This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) are two seemingly opposite types of active and volitional behaviors. However, previous research on the mutual relationships between these two types of behavior has yielded inconclusive results. Such relationships are of particular interest in countries such as Poland, which is still in the process of economic and social transformation from a communist to a capitalist system. Therefore, the current study sought to re-examine the relationships between OCB and CWB in a large sample of Polish employees. One thousand and fifty-one employees were recruited from small, medium, and large Polish enterprises to take part in the study, and they completed questionnaire measures of CWB and OCB. The results showed that the overall frequencies of CWB and OCB were statistically significantly correlated. However, while some dimensions of OCB were found to be significantly negatively correlated with certain categories of CWB, one dimension of OCB was significantly positively correlated with CWB. Cluster analysis allowed for distinguishing of four subgroups of participants with different profiles of CWB and OCB, including a subgroup that exhibited equal levels of OCB and CWB and a subgroup that exhibited high levels of CWB cooccurring with increased frequencies of some dimensions of OCB. These results demonstrate that, overall, CWB and OCB are relatively independent and unrelated constructs; however, their particular dimensions may show a more complex pattern of relationships.
Keywords: counterproductive work behavior, organizational citizenship behaviorCounterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) are two types of active and volitional behavior that are often studied by researchers of organizational behavior. CWB, which might harm the organization, and OCB, which is beneficial, are often studied separately and are usually treated as opposites with respect to their determinants and consequences (Dineen et al., 2006). Some studies on the relationships between positive and negative citizenship behavior, including CWB, have been published in recent years (Glińska-Neweś & Lis, 2016); however, their results remain inconclusive.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The concept of OCB was defined by Organ (1988) as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). In his research on OCB, Organ underscored the motivational aspect. He assumed the voluntary nature of behaviors unrelated to the formal requirements of an employee’s position and the lack of relationship to the reward system (Organ et al., 2006).
Constructs similar to OCB, as defined by Organ, can be found in the literature, including prosocial organizational behavior (Podsakoff et al., 2000), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p. 71-98), organizational spontaneity (Brief & Weiss, 2002), or extrarole behavior (Van Dyne et al., 1995).
The most popular model describes seven dimensions of OCB (Glińska-Neweś & Lis, 2016, p. 140-142, qtd in. Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000):
1. Altruism/helping behavior – voluntarily offering support to coworkers to alleviate or prevent problems.
2. Organizational compliance – internalization and acceptance of organizational rules and norms, following them even when not monitored.
3. Sportsmanship – readiness to tolerate difficulties and discomfort.
4. Organizational loyalty – readiness to preserve and promote the organization’s image.
5. Individual initiative – going above one’s responsibilities.
6. Civic virtue – readiness to become responsibly engaged in the organization’s life.
7. Self-development – voluntary behaviors aimed at increasing one’s knowledge and skills. Some researchers have proposed two more constructs as belonging to OCB (Glińska-Neweś, 2017, p. 140-142).
8. Courtesy – behaviors aimed at avoiding making problems for coworkers. Courtesy and altruism together form the dimension of helping behavior.
9. Conscientiousness – behaviors reflecting allegiance to the organization, namely, going above the minimal requirements of one’s position. When analyzing OCB, attention must be given to its determinants.
Aside from contextual factors (Podsakoff et al., 2000) that are directly shaped by the organization, the literature also points to personality traits that remain outside of the organization’s control (Keplinger et al., 2014; Organ, 1988; Retowski & Kaźmierczak, 2008; Turek, 2014).
Counterproductive Work Behavior
Counterproductive work behavior is often contrasted with OCB, which belongs to the positive trend of organizational research (Glińska-Neweś & Lis, 2016). Conceptually, CWB is most often used interchangeably with terms such as workplace deviance behavior, which is used in sociological research (Robinson & Bennett, 1995); the term counterproductive work behavior (CWB) stems from workplace and organizational psychology (Sackett, 2002). Counterproductive work behavior is considered to comprise voluntary activities that harm organizations, clients, coworkers, and supervisors (Spector & Fox, 2005). In this view, the chief feature of CWB is its voluntary character; it results from an employee’s decision (conscious or not) to undertake activities that are harmful for the organization or its members. From the employee’s perspective, CWB is most often excused.
Researchers of CWB often consider it to be related to aggression (Douglas & Martinko, 2001), workplace deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), revenge (Bies et al., 1997; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), or protest (Kelloway et al., 2010). For example, revenge and protest can be responses to injustice. On the other hand, aggression is tied to negative emotions such as anger and frustration, which can be responses to workplace conditions or a sense of injustice in the workplace. Counterproductive work behavior might result in financial, personal, and organizational costs (DeShong et al., 2015). Similar to OCB, research on CWB focuses on personality determinants (Bowling & Eschleman, 2010; O’Boyl et al., 2012) and the organization’s environmental factors (Ones & Dilchert, 2013). Other researchers have suggested that these two sets of factors interact (Folger, & Skarlicki, 1998; Penney et al., 2011).
One of the most popular models of CWB is the one proposed by Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh, and Kessler (2006). It consists of the following five dimensions:
1. Abuse against others – physical and psychological aggression directed against coworkers, for example, threats, disparaging comments, ignoring others.
2. Production deviance – purposeful deviation from or neglect of the standard in fulfilling one’s responsibilities.
3. Sabotage – purposefully destroying or damaging the organization’s property.
4. Theft – stealing the organization’s and/or coworkers’ property, together with a potential aggressive reaction intended to harm the organization.
5. Withdrawal – limiting time spent at work to levels below the required norm, for example, through unexcused absences, leaving work early, taking breaks above the allowed time limit, or late arrivals. This model has been empirically verified in numerous studies.
These studies have used most of the aforementioned variables but have eliminated the “sensitive” or specific (not suitable for every workplace) ones (Glińska-Neweś, 2017, p. 149-150).
The Relationships Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior
Although OCB and CWB seem to be opposite in nature, some studies have suggested that the relationships between these two categories of behavior might be more complex than initially assumed.
In the 1930s, OCB was defined as voluntary actions undertaken by employees for the common good. However, more recent accounts conceptualize OCB as a complex and multidimensional psychosocial phenomenon (Barabasz & Chwalibóg, 2013). Individuals engaging in prosocial behaviors might simultaneously engage in unethical workplace behaviors, including CWB (Dalal, 2005). As Turek (2016) pointed out, many terms have been introduced to reflect the paradox of unethical organizational citizens. According to Turek, this implies a more complex perspective of OCB, which requires considering the entirety of the organization through the lens of its social context.
Other authors have claimed that CWB might represent so-called constructive deviations, that is, behaviors that violate organizational and social norms but have beneficial consequences for the organization’s effectiveness (Turek, 2015, s. 151-174).
Dalal (2005) stated that the links between OCB and CWB are related to social exchange theory, the psychological contract, and the social norm of reciprocity, as well as personality traits and organizational factors. Thus, different groups of factors determine employee behaviors. It is difficult to unambiguously locate the determinants of positive or negative relationships between OCB and CWB. Individuals might exhibit different manifestations of their personality traits depending on the situation. These manifestations might also be responses to signals from the workplace environment (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Dalal (2005) pointed out that the relationship between OCB and CWB might be moderated by the source of evaluation, that is, evaluations formed by the supervisor of the employee (self-esteem) based on their impressions. The supervisor might assign high OCB/low CWB ratings to an employee who makes a positive impression and low OCB/high CWB ratings to an employee who makes a negative impression. Moreover, employees engage in OCB and/or CWB based on their goals. Thus, an employee might frequently help but also frequently harm others. Alternatively, an employee might rarely help and rarely harm others, frequently help and rarely harm others, or rarely help and frequently harm others. This is because employees can ascribe different goals to these behaviors. Dalal (2005) pointed out that some authors have claimed the purpose of OCB and/or CWB to be emotion regulation, i.e., bringing about a good mood or a sense of satisfaction. Individuals often engage in subtle behaviors to improve their affective states (Spector & Fox, 2002). According to Dalal (2005), a direct relationship between OCB and CWB cannot be assumed, as there exist various categories of OCB and CWB, together with various reasons for engaging in these behaviors. Additionally, the OCB-CWB relationship might be moderated by a range of other variables.
To expand the knowledge on the relationship between OCB and CWB, the current study examined whether CWB levels decrease as the levels of individual OCB dimensions increase. Additionally, total and individual dimension OCB and CWB scores were measured in the entire sample as well as in the distinguished subgroups. The results thus contribute to the existing knowledge about the relationship between OCB and CWB.
Materials
Counterproductive work behavior was measured using the Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C) by Spector et al. (2006). This checklist consists of 32 items. Responses are given on a 5-point scale (never, 1-2 times, 1-2 times per week, 1-2 times per month, every day). This is a shortened version of the measure recommended by Spector et al. The 32 items are divided into five categories: abuse against others, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal. A strength of the CWB-C is that its subscales are clearly defined and can be treated as separate. Specific behaviors are classified into one category and do not appear in others. The CWB-C is available in many languages, including English, German, and Spanish (Szostek, 2019, p. 82-83).
Organizational citizenship behavior was measured with the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Checklist (OCB-C). This checklist consists of 24 items comprising five dimensions: altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue (Podsakoff et al., 1990). The sum of the individual dimension scores forms the total OCB score (Fox et al., 2012). The respondents estimate how often they engage in each OCB on a five-point scale (never, 1-2 times, 1-2 times per week, 1-2 times per month, every day). The OCB-C items do not overlap with the CWB-C items in meaning (Dalal, 2005; Spector & Fox, 2010).
Participants and Procedure
The study was carried out on a sample of employees of small, medium, and large enterprises. Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous. Overall, 1051 employees participated in the study. Employment in an enterprise in Poland, regardless of its size, was the selection criterion. A short instruction explaining the purpose of the study was presented before the measures were distributed, and a series of sociodemographic questions were ultimately included. Women comprised 68% of the sample. The majority of the participants were 20-29 years old (65%). The most frequent workplace position in the sample was that of a specialist (51%); managerial and self-employment positions were the least frequent positions. The majority of the sample had been employed in their current workplace for 1 to 3 years (42%). Employment of over 10 years in the current workplace was reported the least frequently. Most participants were employed in large enterprises of over 250 employees (43%), most often on the basis of an indefinite employment contract. The majority of the enterprises were Polish (68%). They were most often employed at limited liability companies (39%).
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated first. Then, a Pearson’s r correlation analysis was carried out for the individual dimensions of CWB and OCB. The correlation analysis was supplemented by a k-means cluster analysis including standardized values of the analyzed variables. Groups of participants characterized by different CWB and OCB profiles were distinguished. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. Cronbach’s α values for each CWB and OCB dimension were either optimal or high.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Behavior
Table 2 shows the Pearson’s r correlation coefficients for the dimensions of OCB and CWB.
Weak but statistically significant negative correlations were revealed between the OCB dimensions of altruism, courtesy, and conscientiousness and all CWB dimensions. A stronger, positive correlation also emerged between the OCB dimension of sportsmanship and all CWB dimensions.
There were no statistically significant correlations between CWB and the OCB dimension of civic virtue. Total CWB was negatively correlated with the OCB dimensions of altruism, courtesy, and conscientiousness and was positively correlated with sportsmanship. Total OCB was negatively correlated with withdrawal.