Creating New Approaches to Recognize and Deter Sabotage

DiBattista, Ron A.

doi:10.1177/009102609102000308

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As managers' dishonesty significantly predicted powerlessness in this study, managers' dishonesty can indeed become an obstacle to firm performance because when powerlessness increases (i.e., lack of control over their work), followers undermine the processes that support the core activity or technical core of the bank. This result is consistent with prior research suggesting that individuals who feel powerless could engage in sabotage (DiBattista, ; Bennett, ), which would enhance individuals' sense of control over their work (Allen and Greenberger, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Using Alienation at Work to Explain Why Managers' Dishonesty Does Not Lead to Firm Performance

Zoghbi‐Manrique‐de‐Lara

Viera‐Armas

2018

European Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although prior studies provide growing evidence that managers' dishonesty is negatively related to firm performance, the reasons for this relationship remain unclear. The purpose of this study is to model the steps in the effect of the manager dishonesty on firm performance. Our model hypothesizes that followers' feelings of work alienation are mediators that explain why managers' dishonesty is negatively related to aspects of a company's financial performance (i.e., profit and growth). We used multi-source survey data collected from 100 banks in London and analyzed 100 team leaders and 100 triads of followers (n = 300). Results confirmed that managers' dishonesty is related to financial performance, and they supported powerlessness (i.e., employee lack of control over their work) as the only studied element of work alienation that mediated in this link. Findings suggest that, when faced with managers' dishonesty, employees lose control over the product of their labor or the work process, which causes firm failure. Literature review and hypothesesManagers' dishonesty and firm performance Organ (1997:94) coined the term team morale when describing the key antecedents of helping behaviors 274 P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara and M. Viera-Armas

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Using Alienation at Work to Explain Why Managers' Dishonesty Does Not Lead to Firm Performance

Zoghbi‐Manrique‐de‐Lara

Viera‐Armas

2018

European Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to developing leaders who foster positive employee relations, HRM can support positive management relations by looking out for worker conflict and intervening where appropriate to avoid negative outcomes, such as deliberate acts of sabotage (DiBattista, 1991). DiBattista found that a significant number of sabotage events (e.g., employee theft, infecting computers with virus', contaminating water supply, and strikes) resulted from labor disputes.…”

Section: Interrelationships and Employee-organization Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of HR is RH: Respect for humanity at work

Cleveland

Byrne

Cavanagh

2015

Human Resource Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Counterproductive behaviors were generally investigated in international literature (Appelbaum and Roy-Girard, 2007:22;Bolton et al, 2010:538;Appelbaum and Shapiro, 2006:14;Branch, 2008:4;Martinko et al, 2002:36;Ferris et al, 2009:279). However, negative behavior in workplace has different studies in the literature as transferred by Güllü and Şahin such as revenge (Bies, Tripp and Kramer, 1997), organizational deviance (Berry et al, 2007) , counterproductive work behaviors (Fox et al, 2007), mobbing (Leymann,1996), workplace terror (Neuman and Baron, 1998), workplace violence (Rogers and Kelloway, 1997), retaliation (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997), organizational sabotage (Di Battista, 1991;Ambrose et al, 2002), antisocial behaviors (Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997).…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Counterproductive behaviors: A case study of a private sports business

Güllü

2018

International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Counterproductive behavior (CB) is defined as intentional behavior against an organization or the partners in an organization. In the literature, it is commonly referred to as organizational deviation, which is a relatively new concept in Turkey. There is yet no study on sports businesses in the literature, which makes the current study very unique. The aim of this study is to examine the relationships between demographics and counterproductive behaviors in sports businesses. The study's sample includes 150 employees working at a private sports business in the Anatolian Side of İstanbul. The study was designed with a screening model. In the first part of the study, the participants provided demographic information. Next they completed the Counterproductive Behaviors Scale, which was developed by Bennett and Robinson (2010), and adapted into Turkish by Öztürk (2015). This instrument consisted of 2 sub dimensions. The reliability studies of the instrument were conducted for the current study. Percentage and frequency tests were used so as to determine the range of the participants' personal information. Kolmogorov-Smirnov's normality test was applied to examine whether the data had a normal distribution. Afterwards, the test results revealed that non-parametric tests were suitable for analysis (p<0.05). The Mann Whitney U Test was conducted to determine the significant differences for two-factor variables, and Kruskal Wallis was applied for three or more factor variables. A data analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between gender, marital status, employment type (payroll employment, contract labor, part-time employment), seniority, educational status, and counterproductive behaviors and the sub dimensions of counterproductive behaviors (p>0.05). However, a statistically significant difference was found between counterproductive behavior dimensions and age (X 2 (2) =10.135; p<0.05). This indicates that participants between the ages of 26-30, especially participants in the younger part of that range, scored higher in the counterproductive behaviors dimension. In addition, a similar statistically significant difference was observed between employment positions and counterproductive behaviors (X 2 (4)=3.579; p<0.05), so the general services staff was found to score higher than others.

show abstract

Creating New Approaches to Recognize and Deter Sabotage

Cited by 18 publications

References 2 publications

Using Alienation at Work to Explain Why Managers' Dishonesty Does Not Lead to Firm Performance

Using Alienation at Work to Explain Why Managers' Dishonesty Does Not Lead to Firm Performance

The future of HR is RH: Respect for humanity at work

Counterproductive behaviors: A case study of a private sports business

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About