COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR. COMPARISON OF THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/JPM.2018.133Keywords
counterproductive work behavior, organizational behavior, private sector, public sectorAbstract
Purpose: The main purpose of the article is to verify a hypothesis that the public sector employees tend to engage in counterproductive behavior (CWB) at work more often than the private sector employees. An additional purpose is to present results of the research relating to frequency of engagement of employees in CWB in Poland.
Methodology: The research was conducted in 2017 with the use of an online questionnaire method with respect to 535 employees from all regions of Poland. The data were analysed with the use of IBM SPSS application.
Findings: Based on analysis of the research results (an analysis of frequency and Pearson’s chi-square coefficients) it has been found that there are no grounds for rejection of the hypothesis. This relationship was also observed in relation to particular manifestations, categories and dimensions of these behaviors.
Implications/limitations: The research paper includes precious hints for managers working mainly in the public sector. Considering the research results, they should undertake particularly active CWB risk reducing activities in their organizations. It is also necessary to monitor appearance of such behaviors on an ongoing basis as well as identify reasons for such behaviors.
The main limitations of the research include biased character of the sample resulting from its non-random selection and limited control over the process of research resulting from a method of data collection.
A future research should involve a representative sample with the use of quantitative and qualitative methods, which will allow to extend the level of analysis and identify reasons for differences in manifestation of CWB by employees of both sectors.
Originality/value: The research paper fills a gap in the literature relating to differences in tendencies to manifest CWB among the public and private sector employees in Poland. Despite the fact that the problem has already been emphasized by various authors, there are no comprehensive research results concerning the same.
References
Bibi, Z., Karim, J., ud Din, S. (2013), “Workplace Incivility and Counterproductive Work Behavior: Moderating Role of Emotional Intelligence”, Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 317-334.
Burned, B., Pope, R. (2007), “Negative behaviors in the workplace: A study of two Primary Care Trusts in the NHS”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 285-303. DOI: 10.1108/09513550710750011
Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C), available at: http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/cwbcpage.html (accessed 21 November 2017).
Everton, W.J., Jolton, J.A., Mastrangelo, P.M. (2007), “Be nice and fair or else: understanding reasons for employees' deviant behaviors”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 117-131. DOI: 10.1108/02621710710726035
Glińska-Neweś, A., Lis, A. (2016), „Paradoks współwystępowania organizacyjnych zachowań obywatelskich i kontrproduktywnych”, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, No. 422, pp. 265-274.
Gruys, M.L., Sackett, P.R. (2003), “Investigating the Dimensionality of Counterproductive Work Behavior”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 30-42. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2389.00224
Ikola-Norrbacka, A.S.R. (2010), “Trust. good governance and unethical actions in Finnish public administration”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 647-668. DOI: 10.1108/09513551011078905.
Leymann, H. (1996), “The content and development of mobbing at work”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 165-184. DOI: 10.1080/13594329608414853
Nasir, M., Bashir, A. (2012), “Examining workplace deviance in public sector organizations of Pakistan”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 240-253. DOI: 10.1108/03068291211205677
Nerdinger, F.W. (2011), “Formen des Arbeitsverhaltens”, in: Nerdinger, F.W., Blickle, G., Schaper, N. (Eds.), Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie. Springer-Lehrbuch, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s Construct Clean-Up Time”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97. DOI: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2
Penney, L.M., Hunter, E.M., Perry, S.J. (2011), “Personality and counterproductive work behavior: Using conservation of resources theory to narrow the profile of deviant employees”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 58-77. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02007.x
Robinson, S.L., Bennett, R.J. (1995), “A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 555-572. DOI: 10.2307/256693
Sharma, A., Thakur, K. (2016), “Counterproductive Work Behavior: The Role of Psychological Contract Violation”, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 13-27.
Spector, P.E., Fox, S., Penney, L.M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., Kessler, S. (2006), “The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68, pp. 446-460. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
Szostek, D. (2017), “The Use of Marketing Research in Internal Marketing. The Methods of Measurement of Counterproductive Work Behaviors in an Organization”, Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio H OECONOMIA, Vol. LI No. 2, pp. 245-252. DOI: 10.17951/h.2017.51.2.245
Vardi, Y., Weitz, E. (2004), Misbehavior in Organizations, Lawrence Elbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Warren, D.E. (2003), “Constructive And Destructive Deviance In Organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 622-632. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2003.10899440
Wheeler, H.N. (1976), “Punishment theory and industrial discipline”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 235-243. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-232X.1976.tb01120.x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright
Articles submitted to the journal should not have been published before in their current or substantially similar form, or be under consideration for publication with another journal. Authors submitting articles for publication warrant that the work is not an infringement of any existing copyright and will indemnify the publisher against any breach of such warranty. For ease of dissemination and to ensure proper policing of use, papers and contributions become the legal copyright of the publisher unless otherwise agreed.
Plagiarism and ghostwriting
In response to the issue of plagiarism and ghostwriting the editors of the Journal of Positive Management has introduced the following rules to counteract these phenomena:
1. Contributors should be aware of their responsibility for a content of manuscripts.
2. Collective authors are obliged to reveal the contribution and an affiliation of each author (i.e. who is an author of specified part of a paper).
3. Any act of dishonesty will be denounced, the editors will inform appropriate institutions about the situation and give evidence of all cases of misconduct and unethical behaviour.
4. The editors may ask contributors for financial disclosure (i.e. contribution of specified institutions).
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 1366
Number of citations: 0
