Counterproductive Work Behavior. Comparison of the Public and Private Sector [1]

• Autorzy: Dawid Szostek
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: The main purpose of the article is to verify a hypothesis that the public sector employees tend to engage in counterproductive behavior (CWB) at work more often than the private sector employees. An additional purpose is to present results of the research relating to frequency of engagement of employees in CWB in Poland. Methodology: The research was conducted in 2017 with the use of an online questionnaire method with respect to 535 employees from all regions of Poland. The data were analysed with the use of IBM SPSS application. Findings: Based on analysis of the research results (an analysis of frequency and Pearson's chisquare coefficients) it has been found that there are no grounds for rejection of the hypothesis. This relationship was also observed in relation to particular manifestations, categories and dimensions of these behaviors. Implications/limitations: The research paper includes precious hints for managers working mainly in the public sector. Considering the research results, they should undertake particularly active CWB risk reducing activities in their organizations. It is also necessary to monitor appearance of such behaviors on an ongoing basis as well as identify reasons for such behaviors. The main limitations of the research include biased character of the sample resulting from its nonrandom selection and limited control over the process of research resulting from a method of data collection. A future research should involve a representative sample with the use of quantitative and qualitative methods, which will allow to extend the level of analysis and identify reasons for differences in manifestation of CWB by employees of both sectors. Originality/value: The research paper fills a gap in the literature relating to differences in tendencies to manifest CWB among the public and private sector employees in Poland. Despite the fact that the problem has already been emphasized by various authors, there are no comprehensive research results concerning the same.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Employees' engagement; Public sector; Private sector; Work organisation

PL

Zaangażowanie pracowników; Sektor publiczny; Sektor prywatny; Organizacja pracy

• Czasopismo: Journal of Positive Management
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: 9
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 3--17

Twórcy

autor

Dawid Szostek

• Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland

Bibliografia

• Bibi, Z., Karim, J., ud Din, S. (2013), "Workplace Incivility and Counterproductive Work Behavior: Moderating Role of Emotional Intelligence", Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 317-334.
• Burned, B., Pope, R. (2007), "Negative behaviors in the workplace: A study of two Primary Care Trusts in the NHS", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 285-303. DOI: 10.1108/09513550710750011
• Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C), available at: http://shell.cas.usf. edu/~pspector/scales/cwbcpage.html (accessed 21 November 2017).
• Everton, W.J., Jolton, J.A., Mastrangelo, P.M. (2007), "Be nice and fair or else: understanding reasons for employees' deviant behaviors", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 117-131. DOI: 10.1108/02621710710726035
• Glińska-Neweś, A., Lis, A. (2016), "Paradoks współwystępowania organizacyjnych zachowań obywatelskich i kontrproduktywnych", Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, No. 422, pp. 265-274.
• Gruys, M.L., Sackett, P.R. (2003), "Investigating the Dimensionality of Counterproductive Work Behavior", International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 30-42. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2389.00224
• Ikola-Norrbacka, A.S.R. (2010), "Trust. good governance and unethical actions in Finnish public administration", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 647-668. DOI: 10.1108/09513551011078905.
• Leymann, H. (1996), "The content and development of mobbing at work", European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 165-184. DOI: 10.1080/13594329608414853
• Nasir, M., Bashir, A. (2012), "Examining workplace deviance in public sector organizations of Pakistan", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 240-253. DOI: 10.1108/03068291211205677
• Nerdinger, F.W. (2011), "Formen des Arbeitsverhaltens", in: Nerdinger, F.W., Blickle, G., Schaper, N. (Eds.), Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie. Springer-Lehrbuch, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Organ, D.W. (1997), "Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It's Construct Clean-Up Time", Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97. DOI: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2
• Penney, L.M., Hunter, E.M., Perry, S.J. (2011), "Personality and counterproductive work behavior: Using conservation of resources theory to narrow the profile of deviant employees", Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 58-77. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02007.x
• Robinson, S.L., Bennett, R.J. (1995), "A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 555-572. DOI: 10.2307/256693
• Sharma, A., Thakur, K. (2016), "Counterproductive Work Behavior: The Role

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12775/JPM.2018.133