Kristin A. Horan. A Thesis

Transcription

1 COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR (CWB) AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB) AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO WORK STRESSORS: THE ROLE OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Kristin A. Horan A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS August 2016 Committee: Steve Jex, Advisor Russell Matthews Dara Musher-Eizenman

2 2016 Kristin Horan All Rights Reserved

3 ABSTRACT iii Steve Jex, Advisor Previous research has demonstrated relationships between work stressors and the outcome variables of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). The present study examines physical activity as a potential moderator of these relationships. This study also examines mood and energy as underlying mechanisms of the proposed moderation effect. To test this relationship, 294 firefighters completed a survey measuring work stressors, physical activity, CWB, and OCB. 54 firefighters participated in a six-week follow-up survey. Main effect and moderation analyses were performed using hierarchical linear regression. Results revealed that various work stressors, including interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints and procedural injustice, were positively related to CWB. Interpersonal conflict, workload, organizational constraints, and procedural injustice were positively related to OCB. Physical activity moderated the relationship between interpersonal conflict and CWB and the relationship between workload and OCB. Energy and mood did not account for these relationships. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

4 To my husband, Shane Horan. I am so grateful for your constant support and encouragement. iv

5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v I would like to acknowledge my advisor, Steve Jex, and the members of my committee, Russell Matthews and Dara Musher-Eizenman. The completion of this project would not have been possible without your guidance, insight, and feedback. I would also like to thank my family and friends for their support and encouragement.

6 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION... 1 Counterproductive Work Behavior... 2 Models of CWB... 2 Antecedents of CWB... 4 Organizational Citizenship Behavior... 5 Models of OCB... 6 Antecedents of OCB... 7 Work Stressors... 8 Work stressors, CWB, and OCB... 9 Physical Activity Pilot Study CHAPTER II. METHOD Response Rates Sample Selection Instrument Development Measures Interpersonal Conflict Workload Organizational Constraints Organizational Justice Physical Activity... 23

7 vii Energy Mood Counterproductive Work Behavior Organizational Citizenship Behavior Control Variables Method of Analysis CHAPTER III. RESULTS Main Effect Hypotheses Moderation Hypotheses Tests of Overall Models Mediated Moderation Hypotheses Exploratory Analyses CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions Conclusion REFERENCES APPENDIX A. MEASURES APPENDIX B. HSRB FORM FOR ORIGINAL APPLICATION APPENDIX C. HSRB FORM FOR RECRUITMENT MODIFICATION APPENDIX D. CONSENT FORM... 77

8 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Pilot Study Variables Summary of Hierarchical Regression and Moderation Test for Variables Predicting CWB in Pilot Study Summary of Hierarchical Regression and Moderation Test for Variables Predicting OCB in Pilot Study Additional Sample Characteristics Descriptive Statistics for Time One Survey Descriptive Statistics for Time Two Survey Correlation Matrix for Time One Variables Correlation Matrix for Time Two Variables Correlation Matric Comparing Time One and Time Two Variables Main Effect Results: Counterproductive Work Behavior Main Effect Results: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Moderation Results: Physical Activity as a Moderator of the Interpersonal Conflict CWB Relationship Moderation Results: Physical Activity as a Moderator of the Workload CWB Relationship Moderation Results: Physical Activity as a Moderator of the Organizational Constraints CWB Relationship Moderation Results: Physical Activity as a Moderator of the Procedural Injustice CWB Relationship... 98

9 ix 16 Moderation Results: Physical Activity as a Moderator of the Distributive Injustice CWB Relationship Moderation Results: Physical Activity as a Moderator of the Interpersonal Conflict OCB Relationship Moderation Results: Physical Activity as a Moderator of the Workload OCB Relationship Moderation Results: Physical Activity as a Moderator of the Organizational Constraints OCB Relationship Moderation Results: Physical Activity as a Moderator of the Procedural Injustice OCB Relationship Moderation Results: Physical Activity as a Moderator of the Distributive Injustice OCB Relationship Moderation Results: Overall CWB Model Moderation Results: Overall OCB Model Exploratory Analysis Results: Lagged Effects of Stressors on CWB Exploratory Analysis Results: Lagged Effects of Stressors on OCB

10 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Proposed mediated moderation model for stressors and CWB Proposed mediated moderation model for stressors and OCB Plot of interaction effects for interpersonal conflict and counterproductive work behavior from pilot study Plot of interaction effects for interpersonal conflict and counterproductive work behavior from main study Plot of interaction effects for workload and organizational citizenship behavior from main study

11 1 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the prevalence of workplace stress is quite high, given that 40% of workers identify their jobs as very or extremely stressful and 25% of workers report that their job was the number one source of stress in their life ([NIOSH], 1999). The cost of chronic work stress is high for both individuals and organizations. For employees, chronic work stress is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, psychological disorders, and musculoskeletal disorders (NIOSH, 1999). Stress is estimated to cost U.S. organizations $300 billion annually through increased absenteeism and turnover, decreased productivity, and diminished workplace safety (American Institute of Stress, n.d.). Given the high prevalence and cost associated with work stress, and given that not all work stressors can be realistically reduced or eliminated, it is important to investigate potential buffers of the relationship between work stress and negative outcomes (Sliter, Sinclair, Cheung, & McFadden, 2014). The proposed study examined the role of physical activity as a moderator of the relationships between work stressors and two organizationally relevant outcomes: counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). This manuscript begins with a definition of CWB and OCB and a brief review of research on their antecedents and outcomes. I then define four different types of work stressors and summarize their relationships with CWB and OCB. The relationship between physical activity and stressors is then reviewed, followed by an outline of the hypothesized relationships among work stressors, physical activity, CWB and OCB. Methods and analyses are then reviewed, and the manuscript concludes with a discussion of the results, implications, and future directions.

12 2 Counterproductive Work Behavior CWB refers to voluntary behaviors performed by an employee that are intended to harm their organization (Sackett & DeVore, 2001). This definition covers a wide range of detrimental behaviors, including wasting company resources, theft, interpersonal conflict, physical assault, and other harmful behaviors (Gruys & Sackett, 2003). The first reference to the concept of CWB can be traced back to Hollinger and Clark s differentiation between property and production deviance (1983), and since then much research has been devoted to cultivating a greater understanding of CWB (Marcus, Taylor, Hastings, Sturm, & Weigelt, 2013). This is understandable, given the prevalence and costs associated with these behaviors. Chang and Smithikrai (2010) described the pervasive and expensive nature of CWB. Employee theft and fraud affect 95% of all organizations. CWB costs organizations approximately $50 billion annually and accounts for one fifth of failed business endeavors. Furthermore, CWB may also negatively affect an organization through employee well-being, given that these behaviors are associated with decreased productivity and morale, as well as increased absenteeism and turnover (Chang & Smithikrai, 2010). The following section summarizes past research on the concept by outlining current models on CWB and reviewing established antecedents of CWB. Models of CWB. As previously mentioned, the first attempt to distinguish between types of CWB can be credited to Hollinger and Clark (1983). Property deviance negatively affects the physical resources of the organization, while production deviance violates organizational norms concerning safe and effective work. More recent research has focused on creating more comprehensive classification systems that accommodate additional types of CWB (Sprung, 2011).

13 3 Robinson and Bennett (1995) proposed a classification system in which CWB could either be targeted at the organization (CWB-O) or at the people within the organization (CWB-I). Taking excessive breaks would constitute organizational CWB, while sexual harassment would be an example of interpersonal CWB. Bennett and Robinson (2000) found empirical support for this classification system, which has been corroborated by numerous studies (for a meta-analysis, see Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007). The original conceptualization also featured a dimension concerning severity of behaviors, although this dimension has received less empirical support (Marcus et al., 2013). Gruys and Sackett (2003) developed a model in which a behavior could be classified according to 11 categories of CWB: theft, destruction of property, misuse of information, misuse of time and resources, unsafe behavior, poor attendance, poor quality of work, alcohol use, drug use, inappropriate verbal action, and inappropriate physical action. The results of Gruys and Sackett s (2003) empirical test of their model highlight some overlap with the Robinson and Bennett (1995) model, since the 11 categorizations varied along an Interpersonal-Organizational dimension. Finally, Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh, & Kessler (2006) proposed a five-facet model of CWB, in which a CWB could be classified as abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal. There is some overlap with the Robinson and Bennett (1995) model, in that abuse can be seen as a form of CWB-I and the remaining facets could be seen as forms of CWB-O (Marcus et al., 2013). Spector et al. (2006) found support for their five CWB categorizations, given that the different forms of CWB were associated with differential predictors.

14 4 Subtle differences exist among the proposed models and classification systems in terms of the number of facets of CWB content (e.g., theft, absenteeism) and the target of the behavior, raising questions regarding the amount of support for each classification system. A recent structural meta-analysis found that individual CWBs tended to load onto one of eleven content facets, similar to the Gruys and Sackett (2003) classification system. Individual CWBs also loaded onto one of three target facets, including organization, other, and self (Marcus et al., 2013). Antecedents of CWB. Research focusing on antecedents of CWB can typically be divided into predictors focusing on the person and predictors focusing on the situation (Sackett & DeVore, 2001). Research on person-related antecedents has focused on personality, demographic variables, and job attitudes. A meta-analysis found that agreeableness, contentiousness, and emotional stability are negatively related to CWB. Demographic variables had relatively small correlations with CWB, with younger, male, and less experienced workers being more likely to participate in these behaviors (Berry et al., 2007). Regarding job attitudes, a meta-analysis found that both job satisfaction and organizational commitment were negatively related to CWB (Dalal, 2005). Individuals who report higher levels of trait anger also tend to engage in more CWB (Fox & Spector, 1999). Research on situation-related antecedents of CWB has focused on organizational stressors and perceptions of justice. CWB is positively related to organizational stressors, including interpersonal stressors (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001), organizational constraints (Penney & Spector, 2005), and workload (Chen & Spector, 1992). Dalal s (2005) meta-analysis demonstrated that organizational justice was negatively related to CWB. When examining both person and situation-focused antecedents of CWB, it is clear that the concept is related to

15 5 multiple predictors. Researchers have also examined the interaction between person- and situation-related antecedents of CWB, finding that the relationship between situational antecedents and CWB tends to be stronger for those who possess certain person-related characteristics, such as trait negative affectivity (Bowling & Eschleman, 2010; Penney & Spector, 2005). Organizational Citizenship Behavior OCB refers to positive behaviors performed by an employee that benefit an organization and their employees (Organ, 1997). Some examples of OCB include attending functions voluntarily in order to promote the organization s image or helping coworkers that have been absent from work (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). According to the original conceptualization, these behaviors are not required of the employee and are not formally rewarded, meaning that these behaviors fall outside of an employee s in-role performance. However, some researchers question whether OCB is truly voluntary, given that performance evaluations frequently examine behaviors that are considered OCB (for example, being a team player ; Organ, 1997). Since Smith et al. (1983) first proposed the idea of OCB, interest in the antecedents and outcomes of the construct continues to grow. Both employees and organizations benefit from this deeper understanding of the concept. On the individual level, participation in OCB is associated with positive performance evaluations and reward allocation. On the organization level, OCB is associated with increased productivity, decreased withdrawal behaviors, and decreased turnover (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). The following section outlines models of OCB and summarizes antecedents of these behaviors.

16 6 Models of OCB. Organ (1988) first proposed that an OCB fell within one of five dimensions. First, altruism includes behaviors that focus on helping the organization or employees. For example, an employee could choose to help another coworker who has too much work. Next, conscientiousness involves following organizational policies and procedures, such as showing up to work on-time every day. Employees who participate in sportsmanship attempt to improve morale during negative organizational situations, perhaps by providing encouragement to those in their organization following a quarter of poor organizational performance. Civic virtue involves participating in behaviors that further the organization, such as participating in a company recycling program to further the company s green image. Finally, courtesy involves promoting a civil and considerate environment within the organization, such as when an employee always speaks respectfully to other coworkers. Williams and Anderson (1991) proposed a model of OCB in which a behavior can be classified according to who it benefits. OCB-O benefits the organization, and an example includes not taking excessive breaks at work. On the other hand, a behavior such as helping a coworker with their work benefits an individual within the organization and would be classified at OCB-I. This conceptualization overlaps with Organ s (1988) model, considering that each of the five dimensions can be classified according to the organization or individual dimension (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Although not a formal model of OCB, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) identified common themes among OCB research that can be divided into seven dimensions. First, helping behavior involves helping others with or preventing work-related problems. Second, employees who participate in sportsmanship maintain and promote a positive attitude in the face of workplace challenges. Organizational loyalty involves promoting and

17 7 protecting the organization s image. Organizational compliance, sometimes called obedience, involves following the policies and procedures of an organization. Employees who demonstrate individual initiative expand in-role performance through enthusiasm, creativity, or innovation. Civic virtue can be broadly defined as commitment to an organization, and includes behaviors that keep the company s best interest in mind, such as reporting safety violations. Finally, when employees voluntarily expand their knowledge, skills, and abilities, they are participating in selfdevelopment. Antecedents of OCB. Similar to the previous section, the antecedents of OCB will be discussed in terms of individual-level and organizational-level predictors. On the individual level, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, role clarity, role clarification and perceptions of fairness or justice are positively related to participation in OCB (Davoudi, 2012; Organ & Ryan, 1995). When considering the relationship between personality and OCB, conscientiousness emerges as a strong predictor. Although some research has linked dispositional affectivity to OCB, meta-analytic support for this relationship is weaker than that of conscientiousness (Organ, 1994). Demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, and tenure are generally unrelated to OCB or are weak predictors of participation in OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000). At the organization level, Podsakoff et al. (2000) found that several organizational characteristics have been linked to OCB through meta-analysis, including group cohesion, perceived organizational support, and certain leadership practices. Transformational leadership and a form of transactional leadership, namely contingent reward behavior, are positively related to OCB. Several task characteristics are consistently related to participation in OCB. There is a positive relationship between OCB and task feedback and intrinsically satisfying tasks, while task routinization is negatively related to OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

18 8 Work Stressors Work stress is a physiological and psychological response to demands at work (World Health Organization [WHO], 2015). Stress-inducing stimuli, called stressors, can be related to the content or context of the workplace. The current study examined four work stressors and their relationship with CWB and OCB, including interpersonal conflict at work, workload, organizational constraints, and perceptions of organizational injustice. Interpersonal conflict at work is defined as disagreement or argument among coworkers (Spector & Jex, 1998). Interpersonal conflict can be overt or covert, and can range from mild to severe. Workload refers to the volume of work that an employee is expected to complete (Spector & Jex, 1998). Although workload could be measured in a number of ways, the present study focuses on perceived expectations regarding work volume and pace. Organizational constraints are obstacles that prevent employees from translating ability and effort to performance (Spector & Jex, 1998). For example, an employee may possess the ability and willingness to perform well on a task, but may not be able to do so because of poor equipment or supplies. According to Fox and colleagues (2001), perceptions of organizational injustice occur when an employee feels that they have been treated unfairly in regards to work outcomes based on their contributions (distributive justice) or the procedures used to determine work outcomes (procedural justice). For example, if an employee feels that they are not fairly rewarded based on the amount of responsibilities that they have, the employee perceives distributive injustice. Additionally, if the employee feels that decisions are made within their organization without showing concern for employee rights, the employee perceives procedural injustice.

19 9 Work Stressors, CWB, and OCB. Previous research has established a positive relationship among the stressors described above and CWB (Fox et al., 2001; Chen & Spector, 1992; Penney & Spector, 2005; Sprung & Jex, 2012; Dalal, 2005; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). There are several underlying reasons for such a relationship. Employees who experience more work stressors are expected to participate in more CWB as a method of coping with negative emotions resulting from the stressors, such as anger or frustration (Sprung & Jex, 2012). Additionally, according to the principle of reciprocity, employees may participate in CWB as a way of restoring equity if they perceive stressors as unfair treatment from their organization (Fox & Spector, 2002). Much less research exists on work stressors and OCB, and the existing research tends to yield mixed results. Some research has demonstrated a negative relationship between certain stressors, including organizational constraints and role stressors, with OCB or components of OCB, such as altruism (Eatough, Chang, Miloslavic, & Johnson, 2011; Jex, Adams, Bachrach, & Sorenson, 2003). Additionally, research has established a positive relationship between perceptions of organizational justice (which could be viewed as absence of a stressor, injustice) and OCB (Moorman, 1991; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998). There are several underlying reasons that could account for the negative relationship between work stressors and OCB (Bowling & Kirkendall, 2012). Employees who experience more work stressors are expected to participate in less OCB because the stressors demand time and energy that could have been spent performing OCB. Stressors are also negatively related to positive affect, an important antecedent of OCB. Finally, similar to the reasoning presented for CWB, employees may withhold OCB to restore equity.

20 10 On the other hand, some research has found a positive relationship between work stressors, such as constraints, conflict, and workload, and OCB (Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002). While it may seem counterintuitive that employees experiencing stressors are more likely to participate in OCB, we can add clarity to the potential underlying mechanisms by viewing OCB as a way of coping with stressors. Within the framework of the negative state relief (NSR) model (Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973), helping behaviors can be used to enhance positive mood (Yinon & Landau,1987). Simply put, employees may participate in OCB to alleviate the negative emotional consequences associated with work stressors. Given the previous research on the relationship between work stressors and the outcomes of CWB, I expect that work stressors will be positively related to CWB. Due to inconsistent findings in the limited research on stressors and OCB, I expect that these two variables will be significantly related, but additional research is needed in order to clarify the direction of the relationship. Hypothesis 1A: Interpersonal conflict will be positively related to CWB, such that those who experience higher levels of interpersonal conflict at work will participate in more CWB. Hypothesis 1B: Interpersonal conflict will be significantly related to OCB. Hypothesis 2A: Workload will be positively related to CWB, such that those who experience higher levels of quantitative workload will participate in more CWB. Hypothesis 2B: Workload will be significantly related to OCB. Hypothesis 3A: Organizational constraints will be positively related to CWB, such that those who experience higher levels of organizational constraints will participate in more CWB. Hypothesis 3B: Organizational constraints will be significantly related to OCB.

21 11 Hypothesis 4A: Distributive and procedural injustice will be positively related to CWB, such that those who perceive higher levels of organizational injustice will participate in more CWB. Hypothesis 4B: Distributive and procedural injustice will be significantly related to OCB. Physical Activity Regular physical activity has been recognized for its many benefits, both physical and psychological. Although the physical benefits of exercise could contribute to the management of stress (for example, physical activity contributes to enhanced immune functioning [Pate et al., 1995], which could help an employee actively manage a high workload by missing fewer days of work due to illness), the present study will focus primarily on the more proximal psychological benefits of physical activity. Regular physical activity has been found to possess a moderating effect on general life stress (Gerber, Lindwall, Lindegård, Börjesson, & Jonsdottir, 2013; Gerber & Pühse, 2009). This benefit presumably occurs through physical activity s enhancement of mood (Acevedo & Ekkekakis, 2006) and energy (McArdle, Katch, & Katch, 2010), meaning that those who exercise regularly tend to be have more energy and improved mood and tend to better equipped to cope with life stress. Although physical activity has been widely examined in relation to general life stress, less research has examined its effects on work-specific stress. In one such study, Sliter et al. (2014) examined the relationship between work stressors and individual outcomes. Registered nurses reported their physical activity habits, work stressors, and the outcomes of depression, engagement, and life satisfaction. Physical activity was found to be a moderator of most of the stressor-outcome relationships, meaning that the relationships were weaker for participants who reported higher levels of physical activity. These results highlighted the importance of promotion of physical activity among employees, given that it mitigates the

22 12 negative effects of work stressors. Furthermore, the researchers suggested that future research examine organizationally relevant outcome variables, such as job performance. It is important to examine outcome variables that more directly affect the organization, such as extra-role performance, due to a phenomenon called the performance contagion (Ahmadi & Mirsepassi, 2010). Whereas the individual outcomes that were measured by Sliter et al. (2014), such as depression and life satisfaction, are likely to remain isolated to a single employee, performance of one employee can influence the performance of another employee through group norms and organizational climate (Levine, 2010). It is important to study potential moderators of the relationship between stressors and extra-role performance in order to prevent the performance contagion for CWB and promote the performance contagion for OCB. It is worthwhile to explore physical activity as a potential moderator given that physical activity is a free resource, whose promotion is easily built into the workplace environment due to current legislation, and whose promotion would substantially impact public health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2016). Indeed, past research has linked health risks, such as sedentary behavior and medical conditions associated with lack of physical activity, with reductions in productivity on the job (Boles, Pelletier, & Lynch, 2004; Pelletier, Boles, & Lynch, 2004). Similar results are expected when considering the effect of physical activity on CWB and OCB, because these behaviors are examples of discretionary job performance. Given the results of previous investigations of stressors, physical activity, and job performance, physical activity is expected to moderate the relationships between stressors and CWB and OCB. Hypothesis 5: Physical activity will moderate the positive relationship between work

23 13 stressors (interpersonal conflict, workload, organizational constraints, organizational injustice) and CWB, such that the relationship will be weaker for those who report more leisure time physical activity. Hypothesis 6: Physical activity will moderate the relationship between work stressors (interpersonal conflict, workload, organizational constraints, organizational injustice) and OCB. This anticipated moderation effect could be best explained within the framework of Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989). According to COR theory, stress occurs when an individual's object, condition, personal, or energy resources are threatened. Within the context of the workplace, interpersonal conflict, increased workload, organizational constraints, and organizational injustice represent threats to the employee s resources. An increase in CWB represents a reactive response to work stressors that allow employees to protect against future resource loss (Cropanzano & Byrne, 2000; Salami, 2010). Although the relationship between stressors and OCB is less clear, both a reduction or increase in OCB could be seen as guarding against resource loss, whether the employee is restricting OCB in order to protect time and effort resources, or increasing OCB to build positive affect resources. Regular physical activity may provide employees with an opportunity to cultivate more resources; specifically, resources that are associated with enhanced job performance. For example, positive mood has been linked to improved job performance (Staw & Barsade, 1993), and regular physical activity is associated with positive mood (Acevedo & Ekkekakis, 2006). Personal energy is an important antecedent of job engagement and job performance (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010) and can be increased in the short-term through exercise and physical activity (McArdle et al., 2010). An employee who possesses more energy and positive affect

24 14 may interpret situations as less stressful. For example, past research has demonstrated that positive affect is linked to the use of positive re-appraisal, or the reframing of a situation in a positive light, as a coping strategy in stressful situations (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Additionally, physical activity positively impacts diurnal patterns of mood and energy (Gauvin, Rejeski, & Reboussin, 2000), meaning that physical activity produces a pattern of mood and energy over the course of a day that is more conducive to daily functioning. Stated differently, physically active employees may not feel the need to use CWB or restrict OCB to protect mood or energy resources, given that they exhibit daily diurnal patterns that are more positive than their sedentary counterparts. Taken together, the preceding provides a rationale as to why extra performance-related resources, namely positive mood and enhanced energy, may mitigate the negative effects of work stressors on CWB and OCB. Hypothesis 7: Positive mood will account for the moderating effect of physical activity, such that positive mood will mediate the moderating effect of physical activity in the relationship between stressors and CWB/OCB. Hypothesis 8: Enhanced energy will account for the moderating effect of physical activity, such that energy will mediate the moderating effect of physical activity in the relationship between stressors and CWB/OCB. A representation of the hypothesized relationships described above can be found in Figures 1 and 2.

25 15 Pilot Study Since this study is the first to examine physical activity as a moderator of the relationship between stressors and extra-role behaviors, a pilot study was conducted as a preliminary assessment of the constructs chosen. Data for the pilot study were collected as part of a larger project examining the measurement of job satisfaction and other constructs in job satisfaction s nomological network. All measures were the same as the measures described for the main study, with the exception of the physical activity measure (Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire; Godin & Shephard, 1997,), the CWB measure (10-item Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist; Spector, Bauer, & Fox, 2010), and the OCB measure (10-item Organizational Citizenship Behavior Checklist; Spector et al., 2010). These measures were included in the pilot study due to their shorter length, as space constraints were a concern for the larger study. Due to space limitations, organizational justice was also excluded from the pilot analysis. Data were collected from a sample of 537 participants who completed a single online survey through Amazon s Mechanical Turk. The sample contained 488 participants after incomplete surveys, careless responders, and outliers were excluded (M (age) = 34.04, SD (age) = 10.07, M (tenure) = 4.66, SD (tenure) = 4.51, 60.70% male, 83.2% Caucasian). Descriptive statistics and correlations for pilot study variables can be found in Table 1. Hierarchical linear regression was used to test main effect and moderation hypotheses. Age, gender, and tenure were entered as control variables in step one, stressors and physical activity were entered in step two, and interaction terms were entered in step three. Results for pilot study main effect and moderation tests can be found in Tables 2 and 3. When examining CWB as an outcome, including work stressors as predictors contributed significantly to the regression model above and beyond the control variables entered in step one (F (7, 455) = 75.25,

26 16 p < 0.01). When examining the standardized beta weights, interpersonal conflict (b = 0.56, p < 0.01) and organizational constraints (b= 0.24, p < 0.01) emerged as significant predictors, but not workload (b = , p = 0.15). The interaction terms entered in step three indicated that physical activity did moderate relationship between interpersonal conflict and CWB, given that the model in step three was significant, (F (10, 452) = 54.39, p < 0.05), and explained an additional 1.0% of variance. However, plotting the interaction revealed that the interaction was in opposite of the hypothesized direction. That is, those with who reported more physical activity tended to demonstrate more CWB in the presence of work stressors. The interaction is depicted in Figure 3. Thus, the main effect hypotheses for CWB were partially supported, but the moderation hypothesis was not supported. These results could be interpreted as leisure-time physical activity being seen as just one more thing to do for stressed out employees. When examining OCB as an outcome, including work stressors as predictors contributed significantly to the regression model above and beyond the control variables entered in step one, (F (7, 455) = 12.64, p = 0.00). According to the standardized beta weights of each slope, workload (b= 0.25, p < 0.01) was a significant predictor in this model, but not interpersonal conflict (b= 0.07, p = 0.20) or organizational constraints (b = 0.04, p = 0.53). The interaction terms entered in step three indicated that physical activity did not moderate the relationship between work stressors and OCB. Thus, the main effect hypotheses were partially supported and the moderation hypotheses were not supported. The results of the pilot study provide partial support for the main effect hypotheses and only weak support for the presence of a moderating effect. However, results should be interpreted with caution given that this is the first study to examine physical activity as a

27 17 moderator of the relationship between stressors and extra-role performance behavior and replication is needed. That being said, there are several ways in which the main study expands on the pilot study. First, the sample for the pilot study is heterogeneous and norms surrounding CWB and OCB vary by organization (Jex & Britt, 2014). The main study takes this into account by testing hypotheses in a homogenous sample and contextualizing CWB and OCB measures to the organization. Next, the physical activity measure was limited in the fact that it only measured leisure-time physical activity. The main study utilizes a physical activity measure that assesses a broader variety of activities that help individuals meet physical activity guidelines.

28 18 CHAPTER II. METHOD Participants were 294 firefighters employed within the states of Georgia or Ohio. The majority of the sample was male (82.3%), Caucasian (78.6%), married (65.3%), and had an average household income between $75,000 and $99,999. Their average age was years (SD = 8.63). Additional characteristics of the sample can be found in Table 4. Potential participants were provided with information about the survey in one of three ways: First, Gwinnett County Fire and Emergency Services (GCFES) and Hall County Fire Services (HCFS), both located in Georgia, distributed information to employees either through intranet ( Firefax ) or through their organization s distribution list. Second, information about the survey was distributed via an list of all station chiefs in the state of Ohio, and 22 station chiefs agreed to distribute the survey among employees at their station. Finally, the Georgia Fire Academy, a firefighting education and training organization, gave trainees an opportunity to take the survey onsite during an extended lunch break. Trainees were always currently employed in a firefighting role, as the survey was only distributed in classes for promotional examinations, and not for entrance examinations. In all distribution methods, potential participants were provided with a brief description of the study and a link to the survey. Interested participants followed the link to complete an online survey that took approximately twenty minutes to complete. At the end of the survey, participants were asked if they would be willing to be contacted in six weeks for a follow-up survey. A six-week time lag was chosen because changes in behaviors at time two could be explained through the stressor-psychological strain relationship (i.e. the experience of high levels of stressors reduces psychological well-being, which encourages a change in OCB and an increase in CWB). This relationship is more proximal than a stressor-physical strain relationship,

29 19 and thus can manifest itself in a shorter time-lag (Ford et al., 2014). All variables described in the measures section below were measured in both the time one and time two survey. At the end of both the time one and time two survey, participants were given the opportunity to enter their address into a drawing for one of eight $50 electronic gift cards. Response Rates GCFES employed approximately 700 field employees at the time the survey was distributed. Eight surveys were completed by GCFES employees, thus the approximate response rate from the GCFES distribution was 1.14%. HCFS employed approximately 550 field employees at the time the survey was distributed. The approximate response rate of the HCFS distribution was 4.91%, as 27 surveys were completed. The Georgia Fire Academy distributed the survey among firefighters studying for promotional exams in three courses over two weeks, among a total of 139 students. The response rate for surveys distributed among the Georgia Fire Academy was 100%. The surveys distributed among the 22 participating stations in Ohio reached approximately 330 firefighters, based on the fact that there are approximately 19,030 fire fighters in the state of Ohio (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2016) distributed across 1,225 stations (Haynes, 2016). 120 surveys were completed through the Ohio distribution, meaning that the approximate response rate was 36.26%. 189 participants who took the survey at time one indicated that they would be willing to be contacted for the time two survey. Among these, 66 completed the time two survey, but only 54 provided enough information to link the time one and time two surveys. This means that the response rate of usable time two surveys among those who indicated their willingness to complete the survey was 28.57%.

30 20 Sample Selection Although the relationships examined within this study could apply to any organization, the current study examines the effects of work stress and physical activity within a special at-risk population. Firefighters are exposed to high level of occupational stressors and stand to benefit from increased physical activity due to the cardiac demands of the job. Cardiovascular disease places firefighters at risk for on-duty fatalities and increased morbidity due to the strenuous nature of emergency tasks (Soteriades, Smith, Tsismenakis, Baur, & Kales, 2011), and its incidence could be reduced through regular physical activity (Durand et al., 2011). Uncovering organizational benefits associated with increased physical activity is likely to encourage greater organizational support of workplace health promotion, which increases the effectiveness of workplace programs designed to increase physical activity (Weiner, Lewis, & Linnan, 2009). Instrument Development In order to assure that all scales accurately represented the work experience of an average firefighter, the preliminary survey instrument was piloted among a group of seven subject matter experts (SME), current or recently retired firefighters, who rated all items based on their applicability to the profession of firefighting on a four-point Likert scale ( not at all applicable to very applicable ). The results of this SME survey were then reviewed in an in-depth interview with a single subject matter expert, a recently retired firefighter who worked with GCFES for 28 years, who provided insight as to why particular items were rated as very applicable, as not at all applicable, or why there may have been variability in applicability ratings. Following this interview, items rated with a mean of more than two standard deviations below the mean of the overall scale were either dropped from the item pool or modified based on

31 21 suggestions from the in-depth SME interview. All language recommendations from the in-depth SME interview (i.e. changing client to citizen ) were incorporated into the survey. The following is presented as an example of the revision process: one original CWB item read How often in the past month have you left work early without permission? In the instrument pilot, this item received a low applicability rating. The in-depth SME interview revealed that because a shift cannot clock out until the next shift arrives and all employees are highly visible to the on-duty station chief, it would never be possible for an employee to leave work early unless it was under extreme circumstances that would require approval. Based on this knowledge, this item was removed from the item pool for CWB. Measures Unless otherwise specified, measures feature a consistent recall period of one month and consistent response scales ranging from one to five. This response scale was from never to very often for frequency scales and from strongly disagree to strongly agree for agreement scales. Instructed response items (ex. Please mark this item Disagree ) were inserted in the survey to identify careless responders, although no participant met criteria for exclusion based on careless responding (which was defined as missing more than three out of five response checks). Unless otherwise specified, item responses were averaged with higher scores representing higher levels of a construct. A mean imputation was used for scales that were averaged in order to address data that was likely missing completely at random (MCAR). Interpersonal Conflict. Interpersonal conflict was measured using the Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (Spector & Jex, 1998). This four-item scale asks participants to rate how often they experience various forms of interpersonal conflict at work, such as getting into arguments with others at work. The internal consistency reported in past research, provided by

32 22 the scale s author, is The internal consistency observed in this sample was 0.76 in the time one survey and 0.80 in the time two survey. The test-retest reliability, computed by correlating time one conflict with time two conflict, was Workload. The Quantitative Workload Inventory (Spector & Jex, 1998) was used to measure workload. This five-item measure asks participants to rate how often their job requires them to work at a demanding pace or volume. An example item includes How often does your job require you to work very fast? The internal consistency observed in a collection of past research is Within this sample, an internal consistency of 0.72 in time one, an internal consistency 0.81 in time two, and a test-retest reliability of 0.71 were observed. Organizational Constraints. Organizational constraints were measured using the Organizational Constraints Scale (Spector & Jex, 1998). The 11-item scale asks participants to rate how often they experience certain difficulties completing their job. Example constraint items include poor equipment or supplies and conflicting job demands. Although it is not appropriate to report a coefficient alpha for this scale because it is a causal indicator scale (Spector & Jex, 1998), some researchers still report an internal consistency for this scale. The scale demonstrated an internal consistency of 0.91 in both surveys and the test-retest reliability was Organizational Justice. Both distributive and procedural justice scores were measured using Moorman s (1991) scales. Distributive justice is measured using a six-item scale that asks participants to rate the extent of fairness associated with reward allocation in their organization. An example item is to what extent are you fairly rewarded considering the responsibilities that you have. Procedural justice is measured using a 12-item scale that asks participants to rate their level of agreement with items such as when decisions about other employees in general or you

33 23 in particular are made in this company, requests for clarification and additional information are allowed. In the current study, distributive and procedural justice are analyzed as separate constructs, rather than as an aggregated overall justice construct. Analyzing these constructs separately reflects the fact that they are theoretically distinct (Colquitt, 2001). The procedural justice scale has demonstrated an internal consistency of 0.94 in past research. Within this sample, internal consistencies of 0.95 and 0.96 were observed in the time one and time two surveys, respectively. The scale demonstrated a test-retest reliability of The distributive justice scale has demonstrated an internal consistency of 0.94 in past research. Within this sample, an internal consistency of 0.96 was observed in time one and an internal consistency of 0.96 was observed in time two. The test-retest reliability was For consistency among the direction of the stressor-outcome hypotheses both types of justice were reverse-coded to reflect injustice, or the presence of a stressor rather than its absence. Physical Activity. Self-report physical activity was measured using the Short Questionnaire to Assess Health Enhancing Physical Activity (SQUASH; Wendel-Vos, Schuit, Saris, & Kromhout, 2003). The scale asks participants to recall the frequency, duration, and effort of any physical activity performed for the purposes of commuting, leisure activities, household chores, and work activities. Typically, frequency and duration are multiplied together to determine the total number of active minutes in each category. The participant s effort score is assigned an intensity multiplier based on the average Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET) of the activity. The weekly duration is multiplied by the intensity multiplier to produce a physical activity score. Higher scores are assigned to individuals that report more frequent and more strenuous physical activity. Within this measure, subscales (commuting, leisure, household, and

34 24 work) are summed rather than averaged to reflect the total amount of physical activity taking place over the course of a week. This measure was used in the present study due to the fact that it defines physical activity broadly, measuring physical activity that takes place outside of leisure time. Although many people prefer to meet physical activity requirements in their leisure time, through activities such as sports, fitness classes, or gardening, leisure activity is not the only method that can be used to achieve adequate levels of physical activity (e.g. Pate et al., 1995). Individuals who are pressed for time, such as firefighters who are likely to be secondary job holders (Sliter & Boyd, 2013), may prefer to meet physical activity requirements through nonleisure activities such as commute or household work. The present analyses only use the frequency of physical activity, rather than the total physical activity score described above, for two reasons. First, many in the sample likely misunderstood the instructions for describing the average time per physical activity session. It was impossible to determine which scores were outliers due to instruction misunderstanding and which scores accurately reflected a high level of physical activity for approximately 10% of the sample. However, the instructions for the frequency of physical activity were much more clear and were less likely to be misunderstood by any participants. Second, due to the multiplicative nature of the formula for total physical activity score, if any part of the exercise measure was left blank a total score could not be computed for that participant. A nontrivial number of participants (n = 20) left one portion of the measure blank, and thus using frequency avoids the issue of low power. Using frequency alone as an indicator of physical activity reflects many of the measures used in health-related research (e.g. Godin Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire, Godin & Shephard, 1997; the Concise Physical Activity Questionnaire, Sliter & Sliter, 2014). As such, the moderator variable used in the analysis reflects the number of times