{"title":"谁影响员工的阴暗面:反作用工作场所行为的多焦点荟萃分析","authors":"E. Liao, A. Wang, Cheryl Qianru Zhang","doi":"10.1177/2041386620962554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We adopt a multi-foci perspective to provide a theory-driven quantitative review of employee counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) by meta-analyzing the relationships between CWB and four groups of antecedents. Specifically, CWB antecedents stemming from four sources—supervisors, organization, coworkers, and private life—were included to investigate differences in their relationships with employee CWB. Based on the Conservation of Resources Theory, we argue that favorable and unfavorable correlates relate to employee CWB to different degrees. The meta-analysis included 181 field studies with 223 independent samples. Results indicated that unfavorable antecedents correlate more strongly with CWB than favorable antecedents. We also found that supervisor- and organization-related antecedents have stronger relationships with CWB than those from the two other groups. Implications include a deeper understanding of which situational factors relate the most—or least—to CWB which can help better address CWB in the workplace.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620962554","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who influences employees’ dark side: A multi-foci meta-analysis of counterproductive workplace behaviors\",\"authors\":\"E. Liao, A. Wang, Cheryl Qianru Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2041386620962554\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We adopt a multi-foci perspective to provide a theory-driven quantitative review of employee counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) by meta-analyzing the relationships between CWB and four groups of antecedents. Specifically, CWB antecedents stemming from four sources—supervisors, organization, coworkers, and private life—were included to investigate differences in their relationships with employee CWB. Based on the Conservation of Resources Theory, we argue that favorable and unfavorable correlates relate to employee CWB to different degrees. The meta-analysis included 181 field studies with 223 independent samples. Results indicated that unfavorable antecedents correlate more strongly with CWB than favorable antecedents. We also found that supervisor- and organization-related antecedents have stronger relationships with CWB than those from the two other groups. Implications include a deeper understanding of which situational factors relate the most—or least—to CWB which can help better address CWB in the workplace.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620962554\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620962554\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620962554","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
Who influences employees’ dark side: A multi-foci meta-analysis of counterproductive workplace behaviors
We adopt a multi-foci perspective to provide a theory-driven quantitative review of employee counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) by meta-analyzing the relationships between CWB and four groups of antecedents. Specifically, CWB antecedents stemming from four sources—supervisors, organization, coworkers, and private life—were included to investigate differences in their relationships with employee CWB. Based on the Conservation of Resources Theory, we argue that favorable and unfavorable correlates relate to employee CWB to different degrees. The meta-analysis included 181 field studies with 223 independent samples. Results indicated that unfavorable antecedents correlate more strongly with CWB than favorable antecedents. We also found that supervisor- and organization-related antecedents have stronger relationships with CWB than those from the two other groups. Implications include a deeper understanding of which situational factors relate the most—or least—to CWB which can help better address CWB in the workplace.
期刊介绍:
Organizational Psychology Review is a quarterly, peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by SAGE in partnership with the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology. Organizational Psychology Review’s unique aim is to publish original conceptual work and meta-analyses in the field of organizational psychology (broadly defined to include applied psychology, industrial psychology, occupational psychology, organizational behavior, personnel psychology, and work psychology).Articles accepted for publication in Organizational Psychology Review will have the potential to have a major impact on research and practice in organizational psychology. They will offer analyses worth citing, worth following up on in primary research, and worth considering as a basis for applied managerial practice. As such, these should be contributions that move beyond straight forward reviews of the existing literature by developing new theory and insights. At the same time, however, they should be well-grounded in the state of the art and the empirical knowledge base, providing a good mix of a firm empirical and theoretical basis and exciting new ideas.