Individual initiative and burnout as antecedents of employee expediency and the moderating role of conscientiousness

Journal of Business Research 110 (2020) 202–212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Individual initiative and burnout as antecedents of employee expediency and the moderating role of conscientiousness

T

Gabi Eissa Department of Management, Fowler College of Business, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Expediency Unethical behavior Individual initiative Burnout Conscientiousness Moderated-mediation

In this study, we extend the nomological network of employee expediency by identifying antecedents of this specific form of unethical behavior in the workplace. We draw on the conservation of resources theory to argue that employee expediency may be the result of employee engagement in individual initiative—a specific type of organizational citizenship behavior, which induces higher levels of burnout and, ultimately, leads to employee engagement in expedient behavior at work. We further argue that the personality trait of conscientiousness serves as a valuable resource that buffers the relationship between employee burnout and expediency, which then conditionally moderates the indirect effect of individual initiative onto employee expediency though the resource depletion process as indicated by employee burnout. Findings from a time-lagged, multisource (i.e., employee—supervisor—spouse triads) field study obtained from numerous organizations within different industries in the United States provide full support for the entire moderated-mediation model. We discuss implications for theory and practice and identify avenues for future research.

1. Introduction

In general, these forms of unethical practices comprise what is now formally referred to in organizational research as employee expediency. There are numerous examples that highlight the damaging role of expedient behaviors in the downfall and ignominy of many giant corporations. For example, General Motors (GM) has been faced with tremendous scrutiny from the public and mass media in regard to their defective automobile ignitions, which was arguably attributed to cutting corners and skipping vital safety procedures all in the name of saving time and increasing profits quickly (e.g., Modica, 2015; Plumer, 2015; Woodyard & Gardner, 2015). As a result of GM’s expediency, hundreds of customers have died, many employees were fired, millions of cars were recalled, and billions of dollars were lost on lawsuits and diminishing returns, dramatically hurting its reputation. BP (i.e., British Petroleum) has also faced a similar fate when its oil drilling platform exploded in 2010. Brodwin (2014) noted that BP’s ethical disaster was mainly the result of a culture of expediency and asserted that “when corporations cut corners, the costs can be immense — both for the corporations and for the public” (para. 1). Notably, business scholars have argued that the harm caused by expediency was preeminently a key factor in the collapse of corporations like Enron and WorldCom (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2018). Despite this, a complete empirical examination of employee expediency remains relatively lacking. Recent research has defined employee expediency as “the use of unethical practices to expedite work for self-serving purposes”

The unethical behavior literature is vast and diverse (Treviño, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006) and, for many years, organizational scholars have studied various forms of unethical behaviors in the workplace (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010). Indeed, since the rapid rise of corporate ethical scandals in the early 2000s, the unethical behavior literature has witnessed a surge of research attempting to understand the nature of these behaviors as well as explore what prompts employees to engage in these behaviors across various organizational settings (see Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; O'Fallon & Buttetfield, 2005; Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008). Moreover, while some organizational scholars have focused on examining specific and overt forms of unethical practices (e.g., stealing, cheating, abuse), others have explored broader and overlapping constructs (e.g., deviance, counterproductive work behaviors) (Treviño et al., 2006). Nevertheless, and despite many conceptual and empirical advancements, the unethical behavior literature has largely ignored exploring covert, non-interpersonal, and less morally intense forms of unethical behaviors. For example, employees may engage in morally questionable behaviors that include cutting corners, taking shortcuts, and bending or stretching organizational rules all in the name of executing work tasks more quickly and appearing more efficient and successful (Greenbaum, Mawritz, Bonner, Webster, & Kim, 2018; Parks, Ma, & Gallagher, 2010).

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.047 Received 6 April 2019; Received in revised form 24 December 2019; Accepted 26 December 2019 0148-2963/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Journal of Business Research 110 (2020) 202–212

G. Eissa

may consequently force employees to cope with such conditions by sacrificing ethical practices and engaging in morally questionable behaviors (i.e., employee expediency) that help conserve valuable resources. Even so, we must also realize that not all employees are equally likely to engage in employee expediency in response to individual initiative and burnout. In keeping up with COR theory, scholars acknowledge the vital role of individual differences in the burnout process (Hobfoll, Freedy, Lane, & Geller, 1990; Koopman, Lanaj, & Scott, 2016), suggesting that differences in personality may be critical in managing burnout and its subsequent attitudinal and/or behavioral reactions. Accordingly, we aim to focus on examining whether the personality trait of conscientiousness may serve as a buffering resource in the proposed main relationships. First, research has suggested that conscientiousness may be associated with effective performance and coping skills (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount & Barrick, 1998), while negatively associated with engagement in unethical behaviors (e.g., Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006; Moon, 2001). Second, conscientiousness has been shown to act as a resource that helps employees better handle challenging and difficult work situations (Halbesleben, Harvey, & Bolino, 2009). Building on this, we argue that those who are high in conscientiousness are more capable of managing the experience of burnout and, therefore, are expected to have fewer tendencies to engage in morally questionable behaviors, or otherwise employee expediency. Overall, the current research investigation offers several novel contributions to the extant literature. On the one hand, we attempt to expand the nomological network of employee expediency by drawing on COR theory (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 1989) to suggest that employee expediency is likely the consequence of both a distal and a proximal antecedent (viz., individual initiative and burnout). This investigation enables us to focus on this often-discussed construct in the literature, though a complete empirical examination is still lacking (Parks et al., 2010). On the other hand, we extend the literature on individual initiative—a specific type of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Bolino & Turnley, 2005) by offering a closer look regarding the consequences of this common but understudied type of citizenship behavior, linking it to both employee burnout and expediency. Additionally, we draw from the individual differences literature by indicating that conscientiousness may be crucial in explaining the main relationship and, therefore, play a critical key role in the process leading to employee expediency by acting as a (conditional) moderator in the aforementioned relationship. Fig. 1 presents a synopsis of our fully moderated-mediation model. We test our model by utilizing time-lagged and multisource data (i.e., employee—supervisor—spouse other triads) from several organizations.

(Greenbaum et al., 2018, p. 525). Organizational scholars have also argued that employee expediency represents an emphasis on the ends while ignoring the means by which work assignments are being completed (Parks et al., 2010). Those who engage in expedient behaviors believe that established organizational rules, norms, and/or practices are malleable and that it is completely appropriate to enhance performance by sacrificing ethical standards. For example, a recent study among more than 1000 employees in the United States and Australia has found that nearly one out of four employees has engaged in morally questionable behaviors, such as cutting corners, to complete their tasks sooner (Jonason & O'Connor, 2017). While these behaviors may appear to be innocuous, expedient behaviors, as noted above, tend to have an adverse impact on employees and their organizations as a whole (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2018; Plumer, 2015). To date, however, an explanation as to why and under what conditions employees may engage in these forms of unethical practices has largely been omitted in the literature. This is perplexing given that prior research evidence suggests that employees in today’s contemporary organizations are frequently under pressure to not only perform efficiently but also be good citizens by taking on additional tasks to benefit the bottom line of the organization (Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Parks et al., 2010). For example, to be perceived as good citizens, employees often engage in voluntary behaviors, such as individual initiative, that exceed their prescribed job duties. Nonetheless, while individual initiative behaviors may be beneficial to the overall effective functioning of the organization, research has begun to suggest that engaging in these behaviors can be quite demanding and drain valuable resources (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). With the theoretical and practical implications in mind, the purpose of the current study is to empirically examine why and when employees may engage in expedient behavior in the workplace. Specifically, we follow Parks et al. (2010) suggestions by utilizing the broader literature on employee well-being and unethical behavior to advance the nomological network of employee expediency—a common, yet understudied workplace phenomenon. In building our theoretical model (Fig. 1), we draw on the conservation of resources theory (COR; Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014; Hobfoll, 1989) to suggest that two important and unexamined sources of employee expediency include (a) individual initiative and (b) employee burnout. According to COR theory, resources are imperative to completing tasks and activities and, thus, individuals are often motivated to obtain, retain, and protect valuable resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Once these resources are lost or threatened to be lost, employees are likely to experience burnout. Subsequently, those with high levels of burnout begin to search for certain behaviors (i.e., coping strategies) to help conserve remaining resources. In this respect, this basic tenet of COR theory (i.e., resource loss spirals lead to defensive attempts to conserve resources) becomes useful in building and testing theoretical models that help identify antecedents and outcomes of burnout. This way, the current study identifies distal (viz., individual initiative) and proximal (viz., burnout) antecedents of employee expediency by drawing on COR theory. Specifically, we suggest that in contemporary workplaces, employees tend to experience a growing pressure to perform efficiently (Bolino & Turnley, 2005) and may, therefore, engage in high levels of individual initiative. Thus, as indicated in the next section, we conceptualize individual initiative as a stressor (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2005) that highly contributes to resource consumption (loss) and, hence, the experience of burnout. The lack of resources (i.e., burnout)

2. Theoretical overview and hypotheses 2.1. Individual initiative and employee burnout Individual initiative is a specific type of OCB in which employees “engage in task-related behaviors at a level that is so far beyond minimally required or generally expected levels that it takes on a voluntary flavor” (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000, p. 524). These behaviors may include activities such as taking work-related phone calls outside normal business hours, working during vacations, encouraging and motivating others to take initiative to improve work, volunteering for organizational events, and so on (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Although these behaviors are not required of employees, they are necessary for the efficient and effective functioning of the organization and, ultimately, its survival (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). In fact, prior research has indicated that due to the current nature of today’s competitive work environment, many employees find themselves under pressure to take individual initiative

Conscientiousness

Individual Initiative

Burnout

Employee Expediency

Fig. 1. Hypothesized theoretical model. 203

Journal of Business Research 110 (2020) 202–212

G. Eissa

2.2. Burnout and employee expediency

(Bolino, Turnley, Gilstrap, & Suazo, 2010) and, henceforth, it is recognized as a behavioral “stressor” (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Notably, research suggests that one negative aspect of performing these activities is that people may eventually become vulnerable to mental and/or physical depletion. Organizational scholars, however, have long ignored the call to empirically examine the costly consequences of engaging these types of OCBs (cf. Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Bolino, Hsiung, Harvey, & LePine, 2015), particularly in relation to “unethical work practices” (Bolino & Klotz, 2015). At this point, we argue that engaging in high levels of individual initiative contributes to employee burnout (defined as feelings of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion [Pines, Aronson, & Kafry, 1981]), which then prompts employees to engage in expedient behaviors. Specifically, drawing on COR theory (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 1989), we suggest that engaging in individual initiative is likely to consume valuable resources, which are typically fixed. For example, engaging in high levels of citizenship behavior (e.g., individual initiative) is likely to generate inter-role conflict, fatigue, tension, and exhaustion, essentially making individuals incapable of successfully fulfilling other work roles and personal responsibilities (Bolino et al., 2010; Halbesleben et al., 2009). Notably, conceptual and empirical work has begun to establish that engaging in different forms of OCBs (e.g., interpersonal helping, voice behavior) is taxing and depletes valuable resources, predominantly time and energy resources (e.g., Bergeron, 2007; Bolino et al., 2010; Eissa & Lester, 2018; Koopman et al., 2016; Lanaj, Johnson, & Wang, 2016; Lin & Johnson, 2015). In other words, because individual initiative requires constant job involvement and participation in a variety of work-related tasks and activities that are intense as well as emotionally and physically demanding, it is likely to induce high levels of resource consumption. Indeed, research suggests that individual initiative “tends to be rather time consuming” (Bolino, Klotz, Turnley, & Harvey, 2013, p. 547). Likewise, Bolino et al. (2015) note that those who frequently engage in numerous forms of OCBs, such as individual initiative, tend to lack mental energy, feel on the edge, and feel as though they are incapable of thinking clearly. Lastly, OCB scholars have argued that when employees engage in individual initiative, they may “find it rather overwhelming to fulfil their organizational-member role by demonstrating initiative… when they already struggle to find the time and resources needed to satisfactorily complete their in-role responsibilities” (Bolino & Turnley, 2005, p. 741), resulting in increased levels of resource consumption (e.g., burnout). In short, because today’s work demands are ever increasing and employees continuously feel pressured to perform efficiently (e.g., Bolino et al., 2010), employees are likely to suffer a loss in resources as they attempt to fulfil numerous work obligations while engaging in individual initiative. Therefore, drawing on the COR theory, we predict that such conditions will increase the likelihood that burnout will transpire. This is because engaging in high levels of OCBs requires intense planning, anticipation, and action, which requires a substantial amount of resources (Bolino et al., 2010; Grant & Ashford, 2008). It is not surprising that early scholars have found that intense and lengthy interactions with one’s job can be frustrating and taxing merely because of the high levels of resource consumption required to perform various activities (e.g., Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Hobfoll, 1989; Maslach, 1982). Hence, consistent with COR theory (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 1989), we suggest that feelings of exhaustion, fatigue, and frustration are likely to increase as employees engage in high levels of individual initiative, which then develops into a continuous reminder of the duties that they must undertake, resulting in high levels of employee burnout. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Employee expediency embodies a unique and specific form of unethical behaviors and practices. According to Parks et al. (2010), employee expediency involves “behaviors that (1) are intended to fulfill organizationally prescribed or sanctioned objectives but that (2) knowingly involve breaking, bending, or stretching organizational rules, directives, and organizationally sanctioned norms” (p. 703). Employees who engage in such behavior emphasize the ends but not the means such that they conveniently break or bend organizational rules in order to achieve the desired organizational objectives. Notably, expedient behaviors (e.g., cutting corners) are different than other forms of unethical and dysfunctional workplace behaviors (e.g., workplace deviance, counterproductive work behavior) in that the underlying intent of expedient behaviors is to get things done and finish task-related assignments sooner. In other words, employees who engage in expedient behaviors may do so because they want to get by, not because they intentionally want to harm the organization or its members (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2018; Parks et al., 2010). As previously noted, however, engaging in such behaviors and practices is risky and likely to be costly to a range of stakeholders. Scholars have, for example, demonstrated that taking a shortcut or cutting corners may be associated with diminished job performance (Sackett, 2002) as well as safety violations and work injuries (Christian, Bradley, Wallace, & Burke, 2009; Halbesleben, 2010). Therefore, employees who attempt to take shortcuts and skip important work procedures are likely to encounter severe organizational consequences (Jonason & O'Connor, 2017). Importantly, behavioral ethics scholars have suggested that organizational leaders who engage in expedient behaviors are likely to entice their employees to develop an attitude of unethical tolerance of their own (Greenbaum et al., 2018), which consequently promotes the proliferation of various forms unethical behaviors and ultimately the demise of organizations (e.g., Cialdini, Petrova, & Goldstein, 2004; Greenbaum et al., 2018). Hence, although employee expediency may appear to be harmless at first, cutting corners and stretching or bending organizational rules is likely to result in detrimental consequences for employees and their organizations. As previously noted, we aim to explore why employee expediency may occur in the first place. Building on the previous arguments, and consistent with COR theory (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 1989), expedient behavior may be the result of employee burnout provoked by individual initiative. As noted by Jonason and O'Connor (2017), this form of unethical practices may become common when work demands and responsibilities (e.g., individual initiative) become excessive with only a few remaining resources (i.e., burnout) for employees to fulfill these, and other, commitments. This notion directly aligns with COR theory, which postulates that resource loss leads to further loss in resources (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Indeed, previous research has acknowledged that COR theory not only explains why employee burnout may arise, but also directly predicts what happens subsequently (e.g., Hobfoll, 2001; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Specifically, COR theory suggests that lack of resources will prompt individuals to adopt defensive behaviors that help conserve remaining resources. Thus, drawing on COR theory, we suggest that when employees experience high levels of burnout (loss in resources), they are likely going to attempt to conserve any remaining resources (e.g., time, energy, focus) by engaging in expedient behaviors, which include cutting corners or taking a shortcut to save time and energy. Interestingly, as noted by Hobfoll, Halbesleben, Neveu, and Westman (2018) in their review of COR theory, “when people’s resources are outstretched or exhausted, they enter a defensive mode to preserve the self which is often defensive, aggressive, and may become irrational” (p. 106). Moreover, Halbesleben et al. (2014) suggested that, according to COR theory, lack of resources (e.g., burnout) forces individuals to cope using a variety of tactics that help protect remaining resources—which may include employee expediency in the context of our research. In this vein,

Hypothesis 1. Individual initiative is positively related to employee burnout.

204

Journal of Business Research 110 (2020) 202–212

G. Eissa

3. The moderating role of conscientiousness

expediency reflects a convenient coping strategy available to those experiencing high levels of burnout to conserve remaining resources. This theorizing directly aligns with Parks et al. (2010) conceptualization of expedient behavior, suggesting that when employees are faced with a loss in resources (i.e., burnout) triggered by certain work stressors (i.e., individual initiative), expediency explains employees’ efforts, or “attempts to cope [emphasis added] with their work environment” and, therefore, “expedienc[y] may represent a coping strategy, underlying behavioral and cognitive efforts to deal with the situation” (p. 171). In short, drawing on COR theory (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 1989), we predict that employees attempt to minimize any potential losses in resources by resorting to expediency as a coping strategy to deal with high levels of burnout. For example, employees with insufficient resources (e.g., time) may attempt to minimize further resource loss by either taking a short cut, cutting corners, or even altering performance numbers to appear more efficient. Essentially, COR scholars argue that when resources are lost, employees tend to “shift to strategies toward other, usually less favorable ones at higher costs” (Gorgievski & Hobfoll, 2008, p. 5). “An easy, or ‘fast and loose’ solution” to minimize burnout is to engage in expedient behaviors (Parks et al., 2010), only because not completing the job efficiently is not an option (Parks et al., 2010; Valcour, 2002). Notably, findings from prior research suggest that burnout (lack of resources) is associated with several forms of unfavorable and counterproductive work behaviors (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Halbesleben et al., 2014). Hence, it seems plausible that those who experience high levels of burnout see little benefit from following organizationally-prescribed rules and regulations as they are too focused on conserving resources. Building on this discussion, we hypothesize the following:

Conscientiousness captures one’s tendency to be careful, responsible, honest, dependable, thorough, hardworking, and persevering (Barrick, Parks, & Mount, 2005; Moon, 2001; Saucier, 1994). Moreover, conscientious individuals tend to be both self-disciplined and reliable (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990) as well as have higher propensities to abide by ethical standards and adhere to moral obligations (Colquitt et al., 2006; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Moon, 2001). Employees who typically score high in conscientiousness often pursue constructive ways to deal with negative situations (Yang & Diefendorff, 2009). Research has also demonstrated that highly conscientious employees are more prone to thinking strategically and wisely when faced with difficult work situations (e.g., Witt, Burke, Barrick, & Mount, 2002) and are more inclined to carefully reflect on the probable outcomes as they decide how to behave or what action to take in various situations (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; Eissa & Lester, 2017; John & Srivastava, 1999; Mawritz, Dust, & Resick, 2014). In contrast, less conscientious individuals tend to be careless, inefficient, disorganized (Saucier, 1994), impulsive (John & Srivastava, 1999), and are less concerned with following ethical rules or moral principles (Moon, 2001). With these attributes in mind, we expect that when experiencing burnout, trigged by engaging in high levels of individual initiative, those with high levels of conscientiousness become less inclined to resort to costly, unethical coping behaviors to help conserve resources. At the heart of COR theory is the idea that resources are imperative for dealing with and surviving various challenging work situations; therefore, individuals seek to acquire, retain, and conserve valuable resources. Logically, those who possess a greater pool of resources become less vulnerable to burnout and, hence, are more capable of managing overwhelming work demands more effectively (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll et al., 2018). While resources can be anything the employee sees as valuable (Hobfoll, 1989), certain personality traits can also be characterized as a resource only because they often tend to influence employee reactions to challenging work situations (e.g., Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Hobfoll et al., 1990; Koopman et al., 2016). An important corollary of the COR theory is that individual differences, including personality, will influence how individuals react to resource gain or loss spirals (Hobfoll et al., 1990). Halbesleben et al. (2009), for example, have utilized COR theory in building a theoretical model that accounts for conscientiousness as a valuable resource in response to resource consumption. Specifically, the authors revealed that because conscientiousness is linked to effective performance and behavioral coping skills, conscientiousness “can be considered a valuable resource” (p. 1454). In this vein, conscientiousness can be used as a key moderator in exploring the behavioral reactions to those experiencing resource loss (i.e., burnout). Specifically, we utilize employee conscientiousness as a (conditional) moderator in our theoretical model (Fig. 1) to further argue that not all employees are likely to respond to burnout and the demanding nature of individual initiative by resorting to employee expediency. We predict that conscientiousness will moderate the employee burnout—expediency relationship and, consequently, will also conditionally moderate the mediated pattern between individual initiative, burnout, and employee expediency. For example, since those high in conscientiousness tend to prioritize and plan their actions carefully (e.g., Mawritz et al., 2014), they are less likely to employ behaviors that will jeopardize their reputation, but instead seek more noble means to deal with a loss in resources. Highly conscientious individuals are also more capable of anticipating work problems and better able at finding proactive ways to address them. As noted by Halbesleben et al. (2009), when highly conscientious employees encounter a loss in resources, they are likely to manage challenging work conditions more rationally and seek coping strategies that are more fruitful. Moreover, highly conscientious employees possess the “ability to judge right from wrong” (Kelley, 2004, p. 512) and are better at reflecting on the ramifications

Hypothesis 2. Employee burnout is positively related to employee expediency. Thus far, we hypothesized that individual initiative is positively associated with employee burnout (Hypothesis 1), whereas employee burnout is positively associated with employee expediency (Hypothesis 2). To provide a complete representation of our theoretical model, we further predict that the association between individual initiative and employee expediency is mediated by employee burnout. Admittedly, this prediction (i.e. burnout mediates the individual initiative—expediency relationship) directly aligns with the basic tenet of COR theory suggesting that resource loss spirals lead individuals to undertake defensive attempts to protect remaining resources. Specifically, Halbesleben et al. (2014) demonstrate that as individuals experience a loss in resources when they encounter work stressors, they become motivated to avoid further losses and, thus, conserve their remaining resources. To conserve resources, individuals often adopt certain behaviors or search for certain strategies, often irritational and costly ones, that help them cope accordingly. Therefore, consistent with COR theory (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll et al., 2018; Hobfoll, 1989), we suggest that the indirect effect of individual initiative on employee expediency occurs through the mediation process of employee burnout induced by resource depletion. More precisely, because individual initiative consumes high levels of resources due to its timeconsuming and energy depleting nature, employee burnout is likely to occur. Subsequently, because high levels of burnout motivate employees to protect remaining resources, employees are likely to conserve time and energy by engaging in expedient behaviors as a way of protecting themselves from further losses. Thus, drawing on COR theory (see Halbesleben et al., 2014 for a comprehensive review), we also hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 3. Employee burnout mediates the relationship between individual initiative and employee expediency.

205

Journal of Business Research 110 (2020) 202–212

G. Eissa

an average organizational tenure of 11.72 years (SD = 9.26). They were 79.7% Caucasian, 4.6% African American, 4.1% Asian American, 4.6% Hispanic, 3.6% Native American, 1% biracial, and 2.5% other. Finally, spouses or significant others were 47% female, had an average age of 35.21 years (SD = 12.51), and 64.5% were married. They were 79.3% Caucasian, 4.5% African American, 4.5% Asian American, 3.5% Hispanic, 4% Native American, 0.5% biracial, and 3.5% other. At Time 1 (T1), the focal-employee participants completed a measure of conscientiousness, while the spouse (or significant other) participants completed a measure of individual initiative. At Time 2 (T2), nearly one month later, the focal employee participants completed a measure of employee burnout, while the supervisor participants completed a measure of employee expediency.

of their actions (Halbesleben et al., 2009). Importantly, prior research suggests that conscientiousness is indeed a valuable resource that helps employees successfully cope with constraints as well as enables them to control their behavioral reactions effectively (e.g., Perry, Penney, & Witt, 2008). Lastly, highly conscientious employees may also maintain a stable social support and network that help them inhibit impulsive unethical behaviors. Overall, the aforementioned discussion provides evidence that conscientiousness is imperative in its own merit given the specific attributes associated with it (i.e., hardworking, thorough, and moral) and its ability to provide individuals with the benefit of being wise and competent. When experiencing burnout, highly conscientious individuals can rely on their conscientious personality as a way of coping because they are more disciplined, organized, dependable, and ethical. Accordingly, conscientiousness employees are less likely to rely on expediency as a way to conserve resources. Hence, to complete our theoretical model, we propose a pattern of moderated-mediation relationship as illustrated in Fig. 1. Specifically, we hypothesize the following:

4.1. Measures 4.1.1. Individual initiative At T1, spouses (or significant others) assessed the focal-employee participants on individual initiative behaviors with eight items from Bolino and Turnley (2005) measure of individual initiative. Because individual initiative captures behaviors that usually take place outside normal business hours, we followed Bolino and Turnley (2005) footsteps by having the spouses assess the focal-employee participants on these behaviors. A sample item includes: “Checks his/her e-mail or voice mail from home” (α = 0.91). To assess the frequency of individual initiative, respondents were asked to indicate how often the focal-employee engages in these behaviors on a typical day using a 7point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (seven or more times). Lastly, we obtained self-reported ratings and supervisor and coworker ratings of the same scale to further validate the spouse or significant other ratings. The correlation between spouse or significant other and self-reported, supervisor, and coworker ratings were 0.61 (p < .01), 0.53 (p < .01), and 0.52 (p < .01) respectively1. Yet, because individual initiative behaviors are often more visible to spouses and significant others, such ratings were utilized in the current study.

Hypothesis 4. Conscientiousness moderates the relationship between employee burnout and expediency, such that this relationship is weaker when conscientiousness is high. Hypothesis 5. Conscientiousness conditionally moderates the indirect effect of individual initiative on employee expediency through employee burnout, such that the mediated effect is weaker when conscientiousness is high.

4. Method In this investigation, we intended to recruit focal employees, their immediate supervisors, and their spouses or significant others, across two time periods, in order to avoid single source bias and establish some evidence of the direction of the variables in our study. In addition, we collected data across a variety of organizations and multiple industries to increase the generalizability of our results (e.g., agriculture, information technology, architecture and construction, business administration, and education). To meet these criteria, we invited business students at a large university in the Midwestern United States to recruit a working adult (i.e., working for at least 20 h per week) who was willing to serve as the focal-employee (i.e., subordinate). Eligible participants were restricted to those with an immediate supervisor and to those who had a spouse or significant other. Upon completing their participation, the focal employee participants were asked to invite their immediate supervisor and their spouse or significant other to complete a corresponding survey. All surveys were conducted online via Qualtrics and recruiters were awarded extra credit for their recruiting efforts. We also asked participants to use an 8-digit number so that we would be able to match their response while ensuring anonymity and confidentiality. We recorded and randomly inspected IP addresses and time stamps to ensure data integrity. Lastly, we explicitly emphasized the integrity of the scientific process to all three triad participants and told them that their data would be used only for research purposes. This approach to data collection is almost identical to recent methodologies conducted in the management and behavioral ethics literature (e.g., Eissa & Lester, 2017; Grant & Mayer, 2009; Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Eissa, 2012). A total of 150 usable matched responses (i.e., employee-supervisorspouse or significant other triads) were received from eligible participants across two-time periods (42.9% overall response rate). Focal employees were 60.2% female, 75% worked full-time, had an average age of 34.28 years (SD = 12.40), and an average organizational tenure of 5.47 years (SD = 6.05). They were 80.6% Caucasian, 4.0% African American, 3.5% Asian American, 3% Hispanic, 4% Native American, 2.5% biracial, and 2.5% other. Supervisors were 41% female, 96.4% worked full-time, had an average age of 43.92 years (SD = 11.68), and

4.1.2. Conscientiousness At T1, conscientiousness was assessed by the focal-employee participants with eight items (Saucier, 1994) from Goldberg (1990) original measure of the Big Five personality traits. Focal-employee participants were asked to indicate how accurately a number of traits and characteristics generally described them on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (extremely inaccurate) to 7 (extremely accurate). Sample items include: “Systematic” and “Organized” (α = 0.83). 4.1.3. Burnout At T2, employee burnout was assessed by the focal-employee participants with eight items from Demerouti, Mostert, and Bakker (2010) measure of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory. Focal-employee participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with which they have endured a number of experiences at their job within the past month on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample item includes: “There are days when I feel tired before I arrive at work” (α = 0.85). 4.1.4. Employee expediency At T2, employee expedient behaviors were assessed by the supervisor participants with four items from Greenbaum et al. (2018) measure of employee expediency. Supervisor participants were specifically asked to indicate how often the focal employee participants engage in a 1 We conducted supplementary analyses to test the fully moderated-mediation model using different rating sources for individual initiative (e.g., self-reported, supervisor, and coworker ratings). We found that the results held regardless of the rating source.

206

Journal of Business Research 110 (2020) 202–212

G. Eissa

number of workplace behaviors on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (all the time). A sample item includes: “This employee… cuts corners in order to complete work assignments more quickly” (α = 0.82).

Table 2 Regression results for mediation (Hypotheses 1–3). R2

Mediator variable model: Burnout

B

SE

t

Constant Individual initiative Gender

1.88 0.51 0.32

0.32 0.10 0.18

5.88** 4.94** 1.80

Dependent variable model: Employee expediency

B

SE

t

Constant Individual initiative Burnout Gender

−1.20 0.45 0.50 0.26

0.32 0.10 0.07 0.16

−3.82** 4.55** 6.80** 1.59

Effect

SE

LL 95% CI

UL 95% CI

0.25

0.10

0.05

0.44

0.17

4.1.5. Control variables We followed Greenbaum et al. (2018) guidance to control for employee gender in our analyses to rule out the possibility that employee gender has an influence on the model variables, particularly employee expediency. Notably, prior research on unethical behaviors and practices has consistently questioned the role of gender in relation to making various forms of (un)ethical choices and judgements (e.g., Ambrose & Schminke, 1999; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; McCabe, Ingram, & Dato-on, 2006). While interest in the influence of gender on ethical practices continues to grow, empirical results seem to vary. For example, several empirical research efforts demonstrated that females often report higher levels of ethical attitudes and judgments (e.g., Borkowski & Ugras, 1998), while others have reported either weak or no influence whatsoever (e.g., Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). However, the vast majority of business and organizational scholars arguably believe that females often hold higher moral standards than their male counterparts. Therefore, in order to eliminate any potential biases related to the influence of gender on an employee’s decision or inclination to engage in expedient behaviors, and akin to Greenbaum et al. (2018) theorizing of employee expediency, we included gender as a control in testing our theoretical model.

R2

Indirect effect of individual initiative on employee expediency via burnout

Note. N = 150. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit. *p < .05. ** p < .01.

results for Hypotheses 1–3 are presented in Table 2. In keeping with our initial predictions, individual initiative had a significant positive relationship with employee burnout (B = 0.51, p < .01), and employee burnout had a significant positive relationship with employee expediency (B = 0.50, p < .01). These results support Hypotheses 1 and 2. Furthermore, the results show that individual initiative had a significant and positive indirect effect on employee expediency through employee burnout (indirect effect = 0.25) and the bootstrapped with a 95% confidence interval (CI) did not contain zero (CI = 0.05, 0.44). Accordingly, these results reveal full support for a mediation relationship, providing evidence for Hypothesis 3. Overall, the analyses in this initial step fully support the tests of mediation, which demonstrates evidence for the relationship among our key variables in this study; supporting Hypotheses 1–3. By running Model 14 of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2018), the results for the fully moderated-mediation model are presented in Table 3. In line with our predictions and results above, individual initiative had a significant positive relationship with employee burnout (B = 0.51, p < .01), and employee burnout had a significant positive relationship with employee expediency (B = 0.39, p < .01), providing further support to Hypotheses 1–3. Furthermore, Table 3 shows the results for the conditional moderating effects. First, the results demonstrate that conscientiousness moderated the relationship between employee burnout and expediency (B = −0.11, p < .01); indicating that conscientiousness buffers the positive relationship between employee burnout and employee expediency. Additionally, we tested the conditional effect of employee burnout on employee expediency at

5. Results 5.1. Descriptive statistics Table 1 shows the results for the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations among the variables of interest. 5.2. Analytical approach We relied on the recommendations of Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) and Hayes (2018) to test our moderated-mediation model by running two analyses. Specifically, we first utilized the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 4) developed by Hayes (2018) to test for our initial predictions (Hypotheses 1–3). We then incorporated the moderator into the entire model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Hayes, 2013; Preacher et al., 2007) to test for the entire moderated-mediated model, including an examination for Hypotheses 4 and 5. Here, we also utilized the PROCESS macro (Model 14), which tests for the full model simultaneously. As indicated by prior research, the use of Hayes’ PROCESS macro is advantageous given that it enables researchers to build and test for a variety of complex theoretical models by employing bootstrapping procedures with 95% bias-correction confidence intervals (see Hayes, 2018 for a complete discussion). As recommended by Aiken and West (1991), the variables associated with the interaction term were also mean-centered. By running Model 4 of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2018), the Table 1 Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and study variable intercorrelations. Variables

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1.40 2.05 3.36 5.71 1.76

0.49 0.84 1.14 1.06 1.27

– 10 0.20* −0.19** −0.23**

(0.91) 0.38** −0.27** 0.47**

(0.85) −0.41** 0.59**

(0.83) −0.49**

(0.92)

Gender Individual initiative Burnout Conscientiousness Employee expediency

Note. N = 150. Coefficient (α) reliabilities are shown in the diagonal. * p < .05 level. ** p < .01 level. 207

Journal of Business Research 110 (2020) 202–212

G. Eissa

relationship between burnout and employee expediency was stronger for those low in conscientiousness (t = 5.93, p < .01), while it becomes weaker for those high in conscientiousness (t = 3.20, p < .01). Fig. 2 provides further support for Hypothesis 4. Lastly, we also examined the conditional indirect effects of individual initiative on employee expediency through employee burnout at three different values of conscientiousness (Fig. 3). Specifically, the results Table 3 demonstrate that the conditional indirect effect of individual initiative onto employee expediency through burnout is significantly different from zero at one standard deviation below the mean (indirect effect = 0.27, 95% CI [0.06, 0.45]) and becomes weaker and nonsignificant at the mean (indirect effect = 0.20, 95% CI [0.03, 0.39]) and at one standard deviation above the mean (indirect effect = 0.14, 95% CI [−0.04, 0.34]). Table 3 also provides the results for the Index of Moderated Mediation (Hayes, 2015), which suggests that the moderated mediation pattern is significantly different than zero (index = −0.06, 95% CI [−0.130, −0.001]). Thus, we can conclude that the indirect effect of individual initiative on employee expediency through employee burnout is indeed negatively moderated by conscientiousness. The results presented above provide support for Hypothesis 5 and, hence, our fully moderated-mediation model.

Table 3 Conscientiousness: regression results for overall moderated-mediation model. R2

Mediator variable model: Burnout

B

SE

t

Constant Individual initiative Gender

−1.51 0.51 0.32

0.32 0.10 0.18

−4.70** 4.94** 1.80

Dependent variable model: Employee expediency

B

SE

t

Constant Individual initiative Burnout Conscientiousness Burnout × Conscientiousness Gender

0.91 0.27 0.39 −0.14 −0.11 0.17

0.30 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.15

3.00** 2.52* 5.34** −1.49 −2.71** 1.11

Conditional effects of burnout on employee expediency

Effect

SE

t

Conscientiousness −1 SD (−1.13) Conscientiousness M (0.00) Conscientiousness +1 SD (1.13)

0.52 0.39 0.27

0.09 0.07 0.09

5.98** 5.34** 3.08**

Conditional indirect effect of individual initiative on employee expediency via burnout

Indirect Effect

Boot SE

Boot LLCI

Boot ULCI

Conscientiousness −1 SD (−1.13) Conscientiousness M (0.00) Conscientiousness +1 SD (1.13)

0.27 0.20 0.14

0.10 0.09 0.10

0.06 0.03 −0.04

0.45 0.39 0.34

Index

SE

LL 95% CI

UL 95% CI

−0.06

0.03

−0.130

−0.001

0.17

R2

0.52

6. Discussion In the current study, we drew on the conservation of resources theory (COR; Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018) to build and test a theoretical model that explains why and when employees may engage in employee expediency—a covert, non-interpersonal, and less morally intense form of unethical behavior in the workplace. Specifically, we argued and found support for the depleting effects of individual initiative onto employee expediency through the process of resource consumption as depicted by employee burnout. Our results disclosed that employees who engaged in high levels of individual initiative were more likely to experience burnout, which, in turn, prompted them to engage in expedient behaviors. Moreover, we identified conscientiousness, a personality trait that has been a constant predictor of effective performance and vigorous coping skills (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Halbesleben et al., 2009; Mount & Barrick, 1998), as a valuable resource that allows employees to resist resorting to expedient behaviors when experiencing high levels of burnout triggered by engaging in individual initiative. Accordingly, conscientiousness moderated the relationship between burnout and employee expediency and conditionally moderated the indirect effect of individual initiative on employee expediency via the mediated process of burnout, such that these relationships were weaker when employees scored higher in conscientiousness. Considering this, the current study offers

Index of moderated mediation

Note. N = 150. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. * p < .05 level. ** p < .01 level.

three values of conscientiousness. Specifically, the findings demonstrate that the effect of burnout on employee expediency is strongest and significantly different from zero at one standard deviation below the mean (effect = 0.52, p < .01), and becomes weaker at the mean (effect = 0.39, p < .01) and at one standard deviation above the mean (effect = 0.27, p < .01). This indicates support for Hypothesis 4. Moreover, the visual pattern for this moderated relationship was also plotted at the same three levels of conscientiousness (Fig. 2; Aiken & West, 1991). Consistent with our prediction, the slope of the

7.0

Employee Expediency

6.0 5.0

Conscientiousness -1 SD

4.0

Mean

3.0

+1 SD

2.0 1.0 0.0 Low

Burnout

High

Fig. 2. Interaction effect of burnout and conscientiousness on employee expediency. 208

Journal of Business Research 110 (2020) 202–212

G. Eissa

Conditional indirect effect of Individual Initiative on Employee Expediency at values of the moderator Conscientiousness through Employee Burnout

0.5

0.4

0.3 95% CI Upper Limit

0.2

Conditional Indirect Effect 95% CI Lower Limit

0.1

0

-0.1 -1.5

-1

-0.5 0 0.5 Conscientiousness

1

1.5

Fig. 3. Conditional indirect effect at different values of the moderator (Conscientiousness).

depleting effects of organizational citizenship behaviors, namely individual initiative, may entice employees to cut corners or bend organizational rules in order to fulfil work commitments quickly and boost their own performance. In this vein, we offered a deeper understanding of employee expediency by being one of the first empirical studies to explore this specific form of unethical conduct. We drew on the resource loss spiral tenet of COR theory to suggest that when employees consume valuable resources, they become more vulnerable to further loss in resources. This, then, prompts employees to alleviate further losses by resorting to certain behaviors, or coping strategies, that help them conserve resources—often self-serving strategies that provide short-term payoffs as designated by employee expediency in our theoretical model. As noted by Parks et al. (2010), “with increased competitive pressures of a global economy and fewer available resources… expedience is rife in organizations” (p. 721). The same competitive workplace environment that often pressures employees to engage in employee expediency also entices them to go above and beyond their duties and responsibilities and, therefore, engage in various forms of OCBs in order to be seen as ideal employees and appear efficient and successful. Notably, being a proactive employee by taking initiative is becoming increasingly important for the success of today’s contemporary organizations (e.g., Crant, 2000; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Van Dyne & Ellis, 2004) and, in many instances, it is increasingly expected from employees to perform above and beyond their job description. This is evident by the rewards that are granted to employees who frequently perform OCBs (e.g., Allen & Rush, 1998; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Maynes, & Spoelma, 2014). Accordingly, we also offered a unique contribution to the literature by linking individual initiative to a specific form of unethical behavior, namely employee expediency. This specific contribution also adds to the emerging research exploring the negative consequences of engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors (see Bolino et al., 2013). Indeed, while previous research has paid relatively more attention to the costly effects of interpersonal citizenship behaviors (e.g., helping coworkers; Koopman et al., 2016), we chose to focus on exploring the potential cost of a common, yet also understudied, type of OCB, namely individual initiative (Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Importantly, although prior research has shown that engaging in OCBs can have detrimental consequences for those who frequently engage in these behaviors, the

key insights regarding the relatively unexamined construct of employee expediency and sheds light on how to prevent these unethical practices. We discuss below the major contributions to both theory and practice derived from our findings. 6.1. Theoretical implications Above all, we contribute to the unethical behavior literature by extending the nomological network of employee expediency, a common workplace occurrence which received little empirical research attention to date. We echo assertions made by prior scholars (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2018; Parks et al., 2010) that a systematic and thorough investigation of this phenomenon is essential, given evidence that expediency highly contributes to the proliferation of unethical behaviors and practices within organizations as previously illustrated. Indeed, previous conceptual work has demonstrated that because many contemporary organizations often prioritize efficiency over everything else, employees become overwhelmed with the pressure to perform quickly and efficiently, whereby employee expediency becomes a convenient means through which employees essentially function in their work environments (Parks et al., 2010). Despite many theoretical assertions, however, empirical examination of employee expediency remains scant. To the best of our knowledge, the first research efforts to empirically study and highlight the importance of exploring this specific form of unethical behavior in the workplace was conducted by Greenbaum et al. (2018). Interestingly, the authors argued that when organizational leaders engage in or endorse expedient behaviors, expediency may not only become prevalent within the organization but may also create the perception that engaging in unethical practices and misconduct is generally tolerated by organizational leaders within their work environment. Thus, in an effort expand on recent research, we launched a full empirical examination of employee expediency. Specifically, the current examination builds and extends this prior work by empirically exploring what specifically prompts employees to engage in expedient behavior in the workplace. Drawing on COR theory (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll et al., 2018; Hobfoll, 1989), we explored two critical (distal and proximal) antecedents of employee expediency. By explicitly identifying and testing the process of resource consumption as indicated by employee burnout, we demonstrated that COR theory offers a robust theoretical explanation regarding how the 209

Journal of Business Research 110 (2020) 202–212

G. Eissa

current study is among one of the first to link citizenship behavior to unethical practices through the process of resource depletion. As noted by Bolino and Klotz (2015), despite many theoretical possibilities, “research has yet to [empirically] link OCB to unethical behavior through the mechanism of resource depletion” (p. 46). Furthermore, the current investigation offers an additional perspective regarding one of the least examined corollaries of COR identified by scholars (Hobfoll et al., 2018; Koopman et al., 2016), which suggests that individual differences play a key role in the resource depletion process of employee burnout leading to expediency. Exploring various individual differences in this process helps explain under what conditions individuals are more (or less) inclined to engage in certain behavioral reactions to burnout. We argued and found support that the personality trait of conscientiousness plays a critical role in explaining whether employees choose to engage in expedient behavior. Specifically, our results demonstrate that those who are highly conscientious were less motivated to resort to unethical workplace practices for selfserving purposes when compared to their counterparts. Our research, hence, extends and further supports prior research that denotes conscientiousness as a consistent predictor of unethical behavior (e.g., Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009) and a valuable resource (e.g., Halbesleben et al., 2009). Our theorizing supports the personality trait of conscientiousness as a valuable resource, allowing employees to be organized, dependable, and moral and enabling them to control unethical impulses; thus, it further supports research suggesting similar assertions regarding the role of individual differences, including conscientiousness, as valuable resources (e.g., Halbesleben et al., 2009; Koopman et al., 2016).

decision makers must take proactive steps to attract and retain employees who are highly conscientious, given that this personality trait is imperative to avoid engagement in unethical behaviors and practices, such as employee expediency. 6.3. Strengths, limitations, and future research All research comes with limitations, and ours is no exception. For example, in terms of our study design, data for the mediator variable (burnout) and dependent variable (employee expediency) were collected at the same point in time, which may prevent us from making any conclusive inferences regarding the causal ordering of these variables. However, data for these variables were reported using difference sources. Moreover, prior research supports the idea that a state of resource depletion (e.g., stress, exhaustion, fatigue) generally precedes engagement in dysfunctional and counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., Eissa & Wyland, 2018; Restubog, Scott, & Zagenczyk, 2011; Wheeler, Halbesleben, & Whitman, 2013). Nonetheless, future research could certainly benefit from separating these measures by leading studies that account for a three-wave design or by perhaps utilizing experimental designs to provide further support to our theoretical model. In addition, we utilized a frequency scale to measure individual initiative and capture the intensity of engaging in these behaviors. Although this makes theoretical sense, this particular measure does not specify the specific amount of resources needed to perform these behaviors. However, our scale is consistent with prior research assessing the frequency of many employee work behaviors like citizenship, justice, and unethical behaviors (e.g., Barling, Rogers, & Kelloway, 2001; Johnson, Lanaj, & Barnes, 2014; Lanaj et al., 2016). While no measure is perfect, we encourage future research to utilize different scales to measure individual initiative as well as include a measure of resource availability. Relatedly, we examined only one specific type of citizenship behavior (viz., individual initiative) as an antecedent of employee expediency. However, extant research suggests that scholars have successfully identified numerous types of OCBs (see Podsakoff et al., 2000 for an inclusive review). These OCBs can be directed toward the collective organization (OCBO) or individuals within the organization (OCBI); hence, future research efforts could then benefit from exploring whether other different types of OCBs would produce similar effects onto employee expediency. For example, future research could explore other frequently performed citizenship behaviors such as interpersonal helping (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002) or voice behavior (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), both of which have shown to deplete resources at work (e.g., Bolino et al., 2015; Lin & Johnson, 2015). Nonetheless, we chose to focus on individual initiative given (a) its importance for organizations in terms of effective functionality, (b) its commonality in today’s organizations, and (c) its lack of research investigations (Eissa, Lester, & Gupta, 2019; Podsakoff et al., 2000). On a related note, we realize that our examination of antecedents of employee expediency is only an initial exploration of its antecedents and, therefore, future research would benefit from further exploration of the nomological network of employee expediency. We are aware of only one published empirical study that has explored this possibility, which concluded that a leader’s expedient behavior is likely to promote employee expediency (Greenbaum et al., 2018). Nonetheless, other antecedents are also plausible. Future scholars may, for example, examine whether high levels of employee job engagement or work-family conflict could result in similar effects. In fact, because prior empirical work shows that antecedents of deviant and rule-breaking behaviors may include attitudes (organizational commitment or justice), situational factors (organizational climate or culture), or other job stressors (level of autonomy), future scholars could also benefit from examining whether these antecedents may directly or indirectly have a similar impact on employee expediency and what mechanisms are likely to link these antecedents to these unethical practices.

6.2. Practical implications In today’s competitive and global economy, contemporary organizations are increasingly relying on their employees to go above and beyond their responsibilities and duties by, for example, working longer hours or being available on behalf of their organizations in order to ensure the efficient and effective functioning of their organizations (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). In addition, these organizations expect their employees to work hard, react fast, and deliver results efficiently and quickly. Nevertheless, many managers fail to recognize that employee are often constrained by resources at work, which make them unable to function and perform their jobs at a desired or expected level. To fully capture and understand employee performance, prior research demonstrates that one must always consider accessibility to resources that enables employees get the job done appropriately (Bergeron, 2007; Bolino et al., 2015; Halbesleben et al., 2009; Hobfoll, 1989; Hockey, 1997). The results of the current investigation provide support for this assertion, suggesting the resources are essential in meeting work demands and, importantly, are crucial for understanding employee outcomes at the individual level including their engagement in unethical practices. Accordingly, this study offers practitioners key insights regarding why employees may engage in expedient behaviors and under what circumstance they are likely to do so. Indeed, employee expediency, arguably one of main factors of the demise of many business corporations (e.g., Enron, WorldCom), has been shown to be associated with many costly outcomes, including tolerance of unethical practices, violation of safety codes, and injuries (e.g., Christian et al., 2009; Greenbaum et al., 2018; Halbesleben, 2010), among others. Therefore, based on our results, organizations and their decisions makers must pay particular attention as to how employees allocate resources at work. Also, while engaging in individual initiative is vital to organizational long-term success, and with the expectation that employees must perform these behaviors, practitioners need to be aware that engaging in these behaviors frequently and intensely can be costly. It would also be beneficial for organizations to develop effective programs and proper interventions that help employees manage challenging work situations including experiencing job burnout. Lastly, organizations and their 210

Journal of Business Research 110 (2020) 202–212

G. Eissa

pressure: What's a “good soldier” to do? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 835–855. Borkowski, S. C., & Ugras, Y. J. (1998). Business students and ethics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1117–1127. Brodwin, D. (2014, September 5). The costs of corporate corner-cutting. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from U.S. News & World Report: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/ economic-intelligence/2014/09/05/bp-and-pacific-gas-and-electric-show-cornercutting-causes-disaster. Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1103–1127. Cialdini, R. B., Petrova, P. K., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). The hidden costs of organizational dishonesty. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45, 67–73. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 110–127. Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18, 621–656. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor (NEO-FFI) inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462. Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 209–222. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. Eissa, G., & Lester, S. W. (2017). Supervisor role overload and frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision: The moderating role of supervisor personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 307–326. Eissa, G., & Lester, S. W. (2018). When good deeds hurt: The potential costs of interpersonal helping and the moderating roles of impression management and prosocial values motives. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25, 339–352. Eissa, G., Lester, S. W., & Gupta, R. (2019). Interpersonal deviance and abusive supervision: The mediating role of supervisor negative emotions and the moderating role of subordinate organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04130-x. Eissa, G., & Wyland, R. (2018). Work-Family conflict and hindrance stress as antecedents of social undermining: Does ethical leadership matter? Applied Psychology, 67(4), 645–654. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “Description of Personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. Gorgievski, M. J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2008). Work can burn us out or fire us up: Conservation of resources in burnout and engagement. In J. R. B. Halbesleben (Ed.). Handbook of stress and burnout in health care (pp. 1–17). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Grandey, A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900–912. Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 343–359. Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., Bonner, J. M., Webster, B. D., & Kim, J. (2018). Supervisor expediency to employee expediency: The moderating role of leader–member exchange and the mediating role of employee unethical tolerance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 525–541. Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). The role of exhaustion and workarounds in predicting occupational injuries: A cross-lagged panel study of health care professionals. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 1–16. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452–1465. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40, 1334–1364. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1–22. Hayes, A. F. (2018). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337–421. Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J., Lane, C., & Geller, P. (1990). Conservation of social resources: Social support resource theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 465–478. Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of

Lastly, we identified conscientiousness as a (conditional) moderator in our theoretical model, though conscientiousness presents only one possibility that explains the strength among the main variables examined in this study (i.e., individual initiative → burnout → employee expediency). However, other moderators are also conceivable. For example, in relation to COR theory, Hobfoll (1989) has identified that the personality trait of self-esteem can act a valuable resource that individuals are able to exploit under demanding work circumstances. Moreover, personality traits that are strongly related to moral and ethical performance could play a key moderating role in explaining the proposed relationships. For example, traits like Machiavellianism, behavioral integrity, and moral disengagement are all likely to influence the strength among the relationships presented in our model given their association with unethical conduct. Beyond differences in personality, future research could benefit from exploring other types of moderating factors such as social support. Social support is defined as the extent to which employees believe that their well-being is valued by others including coworkers, mentors, and/or family members, and it is quite critical during many challenging work situations (Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). One could anticipate, for example, that employees who receive social support from others become less likely influenced by the depleting effects of individual initiative because they may feel as though the extra effort was worth their time. In this way, social support is likely to alleviate the costly effect that individual initiative has on employee burnout and expediency. In conclusion, we believe this current investigation provides important insights regarding why and when employees might engage in expedient behaviors in the workplace. This study informs both researchers and practitioners about some of the strategies that help may prevent such unethical conduct from occurring. Therefore, this study moves us one step closer toward exploring the uncharted phenomenon of employee expediency. We hope this research inspires others to continue to explore this line of inquiry. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.047. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgements: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247–260. Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (1999). Sex differences in business ethics: The importance of perceptions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 11, 454. Barling, J., Rogers, A. G., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Behind closed doors: In-home workers' experience of sexual harassment and workplace violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 255–269. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Barrick, M. R., Parks, L., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Self-monitoring as a moderator of the relationships between personality traits and performance. Personnel Psychology, 58, 745–767. Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? The Academy of Management Review, 32, 1078–1095. 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. Bolino, M. C., & Klotz, A. C. (2015). The paradox of the unethical organizational citizen: The link between organizational citizenship behavior and unethical behavior at work. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 45–49. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and workfamily conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740–748. Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2015). 'Well, I’m tired of tryin’!' Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 56–74. Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 542–559. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., & Suazo, M. M. (2010). Citizenship under

211

Journal of Business Research 110 (2020) 202–212

G. Eissa

(2014). Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S87–S119. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). An examination of the psychometric properties and nomological validity of some revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 702–713. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees' responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729. Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 10, 5–11. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506. Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 255–267. Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Academy of Management Annuals, 2, 545–607. Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951–990. Valcour, P. M. (2002). Managerial behavior in a multiplex role system. Human Relations, 55, 1163–1188. Van Dyne, L., & Ellis, J. B. (2004). Job creep: A reactance theory perspective on organizational citizenship behavior as overfulfillment of obligations. In J. A. M. CoyleShapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.). The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 181–205). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119. Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314–334. Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286. Wheeler, A. R., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Whitman, M. V. (2013). The interactive effects of abusive supervision and entitlement on emotional exhaustion and co-worker abuse. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 86, 477–496. Witt, L., Burke, L., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002). The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 164–169. Woodyard, C., & Gardner, G. (2015, December 6). GM's Buick SUV will be first to be imported from China. Retrieved December 9, 2019, from USA Today: https://www. usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/12/04/gm-buick-china-suv/76801652/. Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 486–493. Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62, 259–295.

resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128. Hockey, G. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45, 73–93. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theory. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair: Effects of procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 635–650. Jonason, P. K., & O'Connor, P. J. (2017). Cutting corners at work: An individual differences perspective. Personality & Individual Differences, 107, 146–153. Kelley, R. E. (2004). Followership. In G. R. Goethals, G. J. Sorensen, & J. M. Burns (Eds.). Encyclopedia of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31. Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 414–435. Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Wang, M. (2016). When lending a hand depletes the will: The daily costs and benefits of helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1097–1110. Lin, S.-H., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1381–1397. Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S. B., & Resick, C. J. (2014). Hostile climate, abusive supervision, and employee coping: Does conscientiousness matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 737–747. McCabe, A. C., Ingram, R., & Dato-on, M. C. (2006). The business of ethics and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 101–116. Modica, M. (2015, September 15). No justice for General Motors’ victims. Retrieved December 9, 2019, from National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC): https://nlpc.org/ 2015/09/21/no-justice-general-motors%E2%80%99-victims/. Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 533–540. Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism – collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419. Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the “Big Five” article has been frequently cited. Personnel Psychology, 51, 849–857. O'Fallon, M., & Buttetfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decisionmaking literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Parks, J., Ma, L., & Gallagher, D. G. (2010). Elasticity in the 'rules' of the game: Exploring organizational expedience. Human Relations, 63, 701–730. Perry, S. J., Penney, L., & Witt, L. A. (2008). Coping with the constraints of self-employment: A person–situation model of entrepreneurial burnout. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1, 1–6. Pines, A., Aronson, E., & Kafry, D. (1981). Burnout: From tedium to personal growth. New York: Free Press. Plumer, B. (2015, May 11). The GM recall scandal of 2014. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from Vox: https://www.vox.com/2014/10/3/18073458/gm-car-recall. Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., & Spoelma, T. M.

212