Toward a Typology of Counterproductive Employees: A Person-Oriented Investigation of Counterproductive Work Behavior.

Q2 Psychology
Justin Travis, S Bartholomew Craig
{"title":"Toward a Typology of Counterproductive Employees: A Person-Oriented Investigation of Counterproductive Work Behavior.","authors":"Justin Travis,&nbsp;S Bartholomew Craig","doi":"10.17505/jpor.2023.25256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study of counterproductive work behavior (CWB), intentional actions by employees that are deleterious to the organization and/or its stakeholders, has produced research on the dimensionality of CWB, as well as its situational and dispositional antecedents. Absent from these advancements have been investigations into the potential utility of a taxonomy of counterproductive employee types-a \"person-oriented\" approach. Our latent profile analysis (<i>N</i> = 522) suggested a four-profile solution which included one profile with uniformly low rates across CWBs (here termed \"Angels;\" 14% of the sample), and three profiles with higher CWB rates but which were distinguishable by different CWBs being most frequent in each group. Specifically, one profile was distinguished from the Angels group by higher rates of less severe CWBs (misuse of time/resources and poor attendance; 33% of the sample). The other two of the three counterproductive profiles were similar to each other except that one was characterized by higher drug use than the other (14% of the sample). The profiles also differed significantly on narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, and on self-reports of prior arrest and censure by employers. Provided these distinctions among profiles, the treatment and assumptions of employee counterproductivity in research and practice should be revisited, particularly when using models assuming a homogenous, monotonic relationship between counterproductive behaviors across employees. Implications for our conceptual understanding of counterproductivity and applied interventions aimed at reducing CWBs are discussed, alongside recommendations for future person-oriented research on CWB.</p>","PeriodicalId":36744,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Person-Oriented Research","volume":"9 1","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10302662/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Person-Oriented Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2023.25256","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study of counterproductive work behavior (CWB), intentional actions by employees that are deleterious to the organization and/or its stakeholders, has produced research on the dimensionality of CWB, as well as its situational and dispositional antecedents. Absent from these advancements have been investigations into the potential utility of a taxonomy of counterproductive employee types-a "person-oriented" approach. Our latent profile analysis (N = 522) suggested a four-profile solution which included one profile with uniformly low rates across CWBs (here termed "Angels;" 14% of the sample), and three profiles with higher CWB rates but which were distinguishable by different CWBs being most frequent in each group. Specifically, one profile was distinguished from the Angels group by higher rates of less severe CWBs (misuse of time/resources and poor attendance; 33% of the sample). The other two of the three counterproductive profiles were similar to each other except that one was characterized by higher drug use than the other (14% of the sample). The profiles also differed significantly on narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, and on self-reports of prior arrest and censure by employers. Provided these distinctions among profiles, the treatment and assumptions of employee counterproductivity in research and practice should be revisited, particularly when using models assuming a homogenous, monotonic relationship between counterproductive behaviors across employees. Implications for our conceptual understanding of counterproductivity and applied interventions aimed at reducing CWBs are discussed, alongside recommendations for future person-oriented research on CWB.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

反生产员工的类型学:反生产工作行为的人本调查。
反生产行为是指员工对组织和/或其利益相关者有害的故意行为,对反生产行为的研究已经产生了对反生产行为维度及其情境和性格前因的研究。在这些进步中,缺乏对反生产员工类型分类的潜在效用的调查——一种“以人为本”的方法。我们的潜在剖面分析(N = 522)提出了一个四剖面的解决方案,其中一个剖面在cwb中具有一致的低发生率(这里称为“天使”;(占样本的14%),以及三个具有较高CWB率的特征,但它们在每组中最常见,可以通过不同的CWB来区分。具体来说,其中一组与天使组的区别在于,较不严重的CWBs(滥用时间/资源和缺勤;33%的样本)。三个反生产概况中的其他两个彼此相似,除了一个的特点是比另一个更高的药物使用(占样本的14%)。在自恋、精神病、马基雅维利主义,以及被雇主逮捕和谴责的自我报告方面,这些档案也存在显著差异。鉴于这些特征之间的区别,在研究和实践中应对员工反生产力的假设和假设应该重新审视,特别是当使用假设员工反生产力行为之间存在同质单调关系的模型时。本文讨论了我们对反生产力概念的理解和旨在减少绕道的应用干预措施的含义,以及对未来以人为本的绕道研究的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal for Person-Oriented Research
Journal for Person-Oriented Research Psychology-Psychology (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
23 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信