Counterproductive Workplace Behavior (CWB) - volitional acts that harm or are intended to harm organizations or people within organizations – is a pervasive problem throughout almost all organizations.  CWB can be directed at the organization (CWB-O; can include tardiness or sabotaging the organization) or at individuals (CWB-I; can include spreading rumors or harming another’s possessions)- a distinction that helps to understand precipitating factors that lead to negative emotions.

CWB and Negative Emotion

CWB is thought to be participated in as a means to reduce negative emotions caused by environmental stressors.

Negative emotions elicit individuals to identify an event as incongruent with their personal goals. Therefore, individuals may have difficulty thinking about their work and performing at satisfactory levels, which in turn, lead to negative affect (emotion) and  CWB.

The “What”

Understanding the factors that precipitate negative emotions may be important in understanding the “what” behind underlying relationships of CWB and its fundamental causes (e.g., supervisor injustice).

It is thought that ambiguous tasks (i.e., uncertainty of project/work descriptions) are an antecedent to CWB-O.  Another underlying cause to CWB-O is dealing with rude customers.  On the other hand, CWB-I is related to supervisor injustice.

Who is More Susceptible?

Identifying employee’s personality traits may enhance understanding just “Who” copes with stressors at work, performs organizational citizenship behaviors, and refrains from CWB. Agreeableness (tendency to be compassionate, cooperative towards others), Conscientiousness (tendency to be disciplined, organized), and Negative Affectivity (pervasive disposition to experience situations/objects in a negative manner) are related to CWB.

Those high in agreeableness and conscientiousness may be predisposed to be good citizens and deal with stressors that lead to negative feelings.  Those high in negative affectivity may experience more negative emotions and engage in more CWB.

Implications for Practice

By understanding the “what” and the “who” of CWB it is possible to identify those factors that contribute to counterproductive work behaviors.

This can be accomplished through:

• Decreasing stress associated with ambiguous situations – clearly communicate the tasks given to employees.
• Decreasing the likelihood of customer aggression – ensure that service is consistently satisfactory and that the service environment (e.g., waiting room, temperature) is sufficiently comfortable.
• Decreasing supervisor injustice – develop interpersonal relations training for managers/supervisors, assure better communication, or have employees provide feedback about supervisor performance/behavior.
• Developing training programs that focus on dealing with negative emotions (i.e., stress management or anger management) – this should lead to higher employee capabilities to manage stressors and ultimately, negative emotions.
• Implementing pre-employment screening to identify personality factors associated with lower CWB – those high in agreeableness and conscientiousness, while low in negative affectivity hold traits that lead to decreased CWB.

Interpretation by:

Adam Bradshaw

The DeGarmo Group

This was a summary of the research and practice implications from: Yang, J. & Diefendorf, J.M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behaviors with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62 (2), 259-295.

As companies and the workforce continue to change, options for working environments are also increasing. More and more employees are trading in their corner office to work from home, or telecommute. This may be a desirable option for many employees as it affords more flexibility, decreases travel time and reduces conflicts with demands outside of the organization. However, being completely separated from the office and other individuals can often lead employees to feel isolated.

What Is Professional Isolation?

Professional isolation is the belief or perception that one is not connected to others in the organization, which can reduce one’s influence and social contact. This can occur because individuals often use feedback from others in the organization to determine how they should behave/react/perform in certain situations and to evaluate their own performance.  When social contact is limited, feedback is less likely, leaving the employees unsure of appropriate behaviors and about their performance relative to others.

How Can Professional Isolation Affect Performance and Turnover Intentions?

Performance  – Limited input and feedback from others in the organization can place teleworkers at a severe disadvantage. Consequently, teleworkers may feel more anxious and lonely, resulting in psychological or physical health problems, and a reduction in job performance.

Turnover – Additionally, teleworkers are less likely to leave the organization. Though this may seem like a positive implication, reduced turnover is more likely due to a lack of confidence on the part of the employee. Telework benefits (i.e. flexibility, decreased travel, etc.) outweigh the costs (i.e. loneliness, decreased interpersonal contact, etc.), and therefore the employee may choose to stay with the organization, even though he or she may not be satisfied or highly motivated to perform.

Dissatisfied teleworkers may stay with the organization because they value the flexibility, and think it will be difficult to find another job that allows them to telecommute. However, the number of companies who offer telecommuting is increasing. This may cause the fear associated with losing flexibility to decrease, and turnover among telecommuters may, in turn, increase.

What Other Factors Can Influence Professional Isolation in Telework?

• Amount of time spent teleworking – Perceptions that coworkers and supervisors are inaccessible increase as the amount of time spent teleworking increases. This “inaccessibility” may make it more difficult for the employee to identify with the organization.

• Face-to-face interactions – Face-to-face interactions with other employees tend to reduce the negative impact professional isolation may have on job performance. Therefore, the more face-to-face interaction the teleworker has with other employees, the less impact isolation will have on his or her performance.

• Access to communication enhancing technology – As access to technology increases, the ability to perform effectively also increases. It seems, however, that communication via technology is not an adequate substitute for face-to-face interactions.

Practical Implications

In order to reduce or prevent the negative effects of professional isolation there are several steps that managers can take:

• Training – Help employees understand the possible negative implications of professional isolation as a teleworker.    Providing communication strategies and ways to foster interactions with other employees and teleworkers can be effective in preventing professional isolation.

• Performance Appraisals – Allow employees to demonstrate their knowledge and competence during performance appraisals. In addition, provide professional growth opportunities (i.e. training, increased responsibilities, more complex projects/ assignments, etc.) that challenge the teleworker and strengthen his/her skills.   Allowing the teleworker to make an important contribution to the organization and discussing goals/opportunities for advancement will demonstrate the organization’s support and can help to mitigate the negative effects of telework.

• HR – Modify the position or responsibilities of those who telework to make them feel more integrated and involved in “core organizational functions.” Teleworkers can benefit by participating in group projects that encourage regular communication with coworkers, including in-office employees or other telecommuters. This can allow employees to feel more connected and invested in the organization.

Overall, it is important to recognize employees who telework are interacting with the organization in a different way than traditional employees. Therefore, it is essential employers develop systems for training, professional growth and gathering and providing feedback so teleworkers can maintain a connectedness to the “core organizational functions.” Preventing teleworkers from experiencing professional isolation will positively influence the work environment, and allow companies to compete in a dynamic and changing global economy.

Interpretation by:

Elizabeth Allen

The DeGarmo Group

This was a summary of the research and practice implications from: Golden, T., Veiga, J. & Dino, R. (2008). The Impact of Professional Isolation on Teleworker Job Performance and Turnover Intentions: Does Time Spent Teleworking, Interacting Face-to-Face, or Having Access to Communication-Enhancing Technology Matter?, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, (6), 1412-1421.

Employees intentionally engaging in behaviors that are damaging or disruptive are often referred to as “sabotaging” the organization’s functioning. Employee sabotage typically occurs as an act of retaliation or revenge for perceived injustice.

There are a number of different types of organizational characteristics to which employees may feel they have been treated unfairly, thus prompting retaliation:

• Distributive – outcomes received (e.g., adequate vs. inadequate pay and benefits)

• Procedural – company procedures (e.g., easy vs. difficult project approval)

• Informational – explanations for decisions (e.g., highly vs. sparsely detailed)

• Interactional – treatment from others (e.g., respectful vs. disrespectful)

One of the most frequent ways employees are treated unjustly is through interactions with others, and it can be incredibly costly and destructive when employees retaliate against and sabotage each other. But what can be even more costly to organizations is when employees retaliate against poor treatment stemming from interactions from outside the organization by sabotaging customers.

When employees are treated in a demeaning or disrespectful way by an organization’s customers, their retaliatory sabotage can cause a great deal of damage to all aspects of an organization –from reducing the bottom line to ruining its reputation.

Consider the implications of this scenario:

A customer mistreats an airline employee during the check-in for a flight. The employee maintains a pleasant attitude and continues speaking politely even though the customer is verbally abusive. It appears the employee has handled the situation appropriately, but the employee can retaliate after the customer has left the counter by misdirecting the customer’s luggage to a different airport than the one the customer is flying into.

What affects the decision to retaliate?

Employees retaliate against customers in subversive ways to make up for being mistreated by them. However, the reaction an employee has to injustice inflicted by customers can vary according to two personal moral characteristics.

• Identification – the degree to which morals are considered central to their identity. Individuals who view themselves as having strong morals may view sabotage as unethical, thus resist the temptation to get back at customers who treat them unfairly.

• Symbolization - the degree to which acceptance of being treated unfairly is considered a symbol of acceptance of immoral or unethical behavior. Individuals who symbolize accepting or forgiving mistreatment (or “turning the other cheek”) as allowing and supporting mistreatment are likely to see retaliation and sabotage as an acceptable counterattack.

How employee performance is affected

Retaliating against customers – sabotaging the products or services provided to them –  not only has a negative effect on the organization’s reputation and repeat business, but also a deleterious effect on employee performance because the employee’s attention is turned away job responsibilities, decreasing his or her ability to perform duties. When employees have reached the point of retaliation they have likely already begun the process of emotional and physical withdrawal from their work.

Implications for practice

Many managers assume that closely monitoring employees will decrease the employees’ chances of retaliating against customers who treat them unfairly. While this approach may help in some situations, it is not a cure-all for preventing employee sabotage.

Some promising alternatives for managers to consider are to:

• Institute a “zero-tolerance” policy toward customers who treat employees unfairly. When employees feel that their management will support them, instead of solely assuming “the customer is always right”, they are likely to demonstrate a higher tolerance for negative customer behaviors because they know their supervisors will step in to ensure they are treated with respect.

• Provide extensive training on techniques dealing with difficult customers, and encourage employees to share their experiences with each other. When effective strategies become second nature for employees, they are less likely to allow their own retaliatory reactions to come to fruition.

Interactions with unruly customers can be a source of considerable stress for employees who serve on the front lines of organizations. By supporting employees and providing them with ways to handle taxing situations, organizations can guard themselves against the negative effects resulting from sabotage against customers.

Interpretation by:

Kathleen Melcher

DeGarmo Group

This was a summary of the research and practice implications from: Skarlicki, D.P., vanJaarsveld, D.D., & Walker, D.D. (2008). Getting even for customer mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1335-1347.