perspectiva istorica

7/29/2019 perspectiva istorica

1/19

A historical perspective ofcounterproductive work behavior

targeting the organizationAnthony C. Klotz and M. Ronald Buckley

Price College of Business, Division of Management & Entrepreneurship,University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to chronicle the study of deviant behavior aimed at theorganization, or CWB-O, from the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to the present day.

Design/methodology/approach Counterproductive work behaviors that have been documentedand studied since the Industrial Revolution were systematically reviewed and discussed.

Findings Over the past few centuries, employees have engaged in behaviors that harm theirorganizations; as organizations have become more complex, however, employees have found manymore ways to engage in CWB-O. Further, recent advances in technology have made employee CWB-Omuch more ambiguous.

Research limitations/implications The study of CWB-Os will remain a rich area for researchersas the boundaries between work and personal life continue to blur, as employees develop new forms ofCWB-O, and as employers increase their use of technology to detect employee deviance.

Practical implications As the penetration of technology into job roles grows and the use ofpersonal mobile devices becomes institutionalized, managers now must decide how much companytime they will tolerate their employees spending on personal issues while at work. Put another way,managers must cope with the reality that a certain amount of what was once considered deviantbehavior in the workplace may now be a minimum expectation of employees.

Originality/value This paper builds a historical foundation of the present conceptualization ofCWB-O, thereby providing scholars with a greater understanding of what past events drove theemergence of the types of CWB-O that are prevalent today and why some counterproductive behaviorsmay have become less prevalent.

Keywords Counterproductive work behavior, Production deviance, Property deviance, Employee theft,Withdrawal, Employee behaviour, Problem employees

Paper type Research paper

Sometimes, some of us, including me, on the GM line in Oklahoma City would hang a screw ora bolt off a piece of thread inside the chassis of the car somewhere. Maybe inside the doorframe or inside the engine block, somewhere that would be impossible to get to. That way thething would rattle like crazy but be impossible to find. If they were going to fix it and theyd

have to they were going to have to take the car completely apart. And when they wouldfind the hanging bolt, theyd also find a little note that wed attach to it that said: AHA! YOUFOUND ME! Brian Bosworth, The Boz (Bosworth and Reilly, 1988)

Nearly every night on the local evening news, viewers are informed of stories in whichfellow community members, for one reason or another, have engaged in sociallyundesirable behavior. Indeed, when viewing these broadcasts, one could reach theconclusion that deviant acts such as convenience store robberies, defamation of publicbuildings with graffiti, and violent quarrels between neighbors have become social

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1348.htm

JMH19,1

114

Journal of Management HistoryVol. 19 No. 1, 2013pp. 114-132q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1751-1348DOI 10.1108/17511341311286222


2/19

norms. Of course, these negative behaviors occur and it would be disingenuous of us tobelieve that these negative behaviors do not persist when citizens cross over from thecontext of their personal lives to that of their employer. As the Bosworth quoteillustrates, some employees may be every bit as eager to engage in counterproductive

behavior in the workplace as they are outside of it.Over the past two decades, research on counterproductive work behavior (CWB) has

proliferated (Fox and Spector, 2005). CWB is an umbrella term that refers to employeebehaviors that are harmful to the organization by directly affecting its functioning orproperty, or by hurting employees in a way that will reduce their effectiveness (Foxet al., 2001, p. 292). Within this general construct are two specific types of CWB CWBaimed at individuals, or CWB-I, and CWB targeting the organization, or CWB-O. Agreat deal of work has investigated CWB-I (for a review, see LeBlanc and Barling, 2005;Neuman and Baron, 1998), perhaps partially due to the media coverage of the violentforms of this behavior, such as workplace shootings (Klotz and Buckley, 2010). Avariety of different forms of CWB-O, such as organizational retaliatory behaviors(Skarlicki and Folger, 1997), employee theft (Greenberg, 1990), and time banditry(Ketchen et al., 2008) have been explored in recent work. In response to the number ofCWB constructs that have emerged, researchers have attempted to catalog andorganize them in a meaningful way (e.g. Bowling and Gruys, 2010; Robinson andBennett, 1995; Spector and Fox, 2005).

While the stream of research investigating employee deviance is fairly new, badbehavior in the workplace is not; there is a long and rich history of workers performingactions that hurt their coworkers or their organization. For example, in 1520, as hecircumnavigated the globe, Magellan had to deal with an attempted mutiny at PuertoSan Julian, Argentina, by two of his five captains (Smiler Levinson, 2001). Indeed, someprior work has drawn from specific well-known bad deeds by employees, such asmutinies, to gain a deeper understanding of deviant behavior in organizations today

(Coye et al., 2010). As more contemporary forms of organizations emerged during theIndustrial Revolution, early management scholars and consultants began to moreformally and systematically document and contend with employees behaving badly inthis new context.

The purpose of this paper is to chronicle the study of deviant behavior aimed at theorganization, or CWB-O, from the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to the present day.We identified the constructs to include in our study by searching various databases,including ABI-INFORM and PsycArticles. In general, we iteratively searched forpapers that included counterproductive work behavior and CWB-O. However, wealso searched for general terms describing bad behavior along with the search termemployee (e.g. employee deviance, employee misbehavior). Further, we consulteda number of management history texts (e.g. Wren and Bedeian, 2009) to gain a better

understanding of forms of CWB-O during the Industrial Revolution and in the earlydays of management scholarship. We then explored the most prevalent types ofdeviant behavior during this time in a more focused fashion.

In doing this, we build a historical foundation of the present conceptualization ofCWB-O, thereby providing contemporary scholars with a greater understanding ofwhat past events drove the emergence of the types of CWB-O that are prevalent today,and why the occurrence of some counterproductive behaviors may have faded overtime. To do this, we explore two different types of CWB-O. First, we trace the more

Counterproductivework behavior

115


3/19

action-oriented side of CWB-O property deviance from its roots in Luddism in theEnglish countryside in the early nineteenth century. Next, we look at the more passiveform of CWB-O production deviance beginning with Taylors observations ofsoldiering, and eventually leading to activities such as cyberloafing in contemporary

organizations. We conclude by discussing areas that future research in CWB-O maybenefit from taking past work in this area into account, and the practical implicationsof our findings.

Prior research has identified associations between a vast array of variables, such asjustice (Greenberg, 1990), job satisfaction (Mangione and Quinn, 1975), personality(Mount et al., 2006), stress (Fox et al., 2001), negative emotions (Spector and Fox, 2002),abusive supervision (Tepper et al., 2001), and even boredom (Spector et al., 2006) andorganizationally-focused counterproductive behavior. Although we briefly discusssome of the causes of the different types of CWB-O discussed in this paper, a fulltreatment of the antecedents of CWB-O is beyond the scope of this paper. Further,several recent articles (see, Griffin and Lopez, 2005; Spector et al., 2006), have broadlyinvestigated the antecedents of CWB.

A dyadic view of CWB-OIn Robinson and Bennetts (1995) typology of deviant workplace behavior, the authorsdistinguished between two distinct forms of organizationally-directed bad deeds property deviance and production deviance. Property deviance describes behaviors inwhich workers illicitly acquire or damage property or assets that belong to theirorganization (Hollinger and Clark, 1982). Examples of property deviance includesabotaging equipment and stealing company property. The second general type ofCWB-O is production deviance, or violations of the boundaries of workplace normsdemarcating the minimum quality and quantity of output and effort expected ofemployees (Hollinger and Clark, 1982). As shown in Table I, these two forms of

employee misbehavior provide a framework for exploring CWB-O from a historicalperspective.

Property devianceOn August 9, 2010, a flight attendant working on a JetBlue flight that had just landedat New Yorks JFK airport, became quite upset after a customer accidentally hit himwith luggage, then refused to apologize (Gardiner, 2010). In response, the flightattendant took to the planes intercom and spewed a stream of obscenity-laden insultsat all of the passengers. Next, he launched the inflatable emergency slide, pilfered twobeers from the galley, and exited the airplane via the emergency chute. He then went tohis car and drove home to his residence in Queens. Through his dramatic display ofdeviance, this flight attendant managed to impair relationships with JetBlues

customers, tarnish his employers image, steal supplies from the company, and removea piece of equipment (i.e. the plane) from service until the emergency hatch and slidewere repaired. Alone, any of these acts would be considered forms of property deviancebecause they damage JetBlues reputation and cost the firm significant resources(Gardiner, 2010).

Luddism. In 1811, in the town of Arnold, Nottinghamshire, a group of knitters,disgruntled over the reduction in wages enacted by hosiery masters, began a series ofnighttime raids on knitting workshops (Bailey, 1998). At first, these raids involved

JMH19,1

116


4/19

Definition

A

ntecedents

Propertydeviance

Machine-breaking

Purposefullydamagin

gproductionequipmentwith

theintentionofstoppingoperations

Dissatisfactionandfrustrationwithnew

technology

andnewprocessesintheworkplace

Employeesabotage

Causingalossforonesorganizationbyharming

equipment,coworkers

,customers,orthe

organizationsreputat

ion

Unfairtreatmentatwork

,abusivesupe

rvision

Employeetheft

Theintentionalandillicitremovalandsubsequent

transferintopersonal

possessionofcompany

property

Perceptionsofdistributiveorproceduralinequity;

W

orkplacenorms

Organizationalretaliatorybehavior

Intentionallypunishin

gtheorganizationorits

representativesinresponsetoperceived

mistreatment

Poorleader-memberrelations;Perceptionsof

in

justice

Harmthroughsocialmed

ia

Sharingdisparaginginformationaboutones

organization,

coworke

rs,

orcustomerswithothers

throughsocialmedia

A

lthoughresearchhasyettoinvestigatethecauses

ofthistypeofOCB-O,i

tislikelyrelated

toemployee

dissatisfaction

Timebanditry

Pilferingtimefromon

esorganizationbyengaging

inpersonalbusinesswhileatwork

Lackofperformancestandards;Poorly

designed

re

wardsystems

Workplacedivaness

Divertingcoworkeran

dsupervisoryresourcesaway

fromproductiveactivitiesthatandtowardthe

demandsofthediva

Employeenarcissism,

self-centeredness,

and

em

otionalinstability

Productiondeviance

Soldiering

Deliberatelyreducing

onesindividualperformance

level

In

dividualpropensitytoloaf;Strongrelationships

amongemployeesandgroupnormstorestrictoutput

Quotarestriction/Goldbricking

Intentionallywithhold

ingeffortasattainmentofa

quotaororganizationalgoalbecomesattainable

Poorlydesignedcompensationsystems

;Strong

so

cialsystemswithinworkgroups

Socialloafing

Exertinglesseffortin

thecontextofagrouporteam

thanwhenworkingalone

Changingjobstructureorcompensationstructure

fromindividualtogroup-based

Loafinginvirtualteams

Thereductionofonescontributiontoateamin

settingsinwhichteam

membersarenotphysically

collocated

Highdispersionofteammembers;Lesssophisticated

m

ethodsofcommunicatingvirtually

Cyberloafing

Usingtheinternetfor

non-workrelatedpurposes

duringonesnormalw

orkinghours

Employeeautonomy;Lackofelectronic

monitoring

devicesandorganization-basedrestrictionof

ex

ternalinternetaccess

Table IDescriptions and causes

of counterproductivework behaviors aimed at

the organization


117


5/19

merely removing wires from the machines, which could be relatively quickly replaced.However, the activities of the stockingers soon escalated to smashing entire knittingframes, thereby causing significant harm to the owners of the knitting workshops.During this time, the machine-destroyers began to call themselves Luddites, which

purportedly came from a boy named Ludlam that, as one story goes, smashed hisfamilys knitting needles into a mangled pile after his father directed him to do so as aprotest against his employer, who was using new technology to drive down wages.Incidents of sabotage spread across the county and into surrounding counties. In themidst of this movement, a manifesto from Ned Ludds Office, Sherwood Forest,claimed somewhat extravagantly that the seventeenth-century Framework KnittersCharter has empowered them to destroy frames that were used dishonestly (Bailey,1998, p. 20).

Hence, the Luddite Rebellion was born. By 1812, nearly 13,000 troops weremobilized to combat the occurrence and spread of machine-breaking. Despite theseefforts, Luddism continued in England through 1819, with another outbreak occurringin the Lancashire cotton industry in 1826. While disruptive, the efforts of the Ludditeswere no match for the tide of industrialization that was sweeping across the Englishcountryside. It appears that the movement also took place in France, and CharlesDupin argued in his writings that resistance to mechanization was futile in thatcountry as well (Wren and Bedeian, 2009). Yet although the movement failed to achieveits goal of halting changes in the way work was done, it set a precedent for employeesto retaliate in a destructive manner against the perceived injustice of the actions oforganizational leaders.

Chartism. After the Luddite movement, wages continued to fall in England asindustrialism continued. Named after the Peoples Charter a bill introduced by WilliamLovett and supported primarily by the working class that petitioned for the restructuringof Englands electoral system the Chartists staged a number of uprisings beginning in

1838 to protest the spread of capitalism (Peel, 1968). Although this movement was quiteviolent, and involved not only employees of the new highly-mechanized factories but alsopopular figures such as writers and poets, the Chartists were clearly railing against thesame perceived organizational injustice as the Luddites.

Indeed, the Plug Riots, which marked the zenith of Charterism, were so namedbecause they were characterized by striking workers pulling the boiler plugs from thesteam engines that fueled factory production. On Sunday, August 14, 1842, inLancashire, the Chartists went from mill to mill in the town, destroying equipment andpulling plugs with a crowd that eventually swelled to over 25,000 people (Peel, 1968).Despite being read the Riot Act (literally), the mobs surged onward. Over the course ofthe following days, more riots occurred, and authorities jailed many of the protestors inaccordance with the Riot Act. By 1848, however, the movement had failed to spread to

the middle class, and thus lost its momentum. In a last-ditch effort to pass the reformsof the Peoples Charter through the Parliament, the leaders of the Chartist movementrolled a cart-wheel shaped petition into the House of Commons, and claimed that thegreat national petition contained the signatures of nearly six million Englanders thatsupported the group and its goals. When the absurdity of this spectacle was exposed,both through showing that many of the names were either fabricated or forged andthrough the sheer magnitude of this obviously false number, the credibility of theChartists was destroyed (Peel, 1968), and the movement died off.

JMH19,1

118


6/19

Taylor and machine breaking. While conducting his initial experiments at MidvaleSteel Company in Philadelphia from 1878-1890, Frederick Taylor experiencedmachine-breaking firsthand when he cut the piece-rate of pay for machinists in anattempt to induce them to increase their production (OConnor, 1996; Wren and

Bedeian, 2009). The machinists, in the spirit of Ned Ludd, perceived the change asunjust, and responded by damaging the production equipment. Taylor countered byimposing fines on any worker that broke a machine. This touched off a three-yearbattle between Taylor and the machinists, after which, like the Luddites, themachinists gave in to Taylors techniques. This was a hollow victory for Taylor, whonever again used pay cuts or fines to increase worker output (Wren and Bedeian, 2009).

Employee sabotage. Researchers have continued to investigate aggressive acts todamage company property, such as machine breaking, under the general termemployee sabotage (e.g. Ambrose et al., 2002; Giacalone and Knouse, 1990). However,the study of sabotage has also often included behaviors that more closely resemble thegeneral definition of OCB-O than strictly behaviors akin to machine-breaking. Forexample, Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987) broadly defined employee sabotage as anybehavior by a payroll employee which is intended to inflict a production or profit lossfor the targeted organization (p. 367). Therefore, their investigation of sabotagemotives included behaviors reminiscent of the Plug Riots such as workers pouringsteel shot into auto gas tanks; however, less destructive activities such as outputrestriction were also included as acts of sabotage.

Similarly, Crino (1994) included destroying relationships and harming employees orcustomers in his definition of sabotage. This conceptualization of sabotage, albeit quitedifferent from the actions of the Luddites, may nonetheless be appropriate for studyingsabotage in service-based contexts, such as the JetBlue example. Indeed, in a recentinvestigation of employee sabotage in a customer call center, a measure ofcustomer-directed sabotage was developed by asking employees to describe the ways

in which they strike back when they are treated unfairly at work (Skarlicki et al.,2008). Responses such as Hung up on the customer and Purposefully transferred thecustomer to the wrong department (Skarlicki et al., 2008, p. 1,340) were identified asthe primary forms of sabotage in this context. Clearly, in a service environment, thedestruction of relationships between the organization and its customers could beconstrued as employee sabotage. Thus, the boundaries of sabotage continue to changein the modern workplace.

Employee theft. In 1964, Gerald Mars spent 18 months in the maritime ports ofNewfoundland, observing and chatting with the longshoremen as part ofanthropological study (Mars, 1974). Fairly late in this study, the topic of employeepilferage became of interest to him. Specifically, Mars was concerned with how thelongshoremen morally justified their thievery of items from their employers. Through

his work, he catalogued four incidents of theft, involving such items as mens suits,transistor radios, and whiskey. In chronicling these case studies, Mars (1974) notedhow a successful theft involved the work of a tight-knit social group including fork liftdrivers, signallers, and skidsmen, among others. Each of these employees, who held aclear on-the-job work role, had an equally clear pilferage function as well. Forinstance, hatch checkers, because they were in close contact with the cargo for theiractual job, were also responsible for squaring the documentation (e.g. bills of lading)to cover-up the theft.


119


7/19

According to Mars (1974), the longshoremen believed that they were morallyentitled to an agreed-upon amount of cargo. There were informal agreements amongthe workers, therefore, as to the upper limit of what they would steal. Interestingly,Mars indicated that this informal upper limit added a sense of security and

predictability to the dock operations for not only the longshoremen, but managementas well. Put another way, management could accurately forecast the amount of cargothey would regularly lose to pilferage, and adjust their operations accordingly.

Marss (1974) observation that the dock workers felt entitled to a certain amount oftheft hinted at following work that would empirically link employee theft and otherdeviance to workers perceptions of justice and equity. Indeed, because of its high costto organizations, a great deal of work examining the antecedents, correlates, andoutcomes of employee theft has been conducted (e.g. Chen and Spector, 1992;Greenberg, 1993; Greenberg, 2002; Jones, 1980; Niehoff and Paul, 2000; Wimbush andDalton, 1997).

Greenberg (1990) conducted what is perhaps the seminal work in the area ofemployee theft. Using a quasi-experimental design, Greenberg demonstrated thatworkers in different plants who were informed that they would be receiving a payreduction responded to this news in very distinct manners based on how thecommunication regarding the pay cuts was delivered. In one plant, the workersreceived a very adequate explanation for the pay cuts, at the core of which the messagewas, Were all in it together (Greenberg, 1990, p. 563). In another plant, the workerswere provided with a far less adequate explanation (e.g. such reductions are anunfortunate fact of life in the manufacturing business (p. 563)). As predicted by equitytheory (Adams, 1965), the plant in which managers provided an adequate explanationfor the pay reductions subsequently experienced significantly lower rates of theft thanthe plant in which managers had provided its workers with inadequate reasons forreducing wages.

Organizational retaliatory behavior. To highlight the idea that harmful behavioraimed at the organization is often a response to perceived injustice, researchers havemore recently taken a closer look at retaliatory actions as a specific type of CWB. Whilestudies of revenge often focus on getting even with another individual in theorganization (Tripp et al., 2002), organizational retaliatory behavior (ORB) refers tonegative acts undertaken by employees to punish the organization and itsrepresentatives in response to perceived unfairness (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997,p. 435). Thus, ORBs include any deviant employee behavior for which the motive wasretribution, including damaging equipment, spreading rumors about coworkers, andattempting to look busy while wasting time. Work on ORB has shown that it is relatedto injustice (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997), and that it has a negative relationship withgood leader-member relations as well (Townsend et al., 2000).

A number of recent high profile examples demonstrate that when employeesretaliate against their organization in a public manner, their behavior can causeconsiderable damage to their firms overall reputation. Indeed, in response to perceivedunfair treatment, some Wal-Mart employees have severely tarnished the firmsreputation by bringing lawsuits against the company and criticizing it online (Barbaro,2005). In another example, a hotel worker, accompanied by a marching band, resignedfrom his job at Renaissance Hotels by handing his boss his resignation letter andimmediately having a marching band play a celebratory song. Further, he had the

JMH19,1

120


8/19

entire ordeal videotaped and posted it to YouTube along with his commentaryregarding how the company treats its employees poorly. Within three months of theincident, the video had been viewed by over three million people, causing untoldamounts of damage to the reputation of Renaissance Hotels (Grinberg, 2011).

Property deviance in todays workplaceClearly, workers in contemporary organizations continue to engage in propertydeviance. However, the advent of the Information Age has changed the way in whichemployees go about harming the property and assets of their employer. Indeed, intodays economy, using communication and information to harm the company mayprove even more destructive than pulling the plugs on the steam engines fueling theIndustrial Revolution.

Harm through social media. The advent of social media such as Facebook andTwitter has created a new channel through which employees can inflict damage ontheir employer. Indeed, employees have been recently been fired for posting pictures of

themselves that could hurt their employers image, for putting up derogatory commentsregarding their employers practices and procedures, for complaining about customers,and for posting racist remarks online (Smith and Kannalley, 2010). Social mediaextends the boundaries of CWB-O, in that employees can cause harm to theorganization in the comfort of their own home in front of their personal computerscreen, or anywhere in the world, as long as they have a mobile device and a wirelesssignal.

Time banditry. Time banditry specifically addresses a particular form of employeetheft; time bandits steal time from employers by engaging in personal business whileat work (Ketchen et al., 2008; Martin et al., 2010). This form of deviant behavior isparticularly well-suited for todays work environment for several reasons. First,technology has provided employees with a number of tools with which to interact with

people outside of the workplace during work hours via email, instant messaging, andtexting. Further, there are more families than ever in which single-parents or bothparents are in the workplace, yet children are involved in more activities than ever.This creates a situation where parents are compelled to engage in time banditry tocoordinate their personal lives during work time. Third, hybrid entrepreneurship,which refers to engaging in self-employment activity while simultaneously holding aprimary job in wage work (Folta et al., 2010, p. 253), is increasing in prevalence.Hybrid entrepreneurs may be partially funding their new ventures start-up costs bystealing resources from their current employer in the form of time banditry.

Workplace divas. Ketchen and Buckley (2010) have recently called attention to badbehavior at work by employees who engage in the type of diva-esque behaviornormally attributed to high-maintenance Hollywood stars. In Hollywood, diva

behavior may be good for selling product, but in an organization it is difficult to seepositive correlates of this type of behavior. Workplace divas damage the company bydiverting the resources of their colleagues away from their jobs and toward thedemands and drama of the management divas antics. For example, many departmentdirectors in universities are saddled with a diva professor who contributes little to thedepartment but wastes time by causing conflict among the engaged faculty, constantlyreminds students how impressive his or her publication record is and therefore howblessed the students are to receive instruction from this scholar, and demands to be


121


9/19

treated the same way or better than other faculty in the department who are moreproductive in research, teaching, and service than he or she is. Workplace divaness is aunique form of CWB-O in that employees engaging in this behavior harm theorganization by intensely focusing inward, on their own self-importance, and by doing

so, deleteriously influencing the effective functioning of the organization.

Production devianceWhen employees engage in acts of property deviance, the harm that is done to theorganization is direct and clearly evident. Production deviance, however, is a moreclandestine form of CWB-O. That is, whereas property deviance is grounded in action,production deviance is often characterized employee inaction. Although slacking offhas likely been around since the advent of work, its recognition as a phenomenonworthy of scholarly research gained widespread attention when Frederick W. Taylorcast his gaze on the act of soldiering during his work at Midvale Steel Company.

Soldiering. Simply put, soldiering refers to a workers deliberate slowing of output

(Wren and Bedeian, 2009, p. 100). In his book Shop Management, Taylor (1903)described how soldiering is caused by either natural soldiering or systematic soldiering.Natural soldiering derives from the innate tendency of people to loaf (see Albanese andVan Fleet, 1985), whereas systematic soldiering is a social phenomenon, rooted in strongrelationships among workers (Simha and Lemak, 2010; Taylor, 1903). Taylors ideasabout soldiering not only stemmed from his observations of workers but his ownparticipation in the practice as an apprentice steelworker. Indeed, he recalled that he andhis fellow workers felt that soldiering was justified under the piecework system(Boddewyn, 1961). Taylor argued that systematic soldiering is the biggest impedimentto achieving standard production rates (Taylor, 1903), and thus incorporated improved

job design and incentive plans into his systematic management. In Taylors mind,first-class workers could be motivated to overcome natural soldiering; natural

soldiering was present to a greater degree in second-class workers, with whom hissystematic management was not designed to deal.

The occurrence of systematic soldiering was also encountered during theHawthorne studies as well (Muldoon, 2012). Indeed, in the bank wiring observationstudy (1931-1932), strong evidence for the complex social underpinnings of soldieringwas unearthed. The group of 14 men in the experiment used the practice of binging,or punching a fellow worker in the arm, to enforce the unspoken agreement amongthem to control the output of the group. Workers who exceeded the daily standard werelabeled as rate-busters, and those who loafed and produced less than the standard wereknown as rate-chiselers; both of these types of workers were often punished with abing for their deviance from group norms. In this way, the informal organization ofworkers exercised control over the experiments. Thus, many credit the Hawthorne

studies with the discovery of the power of social influence within organizations,although Taylor had proposed the same idea years earlier (Locke, 1982). WhereasTaylor believed that this more social form of restricting output could be reduced byeffective management, George Elton Mayo, the director of the Hawthorne studies,argued that systematic soldiering was a deep-seated part of the human condition(Locke, 1982) and would be difficult to ameliorate.

Although the term soldiering is rarely used today, its meaning is at the core of theplethora of motivational studies that followed in the decades after Taylor and Mayo.

JMH19,1

122


10/19

That is, while an optimist may claim that motivation involves bringing out the best inemployees, a pessimist could argue that the motivation is rather the fight against thepersonological and social forces that drive workers to engage in soldiering and otherforms of workplace deviance.

Quota restriction and goldbricking. For 11 months from 1944-1945, Donald Royworked as a radial drill operator in a steel mill in Chicago, and reported and analyzedhis observations of output restriction (Roy, 1952). His identity as a researcher was notrevealed, so Roy was seen as one of the boys on the line by his coworkers. Roysconfederacy allowed him to understand exactly what his coworkers believed wouldhappen if they exceeded their daily quota in order to earn a higher wage. When Roybegan his job, Roy queried his coworker, who had high seniority and rank, as to whyhe would not exceed the quota to earn a higher hourly wage. Roys coworker replied:

Theyd pay me once! Dont you know that if I turned in $1.50 an hour on these pump bodiestonight, the whole God-damned Methods Department would be down here tomorrow? Andtheyd retime this job so quick it would make your head swim! And when they retimed it,theyd cut the price in half! And Id be working for 85 cents an hour instead of $1.25! (Roy,1952, p. 430).

In this way, Roy experienced firsthand the strong social pressure to engage in what hereferred to as quota restriction. Quota restriction mirrors the output restrictionobserved by Mayo in the bank wiring room at the Hawthorne plant and Taylorsconceptualization of systematic soldiering at Midvale Steel. Moreover, Roy calculatedspecifically how many hours per day he loafed (1.39 hours out of an eight-hour day)and how much he lost per day in wages due to quota restriction ($3.44 per day, or 34percent of his actual pay). Interestingly, this is similar to the percentage of timeengaged in time banditry through self-descriptions of time pilfering (Martin et al.,2010).

Roy (1952) further observed that workers only performed quota restriction on

gravy jobs (i.e. a high-wage job); when employees were assigned to a stinker (i.e. alow-wage job), they instead employed a goldbricking technique. The termgoldbricking, which refers to making an ordinary brick appear to have great valueby painting it gold, originated in the military. Indeed, the most famous use of the termwas in reference to Beetle Bailey, the main character of the long-running andhighly-popular comic based on the fictional exploits of an excessively lazy private, andhis social universe, in the US Army.

As Roy saw it in his ethnography, goldbricking was a holding-back, or failure torelease effort, when a close approach to the quota seems attainable (Roy, 1952, p. 429).This occurred because in a gravy job, workers were motivated to reach the quota, but notto go beyond it, as they did not want the quota to be raised. At the same time, they didnot want to finish below quota, and be removed from the gravy job. When assigned to astinker, however, employees were driven to come close enough to the quota to avoidappearing incompetent, while at the same time sending a message to management thatthe rate was too low. Like Taylor and Mayo before him, Roys work highlighted thestrong social undercurrents shaping how workers engaged in production deviance.

Social loafing. In 1927, an industrial psychology student in Germany namedRingelmann impressed his advisor, Walther Moede, by demonstrating that when ateam of employees pulled on a rope, their collective amount of pulling force was lessthan the sum of their individual pulling-rope forces (Moede, 1927). This little-known


123


11/19

experimental finding was dormant until teams and group work started to become agreater part of organizational life in the early 1970s. The rediscovery of Ringelmannsastute observation was led by a reexamination of his experiment by Steiner (1972) anda replication of the study by Ingham et al. (1974). Ingham et al. (1974) found that,

indeed, group performance decreased significantly when group size grew from oneworker to two or two to three; however, no significant decrease in performance wasobserved when group size swelled to four, five, or six members. This replicationprovided support for Ringelmanns work a half-century earlier, and was thus dubbedThe Ringelmann effect (Ingham et al., 1974).

Though the term loafing had been used to describe the act of withholding effort,Latane et al. (1979) were the first to use the term social loafing to describe theRingelmann Effect. In their now well-known social psychology experiment, theseauthors found that when participants were instructed to cheer and clap in the contextof a group, they exerted less effort when they engaged in these activities alone. UnlikeIngham et al. (1974), Latane and colleagues (1979) demonstrated than the effect wascurvilinear, in that performance continued to decrease at a lessening rate as groupmembers were added, up to six members (the limits of their experiment).

Clearly, there are similarities between Taylors conceptualization of systematicsoldiering and social loafing (Payne et al., 2006). One similarity is that Taylor viewedsystematic soldiering as a result of a poor managerial system, and subsequentinvestigations of social loafing provide support for this argument. There has been agreat deal of work on social loafing in social psychology, and meta-analysis of thesestudies provides robust support for the phenomenon. In addition, task meaningfulnesswas a strong moderator of social loafing such that as task meaningful increased, socialloafing decreased. In the same way, Taylor argued that more effective job design wasnecessary to reduce systematic soldiering. The study of social loafing has also spreadto the management domain, and work in this area continues today. For example, Liden

et al. (2004) showed that within the context of two large organizations, the incidence ofsocial loafing did, in fact, increase as group size increased. Further, decreases in taskvisibility and task interdependence also promoted social loafing.

It is important to note that social loafing differs from other forms of CWB-O in thatemployees engaged in loafing do not consciously and deliberately withhold effort froma performance situation. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Instead, the merepresence of others doing the same task can be enough to facilitate social loafing. Small,but important differences such as this between different forms of how employeesreduce their effort led Kidwell and Bennett (1993) to develop a model of antecedents tothe propensity to withhold effort in organizational life. Their model, which combinesthe concepts of shirking and free riding from economics with social loafing, proposesthat the propensity to withhold effort is anteceded by group size, equity perceptions,

and altruism perceptions among coworkers.

Production deviance in todays workplaceSimilar to property deviance, technology has changed the way that workers slack off.During the Hawthorne studies, it was relatively easy to either visually observe aworker loafing, or quickly detect an intentional slowdown in production by examininghis or her hourly output. In a service-based economy with an increasing amount ofknowledge workers, jobs are often more difficult to observe; that is, in many cases, task

JMH19,1

124


12/19

visibility in the modern workplace is often much lower than it was in Taylors day.Even in manufacturing, many processes are automated, and machine operators spendmuch of their workdays monitoring processes from a computer screen. In this context,it is more difficult for supervisors to detect loafing than it was for Taylor to spot

soldiering in pig-iron loading operations at Midvale Steel.Loafing in virtual teams. In contemporary organizations, a great deal of teamwork is

accomplished through the use of virtual teams. Social loafing may occur morefrequently in virtual teams than in traditional group contexts, since team members arenot physically present to observe firsthand one anothers contributions in virtualsettings. Chidambaram and Tung (2005) investigated social loafing in virtual teams,and found that teams who were collocated (i.e. in the same workspace) experiencedlower levels of social loafing than more dispersed teams. Interestingly, though, therewere no differences in performance levels between the two types of virtual teams.Clearly, additional work on social loafing and other forms of counterproductivebehavior in virtual teams is needed to understand exactly how and why employeesengage in deviant behavior in virtual workplaces.

Cyberloafing. Kidwell (2010) defines cyberloafing as, spending work time on theinternet for non-work related purposes (p. 545). Over the past decade, as access to theinternet has become a norm in workplaces, a significant amount of work hasinvestigated this phenomenon (e.g. Blau et al., 2006; Henle and Blanchard, 2008; Lim,2002). Cyberloafing may be deterred to some extent because many employers have theability to electronically track their employees online behavior. However, due toadvances in mobile devices, cyberloafing often no longer takes place at the employeesdesk or on the employers equipment. Indeed, instead of completing their assignedduties, workers now use their smart phones, iPads, and laptops to communicate withtheir family and friends, watch the NCAA basketball tournament, or update theirpersonal blog and Facebook page. This creates a situation that Taylor likely never

envisioned, one in which employees are not only motivated to loaf due to a faultypiece-rate pay system or because of social norms, but because they can actuallyaccomplish meaningful personal tasks through technology on their employers dime.

DiscussionEmployers have grappled with employee behavior that damages organizationalwell-being from the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to the present-day. Althoughthere is no overall measure of whether the amount of deviant behavior has changedover the centuries, it seems certain that CWB-O will be prevalent phenomenon inworkplaces for the foreseeable future. As this review has shown, the manner in whichemployees cause harm to their organizations, however, has become more sophisticatedas workplaces have become more complex. A century ago, job duties were often

constrained such that the only CWB-Os that employees could engage in were visibleand straightforward, such as of theft and soldiering. In workplaces today, employeesoften possess the technology and autonomy to harm their organization in more covertways. This growth in the means of employee misbehavior has been reflected byincreases in the number of constructs that describe CWB-O. Since organizations willcontinue to become more complex, it is likely that managers and managementresearchers alike will discover more forms of employee deviance in the comingdecades.


125


13/19

Implications for future researchSome researchers have argued that employees can be categorized based on theirengagement in CWB and/or OCB in such a way that good employees rarely, if ever,engage in CWB and bad employees typically refrain from performing acts of

citizenship (Luthans and Youssef, 2007; Sackett, 2002). Put another way, prior workhas, at times, suggested that CWBs are the work of bad apples, whereas OCBs areperformed exclusively by good soldiers. In some ways, this mirrors Taylors categoriesof first- and second-class men. In addition, a great deal of work on Protestant workethic suggests that some employees are hard-wired to be conscientious andhard-working and possess high levels of self-control, which causes them to avoidperforming acts of property and production deviance (e.g. Greenberg, 1977; Weber,1958) employees low in this trait, however, are more likely to engage in deviantbehavior. In sum, past work on the dark side of organizational behavior suggests thatnegative social influences, injustice, and deviant dispositions drive CWB-O. In otherwords, the opposite of what causes good behavior in organizations causes badbehavior in organizations.

Although the focus of prior work on the individual traits and situations at work thatlead to CWB-O have clearly been fruitful, future studies should more deeply explore thedynamic interplay between CWB-O and other types of behavior (e.g. proactivity, OCB)within employees. Indeed, recent meta-analytic investigations of the intrapersonalrelationship between extra-role behavior and counterproductive behavior suggest thatCWB-O may actually be linked to the performance of good deeds at work. Put anotherway, there is strong evidence suggesting that good employees, such as those withhigh Protestant work ethics, engage in deviant behavior at work (Dalal, 2005; Spectoret al., 2010). Thus, future work should seek to understand when and why ostensiblygood employees choose to, at times, engage in CWB-O.

In addition, future theoretical and empirical work should consider the possibility

that, although CWB-O may cause some form of harm to the organization, it may also,at the same time, provide benefits for employee well-being. For example, some forms ofCWB-O may relieve stress for employees. Consider a single mother who is an otherwiseoutstanding organizational citizen who occasionally steals time from her employer bymonitoring her children at daycare centers via the internet several times throughoutthe course of the work day. On the surface, this behavior could be labeled as timebanditry. However, if these small breaks reduce the employees level of stress, therebyallowing her to more fully concentrate on her job, the ability to engage in this type ofCWB-O may actually act as a moderator between work stress and individualperformance. As such, the damage to the organization caused by some forms ofCWB-O may be offset by the positive effects of reduced feelings of stress and workoverload in employees. Thus, future work should investigate the potential positive side

of CWB-O, particularly how it may, under certain conditions, reduce stress andfacilitate higher levels of individual performance.

Although not discussed in this manuscript, future work should investigate theeffectiveness of tools designed to limit the ability of employees to engage in CWB-O.For example, employers can electronically monitor employee e-mails, key strokes, andinternet browsing histories to determine when employees are using company resourcesfor inappropriate purposes or when they are slacking off. Additionally, inservice-based firms, customers now can use web-based tools to report employees

JMH19,1

126


14/19

who are not doing their jobs. In these ways, technology may not only be creating moreopportunities for CWB-Os, but it may also offer solutions to some of the problems itcreates.

Further, while we discussed a number of CWB-Os, such as cyberloafing and harm

through social media, that have been made possible because of technological advancesin the workplace, additional forms of deviant behavior will continue to emerge as newweb-based processes and programs make their way into employees personal andprofessional lives. Indeed, email has made time banditry very difficult to detect in jobswith high autonomy. For example, some professors who rarely come into the office ordo much work can still appear to be engaged in the department by making sure toquickly reply to any emails sent out by the department director or the dean. In thisway, these highly-paid time bandits project the appearance of being a good colleague totheir superiors while stealing valuable resources from the college. Of course, as wedescribed earlier, some professors are workplace divas, and thus the department maybe better off allowing them to be an absent time bandit rather than a present nuisanceto the other faculty members. Researchers studying counterproductive behavior in theworkplace, then, must explore beyond the boundaries of traditional CWBs tounderstand the dark side of technological advances in the workplace.

Finally, as shown in our review, much of the historical work on deviant behavior byemployees has been conducted in the context of blue-collar jobs. However, most newerforms of CWBs, such as cyberloafing and workplace divaness, are often conceptualizedas primarily white-collar phenomena. Hence future work on CWB-Os should considerthe similarities and differences between deviant behavior in blue-collar andwhite-collar occupations, and between hourly and salary jobs. For example, bothassembly-line workers and salespersons can intentionally restrict their output.However, an assembly-line worker may be more likely to cause harm by destroyingequipment or causing defects in the firms products, whereas a salesperson may do so

by tarnishing the organizations reputations with customers. In addition, for hourlyworkers who slow down production may reap rewards in terms of increased overtimepay, whereas salary employees may be forced to take work home with them when theyslack off at work. In sum, future work should explore how contextual differencesbetween jobs contribute to specific forms of CWB-Os.

Practical implicationsIt is often lamented that employees these days are not as dedicated to theiremployers, do not work as hard for their managers, and are not willing to put in thenecessary sacrifice for their job as employees in past generations. This sentiment islikely compounded by the fact that due to the availability of information provided bythe internet, stories about worker misconduct seem much more prevalent than in the

past. As such, it is easy for managers to focus on counterproductive behaviors in theirown employees and gravitate toward McGregors (1960) Theory X assumptionsregarding human nature (e.g. the average employee has an inherent dislike of work),and subsequently use the command and control management style that accompaniesthese assumptions. However, as this review shows, CWB-O has been a centralphenomenon in organizations for centuries. Thus, managers should understand thatmost, if not all employees, do feel, and likely always have felt, that they are entitled toengage in some degree of behavior that technically harms their organization.


127


15/19

At the same time, technology has multiplied the number of ways that employees canharm the organization, and thus increased the number of decisions managers mustmake regarding the use of technology by employees. Indeed, technology has blurredthe lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in the workplace. For example,

most managers would agree that an employee texting his or her friends while on thejob is an example of CWB-O. Given this, some workplaces have instituted policiesbanning personal cell phones from the workplace. However, this policy, designed tolimit CWB-Os, also reduces the ability of employees to receive communications that aremore legitimate, such as those from a child when he or she is safely home from school.Thus, the restriction of cell phone use in an organization may lead to higher levels ofemployee dissatisfaction, which may actually fuel deviant retaliatory behaviors thatare more costly to the organization than having employees occasionally use their cellphones on the job for personal use.

Conclusion

The foundation for the recent surge in work studying how employees cause harm totheir organizations was laid during the Industrial Revolution. Interestingly, though,whereas early forms of workplace deviance were driven by reactions to changes intechnology, managers are discovering that some of the new technology introduced inthe Information Age actually facilitates new forms of bad behavior in organizations.Technological advancement has increased the opportunity for those who engage inCWB at work to find alternatives to effective performance. Hence, the challenge forfuture researchers is to explore whether the theories and findings of the twentiethcenturys examinations of CWB-O continue to accurately describe motives andoutcomes of new types of workplace deviance in the twenty-first century.

References

Adams, J.S. (1965), Inequity in social exchange, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Albanese, R. and Van Fleet, D.D. (1985), Free-riding: theory, research, and implications,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 244-55.

Ambrose, M.L., Seabright, M.A. and Schminke, M. (2002), Sabotage in the workplace: the role oforganizational injustice, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89No. 1, pp. 947-65.

Bailey, B. (1998), The Luddite Rebellion, New York University Press, New York, NY.

Barbaro, M. (2005), A new weapon for Wal-Mart: a war room, New York Times, 1 November,C4.

Blau, G.G., Yang, Y.Y. and Ward-Cook, K. (2006), Testing a measure of cyberloafing, Journal ofAllied Health, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 9-17.

Boddewyn, J. (1961), Frederick Winslow Taylor revisited, Journal of the Academy ofManagement, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 100-7.

Bosworth, B. and Reilly, R. (1988), The Boz, Doubleday, New York, NY.

Bowling, N.A. and Gruys, M.L. (2010), Overlooked issues in the conceptualization andmeasurement of counterproductive work behavior, Human Resource Management

Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 54-61.

JMH19,1

128


16/19

Chen, P.Y. and Spector, P.E. (1992), Relationships of work stressors with aggression,withdrawal, theft and substance use: an exploratory study, Journal of Occupational& Organizational Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 177-84.

Chidambaram, L. and Tung, L.L. (2005), Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of

social loafing in technology-supported groups, Information Systems Research, Vol. 16No. 2, pp. 149-68.

Coye, R.W., Murphy, P.J. and Spencer, P.E. (2010), Using historic mutinies to understanddefiance in modern organizations, Journal of Management History, Vol. 16 No. 2,pp. 270-87.

Crino, M.D. (1994), Employee sabotage: a random or preventable phenomenon?, Journal ofManagerial Issues, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 311-30.

Dalal, R.S. (2005), A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenshipbehavior and counterproductive work behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90No. 6, pp. 1241-55.

Folta, T.B., Delmar, F. and Wennberg, K. (2010), Hybrid entrepreneurship, ManagementScience, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 253-69.

Fox, S. and Spector, P.E. (2005), Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors andTargets, APA, Washington, DC.

Fox, S., Spector, P.E. and Miles, D. (2001), Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in responseto job stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and moderator tests forautonomy and emotions, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 291-309.

Gardiner, S. (2010), Flight attendant grabs two beers, slides down the emergency chute, WallStreet Journal, August 10, available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704388504575419743157731062.html

Giacalone, R.A. and Knouse, S.B. (1990), Justifying wrongful employee behavior: the role ofpersonality in organizational sabotage, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 55-61.

Giacalone, R.A. and Rosenfeld, P. (1987), Reasons for employee sabotage in the workplace,

Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 367-78.Greenberg, J. (1977), The Protestant work ethic and reactions to negative performance

evaluations on a laboratory task, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 682-90.

Greenberg, J. (1990), Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: the hidden cost ofpay cuts, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 561-8.

Greenberg, J. (1993), Stealing in the name of justice: informational and interpersonal moderatorsof theft reactions to underpayment inequity, Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 81-103.

Greenberg, J. (2002), Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinantsof employee theft, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89 No. 1,pp. 985-1003.

Griffin, R.W. and Lopez, Y.P. (2005), Bad behavior in organizations: a review and typology for

future research, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 988-1005.

Grinberg, E. (2011), Joey becomes recession hero after using marching band to quit job,CNN.com, October 24, available at: www.cnn.com/2011/10/24/living/marching-band-resignation/index.html

Henle, C. and Blanchard, A. (2008), The interaction of work stressors and organizationalsanctions on cyberloafing, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 383-400.

Hollinger, R.C. and Clark, J.P. (1982), Formal and informal social controls of employee deviance,Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 333-43.


129


17/19

Ingham, A.G., Levinger, G., Graves, J. and Peckham, V. (1974), The Ringelmann effect: studies ofgroup size and group performance, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10No. 4, pp. 371-84.

Jones, J.W. (1980), Attitudinal correlates of employees deviance: theft, alcohol use, and

nonprescribed drug use, Psychological Reports, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 71-7.

Ketchen, D.J. and Buckley, M.R. (2010), Divas at work: dealing with drama kings and queens inorganizations, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 599-606.

Ketchen, D.J., Craighead, C.W. and Buckley, M.R. (2008), Time bandits: how they are created,why they are tolerated, and what can be done about them, Business Horizons, Vol. 51No. 2, pp. 141-9.

Kidwell, R.E. (2010), Loafing in the 21st century: enhanced opportunities and remedies forwithholding job effort in the new workplace, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 543-52.

Kidwell, R.E. and Bennett, N. (1993), Employee propensity to withhold effort: a conceptualmodel to intersect three avenues of research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18No. 3, pp. 429-56.

Klotz, A.C. and Buckley, M.R. (2010), Where everybody knows your name: lessons from smallbusiness about preventing workplace violence, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 571-9.

Latane, B., Williams, K. and Harkins, S. (1979), Many hands make light the work: the causes andconsequences of social loafing, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 6,pp. 822-32.

LeBlanc, M.M. and Barling, J. (2005), Understanding the many faces of workplace violence, inFox, S. and Spector, P.E. (Eds), Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actorsand Targets, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 41-63.

Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Jaworski, R.A. and Bennett, N. (2004), Social loafing: a fieldinvestigation, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 285-304.

Lim, V.K.G. (2002), The IT way of loafing on the job: cyberloafing, neutralizing andorganizational justice, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 675-94.

Locke, E.A. (1982), The ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: an evaluation, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 14-24.

Luthans, F. and Youssef, C.M. (2007), Emerging positive organizational behavior, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 321-49.

McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Mangione, T.W. and Quinn, R.P. (1975), Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and druguse at work, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 114-6.

Mars, G. (1974), Dock pilferage: a case study in occupational theft, in Rock, P. and McIntosh, M.(Eds), Deviance and Social Control, Tavistock Institute, London, pp. 209-28.

Martin, L.E., Brock, M.E., Buckley, M.R. and Ketchen, D.J. (2010), Time banditry: examining thepurloining of time in organizations, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1,pp. 26-34.

Moede, W. (1927), Die Richtlinien der Leistungs-Psychologie, Industrielle Psychotechnik, Vol. 4,pp. 193-207.

Mount, M., Ilies, R. and Johnson, E. (2006), Relationship of personality traits andcounterproductive work behaviors: the mediating effects of job satisfaction, Personnel

Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 591-622.

JMH19,1

130


18/19

Muldoon, J. (2012), The Hawthorne legacy: a reassessment of the impact of the Hawthornestudies on management scholarship, 1930-1958, Journal of Management History, Vol. 18No. 1, pp. 105-19.

Neuman, J.H. and Baron, R.A. (1998), Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evidence

concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 391-419.

Niehoff, B.P. and Paul, R.J. (2000), Causes of employee theft and strategies that HR managerscan use for prevention, Human Resource Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 51-64.

OConnor, E.S. (1996), Lines of authority: readings of foundational texts on the profession ofmanagement, Journal of Management History, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 26-49.

Payne, S.C., Youngcourt, S.S. and Watrous, K.M. (2006), Portrayals of F.W. Taylor acrosstextbooks, Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 385-407.

Peel, F. (1968), The Risings of the Luddites, 4th ed., Frank Cass and Company, London.

Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995), A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: amultidimensional scaling study, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2,pp. 555-72.

Roy, D. (1952), Quota restriction and goldbricking in machine shop, American Journal ofSociology, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 427-42.

Sackett, P.R. (2002), The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: dimensionality andrelationships with facets of job performance, International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 5-11.

Simha, A. and Lemak, D.J. (2010), The value of original source readings in managementeducation, Journal of Management History, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 233-52.

Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,procedural, and interactional justice, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3,pp. 434-43.

Skarlicki, D.P., van Jaarsveld, D.D. and Walker, D.D. (2008), Getting even for customer

mistreatment: the role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonalinjustice and employee sabotage, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 1335-47.

Smiler Levinson, N. (2001), Magellan and the First Voyage around the World, Houghton Mifflin,New York, NY.

Smith, A. and Kannalley, C. (2010), Fired over Facebook: 13 posts that got people CANNED,The Huffington Post, July 26, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/ 07/26/fired-over-facebook-posts_n_659170.html#s117689&titleWoman_Blasts_Her

Spector, P.E. and Fox, S. (2002), An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: someparallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenshipbehavior, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 269-92.

Spector, P.E. and Fox, S. (2005), The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive workbehavior, in Spector, P.E. and Fox, S. (Eds), Counterproductive Work Behavior:

Investigations of Actors and Targets, APA, Washington, DC, pp. 151-74.

Spector, P.E., Bauer, J.A. and Fox, S. (2010), Measurement artifacts in the assessment ofcounterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: do we knowwhat we think we know?, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 781-90.

Spector, P.E., Fox, S., Penney, L.M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A. and Kessler, S. (2006), Thedimensionality of counterproductivity: are all counterproductive behaviors createdequal?, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 446-60.

Steiner, I.D. (1972), Group Processes and Productivity, Academic Press, New York, NY.


131


19/19

Taylor, F.W. (1903), Shop Management, Harper & Brothers, New York, NY.

Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K. and Shaw, J.D. (2001), Personality moderators of the relationshipbetween abusive supervision and subordinates resistance, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 974-83.

Townsend, J., Phillips, J.S. and Elkins, T.J. (2000), Employee retaliation: the neglectedconsequence of poor leader-member exchange relations, Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 457-63.

Tripp, T.M., Bies, R.J. and Aquino, K. (2002), Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The aesthetics ofrevenge, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89 No. 1,pp. 966-84.

Weber, M. (1958), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Scribners, New York, NY,(trans. Parsons, T.), (originally published 1904-1905).

Wimbush, J.C. and Dalton, D.R. (1997), Base rate for employee theft: convergence of multiplemethods, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 756-63.

Wren, D.A. and Bedeian, A.G. (2009), The Evolution of Management Thought, 6th ed., Wiley,Hoboken, NJ.

Further reading

Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2005), The personal costs of citizenship behavior: therelationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-familyconflict, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 740-8.

Bushman, B.J., Baumeister, R.F. and Phillips, C.M. (2001), Do people aggress to improve theirmood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 17-32.

Dalal, R.S., Lam, H., Weiss, H.M., Welch, E.R. and Hulin, C.L. (2009), A within-person approachto work behavior and performance: concurrent and lagged citizenship-counterproductivityassociations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job performance,

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 1051-66.Goma-i-Freixanet, M. (2001), Prosocial and antisocial aspects of personality in women: a

replication study, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 1401-11.

Sonnentag, S. (2003), Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at theinterface between nonwork and work, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3,pp. 518-28.

Vardi, Y. and Weitz, E. (2004), Misbehavior in Organizations: Theory, Research, andManagement, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of thestructure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work, in Sutton, R.I. andStaw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,pp. 1-74.

Corresponding authorAnthony C. Klotz can be contacted at: [email protected]

JMH19,1

132

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

perspectiva istorica

Documents