In the Mood for an OCB

Topic: Citizenship Behaviors, Workplace Deviance
Publication: Academy of Management Journal
Article: A within-person approach to work behavior and performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job performance.
Authors: R.S. Dalal, H. Lam, H.M. Weiss, E.R. Welch, C.L. Hulin
Reviewed By: Katie Bachman

 If you aren’t already, sit down because I’m about to blow your mind. Here it comes: happy people act nice and unhappy people act mean, but not everyone is happy or unhappy all the time. Now, where’s my gold star? Sorry, I just get a little sarcastic when I read things in the literature that smack of kindergarten logic. Amazingly, most of the researchers who study this type of thing in organizations totally missed that lesson in school.

Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs; i.e., behaviors aimed at helping an organization and/or its workers) and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs; i.e., behaviors aimed at hurting an organization and/or its employees) are two of the hottest topics in the literature right now.  Most of the research focuses on comparing multiple people on the dimensions, assuming that a person’s average level of work behavior is enough information. Well, no more of that!

A recent article in the Academy of Management Journal evaluated within-person effects (i.e. people evaluated against themselves rather than against others) for work behaviors. Affect (e.g., mood) was measured as an antecedent to OCBs and CWBs and, as usual, job performance came out the back end. The researchers found that affect predicted levels of work behaviors and that there was a lot of variability within individuals for both their OCB and CWB levels over time. CWB was particularly variable. Also, the behaviors were related but were not two ends of the same spectrum. In sum, mood determines workers’ positive and negative behaviors on the job, but the relationship isn’t one size fits all.

What does this mean for the twelve of us who don’t study work behaviors? It means that the previous research has a gaping hole in it, which this new work will start to fill. If we are looking at data between individuals, we aren’t getting the whole story about predicting behavior.

Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L. (2009). A within-person approach to work 

behavior and performance: concurrent and lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and 

dynamic relationships with affect and overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1051 

1066.

Identifying the Roots of Sexual Harassment

Topic: Organizational Justice, Sexual Harassment, Workplace Deviance 
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology 
Article: Organization justice and men’s likelihood to sexually harass: The moderating role of sexism and personality. 
Author: F. Krings, S. Facchin
Featured by: Benjamin Granger

Researchers Krings and Facchin (2009) set out to uncover the reasons why men engage in sexual harassment at work.  The authors hypothesized that certain personality traits make some men more likely to engage in sexual harassment, but that sexual harassment might also depend on certain organizational factors. 

Krings and Facchin found that men reported being more likely to engage in sexual harassment when they perceived low interactional justice (feel that they are not treated fairly by their supervisors).  Overall, this finding suggests that sexual harassment is more likely following unfair interpersonal treatment.

However, as expected by the authors, individual personality factors also played an important role in the sexual harassment process.  Specifically, perceptions of low interactional justice were more strongly related to sexual harassment when men were low in agreeableness (not very oriented toward interpersonal relationships) and high in hostile sexism (general antipathy toward women).

Important note: To measure sexual harassment, Krings and Facchin utilized the Likelihood of Sexual Harassment (LSH) scale, which specifically measures the likelihood of engaging in certain behaviors, not the actual occurrence of sexual harassment.

So what can we take from this research?  Although organizations often have minimal control over the personality factors of its employees (unless the organization specifically selects employees based on the personality factors of interest), organizations CAN more readily affect their employees’ perceptions of interactional justice.  Generally, when employees feel that they are treated unfairly, they are more likely to subsequently “get back” (engage in deviant behaviors, including sexual harassment) at the organization or organizational members to “even the score.”  By placing a heavy focus on fairness, organizations can nip deviant behaviors such as sexual harassment in the bud.  

Krings, F. & Facchin, S. (2009). Organization justice and men’s likelihood to sexually harass:  The moderating role of sexism and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 501-510.

Why High Self-Esteem Makes for Employees of Your Dreams

Topic: Culture, Job Attitudes, Workplace Deviance 
Publication:  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes  
Article: Organizational supports and organizational deviance: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem. 
Author: D.L. Ferris, D.J. Brown, D. Heller
Featured by: Benjamin Granger

Organizational deviance such as employee theft (stealing, surfing the web), unexcused absences, and taking long breaks, cost organizations millions of dollars.

Fortunately, research has found that supportive work environments make deviant behaviors less likely.  But, it is unclear why supportive work environments lead employees to engage in fewer deviant behaviors.  Researchers Ferris, Brown, and Heller (2009) collected data from 237 employees working in a variety of industries to answer this question.  

As expected, Ferris and colleagues found that positive perceptions of organizational support (i.e., in general, employees feel supported by their organizations) and positive perceptions of immediate supervisors (Leader-member exchange) reduced the occurrence of deviant behaviors in the workplace.  However, the authors were primarily interested in uncovering the reason why this relationship exists.  Ferris et al.’s findings suggest that the mechanism is organization-based self-esteem (OBSE).

This finding suggests that when employees feel that their organization and immediate supervisors are supportive, their OBSE increases.  This increase in OBSE is what leads employees to engage in fewer deviant behaviors at work.

The upshot is clear: Among the numerous benefits of facilitating supportive work climates (e.g., committed and satisfied employees), organizations that encourage supportive work environments likely influence the OBSE of its employees.  More importantly, employees that derive high self-esteem from their organization tend to engage in fewer deviant behaviors, which will ultimately influence the organization’s bottom line.

Ferris, D.L., Brown, D.J., & Heller, D. (2009). Organizational supports and organizational deviance: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 279-286.