Toward an Integrative Theory of Counterproductive Workplace Behavior: A Causal Reasoning Perspective

Abstract

Over the past decade, there has been an increase in attention to counterproductive workplace behaviors including violence, stealing, dishonesty, volitional absenteeism, drug and alcohol abuse, and aggression, many of which have been addressed in this special issue. Accompanying the attention to these specific types of behaviors has been a proliferation of theories developed to explain, understand, and manage counterproductive behavior. While these theories have addressed many apparently divergent types of behaviors, many similarities exist between and among these various perspectives. In this article, we integrate these various perspectives into a causal reasoning framework, proposing that individuals' attributions about the causal dimensions of workplace events are a primary factor motivating both the emotions and behaviors that result in counterproductive workplace behaviors.

Counterproductive Work Behaviors: a Socio-Demographic Characteristic-Based Study among Employees in the Nigerian Maritime Sector

“…From the above statistics, sub-hypothesis (2), which states that CWB does not differ signifi cantly with respect to age, is not supported by the fi nding of this study; hence, it is hypothesized that CWB signifi cantly differs between the age-groups of employees in the Nigerian maritime industry. This fi nding corroborates the fi nding of the studies carried out by Baucus and Near (1991) and Martinko, Gundlach, and Douglas (2002). On the other hand, it contradicts the fi nding reported by Paul-Titus (2009) and Uchenna (2013).…”

How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective

“…A first explanation is that the target perspective of social exchange is incomplete and needs to consider additional moderators that explain when employees chose to retaliate against supervisors by supervisor-directed rather than organizational deviance and vice versa. Such conditions may include perceptions of powerlessness (Bennett, 1998;Martinko et al, 2002)-employees who feel powerless may conceive organizational deviance as a feasible form of retaliation than engaging in harmful behaviors towards the source of the mistreatment. Any other variable that speaks to the perceived dependence/power of the mistreated employee could be tested by future research as an additional moderator and may consequently explain differences in deviance across targets.…”

Eti̇k İkli̇m Ve Örgütsel Güveni̇n Üretkenli̇k Karşiti Davranişlar Üzeri̇ndeki̇ Etki̇si̇ni̇n İncelenmesi̇

“…Robinson ve Bennet (1995), Hollinger ve Clark'ın (1983) yapmış olduğu bu sınıflamada, cinsel taciz gibi bazı kişiler arası üretkenlik karşıtı davranış türlerini göz ardı ettiklerinin altını çizerek, üretkenlik karşıtı davranışlara politik sapkınlık ve kişisel saldırı olmak üzere iki boyut daha ekleyerek toplam dört boyuttan oluşan bir model öne sürmüşlerdir. Martinko, Gundlach ve Douglas (2002) hem bireysel farklılıkların hem de dış çevre etmenlerinin üretkenlik karşıtı davranışlara yol açan bilişsel süreçlere katkısı olduğunu ifade etmişlerdir. Yazarlar, bazı örgütsel etmenlerin eşitsizlik algısına ve olumsuz performans çıktılarına sebep olabileceğini belirtmişlerdir.…”