Work Environments That Negate
Counterproductive Behaviors and Foster
Organizational Citizenship:
Research-Based Recommendations for
Managers
Katherine M. Fodchuk
Department of Psychology
Old Dominion University
Past research has identified both employee characteristics and aspects of the work environment that can serve as antecedents to positive and negative workplace behavior. This article reviews research identifying the major factors that prompt both counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). The dynamics of these relations are discussed, and possible approaches for workplace diagnosis and interventions designed to negate CWB and foster OCB are offered. A special focus on the implications of and possible interventions incorporating organizational justice are also presented.
In the past several years, organizational behavior literature has benefited from a growing body of research that has moved beyond investigations of task performance and ventured into other performance domains of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB;
Conlon, Meyer, & Nowakowski, 2005; Dalal, 2005). This research has revealed both employee characteristics and aspects of the work environment that can serve as antecedents to such positive or negative behavior. For instance, studies have examined organizational factors such as job design (Tompson &
Werner, 1997), organizational injustice (e.g., Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield,
1999; Greenberg, 1990), and perceived stress (e.g., Boye & Jones, 1997) as
Correspondence should be sent to Katherine M. Fodchuk, Department of Psychology, Organization
Research Group, MGB 250, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529. E-mail: kfodchuk@odu.edu Downloaded By: [King's College London] At: 13:30 24 July 2008
28 FODCHUK triggers for CWB. Individual characteristics related to the occurrence of CWB include self-control (Marcus & Schuler, 2004), sensation-seeking (Marcus &
Schuler, 2004), and motives (Rioux & Penner, 2001). Organizational antecedents predicting OCB include organizational justice (e.g., Greenberg, 1990; Konovsky
& Pugh, 1994), job satisfaction (Organ, 1977), and organizational commitment
(O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986).
The purpose of this article is to review research identifying the major factors that directly prompt both CWB and OCB, discuss the dynamics of this relation, and offer diagnostic tools and possible approaches for workplace interventions designed to negate CWB and foster OCB. It is important to note that this subject encompasses a large body of research. Thus efforts were made to focus on more direct antecedents that have the most practical relevance to the psychologist-manager. A large proportion of CWB and OCB research analyzes and discusses the implications of organizational justice, or perceptions of fairness in the workplace. Justice also is a construct that managers can manipulate to gain desired outcomes (Skarlicki & Latham, 1996, 1997, 2005). Therefore, I provide special focus on the implications of the organizational justice link with CWB and
OCB. Based on the review findings, I conclude by presenting ideas for organization interventions that buffer an organization from CWBs and promote OCBs.
CONSTRUCT DEFINITIONS
Counterproductive Work Behavior
CWB includes any behaviors that harm an organization by either directly disturbing its property or operation or upsetting employees to the extent that their job efficacy decreases (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). Research has identified two types of CWBs: those directed at the organization (CWBO) and those directed at individuals (CWBI) within the organization (Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox et al.,
2001; Robinson & Bennett, 1995).
CWB research has investigated several different behaviors that fall under Fox et al.’s (2001) definition. Robinson and Bennett (1995) classified theft from, sexual harassment toward, and violence against colleagues as major interpersonal
CWB; minor interpersonal CWB included behaviors such as gossiping and blaming coworkers. Corporate-level theft and sabotage were considered major organizational CWB, whereas minor retaliatory behaviors such as submitting below-par work or taking sick leave when not ill (Blader, Chang, & Tyler,
2001) were classified as minor organization CWB. Other behaviors captured by the CWB literature research include, but are not limited to, “cyberloafing”
(Lim, 2002), bullying (Ayoko, Callan, & Hartel, 2003), abusive supervision
(Tepper, 2000), workplace violence (Mack, Shannon, Quick, & Quick, 1998), and
Downloaded By: [King's College London] At: 13:30 24 July 2008
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OCB AND CWB 29 employee silence (i.e., a form of withdrawal that involves employee avoidance and saying nothing as opposed to participating and using one’s voice; Pinder &
Harlos, 2001).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Criticizing researchers at the time for defining job performance too narrowly,
Organ (1977) identified a domain of performance that entailed extra-role and discretionary work behaviors. Organ (1988) later termed this performance domain “organizational citizenship behaviors” and defined it as individual voluntary behavior that the organization’s formal reward system does not directly recognize. The accumulation of OCB also advances the successful operation of the organization (Organ, 1988). Past research indicates that employees’ average level of OCBs are positively linked to work group performance (Podsakoff,
Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997) and overall organizational performance (e.g.,
Koys, 2001; Walz & Niehoff, 2000).
Five dimensions of OCB identified by Organ (1988) were later operationalized by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990). OCB dimensions included civic virtue (involvement in organizational life, including optional meetings, keeping up with organizational changes, performing tasks to help company image), altruism (helping other organization members with workrelated tasks), conscientiousness (voluntary role behaviors that go beyond basic role requirements, including obeying rules, working diligently, attendance), sportsmanship (e.g., lack of complaining during difficult times, avoidance of initiating trivial grievances), and courtesy (e.g., discretionary behavior targeted at avoiding and preventing workplace conflicts, mindful of how one’s actions affect others; Podsakoff et al., 1990).
OCB research categorizes the type of OCB based on the beneficiary of the extra-role behavior. Thus, OCB can be targeted at an individual within the organization or at the organization (McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Smith, Organ,
& Near, 1983). Individual OCB can include volunteering to help a fellow coworker, being especially courteous, or avoiding work-related problems with others. Examples of organizational OCB include speaking highly of the organization to outsiders, attending optional meetings, or exceeding role expectations in attendance and work.
Organizational Justice
Organizational justice, or the perception of fairness within organizations, is a factor that strongly influences many organizational phenomena. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to, increased employee commitment to an organization
(Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993), job performance
Downloaded By: [King's College London] At: 13:30 24 July 2008
30 FODCHUK
(Robbins, Summers, Miller, & Hendrix, 2000), acceptance of organizational change (Greenberg, 1994), and post-layoff actions of terminated employees
(Lind, Greenberg, Scott, & Welchans, 2000). The most widely recognized measure of organizational justice identified a four-factor structure, including distributive justice (fairness of the way outcomes are distributed), procedural justice (fairness of the procedures used to determine distributions), interpersonal justice (interactions surrounding distributions were respectful and sensitive), and informational justice (truthful communication of justification and explanation for decisions; Colquitt, 2001).
Organizational justice is pertinent to the discussion of CWB and OCB as it can be altered in an effort to gain desired or avoid detrimental outcomes (e.g.,
Greenberg, 1999; Skarlicki & Latham, 1996, 1997). The organizational justice relation with CWB and OCB has been established theoretically and empirically and is further explored in this article.
ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE LINKS TO
CWB AND OCB
Organizational Justice and OCB
Organizational justice is generally linked to OCB via an interpretation of the social exchange theory first proposed by Organ (1988, 1990) and the relational model of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Tyler & Blader, 2000).
Moorman and Byrne (2005) noted that social exchange theories, similar to those offered by Homans (1961, 1974) and Gergen (1969), detail that social relationships are supported by the exchange of benefits between parties. For example, if employees perceive fair treatment on the part of the organization, they will feel inclined to reciprocate with OCB. Tyler and Blader (2000) proposed the updated social identity based model whereby an individual identifies with a group and has positive feelings toward that group (e.g., benevolence, pride).
Thus, he or she will strive to contribute to group achievements and success.
Positive group feelings could stem from fair treatment by its members or leader.
Also, an individual may view others’ affirmative perceptions of the group’s status and success as a positive reflection on his or her self-identity and expend more effort to ensure the continued success of the group. By adhering to group norms and rules, exceeding expectations (perhaps via OCB), the individual supports the group’s continued success while maintaining his or her status and related identity.