Counterproductive Work Behaviors

Understanding the Dark Side of Personalities in Organizational Life

Aaron Cohen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138210653
• eBook ISBN: 9781315454795
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

There has been a growing interest among scholars in the fields of organizational behaviour and industrial psychology in what can be termed "the dark side of the organizations." A main concept in this regard this is both important and relevant counterproductive work behaviours (CWBs), which can be defined as deliberate actions that harm the organization or its members.

These behaviours include a variety of acts that can be directed toward organizations (CWB-O) or toward other people (CWB-P). Destroying organizational property, purposely doing work incorrectly, and taking unauthorized work breaks are examples of CWB-O, whereas hitting a co-worker, insulting others, and shouting at someone are forms of CWB-P. Despite the growing interest in CWBs as a research issue, not enough is known about the determinants of CWBs.

The goal of Counterproductive Work Behaviors therefore is to cover this stimulating, important, and innovative issue of dark triad personalities in the workplace. The book will deal with important aspects of this issue, such as the characteristics of dark triad personalities, how they operate and damage organizations, what organizations are more vulnerable to them, ways to diagnose and detect them, and ways to handle dark triad personalities and prevent them from harming organizations and employees.

There is no doubt that the issues covered by Counterproductive Work Behaviors will continue to attract academic attention and therefore the book is essential reading for researchers, academics and business professionals alike in the fields of Organizational Studies and Behaviour, Organizational Psychology, Strategy, Human Resource Management, Leadership and the related disciplines.

1
Introduction

The Dark Side of the Workplace

One of the more notable examples of a dark triad personality in the business world is that of Bernard Madoff, the ex-chairman of Nasdaq, a competitor in the New York Stock Exchange, who has been called a sociopath and a psychopath (Boddy, 2016). Commentators have reported that Madoff shared many of the traits of a psychopath and was a genial, charismatic, greedy manipulator who did not care whom he hurt in the process of becoming extremely wealthy. His psychopathic traits helped him to climb the corporate ladder and inevitably brought about his downfall (Quow, 2013). Described as a terrific salesman and as a leading celebrity in financial circles, it was reported that Madoff showed no remorse or regret when confronted with his crimes. Madoff ran the largest Ponzi scheme in history and fraudulently took more than $60 billion from his investors. Madoff’s use of a Ponzi scheme illustrates his lack of fear of getting caught for his actions. His desire to accumulate wealth, dominate others, and prove his intelligence allowed him to dupe investors and regulators for years. He cheated his investors out of their life savings with promises of substantial financial returns from the stock market. His former employees described Bernard Madoff as a ruthless, detached individual who showed little remorse for robbing his innocent victims of their life savings (Quow, 2013). He left investors emotionally traumatized, financially impoverished, depressed, and sometimes suicidal in the wake of his fraudulent scheme (Boddy, 2016).

Madoff is only one example of a malevolent personality in the business world, definitely a notable one. There are destructive personalities in almost every organization in every occupation and in every country. Although it does not reflect real life, the focus of researchers in the scientific field of organizational behavior and management has been too much on positive behavioral aspects, overlooking the disastrous effects of negative behaviors in the business world and the workplace (Schyns, 2015). The reason behind this is probably that most theories of organizational behavior are based on the “human relations” approach, emphasizing positive theories on management and employees (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012 ; Fineman, 2006 ; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Derived by the exchange theory (Blau, 1967), the assumption behind the “human relations” approach is that individuals will strive to contribute to the welfare and success of the organization as long as their needs are met by the organization. The “human relations” approach further contended that all organizations and their managements need to do is to provide the employees with the appropriate conditions, remuneration, extrinsic and intrinsic needs, and an appropriate work setting. The employees will respond with higher levels of performance and job satisfaction. Employees’ negative personality and behavior was a concept that was practically excluded from the “human relations” approach. The mainstream research in management and organizational behavior ignored wherever possible the likelihood of employees performing activities to harm the organization and their colleagues. As a result, models “fail to account for the negative aspects of work behavior….” and “offer only partial explanations for the wide range of organizational behaviors in the ‘real world’” (Vardi & Weitz, 2004 , p. XVI).

In the past two or three decades, significant change has occurred, and there is now a growing interest among scholars in the fields of management and organizational behavior in what can be termed “the dark side of organizations.” In the wake of public scandals during this century, such as the Bernard Madoff scandal, an increasing amount of attention has been paid to the negative aspects of organizational life (Spain, Harms, & Lebreton, 2014). The recent ethically questionable events that have occurred in organizations, in politics, and in the economy, as well as in other settings have caused researchers and practitioners to ask how and why these events occurred (Wu & Lebreton, 2011). Workplace negativity has emerged as a focal topic in the management and organizational behavior literature (Schilpzand, De Pater, & Erez, 2016). Indeed, it seems that in the past few years, there has been a growing recognition that to understand organizations better, we must not ignore their dark sides, namely, counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) (O’Boyle et al., 2012) and their causes. As a result, there is a greater acceptance of this issue.

CWBs are deliberate actions that harm the organization or its members, and they constitute one concept that has been developed to capture the activities that represent unethical behaviors (O’Boyle, Forsyth, & O’Boyle, 2011). According to Wu and Lebreton (2011), CWBs represent extra-role behaviors designed to harm a person or an organization that are different from core task behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors. O’Boyle et al. (2011) presented a dichotomized categorization of CWBs, according to which one group of such behaviors includes a variety of acts targeting organizations (CWB-O) and the second is directed toward other people (CWB-I). Whereas destroying organizational property, purposely doing work incorrectly, and taking unauthorized work breaks are examples of CWB-O, hitting a coworker, insulting others, incivility, and shouting at someone are forms of CWB-I.

A similar conceptualization was advanced by Berry, Ones, and Sackett (2007), who argued that a common distinction is that between interpersonal deviance, which encompasses deviant behaviors that target individuals (e.g., violence, gossip, and theft from coworkers), and organizational deviance, which encompasses deviant behaviors that target the organization (e.g., intentionally working slowly, damaging company property, and sharing confidential company information). The authors suggested treating these two types as separate behavioral families. According to them, a perspective that differentiates between interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance creates behavioral families larger than each specific behavior but smaller than an overall deviance construct. If interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance are related differently to different behaviors in organizations, they lend a sharper focus and specificity to the study and prediction of such behaviors beyond the overall construct approach.

A concept similar to CWBs is “bad behaviors” (Griffin & Lopez, 2005). This term is used to refer to any form of intentional (as opposed to accidental) behavior that is potentially injurious to the organization and to individuals within the organization. Examples of such behaviors range from physical violence to sabotage and theft, verbal abuse, and counterproductive political activity. Griffin and Lopez mentioned four central forms of bad behavior in organizations: deviance, aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence. According to them, these four areas have received a preponderance of the attention of organizational scholars. These behaviors are also susceptible to theoretical and operational confusion and ambiguity. Other related concepts, such as incivility, workplace abuse, destructive work behavior, noncompliant behavior, organizational misbehavior, and bullying, are found in the literature, but a substantial body of work regarding any of them does not yet exist (Griffin & Lopez, 2005). Wu and Lebreton mentioned Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) framework that also organizes the myriad of CWBs into four major categories, differing in terms of severity and the target of the behavior. According to this framework, “production deviance” refers to minor offenses directed at the organization, “property deviance” refers to serious offenses directed at the organization, “political deviance” refers to interpersonal but minor offenses, and “personal aggression” refers to serious interpersonal offenses.

As a result of the different conceptualizations of CWBs, different measures of this behavior have been developed, having in common the notion that they are deliberate actions aimed to harm the organization or its members (O’Boyle et al., 2011). This book applies a general and broader definition of CWBs, relying on the general conceptualization of Griffin and Lopez (2005). Following their conceptualization, CWB is defined in this book as any behavior that is potentially injurious to the organization and to individuals within the organization.

In addition to their theoretical conceptual importance, CWBs are considered some of the costliest behaviors in terms of damage incurred by organizations. According to Moore et al. (2012), the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners recently estimated that global businesses suffer annual losses of U$2.9 trillion as a result of fraudulent activity. This is an enormous amount, indicating that unethical behavior is far more widespread than suggested by the few high-profile scandals on which the news has focused. Linton and Power (2013) cited Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, and Alberts’ (2007) data that the prevalence rates of at least once weekly workplace bullying are 46.8%, 24.1%, and 15.8% in American, Finnish, and Danish studies, respectively. Moreover, studies estimated that CWBs not only cost organizations billions of dollars annually but also have negative consequences for employees. For instance, being the target of these broad CWBs can lead to an employee’s decreased job satisfaction and increased stress and intentions to quit, among other things (Berry, Carpenter, & Barratt, 2012). Furthermore, bullied employees are at an increased risk of physical and psychological problems, including depression, psychosomatic symptoms, post-traumatic stress, and coronary heart disease (Linton & Power, 2013). Clearly, CWBs should be a major concern for organizations worldwide (Fine, Horowitz, Weigler, & Basis, 2010).

The growing interest in the subject has led to a growing amount of studies on the causes of CWBs (Schilpzand et al., 2016). This is evidenced by several meta-analyses that quantitatively summarized research findings (Berry et al., 2012 ; Berry, Sackett, & Tobares, 2010 ; Salgado, 2002). However, despite the growing interest in CWBs as a research issue and the growing amount of research findings regarding this construct, not enough is known about the determinants of CWBs (Cohen, 2016). The meta-analyses conducted on the relationship between CWBs and possible correlates exemplify this contention. Salgado (2002) found a weak to moderate relationship between CWBs and the Five-Factor Model (FFM) personality dimensions. More specifically, Berry et al. (2007) and Berry et al. (2012) found that CWBs are related (negatively) to agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability. Weak to moderate relationships were found between CWBs and organizational justice, while the relationships between demographic variables and CWBs were negligible.

Hershcovis et al. (2007) found that of the personal variables, gender (male) and the trait of anger were moderately related to workplace aggression. Other researchers also found a strong effect of gender (male) (Baughman, Dearing, Giammarco, & Vernon, 2012 ; Bowling & Burns, 2015). The dimensions of organizational justice and poor leadership were also moderately related to workplace aggression (Hershcovis et al., 2007). Tests of integrity were found to be moderately related to CWBs in another in-depth meta-analysis (Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, & Odle-Dusseau, 2012), as were aggression (Berry et al., 2010) and workplace harassment (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). Finally, Schyns and Schilling (2013), in their meta-analysis, found quite a strong relationship between CWBs and destructive leadership.

The modest relationships found in these studies imply that other explanations and directions must be sought to understand the causes of CWBs. It seems therefore that there is a strong need for expansive theory-building work that addresses the various antecedents of CWBs more comprehensively. This work will require a variety of perspectives, given that the antecedents involve micro-and macro-level elements. To the extent that personality disorders and pathological factors are seen as potential predictors, different kinds of expertise may also be needed to better understand CWBs (Griffin & Lopez, 2005). Indeed, one of the stimulating explanations of CWBs suggested in the recent literature, based on a clinical approach (MacLane & Walmsley, 2010), is that the dark triad personalities are a possible and important determinant of CWBs (Cohen, 2016 ; Michel & Bowling, 2013 ; Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013). The dark personality is often defined as a subclinical level of the personality characteristics of the dark triad: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Not surprisingly, these traits have repeatedly been seen as part of the dark side of human nature (Jonason, Webster, Schmitt, Li, & Crysel, 2012a ; Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012b).

The dark triad has only recently been studied in the literature on management, organizational behavior, and industrial psychology. In fact, it has been even less adequately researched than CWBs. As mentioned by Harms and Spain (2015), the study of the dark personality and its impact in the workplace is only now entering the mainstream of organizational research. Smith and Lilienfeld (2013) noted that compared with the high coverage of the concept by the media, only a few scholarly articles on the issue exist, citing fewer than 50 papers published from 1990 to October 2012. The divergence between popular coverage and scientific research on business psychopathy is both substantial and troubling. Thus, although the problems posed by psychopathy in the workplace have been discussed widely in popular publications, this theoretically and pragmatically important issue has been the subject of relatively little systematic research (Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013 ; Furtner, Maran, & Rauthmann, 2017). The outcome is that too little is known about the possible effect of personality disorders on CWBs.

The importance of the dark triad in reaching a better understanding of CWBs is highlighted by the distinction between the bright side and the dark side of personality (Smith, Hill, Wallace, Recendes, & Judge, 2017). Distinguishing between the bright side and the dark side is a recent advance in applying personality to organizational behavior (Kaiser, Lebreton, & Hogan, 2015). The bright side refers to people’s behavior when they are on guard and engaged in self-monitoring. It is concerned with the dispositional qualities observed during social interaction when people are doing their best to get along and get ahead, such as in a job interview (Hogan & Fico, 2011). The FFM is a taxonomy of bright-side characteristics and reflects the themes observers use to describe others, especially in the early stages of a relationship: outgoing and assertive (extraversion), congenial and cooperative (agreeableness), reliable and rule abiding (conscientiousness), calm and steady (emotional stability), curious and worldly (openness). Over the past several decades, the overwhelming majority of applied personality research has been based on the FFM and therefore concerns the bright side only (Kaiser et al., 2015).

On the other hand, “the dark side” refers to the impression people make when they are “just being themselves”; when they let down their guard; when they stop self-monitoring; or when they are stressed, tired, or otherwise less vigilant about how they are being perceived (Kaiser et al., 2015). It often takes repeated exposures to these people for observers to recognize these dispositions. Dark-side tendencies originate in efforts to get along and get ahead but rest on unsound ass...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• 1 Introduction: The Dark Side of the Workplace
• 2 The Dark Triad Personalities: Main Characteristics
• 3 The Origins of the Dark Triad
• 4 The Corporate Psychopath
• 5 Dark Triad Personalities and Counterproductive Work Behavior
• 6 The Predators’ Environment: Work-Setting and Personal Factors
• 7 Can They Be Spotted? Tools for Detecting Dark Triad Personalities
• 8 The Dark Triad and Leadership
• 9 The Victims of the Dark Triad
• 10 Cultural Aspects of the Dark Triad
• 11 Conceptual and Practical Implications
• Index