Much of the recent research on counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) has used multi-item self-report measures of CWB. Because of concerns over self-report measurement, there have been recent calls to collect ratings of employees' CWB from their supervisors or coworkers (i.e., other-raters) as alternatives or supplements to self-ratings. However, little is still known about the degree to which other-ratings of CWB capture unique and valid incremental variance beyond self-report CWB. The present meta-analysis investigates a number of key issues regarding the incremental contribution of other-reports of CWB. First, self- and other-ratings of CWB were moderately to strongly correlated with each other. Second, with some notable exceptions, self- and other-report CWB exhibited very similar patterns and magnitudes of relationships with a set of common correlates. Third, self-raters reported engaging in more CWB than other-raters reported them engaging in, suggesting other-ratings capture a narrower subset of CWBs. Fourth, other-report CWB generally accounted for little incremental variance in the common correlates beyond self-report CWB. Although many have viewed self-reports of CWB with skepticism, the results of this meta-analysis support their use in most CWB research as a viable alternative to other-reports.

This article uses meta-analytic methods (k = 38) to examine the relationship between organizational justice climate and unit-level effectiveness. Overall, our results suggest that the relationship between justice and effectiveness is significant (ρ = .40) when both constructs are construed at the collective level. Our results also indicate that distributive justice climate was most strongly linked with unit-level performance (e.g., productivity, customer satisfaction), whereas interactional justice was most strongly related to unit-level processes (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior, cohesion). We also show that a number of factors moderate this relationship, including justice climate strength, the level of referent in the justice measure, the hierarchical level of the unit, and how criteria are classified. We elaborate on these findings and attempt to provide a clearer direction for future research in this area.

This meta-analysis tested if the links between socioeconomic status (SES) and subjective well-being (SWB) differ by whether SES is assessed objectively or subjectively. The associations between measures of objective SES (i.e., income and educational attainment), subjective SES (i.e., the MacArthur ladder SES and perceived SES), and SWB (i.e., happiness and life satisfaction) were synthesized across 357 studies, totaling 2,352,095 participants. Overall, the objective SES and subjective SES measures were moderately associated (r = .32). The subjective SES-SWB association (r = .22) was larger than the objective SES-SWB association (r = .16). The income-SWB association (r = .23) was comparable with the ladder SES-SWB association (r = .22) but larger than the perceived SES-SWB association (r = .196). The education-SWB association (r = .12) was smaller than the associations with both measures of subjective SES. The subjective SES-SWB association was partially explained by common method variance. The subjective SES-SWB association, particularly with the ladder SES measure, also mediated the objective SES-SWB association. In moderation analyses, the objective SES-SWB associations strengthened as samples increased in wealth and population density. The subjective SES-SWB associations strengthened as samples increased in population density, decreased in income inequality, and decreased in relative social mobility. The role of common method variance, social comparisons, and other processes in explaining the SES-SWB links are discussed.

Summary Given the common use of self‐ratings and other‐ratings (e.g., supervisor or coworker) of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), the purpose of this meta‐analysis was to evaluate the extent to which these rating sources provide comparable information. The current study's results provided three important lines of evidence supporting the use and construct‐related validity of self‐rated OCB. The meta‐analysis of mean differences demonstrated that the mean difference in OCB ratings is actually quite small between self‐ and other‐raters. Importantly, the difference between self‐ and other‐raters was influenced by neither the response scale (i.e., agreement vs. frequency) nor the use of antithetical/reverse‐worded items on OCB scales. The meta‐analysis of correlations showed that self‐ and other‐ratings are moderately correlated but that self–other convergence is higher when antithetical items are not used and when agreement response scales are used. In addition, self‐ratings and supervisor‐ratings showed significantly more convergence than self‐ratings and coworker‐ratings. Finally, an evaluation of self‐rated and other‐rated OCB nomological networks showed that although self‐rated and other‐rated OCBs have similar patterns of relationships with common correlates, other‐rated OCB generally contributed negligible incremental variance to correlates and only contributed appreciable incremental variance to other‐rated behavioral variables (e.g., task performance and counterproductive work behavior). Implications and future research directions are discussed, particularly regarding the need to establish a nomological network for other‐rated OCB. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract