White Paper. Josh Thomas COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR. Living in Wonderland

Transcription

1 2012 White Paper Josh Thomas COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR Living in Wonderland

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 2 Introduction: How deep does the rabbit hole go?... 3 Living in Wonderland... 3 Counterproductive work behaviour: What is it?... 4 Tumbling down the rabbit hole: What causes it?... 4 Personality... 4 Organisational Stressors... 5 What can we do about it?... 6 Selection: Personality based Integrity testing... 7 Psychological Contract... 7 Reward Systems... 7 Culture: Policies... 8 How will I know if it s working?... 8 Issues for Consideration... 8 Conclusion: It s time to wake up... 9 References White Paper Executive Summary 1

3 Executive Summary This white paper is concerned with the topic of counterproductive work behaviours. It begins with an outline of the problem and a definition of counterproductive work behaviour and what are associated with it. Key factors identified as associated with counterproductive work behaviour are: Personality especially conscientiousness; Psychological contract breach; Leadership styles such as authoritative and laisser-faire; Unfair reward allocation; Individual competition; and Unfair interpersonal treatment. Suggested ways to reduce counterproductive work behaviours include: Personality based integrity tests; Clearly articulated contract; Fair, unbiased reward systems; Clear zero tolerance organisational policy endorsed by management that defines unacceptable behaviour and the penalties for those behaviours, and provides a channel for communicating issues. White Paper Executive Summary 2

4 Introduction: How deep does the rabbit hole go? Counterproductive work behaviour is often something we don t think about in business. Often these behaviours don t even reach our awareness. Occasionally an example will emerge such as a New Zealand Herald article that talked about workplace bullying 1. This article drew attention to several schools where teachers had been bullied and left after having long teaching careers. Then there is the infamous example of Enron, one of the largest companies in the world that filed for bankruptcy because it had deceived its stakeholder into thinking it was doing better than it. Further investigations revealed that the company was plagued with internal corruption, spying, and employee abuse 2. Both these examples may seem like isolated incidents but they are far from the truth. Living in Wonderland While it is very easy to ignore these high profile examples we cannot afford to live in wonderland anymore because the reality is that counterproductive work behaviours are everywhere. In the New Zealand context, one study found that over 40% of employees engaged in counterproductive work behaviours 1. Other surveys in the United States have found that up to 80% of employees steal from their employers 3. These behaviours are extremely damaging to businesses. They affect the health and well being of the employees as well as the bottom line. Counterproductive work behaviours are extremely costly to and organisation. American statistics estimate the cost of internet misuse to amount to $85 billion 4. The total cost of internal theft and fraud are estimated at $50 billion annually 5. Counterproductive work behaviours are estimated to be responsible for as much as 20 percent of all business failures and up to two percent of annual business sales 5. These are only estimates because counterproductive work behaviours are often not heard about until they either result in serious losses that can be directly observed, or the behaviour is so severe that it reaches court. In reality, we will never truly know the extent to counterproductive work behaviour. White Paper Introduction: How deep does the rabbit hole go? 3

5 Counterproductive work behaviour: What is it? Counterproductive work behaviour is a name given to a group of behaviours that occur in and around organisations. They are behaviours that an individual carries out with the intention of harming the employees, the organisation and/or its stakeholders 6 7. Most research has divided these behaviours into two dimensions, target and severity 6. Behaviours that are targeted at the organisation can range from minor forms of counterproductive behaviour such as taking excessive breaks, leaving early and intentionally working slow, to relatively serious forms such as sabotage and stealing. Behaviours targeted at other employees can range from relatively minor acts of gossip, favouritism and blaming co-workers to more serious acts such as sexual harassment, abuse and workplace aggression. Tumbling down the rabbit hole: What causes it? Before we can deal with the problem it is important that we understand what causes it, we need to take a tumble down the rabbit hole. One model displayed below that has been gaining more support is the stressor emotive model which states that counterproductive work behaviour is a product of an individual s personality and how this interacts with environmental stressors 7. Personality Organisational Stressor Counterproductive Work Behaviour Personality Research into counterproductive behaviours and personality has tended to focus on the Big Five personality traits of emotional stability (one s ability to regulate their mood), extraversion (a person s desire to engage in social interactions), openness to experience (individual s ability to accept new ideas and new experiences), agreeableness (individual s ability to get along with others), and conscientiousness (individual s ability to exercise self control, plan and organise) 8. White Paper Tumbling down the rabbit hole: What causes it? 4

6 Findings from the research have consistently shown that the personality factor known as conscientiousness is the most reliable predictor of counterproductive work behaviours The other four dimensions tend to have a much vary depending on the type of counterproductive behaviour that is being observed and are weaker predictors. Organisational Stressors Psychological Contract People form psychological contracts with their employer from the first interview which stays with them over their working life. The psychological contract refers to employee s beliefs about what they are expected to do for their employer and what they should get in return for this 11. This contract is implicit and often assumed rather than made explicit. What this means is that the terms of the psychological contract are often not fully understood by both parties and if an employee believes that the organisation has breached its obligations then this results in a negative feeling towards the organisation and increases the likelihood that employees will engage in counterproductive behaviours such as abusing co-workers and subordinates and intentionally underperforming Reward Allocation When employees perceive that the way an organisation distributes its rewards as being unfair then they are more likely to engage in counterproductive work behaviours 14 such as sabotage 15. This includes discontinuous rewards. If rewards are not consistently given for performance then individuals modify their performance to achieve fairness which will include counterproductive behaviours so that their performance will match the outcomes 16. Similarly, if employees believe that the system that is responsible for determining the way rewards are allocated, that is if employees believe that the reward system is inherently biased or flawed then they are also more likely to engage in counterproductive behaviours 17. White Paper Tumbling down the rabbit hole: What causes it? 5

7 Leadership Leadership has also been shown to affect counterproductive work behaviours. Authoritative leadership which is where managers and supervisors demand unquestionable obedience and strict codes of conduct from their employees engage in more abuse towards their subordinates 18. Not only do supervisors engage in more abuse, but as a consequence their subordinates engage in more counterproductive work behavoiurs 19. Organisations that had managers who did not attend to the organisation and their subordinates needs had higher levels of co-worker conflict and bullying 20. Work Environment The work environment also has an extremely strong relationship with counterproductive work behaviours. The New Zealand Herald article 1 identified the negative effects of workplace bullying. Victims felt stressed and sick and as a consequence they left the organisation. Not being treated with respect and dignity can affect the well-being of employees but also the likelihood that they will engage in counterproductive behaviours 21. Often these behaviours are retaliatory and directed at the aggressor 22. The degree of competition that there is in the workplace also affects counterproductive work behaviours. Workplaces that foster an everyone-forthemselves attitude with individual performance pay and scarce resources increase the prevalence of counterproductive work behaviours 23. What can we do about it: Advice from a caterpillar It s clear that counterproductive work behaviour has a major effect on organisations and their employees and there are many factors that create a Petri dish for them to develop. It is vital that employers remove themselves from their business and start to be critical of their policies and practices that may be fostering counterproductive work behaviours. The question remains, what can we do to reduce counterproductive work behaviours? White Paper What can we do about it: Advice from a caterpillar 6

8 Selection: Personality based Integrity testing The most obvious place to start is in selection. But this refers not only to selecting and hiring new employees but in promoting employees to managerial and supervisory roles. If we can select those individuals that are less likely to engage in counterproductive work behaviours then we can reduce counterproductive work behaviours. The best way to do this is by using integrity testing. Integrity tests have been shown to be good predictors of counterproductive work behaviour. Specifically, overt integrity tests have a relatively strong association with predicting theft while personality based integrity testing (which examines conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability) have been shown to be much more predictive of a variety of counterproductive work behaviours 24. From a cost benefit approach, employers need to consider what counterproductive behaviours are most prevalent in their workplace before determining which test to use. Psychological Contract It is important that employers understand the psychological contract and its relationship with counterproductive behaviours. Specifically organisations need to clearly articulate their promises to the employee and be careful about what they promise 25. Exceeded promises have a much more positive impact on employees than broken promises 26. Therefore it is important that employees make the contract sound attractive without over selling the contract and making promises that cannot be upheld. Reward Systems Organisational reward systems should ensure that employees are paid based on a predefined criterion that is discussed with the employee and written into contract 27. Procedures should be unbiased and audited to ensure fairness. Furthermore rewards allocated based on group and departmental performance may also encourage cooperation rather than competition, further reducing counterproductive behaviours 16. This will also create a monitoring system where White Paper What can we do about it: Advice from a caterpillar 7

9 employees will monitor each other reducing the ability to engage in counterproductive work behaviours Culture: Policies To reduce the likelihood of counterproductive work behaviours, organisations need to design and implement policies designed to reduce these behaviours. Organisations need to adopt zero tolerance policies that clearly articulate the types of conduct are not acceptable 28. These policies need to be clearly defined and communicated to all in the company and all who enter. There needs to be channels for employees to communicate issues. There also needs to be commitment to upholding these policies from top management. How will I know if it s working? Counterproductive work behaviours are most often hidden from view. Behaviours like absenteeism and theft may be able to provide an objective measure of counterproductive work behaviour, however, others may not be able to be measured at all which adds to the danger of counterproductive work behaviour. Issues for Consideration Unfortunately, not every solution will work in practice. These are guidelines of best practice interventions and reduction strategies are based off empirical research. This unfortunately does not mean every solution will work in every setting. Implementation of these solutions should have a positive effect on businesses regardless of the presence of counterproductive work behaviours but should be evaluated based on what the organisation has identified as the key performance metrics. The use of integrity tests is highly contentious. While they provide a good tool for identifying individuals who are more likely to engage in counterproductive behaviours they are not received well be prospective employees 29. White Paper How will I know if it s working? 8

10 Conclusion: It s time to wake up from Wonderland It s time to wake up from wonderland. The reality is that counterproductive work behaviours are widespread in organisations and they can range from minor behaviours to severe ones that can cripple organisations. It is important that we reduce counterproductive work behaviours to improve the well-being of our organisations and employees. By using personality based integrity testing, implementing organisational policies that actively discourage counterproductive behaviours, implementing reward systems that insure fairness, and finally, clearly articulating employer and employee obligations we can reduce, and hopefully eliminate, counterproductive work behaviours. White Paper Conclusion: It s time to wake up from Wonderland 9

11 References 1. Barton, C. (2005, March 12). Workplace bullying, the silent epidemic. The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from 2. A., Stashevsky, S., & Koslowsky, M. (2003). Introduction: Misbehaviour in Organizations. In A. Sagie, S. Stashevsky & M. Koslowsky (Eds), Misbehaviour and dysfunctional attitudes in organizations (pp.1-12). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 3. Boye, M. W., & Slora, K. B. (1993). The severity and prevalence of deviant employee activity within local supermarkets. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8(2), Latto, A. (2007). Managing risk from within: Monitoring employees the right way. Risk Management, 54, Coffin, B. (2003). Breaking the silence on which collar crime. Risk Management, 50, Robinson, S., & Bennett, R. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviours: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behaviour at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds). Counterproductive workplace behaviour: Investigations of actors and targets (pp ). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association. 8. Chang, K., & Smithikrai, C. (2010). Counterproductive behaviour at work: An investigation into reduction strategies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(8), White Paper References 10

12 10. Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effect of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, Salgado, J. F. (2002). The big five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), Jensen, J.M., Opland, R. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2010). Psychological contracts and counterproductive work behaviors: Employee responses to transactional and relational breach. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), Werbel, J., & Balkin, D. B. (2010). Are human resource practices linked to employee misconduct? A rational choice perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 20, Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates organizational deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), White Paper References 11

13 20. Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Helland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behaviour. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), Henle, C. A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(2), Jones, D. A. (2009). Getting even with one s supervisor and one s organization: Relationship among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevino, 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), Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive metaanalysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, Everton, W. J., Jolton, J. A., & Mastrangelo, P. M. (2007). Be nice and fair or else: understanding reasons for employee s deviant behaviors. Journal of Management Development, 26(2), Bell, M. P., Quick, J. C., & Cycyota, C. S. (2002). Assessment and prevention of sexual harassment of employees: An applied guide to creating healthy organizations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, White Paper References 12

14 29. Berry, C. M., Sackett. P. R., & Wiemann, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, White Paper References 13