Louis University. Retrieved from http://www.slu.edu/Documents/professional_studies/OHI-CWB.pdf

Bono, J.E., & Judge, T.A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 5−18.

Borden, R.J., & Francis, J.L. (1978). Who cares about ecology? Personality and sex dif-ferences in environmental concern. Journal of Personality, 46, 190–203.

Boyce, P.R., Beckstead, J.W., Eklund, N.H., Strobel, R.W., & Rea, M.S. (1997). Lighting the graveyard shift: The influence of daylight-simulating skylight on the task per-formance and mood on night-shift workers. Lighting Research & Technology, 29, 105–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14771535970290030501.

Brand, J.L., & Smith, T.J. (2005). Effects of reducing enclosure on perceptions of oc-cupancy quality, job satisfaction, and job performance in open-plan offices. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting, 49 (pp. 818–822).

Brennan, A., Chugh, J.S., & Kline, T. (2002). Traditional versus open office design: a longitudinal field study. Environment and Behavior, 34 (3), 279–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034003001.

Briner, R.B. (2000). Relationships between work environments, psychological envi-ronments and psychological well-being. Occupational Medicine, 50 (5), 299–303.

Brown, M.E., & Mitchell, M. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20 (4), 583–616.

Brown, M.E., & Treviño, L.K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future direc-tions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616.

Burke, R. (2006). Why leaders fail: Exploring the dark side. International Journal of Manpower, 27, 91–100.

Cajochen, C., Zeitzer, J.M., Czeisler, C.A., & Dijk, D.J. (2000). Dose-response relationship for light intensity and ocular and electroencephalographic correlates of human alertness. Behavioral Brain Response, 115 (1), 75–83.

Campbell, S.S., & Dawson, D. (1990). Enhancement of nighttime alertness and per-formance with bright ambient light. Physiology & Behavior, 48, 317–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384 (90)90320-4.

Campbell, W.K., Hoffman, B.J., Campbell, S., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in or-ganizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 268–284.

Carroll, T. (2006). Les antécédents du harcèlement psychologique au travail. Un-published Bachelor Psychology Memoir presented at the Psychology School, Moncton, NB : Université de Moncton, Canada.

Casey, D.P., Davidson, R.A., & Schwartz, B.N. (2001). The effect of organizational culture and ethical orientation on accountants’ ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 34 (2), 101–121.


Chapman, P.M. (2007). Determining when contamination is pollution – Weight of ev-idence determinations for sediments and effluents. Environment International, 33 (4), 492–501.

Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D.C. (2007). It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quaterly, 52, 351–386.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J.S. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 92, 666–680.

Colbert, A.E., Mount, M.K., Harter, J.K., Witt, L.A., & Barrick, M.R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace devi-ance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599–609.

Cooke, R.A., & Rousseau, D.M. (1988). Behavioral norms and expectations: A quan-titative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group and organizational studies, 13, 245–273.

Cordery, J. (1997), “Reinventing work design theory and practice”, Australian Psy-chologist, 32, 185–90.

Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., Williams, J.H., & Langhout, R.D. (2001). Incivility in the work-place: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80.

Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor (NEO-FFI) Inventory Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.

Danna, K., & Griffin, R.W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25 (3), 357–384.

Deal., T.E., & Kennedy, A.A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corpo-rate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Debode, J.D. & Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S., & Walker, A.G. (2013). Assessing ethical organizational culture: Refinement of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49 (4), 460–484.

De Croon, E., Sluiter, J., Kuijer, P.P., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2005). The effect of office con-cepts on worker health and performance: a systematic review of the literature. Ergonomics, 48 (2), 119–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130512331319409.

Delobbe, N., & Haccoun, R.R. (2002). Measuring core dimensions of organizational cul-ture: A review of research and development of a new instrument. Paper presented at the Congress of the Society of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Toronto. Ontario.

Deluga, R.J. (2001). American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charis-matic leadership and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 339–363.


Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001a). The job de-mands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P.P.M., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001b). Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandi-navian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 27, 279–86.

Den Hartog, D.N. & Belschak, F.D. (2012). Work Engagement and Machiavellianism in the Ethical Leadership Process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 35–47.

Denison, D.R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21 (6), 19–654.

Dextra-Gauthier, J., Marchand, A., & Haines, V. (2012). Organizational culture, work organization conditions, and mental health: A proposed integration. Internation-al Journal of Stress Management, 19 (2), 81–104.

Dickson, M.W., Smith, D.B., Grojean, M.W. & Ehrhart, M. (2001). An organizational climate regarding ethics: The outcome of leader values and the practices that reflect them. The Leadership Quarterly, 12 (2), 197–217.

Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 335–372.

Dietz, T., Stern, P., & Guagnano, G. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30 (4), 450–471.

Dion, E. (2009). Les comportements d’incivilité et de bons citoyens dans les organiza-tions : leurs liens avec le harcèlement psychologique. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Moncton, NB : Université de Moncton.

Dotlich, D. & Cairo, P. (2003). Why CEOs fail: The 11 behaviors that can derail your climb to the top and how to manage them. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351.

Duffy, M., & Sperry, L. (2012). Mobbing: Causes, consequences, and solutions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216.

Ethics Resource Center. (2014). National Business Ethics Survey of the U.S. Workforce. Arlington, VA: Ethics Resource Center (ERC).

Evans, G. (Ed.). (1982). Environmental Stress. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Evans, G.W., & Johnson, D. (2000). Stress and open-office noise. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 85 (5), 779–783.Fehr, B., Samsom, D., & Paulhus, D.L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism:

Twenty years later. In C.D. Spielberger & J.N. Butcher (eds), Advances in personal-ity assessment (Vo1. 9, pp. 77–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fey, C.F., & Denison, D.R. (2003). Organizational Culture and Effectiveness: Can Amer-ican Theory Be Applied in Russia? Organization Science, 14, 686–706.


Fiedler, F.E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduc-

tion to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Ford, R.C., & Richardson, W.D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empir-

ical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13 (2), 205–221.Fox, S., Spector, P.E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in

response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and modera-tor tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291–309.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G.R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.

Fritzsche, D.J. (1991). A model of decision-making incorporating ethical values. Jour-nal of Business Ethics, 10 (11), 841–852.

Furnham, A., Richards, S.C. & Paulhus, D.L. (2013). The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7 (3), 199–216. 10.1111/spc3.12018.

Gadis, B.H. & Foster, J.L. (2015). Meta-Analysis of dark side personality characteris-tics and critical work behaviors among leaders across the globe: Findings and implications for leadership development and executive coaching. Applied Psy-chology: An International review, 64 (1), 25–54.

Ganster, D.C., & Fusilier, M.R. (1989). Control in the workplace. In C.L. Cooper & I. Rob-ertson (eds), International review of industrial and organizational Psychology (pp. 235–280). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Gardner, G.T., & Stern, P.C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Giacalone, R.A., & Promislo, M.D. (2010). Unethical and unwell: Decrements in well-be-ing and unethical activities at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 275–297.

Giacalone, R.A., & Promislo, M.D. (2013). Handbook of unethical work behavior. Impli-cations for individual well-being. New York: M.E. Sharpes Inc.

Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Psychology, 65 (1), 541.Goldberg, L.R. (1980). Some ruminations about the structure of individual differ-

ences: Developing a common lexicon for the major characteristics of human personality. Symposium presentation at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.

Goldberg, L.R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.). Review of personality and social psy-chology (Vol. 2, pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Greaves, M., Zibarras, L., & Stride, C. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Envi-ronmental Psychology, 34, 109–120.

Grijalva, E., & Newman, D.A. (2015). Narcissism and Counterproductive Work Be-havior (CWB): Meta-Analysis and Consideration of Collectivist Culture, Big Five


Personality, and Narcissism’s Facet Structure. Applied Psychology: An Interna-tional Review, 64 (1), 93–126. doi: 10.1111/apps.12025.

Haans, A., Kaiser, F.G., & de Kort, Y. (2007). Privacy Needs in Office Environments. European Psychologist, 12 (2), 93–102.

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 60 ,159–170.

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.

Haka, M., Haapakangas, A., Keränen, J., Hakala, J., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V. (2009). Performance effects and subjective disturbance of speech in acoustically differ-ent office types e A laboratory experiment. Indoor Air, 19 (6), 454–467.

Halbesleben, J.R.B. and Buckley, M.R. (2004), “Burnout in organizational life”. Journal of Management, 30, 859–79.

Hameed, A. Amjad, S. (2009). Impact of Office Design on Employees’ Productivity: A Case study of Banking Organizations of Abbottabad, Pakistan. Journal of Public Affairs, Administration and Management, 3 (1), 1–13. http://www.scientificjour-nals.org/journals2009/articles/1460.pdf.

Hare, R.D. (2003). Hare PCL-R 2nd Edition. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Hare, R.D., & Neumann, C.S. (2008). Psychopathy as a Clinical and Empirical Con-

struct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–46, doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452. PMID 18370617.

Hartnell, C.A., Ou, A.Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (4), 677–694.

Hedge, A. (1982). The open-plan office: A systematic investigation of employee re-actions to their work environment. Environment and Behavior, 14 (5), 519–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916582145002.

Hershcovis, M.S. (2011). Incivility, social undermining, bullying… Oh my! A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 32, 499–519.

Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R., & Tomera, A.N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of re-search on responsible environmental behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1–8.

Hirsh, J.B. (2010). Personality and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 245–248.

Hirsh, J.B., & Dolderman, D. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and en-vironmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1583–1593.

Hirsh, J.B., & Peterson, J.B. (2009). Extraversion, neuroticism, and the prisoner’s di-lemma. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 254–256.


Hoel, H., & Beale, D. (2006). Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives and in-dustrial relations: Towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44, 239–262.

Hoffman, B.J., Strang, S.E., Kuhnert, K.W., Campbell, W.K., Kennedy, C.L., and LoPilato, A.C. (2013). Leader narcissism and Ethical context: Effects on Ethical Leadership and Leader Effectiveness. Journal of leadership & Organizational Studies, 20 (1), 25–37.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizafions. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational

cultures, a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty states. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286–316.

Hogan, R. (1994). Trouble at the top: Causes and consequences of managerial incom-petence. Consulting Psychology Journal, 46, 9–15.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. Inter-national Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 12−23.

Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (eds), Measures of leadership (pp. 343–354). West Orange, NJ: Lead-ership Library of America.

Homburg, A., & Stolberg, A. (2006). Explaining pro-environmental behavior with a cognitive theory of stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26 (1), 1–14.

Hoobler, J.M., & Brass, D.J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (5), 1125–1133.

Huhtala, M., Feldt, T., Lamsa, A.M., Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2011). Does the ethical culture of organizations promote managers’ occupational well-being? Investigat-ing indirect links via ethical strain. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 231–247.

Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D., & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theo-retical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356.

Imbault-Jean, C. (2004). Le stress chez les enseignants. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Moncton, NB : Université de Moncton.

Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Person-ality and Individual Differences, 40 (2), 331–339.

Jones, D.N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M.R. Leary & R.H. Hoyle (eds), Individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93–108). New York: Guilford.

Judge, T.A., Heller, D. & Mount, M.K., (2002). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 530–541.

Judge, T.A., Martocchio, J.J., & Thoresen, C.J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745–755

Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F. & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of lead-er traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The


Leadership Quarterly, 20, 855–875. http://m.timothy-judge.com/documents/Thebrightanddarksidesofleadertraits.pdf

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 (3), 376–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.127.3.376.

Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A., Helenius, R., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V. (2009). Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices-Lon-gitudinal study during relocation. Ergonomics, 52 (11), 1423–1444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130903154579.

Kahn, R.L. and Byosserie, P. (1992). Stress in organizations, In M.D. Dunette, & L.M. Hough (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 (pp. 571–650). Palo Alto, CA : Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kaiser, R.B., LeBreton, J.M., & Hogan, J. (2015). The dark side of personality and ex-treme leader behavior. Applied Psychology, 64 (1), 55–92.

Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organ-izations: the corporate ethical virtues model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 923–947.

Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human Relations, 64 (6), 843–869.

Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implica-tions for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.

Karasek, R.A. (1998), “Demand/Control Model: a social, emotional, and physiological approach to stress risk and active behaviour development”. In J.M. Stellman (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health And Safety, (pp. 34.06–34.14). Geneva: ILO.

Karasek, R.A., & Theorell, T. 1990. Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the recon-struction of working life. New York: Basic Books.

Karpoff, J.M., Lee, D.S., & Martin, G.S. (2008). The cost to firms of cooking the books. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 43, 581–611.

Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L.M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9, 341–357.

Kelloway, E., Barling, J. & Hurrell Jr., J. (2006). Handbook of workplace violence. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kets de Vries, M., & Miller, D. (1984). Neurotic style and organizational pathology. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 35–55.

Key, Susan (1999). Organizational Ethical Culture: Real or Imagined? Journal of Busi-ness Ethics, 20, 217–225.

Kiazid, K., Restubog, S., Zagenczyk, T., & Kiewitz, C. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Mach-iavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 512–519.


Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: the privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007.

Kish-Gephart, J., Harrison, D.A., & Treviño, L.K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (1), 1–31.

Klitzman, S., & Stellman, J.M. (1989). The impact of the physical environment on the psychological well-being of office workers. Social Science Medicine, 29 (6), 733–742.

Kluckhohn, C. (1951). The study of culture. In D. Lerner & H.D. Lasswell (eds), The Policy Sciences (pp. 86–101). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kroeber, A.I., & Parson, T. (1958). The concepts of culture and social systems. Ameri-can Sociological Review, 23, 582–585.

Kupritz, V.W. (1998). Privacy in the Work Place: The Impact of Building Design. Jour-nal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 341–356.

Kupritz, V. (2003). Accommodating privacy to facilitate new ways of working. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 20 (2), 122–135.

Lansdale, M., Parkin, J., Austin, S., & Baguley, T. (2011). Designing for interaction in research environments: A case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 407–420.

Laurence, G.A., Fried, Y., & Slowik, L.H. (2013). My space: A moderated mediation model of the effect of architectural and experienced privacy and workspace personalization on emotional exhaustion at work. Journal of Environmental Psy-chology, 36, 144–1152.

Leather, P., Zarola, T., & Santos, A. (2010). The physical workplace: An Occupation-al Health Psychology Perspective. In S. LeKa & J. Houdmont (eds), Occupational Health Psychology (Edition 1) (pp. 225–249). London: Wiley & Blackwell.

Lebel, J., Paradis, R., & Tivendell, J. (2015). Un modèle multidimensionnel pour expliquer la santé et le bien-être des travailleurs. Unpublished Bachelor Psychol-ogy Memoir presented at the Psychology School, Moncton, NB : Université de Moncton, Canada.

Lee, R.T. and Ashforth, B.E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123–133.

Lee, S.Y., & Brand, J.L. (2010). Can Personal Control Over the Physical Environment Ease Distractions in Office Workplaces? Ergonomics, 53 (3), 324–335.

Leitner, H. (2015). Pattern Theory: Introduction and Perspectives on the Tracks of Christopher Alexander. Nausner & Nausner: Graz. ISBN 1505637430.

Leslie, J., Van Velsor, E. (1996). A look at derailment today: North America and Europe. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Levesque, A. (2006). Examen du lien entre le travail, la culture organisationnelle et la personnalité des travailleurs. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Moncton, NB : Univer-sité de Moncton.


Lévy-Leboyer, C., Bonnes, M., Chase, J., Ferreira-Marques, J., & Pawlik, K. (1996). Deter-minants of pro-environmental behaviors: A five-countries comparison. European Psychologist, 1 (2), 123–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016–9040.1.2.123.

Lombardo, M., Ruderman, M., & McCauley, C. (1988). Explanations of success and derailment in upper-level management positions. Journal of Business and Psy-chology, 2, 199–216.

Lombardo, M., & McCauley, C. (1994). Benchmarks: A manual and trainer’s guide. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Machiavelli, N. (1513). The Prince (translated by W.K. Marriott (2012); see The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Prince, by Nicolo Machiavelli. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm.

Maher, A., & von Hippel, C. (2005). Individual differences in employee reactions to open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (2), 219–229.

Martel, J-F. (2010). Analyse des choix professionnels suite au Burnout. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Moncton, NB : Université de Moncton.

McCall, M.W., Jr. (2009). Every strength a weakness and other caveats. In R.B. Kaiser (Ed.), The perils of accentuating the positive (pp. 41–56). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Press.

McCall, M.W., Jr., & Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful exec-utives get derailed (Technical Report No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Milfont, T.L., & Sibley, C.G. (2012). The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 32, 187–195.

Mills, P.M., Tomkins, S.C., & Schlangen, L.J. M. (2007). The effect of high correlated colour temperature office lighting on employeewellbeing and work performance. Jour-nal of Circadian Rhythms, 5, 2–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1740–3391–5–2.

Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Mitchell McCoy, J. (2002). Work environments. In R.B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (eds), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 443–460). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Myers, B.L., & Badia, P. (1993). Immediate effects of different light intensities on body temperature and alertness. Physiology & Behavior, 54, 199–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0031–9384 (93)90067-P.

Nieuwenhuijsen, K., Bruinvels, D., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2010). Psychosocial work environment and stress-related disorders, a systematic review. Occcupational Medecine, 60 (4), 277–286.

Nisbet, E.K. L., Zelenski, J.M., & Murphy, S.A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and be-haviour. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.


O’Boyle, E.H., Forsyth, D.R., Banks, G.C., & Mc Daniel, M.A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97 (3), 557–579.

Oldham, G.R. (1988). Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (2), 253–258.

Oldham, G.R., & Brass, D.J. (1979). Employee reactions to an open-plan office: a nat-urally occurring Quasi-Experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (2), 267–284.

O’Neill, M.J., & Carayon, P. (1993). Relationship between privacy, control, and stress responses in office workers. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting, 37, 479–483.

O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparisons approach to assessing person-organization fit, Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 487–516.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R.B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quaterly, 18, 176–194.

Paillé, P., & Boiral, O. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior at work: Construct validity and determinants. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 118–128.

Paillé, P., & Mejía-Morelos, J.H. (2014). Antecedents of pro-environmental behaviours at work: The moderating influence of psychological contract breach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 124–131.

Paradis, R., Demers, M., Dion, E., Tivendell, J., & Pietrulewicz, B. (2014). Interperson-nal pollution in organizations : Exploring ethical leadership and the dark side of organizations. Polish Journal of Social Science, 9 (1), 7–26.

Paradis, R., Pietrulewicz, B., Tivendell, J., & Lebel, J. (In press). Organizational & En-vironmental Pollution: Interaction of Leaders’ Dark Personality, Followers (Employees) & Organizational Factors. Polish Journal of Social Science.

Paulhus, D.L., (2014). Toward a Taxonomy of Dark Personalities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23 (6), 421–426.

Paulhus, D.L., & Williams, K. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Mach-iavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–568.

Peeters, M.A. G., van Tuijl, H.F. J.M., Rutte, C.G. & Reymen, I.M. M. (2006). Personality and team performance: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20 (5), 377–396.

Pejtersen, J.H., Allermann, L., Kristensen, T.S., & Poulsen, O.M. (2006). Indoor climate, psychosocial work environment and symptoms in open-plan offices. Indoor Air, 16 (5), 392–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600–0668.2006.00444.x.

Peterson, D.K. (2002a). Deviant workplace behavior and the organization’s ethical climate. Journal of Business & Psychology, 17, 47–61.


Peterson, D.K. (2002b). The relationship between unethical behavior and the dimen-sions of the ethical climate questionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 313–326.

Pettigrew, A. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570–581.

Pettus, A.M., & Giles, M.B. (1987). Personality characteristics and environmental atti-tudes. Population and Environmental, 9 (3), 127–137.

Phipps-Nelson, J., Redman, J.R., Dijk, D.-J., & Rajaratman, S.M. W. (2003). Daytime exposure to bright light, as compared to dim light, decreases sleepiness and im-proves psychomotor vigilance performance. Sleep, 26, 695–700.

Pierrette, M., Parizet, E., Chevret, P., & Chatillon, J. (2015). Noise effect on comfort in open-space offices: development of an assessment questionnaire. Ergonomics, 58 (1), 96–106.

Pietrulewicz, B. (1986). Cognitive barriers to moral evaluation of environmental pollution: A research proposal. A paper presented in 1985 to the «International Conference for Physical Surroundings», West-Berlin.

Raja, U. & Johns, G. (2010). The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-role performance, citizenship behaviors and creativity. Human Relations, 63 (7), 981–1005.

Ramsay, S., Troth, A & Branch, S. (2010). Work-place bullying: A group process-es framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84 (4), 799–816.

Rayner, C., & Cooper, C.L. (2006). Workplace Bullying. In E. Kelloway, J. Barling, & Jr. J. Hurrell (eds), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Raskin, R., & Hall, C.S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Re-port, 45, 590.

Raskin, R., Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890–902.

Riivari, E. (2012). Ethical culture of organizations, organizational innovativeness and organizational effectiveness. The International Society for Professional Innovation Management, 1–9.

Rothbaum, R., Weisz, J.R., & Snyder, S.S. (1982). Changing the World and Changing the Self: A Two-process Model of Perceived Control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 5–37.

Rüger, M., Gordijn, M.C. M., Beersma, D.G. M., de Vries, B., & Daan, S. (2006). Time-of-day-dependent effects of bright light exposure on human psychophysiology: Comparison of daytime and nighttime exposure. American Journal of Physiolo-gy-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 290, 1413–1420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00121.2005.


Ruiz-Palomino, P., & Martinez-Canas, R. (2014). Ethical culture, ethical intent and organizational citizenship behaviour : The moderating and mediating role of per-son-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 95–108.

Salin, D. (2003). A Review of Enabling, Motivating, and Precipitating Structures and Processes in the Work Environment. Human Relations, 56 (10), 1213–1232.

Savard, C., Brassard, A., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin S. (2015). Subclinical psychopathic traits and romantic attachment in community couples: A dyadic approach. Per-sonality and Individual Difference, 72, 128–134.

Schat, A.C. H., Desmarais, S., & Kelloway, E.K. (2006). Exposure to workplace aggression from multiple sources: Validation of a measure and test of a model. Unpublished manuscript, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Schaubroeck, J.M., Hannah, S.T., Avolio, B.J., Kozlowski, S.W., Lord, R.G., Treviño, L.K., Dimotakis, N., & Peng, A.C. (2012). Embedding ethical leadership within and across organization levels. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (5), 1053–1078.

Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, D.E. 1997. Divergent effects of job control on coping with work stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (3), 738–754.

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their re-lationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.

Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Fran-cisco, Jossey Bass.

Scherbaum, C.A., Popovich, P.M., & Finlinson, S. (2008). Exploring individual-level factors related to employee energy-conservation behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38 (3), 818–835.

Schminke, M., Ambrose, M., & Neubaum, D. (2005). The Effect of Leader Moral Devel-opment on Ethical Climate and Employee Attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97, 135–151.

Schnall, P.L., Landsbergis, P.A., & Baker, D. (1994). Job strain and cardiovascular dis-ease. Annual Review of Public Health, 15, 381–411.

Schultz, P.W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (4), 327–339.

Schyns, B. (2015). Dark personality in the workplace: Introduction to the special is-sue. Applied Psychology, 64 (1), 1–14.

Seddigh, A., Berntson, E., Bodin Danielson, C., & Westerlund, H. (2014). Concentra-tion requirements modify the effect of office type on indicators of health and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 167–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.009.

Seddigh, A., Stenfors, C., Berntsson, E., Bååth, R., Sikström S., & Westerlund, H. (2015). The association between office design and performance on demanding cognitive tasks. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 172–181.


Sheehan, M., McCarthy, P., Barker, M., & Henderson, M. (2001). A model for assessing the impacts and costs of workplace bullying. Paper presented at the Standing Con-ference on Organizational Symbolism (SCOS). Dublin: Trinity College.

Sia, A.P., Hungerford, H.R., & Tomera, A.N. (1986). Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior: An analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 17 (2), 31–40.

Sims, R.R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron ethics or: culture matters more than codes. Journal of Business Ethics, 45 (3), 243–256.

Simonton, D. (1986). Presidential personality: Biographical use of the Gough Adjec-tive Checklist. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 149–160.

Smith-Jackson, T.L., & Klein, K.W. (2009). Open-plan offices: task performance and mental workload. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29 (2), 279–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.09.002.

Smith, S., Makrides, L., Lebel, F.S., Allt, J., Montgomerie, D., Farquharson, J., Mac-Donald, M.J., & Szpilfogel, C. (2012). The healthy Lifeworks Project: the role of organizational health in the personal health of employees. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 5 (3), 194–209.

Smith, S.F., & Lilienfeld, S.O. (2013). Psychopathy in the workplace: The knowns and unknowns. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 204–218.

Smolders, K.C.H.J., & De Kort, Y.A. W. (2014). Bright light and mental fatigue: Effects on alertness, vitality, performance and physicological arousal. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 39, 77–91.

Smolders, K.C. H.J., De Kort, Y.A. W., & Cluitmans, P.J. M. (2012). A higher illuminance induces alertness even during office hours: Findings on subjective measures, task performance and heart rate measures. Physiology & Behavior, 107, 7–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.04.028.

Smolders, K.C. H.J., De Kort, Y.A. W., Tenner, A.D., & Kaiser, F.G. (2012). Need for recov-ery in offices: Behaviour-based assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 126–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.12.003.

Smolders, K.C. H.J., De Kort, Y.A. W., & Van den Berg, S.M. (2013). Diurnal light expo-sure and feelings of vitality: Results of a field study during regular workdays. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 270–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvp.2013.09.004.

Spain, S.M., Harms, P. & Lebreton, J.M. (2013). The dark side of personality at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1 (1), 1–21. DOI: 10.1002/job.1894.

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.

Stenfors, C., Magnusson Hanson, L., Theorell, T., Oxenstierna, G., & Nilsson, L.-G. (2013). Psychosocial working conditions and cognitive complaints among swedish em-ployees. PLoS One, 8 (4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060637.


Stokols, D. & Altman, I. (Ed.). (1987). Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 1, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons.

Stouten, J., Baillien, E., Van den Broeck, A., Camps, J., Witte, H., & Euwema, M. (2011). Discouraging bullying: The role of ethical leadership and its effects on the work environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 17–27. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-0797-x.

Stumpp, T., Muck, P.M., Hulsheger, U.R., Judge T.A. & Maier, G.W. (2010). Core Self-Eval-uations in Germany: Validation of a German Measure and its Relationships with Career Success. Applied Psychology, 59 (4), 674–700.

Sullivan, B.N., Haunschild, P., & Page, K. (2007). Organizations non gratae? The impact of unethical corporate acts on interorganizational networks. Organizational Sci-ence, 18, 55–70.

Sundstrom, E., Herbert, R.K., & Brown, D.W. (1982). Privacy and communication in an open-plan office: A case study. Environment and Behavior, 14 (3), 379–392.

Szeto, A.C. H., & Dobson, K.S. (2013). Mental disorders and their association with perceived work stress: An investigation of the 2010 Canadian Community Health Survey. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18 (2), 191–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031806.

Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

Tepper, B.J. (2007). Abusive Supervision in Work Organizations: Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.

Tepper, B.J., Carr, J.C., Breaux, D.M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive su-pervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109 (2), 156–167.

Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Henle, C.A., & Lambert, L.S. (2006). Procedural injustice, vic-tim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123.

Tepper, B.J., & Henle, C.A. (2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among con-structs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 487–498.

Theorell T, & Karasek R.A. (1996). Current issues relating to psychosocial job strain and cardiovascular disease research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 9–26.

Tivendell, J., Pietrulewicz, B., Demers, M. Dion, E., Paradis, R. and Carroll, T. (2013). MOI: Self or traits, for a short efficient measure of individual differences? Polish Journal of Social Science, 8 (1), 1–26.

Toor, S.-U-R., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 533–547.


Torregiante, J. (2005). Destructive personality traits and leadership performance: A pattern-oriented approach. Unpublished thesis, North Carolina State University.

Treviño, L.K., Butterfield, K.D., & McCabe, D.L. (1998). The ethical context in organiza-tions: Influences on employee attitudes and behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8 (3), 447–476.

Treviño, L.K., & Youngblood, S.A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (4), 378–385.

Turk, A., Turk, J. & Wittes, J.T. (1972). Ecology, Pollution, Environment. Phila-delphia: Saunders; (now by Brooks/Cole). ISBN 10: 0721689256, ISBN 13: 9780721689258.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Carsten, M.K. (2007). Being ethical when the boss is not. Organiza-tional Dynamics, 36, 187–201.

Ünal, A., Warren, D., & Chen, C. (2012). The normative foundations of unethical super-vision in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 5–19.

Vandewalle, G., Balteau, E., Philips, C., Degueldre, C., Moreau, V., Sterpenich, V., et al. (2006). Daytime light exposure dynamically enhances brain responses. Current Biology, 16, 1616–1621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.06.031.

Van Fleet, D.D., & Griffin, R.W. (2006). Dysfunctional organization culture The role of leadership in motivating dysfunctional work behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21 (8), 698–708.

Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J.B. (1995). Why executives derail: Perspective across time and cultures. Academy of Management Executive, 9, 62–72.

Vardi, Y. (2001). The Effects of Organizational and Ethical Climates on Misconduct at Work, Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 325–337.

Veitch, J.A. (2011). Workplace design contributions to mental health and wellbeing. Healthcare Papers, 11, 38–46. doi: 10.12927/hcpap.2011.22409.

Veitch, J.A., Charles, K.E., Farley, K.M. J., & Newsham, G.R. (2007). A model of sat-isfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27 (3), 177–189.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J.B. (1987). A theory and measure of ethical climate in organiza-tions. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 9, 51–71.

Viola, A.U., James, L.M., Schlangen, L.J. M., & Dijk, D.-J. (2008). Blue-enriched white light in the workplace improves self-reported alertness, performance and sleep quality. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 34, 297–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1268.

Virjonen, P., Keränen, J., Helenius, R., Hakala, J., & Hongisto, O.V. (2007). Speech priva-cy between neighboring workstations in an open office e A laboratory study. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 93 (5), 771–782.

Wall, T.D., Jackson, P.R., Mullarkey, S., & Parker, S.K. (1996). The DC-model of job strain: A more specific test. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-ogy, 69, 153–166.


Walumbwa, F.O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behaviour: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psycho-logical safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286.

Ward, M. (2012). Sense of Control and Sociodemographic Differences in Self-Report-ed Health in Older Adults. Quality of Life Research 21 (9), 1509–1518.

Wiseman, M., & Bogner, F.X. (2003). A higher order model of ecological values and its relationship to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 783–794.

Witterseh, T., Wyon, D.P., & Clausen, G. (2004). The effects of moderate heat stress and open-plan office noise distraction on SBS symptoms and on the performance of office work. Indoor Air, 14 (8), 30–40.

Xenikou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). A correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire measures of organizational culture. Human Relations, 49, 349–371.

Xie, J.L. (1996). Karasek’s model in the People’s Republic of China: Effects of job de-mands, control, and individual differences. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1594–1618.

Xu, X., Yu, F., & Shi, J. (2011). Ethical leadership and leaders’ personalities. Social Be-havior and Personality, 39 (3), 361–368.

Youli, H., & Chao, L. (2014). A comparative study between the dark triad of personal-ity and the big five. Canadian Social Science, 11 (1), 93.

Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J. & Duffy, M.K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (6), 1068–1076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1068.

Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E., & Lumpkin, G.T. (2010). The relationship of personality to en-trepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36, 381–404.

Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G.N. (2009). Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge manage-ment. Journal of Business Research, 63 (7), 763–771.