Managing counterproductive work behaviors

Franciska Krings and Grgoire Bollmann*

University of Lausanne

*
The authors contributed equally to this work.

This chapter may not exactly replicate the final version published in Responsible

Management Practices for the 21st Century. Please cite as:

Krings, F., & Bollmann, G. (2011). Managing counterproductive work

behaviors. In G. Palazzo & M. Wentland (Eds.), Responsible

Management Practices for the 21st Century (pp. 151-159). Paris: Pearson

1
Introduction

On August 3, 2010, at Manchester Connecticut, Omar Thornton shot eight of his

colleagues before committing suicide. He started shooting after a meeting with

company officials about disciplinary problems. According to his friends and relatives,

he had repeatedly complained to management about racist remarks and insults coming

from his co-workers but his complaints had gone unheeded.

This is an extreme example of dysfunctional behaviour displayed by an

employee who apparently felt deeply misunderstood and dissatisfied. Employees may

signal dissatisfaction and/or engage in harmful, dysfunctional behaviors of various

forms, ranging from relatively mild forms (e.g., ignoring colleagues or coming in late)

to relatively severe forms (e.g., physically attacking colleagues or sabotaging

equipment) of so-called counterproductive work behaviours (CWB). One of the most

detrimental instances of CWB is certainly the example above.

Employee surveys suggest that CWB are widespread 1. For organizations, they

are a source of concern, as they threaten the well-being of the organization and its

stakeholders. Managers play a key role in dealing with and preventing CWB. This is

the focus of this chapter. In the first part, we provide an overview over various forms

of CWB and their consequences. In the second part, we focus on evidence-based

managerial practices intended to reduce and prevent CWB. More specifically, we

focus on practices related to organizational justice, organizational rules and working

conditions, and leadership.

Counterproductive work behaviors

1
e.g., Hoel & Cooper, 2000

2
 CWB are volitional [acts that] harm or intend to harm organizations and/or

their stakeholders such as clients, co-workers, customers, and supervisors 2. For

understanding the nature of CWB, three criteria are crucial: Firstly, CWB have at

least the potential to harm and thus cover a wide array of negative behaviors, ranging

from relatively mild instances like intentionally omitting to return a phone call or

taking an exceptionally long break up to severe forms like sexual harassment or

sabotage of organizational equipments that may endanger the safety of an entire team.

Secondly, CWB are purposeful. They stem from harmful intent or cause harm by a

purposeful action. Thus, they differ from accidents where harm is, for example, the

unintended result of an unskilled employees action. Thirdly, CWB target the

organization (also called organizational CWB; e.g., sabotage) or its stakeholders (also

called interpersonal CWB; e.g., aggression toward colleagues). Organizational CWB

can be further broken down into theft, sabotage, production deviance, and

withdrawal 3. Theft and sabotage both contain ideas of actively causing harm and are

(in most contexts) illegal. Withdrawal and production deviance encompass acts like

purposely working incorrectly or failing to follow instructions and are thus somewhat

more passive.

CWB constitute one facet of work performance. They are part of the so-called

contextual performance, influencing the organizational, psychological and social

context in which the more technical part of work performance, that is, task

performance is achieved 4. They relate more closely to how the task is done than to

what the task is. As such, they are rarely included in formal performance appraisals

but nevertheless, have an important impact on overall work performance.

2
p. 447, Spector et al., 2006
3
Ibid.
4
Collins, & Griffin, 1998

3
 What are the consequences of CWB? Consequences have been observed at

several levels. Firstly, CWB threaten the well-being of the organization and its

stakeholders. Victims of workplace aggression develop low job satisfaction, low

affective commitment, high turnover intentions, and high rates of absenteeism. They

also experience a significant drop in health-related outcomes like emotional

exhaustion, psychological distress, depressive symptoms, or low physical well-being.

Interestingly, victims of CWB are also more likely to engage in CWB themselves.

These reactions are generally stronger if the aggressive acts come from somebody

within the organization (e.g., the supervisor or a co-worker) than from somebody

outside of the organization (e.g., a client) 5. Secondly, CWB engender costs for

organizations, both directly and indirectly. Indirect costs are caused through negative

outcomes of CWB victims (for example, through high absence rates) or through

reputation loss (see also chapter in this book). Other costs are direct. For instance,

in the US retail industry, employee theft makes up almost half of total thefts 6.

Similarly, in the fast food industry, CWB have been shown to explain parts of

restaurant operating profits and to lead to a significant decrease in customer

satisfaction 7. Some research suggests that the (negative) impact of CWB rates on

organizational performance is stronger than the (positive) impact of employee positive

behavior rates 8.

Finally, CWB have a series of more subtle consequences. For example,

managers seem to be strongly (negatively) influenced by CWB when judging their

employees' performance 9. Employee CWB even have a greater impact on the way

managers evaluate employee performance than employee voluntary, pro-social

5
Hershcovis & Barling, 2010
6
Hollinger & Langton, 2007
7
Detert, Trevio, Burris, & Andiappan, 2007
8
Dunlop & Lee, 2004
9
Rotundo & Sackett, 2002

4
behaviors like helping co-workers or suggesting improvements of procedures. CWB

also affects team functioning. CWB of an individual employee can spread to the entire

team 10 and thus become a collective phenomenon, poisoning team climate and

ultimately decreasing team performance 11.

Managing counterproductive behaviors

For being able to effectively manage CWB, one needs to understand their

antecedents. What factors in the work environment give rise to CWB? What factors

prevent them? High-quality research on CWB is relatively young. Nevertheless, over

the last two decades, this research has accumulated conclusive evidence that provides

clear answers to the crucial questions above. Moreover, based on this evidence,

valuable implications for effective managerial practices can be derived. As we

demonstrate in what follows, increasing workplace fairness, providing favorable

working conditions and appropriate rules, and engaging in responsible leadership are

promising venues for managers to reduce and prevent CWB.

Before outlining the three key points for managerial action, we would like to

point out that CWB does not only result from these factors. More specifically, one

stream of research shows that CWB is also related to personality traits of individual

employees. For example, employees high in agreeableness, conscientiousness, or self-

control are less likely to engage in CWB 12. What are the managerial implications of

such findings? One implication that immediately comes to mind would be to select

people based on their personality or to attempt to change their personality, e.g.,

through training. However, at least the latter is ethically questionable and both are

illegal in some contexts. For this reason, in this chapter, we focus on antecedents of

10
Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006
11
Cole, Walter, & Bruch, 2008
12
e.g., Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007 ; Marcus & Schuler, 2004

5
CWB that managers have a direct impact on. Nevertheless, this focus does not

preclude considering personality differences, on the contrary. As we show below,

employee personality is often important because it influence how an employee reacts,

for example, to organizational conditions or to managerial interventions designed to

reduce CWB.

Organizational justice

Low organizational fairness or justice is a key antecedent of CWB. Consider

the following example. A company lost a series of important contracts. To deal with

the financial loss, management decided to cut wages by 15%, for 10 weeks, in two of

their factories. Teaming up with Jerald Greenberg, a work psychologist from Ohio

Stave University, the company decided to announce pay-cuts in two different

manners 13. In the first factory, a company vice president announced the pay-cuts to

his employees by explaining that wage cuts were inevitable but helped to exclude lay-

offs. Also, he said that he realized that this wasnt easy but that reductions were an

unfortunate fact of life in this business. Then, he offered to answer a few questions

from the floor, making clear that he would have to leave soon for another meeting.

Following this announcement, employee theft rates increased dramatically for the

period of the 10-weeks, as did employees' feelings of being treated unfairly. In his

analysis of the case, J. Greenberg suggests that through the vice president's brief and

relatively unempathetic announcement, employees felt unfairly treated, and

subsequently tried to restore fairness, that is to get even, by engaging in CWB such

as theft.

Things went quite differently in the second factory where the president used

different words to announce the pay-cuts, as illustrated further below. But before

13
Greenberg, 1990

6
turning to this side of the story, it is important to note that numerous studies have

shown that if organizational justice is low, employees attempt to restore it or seek

revenge through CWB. This is true for low distributive justice (e.g., unfairness in

terms of pay or workload), low procedural justice (e.g., unfairness in terms of the

procedures used to take decisions about employees), and low interpersonal justice

(e.g., unfairness in terms of interpersonal treatment employees receive from

supervisors) 14. When perceiving unfairness, employees do not only retaliate against

the organization but also against individuals they hold responsible for unfair

outcomes 15. This is especially likely if employees have the impression that they dont

have an impact on the organization. Under this condition, together with low

distributive justice, interpersonal CWB against co-workers and supervisors becomes

especially likely 16. Further, as mentioned above, personality traits can have an impact

on how employees react to organizational justice. For example, employees high in

agreeableness, high in conscientiousness or low in hostility react somewhat less

negatively to low organizational justice and are thus less likely to engage in CWB 17.

Implications of the findings on the link between organizational justice and

CWB for managerial practice are straight-forward: Enhancing organizational justice

should be a key concern, in every organization. Special attention should be paid to the

instauration of fair systems for the distribution of resources such as pay or workload

(distributive justice), fair procedures used to make decisions about employees such as

decisions about promotion or access to training (procedural justice), and fairness in

everyday interactions between managers and employees (interpersonal justice). Some

components of organizational justice are more readily susceptible to managerial

14
Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Berry, et al., 2007; Greenberg, 1990
15
Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999
16
Hershcovis, et al., 2007
17
Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006 ; Yang & Dieffendorf, 2009

7
influence than others because they can be easily implemented in everyday practice.

For example, for managers, it might be easier to enhance procedural and interpersonal

justice than distributive justice. Procedural justice can be enhanced, for example, by

rendering the decision making process and decision criteria transparent and by giving

employees voice; that is a say during the process 18. Interpersonal justice can be

enhanced by treating employees in a respectful and dignified manner and by showing

consideration for their situation 19. One example is the one mentioned at the beginning

of this section. In this example, the company had to install wage cuts to reduce

costs 20. Hence, managers had little impact on distributive justice. Nevertheless, they

could influence procedural and interpersonal justice perceptions. Therefore, in the

second factory, the president delivered the news on the pay-cuts differently. As in the

first factory, he told his employees that the reductions were inevitable and helped to

exclude lay-offs. But at the same time, he provided more detailed information,

presenting the rationale for the decision with graphs and charts. Also, he expressed his

deep regrets, showed serious consideration for and solidarity with the employees at

several times during his speech and subsequent interactions with the employees.

Taken together, though his behaviour, the president respected basic principles of

procedural and interpersonal justice. Following this announcement, employee theft

rates as well as employees' feelings of being treated unfairly were considerably lower

than in the first factory despite the fact that in both factories, employees were facing

the same cuts.

Organizational rules and working conditions

The close link between organizational fairness and CWB described above

suggests that factors in the organizational context can have an important impact on
18
van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997
19
Greenberg, 2006
20
Greenberg, 1990

8
CWB occurrence. When considering organizational context more broadly, the most

obvious and easiest solution to reduce CWB seems the implementation of sanctions

for CWB. But sanctions are a double-edged sword. Of course, aversive consequences

for a behavior are a powerful mechanism to reduce the occurrence of the same

behavior. But the effectiveness of sanctions depends on their magnitude and

consistency 21. When perceived as overly harsh or inconsistently applied, sanctions

elicit anger and retaliation in employees and might thus backfire 22. Moreover,

sanctions as sole mechanism to control CWB seem difficult to implement in practice

because many CWB are performed in private and outside the view of managerial

oversight. Hence, some organizations might try to control CWB by simply increasing

surveillance, to monitor employee behaviors more closely and be able to apply

sanctions more rapidly and consistently. But again, even though increased oversight

somewhat helps in reducing organizational CWB 23, the risk of potential backlash is

high. Working environments with close monitoring might even be experienced as

violating organizational justice and may thus raise the likelihood of aggressive

behaviors toward supervisors 24. Another alternative may be the instauration of

organizational codes of conduct. But studies on the effectiveness of codes of conduct

suggest that their impact is limited. They are more effective if coupled with effective

reward systems and clear sanctions that are applied if codes are violated 25.

No matter what type of rules, sanctions or codes an organization sets up: It

seems crucial that employees participate in the enforcement of organizational rules

and procedures because social control from other co-workers is a powerful deterrent

21
e.g., Bennett, 1998
22
Ball, Trevio, & Sims, 1994 ; Bennett, 1998
23
Detert, et al., 2007
24
Dupre & Barling, 2006
25
e.g. Petersen & Krings, 2009 ; Trevio, Butterfield, McCabe, 1998

9
of CWB 26. Promoting a sense of collective responsibility (in contrast to individual

responsibility) seems a promising venue to combat CWB. Collective responsibility

could be achieved by creating a sense of responsibility for what happens within the

organization, among its employees at all levels, so that this task is not left to certain

people (e.g., ethics officers or team leaders). Sense of responsibility should be shared

among all members of the organization, ultimately creating an ethical climate that

prevents CWB from occurring.

Another promising way to prevent CWB is to create favorable working

conditions. If working conditions are bad, the risk of CWB increases. For example, if

employees perceive that the organization does not fulfil its due obligations (e.g., in

terms of working environment, growth opportunities or training), or they feel that the

organization violates the (implicit) contract it has with its employees, they may, as a

consequence, react negatively towards the organization. Indeed, research has shown

that unfavorable working conditions like frequent interruptions, lack of resources or

training opportunities increase the likelihood of CWB 27. Again, employee personality

also plays a role: Employees who are able to effectively engage in self-control are less

likely to engage in CWB, also if working conditions are unfavorable 28.

When CWB emerges as a reaction to adverse working conditions and feelings

of contract breach, organizations should concentrate their actions on modifications of

the working environment. For example, one study showed that the more an

organization offers opportunities for professional development, the less employees

(especially those low in conscientiousness) tend to withhold effort 29. The same study

26
Hollinger & Clark, 1982
27
Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001
28
Bordia, Restubog, & Tang, 2008
29
Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004

10
also revealed that if, management consistently supports its employees, even

employees low in agreeableness engage in CWB less frequently.

Effective leadership

Managers' own behavior and leadership style have an important impact on

employee behavior and thus on CWB. For example, abusive supervision a repeated

display of hostile behaviors by the supervisor towards his or her employees is a

powerful predictor of employee aggression 30. Also, employees with an abusive

supervisor more often refuse to perform supervisor requests, show high rates of

problem drinking, and more frequently engage in organizational as well as supervisor

targeted CWB 31.

But being the target of abusive behaviors does not only lead to interpersonal

aggression. Aggressive managers are aggressive role models, and employees copy

their behaviors 32. Also, employees working in work groups where aggressive

behaviors are normative react aggressively more often 33. Those who become the

target of undermining behaviors from their supervisors or their colleagues too tend to

engage in organizational CWB like theft, or withdrawal 34 Reactions in the form of

CWB are particularly likely if the employee feels singled out, that is, he or she is

more often the target of abusive supervision than his or her colleagues 35. Even low

intensity abusive behaviors, so-called incivilities (e.g., ignoring someone repeatedly

or speaking to someone in unprofessional terms), have the potential to escalate into

more severe forms like interpersonal aggression 36.

30
Inness, Barling, & Turner, 2005
31
for a review, Tepper, 2007
32
Aquino & Douglas, 2003
33
Glomb & Liao, 2003
34
Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002
35
Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, & Pagon, 2006
36
Cortina & Magley, 2003

11
 These findings suggest that for managers, refraining from behaviors that are

part of the abusive behavioral repertoire is decisive for preventing CWB. Managers

therefore have a responsibility to act as positive role models and maintain good,

professional interpersonal relationships with each employee. Managers' own integrity

is also crucial. If managers give clear recommendations about what is right and what

is wrong but at the same time are perceived as not practicing what they preach, the

well-intentioned clear recommendations might not only have no effect at all but even

increase CWB 37. Thus, it is important that managers engage in leadership behaviors

that are part of an ethical leadership style. Managers practicing ethical leadership are

characterized by integrity, fairness, ethical behaviors but also encourage ethical

behavior in their subordinates through rewards and punishments 38. Needless to say,

leadership is not only important for line managers but also for top managers, as

leadership typically trickles down from top management to direct supervisors and

finally to employees 39.

Conclusion

Low organizational justice is one of the most critical factors for the emergence

of CWB. Unfairness in terms of outcome, organizational procedures and interpersonal

treatment has been consistently shown to give rise to CWB. Also, CWB emerge under

adverse working conditions or abusive supervision. As such, they can be understood

as a reaction to working conditions that are sorely bearable. For organizations, the

seemingly easiest solution to control CWB is, at first sight, the instauration of strict

rules and sanctions when rules are violated. But as illustrated in this chapter, sanctions

and rules can be risky because their effectiveness depends on a number of other

factors one of which is managers own level of integrity.

37
Dineen, Lewicki, Tomlinson, 2006
38
Brown, Trevio, & Harrison, 2005
39
Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009

12
 Taken together, these points suggest that for managers wanting to effectively

manage CWB, it is particularly important to act as positive role models that speak to

all employees, and to contribute to creating and maintaining fair systems and

procedures within their organization. Ideally, the latter should involve employees

from early onwards, thus promoting a sense of collective responsibility and ethical

climate two factors whose benefits can be expected to go well beyond reducing

CWB.

References

Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in
organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive
modelling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 90, 195-208.

Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative
affectivity and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073-1091.

Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P. (1994). Just and unjust punishment -
influences on subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 299-322.

Bennett, R. J. (1998). Taking the sting out of the whip: Reactions to consistent
punishment for unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology-
Applied, 4, 248-262.

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance,

organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410-424.

Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees strike back:
Investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1104-1117.

Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social
learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134.

Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004).
Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609.

13
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking
dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation
study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 945-958.

Collins, J. M., & Griffin, R. W. (1998). The psychology of counterproductive job

performance. In R. W. Griffin, A. OLeary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.).
Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Non-violent dysfunctional behavior.
Monographs in organizational behavior and relations, 23, Part B, pp. 219-242.

Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events
following mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 8, 247-265.

Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial
modes of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal
business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 993-1005.

Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and
behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 622-635.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the
workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The
social context of undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 101, 105-126.

Dupre, K. E., & Barling, J. (2006). Predicting and preventing supervisory workplace
aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 13-26.

Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples
spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. In
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 27 (Vol. 27, pp. 175-222).

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB)
in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and
moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
59, 291-309.

Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social
influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal,
46, 486-496.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: the

hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568.

14
Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenuating
insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in
interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 58-69.

Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace

aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 24-44.

Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupr, K. E., Inness, M., et
al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 228-238.

Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. UK:
UMIST.

Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1982). Formal and informal social controls of
employee deviance. The Sociological Quarterly, 23, 333-343.

Hollinger, R. C., & Langton, L. (2007). National Retail Security Survey: Final
Report. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.

Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding supervior-targeted

aggression: A within-person, between-jobs design. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 731-739.

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace
deviance: test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126-
138.

Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at

work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 647-660.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How
low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1-13.

Petersen, L. E., & Krings, F. (2009). Are ethical codes of conduct toothless tigers for
dealing with employment discrimination? Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 501-
514.

Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship,
and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A
policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66-80.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 434-443.

15
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006).
The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors
created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446-460.

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis,

and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.

Trevino, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical context in
organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 8, 447-476.

van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge
my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the
fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034-
1046.

Yang, J. X., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive

workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality
moderators: a diary study in hong kong. Personnel Psychology, 62, 259-295.

16
Index

codes of conduct, 9 agreeableness, 5, 11

consequences conscientiousness, 5, 10

costs, 4 hostility, 7

performance evaluation, 4 self-control, 5, 10

teams, 5 justice

well-being, 4 distributive, 7

CWB interpersonal, 7

criteria, 3 procedural, 7

work performance, 3 leadership, 1112

fairness, See justice abusive supervision, 11

implications for management ethical leadership, 12

individual differences, 5, 10 personality, See individual differences

justice, 78 responsibility, 10, 12, 13

leadership, 12 sanctions, 9, 12

responsibility, 10 effectiveness, 9

working conditions, 10 teams, 10, 11

individual differences working conditions, 10

17