Counterproductive Work Behaviors and Moral ... - Padis - Sapienza [PDF]

Doctorate in PROSOCIALITY, INNOVATION AND COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN EDUCATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS XXIV course

Doctoral Dissertation

Counterproductive Work Behaviors and Moral Disengagement

Mario Gualandri

Tutor Prof. Francesco Avallone

Correlatore Prof. Massimo Bellotto

Co-Tutor Dott.ssa Roberta Fida

March 2012  

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

General Introduction

CHAPTER II

The dimensionality of CWB Checklist and Validation of its Italian version

CHAPTER III

The CWB through job satisfaction and moral disengagement

CHAPTER IV

Organizational Moral Disengagement page 70 and Counterproductive Work Behaviors

CHAPTER V

General Conclusions

 

page 3 page 11

page 37

page 104

2

CHAPTER I GENERAL INTRODUCTION

 

3

General Introduction In recent years counterproductive work behavior (CWB) has become an increasingly popular topic of study among organizational researchers (Penny & Spector, 2005; Yang & Diefendorff, 2009). The peculiarity of CWB is that they differ from common negative acts since they are not accidental and are intended specifically to damage by purposeful action even if unintentionally (Spector & Fox, 2005). These behaviors may include acts such as direct aggression, theft, purposely failing to follow instructions or to perform work incorrectly, in the interest of violating significant organizational norms (Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh, & Kessler, 2006), reducing the efficiency and job performance of its members (Hollinger & Clark, 1982), and basically threatening the health and well being of the organizations and its members. The latest financial scandals affecting American and European stock markets, as well as the increase of deviant behavior in organizations have raised questions about the ethics in the working context highlighting the need to understand these occurrences in order to prevent and tackle them (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006; Fox & Spector, 2005; Greenberg, 1997; Vardi & Weitz, 2004; Wellen, 2004). In fact, several studies showed that those behaviors are one of the most serious problems that organizations are facing in many countries (Chappel & Di Martino, 2006). US studies showed that only theft costs annually billions of dollars to organizations (Camara & Schneider, 1994; Greenberg, 1990, 1997) and the overall losses, caused by other forms of CWB, are bewildering. These behaviors not only affect the productivity but they create also discomfort to individuals or groups, compromise the quality of organizational life and damage property (material damage), hurting organization’s reputation as a whole (Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Overall CWB, both toward organizations and toward people in the organizations, violating organizational norms, harm directly or indirectly, their legitimate interests (Sackett & DeVore, 2002), reduce the efficiency and job performance of its members (Hollinger & Clark, 1982) and basically they threaten the health and well being of the organization and its members.  

4

Generally, the literature distinguishes between CWB directed towards organization (CWBO) and CWB towards people in the organizations (CWB-P; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Specifically, CWB-O target the organizations. They are acts such as sabotage, fraud and theft or leaving early from work, taking excessive breaks, deliberately working slowly, wasting resources and so on. CWB-P are acts exclusively directed to people working within organizations such as sexual harassment, verbal abuse, stealing among colleagues and even choosing favorites, peddling gossip and insulting colleagues. Although these two categories of behaviors are positively correlated (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002), they have different relations with other variables (e.g. citizenship behaviors, perceived justice, situational constraints, personal traits; Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Hershcovis, Turner, Barling, Arnold, Dupré, Inness, et al., 2007) Several authors have focused on understanding the antecedents of CWB as well as on the processes that lead to such behaviors. Specifically, researchers have investigated the role in CWB process of both situational and personal factors. Among the theoretical models that focusing on CWB, the stressor-emotion model developed by Spector and Fox (2005) has the merit to consider both these two factors. The situational factors considered are job stressors. In line with this model, any frustrating condition in organizational life interfering with goals and job performance increase the likelihood to act CWB (see Figure 1). Whenever such stressors occur, individuals may experience negative feelings which may in turn, promote people to enact aggressive behavior as a strategy to reduce the emotionally unpleasant condition (Penney & Spector, 2005; Spector, 1998). Figure 1 – The stressor-emotion model

 

5

This model (Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999, Spector, 1975, 1978, 1997; Storms & Spector, 1987) describes the processes that foster forms of aggression that are typically impulsive and are performed for the purpose of causing harm and releasing frustration. The literature on aggression has distinguished between impulsive (or reactive) aggression – based on negative affect that may lead to offensive reactions beyond one’s own control – and instrumental (or proactive) aggression – having to do with aggression that is purposefully carried out in accordance with one’s personal goals (see Fontaine, 2007). It seems likely that, CWB may share qualities that are attributed to both impulsive and instrumental subtypes of antisocial behaviors. For example, people who engaged in CWB may act out impulsive anger, but also with an intent of hurting a coworker so that he or she gains leverage in the work hierarchy. Thus, the present dissertation considers the possibility to extend the stressor-emotion model including cognitive processes that could capture the intentional and, sometimes, instrumental nature of CWB. Specifically we integrate two important traditions of research on aggressive behavior: 1) the frustration-aggression hypothesis, focusing on effects that negative emotions and affect regulation exert on aggression, and 2) the social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1990), addressing processes that promote or justify aggression. In particular this research proposes moral disengagement (MD) as a specific social-cognitive construct in the organizational context that may intervene in the process from perceived stressors to CWB, by promoting or justifying aggressive responses to frustrating conditions or events. In fact MD construct has proved to be an important variable in deviant and aggressive behaviors. (Bandura, 1986; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Caprara, Fida, Vecchione, Tramontano, & Barbaranelli, 2009). This integrative approach may be extremely productive and promising for defining organizational strategies aimed at discouraging and contrasting CWB. In fact, unlike emotions, MD mechanisms are “malleable” to the reciprocal influences between individuals and context and can be learned (Moore, 2008). On the one hand, this means that it is likely that these individual cognitive maneuvers become crystallized over time when repeatedly dealing with job stressors,  

6

legitimizing recourse to aggressive and transgressive behaviors (Paciello, Fida Tramontano, Lupinetti, & Caprara, 2008). On the other hand, it is plausible that a context in which misconduct is frequently enacted through moral cognitive distortions, without being sanctioned, may in turn create a collective MD i.e. a kind of “morally disengaged culture” or “organizational moral disengagement” in which those mechanisms could be socialized, learned and activated, legitimizing CWB (Farnese, Tramontano, Fida, & Paciello, 2011). Furthermore, it is plausible that CWB could be the result of unethical decisions deriving from a distorted interpretation and application of shared norms and in a long-time perspective, these negative models may make easier and obvious the adoption of MD, contributing in turn to the creation of a “organizational moral disengagement”. In this theoretical framework we designed three studies presented as follows. In each study we aimed to predict CWB by understanding the motivational factors preceding it. The aim of the first study is to investigate the psychometric properties, in terms of factorial structure, reliability and pattern of correlations of the Spector and Fox’s CWB inventory and to present the validation of the Italian version of this scale. Specifically, both the factors structure of CWB Checklist and the nomological validity of this measure have been tested using a crossvalidation approach and the analysis of correlation. The second study integrating two important traditions of research on aggressive behaviors, the stressor-emotion model (Spector & Fox, 2005) and the social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), aims to test an integrative model of the stressor-emotion model that considers both attitudinal evaluations (Job Satisfaction) and social cognitive mechanisms (Moral Disengagement) as mediators of the relationship between workplace job stressors and both CWB towards organization (CWB-O) and persons (CWB-P). The aim of the third study is to investigate whether a form of an organizational moral disengagement (MD-O) could be measured and then to examine the role of such dimension in the stressor-emotion model tested in my previous study. Specifically, whether organizational moral disengagement affects both personnel moral disengagement (MD-P) and CWB. In particular, we  

7

expect that both job stressors and MD-O contribute to a lower job satisfaction that in turn affect CWB both directly and through the agency of MD-P.

 

8

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in terrorism. In W. Reich, Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, states of mind. New York, Cambridge University Press, 161-191. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanism of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 364-374. Berry, C.M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett P.R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410-424. Camara, W. J., & Schneider, D. L. (1994). Integrity tests: Facts and unresolved issues. American Psychologist, 49 (2), 112-119. Caprara, G. V., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Tramontano, C., & Barbaranelli, C. (2009). Assessing civic moral disengagement: Dimensionality and construct validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 504-509. Chappell D., & Di Martino V. (2006) Violence at Work, 3rd Edn., International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland. Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177-184. Farnese, M. L., Tramontano, C., Fida, R., & Paciello, M. (2011). Cheating behaviors in academic context: does academic moral disengagement matter? Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 29, 356-365. Fontaine, R. G. (2007). Disentangling the psychology and law of instrumental and reactive subtypes of aggression. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 143-165. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (6), 915-931. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (5), 561-568. Greenberg, J. (1997). The STEAL motive: Managing the social determinants of employee theft. In  

9

R. A. Giacalone, J. Greenberg, R. A. Giacalone, J. Greenberg (Eds.) , Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 85-108). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc. Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228238. Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1982). Employee deviance: A response to the perceived quality of the work experience. Work and Occupations, 9 (1), 97-114. Judge T. A., Scott B. A., Ilies R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multi-level model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126-138. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behaviour and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142. Moore, C. (2008). Moral disengagement in processes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 129-139. Paciello, M., Fida, R., Tramontano, C., Lupinetti, C., & Caprara, G. V. (2008). Stability and Change of Moral Disengagement and Its Impact on Aggression and Violence in Late Adolescence. Child Development, 79 (5), 1288-1309. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (5), 777-796. Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2002). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & V. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology, Vol. 1 (pp.145-164). London: Sage. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572. Spector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (5), 635-637. Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: a model and review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 31 (4), 815-829. Spector, P. E. (1997). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work. In R. A. Giacalone, J. Greenberg, R. A. Giacalone, J. Greenberg (Eds.) , Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative

 

10

Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). A model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.). Counterproductive workplace behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-174). Washington, DC: APA. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 (3), 446-460. Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions: The moderating effect of perceived control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 227-234. Yang, J., & Diefendorf, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behaviors with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62 (2), 259-295. Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management. Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Wellen, J. M. (2004). From individual deviance to collective corruption: A social influence model of the spread of deviance in organizations. Social Change in the 21st Century Conference, Centre for Social Change Research, Queensland, University of Technology.

 

11

CHAPTER II

THE DIMENSIONALITY OF CWB CHECKLIST AND VALIDATION OF ITS ITALIAN VERSION

 

12

The dimensionality of CWB Checklist and Validation of its Italian version

Abstract Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) are pervasive in the workplace and are characterized by intentional and volitional (i.e. non accidental) harmfull behaviors, aimed at damaging the organizations and people involved in it. They represent one of the most serious problems facing today’s organizations in many countries (Chappell & DiMartino, 2006). The purpose of this study is to examine through a cross-validation approach the suitability of the two versus five –factor structure CWB-checklist and subsequently to examine its validity in the Italian context (856 Italian individuals, 52.5% females) through the study of the correlations between the CWB dimensions and both stressors and job satisfaction. Results support for the two factor structure. Specifically, CWB toward organization and CWB toward people emerged. Furthermore, the reliability, in terms of internal consistency, and validity, in terms of correlation with both stressors and job satisfaction, were confirmed.

Keywords: Counterproductive work behaviors; Validation; job stressors; job satisfaction;

 

13

Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) are pervasive in the workplace (Greenberg, 1997; Vardi & Weitz, 2004) and represent one of the most serious problems facing today’s organizations in many countries (Chappell & DiMartino, 2006). According to the literature, these behaviors consist of volitional acts that harm or intend to harm organizations or people in organizations such as clients, coworkers, customers and supervisors (Dalal, 2005; Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Sackett & DeVore, 2002; Spector & Fox, 2005; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). These behaviors have been labelled in different ways such as organizational delinquency (Hogan & Hogan, 1989), organization-motivated aggression (O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996), organizational retaliatory behaviors (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), workplace aggression (Baron & Neuman, 1996), workplace deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Different are also the perspectives from which the study of such behaviors has been addressed. A first group of researches focused on single elements, defining narrowly behaviors such as aggression (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Fox & Spector, 1999; Neuman & Baron, 1997; O’LearyKelly, Grifn, & Glew, 1996), mobbing and bullying (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003; Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996), deviance (Hollinger, 1986; Robinson & Bennett, 1995), client abuse (Perlow & Latham, 1993), theft (Greenberg, 1990), retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), revenge (Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997) or absence (Dalton & Mesch, 1991). Other studies addressed the study of broader categories, emphasizing the common elements underlying the different CWB (Chen & Spector, 1992; Gruys, 1999; Hanisch, Hulin, & Roznowski, 1998; Hollinger & Clark, 1982, 1983a, 1983b; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector & Fox, 2005). Some researchers attempted to classify the different types of CWB within a taxonomy (Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Sackett & DeVore, 2002; Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh, & Kessler, 2006). Among them Spector and Fox proposed one of the most complete classifications of CWB, including different types of CWB (Fox & Spector, 1999; Spector, et al., 2006). The advantage of this taxonomy, in comparison to other (Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Sackett & DeVore, 2002) that have been proposed, is its parsimony and its generalizability as it has been confirmed in  

14

several studies (O’Brien & Allen, 2008). Along with the development of this taxonomy of CWB, the authors proposed a model for the genesis and regulation of CWB (the so called “stressor emotion model”) and developed an instrument, the CWB checklist, for the assessment of such behaviors. The present study deals with the examination of CWB psychometric properties in the Italian context.

The CWB checklist According to Spector and Fox (2005), CWB are different from common negative acts since they are not accidental and are intended specifically to damage by purposeful action the organizations, the people in organization or both. These behaviors have multiple origins, since they can arise from organizational factors (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001), as well as from personality characteristics (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Bowling, 2010; Dalal, 2005; Fox & Spector, 2005; Salgado, 2002; Spector et al., 2006). The Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C) is the final result of several revisions made on its first version, that have been used by Spector since 1975. In his first seminal study investigating the reactions to frustration in workplace, the author hypothesized that big frustrations experienced by an employee on job would be associated with potentially detrimental behaviors such as aggression against others or sabotage. The scale consisted of 35 items indicating how often an employee had performed each one of the listed behaviors (Spector, 1975). After several revisions of the scale, a final CWB-C scale was comprised 45 items. These items have been combined differently to give a measure of: a) two dimensions reflecting Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) distinction of CWB towards organization and CWB towards persons; b) five dimensions measuring typical actions described by specific behavior such as abuse (harmful and nasty behaviors that affect other people), production deviance (purposely doing the job incorrectly or allowing errors to occur), sabotage (destroying the physical environment), theft and withdrawal (avoiding work through being absent or late; Fox & Spector, 1999; Spector et al., 2006). Although  

15

the 2-dimension based scores have been widely used in literature (e.g., Bayram, Gursakal, & Bilgel, 2009; Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006; Fox et al., 2001; Penney & Spector, 2005; Yang & Diefendorff, 2009) instead of the 5-dimension scores, that has been rarely used (Spector et al., 2006), there are no empirical evidence of such structure.

CWB Dimension Among the first, Hollinger and Clark (1982, 1983a, 1983b) proposed that counterproductive behaviors could be grouped into two broad categories: 1) “property deviance”, involving misuse of employer assets (e.g., theft, property damage, and misuse of discount privileges) and 2) “production deviance”, involving violating norms about how work is to be accomplished (e.g. absence, tardiness, long breaks, drug and alcohol use, intentional slow or sloppy work). Later Robinson and Bennett (1995) noted that in this categorization the interpersonal CWB were missed. So the authors proposed a different two-dimensions categorization: 1) CWB toward organization (Hollinger and Clark's production and property deviance) and 2) CWB interpersonally oriented, that is toward members in the organization, such as co-workers, customers, supervisors and so on (e.g., harassment, gossip, verbal abuse). Spector and Fox (2005) based on Robinson and Bennett typology (1995) sorted the 43 othe 45 items of their CWB-C into categories according to target, specifically CWB-O directed toward organization and CWB-P directed toward people in the organization. Some example of CWB-O are taking excessive breaks, working on a personal matter instead of working for the employer, or intentionally working slow. CWB-P refer to acts of aggression toward fellow coworkers, as verbal insults, spread false rumors about others, and withhold crucial information from others. Similarly Spector and Fox’s checklist can be interpreted, within the hierarchical model by Sackett and DeVore (2002), specifically as a single general factor defined by two more specific sub-factors representing organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance.

 

16

Afterwards, Spector and colleagues (2006) questioned whether the two broad categories of CWB that have been already discussed, might obscure relationships of potential antecedents with more specific forms of behavior. Specifically, they highlighted that the distinction of five specific CWB could be more useful for the understanding of the different processes leading to different forms of CWB. In that work subject matter experts (industrial/organizational psychology doctoral students) placed the specific behaviors into the five categories (abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft and withdrawal) for which they computed subscale scores. Although the authors demonstrated different patterns of correlations of each five-dimension-CWB no empirical evidence of such structure has been provided.

Organizational and individuals correlates of CWB Several studies reported that the major organizational correlates of CWB are job stressors, that is, any frustrating condition in organizational life that substantially interferes with work goals, job activities and/or job performance. Specifically, the studies on CWB focused on different situations or conditions that are potentially potent stressors such as organizational constraints, unmanaged conflicts, work overload, role conflict and ambiguity, and lack of autonomy and support (Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox et al., 2001; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Peters & O’Connor, 1980; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988; Greenberg, 1990; Penney & Spector, 2002, 2005; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999). In general, organizational stressors (such as organizational constraints) were more closely associated with CWB-O than CWB-P, and interpersonal conflict was more closely associated with CWB-P than CWB-O. Spector and Fox in their stressor-emotion model of CWB asserted that whenever such a stressor is perceived, an individual may experience negative feelings that, in turn, may promote him or her to enact aggressive behavior as a strategy to reduce the emotionally unpleasant condition (Fox & Spector, 1999, 2001; Spector 1975, 1978).

 

17

Within this theoretical framework, these authors mainly focused on interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints and workload as the most frequently reported job stressors in organizations associated with the various forms of CWB (Spector & Fox, 2005). Interpersonal conflict refers to how well an individual gets along with others at work, such as minor disagreements between co-workers or physical assaults against others (Spector & Jex, 1998). Chen and Spector (1992) showed that interpersonal conflict has a significant positive correlation with sabotage, interpersonal aggression, hostility and complaints, and intention to quit. Indeed, conflict has been found positively and significantly related to both organizational and interpersonal types of CWB (Bruke-lee & Spector, 2006). For example, Frone (2000) in her work, found that conflict with supervisors affects outcomes of organizational relevance while conflict with coworkers impacts those of personal relevance. Additionally Duffy, Ganster, and Pagon (2002) looked at the effects of social undermining by supervisors and reported that these were predictive of passive CWB. In their study, these behaviors were considered similar to those of organizational CWB such as taking longer breaks and being lazy on job task (Duffy et al., 2002). Also Bruke-Lee and Spector (2006), through CWB checklist, found that conflict with coworkers resulted in CWB directed toward people (CWB-P), whereas conflict with supervisors was more likely to result in CWB directed toward organization (CWB-O). Organizational constraints refer to situations at work that interfere with an individual’s task performance, such as a lack of time, resources, inadequate equipment or supplies, organizational rules and procedures, understaffing, or help from others (Peters & O'Connor, 1980). Several studies showed that this stressor has different relationships with the two categories of CWB (Bayram, Gursakal, & Bilgel, 2009; Fox et al., 2001; Spector, et al., 2006). Indeed the organizational constraints have been found to be more related to CWB-O rather than CWB-P (Fox et al., 2001). Workload can be considered in terms of number of hours worked, level of production, or even the mental demands of the work being performed. While constraints and conflict can be considered as psychosocial stressors mainly arising from interactions among people (Spector & Jex,  

18

1998), workload is more related to tasks. A high workload is likely to make feel workers uncertain about whether they can get all of the work done (Beehr & Bhagat, 1985). Indeed, Krischer, Penney, & Hunter (2010) showed that workload would lead more likely to act CWB toward organization rather than toward organizational members. Not only organizational, but also personal dimensions can be considered as correlates of CWB. In this regard, some authors showed that job satisfaction, that is “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976; p. 1304), is associated to low CWB (Bayram, et al., 2009; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006; Spector & Jex, 1998). Moreover the social exchange theory (Gould, 1979; Levinson, 1965) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) showed that when individuals are dissatisfied with the organization, their boss or coworkers, they may reciprocate with negative work behaviors such as withholding effort, arriving late at work, taking longer break times, leaving early, or engaging in CWB directed to people, such as playing mean pranks, cursing at them, or even sabotaging their work. Moreover, Judge and colleagues (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001) and Dalal (2005) reported a negative correlation between overall job satisfaction and a measure of deviant behavior. Judge, Scott and Ilies (2006), as well as, in a recent repeated-measures (longitudinal) field study, found that employees engaged more likely in CWB on days when they were less satisfied with their jobs, compared to days when they were more satisfied. Moreover the patterns of correlations with job satisfaction are quite similar across the two CWB measures, but CWB-O tended to correlate more strongly with job satisfaction than did CWB-P (Spector, et al., 2006).

The aim of this paper The general purpose of this study is to investigate the psychometric properties, in terms of factorial structure, reliability and pattern of correlations of the Spector and Fox’s CWB-C and to present the validation of the Italian version of this scale. Specifically, we aim to examine through a crossvalidation approach the suitability of the two versus five –factor structure and then to examine its  

19

validity in the Italian context through the study of the correlations between the resulted CWB dimensions and both stressors and job satisfaction. In line with literature we hypothesized that even in this cultural context job stressors would be positively related to both CWB-O and CWB-P and job satisfaction negatively related to them. Furthermore we expect that interpersonal stressor (interpersonal conflict) would be more related to CWB-P and organizational stressor (organizational constraints) and job satisfaction more related to CWB-O.

Method

Participants and Procedure Participants were 856 Italian individuals (52.5% females), ranging in age from 17 to 66 years (M = 39.6, SD = 11.35). The 65.9% of participants have permanent contracts full time job and 6.6% have permanent contracts part time job (35.4% in Italian public organizations) and the average of total work years is 16.3 years (SD = 10.91) with average of week job hours of 34.9 (SD = 10.76). The 15.9% of participants have a second job and average of week second job hours of 5.8 (SD = 9.95). It was a convenience sample of employees recruited by a group of 15 bachelor trained psychology students as part of their bachelor thesis. Each student contacted and assessed a minimum of 60 employees from one or more organization, which resulted in a sample with very heterogeneous jobs. Each employee filled in the questionnaire individually and returned it the same day they received it. Before starting, the researcher explained to them that their responses would be absolutely confidential and that the research was not commissioned by the organization for which they worked. Participants were not paid for their participation in this study.

 

20

Measures

The anonymous self-report survey included measures of job stressors, job satisfaction, CWB and other measures that were not considered in this study. Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C; Spector et al., 2006) is composed of 45 items. The items ask respondents to indicate how often they have done each behavior at work, and it can be used to indicate the behavior of others, as coworkers or subordinates. Response choices range from 1 (Never) to 5 (Every day). The Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS; Spector & Jex, 1998) is composed of 11 items based on constraint areas identified by Peters and O’Connor (1980), measured the frequency with which employees encountered barriers to job performance, such as rules and procedures, availability of resources, co-workers, interruptions, and inadequate training. Response choices range from 1 (less than once per month or never) to 5 (several times per day). Spector and Jex (1998) reported a mean internal consistency reliability (coefficient α) of .85 across eight samples. The Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS; Spector & Jex, 1998) is composed of 4 items. These items measured the frequency with which the employee experienced arguments, yelling, and rudeness in interactions with co-workers. Five response choices are given, ranging from 1 (rarely) to 5 (very often). Spector and Jex (1998) reported an average internal consistency reliability (coefficient α) of .74 across 13 studies. The Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI; Spector & Jex, 1998) is composed of 5 items. These items scale designed to assess the amount or quantity of work in a job, as opposed to the qualitative workload, which is the difficulty of the work. Each item is a statement about amount of work, and respondents indicate how often each occurs, from 1 (less than once per month or never) to 5 (several times per day). Spector and Jex (1998) reported an average internal consistency reliability (coefficient α) of .82 across 15 studies.

 

21

Job Satisfaction (Avallone & Paplomatas, 2005) is composed of 18 items. The items were designed to investigate the worker’s perception about their well being and unease in the work place. Response choices range from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Avallone and Paplomatas (2005) reported internal consistency reliability (coefficient α) of .90.

Analytical Strategy The factors structure of CWB Checklist version has been tested using a cross-validation approach, therefore our sample was divided in two random halves. The first sub-sample served as a generative sample to examine CWBs dimensionality through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The second sub-sample served as a validation sample where confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used as a test of replicability of the factor model (Bollen, 1989; Thompson, 1994). The EFA and CFA analyses were performed using MPLUS 6.1 software (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2007). Two alternative EFA models were hypothesized: (a) a five-factor solution, each factor related to a specific form of CWB according to Spector and colligues (2006), and (b) a two-factor solution, that is CWB-O and CWB-P. To identify the best solution, we analyzed the scree-plot of eigenvalues (Cattell & Vogelmann, 1977) and considered the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1984) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990) as indices of goodness of fit. The total sample was used to evaluate the nomological validity thought correlation CWB with organization and individual variables (interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, workload, job satisfaction).

 

22

Results

Dimensionality of CWB Descriptive statistics of the CWB items are presented in Table 1. Due to the nature of the behaviors investigated, several items presented a very skewed distribution (with at least 80% of frequencies in a single categories) Following Muthén (Muthén & Kaplan, 1985)   we preferred to transform these items (1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44) into dichotomies: to this aim the lower category (“Never”) was re-coded with the score of 0, and all the other categories were re-coded with the score of 1. Accordingly, EFA on the first sub-sample (N = 437, 52% females, Mean age = 38, SD = 11.5) and CFA on the second sub-sample (N = 425, 53% females, Mean age = 40, SD =11.2) were performed using robust weighted least squares estimator (WLSMV, Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2007). The first ten eigenvalues of the correlation matrix were: 8.81, 2.99, 2.20, 1.54, 1.17, 1.08, .982, .923, .864, .7.96. The five-factor solution did not converge. The analysis of eigenvalues suggested a two-factor solution. Loadings on the first factor ranged from .33 to .84 with a mean of .63 (SD= .16), loadings on the second factor ranged from .36 to .91 with a mean of .64 (SD= .17). The fit of EFA factor solution was χ2(94, N= 437) = 219.718; p < .001; RMSEA = .055; SRMR = .104. Since 3 items (11, 29, 41) have high loadings in two factors and 9 items (3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 42) had salient loadings in a factor not corresponding to the item content: all these items were dropped from the analysis. As shown in Table 2 a second factor analysis was performed on the remaining 30 items. This final two-factor solution accounted for 32,8% of the variance and demonstrated a good fit to the data: χ2(80, N= 437) = 201.973 p = .001, RMSEA= .059 and SRMR = .98.

 

23

TABLE1 Items CWB Checklist cwb_1 cwb_2 cwb_3 cwb_4 cwb_5 cwb_6 cwb_7 cwb_8 cwb_9 cwb_10 cwb_11 cwb_12 cwb_13 cwb_14 cwb_15 cwb_16 cwb_17 cwb_18 cwb_19 cwb_20 cwb_21 cwb_22 cwb_23 cwb_24 cwb_25 cwb_26 cwb_27 cwb_28 cwb_29 cwb_30 cwb_31 cwb_32 cwb_33 cwb_34 cwb_35 cwb_36 cwb_37 cwb_38 cwb_39 cwb_40 cwb_41 cwb_42 cwb_43 cwb_44 cwb_45

 

N 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856

M 1.26 1.74 1.75 1.43 1.22 1.64 1.34 1.05 1.06 1.10 1.15 1.42 1.32 1.39 1.15 1.14 1.75 1.18 1.38 1.25 1.21 1.20 1.51 1.14 1.03 1.59 1.29 1.14 1.28 1.11 1.72 1.05 1.31 1.19 1.08 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.08 1.10 1.04 1.12 1.06 1.16 1.50

SD .617 .938 .898 .842 .668 .924 .705 .309 .301 .403 .468 .662 .697 .675 .482 .514 .875 .468 .750 .630 .585 .553 .792 .537 .223 .840 .640 .491 .576 .409 .840 .309 .639 .609 .357 .406 .436 .458 .377 .400 .331 .431 .336 .495 .780

Skewness 2.733 1.025 1.149 2.128 3.623 1.426 2.202 7.428 6.097 4.549 4.162 1.624 2.708 1.850 3.950 4.755 1.077 2.746 2.317 3.089 3.306 3.384 1.539 4.605 9.727 1.490 2.738 4.240 2.368 4.484 1.077 7.992 2.264 3.733 5.838 4.056 5.511 5.038 6.246 4.660 9.503 4.611 7.209 4.193 1.587

Kurtosis 8.485 0.187 0.955 4.205 14.100 1.469 4.595 64.544 49.591 23.681 22.047 3.023 8.352 3.684 18.432 26.554 0.836 7.221 5.865 11.269 12.235 13.637 1.872 23.243 104.831 2.145 9.035 21.283 6.669 23.521 0.958 79.821 5.354 14.821 40.852 20.226 35.128 28.598 48.502 25.471 97.110 26.349 63.687 22.072 2.290

24

TABLE 2 EFA two factor solution CWB_1D CWB_2 CWB_4 CWB_6 CWB_7 CWB_10D CWB_17 CWB_18D CWB_19 CWB_20D CWB_21D CWB_22D CWB_23 CWB_24D CWB_26 CWB_27 CWB_28D CWB_30D CWB_31 CWB_32D CWB_33 CWB_34D CWB_35D CWB_36D CWB_37D CWB_38D CWB_39D CWB_40D CWB_43D CWB_44D

CWB-O .444 .811 .346 .700 .660 .635 .762 .426 .720 -.012 .311 .651 .734 .651 .075 .063 .100 .217 .133 -.040 .097 .068 -.222 -.109 .074 -.025 .194 .149 -.003 .008

CWB-P .186 -.206 .169 -.168 -.002 .060 -.055 .241 -.031 .810 .528 -.013 .026 .132 .581 .719 .659 .628 .454 .768 .672 .669 .966 .902 .749 .856 .764 .627 .869 .738

Factor loadings ranged from .34 to .81 for the first factor with a mean of .63 (SD =.14) and from .45 to.96 with a mean of .72 (SD =.13) for the second factor; the internal consistency (Cornbach’s alpha coefficient) was .80 for the first factor and .89 for the second. The items that loaded on the first factor were related to CWB directed towards the organization; the items loading the second factor CWB towards persons. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the second half of the sample with the aim of cross-validating the factor structure found by means of EFA. The two-factor model showed an adequate fit, χ2(74, N = 425) = 209.493; p < .001; CFI = .882; TLI = .939; RMSEA = .066; WRMR = 1.27. As shown in Table 2, all the loadings of the two-factor CFA solutions were statistically significant (p < .01) and were all > .40. Correlation between the factors was .68. Two  

25

alternative models were tested, positing respectively: (a) one factor model and (b) second order factor with two primary factors. All alternative models did not fit the data adequately: a) χ2(74, N = 425) = 304.384; p < .001; CFI = .799; TLI = .897; RMSEA = .086; WRMR = 1.625 and b) χ2(74, N = 425) = 209.493; p < .001; CFI = .882; TLI = .939; RMSEA = .066; WRMR = 1.353. In light of these results, the two-factor model can be considered the best one. Internal consistency The Cronbach’s alpha of the CWB-O for the whole sample (N= 856) was .80. Corrected item-scale correlations ranged from .27 to .56, with a mean of .45 and a standard deviation of .09. The Cronbach’s alpha of the CWB-P for the whole sample (N= 856) was .89. Corrected item-scale correlations ranged from .41 to .68, with a mean of .56 and a standard deviation of .07.

TABLE 3 CFA two factor solution CWB_1D CWB_2 CWB_4 CWB_6 CWB_7 CWB_10D CWB_17 CWB_18D CWB_19 CWB_22D CWB_23 CWB_24D CWB_20D CWB_21D CWB_26 CWB_27 CWB_28D CWB_30D CWB_31 CWB_32D CWB_33 CWB_34D CWB_35D CWB_36D CWB_37D CWB_38D CWB_39D CWB_40D CWB_43D CWB_44D The all parameter

 

CWB-O .402 .536 .548 .603 .552 .629 .697 .730 .695 .762 .783 .748 -

CWB-P .598 .672 .742 .813 .771 .759 .622 .635 .785 .779 .787 .749 .828 .786 .677 .805 .831 .838

estimations is statistically significant to p < .01 26

Correlation between CWB and both stressors and job satisfaction According to the literature the analysis of correlation among both CWB-P and CWB-O and both job stressors (namely Interpersonal Conflict, Quantitative Workload and Organizational Constraints) and job satisfaction was investigated to ascertain the validity of this dimension in the Italian context. As shown in Table 3, the correlations between both CWB-O and CWB-P and three stressors are positive and the correlations between CWB and Job Satisfaction is negative. In line with literature interpersonal conflict showed a higher correlation with CWB-P rather than with CWB-O, similarly even if slightly organizational constraints showed a higher correlation with CWB-O. Quantitative Workload did not correlate with CWB-P and showed lower correlation with CWB. Finally as expected job satisfaction negatively correlate with both CWB-O and CWB-P and showed higher correlation with the organizational oriented CWB.

TABLE 4 Correlation matrix

Interpersonal Conflict Organization Constrains Quantitative Workload

Interpersonal Conflict .429** .259

Organization Quantitative Job CWB-O Constrains Workload Satisfaction -

**

.356**

**

**

-.150**

-

.090**

-.284**

Job Satisfaction

-.266

CWB-O

.299**

.299**

CWB-P

**

**

**

.376

CWB-P

-.544 .241

-

.061

-.152

**

.542**

-

The correlation is significant to .01

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the factorial structure of the Spector and Fox’s CWB-C within an Italian context and to provide an empirical investigation of the dimensionality of this scale. Overall, our results are in line with previous literature, suggesting the presence of two  

27

underlying dimensions of CWB (Hollinger & Clark, 1982, 1983a, 1983b; Martinko, et al., 2002; Miles, et al., 2002; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector & Fox, 2005) specifically CWB-O directed toward organization and CWB-P directed toward people. In fact, as in literature, the items reflecting behaviors such as taking excessive breaks, working on a personal matter instead of working for the employer, or intentionally working slow loaded together on a factor (CWB-O), while items reflecting acts of aggression toward fellow coworkers, as verbal insults, spread false rumors about others, and withhold crucial information from others clustered together on another factor (CWB-P). The psychometric properties of the scale seem well supported from the results of this study. Indeed the descriptive statistics and internal reliability of the two subscales are similar to those reported by Spector and colleagues (2006), even if the number of items is lower. The two-factor structure also through CFA was confirmed rather than a five factor model. As the literature showed, also the correlations obtained among the two subscales suggest that the CWB measures are not entirely orthogonal but yet distinguishable, indicating that individuals tend to employ a variety of different behaviors to deal with organizational stressors, which are not mutually exclusive. More specifically, in line with literature CWB-O and CWB-I tend to co-occur (Dadal, 2005; Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002; Mount et al., 2006) and showed different and specific patterns of correlations with relevant organizational and individual variables (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Hershcovis, Turner, Barling, Arnold, Dupré, Inness et al., 2007; Spector & Fox, 2005). Specifically: a) Interpersonal Conflict has positively correlation to both organizational and interpersonal types of CWB (Bruke-lee & Spector, 2006: Duffy et al., 2002; Frone, 2000) and even more with CWB-P (Bayram, Gursakal, & Bilgel 2009; Bowling & Eschleman, 2010; Fox, Spector & Miles, 2001; Spector, et al., 2006); b) Organizational Constraints positively related to both dimensions of CWB and higher to CWB-O (Bayram, Gursakal & Bilgel, 2009; Fox et al., 2001; Spector, et al., 2006); c) Workload related lower and only to CWB-O (Bayram, Gursakal, & Bilgel, 2009; Beehr & Bhagat, 1985; Krischer, Penney, & Hunter, 2010; Spector & Jex, 1998). Moreover

 

28

Job Satisfaction positively related to both organizational and interpersonal types of CWB (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006) and more strongly with CWB-O (Spector, Fox, et al., 2006). In conclusion the CWB checklist and its two broad dimensions reflect Spector and Fox's theorizing with regard to the counterproductive behaviors and their stressor-emotion model. Furthermore, the scale and its two subscales have also been described and used in many studies but in this research the empirical structure has been analyzed for the first time. Moreover, studing empirically its dimensionality study allowed us to eliminate some items that were to heterogeneous with regard to the contents of the scale. Further researches could continue in this direction to offer new opportunities for CWB checklist. This study can represent a further contributions to both national and international research providing evidence of validation of CWB checklist as conceptualized by Spector and Fox and confirming its two dimensional structure. Some limits of the present study need to be noted. Although the sample size was considerable, we used a convenience sample that cannot be representative of the Italian workers. It is questionable whether our results can be extended to populations outside of Italy, or to a different culture. The scale would receive stronger support from future research that tests the scale in different populations and in different languages. Moreover, only part of the nomological network involving CWB in stressor-emotion model was tested. The negative emotions were not examined, but it should be the focus of future research. Examining a larger nomological network, including negative emotions, would provide more understanding and validity of CWB checklist and its two dimension. Another limitation of this research is the use of self-report instruments: however, Fox Spector, Goh and Bruursema (2007) demonstrated the convergence between self- and peer-reports of the majority of stressor-emotion model measures. We encourage other researchers to build on the empirical results of this study by investigating the stucture of CWB-Checklist to confirm the two factors structure instead of five factors.  

 

29

References

Avallone F., & Paplomatas A. (2005). Salute Organizzativa, Milano Raffaello Cortina Editore. Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence of their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-173. Bayram, N., Gursakal, N., & Bilgel, N. (2009). Counterproductive work behavior among whitecollar employees: A study from Turkey. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17 (2), 180-188. Beehr, T. A., & Bhagat, R. S. (1985). Human stress and cognition in organizations: An integrated perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410-424. Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R.A. Giacalone and J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 18-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bollen, K. A, (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Bowling, N. A., & Eschleman, K.J. (2010). Employee personality as a moderator of the relationships between work stressors and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15 (1), 91-103. Bruk-Lee, V. & Spector, P. (2006). The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviors link: are conflicts with supervisors and co-workers the same?. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 145-156. Cattell, R. B., & Vogelmann, S. (1977). A comprehensive trial of the scree and KG criteria for determining the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 289-325. Chappell D., & Di Martino V. (2006) Violence at Work, 3rd Edn., International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland. Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177-184.

 

30

Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241-1255. Dalton, D. R., & Mesch, D. J. (1991). On the extent and reduction of avoidable absenteeism: an assessment of absence policy provisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 810-817. Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 547-559. Duffy, M., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M., (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (2), 331-351. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (6), 915-931. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59 (3), 291-309. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2007). Does your coworker know what you're doing? Convergence of self- and peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 41-60. Frone, M. (2000). Work-family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The National Comorbidity Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (6), 888-895. Gould, S. (1979). An equity-exchange model of organizational involvement. Academy of Management Review, 4, 53-62. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (5), 561-568. Greenberg, J. (1997). The STEAL motive: Managing the social determinants of employee theft. In R. A. Giacalone, J. Greenberg, R. A. Giacalone, J. Greenberg (Eds.) , Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 85-108). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc. A. Gruys, M. L. (1999). The dimensionality of deviant employee performance in the workplace. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnessota, Minneapolis.Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11 (1), 30-41. Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importance of individuals’ repertoires of behaviors: the scientific appropriateness of studying multiple behaviors and general attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 463-480.  

31

Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228238. Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7, 53-75. Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1982). Employee deviance: A response to the perceived quality of the work experience. Work and Occupations, 9 (1), 97-114. Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983a). Theft by employees. Social Forces, 62, 398−418. Toronto, ON: Lexington Books. Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983b). Deterrence in the workplace: Perceived certainty, perceived severity and employee theft. Social Forces, 62, 398-418. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). Lisrel VI. Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods, Mooresville, Indiana, Scientific software. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407. Judge T. A., Scott B. A., & Ilies R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multi-level model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126-138. Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace bullying. Chapter in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf., & C. Cooper. Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International research and practice perspectives. London, UK: Taylor Francis. Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive work behaviors be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15 (2), 154-166. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behaviour and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142. Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

 

32

Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 3650. Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of counterproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 51-57. Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59 (3), 591-622. Muthén, B., & Kaplan D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171-189. Muthén, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998-2007). Mplus User’s Guide. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 37–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. O’Brien, K. E., & Allen T. D. (2008). The Relative Importance of Correlates of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior Using Multiple Sources of Data. Human Performance, 21 (1), 62-88. O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: a research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21, 225-253. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 126-134. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (5), 777-796. Peters, L. H., & O'Connor, E. J. 1980. Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5 (3), 391-397. Perlow, R., & Latham, L. L. (1993). Relationship of client abuse with locus of control and gender: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 831-844.

 

33

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572. Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2002). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K., Sinangil, & V. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 145-164). London: Sage. Salgado, J. F. (2002). The big five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117-125. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443. Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100-108. Sector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (5), 635-637. Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: a model and review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 31 (4), 815-829. Spector P. E., Dwyer D. J., & Jex S. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 11-19. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). A model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.). Counterproductive workplace behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-174). Washington, DC: APA. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 (3), 446-460. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25 (2), 173-180. Thompson, B. (1994). Guidelines for authors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54 (4), 837-847. Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management. Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.  

34

Yang, J., & Diefendorf, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behaviors with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62 (2), 259-295. Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 215-237.

 

35

Appendix

Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C) (45-item) Copyright 2002 Suzy Fox and Paul E. Spector, All rights reserved. Once or twice per week

Every day

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Purposely wasted your employer’s materials/supplies Daydreamed rather than did your work Complained about insignificant things at work Told people outside the job what a lousy place you work for Purposely did your work incorrectly Came to work late without permission Stayed home from work and said you were sick when you weren’t 8. Purposely damaged a piece of equipment or property 9. Purposely dirtied or littered your place of work 10. Stolen something belonging to your employer 11. Started or continued a damaging or harmful rumor at work 12. Been nasty or rude to a client or customer 13. Purposely worked slowly when things needed to get done 14. Refused to take on an assignment when asked 15. Purposely came late to an appointment or meeting 16. Failed to report a problem so it would get worse 17. Taken a longer break than you were allowed to take 18. Purposely failed to follow instructions 19. Left work earlier than you were allowed to 20. Insulted someone about their job performance 21. Made fun of someone’s personal life 22. Took supplies or tools home without permission 23. Tried to look busy while doing nothing 24. Put in to be paid for more hours than you worked 25. Took money from your employer without permission 26. Ignored someone at work 27. Refused to help someone at work 28. Withheld needed information from someone at work 29. Purposely interfered with someone at work doing his/her job 30. Blamed someone at work for error you made 31. Started an argument with someone at work 32. Stole something belonging to someone at work 33. Verbally abused someone at work

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

 

Once or Twice

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Never

Once or Twice per month

How often have you done each of the following things on your present job?

36

34. Made an obscene gesture (the finger) to someone at work 35. Threatened someone at work with violence 36. Threatened someone at work, but not physically 37. Said something obscene to someone at work to make them feel bad 38. Hid something so someone at work couldn’t find it 39. Did something to make someone at work look bad 40. Played a mean prank to embarrass someone at work 41. Destroyed property belonging to someone at work 42. Looked at someone at work’s private mail/property without permission 43. Hit or pushed someone at work 44. Insulted or made fun of someone at work 45. Avoided returning a phone call to someone you should at work

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

To score the CWB-C, sum responses to items shown below for each subscale (organizational versus person), or all the items for the total score. CWB Organization: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25. CWB Person: 11, 20, 21, 26-44.

 

37

Every day

Once or twice per week

Once or Twice per month

Never

Once or Twice

How often have you done each of the following things on your present job?

CHAPTER III

THE CWB THROUGH JOB SATISFACTION AND MORAL DISENGAGEMENT

 

38

The CWB through job satisfaction and moral disengagement

Abstract Several researchers have highlighted the importance of examining moral disengagement (MD) to understand instrumental aggression and deviant conduct across different contexts. In the present study, we investigate the role of MD in organizational context as a specific social-cognitive construct that may intervene in the process leading to counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). Within the stressor-emotion model of CWB, this study hypothesized that MD partially mediates the relation from job satisfaction in reaction to perceived stressors to CWB, by promoting or justifying aggressive responses to frustrating context. In a sample of 943 Italian workers (50.4% women) we tested a structural equations model. Results confirmed our hypothesis: the more workers react to stressors with low job satisfaction, the more they need to make recourse to MD, the more they act CWB.

Keywords: Moral disengagement, Counterproductive work behavior, Job satisfaction; Job stressors, Incivility.

 

39

The latest financial scandals affecting American and European stock markets, as well as the increase of deviant behavior occurring in organizations have raised questions about the ethics in the working context, highlighting the need to understand these occurrences in order to prevent and tackle them (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006; Fox & Spector, 2005; Greenberg, 1997; Vardi & Weitz, 2004; Wellen, 2004). In the last decades, several studies have been done for undestanding the processes leading to organizational misbehaviors such as fraud, corruption, theft and aggressive behaviors (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006; Fox & Spector, 2005; Greenberg, 1997; Vardi & Weitz, 2004; Wellen, 2004), and more in general counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). Specifically, CWB are behaviors that share the characteristics of being intentional and volitional (i.e. nonaccidental) harmful, aimed at damaging the organization and people (clients, coworkers, customers, and supervisors) involved in it (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997; Keashley, 1998; Knorz & Zapf, 1996; Neuman & Baron, 1997, 1998; O’Leary, Griffin, & Glew, 1996; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector & Fox, 2005). Thus, all those acts against the organization or its members that are carried out unconsciously or do not have that aim, are excluded from CWB. Several studies showed that these behaviors are one of the most serious problems the organizations are facing in many countries (Chappel & Di Martino, 2006). Some US studies showed that only theft costs billions of dollars annually to organizations (Camara & Schneider, 1994; Greenberg, 1990, 1997) and the overall losses caused by other forms of counterproductive behaviors are bewildering. These behaviors not only affect the productivity but they create discomfort to individuals or groups, compromise the quality of organizational life and damage property (material damage) and hurt organization’s reputation as a whole (Vardi & Weitz, 2004). In particular, CWB, both on organizations and persons in the organizations, violating norms of organization, harm either directly or indirectly, the legitimate interests of the organizations (Sackett & DeVore, 2002), reduce the efficiency and job performance of its members (Hollinger & Clark, 1982) and basically threaten the health and well being of the organization and its members.

 

40

Generally, the literature distinguished between CWB directed towards organization (CWBO) and CWB towards people within the organization (CWB-P; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector & Fox, 2005). CWB-O have the organization as target, they are acts such as sabotage, fraud and theft, or leaving early from work, taking excessive breaks, deliberately working slowly, wasting resources and so on. CWB-P are acts directed against people working in the organization such as sexual harassment, verbal abuse, stealing from colleagues and even choosing favorites, peddling gossip and insulting colleagues. Although these two categories of behaviors are positively correlated (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002), they have different relations with other variables (such as citizenship behaviors, perceived justice, situational constraints, personal traits; Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Hershcovis, Turner, Barling, Arnold, Dupré, Inness, et al., 2007). Among the authors who have studied these behaviors, Spector and colleagues (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Spector & Fox, 2002, 2005) developed a model to understand CWB considering both situational and individual factors as antecedents, and more generally to understand the underlying processes fostering to such behaviors. The authors, starting from frustration-aggression theory by Dollard and colleagues (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939) and from work stress theory, (Jex & Beehr, 1991; Spector & Fox, 2005), view counterproductive work behaviors as an individual response to the frustrations generated by stressful organizational conditions (Fox & Spector, 1999, 2001; Spector 1975, 1978). Specifically, they hypothesized that any frustrating condition in organizational life may be considered a stressor if it substantially interferes with work goals, job activities and/or job performance. Consequently, the researchers have shown that work environment characterized by the presence of unmanaged conflicts, lack of autonomy and support and low equity (Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox, et al., 2001; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Peters & O’Connor, 1980; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988), increase the negative emotion that in turn increase the likelihood to act aggressive behaviors as a strategy to cope with the negative emotion experienced in reaction to these stressful organizational conditions (Fox & Spector, 1999, 2001; Spector 1975, 1978).  

41

These authors (Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999, Spector, 1975, 1978, 1997; Storms & Spector, 1987) describe the processes that foster forms of aggression that are typically impulsive and are performed for the purpose of causing harm and releasing frustration. The literature on aggression has distinguished between impulsive (or reactive) aggression – based on negative affect that may lead to offensive reactions beyond one’s own control – and instrumental (or proactive) aggression – having to do with aggression that is purposefully carried out in accordance with one’s personal goals (see Fontaine, 2007). It seems likely that CWB may share qualities that are attributed to both the impulsive and instrumental subtypes of antisocial behavior. For example, individuals who engaged in CWB may do so out of impulsive anger, but also with the interest of hurting a coworker so that they gainleverage in the work hierarchy. Therefore, we considered the possibility of extending the stressor-emotion model by including cognitive processes that could capture the intentional and sometimes instrumental nature of CWB. Specifically, in the present study, we adopted the Social Cognitive Theory framework (Bandura, 1986, 1990) and proposed moral disengagement (MD) as a specific social-cognitive construct in the organizational context that may intervene in the process from perceived stressors to CWB, by promoting or justifying aggressive responses to frustrating conditions or events. MD construct (Bandura, 1986) has proved to be an important variable in predicting deviant behaviors, especially if all those instrumentals, allowing to explain the determinants and social cognitive mechanisms that can facilitate aggressive and deviant behavior through a kind of “divorce” between moral thought and moral action (Bandura, 1991; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). Bandura refers that these MD mechanisms represent the set of social-cognitive internal devices, learned and socially constructed, that allow individuals to be free from feelings of self-condemnation, conflict and guilt or remorse, detrimental to self-esteem, when is less than the internal standards and social rules (Bandura, 1986). In line with other studies (Barsky et al., 2006; Pauli & Arthur, 2006) we believe that MD could facilitate the resort to CWB in reaction to a negative emotion due to a series of aspects related to work (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992) deriving  

42

from stressors, by changing trasgressive behaviors in acceptable behaviors. In this way through MD, individuals could view aggressive behavior and its negative consequences to organization and its members in a socially and morally favourable way that may not need the abandon of organizational and social rules. This could be particularly critical if we consider that when aggression is considered a socially and morally acceptable behavior is more likely to act it (CraneRoss, Tisak, & Tisak, 1998; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997; Keltikangas-Järvinen, 2001).

The process of CWB CWB represents an inefficacious behavioral response of strain aimed at managing a stressful situation and at reducing the consequent unpleasant negative emotional reactivity, even though, in doing so, it threatens the well-being and reduces the effectiveness of the organization and of its members (Chen & Spector, 1992; Cullen & Sackett, 2003; Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Ito & Brotheridge, 2003; Krischer, Penney, & Hunter, 2010; Neuman & Baron, 2005; Penney & Spector, 2007, 2008; Rodell & Judge, 2009; Spector, 1975, 1978, 1997). Several studies have investigated how different job situations or job conditions foster their implementation: such as organizational constraints, unmanaged conflicts, work overload, and lack of autonomy and support (Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox, et al., 2001; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Penney & Spector, 2002; Peters & O’Connor, 1980). Among these studies, several researchers focused on the interpersonal relationship in the work environmental and organizational justice (Bayram, Gursakal & Bilgel, 2009; Bechtoldt, Welk, Hartig, & Zapf, 2007; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Bowling & Eschleman, 2010, Fox et al., 2001, De Jonge & Peeters, 2009; Spector & Jex, 1998). These studies showed how conflict in the relationship with bosses and/or colleagues are considered among the main sources of stress (Bayram, Gursakal, & Bilgel, 2009; Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989; Keenan & Newton, 1985;) and the research has also shown how interpersonal conflict had a significant positive correlation with CWB, more closely associated with CWB-P than CWB-O  

43

(Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006; Fox, Spectors, & Miles, 2001; Fox & Spector, 1999; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Penney & Spector, 2002; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1998). Similarly j other authors have showed that also the perception of injustice affects CWB (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Bechtoldt, Welk, Hartig, & Zapf, 2007). Indeed when the employees, perceiving they are treated unfairly in terms of outcomes, are more likely to engage in misbehavior, such as theft (Greenberg, 1990), vandalism, sabotage, reduction of citizenship behaviors, withdrawal (Jermier, Knights, & Nord, 1994), absenteeism (Johns, 2006, 2008) and resistance or harassment to restore equilibrium between their inputs and outputs (Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002). These measures can show the dimensions of social climate that has been studied on several outcomes (Ostroff et al., 2003; Schneider, 2000). Moreover few authors referring to the impact of context on organizational behavior, argued that a set of factors, considered together as a whole, will show a more theoretically meaningful result than the study of independent variables (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991; Johns, 2006; Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Other authors extended the seminal works on CWB by considering work incivility (Andersson & Person, 1999), new for this literature, as a potential stressors (Penney & Spector, 2005). These authors showed that high levels of perceived work incivility predict high levels of both CWB-O and CWB-P. In particular, when workers suffer or see undergo inconsiderate, impolite behaviors, or aggressive conduct, that violate individuals’ dignity and that indicate lack of loyalty from the others, they may be more prone to respond with both CWB-O and CWB-P (Penney & Spector, 2005). The studies on CWB showed that these job stressors increase the likelihood to act aggressive behaviors throught the negative emotional response in reaction to these negative working factors (Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox, et al., 2001; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Spector & Fox, 2005). Specifically, when workers perceive work context as a stressor, or interfering with their goals and job performances, they will experience negative emotion that lead to act aggressively as a consequence. In this perspective Spector and Fox in their stressor-emotion model highlighted that  

44

the negative emotion and affect regulation have effects on CWB, according to the traditional hypothesis that frustrations and instigations could lead to harmful behaviors (Berkowitz, 1962; 1989; Dollard et al., 1939; Miller, 1941). Even other authors focusing on job satisfaction highlighted that emotional response to a range of issues related to work, has a direct effect on CWB (Chen & Spector, 1992; Mount, Ilies, & Jhonson, 2006; Penny & Spector, 2005). In particular these researches showed that the experience of job stressors is also associated with job satisfaction that, in turn, leads to CWB (Chen & Spector, 1992; Penny & Spector, 2005; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988). In fact research has shown that being exposed to job stressors such as a bad relationship with others at work (Spector & Jex, 1998) or/and a workplace characterized by incivility (Penny & Spector, 2005) affect on job satisfaction, or on an emotional reaction due to a series of aspects related to the work (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992). Moreover, Dalal (2005) in his meta-analysis and Judge, Scott, and Ilies (2006) in a recent longitudinal field have shown that employees engaged much more in deviant behaviors when they were less satisfied with their jobs.

Moral disengagement Bandura, providing the broader framework of social cognitive theory, conceptualized the moral agency theory to understand self-regulating mechanisms through which is exercised the ability to act morally (Bandura, 1986, 1991). During socialization people learn moral standards in response to a variety of sources, such as direct instruction on the rules of moral conduct, reactions of approval or disapproval of significant others, criteria learned through modeling from others. These general criteria are used as indicators or deterrence of conduct (Bandura, 1986). By adopting these moral standards, the individuals model their actions related to the consequences they may cause. Specifically, the anticipatory self-assessments of the action gives rise to auto-reactions, activating a process of moral reasoning assessing conduct in relation to both the action context and the individual criteria. The guilt and self-censorship, related in advance to actions approved or disapproved by the internal and external rules, allow the individual to be directed, motivated and to  

45

adopt a behavior accordingly to these standards and the action framework. Bandura hypothesized these self-regulating mechanisms cannot be activated through a "disengagement" of moral reactions due to social cognitive mechanisms of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1986, 1991). In organizational literature several authors are increasing in investigation of the construct of moral disengagement. In fact, though born to study the aggressive behavior (Bandura, 1986, 1990, 1991), the MD has shown its generalizability and relevance in different organizational contexts as, for example, violations of moral rules and the organizational practices and socially harmful products (Brief, Buttram, & Dukerich, 2001), the infringements of the work security laws (Barbaranelli & Perna, 2004), corruption in business and financial world (Moore, 2008), crimes of obedience to leader or organization (Beu & Buckley, 2004). Bandura (1986, 1991) identified eight mechanisms that represent the set of social-cognitive internal devices, learned and socially constructed, that allow the individuals to free themselves from feelings of self-condemnation, conflict and guilt or remorse, harmful to self-esteem, when the respect of internal rules is less. For the author there are four points in which the mechanisms of MD would activate selective disengagement of self-censorship: 1) on the interpretation of individuals’conduct, 2) on the role of their own responsibility, 3) on the analysis of the effects of the action; and 4 ) on assessments of the victims. The first set of disengagement practices includes moral justification, by which detrimental conduct is made personally and socially acceptable (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989; Rapoport & Alexander, 1982; Reich, 1990; Sanford & Comstock, 1971); euphemistic language that provides a convenient way of masking immoral activities conferring a respectable status upon them (Bolinger, 1982; Diener, Dineen, Endresen, Beaman, & Fraser, 1975; Lutz, 1987); and advantageous comparison, by which detrimental conduct can lose its repugnancy by comparing it with more flagrant inhumanities (Bandura, 1991). The second set of disengagement mechanisms includes displacement of responsibility and diffusion of responsibility by which people view their actions as ordered by the social pressures of others rather than as something for which they are personally  

46

responsible (Bandura, Underwood, & Fromson, 1975; Diener, 1977; Milgram, 1974; Zimbardo, 1995). The third set of disengagement mechanisms avoids self-deterring reactions by disregarding or distorting the consequences of action. When people are involved in activities harmful to others for personal gain or because of social inducements, they avoid facing the harm they cause or they minimize it (Klass, 1978). The final set of disengagement practices includes dehumanization that divests people of human qualities or attributes inhumane qualities to them and attribution of blame, by which people view themselves as faultless victims driven to injurious conduct by forcible provocation (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Darley, Klosson & Zanna, 1978; Ferguson & Rule, 1983; Weiner, 1986). Regarding the dimensionality of MD, a number of studies have shown that the above mechanisms can be traced to a common latent variable (Bandura, et al., 1996; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Regalia, 2001; Caprara, Bandura, Barbaranelli, & Vicino, 1996; Pelton, Gound, Forehand, & Brody, 2004). In this study we focused on how these mechanisms of MD may allowi misconducts such as counterproductive behaviors acted in the workplace. For our goal we have created a new scale of MD specifically for organizational context.

Aims and hypothesis The purpose of this study is to test an examine model of the stressor emotion model that considers both attitudinal evaluations (Job Satisfaction) and social cognitive mechanisms (Moral Disengagement) as mediators of relationship between workplace job stressors and CWB towards organization (CWB-O) and persons (CWB-P). Specifically, in this model we aim to test whether a work context characterized by negative social climate and incivility contributes to a lower job satisfaction that, in turn, contributes to CWB directly and through mediation of MD mechanisms (Figure 1). In particular we hypothesized: Hypothesis 1: job stressors (social climate and incivility) influences job satisfaction.

 

47

Hypothesis 2: job satisfaction affects CWB both direcly and indirecty through MD. Therefore MD mediates the relation between Job satisfaction and CWB.

Method

Participants Participants were 943 (50.4% females) Italian working adults, ranging in age from 20 to 65 years (M = 41.47, SD = 10.34). The great majority (44.7%) had a high school education; 38% had at least a bachelor’s degree; and the remaining participants had lower educational qualification or did not answer (17.3%). The participants employed in different industries, mainly in the service sector (63.3%) and in a private organization (56.2%). The 30.7% of participants worked in an organization with more than 1000 employees, the 7.8% from 501 to 1000, the 17.3% from 101 to 500, the 13.4% from 51 to 100, the 14.3% from 16 to 50 and the 16.4% up to 15. The 78% have permanent contracts and 87,7% have a full time job. The mean job seniority was 17.4 years (SD = 10.58) with average of dayly job hours of 7.6 (SD = 1.62).

Procedure Each participant was requested individually to administer a paper and pencil self-report battery that contained the CWB checklist, the scales of job stressors, job satisfaction and moral disengagement and other measures were not considered in this study. It was a convenience sample of employees recruited by bachelor trained psychology students as part of their bachelor thesis. Each student contacted and assessed a minimum of 100 employees from one or more organizations, which resulted in a sample with very heterogeneous jobs. Each employee filled in the questionnaire individually and returned it the same day they received it. Before starting, the researcher explained them that their responses would be absolutely confidential and that the research was not

 

48

commissioned by the organization for which they worked. Participants were not paid for their participation in this study.

Measures

Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C; Spector et al., 2006) is composed by 45 items. These items are divided in two sub-scales, 22 items for CWB-O and 21 items for CWB-P (two items are not classified by Spector within the two dimensions of CWB). The items ask respondents to indicate how often they have done each behavior at work, and it can be used to indicate the behavior of others, as coworkers or subordinates. Response choices range from 1 (= Never) to 5 (= Every day). For this study we use the scale with only 22 items, 6 items for CWB-O with internal consistency reliability (coefficient α) of .85 and 16 items for CWB-P with internal consistency reliability (coefficient α) of .93. Perception of Quality of Relationship with the bosses (Avallone & Paplomatas, 2005) is composed of 16 items. These items measured the quality of interpersonal relationship between the employees and their leaders such as the help provided by the leaders, the recognition of the exposure and attention to the quality objectives of the achievements of their employees. Five response choices are given, ranging from 1 (= Never) to 5 (= Always). The internal consistency reliability (coefficient α) is .95. Perception of Quality of Relationship with the co-workers (Avallone & Paplomatas, 2005) is composed of 13 items. These items measured the quality of interpersonal relationship between the co-workers such as the presence of a collaborative climate, the circulation of information and respect. Five response choices are given, ranging from 1 (= Never) to 5 (= Always). The internal consistency reliability (coefficient α) is .94. Perception of The Organizational fairness (Avallone & Paplomatas, 2005) is composed of 13 items. These items measured the presence of perceived fairness of treatment conditions in the  

49

organizations. Five response choices are given, ranging from 1 (= Never) to 5 (= Always). The internal consistency reliability (coefficient α) is .90. Perception of Incivility. the Italian version of this scale came from the Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS; Burnfield, Clark, Devendorf, & Jex., 2004). Our scale was obtained by selecting 11 items of 41 which the scale is composed of. These items measured the frequency of participants' experiences of dis-respectful, rudeness, or condescending behaviors from superiors or coworkers. Five response choices are given, ranging from 1 (= Never) to 5 (= Always). The internal consistency reliability (coefficient α) is .89. Moral Disengagement. This scale has been developed by the authors to measure mechanisms of moral disengagement in the workplace. The starting point for the construction of this scale was the scale developed by Bandura and colleagues (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996) within the domain of antisocial behavior and the scale developed by Caprara and colleagues (Caprara, Fida, Vecchione, Tramontano, & Barbaranelli, 2009) within the domain of civil behavior. The scale is composed of 32 items, participants are asked to report how much they agree with the items that justify the misbehaviors through the mechanisms of MD (see Appendix). In particular, as the previous scales, four items are related to each of eight different types of MD mechanisms. Five response choices are given, ranging from 1 (= Totally disagree) to 5 (= Totally agree). Job Satisfaction (Avallone & Paplomatas, 2005) is composed of 18 items. The items were designed to investigate the worker’s perception about their well being and unease in the work place. Response choices range from 1 (= Never) to 5 (= Always). The internal consistency reliability (coefficient α) is .94.

 

50

Data analysis and Results

Preliminary Analysis As preliminary analysis, we investigated the dimensionality of MD scale through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In accordance with the literature on MD (Bandura et al., 1996; Caprara et al., 1996), two alternative EFA solutions were hypothesized: (a) an eight-factor solution, each factor representing a distinct mechanism of moral disengagement, and (b) a one-factor solution, consistent with previous studies. To identify the best solution we analyzed standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1984) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980) as indices of goodness of fit. Because several items presented a deviation from a normal distribution, these items have been transformed with logarithm 10 and EFA was performed using robust maximum likelihood parameter estimates with standard errors and the chi-square test statistic corrected using the Satorra-Bentler approach as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (1989) (in MPLUS these robust estimates are named “MLMV”). The eight-factor solution did not converge. On the contrary the one-factor solution shows an adequate fit, χ2 = 1344, df = 464, p < .001, RMSEA = .000, SRMR = .057. The one factor solution was also corroborated by an inspection of the scree-plot of eigenvalues (the first ten eigenvalues were 9.86, 1.85, 1.29, 1.87, 1.15, 1.07, .99, .91, .87, .85). For study reliability we calculated the internal consistency reliability (coefficient α) that for this factor are .95. This result was consistent with previous findings on MD (e.g. Bandura et al., 1996; Caprara et al., 1996; Paciello et al., 2008) and attests to a main latent dimension, which includes all the items measuring the eight MD mechanisms. Means, standard deviations and correlations for all study variables are presented in Table 1.

 

51

Table 1. Descriptive statistics among all study variables for the total sample. N

M

SD

1

1. Quality Relationship with bosses

864

3.05

.832

-

2. Quality Relationship with co-workers

864

3.27

.792

.736**

-

3 Organizational fairness

881

2.86

.783

.746**

.660**

.624

**

**

-.282**

**

**

-.383**

*

**

-.169**

-

-.084*

.224**

-.227**

.306**

*

**

**

**

893

4. Incivility 5. Job Satisfaction

849

1,95 3.29

.630

6. Moral Disengagement

943

.249

.123

7. CWB-O

940

1.77

.563

2

-.368 .638

**

-.130

**

-.062 **

940 .839 .176 -.123 Note. ** significant at the p