Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES www.academicpress.com

Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice Maureen L. Ambrose,a Mark A. Seabright,b and Marshall Schminkec,* a

University of Central Florida, USA Western Oregon University, USA College of Business Administration, P.O. Box 161400, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-1400, USA b

c

Abstract This study examines the relationship between injustice and workplace sabotage. Drawing on the organizational justice and workplace deviance literatures, we hypothesize that injustice will be the most common cause of sabotage, and that the source of injustice will influence the goal, target, and severity of sabotage behavior. The results generally support our hypotheses. First, injustice was the most common cause of sabotage. Second, when the source of injustice was interactional, individuals were more likely to engage in retaliation, and when the source of injustice was distributive, individuals were more likely to engage in equity restoration. Third, the source of injustice and the target of sabotage were generally the same, although this relationship was stronger for organizational targets than for individual targets. Finally, there was an additive effect of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on the severity of sabotage. We discuss the implications of these results for future research on sabotage and deviant workplace behavior. Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

1. Introduction I worked at the Janacka machine, which cuts the hides and skin off the pineapple. We usually worked a straight ten-hour shift, so a lot of people would just burn out. To combat that, people would try to get more breaks—we were only allowed two breaks per shift. To do this, they would send a pineapple down the wrong direction, or send a glove down, and it would break the whole machine. If the Janacka machine shuts down, you can’t cut the pineapple, the line can’t go on. The whole production line shuts down. It takes at least three hours to fix, so you’re getting paid for three hours at least for just sitting around. Lance, pineapple packer. (Sprouse, 1992, p. 18)

Workplace sabotage has been of interest to a broad range of researchers and practitioners. The present study builds from this previous work and focuses on the relationship between perceived unfairness and sabotage behavior. We draw on the organizational justice and workplace deviance literatures as a basis for our research, in which we propose that the principal cause of sabotage is perceptions of organi*

Corresponding author. Fax: 407-823-3725. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Schminke).

0749-5978/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 4 9 - 5 9 7 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 3 7 - 7

948

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

zational injustice. Additionally, we propose that different configurations of distributive, procedural, and interactional injustice lead to different types of sabotage behavior. Organizational justice is a promising perspective for understanding workplace deviance (Greenberg & Alge, 1998). A number of scholars have theorized about how different types and combinations of injustice lead to dysfunctional consequences (Folger & Baron, 1996; Folger & Skarlicki, 1998; Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997; Greenberg, 1990, 1993a, 1993b; Greenberg & Alge, 1998; Neuman & Baron, 1997; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). However, although there has been substantial theorizing about justice and deviance, few empirical studies exist, and those that do suffer from two limitations. First, the extant empirical justice research has focused on relatively few dysfunctional behaviors, primarily theft (Greenberg, 1990, 1993a, 1993b) and retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). We believe it is useful to study a wider set of deviant behaviors. Such expansion is instrumental in developing a better understanding of contextual influences and boundary conditions on the causes of deviant behavior. In the present paper, we extend previous work by examining a broad category of deviance, workplace sabotage. An additional characteristic of most of the relevant empirical work is that it has been relatively coarse-grained, examining the effect of injustice (distributive, procedural, and/or interactional) on whether or not employees engage in a specific act of deviance, such as theft. Research does not consider how different types of injustice may affect the type of deviance in which an individual engages. Here, we match this multidimensional perspective on justice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) with a more fine-grained image of deviance. Specifically, we describe how types of injustice affect the goal, target, and severity of sabotage behavior. Below, we briefly review relevant research and present a series of hypotheses outlining the relationships between justice and sabotage. We then describe a study that examines these relationships between justice and sabotage and discuss the implications of our findings.

2. Sabotage Workplace sabotage is behavior intended to ‘‘damage, disrupt, or subvert the organization’s operations for the personal purposes of the saboteur by creating unfavorable publicity, embarrassment, delays in production, damage to property, the destruction of working relationships, or the harming of employees or customers’’ (Crino, 1994, p. 312). Most recent research argues for conceptualizing sabotage as a rational behavior that stems from an individual’s reaction to his or her environment (Analoui, 1995; DiBattista, 1996; Jermier, 1988). This research has focused on categorizing sabotage behaviors and/or identifying its motivation (e.g., Analoui, 1995; Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1987; Jermier, 1988). The sabotage literature suggests five possible motives: powerlessness, frustration, facilitation of work, boredom/fun, and injustice. These labels reflect the terminology used in the sabotage literature to denote antecedent conditions to sabotage. We consider each below. 2.1. Powerlessness Powerlessness stems from a lack of freedom or autonomy (Allen & Greenberger, 1980; Bennett, 1998). Sabotage that results from powerlessness is an effort to attain control for its own sake. It involves trying to change the nature of work or the inducements/contributions equation to achieve a nonsanctioned end (i.e., something that benefits the person or workgroup, not the organization). Examples include wildcat strikes to enhance a bargaining position or breaking machinery to gain

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

949

unscheduled breaks. Empirical research suggests that individuals who feel powerless may engage in sabotage (Bennett, 1998; DiBattista, 1991) and that such destructive behavior can increase individuals’ sense of control (Allen & Greenberger, 1980). Some researchers identify powerlessness as a source of injustice (Bennett, 1998, p. 228), creating a potential source of confusion between powerlessness and injustice as sabotage motives. However, to maintain the conceptual distinction between these two, we confine our conceptualization of the power motive to acts aimed at obtaining control, rather than regaining justice. 2.2. Organizational frustration Organizational frustration is defined as an interference with goal attainment or goal maintenance (Spector, 1978). In this case, it is the emotional state of frustration that drives the sabotage. For example, anger over inadequate resources to do the job may lead to a cathartic destruction of property (Taylor & Walton, 1971). As with powerlessness, research demonstrates that sabotage is related to organizational frustration (Chen & Spector, 1992; Spector, 1975; Storms & Spector, 1987; Taylor & Walton, 1971). However, some clarification may be needed to distinguish between frustration and other possible motives. For example, researchers also have recognized that powerlessness can be frustrating (Bennett, 1998, p. 228) and that injustice can elicit frustration (Brown & Herrnstein, 1975). However, we conceptualize frustration as the motive for sabotage only if it is the blocking of goals per se that drives the act. Frustration is not the underlying motive if the employee is frustrated as the result of something else (e.g., powerlessness or injustice). In such cases, the source of the frustration (powerlessness or injustice) would be the motive for sabotage. 2.3. Facilitation of work Facilitation of work occurs when the goal of the sabotage is to make the work activity easier to accomplish. Research demonstrates that attempting to make the work process easier can be a cause of sabotage (Bensman & Gerver, 1963; Taylor & Walton, 1971). However, it is important to distinguish between facilitation of work and related concepts like power. Power generally involves breaking the rules, whereas facilitation of work involves bending the rules. Power is any effort to change or restructure the work to achieve a personal or nonsanctioned end. It restructures social relationships, but does not necessarily make the work easier (Taylor & Walton, 1971). Facilitation of work involves nonsanctioned means to achieve sanctioned ends. The classic example of work facilitation is the use of a ‘‘tap’’ in airplane manufacturing (Taylor & Walton, 1971). A tap is a steel screw that rethreads a nut so that a misaligned bolt will fit. In the short run, this makes work easier, but in the long run employees know that it weakens the strength of the connection and may therefore be detrimental to the organization. Although many efforts to facilitate work are innocuous or perhaps even beneficial, these efforts lead to sabotage in cases such as this when individuals ease the work process at a cost (or potential cost) to the organization. 2.4. Boredom/fun Boredom/fun is identified as the motive for sabotage when the primary goal of the activity is to cut boredom, generate excitement, or have fun. ‘‘Changing the time on the punch clock, or pulling the fire alarm may add just the right level of excitement to an otherwise boring day’’ (Crino, 1994, p. 317). Research indicates that employees may engage in sabotage in an effort to alleviate boredom and/or entertain themselves or their coworkers (Crino, 1994; DiBattista, 1991; Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1987; Taylor & Walton, 1971).

950

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

2.5. Injustice Injustice refers to an employee’s belief that he or she (or someone else) has been treated unfairly. An employee who feels unjustly treated may try to ‘‘even the score’’ by committing sabotage. As Crino (1994, p. 315) has observed, an employee who has been ‘‘shown disrespect, passed over for promotion, given additional responsibilities with no pay increase, denied adequate resources to do the job, or didn’t receive what he or she considered adequate credit for work performed from co-workers or management’’ fits the profile of the classic disgruntled saboteur. Injustice is a frequently cited cause of sabotage (Crino, 1994; Crino & Leap, 1989; DiBattista, 1989, 1996; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Sieh, 1987; Tucker, 1993). Although this claim has not been directly tested in the sabotage literature, empirical research on justice demonstrates that perceived injustice is associated with forms of deviance such as theft (Greenberg, 1993a,b) and vandalism (DeMore, Fisher, & Baron, 1988). Early organizational justice literature distinguished between two types of fairness: distributive (the perceived fairness of outcomes such as pay) and procedural (the perceived fairness of procedures). (See Cropanzano & Greenberg (1997) for a review.) However, as the field evolved, justice researchers recognized the importance of how procedures were enacted. Justice research began to focus on interactional justice—the fairness of the interpersonal treatment the individual receives from a decision-maker. Two dimensions of treatment have been shown to be important to judgments of interactional justice: explanations and interpersonal sensitivity. There has been debate in the justice literature about how to incorporate interactional justice into a general justice framework. Bies and Moag (1986) originally described interactional justice as a third type of justice. However, subsequent researchers suggested interactional justice was best conceptualized as the ‘‘social’’ side of procedural justice, rather than a distinct type of justice (e.g., Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Folger & Bies, 1989; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Yet more recent research has argued for considering interactional justice as a distinct form of justice (Malatesta & Byrne, 1997; Masterson, Lewis-McClear, Goldman, & Taylor, 1997; Moye, Masterson, & Bartol, 1997). What is clear in this debate is that individuals respond not only to outcomes and procedures, but also to interpersonal interactions. It is also clear that there are both structural and social elements that affect justice perceptions (Brockner, Ackerman, & Fairchild, 2001; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Folger & Skarlicki, 1998; Greenberg, 1993a). Greenberg (1993a) presents a model that explicitly considers this distinction. He identifies two dimensions for classifying classes of justice: category of justice (procedural and distributive) and focal determinant (structural and social). In this typology, traditional procedural and distributive justice are classified as structural forms of justice. Interactional justice (separated into the two dimensions of informational justice and interpersonal justice) is classified as a social form of justice. (See also Folger & Skarlicki, 1998.) This distinction between structural and social aspects of justice is relevant to our examination of sabotage. We expand on it below. 2.6. Dominant motives There is little research that addresses which of the sabotage motives is most dominant. However, a review of the literature provides some basis for prediction. Injustice as a cause of sabotage is a theme that arises in both the sabotage (Crino, 1994; Crino & Leap, 1989; DiBattista, 1989, 1996; Dubois, 1979; Sieh, 1987; Tucker, 1993) and justice literatures (Bies & Tripp, 1998; Folger & Skarlicki, 1998). Indeed, Greenberg and Alge (1998, p. 84), in their discussion of workplace aggression (sabotage is a form of aggression, Neuman & Baron, 1998,

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

951

p. 400) suggest that an approach based on organizational justice ‘‘is arguably one of the most promising orientations.’’ They note that recent surveys show that both British (Hoad, 1993) and American workers (Neuman, Baron, & Geddes, 1996) believe that unfair treatment is the dominant cause of aggression in the workplace. Thus, we expect injustice will also be the most common motive for sabotage. We predict: H1:. Injustice will be a more frequent cause of sabotage than powerlessness, frustration, facilitation of work, or boredom/fun.

3. Sabotage as a form of deviance Recently there has been increased interest in deviant behavior in the workplace. (See Robinson & Bennett, 1997, and Robinson & Greenberg, 1998, for reviews.) Topics in this stream of research include workplace aggression (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Folger & Baron, 1996), incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), revenge (Bies & Tripp, 1998), theft (Greenberg, 1990, 1993b, 1996; Hollinger & Clark, 1983), organization-motivated aggression (O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996), organizational retaliatory behavior (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), and antisocial behavior (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997; Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Workplace sabotage, however, has been largely overlooked as a type of deviant behavior. (For an exception see Giacalone, Riordan, & Rosenfeld, 1997.) This surge of interest in deviant behavior has spawned a variety of terms and definitions that are both overlapping and unique. An extensive discussion of these variations on a theme, and sabotage’s place among these, is beyond the scope of this paper. (See Robinson & Greenberg, 1998, for such a review.) However, several aspects of our definition warrant discussion. First, the main difference between sabotage and the general concept of deviance is that sabotage explicitly focuses on doing harm whereas deviance focuses on violating norms. Although there is considerable overlap between these two constructs because deviance is potentially harmful or likely to be perceived as harmful, deviance can be functional or even beneficial (Robinson & Bennett, 1997) whereas by definition sabotage cannot be. Second, sabotage is both narrower than some conceptualizations of deviance and broader than others. For example, although Robinson and Bennett (1995) include gossiping and showing favoritism as forms of deviance, these behaviors are unlikely to constitute sabotage. On the other hand, we would conceptualize organizational retaliatory behavior as a subset of sabotage. These behaviors reflect sabotage motivated by retaliation and focus on more ‘‘subtle and covert’’ forms of retaliation. Sabotage includes these less subtle and more overt forms of behavior as well. Third, it is important to note that the organizational damage caused by sabotage can be either direct or indirect. Sabotage can target an individual, a unit, or the whole organization (Giacalone et al., 1997, p. 121). Moreover, sabotage can have multiple targets and the organization need not be the primary victim. Although we use the term sabotage in this paper, we recognize that we risk adding to the proliferation of terms used to describe various types of deviant behavior. The preceding discussion, however, suggests that sabotage is not just another term for the general concept of deviance nor is it the same as other types of deviant behavior. It is different enough from these other forms to warrant separate consideration. Moreover, we believe that the label sabotage is useful in this study, as it is the term used in much of the literature on which we rely (particularly for our discussion of causes). Additionally, our study relies on secondary data. Sabotage was the term used during that data collection.

952

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

Positioning sabotage as a form of deviance provides a framework for differentiating among types of sabotage. As noted above, sabotage research has focused primarily on identifying causes of sabotage and different types of sabotage behaviors. However, this research has not systematically considered similarities and differences between different acts of sabotage. The literature on workplace deviance provides a framework for such an analysis. The deviance literature suggests that deviant behavior varies in terms of goal, target, and severity. The first dimension, goal, concerns Greenberg’s (1996) distinction between restoration of equity and retaliation. The other two dimensions, target and severity, follow from Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) typology of workplace deviance. The following sections describe each dimension and provide predictions about how injustice affects these sabotage dimensions. 3.1. Goal of sabotage Early research on justice and deviance focused on distributive justice and used an equity theory approach for understanding sabotage (DeMore et al., 1988; Fisher & Baron, 1982; Sieh, 1987). This research suggested that the goal of sabotage (theft or vandalism in these studies) was an attempt to restore equity; that is, to compensate for an outcome that was deserved but was not received. Indeed, Adams (1965, p. 276) in his description of equity theory suggests, ‘‘[Individuals] do not simply become dissatisfied with conditions they perceive to be unjust. They usually do something about them.’’ Thus, sabotage was seen as a means to redistribute outcomes to restore a state of equity that was motivated by distributive injustice. Yet the literature suggests there are other goals individuals hope to achieve when they engage in sabotage as a response to injustice. For example, recent research on revenge (Bies & Tripp, 1998; Bies et al., 1997) suggests individuals may take revenge against someone who has mistreated them. Folger and Skarlicki (1998) suggest that injustice may create moral outrage, which spurs the individual to action. The work is consistent with work on sabotage that suggests that sabotage (and deviance in general) can serve two different goals: instrumental and expressive (Dubois, 1979; Robinson & Bennett, 1997). Robinson and Bennett (1997, p. 16) describe an instrumental motivation aimed at ‘‘repairing the situation, restoring equity, or improving the current situation’’ and an expressive motivation to ‘‘vent, release, or express one’s feelings of outrage, anger or frustration.’’ Greenberg (1996) identifies two types of responses to injustice that appear to be related to instrumental and expressive goals: restoration of equity or retaliation. Restoration refers to an attempt to increase the levels of reward received in order to ‘‘make up’’ for a good the individual believes he or she deserved but that was denied. Retaliation describes an actor’s behavior designed to harm a target who has caused harm to the actor, regardless of whether or not the behavior redistributes resources. (See Neuman & Baron (1997, p. 45) for a similar distinction.) Greenberg’ s formulation essentially recasts the distinction between instrumental and expressive goals from a justice perspective. We adopt this formulation because it provides a more focused characterization of the goal of sabotage. With respect to retaliation, Greenberg draws on Kemper’s (1966) concept of ‘‘reciprocal deviance.’’ Reciprocal deviance is deviance designed to punish the target. It is founded on motives of revenge. Greenberg (1996) suggests that individuals may engage in deviant behavior (in Greenberg’s case, theft) in an attempt to harm a target that has harmed them, regardless of whether or not the behavior redistributes resources. (See also, Cropanzano & Baron, 1991.) But what might motivate individuals to retaliate against a target? What might cause an employee to want to ‘‘get back at’’ an organization or individual when there is no material gain for doing so? Research suggests that interactional justice may play an important role in retaliatory sabotage. For example, Bies and Tripp (1998)

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

953

identify demeaning treatment and destructive criticism (i.e., interpersonal insensitivity) as a motive for revenge. Folger and Skarlicki (1998, p. 43) indicate that ‘‘interactional justice (especially lack of interpersonal sensitivity) takes on paramount importance in predicting retaliation and aggression in the workplace.’’ However, there is a dilemma in examining restoration of equity and retaliation in organizations. The two different motives can be manifested in the same behavior. This dilemma was overcome by Greenberg (1996) in an ingenious laboratory experiment that distinguished between these motives. Greenberg found that when individuals were treated in a distributively unfair way, they stole only if the theft could restore their perceived inequity (i.e., if the stolen item had value). When individuals were treated in an interpersonally unfair way, they stole even if the item was of no value to them. We expect individuals to engage in sabotage both as an attempt to restore equity and as a method of retaliation. However, as in the Greenberg (1996) study, we expect individuals will attempt to restore equity when they believe they have been treated in a distributively unfair way and retaliate when they believe they have been treated in an interpersonally unfair manner. Thus, we hypothesize: H2:. Individuals who feel they’ve been treated distributively unfairly will engage in sabotage behavior in an attempt to restore equity. Individuals who feel they have been treated interpersonally unfairly will engage in sabotage behavior in retaliation. 3.2. Target of sabotage Robinson and Bennett (1995) presented a typology of workplace deviance that identifies two dimensions of deviant behavior: target (who is harmed by the behavior—individual/organization) and severity (the magnitude of the harm—minor/ serious). This typology allows researchers to organize a broad range of behaviors as deviant (e.g., taking frequent coffee breaks (organizational-minor), theft (organizational-serious)), while maintaining important distinctions between those behaviors. The framework also provides a foundation for systematically examining the relationship between proposed causes of deviant behavior and a constellation of behaviors that fall along these dimensions. Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) distinction between deviance directed at individuals and deviance directed at the organization is similar to a distinction made in the justice literature between structural and social aspects of justice (Folger & Skarlicki, 1998; Greenberg, 1993a). The former is injustice created by the organizational system (procedural and distributive justice); the latter is injustice created through interaction with a specific individual (interactional justice). Research suggests that individuals’ responses to injustice are likely to correspond to its source. Sheppard, Lewicki, and Minton (1992) suggest that when individuals are treated unjustly, they may experience a need to punish those blamed for the problem. Bennett (1998) suggests that when management’s decisions seem capricious or enforcement seems biased, employees are likely to behave in a hostile fashion toward the individual they perceive to be responsible. However, if they perceive the organization to be responsible they may retaliate against the organization. O’Leary-Kelly et al. (1996) submit that aggressive behavior will be directed against the specific target believed to be responsible for the negative outcome. Robinson and Bennett (1995, p. 567) suggest that organizational variables are ‘‘more likely to influence deviance directed at harming organizations and individual variables are more likely to explain interpersonal forms of deviance.’’ Thus, we expect that saboteurs will target their sabotage at the source of the perceived injustice. That is, when the source of the injustice is structural (created by the organizational system), the target of the sabotage should be the organization. When the source of injustice is social (created by interaction with a specific individual), the target of the sabotage should be the individual. Thus, we hypothesize:

954

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

H3:. The target of sabotage behaviors (organizational/individual) will be the same as the source of the perceived unfairness (organizational/individual). We should note one area of ambiguity concerning the target dimension. Robinson and Bennett (1997, p. 7) state that, ‘‘The second dimension, individually directed versus organizationally directed deviance, reflects the target of the action, whether it is directed at the organization or whether it is directed at other individuals in the organization.’’ However, Robinson and Bennett (1995, 1997) note that the dimension captures who is harmed by the action. Although one would expect the target of the sabotage to be related to who is harmed, these are not necessarily the same. Indeed, research on organizational aggression suggests that targets of harm and entities harmed may diverge, for at least two reasons. First, individuals may displace their aggression. An employee may feel unfairly treated by his or her supervisor, but unable to retaliate against the boss and therefore vent his or her anger on a coworker. Second, individuals may engage in behavior that, in harming the source of the problem, harms others as well. Construction workers may feel an organization does not pay them enough, so they do not work carefully. However, in the end, the harm to the customer may be even greater than the harm to the company. The question then becomes whether individuals are more likely to harm ‘‘innocent bystanders’’ when they target other individuals or when they target the organization. There is little empirical research to guide our prediction here. However, O’LearyKelly et al.’s (1996) work on organizationally motivated aggression provides some guidance. O’Leary-Kelly et al. suggest that when individuals attribute the impetus for their aggressive behavior to factors in the physical environment, their aggression is more likely to be directed against nonspecific targets. The physical environment is most likely to be associated with organizational targets. Thus, we expect that when the target of harm and the entity harmed diverge, individuals will be more likely to be harmed when organizations are the targets, than organizations are likely to be harmed when individuals are the targets. We propose: H4:. When the target of the sabotage and the entity harmed by the sabotage are not the same, saboteurs are more likely to harm individuals when targeting organizations than to harm organizations when targeting individuals. 3.3. Severity of sabotage The severity dimension of Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) typology captures the seriousness of the harm that results from the behavior. The relationship between justice type and deviance severity has received little attention in the literature. We know of no empirical research that explicitly examines this relationship. Moreover, the research that is most directly relevant focuses on deviance frequency (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), rather than severity. Other researchers’ work is suggestive of a relationship between interactional injustice and the severity of response, but this relationship is not the primary focus of the work (e.g., Baron, Neuman, & Geddes, 1999). For this reason, we have tried to cast a wide net in theorizing on the effect of injustice on sabotage severity. Our review of the justice and deviance literature revealed four possibilities. The first two suggest that justice type has a direct or an additive effect on sabotage severity; the last two advance interaction effects. First, interactional justice may have a main or direct effect on deviance severity. The extreme examples most authors provide of workplace violence stem from an individual’s perspective that they have been wronged interpersonally (Folger & Baron, 1996; Greenberg & Alge, 1998). The research that most directly addresses this issue is the work of Skarlicki and Folger (1997), who suggest that interactional justice is a critical factor in workplace aggression. They suggest that interactional

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

955

justice generates stronger main effects on aggression than the structural forms of justice (i.e., distributive and procedural justice). Moreover, they note that interactional justice has been associated with an extreme form of workplace aggression— physical assault (Folger, Baron, & McLean Parks, 1996, cited in Folger & Skarlicki, 1998), a result demonstrated by Baron et al. (1999). The work implies that interactional justice may play a direct role in deviance severity. Second, types of injustice may have an additive effect on deviance (McLean Parks & Kidder, 1994; McLean Parks, 1997). This effect reflects the sum of justice types, rather than their individual or interactive effects. McLean Parks and Kidder (1994) propose a catastrophe function or ‘‘Popeye’’ effect for distributive, procedural, and interactional injustice. According to this formulation, when accumulated injustices reach a certain threshold, the employee ‘‘markedly switches to another form of behavior which is quite different in nature from the previous form of behavior (i.e., malevolent as opposed to benevolent). . .. Once this threshold has been reached, the change can be quite drastic—in the words of the immortal Popeye, ‘That’s all I can stands, cuz I can’t stands no more’’’ (McLean Parks & Kidder, 1994, p. 133). A similar formulation can be found in the literature on frustration and workplace aggression (Martinko & Zellars, 1998). Baron and Neuman (1996), for example, found a relationship between workplace aggression and the number of frustrating workplace changes. A threshold or additive model may be especially helpful in understanding deviance severity because it focuses on behavioral discontinuities in response to justice. Third, there may be a two-way interaction between justice type and deviance. Greenberg (1993b) has shown that distributive justice interacts with information validity and interpersonal sensitivity in determining amount of theft. In their analysis of workplace aggression, Greenberg and Alge (1998) propose that distributive injustice is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to elicit aggressive behavior. Rather, it is the interaction of distributive justice and either procedural or interactional justice that leads individuals to engage in aggressive behavior. However, Greenberg and Alge’s analysis suggests an important distinction between the effect of procedural and interactional justice. They note that there is no research demonstrating a link between structural injustice and active aggression (although they do not rule out this possibility). They note the evidence is suggestive that active aggression may result from the interaction of distributive injustice and socially insensitive treatment. Fourth, there may be a three-way interaction between justice type and deviance (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Skarlicki and Folger examined the effect of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on the frequency of organizational retaliatory behavior (ORB). They hypothesized that there would be a three-way interaction for the three types of justice. The results supported their predictions. The relationship between distributive justice and ORB was significant only when all three types of justice were low. However, if employees perceived either procedure or interactions as fair, distributive injustice was not significantly related to ORBs. These possibilities inform four competing hypotheses: H5a:. Individuals will engage in more serious forms of sabotage when they experience interactional injustice than when they experience either distributive injustice or procedural injustice. H5b:. Individuals will engage in more serious forms of sabotage when they experience multiple types of injustice. More specifically, sabotage severity will increase in direct proportion to the sum of types of injustice (distributive, procedural, and interactional).

956

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

H5c:. Individuals will engage in more serious forms of sabotage when they experience both distributive injustice and interactional injustice than when they experience only one source of injustice or when distributive injustice is paired with procedural injustice. H5d:. Individuals will engage in more serious forms of sabotage when they experience all three sources of injustice simultaneously (distributive, procedural, and interactional). More specifically, distributive injustice will increase sabotage severity only when procedural injustice is paired with interactional injustice.

4. Method Procedure The 132 first-person accounts of sabotage activities in the book Sabotage in the American workplace: Anecdotes of dissatisfaction, mischief, and revenge. (Sprouse, 1992) served as data for the study. These accounts are self-reports, typically 200–800 words in length, from individuals interviewed by Sprouse. Sprouse’s sample is not a scientific one. To identify subjects he distributed fliers, placed ads in newspapers, received referrals from friends, and friends of friends. The book only includes accounts from individuals who did something ‘‘they weren’t supposed to do’’ at work. Sprouse reports interviewing individuals who did not engage in sabotage, however these accounts are not included in the book. Three trained raters (see below) read the accounts, evaluating and coding each on four dimensions: (1) the antecedent condition (cause) of the sabotage (powerlessness, frustration, facilitation of work, boredom/fun, or injustice), (2) who was the target of the sabotage (individual, organization), (3) who was harmed by the sabotage (individual, organization), and (4) the severity of the sabotage. If the cause was injustice, raters then coded (5) the existence of distributive injustice (1 ¼ yes, 2 ¼ no), (6) the existence of procedural injustice, (7) the existence of interactional injustice, (8) whether the source of injustice was structural (organizational) or social (individual), and (9) whether the goal of the sabotage was restoration (of equity) or retaliation. Raters were provided with definitions of the antecedent conditions for sabotage that are consistent with the definitions of each provided in the introduction to this paper. For each account, raters identified the primary cause of the sabotage. Thus, only one cause of sabotage was identified for each account. If the cause was injustice, coders then evaluated which types of injustice occurred (distributive, procedural, or interactional) and of these, which was the primary source of injustice. Coders also determined whether the cause of injustice was the result of structure (characteristics of the organization systems like work rules or compensation systems) or was social (interpersonal treatment). Severity of sabotage and who was harmed by the sabotage were coded according to Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) typology of deviance behavior. Raters used the specific examples provided by Robinson and Bennett (Figs. 1 and 2, pp. 562–563 and 565, respectively) as a guide for determining the appropriate category of the act. The severity of the act was rated on an 8-point scale based on the x-axis from Robinson and Bennett’s Fig. 1, which they termed seriousness or harmfulness. For ratings of who was harmed by the sabotage, raters used the y-axis from the Robinson and Bennett figures to categorize the act as harmful to an individual or to the organization. For assessing the target of sabotage, raters focused on who (an individual) or what (the organization) was the intended target of the sabotage episode. Raters were instructed that the intended target might differ from who was actually affected. For example, if an employee sent customers damaged goods to get back at the organi-

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

957

Table 1 PRL reliability PRL reliability Severity of sabotage Harmed by sabotage Target of sabotage Cause of sabotage Distributive injustice Procedural injustice Interactional injustice Source of injustice (structural/social) Goal of sabotage (restore/retaliate) a

.77a .98 .95 .93 .72 .79 .94 .90 .94

This variable is an interval scale. The reliability statistic is Cronbach’s a.

zation, the organization would be identified as the target, even though the customer may have been harmed. Additionally, coders assessed whether the goal of the sabotage was retaliation or the restoration of equity (as with cause, the primary goal was identified; a single goal was determined for each scenario). With the exception of severity of harm, all ratings were categorical. Rater training began with each rater reading the Robinson and Bennett (1995) article and discussing the deviance typology with the authors until a clear understanding of each dimension and the examples provided in the figures was reached. Raters were also provided with definitions and descriptions of the antecedent conditions for sabotage, the three types of justice, the distinction between structural and social sources of injustice, and the distinction between restoration of equity and retaliation. Raters then independently coded five scenarios. The scenario ratings were compared both across raters and to a ‘‘master’’ coding prepared by the authors. Raters were then debriefed, and discrepancies were discussed among raters and the authors. The raters then coded five additional scenarios. This round of coding demonstrated substantial agreement both between raters and with the ‘‘master’’ coding, so no additional training was conducted. The 10 training scenarios were excluded from the analyses. The ratings for the 122 remaining scenarios were analyzed. After all ratings were completed, we assessed interrater agreement using Rust and Cooil’s (1994) Proportional Reduction in Loss (PRL) coefficient. PRL allowed us to assess agreement across multiple raters on categorical ratings. This measure generalizes many existing measures, including Cronbach’s a. For this reason, the measures can be interpreted using the same standards as Cronbach’s a. As can be seen in Table 1, the reliabilities range from .72 to .98 (mean ¼ .88), indicating acceptable interrater agreement for each of the variables.

5. Results Our first hypothesis examined the prevalence of injustice as a cause of sabotage behavior. The results support the hypothesis. Perceived injustice was the most frequent cause of sabotage behavior; it was more frequent than all of the other causes combined (v2 ¼ 4:72, df ¼ 1, p < :05). The frequencies for the causes are shown in Table 2. Of the 122 scenarios, injustice was identified as the cause for 73. The second most common cause was powerlessness, followed by boredom/fun, frustration, and facilitation of work. (Two scenarios were coded as ‘‘other.’’) Our second hypothesis predicted that when individuals perceived distributive injustice as the cause, they would engage in sabotage to restore equity, whereas when individuals perceived interactional injustice, they would engage in sabotage to retaliate. (Here, we included only the 61 cases for which the primary cause of

958

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

Table 2 Motives for sabotage behavior Cause

Frequency

Injustice Powerlessness Boredom/Fun Frustration Facilitation of work Other Total

73 (59.8%) 24 (19.7%) 13 (10.7%) 8 (6.6%) 2 (1.6%) 2 (1.6%) 122

sabotage was either distributive or interactional injustice.) As shown in Table 3, the v2 for this hypothesis was significant (v2 ¼ 12:28, df ¼ 1, p < :001). Of the scenarios that reflected interactional injustice, retaliation was the most commonly identified goal. For the cases of distributive injustice, restoration was the most common goal. Our third hypothesis suggested that the target of the sabotage would be the same as the source of the perceived unfairness. This hypothesis is partially supported (v2 ¼ 6:26, df ¼ 1, p < :01). As shown in Table 4, when the source of the injustice was structural (organizational), saboteurs were more likely to target the organization than individuals. However, when the source of injustice was social (individual), the saboteur was as likely to target an individual as the organization. Our fourth hypothesis examined the relationship between the target of sabotage and the entity harmed (Table 5). We predicted that sabotage targeted at the organization was more likely to ‘‘miss its mark’’ and harm individuals than sabotage targeted at individuals. The results revealed a significant v2 (v2 ¼ 10:47, p < :01). However, the results were not as predicted. Sabotage targeted at individuals was more likely to harm organizations than sabotage targeted at organizations was to harm individuals. Our final hypotheses examined the relationship between the severity of sabotage and the source of injustice. We used linear regression to assess the four competing hypotheses. The dependent variable for each model was sabotage severity, rated on an 8-point scale. The models for testing Hypotheses 5a, 5c, and 5d included the main

Table 3 Type of justice and goal of sabotage Type of injustice

Goal of sabotage Retaliation

Restoration

Distributive Interactional

14 22 36

21 4 25

35 26 61

v2 ¼ 12:28, p < :001.

Table 4 Source of injustice and target of sabotage Source

Structural Social

v2 ¼ 6:26, p < :01.

Target Organization

Individual

38 15

8 12

46 27

53

20

69

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

959

Table 5 Target of sabotage and entity harmed by sabotage Harmed by sabotage

Individual Organization

Target of sabotage Individual

Organization

5 22

2 93

7 115

27

95

122

v2 ¼ 10:47, p < :01.

effect terms, two-way interactions, and the three-way interaction, respectively, of distributive, procedural, and interactional injustice. For Hypothesis 5b, we created dummy variables indicating whether the raters noted the presence of one, two, or three types of injustice (distributive, procedural, and interactional). This approach allows for nonlinearity in the additive effect of injustice. As shown in Table 6, Hypotheses 5a, 5c, and 5d were not supported. The predicted main effect and interaction effects for these three hypotheses were not significant. Hypothesis 5b, however, was supported. As Table 7 reflects, the sum of the three types of injustice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) was significantly related to the severity of sabotage (F ¼ 2:89, df ¼ 3, 118, p < :05). Fig. 1 displays the cumulative effect of injustices on sabotage severity. The average severity for sabotage unrelated to injustice (i.e., sabotage caused by powerlessness, frustration, facilitation of work, and boredom/fun) was 5.74. The experience of one type of injustice increased sabotage severity to 6.02; two types of injustice increased it to 6.67; and three types of injustice increased it to 7.89.

6. Discussion This study examined the relationship between injustice and sabotage behavior. In general, the results supported our hypotheses. As predicted, injustice was the most Table 6 Main and interaction effects for type of injustice on sabotage severity Main effects model (H5a)

Two-way interactions model (H5c)

Three-way interaction model (H5d)

Independent variables (Constant) Distributive injustice Procedural injustice Interactional injustice Distributive  procedural injustice Distributive  interactional injustice Procedural  interactional injustice Distributive  procedural  interactional injustice

B 5.69 (.16) .43 (.26) .40 (.33) .29 (.29)

B 5.72 (.18) .37 (.32) ).18 (.57) .46 (.48) .92 (.74) ).29 (.60)

B 5.72 (.18) .37 (.32) ).18 (.61) .45 (.50) .93 (.86) ).28 (.65)

).02 (.72)

).02 (1.52)

F Multiple R R2 df

2.97 .27 .07 3, 118

* **

p < :05. p < :01.

).01 (1.73) 1.78 .29 .09 6, 115

1.52 .29 .09 7, 114

960

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

Table 7 Additive effect of type of injustice on sabotage severity Model

B

b

(Constant) One type of injustice Two types of injustice Three types of injustice

5.74 (.17) .28 (.28) .65 (.32) 1.22 (.49)

0.09 0.19 0.23

F Multiple R R2 df

2.89 .26 .07 3, 118

* **

p < :05. p < :01.

Fig. 1. Relationship between number of types of injustice and sabotage severity.

common cause of sabotage behavior. Also, distributive injustice was associated with sabotage behavior aimed at restoring equity, while interactional injustice was associated with retaliatory sabotage behavior. Whereas the source of the injustice (structural or social) affected the target of the sabotage (organization or individual), this effect was clearest for structural sources of injustice. The results also revealed that saboteurs are more likely to ‘‘miss their mark’’ when they target individuals than when they target organizations. Finally, the additive effect of the three types of injustice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) determined the severity of the sabotage. Below we discuss these results in greater detail. The sabotage literature tends to identify causes of sabotage without exploring their relative importance. While injustice is often noted as a potential cause, it rarely figures prominently in mainstream work on sabotage. Put differently, a survey of the sabotage literature is likely to leave the reader with the impression that injustice is, at best, one of many possible causes of sabotage or, at worst, a relatively minor motive. The results of the present study are in sharp contrast to this image. Our study indicates that injustice is a dominant cause of sabotage. Injustice clearly warrants greater attention in the sabotage literature. From a practical perspective, this research is encouraging. It suggests that the primary causes of sabotage are workplace phenomena that can be managed. Research on justice provides useful guidelines for increasing workplace fairness. Similarly, because powerlessness was the second most frequent cause of sabotage, research on empowerment may also provide a useful framework for managing sabotage. This result also has implications for justice research. It is interesting to note that of the potential causes for sabotage, justice, and powerlessness dominated, accounting for nearly 80% of the sabotage events. As these two constructs share

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

961

common consequences, it could be useful for justice researchers to consider what other characteristics these two domains have in common. These areas may be more tightly related than we traditionally believe. For example, it is clear that both share a common link in terms of the importance of control. We might gain additional insights to organizational justice by considering shared and unique attributes of each. Our results also suggest that sabotage behavior can fulfill two motives: restoration of equity and retaliation against a harm-doer. As predicted, distributive injustice was more likely to be associated with sabotage aimed at restoring equity, while interactional injustice was more likely to be associated with retaliation. Interestingly, procedural injustice was as likely to be associated with restoration (8 of 13 incidents) as retaliation (5 of 13 incidents). Apparently, when the structure of procedures is unfair, individuals are as likely to perceive this as taking from them something they deserve (restoration) as they are to perceive themselves as being harmed (retaliation). Our results also provide some support for the rational view of sabotage. Sabotage is often conceptualized as being a ‘‘hot’’ response. Thus, we might expect sabotageinclined individuals to lash out at anything around them. But our results suggest that saboteurs do not randomly engage in sabotage activities. Rather, they target their behavior at the perceived source of the injustice. When the source of injustice is seen as structural, caused by the organization, the target is the organization. However, the match is not quite as clean when the injustice stems from an interpersonal interaction. Here, saboteurs are as likely to target the organization as to target individuals. The relationship between injustice and effects of sabotage become muddier when one considers that there is not a perfect correlation between who or what is the target and who or what is harmed. The results for Hypothesis 4 show that in approximately 20% of the cases, the target of the sabotage is different from the entity that is harmed. However, the collateral damage is nearly always to the organization. When saboteurs target organizations, they hit their mark 98% of the time. However, when saboteurs target individuals, 81% of the time they do greater harm to the organization than to the individual. These results are inconsistent with our generalization of the prediction of O’Leary-Kelly et al. (1996). However, in retrospect, there may be several reasons for this. First, O’Leary-Kelly et al.’s predictions were based on the impetus for aggression that stems from the physical environment. When injustice is caused by the organization, it is likely that individuals can clearly identify the source—thus making a match between the source and target more likely. Why then might acts of sabotage aimed at individuals be more likely to harm the organization? An examination of the 22 vignettes in which that occurred reveals three themes. First, the organization appears to be harmed when the individual targeted is the owner or a visible representative of the organization. That is, employees may harm their nemesis by harming the organization that person owns or represents. In this latter case, the target individuals may ultimately be made to look bad when the sabotage is discovered. The second theme is characterized by individuals who withdraw from work (e.g., work slowly, file false work reports, quit) in an effort to respond an unreasonable boss. The third theme is individuals who harm the organization by taking to an extreme the ‘‘rules’’ that their boss insists upon. This is similar to the idea of ‘‘working to rule’’ that characterizes union slowdowns. But in this case, the individual is reacting to the unreasonable expectations of a single individual (the boss). They do not view the organization as the problem. We believe these results are intriguing from a number of perspectives. They underscore the importance of frontline supervisors and managers to the overall well being of the organization. In an effort to retaliate against such bosses, individuals frequently harm the organization. However, it is important to note here that the number of cases of interpersonal deviance was small. Moreover, post-hoc analyses

962

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

reveal no significant relationship between the source of the injustice (organizational vs. interpersonal) and who is harmed (organization or individual). Our results did not support our prediction that interactional injustice would be associated with more serious sabotage than either distributive injustice or procedural injustice. Nor did they support our prediction that the types of injustice would interact to predict the severity of sabotage. However, we did find that distributive, procedural, and interactional injustice exerted an additive effect on sabotage severity: the greater the cumulative injustice, the more serious the sabotage. Moreover, the lack of any two- or three-way interactions (see Table 6) indicates that this additive effect is blind to particular combinations of types of injustice. The combined results from our four competing hypotheses indicate that sabotage severity is a purely additive function of the number of types of injustice (distributive, procedural, and interactional). This finding differs from that of Skarlicki and Folger (1997). Two aspects of this result warrant attention. First, the Skarlicki and Folger study examined the frequency of ORB. Our study examines the severity of the behavior. It may be that the additive effect of injustice is most relevant when individuals are considering engaging in more seriously harmful behavior. Second, our assessment of justice in this study is fundamentally different from that represented in previous work. We have dichotomous measures that indicate injustice/no injustice. In other studies, justice can vary from high to moderate to low. Additionally, in many cases, we lack information about the other forms of justice. We only know if individuals described the situation as unjust on a particular dimension. We do not know if the lack of discussion of a particular type of justice indicates fairness on that dimension or not. Nonetheless, the additive effect revealed in this study supports a threshold or ‘‘Popeye’’ model of justice outcomes (McLean Parks & Kidder, 1994). However, as there are many differences between our work and previous work (outcome type, severity, and measurement), further research is needed to clarify the basis for this effect. All studies suffer from limitations and this one is no exception. Our data source is one such limitation; several potential problems exist with this self-report methodology. (We are sampling only individuals who admitted to engaging in sabotage activities and agreed to be interviewed; it is retrospective; it reflects only the saboteur’s perspective of the events; we must sometimes make inferences about motives, etc.) However, we believe it provided a rich, interesting set of data for this initial study about fairness and sabotage. In many ways, this approach conforms to that recommended by Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987). For example, it relies on accounts that were collected outside the work place. However, the results should be considered in the context of the data limitations. Nonetheless, we hope these results provide greater understanding about the relationship between justice and sabotage, and that future research will extend this work in field settings in which the relationships we identify here may be studied more systematically. Interest in the relationship between justice and deviance behavior is growing. In this study we attempt to increase our understanding of the relationship between sabotage and justice by integrating frameworks from organizational justice and workplace deviance. We hope our research adds a useful perspective for understanding these relationships, and that our results provide insights to the effect of organizational injustice on the goal, target, and severity of sabotage behavior.

References Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2) (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

963

Allen, V. L., & Greenberger, D. B. (1980). Destruction and perceived control. In A. Braun, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Advances in Environmental Psychology (Vol. 2) (pp. 85–109). New York: Academic Press. Analoui, F. (1995). Workplace sabotage: its styles, motives, and management. Journal of Management Development, 14, 48–65. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat. The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–472. Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161–173. Baron, R. A., Neuman, J. H., & Geddes, D. (1999). Social and personal determinants of workplace aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the Type A behavior pattern. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 281–296. Bennett, R. J. (1998). Perceived powerlessness as a cause of employee deviance. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations, Part A: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 221–240). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Bensman, J., & Gerver, I. (1963). Crime and punishment in the factory: The function of deviancy in maintaining the social system. American Sociological Review, 28, 588–598. Bies, R., & Moag, J. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki, M. Bazerman, & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Revenge in organizations: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations, Part B: Nonviolent dysfunctional behavior (pp. 49–68). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R. Giacalone, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 18–36). London: Sage. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., & Fairchild, G. (2001). When do elements of procedural fairness make a difference? A classification of moderating influences. In J. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 179–212). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: The interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208. Brown, R., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1975). Psychology. Boston: Little, Brown. Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: an exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177–184. Crino, M. D. (1994). Employee sabotage: a random or preventable phenomenon? Journal of Managerial Issues, 6, 311–330. Crino, M. D., & Leap, T. L. (1989). What HR managers must know about employee sabotage. Personnel, 31–38. Cropanzano, R., & Baron, R. (1991). Injustice and organizational conflict: the moderating effect of power restoration. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 5–26. Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through the maze. In L. T. Robertson, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 317–372). New York: John Wiley & Sons. DeMore, S. W., Fisher, J. D., & Baron, R. M. (1988). The equity-control model as a predictor of vandalism among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 80–91. DiBattista, R. A. (1989). Designing a program to manage the risk of sabotage. Supervision, 6–8. DiBattista, R. A. (1991). Creating new approaches to recognize and deter sabotage. Public Personnel Management, 20, 347–352. DiBattista, R. A. (1996). Forecasting sabotage events in the workplace. Public Personnel Management, 25, 41–52. Dubois, P. (1979). Sabotage in industry. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Fisher, J. D., & Baron, R. M. (1982). An equity-based model of vandalism. Population and Environment, 5, 182–200. Folger, R., & Baron, R. A. (1996). Violence and hostility at work: a model of reactions to perceived injustice. In G. R. VandenBos, & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solution (pp. 51–85). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Folger, R., Baron, R. A., & McLean Parks, J. (1996). Violence by disgruntled employees: Evidence on injustice and popcorn effects. Symposium conducted at the Academy of Management Meetings, Cincinnati, OH (August). Folger, R., & Bies, R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 79–90. Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). A popcorn metaphor for employee aggression. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations, Part A: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 43–82). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

964

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Giacalone, R. A., Riordan, C. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1997). Employee sabotage: toward a practitioner– scholar understanding. In A. G. Robert, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 109–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1987). Reasons for employee sabotage in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1, 367–378. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568. Greenberg, J. (1993a). The social side of fairness: interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Greenberg, J. (1993b). Stealing in the name of justice: informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81– 103. Greenberg, J. (1996). What motivates employee theft? An experimental test of two explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA (April). Greenberg, J., & Alge, B. J. (1998). Aggressive reactions to workplace injustice. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations, Part A: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 83–117). London: JAI Press. Hoad, C. D. (1993). Violence at work: Perspectives from research among 20 British employers. Security Journal, 4, 64–86. Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Jermier, J. M. (1988). Sabotage at work: The rational view. In S. B. Bachrach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 6) (pp. 101–134). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kemper, T. D. (1966). Representative roles and the legitimation of deviance. Social Problems, 13, 288–298. Malatesta, R. M., & Byrne, Z. S., (1997). The impact of formal and interactional justice on organizational outcomes. Poster session presented for the twelfth annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO (April). Martinko, M. J., & Zellars, K. L. (1998). Toward a theory of workplace violence and aggression: A cognitive appraisal perspective. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations, Part A: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 1–42). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Masterson, S. S., Lewis-McClear, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M.S. (1997). Organizational justice and social exchange: An empirical study of the distinction between interactional and formal procedural justice. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meeting, Boston, MA (August). McLean Parks, J. (1997). The fourth arm of justice: the art and science of revenge. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6) (pp. 113–144). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. McLean Parks, J., & Kidder, D. L. (1994). ‘‘Till death do us part. . .’’: changing work relationships in the 1990s. In C. L. Cooper, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 1) (pp. 111– 136). London: Wiley & Sons. Moye, N. A., Masterson, S. S., & Bartol, K. M. (1997). Differentiating antecedents and consequences of procedural and interactional justice: Empirical evidence in support of separate constructs. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, Boston, MA (August). Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R. Giacalone, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 37–67). London: Sage. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391– 419. Neuman, J. H., Baron, R. A., & Geddes, D. (1996). A three-factor model of workplace aggression: predicting specific forms of aggression in organizational settings. Unpublished manuscript. O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: a research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21, 225–253. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: its definition, its nature, and its causes. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & R. J. Bies (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6) (pp. 3–28). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In C. L. Cooper, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 5) (pp. 1–30). Chichester, England, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: the influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658–672.

M.L. Ambrose et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89 (2002) 947–965

965

Rust, R. T., & Cooil, B. (1994). Reliability measures for qualitative data: theory and implications. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 1–14. Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: the search for fairness in the workplace. New York: Lexington Books. Sieh, E. W. (1987). Garment workers: perceptions of inequity and employee theft. British Journal of Criminology, 27, 174–191. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443. Spector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 635–637. Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: a model and review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 31, 815–829. Sprouse, M. (1992). Sabotage in the American workplace: anecdotes of dissatisfaction, revenge, and mischief. San Francisco, CA: Pressure Drop Press. Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioural reactions: the moderating effect of locus of control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 227–234. Taylor, L., & Walton, P. (1971). Industrial sabotage: motives and meanings. In S. Cohen (Ed.), Images of Deviance (pp. 219–245). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Tucker, J. (1993). Everyday forms of employee resistance. Sociological Forum, 8, 25–45. Tyler, T., & Bies, R. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: the interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.