counter productive work behaviors

Industrial psychologists study job performance of employees in business and organizations. Beyond work performance, two types of workplace behavior have been widely studied: organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behaviors. It is important to define counterproductive behaviors. A counterproductive work behavior, or CWB, is any employee behavior that undermines the goals and interests of a business. Many studies define counterproductive work behaviors in different ways. According to Robinson and Bennett ; counterproductive work behaviors are any actions which intentionally threaten organization and its members (2005). These types of behavior not only impact the quality of work produced by the employee engaging in CWBs but also can negatively affect the productivity of other employees in the company and create undesirable risks for the company. My research shows that counterproductive work behaviors and workplace deviance significantly and negatively impact job performance, whereas positive organizational citizenship behaviors have little effect. There are many different types of counterproductive behavior. These include fraud, sabotage, bullying, abuse, and sexual harassment, among other things. These behaviors could be categorized into two dimensions of organizational counterproductive work behaviors: organizational and interpersonal. The organizational component has two aspects; actions that directly affect individuals in the organization. CWB-O: deviant behaviors directed toward organization (OCB-I) and actions that affect organizations themselves, such as fraud and sabotage. CWB-I: deviant behaviors directed toward individual such as being rude to coworkers. Although there are many types of CWB’s, one main antecedent is aggressive behavior.. Aggressive actions can be based on two motives, hostile vs. instrumental (Spector, et al, 2005). Hostile aggression is any behavior connected to negative emotions, such as anger. These behaviors are often impulsive, and has harm as its primary motive. For example, when an employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol he is more likely to respond to a stressful incident (being treated rudely by a supervisor) with hostility, a counterproductive behavior. This is an interpersonal counterproductive behavior because it only affects individuals. Instrumental aggression is the opposite of hostile aggression because the actions are not necessarily associated with emotion. This type of aggression has additional goals beyond harm (as cited by specter Anderson and Bushman, 2002).Therefore, fraud and sabotage are examples of actions with the Intend to distort organizational goals. However, it is important to point out that the main motive of all aggression is harm, but instrumental actions have a more distal motive. However, aggression is not the only cause of counterproductive work behaviors. As result, there are many other factors that can cause counterproductive behaviors, and psychologists need to analyze the different perspectives from more than one dimension in order to improve job productivity. Based on my research there are seven antecedents that lead to counterproductive work behavior: stress, personality traits like lack of self-control and narcism, situational constraints, social stressors (Penny & Spector, 2005; Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006), workplace incivility, and workplace interpersonal conflict injustice (Flaherty &Moss,2007). Social stressors are things or situations at work that interfere with task performance. People with negative affectivity are more likely to engage into CWBs (Penney & Spector (2002). People who are narcissists are more likely to engage into CWBs because they complain frequently. Sometimes, counterproductive work behavior is caused by problems within the company in combination with individual personality traits of an individual who is exhibiting counterproductive work behavior. The above example—an employee who steals from the company—could be explained by their work environment as well as personal characteristics. For example, the work environment could have the problem of inefficient supervision, which leads to easier stealing, and the individual employee could exhibit problems in their overall personality and psychology which leads them to steal. The combination of these two factors leads to counterproductive work behavior. People need to know the causes and dimensions of counterproductive behaviors before they can understand the consequences of counterproductive behavior. There are many consequences to counterproductive behaviors. For example counterproductive behavior can be use as a way to protest unfair treatment and job dissatisfaction of employees. This is because the protests and work deviance can get employers attention to change policies. The researchers emphasize the fact that not all counterproductive behaviors are protest; however they can be seen as a way to fight injustice in organizations. This is despite the fact that this belief undermines the importance counterproductive behaviors as predictors of injustice (Kelowna, Francis, Prosser, & Cameron, 2010). In addition, based on my research findings the types CWB and frequency of workplace deviance poses a serious threat to organizations. Workplace bullying has significant psychosocial costs for the individual, as well as substantial organizational costs associated with high staff turnover, abuse avoidance, and protective behavior, all of which reduce workplace productivity. Deviant behavior or CWB cannot be attributed to personality traits alone. There are many different factors such as the type of job and environment. Moreover the workplace culture and climate also plays a part. Studies have found that staff members who are dissatisfied with their jobs are likely to engage in both interpersonal and organizational deviance. My research shows that counterproductive work behaviors and workplace deviance significantly and negatively impact job performance, whereas positive organizational citizenship behaviors have little effect. CWB causes companies loss of money and potentially creates a negative or even dangerous work environment. Counterproductive work behavior is generally defined as behavior which goes against the goals of an organization. This is a broad definition which is meant to cover a wide range of different counterproductive work behaviors, including workplace withdrawal and anti-social behavior. Anti-social behavior includes behavior like bullying and sexual harassment and, next to withdrawal, is the most common form of counterproductive work behavior. Anti-social behavior in the workplace can be managed by allowing employees to make reasonable complaints if they are feeling harassed or bullied. Following through on warnings and punishments for employees who exhibit anti-social behavior is also important. Counterproductive work behaviors and workplace deviance significantly and negatively impacts job performance, whereas positive organizational citizenship behaviors have little effect. CWB causes companies loss of money and potentially creates a negative or even dangerous work environment. References Dalal, Reeshad S. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 90(6), Nov 2005, 1241-1255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241 Fine, S. (2012). Estimating the economic impact of personnel selection tools on counterproductive work behaviors. Economics and Business Letters, 1(4), 1. doi:10.17811/ebl.1.4.2012.1-9tegrating both the CWB and job stress literatures, Kelowna, E. K., Francis, L., Prosser, M., & Cameron, J. E. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior as protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 18-25. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.014 Spector, P.E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446-460. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005 Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship Of Personality Traits And Counterproductive Work Behaviors: The Mediating Effects Of Job Satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 591-622. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00048.x