2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing models of counterproductive workplace behaviors: The Five-Factor Model and the Dark Triad

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
46
2
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 79 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
46
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…CWBs include aggressive behaviors, deviation from rules, vengeance and reprisal. Other behaviors entail, damaging organizational property, vandalism and theft, absenteeism, and neglect of work [79]. Organizational behavior theorists claim that such behaviors can be the outcome of the oppressive behaviors of DT personalities [2].…”
Section: Counter Productive Behaviorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CWBs include aggressive behaviors, deviation from rules, vengeance and reprisal. Other behaviors entail, damaging organizational property, vandalism and theft, absenteeism, and neglect of work [79]. Organizational behavior theorists claim that such behaviors can be the outcome of the oppressive behaviors of DT personalities [2].…”
Section: Counter Productive Behaviorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Counterproductive work behaviors have different kinds of nature: interpersonal, organizational and supervisory. Interpersonal behaviors refer to voluntary actions that harmful and negatively effects colleagues 9 ; organizational behaviors are voluntary actions that negatively effects the policies and structure of the organizations, 10 and supervisory behaviors voluntarily impact the negative and harmful effect of supervision in the organizations 11‐13 . Therefore, counterproductive behavior is an important issue for organizations and their stakeholders who are directly and indirectly involved in organizational decision‐making 14 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first focus involves an attempt to identify the core feature(s) that account for their overlap; candidate core features include low Agreeableness from the Big Five/Five‐Factor Model (FFM; e.g., Jakobwitz & Egan, ; Miller et al, ; O'Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, Story, & White, ), low Honesty‐Humility from Big Six perspectives (e.g., Lee & Ashton, ), or callous‐manipulation (Jones & Figueredo, ). The second focus attempts to delineate ways in which the DT constructs differ from one another in relation to other relevant variables, including personality traits outside of Agreeableness and Honesty‐Humility (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, ), interpersonal behavior (e.g., Rauthmann & Kolar, ), morality (e.g., Jonason, Strosser, Kroll, Duineveld, & Baruffi, ), employment‐related behavior (e.g., DeShong, Grant, & Mullins‐Sweatt, ), sexual strategies (e.g., Jonason, Lyons, & Blanchard, ), antisocial behavior (e.g., Pailing, Boon, & Egan, ), and financial behavior (e.g., Jones, ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…attempts to delineate ways in which the DT constructs differ from one another in relation to other relevant variables, including personality traits outside of Agreeableness and Honesty-Humility (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002), interpersonal behavior (e.g., Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013), morality (e.g., Jonason, Strosser, Kroll, Duineveld, & Baruffi, 2015), employmentrelated behavior (e.g., DeShong, Grant, & Mullins-Sweatt, 2015), sexual strategies (e.g., Jonason, Lyons, & Blanchard, 2015), antisocial behavior (e.g., Pailing, Boon, & Egan, 2014), and financial behavior (e.g., Jones, 2013Jones, , 2014.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%