1 / 12

A qualitative and quantitative review of antecedents of counterproductive behavior in organization

A qualitative and quantitative review of antecedents of counterproductive behavior in organization. Lau, V. C. S., Au W.T., & Ho, J. M. C. (2003). Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 73-99. A Critique by Ozgun B. Rodopman. Construct of interest. Counterproductive work behavior (CBP)

JasminFlorian
Télécharger la présentation

A qualitative and quantitative review of antecedents of counterproductive behavior in organization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A qualitative and quantitative review of antecedents of counterproductive behavior in organization Lau, V. C. S., Au W.T., & Ho, J. M. C. (2003). Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 73-99. A Critique by Ozgun B. Rodopman

  2. Construct of interest • Counterproductive work behavior (CBP) Any voluntary organizational behaviors that affect an individual’s job performance or undermine organizational effectiveness • CBP is costly for the organization and for the individual • Financial losses, sabotage, health costs, lower productivity, lower performance ratings

  3. Research Question • What are the antecedents of counterproductive work behaviors? • Inconsistent findings in individual studies regarding the antecedents of CBP • No meta-analysis on CBP before

  4. Difficulties in Meta-analysis on CPB • No consensus on the definition • No agreement on which behaviors are considered counterproductive work behavior • Not enough studies

  5. Review Framework • Framework by Martinko, Grundlach and Douglas (2002) • 1. Personal factors (e.g., job satisfaction) • 2. Organizational factors (e.g, group influence) • 3. Work factors (e.g., job complexity) • 4. Contextual factors (e.g., employment rate) • No mention of leading models counterproductive work behavior and related measures or studies

  6. Review Plan • Criteria • Theft, production deviance, lateness, absenteeism and alcohol abuse • Not representative of the construct domain • Absenteeism and alcohol are not considered as counterproductive work behavior in the mainstream CWB studies • Predictor • Age, sex, marital status, tenure, income, educational level, race, job satisfaction and job satisfaction related symptoms • Personality is left out ? • Stressors are combined under job satisfaction related symptoms ?

  7. Procedure • Literature search • PsycINFO (1967-2001) • Published studies and unpublished dissertations • Inclusion criteria • Target: Employed adults • Withdrawal, intentions of turnover and retirement are excluded • 40 independent samples (total N= 42,359) • kslk

  8. Analyses • Correlations • Hunter & Schmidt metaanalytic method • Correction for sampling error and unreliability in both the predictor and the criterion • Estimation for the missing reliabilities • No information regarding the rating process, raters or inter-rater reliability ? • Combination of all criteria (CBP general) used to for some analysis ?

  9. Results • Age and job satisfaction are antecedents of counterproductive work behavior. • Absenteeism is more prevalent among employees who are young, female, have lower income, have lower job satisfaction, and who perceive a stronger absence norm, or stronger ability to be on time.

  10. Conclusion • Not representative of the construct domain from the theoretical perspective • The main CWB studies are not included • Key variables such as personality are excluded without sufficient explanation • Problematic from a methodological standpoint • Sample size is too small (lowest 2- highest 18) • Not enough power • Combination all criteria as one ‘CPB general’ construct

More Related