Counterproductive Behavior and Job Satisfaction - Based on the Study of Polish Employees

• Autorzy: Barbara A. Sypniewska
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the issue of CWB and job satisfaction. It identifies the relationship between CWB and job satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach: The study involved 1051 employees of small, medium, and large Polish companies. The theoretical part describes the issues related to counterproductive behavior (CWB) and job satisfaction. The empirical part presents the results of the study on the relationship between these variables. Job satisfaction was measured using the Job Satisfaction Scale (Zalewska, 2001, 2003), consisting of 5 statements regarding the evaluation of the work sphere. CWB was measured using the Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C) by Spector et al. (2006). Findings: The study revealed: (a) a negative correlation of CWB with job satisfaction; (b) a positive correlation between job tenure and some dimensions and overall CWB index; (c) a positive relationship between job form and position and CWB. Research limitations/implications: Among the limitations it should be noted that since all the variables were measured in the same questionnaire, the results may have been influenced by systematic errors due to variances in the common method. In order to overcome this problem (Podsakoff et al., 2012), future research should/could take into account other sources of exploration, such as supervisors' opinions as well as systematic observations. Moreover, the study was based on self-report measures for all variables. Although CWB self-report surveys and job satisfaction may be less prone to halo errors (Fox et al., 2012), it is still possible that some of these results were influenced by errors related to showing your best side, although the survey was anonymous. The studied sample, although quite large, cannot be considered representative of the general population of Polish workers. Future research should seek to recreate and elucidate the association with larger and more diverse samples. Practical implications: The research presented has several important implications for organizations. Organizations should focus on job satisfaction as an indicator of success in creating workplaces conducive to improved well-being, engagement, and performance. If organizations can anticipate counterproductive behaviors and implement effective interventions and prevention programs they can save significant financial resources. Organizations that want to eliminate CWB and increase their productivity should pay more attention to addressing organizational constraints, resolving interpersonal issues, and increasing job satisfaction among their employees. Originality/value: The article deals with a relatively rarely discussed topic in the Polish literature. Topics that are very topical, useful not only for other researchers but also for practitioners. Given the costs and consequences associated with counterproductive behaviors, it can be argued that a management priority should be how to recognize these behaviors and what corrective and proactive actions to take. The results of this study provide a framework for understanding aberrant behaviors and better ways to minimize their occurrence in the workplace.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Job satisfaction; Satisfaction research; Human Resources Management (HRM); Employee conducts; Employees in the organization

PL

Zadowolenie z pracy; Badanie satysfakcji; Zarządzanie zasobami ludzkimi; Postawy pracowników; Pracownicy w organizacji

• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2022
• Numer: z. 164 Zarządzanie zasobami ludzkimi: perspektywy, wdrażanie i wyzwania = Human Resource Management : Perspectives, Implementation and Challenges
• Strony: 477--488

Twórcy

autor

Barbara A. Sypniewska

• University of Economics and Human Sciences, Warsaw;

Bibliografia

• 1. Ambrose, M.L., Seabright, M.A., Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 947-965.
• 2. Andersson, L.M., Pearson, C.M. (1999). Tit-for-tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.
• 3. Bies, R.J., Tripp, T.M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual, ideological, and empirical issues. In: P.E. Spector, S. Fox (Eds.), Counter-productive work behavior: Investigation of actors and targets (pp. 65-105). Washington, DC: APA Books.
• 4. 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, J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 18-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• 5. 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, 12, 91-103.
• 6. Bowling, N.A., Beehr, T.A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998-1012.
• 7. Czakon, W. (2011). Metodyka systematycznego przeglądu literatury [Methodology of systematic literature review]. Przegląd Organizacji, 3, 57-61.
• 8. Czarnota-Bojarska, J. (2015). Counterproductive work behavior and job satisfaction: A surprisingly rocky relationship. Journal of Management and Organization, 21(4), 460-470.
• 9. 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.
• 10. DeShong, H., Grant, D., Mullins-Sweatt, S. (2015). Comparing models of counterproductive workplace behaviors: The Five-Factor Model and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 55-60.
• 11. Fox, S., Spector, P.E., Goh, A., Bruursema, K., Kessler, S.R. (2012). The dewiant citizen: Measuring potential positive relations between counterproductive vork behaviour and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 199-220.
• 12. Glińska-Neweś, A. (2017). Pozytywne relacje interpersonalne w zarządzaniu [Positive interpersonal relationships in management]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
• 13. Glińska-Neweś, A., Lis, A. (2016). Paradoks współwystępowania organizacyjnych zachowań obywatelskich i kontrproduktywnych [The paradox of the co-occurence of organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive work behaviors]. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 422, 265-274.
• 14. Gruys, M.L., Sackett, P.R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30-42.
• 15. 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, 228-238.
• 16. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408.
• 17. 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.
• 18. Kalleberg, A.L. (2011). Good jobs. Bad jobs: the rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• 19. Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 85-117.
• 20. Kelloway, E., Francis, L., Prosser, M., Cameron, J. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior as protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 18-25.
• 21. Korsgaard, M.A., Meglino, B.M., Lester, S.W., Jeong, S.S. (2010). Paying you back or paying me forward: understanding rewarded and unrewarded organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 95(2), 277-290.
• 22. Kosewski, M. (2008). Wartość, godność i władza [Value, dignity and power]. Warszawa: VizjaPress.
• 23. Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.
• 24. 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.
• 25. Mitchell, M.S., Ambrose, M.L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159-1168.
• 26. Mount, M., Ilies, R., Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, 591-622.
• 27. O'Boyle, E.H., Forsyth, D.R., Banks, G.C., McDaniel, M.A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior. A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557-579.
• 28. Omar, F., Halim, F., Zainah, A., Farhadi, H., Nasir, R., Khairudin, R. (2011). Stress and job satisfaction as antecedents of workplace dewiant behavior. Deviant Behavior. World Applied Sciences, 12, 46-51.
• 29. Ones, D., Dilchert, S. (2013). Counterproductive work behaviors: Concepts, measurement, and nomological network. In: K. Geisinger, B. Bracken, J. Carlson, J. Hansen, N. Kuncel, S. Reise, M. Rodriguez (Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology (pp. 643-659). American Psychological Association.
• 30. 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, 84, 58-77.
• 31. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569.
• 32. Robinson, S.L., Bennett, R.J. (1995). A typology of dewiant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
• 33. Sims, R.L. (2002). Ethical rule breaking by employees: A test of social bonding theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(2), 101-109.
• 34. 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.
• 35. Spector, P. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior (CWB): An integration of perspectives. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 342-352.
• 36. Spector, P.E., Bauer, J.A., Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 781-790.
• 37. Spector, P., Fox, S., Penney, L., 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.
• 38. Spector, P.E., Fox, S. (2002). An Emotion-Centered Model of Voluntary Work Behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Human Resources Management Review, 12, 269-292.
• 39. Spector, P.E., Fox, S. (2005) The Stressor-Emotion Model of Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB). In: S. Fox, S. P.E. Spector (eds.), Counterproductive Workplace Behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-175). Washington, DC: APA.
• 40. Supriyanto, A.S., Ekowati, V.M., Maghfuroh, U. (2020). Do Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Work Satisfaction Mediate the Relationship between Spiritual Leadership and Employee Performance? Management Science Letters, vol. 5, pp. 1107-1114.
• 41. Sypniewska, B. (2014). Evaluation of Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction. Contemporary Economics, 8, 1, 57-72.
• 42. Sypniewska, B. (2017). Work Anomie in an Organisation. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 16, 2, 235-265.
• 43. Sypniewska, B. (2020). Counterproductive Work Behavior and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 16, 4, 321-328.
• 44. Szostek, D. (2019). Kontrproduktywne zachowania organizacyjne w kontekście jakości relacji interpersonalnych w zespołach pracowniczych [Counterproductive work behaviors in the context of interpersonal relationship quality in workplace teams]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
• 45. Zalewska, A. (2001). Arkusz opisu pracy. O. Neubergera i M. Allerbeck - adaptacja do warunków polskich [Job description sheet. O. Neuberger and M. Allerbeck - adaptation to Polish conditions]. Studia Psychologiczne, 39(1), 197-218.
• 46. Zalewska, A. (2003). Skala Satysfakcji z Pracy - pomiar poznawczego aspektu ogólnego zadowolenia z pracy [Job Satisfaction Scale - measuring the cognitive aspect of overall job satisfaction]. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Psychologica, 7, 49-61.
• 47. Zapf, D., Einarsen, S. (2005). Mobbing at work: Escalated conflicts in organizations. In: P.E. Spector, S. Fox (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 237-270). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2022.164.36