- Email: [email protected]
Big Five trait predictors of differential counterproductive work behavior dimensions
Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 537–541
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Short Communication
Big Five trait predictors of differential counterproductive work behavior dimensions LaMarcus R. Bolton *, Liesl K. Becker, Larissa K. Barber Saint Louis University, Shannon Hall, 3511 Laclede Ave, St. Louis, MO 63103, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 3 August 2009 Received in revised form 8 March 2010 Accepted 30 March 2010 Available online 27 April 2010 Keywords: Counterproductive work behaviors Workplace deviance Personality Big five personality Individual differences
a b s t r a c t Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) negatively affect the well-being of an organization and/or the performance of its employees. This study compared the predictive validity of the Big Five traits with respect to the one-, two-, and five-dimensional approaches for measuring CWBs. Survey results from employees (N = 233) confirmed previous relationships with agreeableness predicting a composite measure of CWBs and interpersonally-directed (ID) behaviors, and conscientiousness predicting a composite measure of CWBs and organizationally-directed (OD) behaviors. However, conscientiousness only predicted the OD behaviors of sabotage and theft. Extraversion predicted theft while openness to experience predicted production deviance. Further results and implications are discussed. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) are volitional behaviors that harm or are intended to harm organizations or people in organizations (Spector & Fox, 2005). These behaviors can range in magnitude from minor (e.g., taking an extended lunch break) to more serious (e.g., being verbally abusive toward a coworker). Although minor behaviors are considered relatively harmless, they still can negatively impact organizational effectiveness (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Sackett, 2002). Thus, it is imperative that organizations understand how to not only prevent these behaviors, but identify individuals who are more likely to commit them. Contemporary CWB research often distinguishes between interpersonally-directed (behaviors targeted at individuals) and organizationally-directed (behaviors targeted at organizations) actions (Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). This distinction has been widely used in studying CWBs (see Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007), though it is not the only proposed taxonomy. In fact, because of its broad categorization of deviant behaviors, acts such as abusing restroom privileges and sabotaging one’s job are combined and often erroneously perceived to be a single index. Accordingly, Spector et al. (2006) developed a classification of CWBs that categorizes deviant behaviors into five dimensions: abuse—harmful and nasty behaviors that affect other people; production deviance—purposely doing one’s job incorrectly or allowing errors to occur; sabotage—destroying organizational property;
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 314 977 2290; fax: +1 314 977 1014. E-mail address: [email protected] (LaMarcus R. Bolton). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.047
theft—wrongfully taking the personal goods or property of another; and withdrawal—avoiding work through being late or absent. Thus, this study sought to extend the literature by examining how personality traits differentially predict the five CWB dimensions, as compared to the more traditional two (interpersonally- and organizationally-directed) or one (composite CWBs) approach.
1.1. Big Five personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors Many resources are spent on attempts to forecast CWBs at the time of hire (Ones, 2002). These behaviors are likely to be influenced by individuals’ personality traits rather than by ability-related factors because individuals make conscious choices about whether to engage in these behaviors (Mount et al., 2006). Although thousands of personality traits have been identified (see Goldberg, 1971), the most widely accepted method of assessing personality is with the Big Five taxonomy (Goldberg, 1992; Goldberg & Saucier, 1995; Mount et al., 2006). Specifically, extraversion refers to a pronounced engagement with the external world; agreeableness reflects the degree of one’s sense of cooperation and social harmony; conscientiousness concerns the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses; neuroticism (i.e., low emotional stability) refers to one’s tendency to experience negative feelings; and openness to experience describes imaginable and creative individuals (Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993). The Big Five have been linked to wide variety of CWBs, albeit inconsistently (see Cullen & Sackett, 2003; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 2003; Salgado, 2002). A meta-analysis by Berry et al. (2007) indicated that agreeableness and conscientiousness were the strongest predictors of a CWB composite score. Specifically,
538
LaMarcus R. Bolton et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 537–541
agreeableness was predictive of interpersonally-directed CWBs, while conscientiousness was predictive of organizationally-directed CWBs. Despite these findings, however, more research is necessary to explore Big Five predictors of the five dimensions of CWBs proposed by Spector et al. (2006). That is, would a five-dimensional approach account for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between the Big Five and CWBs than previous conceptualizations (i.e., the one- and two-dimensional approaches)? 1.2. The current study Organizations are increasingly interested in measures assessing CWBs, in addition to discerning how certain personality traits may increase the likelihood of committing these behaviors. Therefore, this study builds on past research by examining how the Big Five personality traits may differentially predict the five dimensions of CWBs (i.e., abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, & withdrawal; as measured by Spector et al., 2006) compared to the typically-studied one- (composite score) and two- (interpersonally- & organizationally-directed behaviors) dimensional models. Thus, this study sought to compare the differential predictive validity of each of the three measurement strategies with a measure that can produce both broad and specific dimensions, depending upon organizational needs. Spector et al. (2006) Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C) may serve as a helpful tool for providing both broad and finer-grained assessments than what has typically been used. Our first goal was to establish that the CWB-C can be used to predict CWBs using the one- and two-dimensional approaches found in previous research. This would ensure that the five-dimensional approach would have a valid point of comparison with previous CWB classifications. In predicting the Big Five associations with the one- and two-dimensional approaches, we drew on previous studies showing a consistent link between agreeableness and conscientiousness with both interpersonally- and organizationally-directed deviant behaviors, respectively (e.g., Berry et al., 2007; Mount et al., 2006; Salgado, 2002). Although neuroticism is also proposed as a significant predictor (Berry et al., 2007; Cullen & Sackett, 2003), this effect seems to disappear when controlling for job satisfaction (Mount et al., 2006). Therefore, we predicted that: H1a: Low agreeableness will be associated with higher reports of interpersonally-directed CWBs and total CWBs. H1b: Low conscientiousness will be associated with higher reports of organizationally-directed CWBs and total CWBs. Our second goal of the study was to explore the potential utility of the five-dimensional approach to CWBs over the one- and two-dimensional approaches. If the two-dimensional approach is sufficient for distinguishing among CWBs, we would expect that sabotage, withdrawal, production deviance, and theft (all components of the organizational dimension as classified by Spector et al., 2006) should all be similarly associated with lower conscientiousness. Thus, we hypothesize that: H2: Conscientiousness will be associated with higher production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal. However, given the differential antecedents previously found for each of the five dimensions (Spector et al., 2006), this may not be the case. Thus, refuting this hypothesis would support the utility of Spector et al. four organizationally-directed dimensions over Robinson and Bennett (1995) one organizationally-directed dimension. Finding differential Big Five predictors for production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal would suggest the
CWB-C may be a valuable tool for classifying CWBs in relation to Big Five personality trait predictors. 2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedures Participants were recruited through a snowball sampling technique via the researchers’ personal and professional contacts. A distributed email recruitment statement instructed recipients to click on a website link to complete the online research instrument. A total of 234 employees (215 full-time) from a large city in the USA completed the survey. The racial breakdown included a sample of 79.1% Caucasian, 12.8% African–American, 0.4% Native American, 3.4% Asian/Pacific Islander participants, and 3.0% other. Participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 82 (M = 38.57, SD = 12.46), with most having master’s level education (67.9%), followed by bachelor’s level (15.5%;), doctoral level (8.5%) and high school or lower (8.1%). 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Personality Personality was measured with the 44-item Big Five Personality Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999). This assessment measures the five main personality traits: agreeableness (e.g., ‘‘does things efficiently”), conscientiousness (e.g., ‘‘tends to find fault with others”), neuroticism (e.g., ‘‘can be moody”), openness to experience (e.g., ‘‘is a reliable worker”), and extraversion (e.g., ‘‘is talkative”). Responses were indicated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). 2.2.2. Counterproductive work behaviors Counterproductive work behaviors were measured with the 33item Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C; Spector et al., 2006). The measure consists of five subscales: abuse (e.g., ‘‘been nasty or rude to a client or customer”), production deviance (e.g., ‘‘purposely did your work incorrectly”), sabotage (e.g., ‘‘purposely damaged a piece of equipment or property”), theft (e.g., ‘‘stolen something belonging to your employer”), and withdrawal (e.g., ‘‘came to work late without permission”). These subscales are also classified into organizationally-directed (i.e., production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal dimensions) or interpersonally-directed behaviors (i.e., consisting of mostly the same items as the abuse dimension). Lastly, the subscales also allow for the computation of a composite CWB score. Responses are chosen on a five-point frequency scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (everyday). 2.2.3. Job satisfaction Job satisfaction is the level of positive regard for one’s job or job experiences (Locke, 1976 p. 1304). Job satisfaction was included as a control variable because it is linked to a tendency to engage in CWBs in order to retaliate against or respond to the organization (Dalal, 2005; Mount et al., 2006). Job satisfaction was measured with the Female Faces Scale for Job Satisfaction (Dunham & Herman, 1975). There are 11 response choices of illustrated female faces that represent various levels of satisfaction: 11 equates to the highest levels of satisfaction while one equates to the lowest. Research has found convergent validity between single-item and facet measures of job satisfaction (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). Further, some research has even suggested that single-item global measures may be advantageous over facet measures (see Highhouse & Becker, 1993).
539
LaMarcus R. Bolton et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 537–541
isfaction for both interpersonally-directed, DF (5, 228) = 5.50 p < .001, DR2 = .109, and organizationally-directed CWBs, DF (5, 228) = 5.53, p < .001, DR2 = .105. In support of H1a, only lower agreeableness predicted increased interpersonally-directed CWBs, whereas in support of H2b, lower conscientiousness predicted increased organizationally-directed CWBs. Using the five-dimensional approach to organizationally-directed CWBs, the Big Five trait predictors accounted for a significant proportion of the variance beyond job satisfaction for production deviance, DF (5, 228) = 2.93, p < .05, DR2 = .059, sabotage, DF (5, 228) = 5.62, p < .001, DR2 = .110, theft, DF (5, 228) = 2.42, p < .05, DR2 = .049, and withdrawal, DF (5, 228) = 4.18, p < .001, DR2 = .082. Hypothesis 2 was not supported, as there were differential relationships among each of the trait predictors and specific organizationally-directed CWBs. Although withdrawal was only predicted by conscientiousness, increased openness to experience predicted production deviance. Sabotage was predicted by higher neuroticism and openness to experience, in addition to lower conscientiousness. Theft was predicted by lower extraversion.
3. Results Missing data points within the variables were replaced using the linear interpolation method (see Rubin & Schenker, 1986) (no scale item was missing more than three data points). Furthermore, all scale score composites were computed based upon the mean. Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the study variables, as well as bivariate correlations. Multiple hierarchical regressions (controlling for job satisfaction) were conducted using the Big Five personality traits as predictors of CWBs using three different criterion strategies: composite score, two dimensions, and five dimensions (see Table 2 for full model statistics and final standardized beta coefficients). Beyond job satisfaction, the Big Five personality traits significantly predicted total CWBs, DF (5, 228) = 5.82, p < .001, DR2 = .109. In support of H1, conscientiousness and agreeableness reached statistical significance, although neuroticism was marginally significant. In terms of the two-dimensional approach, the Big Five predictors accounted for a significant amount of variance beyond job sat-
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations. Variable
Items
M
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
8 9 9 8 10 3 3
3.44 4.00 4.06 2.65 3.83 1.19 1.16
4 5 18 15 17 33 1
1.73 1.20 1.24 1.32 1.21 1.28 8.41
Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness CWB sabotage CWB production deviance [8] CWB withdrawal [9] CWB theft [10] CWB abuse [11] CWB org. [12] CWB person [13] CWB total [14] Job satisfaction
SD .81 .58 .57 .801 .57 .28 .30 .59 .29 .24 .28 .23 .23 1.83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.86 .23** .22** .18** .22** .09 .15*
.74 .31*** .43*** .02 .11 .18**
.77 .30*** .17** .27*** .14*
.85 .05 .23** .20**
.77 .07 .09
.17 .23***
.53
.13* .20** .06 .18** .04 .14* .25**
.11 .15* .33*** .17** .32*** .28*** .17**
.31*** .18** .18** .31*** .18** .28*** .18**
.16* .13* .26*** .23** .23*** .27*** .25**
.04 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .05
.37*** .39*** .46*** .61*** .45*** .59*** .07
.45*** .45*** .38*** .68*** .35*** .58*** .16*
9
.70 .61*** .44*** .89*** .41*** .76*** .17**
10
.61 .43*** .79*** .39*** .71*** .16*
11
.81 .55*** .98*** .88*** .18**
.80 .52*** .88*** .19**
12
13
.80 .85*** .11
.87 .21**
Note: Within Spector et al. (2006) condensed measure, the abuse items are the same as the interpersonal CWB items (with the exception of two items). All CWB variables (#6–13) represent part-whole correlations from the same scale. Males are coded as 1 and females are coded as 2; internal consistency estimates are presented in bold along the diagonal. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Table 2 Multiple hierarchical regressions of the Big Five predicting counterproductive work behaviors. Predictors
Standardized b coefficients CWB total
*
***
CWB org
Abuse
Sabotage
Theft
Production deviance
Withdrawal
Step 1 Job satisfaction
.12
.04
.09
.11
.03
.08
.07
.10
Step 2 Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism
.05 .18* .02 .15* .13
.02 .08 .06 .25*** .10
.09 .25*** .10 .00 .12
.02 .06 .06 .26*** .12
.13* .25*** .05 .06 .19*
.03 .12 .14* .05 .03
.13 .07 .10 .07 .12
.02 .27*** .04 .03 .06
5.19*** .121 .097
6.19*** .141 .118
6.39*** .144 .122
4.89*** .114 .091
3.04** .074 .050
3.46** .084 .059
4.74*** .111 .088
F (5, 227) R2 Adjusted R2
**
CWB person
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
6.85*** .153 .131
540
LaMarcus R. Bolton et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 537–541
4. Discussion The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive validity of the Big Five traits in relation to the one-, two-, and five-dimensional approaches to measuring CWBs. Specifically, our aim was to determine if Spector et al. (2006) five-dimensional classification of CWBs provided more nuanced relationships with the Big Five trait predictors than the one- and two-dimensional conceptualizations used in past research. Using the one and two-dimensional approaches, Spector et al. (2006) measure showed similar findings to past research (see Jensen-Campbell, Gleason, Adams, and Malcolm, 2003; Miller, Lyman, & Lukefield, 2003; Mount et al., 2006; Salgado, 2002). Specifically, lower agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted more reports of all CWBs. Lower agreeableness was also associated with more interpersonally-directed behaviors, while lower conscientiousness was associated with more organizationally-directed behaviors. This was expected, as those who are more agreeable are described as being cooperative and trustful (John & Srivastava, 1999), which are two key components for successful interpersonal relationships. Alternatively, more conscientious individuals are noted for their dependability and achievement orientation, and therefore more likely follow organizational norms and rules (Mount et al., 2006). Second, we found differential relationships among specific organizationally-directed behaviors and traits other than conscientiousness. Lower conscientiousness only predicted more workplace sabotage and withdrawal. Thus, conscientiousness might not be an adequate predictor for certain criteria, as suggested by previous research (e.g., Robertson & Callinan, 1998). Additionally, we found that lower extraversion predicted more theft, while higher openness to experience predicted more production deviance. Though the former supports research showing a negative relationship between extraversion and CWBs (Berry et al., 2007; Mount et al., 2006), other research has found a negative relationship between openness to experience and CWBs (Lee, Ashton, & Shin, 2005; Mount et al., 2006). Future studies should try to replicate these relationships to determine if they are truly a function of specifying different organizationally-directed CWBs.
4.1. Limitations and future research There were some study limitations that warrant further consideration. First, the use of Internet sampling and snowball methodology allows for the possibility of biased information due to nonrandom sampling and high sample homogeneity, which may somewhat affect generalizability. Second, there may also be issues generalizing the results due to the high education level of participants (approximately 68% obtained a master’s degree). However, because our findings for the one- and two-dimensional approaches were consistent with previous literature (e.g., Jenson-Campbell et al., 2003), we do not suspect significant external validity issues. Third, we note the potential of under-reporting due to social desirability in self-reported CWBs. However, Mount et al. (2006) found slightly higher frequencies of self-reported CWBs than boss-reported CWBs and both reports were moderately correlated. This suggests that self-reports are still likely to be valid. Nevertheless, future studies should supplement self-reports with behavioral measures. Fourth, conclusions regarding Big Five predictors in relation to sabotage are merely tentative. We obtained a very low coefficient alpha for sabotage, which indicates that there was more error variance relative to shared variance among these specific behaviors. Given that the CWB-C is designed to be an index of behaviors rather than a scale, this finding was not surprising. However, future researchers may consider modifying the CWB-C’s sabotage subscale. Lastly, the present study did not use a facet-based
measure of the Big Five, so our findings are limited to prediction using the five broad personality dimensions. Nonetheless, this study was exploratory and simply sought to take the first steps in examining the personality-CWB relationship. Accordingly, future research should consider using facet-based measures, such as the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). 5. Conclusions A self-report personality assessment can serve as a valuable predictor for negative workplace behaviors (Blackman, 2002). These findings offer additional considerations for predicting CWBs with the Big Five personality traits. While it is advantageous for organizations to know which personality traits may be associated with composite CWBs, it is also helpful to link these traits to specific CWB dimensions depending on the nature of the job. Spector et al. (2006) CWB-C appears to provide a useful tool for predicting CWBs as one overall dimension, two-dimensions (interpersonal and organizational), or five dimensions (abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, & withdrawal). Acknowledgment We would like to sincerely thank Kevin Fox for his assistance with data collection. References Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424. Blackman, M. C. (2002). Personality judgment and the utility of the unstructured employment interview. Basic and Applies Social Psychology, 24, 241–250. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. Cullen, M. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Personality and counterproductive behavior workplace behavior. In M. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work. New York: Jossey-Bass-Pfeiffer. 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. Dunham, R. B., & Herman, J. B. (1975). Development of female faces scale for measuring job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 629–631. Goldberg, L. R. (1971). A historical survey of personality scales and inventories. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment (pp. 293–336). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. Goldberg, L. R., & Saucier, G. (1995). So what do you propose we use instead? Psychological Bulletin, 117, 221–225. Highhouse, S., & Becker, A. S. (1993). Facet measures and global job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8, 117–127. Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Gleason, K. A., Adams, R., & Malcolm, K. T. (2003). Interpersonal conflict, agreeableness, and personality development. Journal of Personality, 71, 1059–1085. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford. Johnson, J. A., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). Clarification of the five factor model with the Abridged Big Five dimensional circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 563–576. Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Shin, K. (2005). Personality correlates of workplace antisocial behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 81–98. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational behavior (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally. Miller, J. D., Lyman, D., & Lukefield, C. (2003). Examining antisocial behavior through the lens of the five-factor model of personality. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 497–514. 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. Ones, D. S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on counterproductive behaviors at work. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 1–4. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2003). Personality and absenteeism: A meta-analysis of integrity tests. European Journal of Personality, 17, S19–S38.
LaMarcus R. Bolton et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 537–541 Robertson, I. T., & Callinan, M. (1998). Personality and work behavior. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7, 321–340. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572. Rubin, D. B., & Schenker, N. (1986). Multiple imputation for interval estimation from simple random samples with ignorable nonresponse. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 366–374. Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 5–11.
541
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117–125. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Spector, P., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counter-productivity: Are counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446–460. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Short Communication
Big Five trait predictors of differential counterproductive work behavior dimensions LaMarcus R. Bolton *, Liesl K. Becker, Larissa K. Barber Saint Louis University, Shannon Hall, 3511 Laclede Ave, St. Louis, MO 63103, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 3 August 2009 Received in revised form 8 March 2010 Accepted 30 March 2010 Available online 27 April 2010 Keywords: Counterproductive work behaviors Workplace deviance Personality Big five personality Individual differences
a b s t r a c t Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) negatively affect the well-being of an organization and/or the performance of its employees. This study compared the predictive validity of the Big Five traits with respect to the one-, two-, and five-dimensional approaches for measuring CWBs. Survey results from employees (N = 233) confirmed previous relationships with agreeableness predicting a composite measure of CWBs and interpersonally-directed (ID) behaviors, and conscientiousness predicting a composite measure of CWBs and organizationally-directed (OD) behaviors. However, conscientiousness only predicted the OD behaviors of sabotage and theft. Extraversion predicted theft while openness to experience predicted production deviance. Further results and implications are discussed. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) are volitional behaviors that harm or are intended to harm organizations or people in organizations (Spector & Fox, 2005). These behaviors can range in magnitude from minor (e.g., taking an extended lunch break) to more serious (e.g., being verbally abusive toward a coworker). Although minor behaviors are considered relatively harmless, they still can negatively impact organizational effectiveness (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Sackett, 2002). Thus, it is imperative that organizations understand how to not only prevent these behaviors, but identify individuals who are more likely to commit them. Contemporary CWB research often distinguishes between interpersonally-directed (behaviors targeted at individuals) and organizationally-directed (behaviors targeted at organizations) actions (Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). This distinction has been widely used in studying CWBs (see Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007), though it is not the only proposed taxonomy. In fact, because of its broad categorization of deviant behaviors, acts such as abusing restroom privileges and sabotaging one’s job are combined and often erroneously perceived to be a single index. Accordingly, Spector et al. (2006) developed a classification of CWBs that categorizes deviant behaviors into five dimensions: abuse—harmful and nasty behaviors that affect other people; production deviance—purposely doing one’s job incorrectly or allowing errors to occur; sabotage—destroying organizational property;
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 314 977 2290; fax: +1 314 977 1014. E-mail address: [email protected] (LaMarcus R. Bolton). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.047
theft—wrongfully taking the personal goods or property of another; and withdrawal—avoiding work through being late or absent. Thus, this study sought to extend the literature by examining how personality traits differentially predict the five CWB dimensions, as compared to the more traditional two (interpersonally- and organizationally-directed) or one (composite CWBs) approach.
1.1. Big Five personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors Many resources are spent on attempts to forecast CWBs at the time of hire (Ones, 2002). These behaviors are likely to be influenced by individuals’ personality traits rather than by ability-related factors because individuals make conscious choices about whether to engage in these behaviors (Mount et al., 2006). Although thousands of personality traits have been identified (see Goldberg, 1971), the most widely accepted method of assessing personality is with the Big Five taxonomy (Goldberg, 1992; Goldberg & Saucier, 1995; Mount et al., 2006). Specifically, extraversion refers to a pronounced engagement with the external world; agreeableness reflects the degree of one’s sense of cooperation and social harmony; conscientiousness concerns the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses; neuroticism (i.e., low emotional stability) refers to one’s tendency to experience negative feelings; and openness to experience describes imaginable and creative individuals (Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993). The Big Five have been linked to wide variety of CWBs, albeit inconsistently (see Cullen & Sackett, 2003; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 2003; Salgado, 2002). A meta-analysis by Berry et al. (2007) indicated that agreeableness and conscientiousness were the strongest predictors of a CWB composite score. Specifically,
538
LaMarcus R. Bolton et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 537–541
agreeableness was predictive of interpersonally-directed CWBs, while conscientiousness was predictive of organizationally-directed CWBs. Despite these findings, however, more research is necessary to explore Big Five predictors of the five dimensions of CWBs proposed by Spector et al. (2006). That is, would a five-dimensional approach account for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between the Big Five and CWBs than previous conceptualizations (i.e., the one- and two-dimensional approaches)? 1.2. The current study Organizations are increasingly interested in measures assessing CWBs, in addition to discerning how certain personality traits may increase the likelihood of committing these behaviors. Therefore, this study builds on past research by examining how the Big Five personality traits may differentially predict the five dimensions of CWBs (i.e., abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, & withdrawal; as measured by Spector et al., 2006) compared to the typically-studied one- (composite score) and two- (interpersonally- & organizationally-directed behaviors) dimensional models. Thus, this study sought to compare the differential predictive validity of each of the three measurement strategies with a measure that can produce both broad and specific dimensions, depending upon organizational needs. Spector et al. (2006) Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C) may serve as a helpful tool for providing both broad and finer-grained assessments than what has typically been used. Our first goal was to establish that the CWB-C can be used to predict CWBs using the one- and two-dimensional approaches found in previous research. This would ensure that the five-dimensional approach would have a valid point of comparison with previous CWB classifications. In predicting the Big Five associations with the one- and two-dimensional approaches, we drew on previous studies showing a consistent link between agreeableness and conscientiousness with both interpersonally- and organizationally-directed deviant behaviors, respectively (e.g., Berry et al., 2007; Mount et al., 2006; Salgado, 2002). Although neuroticism is also proposed as a significant predictor (Berry et al., 2007; Cullen & Sackett, 2003), this effect seems to disappear when controlling for job satisfaction (Mount et al., 2006). Therefore, we predicted that: H1a: Low agreeableness will be associated with higher reports of interpersonally-directed CWBs and total CWBs. H1b: Low conscientiousness will be associated with higher reports of organizationally-directed CWBs and total CWBs. Our second goal of the study was to explore the potential utility of the five-dimensional approach to CWBs over the one- and two-dimensional approaches. If the two-dimensional approach is sufficient for distinguishing among CWBs, we would expect that sabotage, withdrawal, production deviance, and theft (all components of the organizational dimension as classified by Spector et al., 2006) should all be similarly associated with lower conscientiousness. Thus, we hypothesize that: H2: Conscientiousness will be associated with higher production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal. However, given the differential antecedents previously found for each of the five dimensions (Spector et al., 2006), this may not be the case. Thus, refuting this hypothesis would support the utility of Spector et al. four organizationally-directed dimensions over Robinson and Bennett (1995) one organizationally-directed dimension. Finding differential Big Five predictors for production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal would suggest the
CWB-C may be a valuable tool for classifying CWBs in relation to Big Five personality trait predictors. 2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedures Participants were recruited through a snowball sampling technique via the researchers’ personal and professional contacts. A distributed email recruitment statement instructed recipients to click on a website link to complete the online research instrument. A total of 234 employees (215 full-time) from a large city in the USA completed the survey. The racial breakdown included a sample of 79.1% Caucasian, 12.8% African–American, 0.4% Native American, 3.4% Asian/Pacific Islander participants, and 3.0% other. Participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 82 (M = 38.57, SD = 12.46), with most having master’s level education (67.9%), followed by bachelor’s level (15.5%;), doctoral level (8.5%) and high school or lower (8.1%). 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Personality Personality was measured with the 44-item Big Five Personality Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999). This assessment measures the five main personality traits: agreeableness (e.g., ‘‘does things efficiently”), conscientiousness (e.g., ‘‘tends to find fault with others”), neuroticism (e.g., ‘‘can be moody”), openness to experience (e.g., ‘‘is a reliable worker”), and extraversion (e.g., ‘‘is talkative”). Responses were indicated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). 2.2.2. Counterproductive work behaviors Counterproductive work behaviors were measured with the 33item Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C; Spector et al., 2006). The measure consists of five subscales: abuse (e.g., ‘‘been nasty or rude to a client or customer”), production deviance (e.g., ‘‘purposely did your work incorrectly”), sabotage (e.g., ‘‘purposely damaged a piece of equipment or property”), theft (e.g., ‘‘stolen something belonging to your employer”), and withdrawal (e.g., ‘‘came to work late without permission”). These subscales are also classified into organizationally-directed (i.e., production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal dimensions) or interpersonally-directed behaviors (i.e., consisting of mostly the same items as the abuse dimension). Lastly, the subscales also allow for the computation of a composite CWB score. Responses are chosen on a five-point frequency scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (everyday). 2.2.3. Job satisfaction Job satisfaction is the level of positive regard for one’s job or job experiences (Locke, 1976 p. 1304). Job satisfaction was included as a control variable because it is linked to a tendency to engage in CWBs in order to retaliate against or respond to the organization (Dalal, 2005; Mount et al., 2006). Job satisfaction was measured with the Female Faces Scale for Job Satisfaction (Dunham & Herman, 1975). There are 11 response choices of illustrated female faces that represent various levels of satisfaction: 11 equates to the highest levels of satisfaction while one equates to the lowest. Research has found convergent validity between single-item and facet measures of job satisfaction (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). Further, some research has even suggested that single-item global measures may be advantageous over facet measures (see Highhouse & Becker, 1993).
539
LaMarcus R. Bolton et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 537–541
isfaction for both interpersonally-directed, DF (5, 228) = 5.50 p < .001, DR2 = .109, and organizationally-directed CWBs, DF (5, 228) = 5.53, p < .001, DR2 = .105. In support of H1a, only lower agreeableness predicted increased interpersonally-directed CWBs, whereas in support of H2b, lower conscientiousness predicted increased organizationally-directed CWBs. Using the five-dimensional approach to organizationally-directed CWBs, the Big Five trait predictors accounted for a significant proportion of the variance beyond job satisfaction for production deviance, DF (5, 228) = 2.93, p < .05, DR2 = .059, sabotage, DF (5, 228) = 5.62, p < .001, DR2 = .110, theft, DF (5, 228) = 2.42, p < .05, DR2 = .049, and withdrawal, DF (5, 228) = 4.18, p < .001, DR2 = .082. Hypothesis 2 was not supported, as there were differential relationships among each of the trait predictors and specific organizationally-directed CWBs. Although withdrawal was only predicted by conscientiousness, increased openness to experience predicted production deviance. Sabotage was predicted by higher neuroticism and openness to experience, in addition to lower conscientiousness. Theft was predicted by lower extraversion.
3. Results Missing data points within the variables were replaced using the linear interpolation method (see Rubin & Schenker, 1986) (no scale item was missing more than three data points). Furthermore, all scale score composites were computed based upon the mean. Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the study variables, as well as bivariate correlations. Multiple hierarchical regressions (controlling for job satisfaction) were conducted using the Big Five personality traits as predictors of CWBs using three different criterion strategies: composite score, two dimensions, and five dimensions (see Table 2 for full model statistics and final standardized beta coefficients). Beyond job satisfaction, the Big Five personality traits significantly predicted total CWBs, DF (5, 228) = 5.82, p < .001, DR2 = .109. In support of H1, conscientiousness and agreeableness reached statistical significance, although neuroticism was marginally significant. In terms of the two-dimensional approach, the Big Five predictors accounted for a significant amount of variance beyond job sat-
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations. Variable
Items
M
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
8 9 9 8 10 3 3
3.44 4.00 4.06 2.65 3.83 1.19 1.16
4 5 18 15 17 33 1
1.73 1.20 1.24 1.32 1.21 1.28 8.41
Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness CWB sabotage CWB production deviance [8] CWB withdrawal [9] CWB theft [10] CWB abuse [11] CWB org. [12] CWB person [13] CWB total [14] Job satisfaction
SD .81 .58 .57 .801 .57 .28 .30 .59 .29 .24 .28 .23 .23 1.83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.86 .23** .22** .18** .22** .09 .15*
.74 .31*** .43*** .02 .11 .18**
.77 .30*** .17** .27*** .14*
.85 .05 .23** .20**
.77 .07 .09
.17 .23***
.53
.13* .20** .06 .18** .04 .14* .25**
.11 .15* .33*** .17** .32*** .28*** .17**
.31*** .18** .18** .31*** .18** .28*** .18**
.16* .13* .26*** .23** .23*** .27*** .25**
.04 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .05
.37*** .39*** .46*** .61*** .45*** .59*** .07
.45*** .45*** .38*** .68*** .35*** .58*** .16*
9
.70 .61*** .44*** .89*** .41*** .76*** .17**
10
.61 .43*** .79*** .39*** .71*** .16*
11
.81 .55*** .98*** .88*** .18**
.80 .52*** .88*** .19**
12
13
.80 .85*** .11
.87 .21**
Note: Within Spector et al. (2006) condensed measure, the abuse items are the same as the interpersonal CWB items (with the exception of two items). All CWB variables (#6–13) represent part-whole correlations from the same scale. Males are coded as 1 and females are coded as 2; internal consistency estimates are presented in bold along the diagonal. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Table 2 Multiple hierarchical regressions of the Big Five predicting counterproductive work behaviors. Predictors
Standardized b coefficients CWB total
*
***
CWB org
Abuse
Sabotage
Theft
Production deviance
Withdrawal
Step 1 Job satisfaction
.12
.04
.09
.11
.03
.08
.07
.10
Step 2 Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism
.05 .18* .02 .15* .13
.02 .08 .06 .25*** .10
.09 .25*** .10 .00 .12
.02 .06 .06 .26*** .12
.13* .25*** .05 .06 .19*
.03 .12 .14* .05 .03
.13 .07 .10 .07 .12
.02 .27*** .04 .03 .06
5.19*** .121 .097
6.19*** .141 .118
6.39*** .144 .122
4.89*** .114 .091
3.04** .074 .050
3.46** .084 .059
4.74*** .111 .088
F (5, 227) R2 Adjusted R2
**
CWB person
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
6.85*** .153 .131
540
LaMarcus R. Bolton et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 537–541
4. Discussion The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive validity of the Big Five traits in relation to the one-, two-, and five-dimensional approaches to measuring CWBs. Specifically, our aim was to determine if Spector et al. (2006) five-dimensional classification of CWBs provided more nuanced relationships with the Big Five trait predictors than the one- and two-dimensional conceptualizations used in past research. Using the one and two-dimensional approaches, Spector et al. (2006) measure showed similar findings to past research (see Jensen-Campbell, Gleason, Adams, and Malcolm, 2003; Miller, Lyman, & Lukefield, 2003; Mount et al., 2006; Salgado, 2002). Specifically, lower agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted more reports of all CWBs. Lower agreeableness was also associated with more interpersonally-directed behaviors, while lower conscientiousness was associated with more organizationally-directed behaviors. This was expected, as those who are more agreeable are described as being cooperative and trustful (John & Srivastava, 1999), which are two key components for successful interpersonal relationships. Alternatively, more conscientious individuals are noted for their dependability and achievement orientation, and therefore more likely follow organizational norms and rules (Mount et al., 2006). Second, we found differential relationships among specific organizationally-directed behaviors and traits other than conscientiousness. Lower conscientiousness only predicted more workplace sabotage and withdrawal. Thus, conscientiousness might not be an adequate predictor for certain criteria, as suggested by previous research (e.g., Robertson & Callinan, 1998). Additionally, we found that lower extraversion predicted more theft, while higher openness to experience predicted more production deviance. Though the former supports research showing a negative relationship between extraversion and CWBs (Berry et al., 2007; Mount et al., 2006), other research has found a negative relationship between openness to experience and CWBs (Lee, Ashton, & Shin, 2005; Mount et al., 2006). Future studies should try to replicate these relationships to determine if they are truly a function of specifying different organizationally-directed CWBs.
4.1. Limitations and future research There were some study limitations that warrant further consideration. First, the use of Internet sampling and snowball methodology allows for the possibility of biased information due to nonrandom sampling and high sample homogeneity, which may somewhat affect generalizability. Second, there may also be issues generalizing the results due to the high education level of participants (approximately 68% obtained a master’s degree). However, because our findings for the one- and two-dimensional approaches were consistent with previous literature (e.g., Jenson-Campbell et al., 2003), we do not suspect significant external validity issues. Third, we note the potential of under-reporting due to social desirability in self-reported CWBs. However, Mount et al. (2006) found slightly higher frequencies of self-reported CWBs than boss-reported CWBs and both reports were moderately correlated. This suggests that self-reports are still likely to be valid. Nevertheless, future studies should supplement self-reports with behavioral measures. Fourth, conclusions regarding Big Five predictors in relation to sabotage are merely tentative. We obtained a very low coefficient alpha for sabotage, which indicates that there was more error variance relative to shared variance among these specific behaviors. Given that the CWB-C is designed to be an index of behaviors rather than a scale, this finding was not surprising. However, future researchers may consider modifying the CWB-C’s sabotage subscale. Lastly, the present study did not use a facet-based
measure of the Big Five, so our findings are limited to prediction using the five broad personality dimensions. Nonetheless, this study was exploratory and simply sought to take the first steps in examining the personality-CWB relationship. Accordingly, future research should consider using facet-based measures, such as the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). 5. Conclusions A self-report personality assessment can serve as a valuable predictor for negative workplace behaviors (Blackman, 2002). These findings offer additional considerations for predicting CWBs with the Big Five personality traits. While it is advantageous for organizations to know which personality traits may be associated with composite CWBs, it is also helpful to link these traits to specific CWB dimensions depending on the nature of the job. Spector et al. (2006) CWB-C appears to provide a useful tool for predicting CWBs as one overall dimension, two-dimensions (interpersonal and organizational), or five dimensions (abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, & withdrawal). Acknowledgment We would like to sincerely thank Kevin Fox for his assistance with data collection. References Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424. Blackman, M. C. (2002). Personality judgment and the utility of the unstructured employment interview. Basic and Applies Social Psychology, 24, 241–250. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. Cullen, M. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Personality and counterproductive behavior workplace behavior. In M. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work. New York: Jossey-Bass-Pfeiffer. 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. Dunham, R. B., & Herman, J. B. (1975). Development of female faces scale for measuring job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 629–631. Goldberg, L. R. (1971). A historical survey of personality scales and inventories. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment (pp. 293–336). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. Goldberg, L. R., & Saucier, G. (1995). So what do you propose we use instead? Psychological Bulletin, 117, 221–225. Highhouse, S., & Becker, A. S. (1993). Facet measures and global job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8, 117–127. Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Gleason, K. A., Adams, R., & Malcolm, K. T. (2003). Interpersonal conflict, agreeableness, and personality development. Journal of Personality, 71, 1059–1085. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford. Johnson, J. A., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). Clarification of the five factor model with the Abridged Big Five dimensional circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 563–576. Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Shin, K. (2005). Personality correlates of workplace antisocial behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 81–98. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational behavior (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally. Miller, J. D., Lyman, D., & Lukefield, C. (2003). Examining antisocial behavior through the lens of the five-factor model of personality. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 497–514. 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. Ones, D. S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on counterproductive behaviors at work. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 1–4. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2003). Personality and absenteeism: A meta-analysis of integrity tests. European Journal of Personality, 17, S19–S38.
LaMarcus R. Bolton et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 537–541 Robertson, I. T., & Callinan, M. (1998). Personality and work behavior. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7, 321–340. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572. Rubin, D. B., & Schenker, N. (1986). Multiple imputation for interval estimation from simple random samples with ignorable nonresponse. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 366–374. Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 5–11.
541
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117–125. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Spector, P., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counter-productivity: Are counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446–460. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.