Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors (CWBs): Antecedents and Outcomes

Abstract

In the recent decades, counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs), a willful and intentional acts by members of organizations that harm organizations and their stakeholders have attracted the interest of organizational researchers due to its prevalence and huge negative impacts on organizations and their members. Globally, businesses have suffered immerse financial losses as well as damage to human capital development leading to feelings of dissatisfaction and distress culminating in intention to quit the organization as a result of CWBs. The present study therefore focused on exploring a number of theoretical and empirical organizational and individual antecedents of CWBs. As there are still lack of adequate understanding of the behavior especially as it concerns the predictors, further studies are necessary to gain more insight about the behavior that will enable stakeholders understand the motivational roots of the behavior which will aid in designing appropriate remedy on how to curb and mitigate the behaviors.

1. Introduction

Counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) have attracted much research attention in the recent times due to its prevalence and negative outcomes to organizations and its members. Zhao et al. [1] assert that “of all the negative behaviors that employees develop at work, none are more prevalent than CWBs” (p. 219). The behaviors which are intentional acts by members of organizations run counter to the legitimate interest of organizations and pose harmful and detrimental effect to organizational well-being. As forms of deviant behaviors, CWBs are voluntary and intentional acts by members of organization that violates significant organizational norms and threaten the well-being of organizations, its members or both. In fact, CWBs are deliberate acts that harm the organization or its members [2]. According to Spector and Fox [3], the behaviors are defined as “volitional acts that harm organizations and their stakeholders (e.g., clients, coworkers, customers, and supervisors.” (p.151). CWBs are peculiar and differ from other common negative acts since they are not accidental but are intended specifically to damage organization’s reputation. The behaviors come in forms of fraud, theft, sabotage, cyber-loafing, vandalism, pilfering, absence and lateness to work, long break, harassment, gossiping, drug use, sloppy work, intentional slow, etc. [4, 5]. Indeed, behaviors such as these are dysfunctional to organizations because they violate important organizational norms and harm organizational well-being.

Literature distinguishes two kinds of CWBs – (i) CWBs directed towards organization (CBWs-O) and (ii) CWBs directed towards people in the organizations (CWBs-P) [6]. CWBs-O are behaviors directed towards organizations such as sabotage, theft and fraud, or lateness to work, leaving early from work, taking excessive breaks, deliberately working slowly, wasting resources, etc. On the other hand, CWBs-P are acts mainly directed towards people working in the organization which come in form sexual harassment, verbal abuse, stealing among coworkers, choosing favorites, gossiping among colleagues, etc. Even though these two kinds of behavior bear significant relationships [7], they differ in their relationship with variables such as citizenship behaviors, perceived justices, situational constraints, personal traits, etc. [8, 9]. Collectively, CWBs are deviant behavior that violate significant organizational norms, reduces the efficiency and job performances of its members and basically threatens the health and well-being of organizations and its members.

Empirical evidence shows that CWBs are one of the most serious problems organizations are facing in many countries [10]. Studies have shown that CWBs result in severe economic and social threats to organizations. For instance, Dineen et al. [11] report that in the US, the cost of fraud and theft alone to organizations is estimated at over $50 billion annually; and the overall losses caused by other forms of CWBs are quite huge. Earlier, Murphy [12] reported that employee deviance and delinquency have accounted for between $6 billion and $200 billion of organizational loss annually. Expectedly, Harper [13] found that a good number of employees (33–75%) have at one time or the other shown to have engaged in one form of CWB or the other in serving an organization. Globally, businesses have suffered losses of about US$2.9 trillion annually due to fraudulent activities [14, 15]. Ugwu and Ogbogu [16] assert that in developing countries such as Nigeria where data may not exist, the cost arising from deviant workplace behaviors may be quite huge and bewildering. Apart from financial loses to organizations, engagement in CWB also affects the human capital of the organization, as it has been suggested that the behavior could lead to feelings of dissatisfaction and distress, culminating in intention to quit the organization [17, 18]. Thus, CWBs not only cost organizations fortunes but also affect the productivity as well as create discomfort to members of organization, compromise the quality of organizational life, damage property and at the same time hurt organizational reputation as a whole [19].

The focus of the present study is therefore on the antecedents and outcomes of CWBs. This is necessitated by the increase of deviant behaviors in organizations which raises the questions about ethics and moral issues in workplaces. Therefore, there is the need to gain insight into the likely causes by the managers of organizations in order to curb them. Even though several decades of study have been devoted to identifying varieties of individual and situational antecedents of CWBs, some authors such as Cohen [20] observe that there is still lack of adequate understanding of the behavior especially as it concerns the predictors. Further studies on the antecedents and outcomes of CWBs are therefore necessary so as to shade more light which will enable stakeholders understand the motivational roots of the behavior in order to design approaches to curb and mitigate the behaviors.

1.1 Antecedents of CWBs

Given the prevalence and the accompanying negative effects of CWBs, it is important to isolate the antecedents of the behavior. The antecedents can be explored from the perspectives of individual (personality or cognitive traits) and situational (job/organizational) variables. In order to have a better understanding of the behavior, the theoretical and empirical perspectives is examined.

2. Theoretical perspectives

2.1 Social exchange theory (SET)

The framework of social exchange theory (SET) can be used in understanding CWBs. The theory developed by Blau [21] posits that human relationships are based on subjective cost–benefit analysis. More importantly, the theory assumes that social relationships are based on trust that acts of goodwill will be reciprocated. The SET has been used to understand workplace behaviors such as CWBs, perception of justices, etc. For instance, in a meta-analytic study, Colquitt et al. [22] employed SET as a dominant approach to determine reactions to justice perceptions and found strong relationships between the dimensions of justice and indicators of social exchange. Specifically, factors of social exchange such as trust, commitment, organizational support, leader-member exchange were found to be significantly related to justice perception, task performance and citizenship behavior [22].

One of the instances of implementing SET in organizational research is in the explanation of organizational loyalty (e.g. [23]). According to Eisenberger et al. [23], employees have a general idea about the extent to which organizations value their contributions and cares about them in terms of organizational support. Accordingly, when employees perceive that organization values their contribution, cares and supports them, they become satisfied and reciprocate by maintaining high level of performance and commitment to the organization. In other words, employees become obligated to maintain high level of performance and commitment under high levels of perceived organizational support. Conversely, employees who perceive that their organization does not provide the needed support and care would be dissatisfied with their jobs and reciprocate by engaging in some form of retaliatory behaviors like CWBs. Indeed, the social exchange theory and norm of reciprocity suggest that when employees are dissatisfied with their organizations, their boss or coworkers, they may reciprocate with deviant work behaviors such as withholding effort, arriving late, taking long break times, leaving early, or engaging in CWBs directed to colleagues such as incivility, playing mean pranks, or even sabotaging their efforts, etc. In a meta-analytic study of factors associated with workplace aggression, Hershcovis et al. [9] found that job dissatisfaction is related to CWBs in form of organizational aggression. Judge et al. [24] as well as Dalal [25] reported a negative relationship between job satisfaction and some measures of deviant workplace behaviors. Judge et al. [7] established that employees engaged more in CWBs on days when they were less satisfied with their jobs than the days they were more satisfied. According to Bies and Tripp [26], employees’ workplace aggression reflects an attempt to restore justice to an unfair organizational situation. Also, previous studies found that indicators of workplace social exchange – leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support – may be associated with perception of justices and workplace attitudes and behaviors [27, 28], and that violation of psychological contract is associated with employees’ performance and absenteeism [29].

2.2 Stress-emotion theory

The Stress-Emotion theory developed by Spector and Fox [3] focuses on both situational and personal factors of CWBs. The situational factors considered are job stressors which refer to any frustrating condition in organizational life that hinder the performance of work or job activities. Job stressors may include organizational constraints, unmanaged conflicts, work overload, role conflict and ambiguity, lack of autonomy and support, etc. According to the model any frustrating condition in organizational life that interferes with the goals and job performance increases the chances of CWBs in employees. The model further argues that when such frustrating condition occurs, individuals may experience negative emotions which in turn may compel people to engage in aggressive behavior as a strategy to reduce the emotionally unpleasant condition [30, 31]. Thus, the model describes the processes that create forms of aggression that are typically impulsive and with the intent to cause harm and release frustration.

Literature distinguishes between impulsive (reactive) aggression and instrumental (proactive) aggression. Impulsive aggression is based on negative affect that may lead to offensive reactions beyond one’s control while instrumental aggression has to do with aggression that is intentionally carried out in line with one’s personal goals [32]. Thus, CWBs may have the attributes of both impulsive and instrumental aggression. For instance, employees who engage in CWBs may be as a result of impulsive anger arising from organizational stressors as well as with the intent to hurt a colleague so as to have advantage in the hierarchy of the work. Therefore, the stress-emotional model is a combination of both cognitive processes that could capture the intentional and, sometimes instrumental nature of CWBs. The theory therefore integrates two important traditions of research on aggressive behavior, i.e., the frustration-aggression hypothesis which focuses on effects that negative emotions and affect regulation can exert on aggression; and the social cognitive processes which addresses the processes that promote or justify aggression.

The frustration-aggression model holds that in the workplace, certain undesirable events (e.g., constraints) interfere with employees’ goal attainment and therefore lead to frustration. When employees are frustrated, they try to overcome their negative feelings by committing some form of aggression, which may be directed towards people or the organization. When the frustration is caused by some organizational factors, people are likely to direct their CWB towards the organization.

Empirical evidences show that high level of negative emotions experienced in the workplace including low emotional stability, low self-control, personality traits, and low job satisfaction increases the likelihood of engaging in CWBs (e.g., [33, 34, 35]). Also, Fida et al. [36] found that negative emotions and moral disengagement are strong predictors of CWBs. The stress-emotion model therefore suggests that negative emotions are critical factors in CWBs.

3. Empirical review

In the present study, empirical review of literature examines both organizational and individual factors and their relationships with CWBs.

3.1 Organizational factors

3.1.1 Organizational justice and CWBs

Organizational justice is the extent to which organizations furnish its employees with the right, fair and respectful treatment, adequate and accurate information, resources and rewards. Employees’ perception of organizational justice is formed by the overall impressions formed from occasional organizational occurrences and personal appraisals of organizations such as leaders and coworkers [37]. The perceptions tend to influence employees attitudes and behaviors which in turn impact performances and organizational well-being.

Organizational justice is structured along four dimensions: (i) distributive justice, i.e., fairness in allocation of resources and products; (ii) procedural justice, i.e., fairness in ways and procedures decisions are reached vis-à-vis the distribution of resources; (iii) interactional justice, i.e., fairness in interpersonal relations, respectful and adequate treatment; and accessibility of equal opportunities, and (iv) informational justice, i.e., fairness in ways adequate and timely information about the allocation of organizational resources are provided [22, 38].

Empirical studies show that there is a direct negative effect of organizational justice on CWB (e.g., [22, 39]). This suggests that if employees believe that the organization is fair in decision-making, they are more likely to exhibit positive attitudes and behaviors towards the organization, their managers, and their work. On the other hand, decisions seen as unfair may lead employees to cause what they perceive as equivalent damage to restore justice. Social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity provide the theoretical support for this reasoning, as they suggest that “negative reciprocation serves as a means to restore the balance and eliminates anger and frustration engendered by unfair treatment” ([39], p. 1690). Also, the previous works of Aquino et al. [40] and Ambrose et al. [41] are in support of negative relationship between organizational justice perceptions and CWBs. Thus, perception of injustice seems to be the primary contributory factor of workplace deviance. The idea that individuals retaliate in response to perceived injustice is based on the principle of retributive justice. Conversely, perception of fair organizational justice tends to lead to positive outcomes in organizations such as citizenship behavior, high level of job motivation and satisfaction, trust, commitment, and productivity, loyalty [42, 43].

3.1.2 Organizational climate and CWBs

Organizational climate refers to the prevailing social climate or atmosphere in work settings concerning polices, practices and procedures in organizations (e.g., [44]). According to Ivancevitch et al. ([45], p. 10), “organizational climate is a set of work characteristics perceived directly or indirectly by the employees that is assumed to be a major force in influencing employee behavior”. As part of psychological process, perceptions of organizational climate enables employees recognize what behaviors are expected and rewarded. The perceptions therefore reflect employees’ impressions of work environment which influence their levels of stress, job satisfaction, commitment and performance which in turn have implications for overall organizational productivity [44].

Organizational ethical climate remains one specific perception when it comes to perception of organizational climate. Organizational ethical climate involves contextual factors showing employees’ knowledge of moral obligation, their beliefs of what ethically correct behavior is and how the organization’s ethical issues are handled by the organization. Literature suggests five types of ethical climate including instrumental, caring, independence, rules, law and code (e.g., [46]). While instrumental ethical climate is considered as a negative type of climate because of its self-serving function, the other four types are considered as positive as they tend to foster the emergence of positive organizational attitude because of their concern for the well-being of others, for laws or organizational policies and procedures to be followed and adherence to one’s personal and ethical beliefs [46, 47].

Ethical work climate therefore furnishes employees with the information regarding appropriate behavior in a work environment. As such negative perception of overall organizational climate and ethical climate may tend to have immediate implications for CWBs as such perception reflects employees’ impression that the prevailing work environment of the organization is unpleasant and dissatisfactory. In relation with SET, if employees perceive that organization is not meeting up with its own part of obligation in terms of providing the needed work environment that foster satisfaction, they are likely to reciprocate by engaging in some forms of deviant behavior as against those who perceive a supportive organizational climate. Therefore, if ethical climate promotes ethical work behavior, employees are less likely to engage in unethical behavior (e.g. [48]). Empirical evidence has shown support that ethical work climate is negatively associated with unethical organizational behavior. For instance, Martin and Cullen’s [46] meta-analytic study indicated that positive ethical work climates were negatively associated with dysfunctional organizational behaviors. Specifically, the studies found that ethical work climate was negatively related to CWBs and that deviance in organization attenuated in an ethical caring climate [48, 49]. Similarly, Chernyak-Hai and Tziner [50] found that the employees’ perceptions of overall organizational climate as well as ethical climate were negatively related to CWBs, i.e., the better perceived overall organizational climate and ethical climate, the lower the reported CWBs. In general, work environment or climate perception by the employees adds significant values to individuals and organizations as favorable climate tends to inhibit CWBs while unfavorable one tends to foster deviant workplace behaviors.

3.1.3 Organizational culture and CWBs

Organizational culture refers to shared values, beliefs, and norms that influence the ways employees think, feel, and behave in the workplace [51]. According to Schein [51], organizational culture provides the needed avenue that integrates shared values and beliefs which assist organizations to solve problems and challenges. Therefore, the prevailing organizational culture in the workplace is capable of promoting or hindering CWBs. Griffin and O’Leary-Kelly [52] argue that organizational culture can affect employee behavior positively or negatively. For instance, if the organizational culture disapproves of deviant behaviors and metes out severe sanctions and punishment against it, deviant behaviors can be inhibited but if the culture encourages deviant behavior by building and supporting dysfunctional culture, then deviance will tend to be fostered. According to Griffin and O’Leary [52], dysfunctional culture restrains or confines individuals and group-level abilities which reward mediocre individual and group-level performance and is likely to foster rancorous cycle of workplace deviance.

Scholars have argued that favorable organizational culture is linked to positive behaviors such as novel pioneering behavior and citizenship behaviors (e.g. [53, 54]). A functional organizational culture tends to discourage unhealthy attitudes and behaviors such as absenteeism, deferment, putting little effort into work, taking excessive break, wasting/damaging company property, work incivility, etc. [55]. When the culture of organization is perceived as favorable, there is tendency for CWBs to decline [54]. Kidwell and Valentine further argue that when the prevailing culture is organizationally induced and rewarding, employees tend to exhibit more positive behaviors and by implication less likely to engage in CWBs. Adenike [56] argue that organizational climate or culture influences employees’ motivation, behaviors, attitudes and potentials which in turn promotes productivity and effectiveness. In contrast, poor work environment tend to encourage deviant behaviors such as cyber-loafing, malingering, rescheduling assignment, putting little effort to work, taking excessive breaks, wasting/damaging company resources, work inactivity, etc. [55]. In general, the culture of organizations and how it is inculcated and perceived by employees and by extension how well employees are treated determine the effectiveness of organization.

3.1.4 Organizational politics and CWBs

Politics is ubiquitous and has become a way of life in many organizations. Perceptions of organizational politics have received increasing attention in management literature and have emerged as a good predictor of job outcomes and job performance (e.g. [57]). Mintzberg [58] defined organizational politics as “individual or group behavior that is informal, ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all, in a technical sense, illegitimate – sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise (although it may exploit any one of these)” (p. 172). According to Kacmar and Baron [59], “organizational politics are actions perceived by individuals as directed toward the goal of furthering their own self-interests without regard for the well-being of others or their organizations” (p. 4). Similarly, Witt et al. [60] stated that “organizational politics is a phenomenon in which members of the organization attempt directly or indirectly, in order to manipulate the behavior of other members by means of disapproved prescribed standard operating procedures or informal standards mostly in attempt to achieve objectives of individuals or groups” (p. 12). Ferris et al. ([61], p. 25) listed examples of political behaviors to include but not limited to “coalition building, favoritism-based pay and promotion decision, and backstabbing with the intention to benefit, protect, or enhance self-interests, often without regard for the well-being of their organization or colleagues”. In addition, Andrews and Kacmar [62] included bypassing the chain of command to gain approval, going through unapproved channels to obtain special favor, and lobbying high level managers just prior to promotion decisions. Other forms of political behavior may include withholding information from colleagues, failing to enforce policies and procedures appropriately, using flattery to gain favor, shifting blame, and maligning others to make oneself relevance.

There are three dimensions of behaviors characterizing organizational politics identified by literature including – (i) General Political Behavior (GPB), which describe the behavior of individuals who behave in a self-serving manner to achieve desired outcomes; (ii) Go Along to Get Ahead (GAGA), which consists of lack of action by individuals (e.g., remain silent) in order to secure valued outcomes; and (iii) Pay and Promotion Policies (PPP), which involves organizations behaving politically through the policies it enacts [63]. Thus, researchers of organizational politics have focused on perceptions of such behavior which is subjective and as a state of mind may differ from person to person. Therefore, perceptions of organizational politics “involve an individual’s attribution to behaviors of self-serving intent, defined as an individual’s subjective evaluation about the extent to which the work environment is characterized by co-workers and supervisors who demonstrates such self-serving behaviors” ([64], p. 90).

Power, influence, and politics are likely to have obvious negative effects on organizations and its members. Empirical evidences have established that perception of organizational politics impact negatively on both workers and the work they perform (e.g., [59, 65]). For instance, studies have suggested that perception of organizational politics is negatively related to undesirable job performance outcomes including poor communication among employees, diminished job attitudes, employee turnover, job dissatisfaction, job stress and strain, job burnout, CWBs (e.g., [66, 67]). From the perspective of SET and norm of reciprocity as well as that of stress-emotion model, employees are likely be motivated to engage in CWBs in response to perceived organizational stressors such as injustice, psychological contract breaches, and other organizational constraints that interfere with the achievement of personal goals at work [68, 69]. When work environment is characterized by power play it is considered stressful; and when confronted with such organizational stressors, employees are likely to retaliate by engaging in CWBs in order to restore their sense of equity and justice [70, 71]. Indeed, studies have shown that organizational politics is positively associated with organizational stressors such as perceived organizational injustice, psychological contract breach and other constraints that hinder employees from job performance and achievement of their personal goals [72, 73]. In fact, more recent studies have shown that perceived organizational politics is positively related to CWBs (e.g., [74, 75]). Also, Meisler et al. [76] found a positive relationship between perceived organizational politics and CWBs. Thus, organizational politics is considered another organizational variable that is stressful which in turn may compel some organizational members to engage in workplace deviant behavior in order to maintain a sense of balance and equity.

4. Leader-member exchange (LMX) and CWBs

Leader-member exchange (LMX), an aspect of employees’ workplace perception regarding organizational issues can impact CWBs. The exchange relates to quality of relationship between leaders and his followers. The core tenet of LMX is that leaders treat followers differently in a series of work-related exchange, and based on the relationships, leaders consider followers as either trusted or untrusted thereby exhibiting differential treatment towards each group. Trusted (in-group) followers are treated with high quality relationship while untrusted (out-group) members are treated with low quality exchange. Thus, LMX attempts to understand how quality of the relationships develops as well as the impacts the relationships has on relevant organizational activities and processes. According to Bauer and Green [77], “high quality LMX indicates high level of information exchange, interaction, trust, respect, support, mutual influence, and reward, while low quality LMX points to low level of interaction, trust, formal relations, one-directional influence, (manager-employee), limited support, and few rewards” (p. 36). Expectedly, differential treatment can be problematic for lower quality relationship individuals as they are more likely to view differential treatment as being unfair. Therefore, leaders’ differential treatments can lead to perception of inequity with lower quality exchange individuals being more likely to engage in deviant work behaviors than high quality exchange persons. This is consistent with the tenets of SET and the norm of reciprocity which suggests that individuals engage in relationships on the basis of cost–benefit analysis and tend to respond to each other with in a commensurate behavior [21, 78].

Furthermore, in line with Kelloway et al. [79] suggestion that passive leadership behavior can foster increased level of stress; expectedly low LMX constitutes environmental stressors as their subordinates are likely to receive less supervisory attention, support, consideration and communication leading to the possibility of engaging in CWBs. Indeed, studies are replete with issues, concerns, and impact LMX has on organizational outcomes and behaviors of followers (e.g., [80, 81]). For instance, LMX is reported to affect employees’ motivation in several areas of organizational functioning, increasing or decreasing opportunities, sense of empowerment, emotional support, and cooperative interactions, including loyalty, respect and obligation (e.g., [82, 83]). Also, previous studies have actually shown that high levels of LMX correlates positively with citizenship behaviors (e.g. [42, 84]). Concerning deviant behavior, de Oliveira et al. [85] reported a direct negative relationship between LMX and CWBs. Also, Newton and Perlow [86] found that LMX relations correlated negatively with CWBs such that individuals with low quality leader-member relations exhibited CWBs than subordinates with higher quality leader-member relations. Thus, high-quality relationships have been found to be positively related to performance, retention, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors [80]. In contrast, research shows that low-quality relationships, low leadership consideration, and abusive supervision tend to lead to deviant workplace behaviors [87].

5. Individual variables

5.1 Personality and CWBs

Personality traits can be defined as a relatively enduring configuration of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that cause the individual to respond in specific ways to particular circumstances [88]. It is important to identify personality characteristics that may relate to CWBs since the behavior is an act based on individual choice [34]. The personality factors of interest in the present study include the Big Five Personality Trait, Dark Triads and personal values.

5.2 Big five personality factors

The Five-Factor Model (FFM or Big Five) which comprises agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience has been globally accepted as a valid structure of personality traits and widely employed by organizational researchers [89, 90]. Agreeableness is related to cooperativeness, good-nature, considerate and kindness of persons; conscientiousness describes one who is careful, industrious, hardworking, achievement oriented, persistent, dependable, and orderliness; extraversion refers to one who has preference for social interactions and need for stimulation; neuroticism refers to individuals who are anxious, hostile, and a general inability to deal with negative emotions; while openness to experience refers to exploratory behaviors, active imagination, autonomy, and nonconformity [34, 89].

Regarding the impact of personality traits on CWBs, Salgado [89] in a meta-analysis found that agreeableness and conscientiousness were valid predictors of deviant behaviors, while Berry et al. [8] found that among the Big Five, only agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were significantly related to CWBs. Spector [90] suggests that personality affects CWBs through cognitive-emotional processes and; in line with the cognitive-motivational-relational theory [91, 92], it could be argued that agreeableness and neuroticism are predictors of CWBs. An employee who is cooperative and kind may be less likely to respond negatively to situations she/he encounters but not so for antagonistic individuals. In contrast, a person who is predominantly anxious and negative towards life in general may tend to experience more negative emotions thereby compelling the individual to be more prone to deviant behaviors. In line with this reasoning, de Oliveira et al. [85] reported that agreeableness was negatively correlated to CWBs while neuroticism was positively correlated to CWBs. Also, Bowling and Eschleman [33] found that agreeableness and conscientiousness was negatively related to both CWBs-O and CWBs-P which also aligns with the findings of Mount et al. [34]. In a similar study, Bolton et al. [93] found that agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted CWBs. Again, Waheeda and Hafidz [94] reported significant negative relationship between agreeableness, conscientiousness and CWBs. Conscientiousness was found to be negatively correlated to seven dimensions of CWBs (theft and related behavior, destruction of property, misuse of information, poor quality work, alcohol use, drug use, inappropriate verbal actions, and inappropriate physical actions) while agreeableness was found to be negatively correlated to only three dimensions of CWBs (theft and related behavior, misuse of information, and poor quality work). Openness was found to be negatively correlated to theft and related behavior, while neuroticism was found to be positively correlated to poor quality work only. Extraversion was not correlated to any of the CWBs dimensions [94]. From the aforementioned studies, it can be seen that personality can be a predictor of CWBs, with agreeableness and conscientiousness being consistent predictors of it.

5.3 Individual values and CWBs

There have been extensive studies on values either in isolation or in combination with other constructs [95, 96]. However, there are paucity of studies with regard to the relationship between values and CWBs. Values can be defined as “principles for action encompassing abstract goals in life and modes of conduct that an individual or a collective considers preferable across contexts and situations” ([97], p. 364). Values can be seen as a guiding principle, representing one’s motivational goal in life which makes it worthwhile exploring the relationship with CWBs since the behavior is an act of personal volition. Schwartz [98] proposes ten individual values including achievement, benevolence, conformity, hedonism, power, security, self-direction, stimulation, tradition, and universalism. Achievement is related to personal success, competence according to social standards; benevolence refers to kindness, fairness, forgiving and maintaining good interpersonal relationship; conformity entails restraint of actions, inclinations and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations and norms; hedonism relates to pleasure-seeking or sensuous gratification; power refers to control or dominance over people and resources, need for social status and prestige; security implies safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships and of self; self-direction involves independent thought and action expressed in choosing, creating and exploring; stimulation refers to excitement, arousal, novelty and taking up challenge in life; tradition is respect for social rules and others, acceptance of customs and ideas of one’s culture; while universalism refers to understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the well-being of all people and for nature.

Concerning the relationship between individual values and CWBs, Waheeda and Hafidz [94] found that hedonism and power was positively correlated to CWBs; while benevolence and conformity was negatively correlated to CWBs. Security was not related to any dimension of CWBs. Again, conformity, tradition, benevolence, and achievement were negatively correlated to some dimensions of CWBs such as theft and related behaviors, alcohol use, drug use, misuse of time and resources, poor attendance, inappropriate behaviors; while hedonism, self-direction and stimulation was positively correlated to alcohol use and drug use dimensions of CWBs. Tradition was found to be negatively correlated to alcohol use, drug use, and inappropriate verbal actions dimensions of CWBs. Interestingly, universalism was negatively related to three dimensions of CWBs (misuse of time and resources, poor attendance, and poor quality work and drug use [94].

In an earlier study exploring the individual values and overall CWBs, Bruursema [99] found that benevolence was negatively correlated to CWBs while hedonism and stimulation was positively correlated to CWBs. None of the values were significantly correlated to CWBs directed to persons in the organization; but it was found that benevolence, achievement, and stimulation were all correlated to CWBs directed towards the organization. Based on the few available empirical studies, it seems that individual values are good predictors of CWBs; though further studies are needed.

6. Dark triads personality and CWBs

The term Dark Triads was used by Paulhus and Williams [100] to describe three personality traits, i.e. psychopath, Machiavellianism, and narcissism associated with deviant behavior. Psychopath-type personality describes individuals lacking in conscience, empathy, remorsefulness and accountability; and known for impulsiveness; narcissism describes someone who has inflated ego and self-image, full of self-admiration and self-exaggeration; while Machiavellianism describes a person who is morally disengaged, morally depraved and manipulative in nature. Although, the three personality traits are distinct in style, they have the common characteristic of obvious and open exploitation of others.

Lately, the Dark Triads of personality have received research attention and may be considered possible antecedents of CWBs [101]. This is because Barlett [102] found that all the Dark Triad traits are associated with aggression. Geel et al. [103] found that the Dark Triad traits are related to traditional bullying and cyber bullying behavior in adolescents and adults. Based on the perspective of SET, Palmer et al. [104] found that individuals who scored high on the Dark Triad traits are less inclined to engage in CWBs when there is high perception of organizational support. Also, O’Boyle et al. [105] in a meta-analytic study found a weak, moderate, and relatively strong relationship between psychopath, Machiavellianism, narcissism and CWBs respectively. Earlier, Grijalva and Newman [106] found that among the Dark Triads, narcissism alone predicted CWBs. Wu and Lebreton [107] suggest that deviant behavior, the hallmark of Dark Triads of personality may be the outcome of deviant personality and this reasoning may be the justification for the likely association between Dark Triads of personality and CWBs. The lack of empathy, remorse, accountability and impulsivity characteristic of psychopath; the inflated ego, self-admiration and exaggeration characteristics of narcissistic-type personality; and the moral corruption, moral depravity and manipulative tendency characteristics of Machiavellianism may work to engender motivation for counterproductive work behaviors in organizations.

Specifically, Wu and Lebreton [107] assert that psychopathic-type personalities are related to CWBs as those with high level of the traits tend to harm others in pursuit of their personal interest. Consequently, they distract the attention of others from a particular task to pursue their own agenda. Again, their lack of conscience and the desire to achieve their needs at the detriment of others may push them to engage in CWBs [105]. Earlier, Hare and Neuman [108] reported that psychopath-type personalities are more inclined to engage in CWBs. In subsequent studies, Scherer et al. [109] and Smith and Lilienfeld [101] found that psychopath is associated with CWBs. Also, Baloch et al. [110] found that psychopath is positively related to CWBs with organizational politics mediating the relationship between psychopath and CWBs.

With regard to narcissism, Spector [111] argued that inflated self-ego is a trait characteristics of individuals who have high level of narcissism. According to Wu and Lebreton [107], narcissistic-type personality individuals may do whatever that is possible to exaggerate themselves at the detriment of others. The trait of over-inflated self-ego and self-exaggeration, to the extent of discrediting others may increase the chances of narcissistic-personality individuals to engage in CWBs. Expectedly, Penny and Spector [112] as well as Grijalva and Newman [106] found that narcissism is positively associated with CWBs. In a more recent study, Baloch et al. [110] found that narcissism is positively related to CWBs with organizational politics mediating the relationship between narcissism and CWBs.

In the case of Machiavellianism, individuals who have high level of the trait are known for their moral depravity, moral disengagement and manipulative tendencies. According to Wu and Lebreton [107], they are highly inclined to do whatever is possible to achieve their goals. Since they believe that the end justifies the means, it does not matter whatever means they use to achieve their goals provided it is achieved. The ruthless and unethical behaviors of individuals who possess high level of Machiavellian traits are the strong base for the contention that they are more inclined to engage in counterproductive work behaviors. Also, Machiavellian individuals are likely to behave impulsively and in an irresponsible manner when dealing with others. Because of their moral rectitude and manipulative tendencies, they are not concerned and care less about the consequences of their behaviors. The unemotional and callous nature of behaviors of Machiavellian-type personalities are strong indications that such individuals are likely be involved in counterproductive work behaviors. Consequently, Kish-Gephart et al. [113] as well as O’Bolye et al. [105] established that Machiavellianism is positively correlated with CWBs. In addition, Baloch et al. [110] found that Machiavellianism is positively related to CWBs with organizational politics mediating the relationship between Machiavellianism and CWBs.

7. Outcomes of CWBs

There are all manners of CWBs with each impacting organizations differently. For instance, corruption one of the indicators of CWBs has been shown to lower overall morale and doing damage to public trust in the organizations. Also, the issue of data theft, another indices of CWBs could be a major liability for organizations as it could lead to legal tussles and fines as well as causing irrevocable breach of trust between stakeholders and organizations. Time theft arguably has been shown to lead to decreased productivity and profit as well as overall employee morale. Fraud, embezzlement and bribery can have serious consequences for a company’s reputation and lose of trust as well as leading to revenue loss. Berry et al. [14] identified hyper-anxiety, job dissatisfaction, and tendency to quit a job as common outcomes of CWBs. CWBs have negative impact on customer evaluation of services, negatively impacting satisfaction and loyalty, and damaging long-term profitability [114, 115]. Thus, CWB leads to unsafe and insecure work environment which may have adverse effects on the performance and well-being of employees and the organization in general. Thus, continuous occurrence of CWBs may create a culture in which the behavior can be easily justified and committed more often by far more individuals leading to long term damage to organizational well-being.

8. Summary and conclusion

CWBs are voluntary acts such as theft, sabotage or doing a work incorrectly that harm organizations. The behaviors are highly prevalent and has negative consequences including huge financial loss and damage to human capital development of organizations. In order for organizations to mitigate incidences of CWBs, gaining insight into the antecedents and outcomes which was the focus of the present work is extremely important. Having identified a number of organizational and individual antecedents of CWBs, it behooves on organizational science researchers and managers to develop policies and programs to reduce incidents of CWBs.