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

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 Procedure • Literature search • PsycINFO (1967-2001) • Published studies and unpublished dissertations • Inclusion criteria • Target: Employed adults • Withdrawal, intentions of turnover and retirement are excluded • 40 independent samples (total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

11. 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.

12. 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