INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT VOLUME 10 NUMBERS 1/2 MARCH/JUNE 2002

The Structure of Counterproductive Work

Behaviors: Dimensionality and Relationships
with Facets of Job Performance1
Paul R. Sackett*
University of Minnesota

The central themes of this article are the need for an understanding of the covariance
structure of counterproductive behaviors, and the need for an understanding of the
relationship between counterproductive behaviors and other facets of job performance.
Various literatures are reviewed to address issues of the intercorrelations among
dimensions of counterproductive behaviors and the intercorrelations between counter-
productive behavior and other facets of job performance.

Introduction sick has become widespread), and hence the behavior is

not deviant in the norm-violation sense. The behavior

C ounterproductive workplace behavior at the most

general level refers to any intentional behavior on
the part of an organization member viewed by the
organization as contrary to its legitimate interests.
`Counterproductive behavior' is distinguished from
`counterproductivity', with the latter viewed as the
tangible outcomes of counterproductive behavior.
Counterproductive behavior is viewed here as a facet
of job performance. Consistent with current concep-
tualizations of job performance (e.g. Campbell,
McCloy, Oppler and Sager 1993), performance is
viewed as reflecting behaviors, rather than outcomes.
Thus the intentional violation of safety procedures is an
example of counterproductive behavior, as such
behaviors put the individual and the organization at
risk. The number and cost of injuries resulting from
such counterproductive behaviors might serve as a
measure of counterproductivity. In a given time period,
violation of safety procedures (behaviors) may not
result in any injuries (outcomes), thus illustrating the
distinction between counterproductive behavior and
counterproductivity.
The above definition of counterproductive behavior
does clearly take the perspective of the organization. This
is done in order to make clear that a behavior can be
performed by many employees in a given organization
(e.g. a setting where taking sick leave when not actually
* Address for correspondence: Paul R. Sackett, Department of
Psychology, University of Minnesota, Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road,
Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. e-mail: psackett@tc.umn.edu
may be still, however, viewed by the organization as
counterproductive. Note, though, that there are limits to
taking the organization's view: some behaviors (e.g.
leaving one's job for career improvement) are counter-
productive in the sense of being contrary to the
organization's interests, yet do not carry the connotation
of wrongdoing that accompanies behaviors viewed as
illegal, immoral, or deviant. Similarly, it may be in an
organization's interests to have employees willing to
routinely work 14-hour days without extra compen-
sation; again, an unwillingness to do so does not carry
connotations of wrongdoing. Hence the term `legitimate'
is included in the definition of counterproductive
behavior as behavior contrary to the organization's
legitimate interests.
Counterproductive behavior encompasses a broad
number of domains. Gruys (1999) identified 87 separate
counterproductive behaviors appearing in the literature,
and used a rational sort and factor analytic techniques to
produce 11 categories of counterproductive behaviors.
These categories are presented here as an overview of the
range of behaviors included in the counterproductive
behavior domain. This list is presented to give a sense of
the range of behaviors in this domain, rather than as an
exhaustive list:
1. Theft and related behavior (theft of cash or property;
giving away of goods or services; misuse of employee
discount).
2. Destruction of property (deface, damage, or destroy
property; sabotage production);

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 5
6 PAUL R. SACKETT
3. Misuse of information (reveal confidential infor-
mation; falsify records).
4. Misuse of time and resources (waste time, alter time
card, conduct personal business during work time).
5. Unsafe behavior (failure to follow safety procedures;
failure to learn safety procedures).
6. Poor attendance (unexcused absence or tardiness;
misuse sick leave).
7. Poor quality work (intentionally slow or sloppy
work).
8. Alcohol use (alcohol use on the job; coming to work
under the influence of alcohol).
9. Drug use (possess, use, or sell drugs at work).
10. Inappropriate verbal actions (argue with customers;
verbally harass co-workers).
11. Inappropriate physical actions (physically attack co-
workers; physical sexual advances toward co-
worker).
The central themes of this article are (1) the need for an
understanding of the covariance structure of counter-
productive behaviors; and (2) the need for an
understanding of the relationship between counter-
productive behaviors and other facets of job
performance. Regarding the first theme, there has been
a tendency to treat each form of counterproductive
behavior as discrete, resulting in separate literatures on
behavior categories such as theft, drug and alcohol use,
absenteeism, and unsafe behaviors. As a complement to
these behavior-specific literatures, it is suggested here
that there is great value in understanding the pattern of
interrelationships among various forms of counter-
productive behavior. One possibility is that these truly
are independent behaviors, with separate sets of
antecedents. Another is that some, or perhaps all, of
these behaviors are substantially interrelated, with each
a behavioral manifestation of a latent trait with
common individual difference and/or situational ante-
cedents. Understanding the pattern of interrelationships
would shed light on the possibility of integrating these
distinct literatures. There does appear to have been a
recent movement toward more integrative treatments
of the range of counterproductive behaviors, as
reflected in Hollinger and Clark (1983), Griffin,
O'Leary-Kelly and Collins (1998), and Robinson and
Greenberg (1998).
With regard to the second theme, counterproductive
behavior is viewed as a facet of job performance, where
performance is defined as all employee workplace
behavior relevant to organizational outcomes. The
relationship between counterproductive behavior and
various forms of productive behavior, such as task
performance and organizational citizenship will be
considered.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
The Dimensionality of Counterproductive
Behaviors
A seminal body of work examining a broad range of
counterproductive behaviors is that of Hollinger and
Clark (1983) who developed a broad list of counter-
productive behaviors, provided a conceptual framework
for interrelating those behaviors, and collected self-report
data from large employee samples in three industries.
They proposed that counterproductive behaviors could
be grouped into two broad categories. The first is
`property deviance', involving misuse of employer assets.
Examples include theft, property damage, and misuse of
discount privileges. The second is `production deviance',
involving violating norms about how work is to be
accomplished. This includes not being on the job as
scheduled (absence, tardiness, long breaks) and behaviors
that detract from production when on the job (drug and
alcohol use, intentional slow or sloppy work).
Robinson and Bennett (1995) note that the set of
behaviors examined by Hollinger and Clark do not
include interpersonal counterproductive behaviors, such
as sexual harassment, and set out to expand upon the
Hollinger and Clark framework. They had workers
generate a large number of critical incidents of counter-
productive behavior, obtained ratings of the similarity
between pairs of behaviors, and subjected the resulting
pairwise similarity matrix to multidimensional scaling.
They obtained a two-dimensional solution, with one
dimension differentiating behavior toward the
organization (Hollinger and Clark's production and
property deviance) from interpersonal behavior toward
other organizational members (e.g. harassment, gossip,
verbal abuse), and the other dimension representing a
continuum from minor to serious offenses. Arraying
behaviors in this two-dimensional space, Robinson and
Bennett labeled the resulting four quadrants as property
deviance (organizational ± serious), production deviance
(organizational ± minor), personal aggression
(interpersonal ± serious, including behaviors such as
harassment, and theft from co-workers), and political
deviance (interpersonal ± minor, including behaviors
such as favoritism, gossip, and blaming others for one's
mistakes).
It is critical to note that this categorization scheme is
based on workers' perceptions of the similarity of pairs
of behaviors. When asked to judge the similarity of pairs
of behaviors, respondents were not constrained as to the
basis for their similarity judgments. The purpose of the
multidimensional scaling technique is to identify
dimensions underlying similarity judgements, and the
study findings indicate that, in the aggregate, respondents
used the two dimensions of organization as target vs.
other person as target and minor offense vs. serious
offense as the basis for their similarity judgments. While
it is useful to know what dimensions underlie perceptions
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
THE STRUCTURE OF CWB
of similarity between counterproductive behaviors, it is
posited here that the key issue for understanding
interrelationships among various forms of counter-
productive behavior is the covariance of occurrence
among these behaviors. The question is whether
individuals who engage in one form of counterproductive
behavior are also likely to engage in others. It is possible
that the pattern of co-occurrence among counter-
productive behaviors is quite different from the pattern
of perceived similarity emerging from the Robinson and
Bennett perceptual similarity task. For example, theft
from a co-worker and verbal abuse of a customer are
located close together in the multidimensional space
emerging from Robinson and Bennett's analysis, in that
both are serious offenses that target another person.
However, the two behaviors may differ on a variety of
other dimensions (e.g. a public vs. private dimension, a
planned vs. unplanned dimension), making the rate of co-
occurrence of the two an open question.
How might one get insight into the rate of co-
occurrence of counterproductive behaviors? While the
ideal would be the objective measurement of each form
of counterproductive behavior, the Achilles' heel of
counterproductivity research must be acknowledged,
namely, that while some forms of counterproductive
behavior are public (e.g. absence), many are acts by
employees who do not wish to be detected (e.g. theft,
sabotage, harassment). In the face of the difficulties of
direct observation, data on the covariance of counter-
productive behaviors comes from three sources: (a) self-
report of the rate of occurrence; (b) judgments by others
(e.g. supervisors) of the rate of occurrence; and (c) direct
judgments about the rate of co-occurrence of counter-
productive behaviors. Note that both self-report and
other-report data are, like direct observational data,
subject to interpretational difficulties. The correlations
among self-reports could conceivably be inflated as a
result of social desirability in responding, and the
correlations among supervisor ratings may be inflated
as a result of halo error. As none of these strategies is
clearly ideal, exemplars of each of these are reviewed in
turn, and convergence of findings across strategies is
examined.
The first example of the use of a self-report strategy
comes from Bennett and Robinson (2000). The goal of
the study was to develop a self-report instrument to asses
the degree to which individuals engaged in counter-
productive behavior. An extensive instrument
development and refinement process was used, and the
effort was guided by the conceptual framework
developed in the Robinson and Bennett (1995) study
described above. Specifically, the goal was an instrument
with separate scales to assess behaviors aimed at the
organization and behaviors aimed at other individuals.
The final instrument, based on responses from a broad
spectrum of 352 working adults, had a 12-item
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
7
organizational deviance scale and a seven-item
interpersonal deviance scale; internal consistency
reliabilities for the two were .81 and .78 respectively.
Correlations between individual behaviors are not
reported, but several useful insights can be gained about
the interrelationships among behaviors. First, the
reported internal consistency reliabilities and the
Spearman-Brown formula can be used to ascertain that
the mean correlation is .26 among the organizational
deviance items and .34 among the interpersonal deviance
items. Thus intercorrelations among self-reports of
individual behaviors are positive, but relatively modest
in magnitude ± a finding not uncommon for correlations
among individual items. Second, Bennett and Robinson
report that the correlation between the organizational
deviance scale and the interpersonal deviance scale is .68.
Correcting this for unreliability results in a corrected
correlation of .86. Thus when one moves from
correlations between individual behaviors to composites
of behaviors within a category (i.e. organizational vs.
interpersonal), the composite correlations between the
two scales are very high. It is not argued here that the
two forms of counterproductivity are, in fact,
inseparable: to the contrary, Bennett and Robinson do
show differential patterns of relationships with a number
of other constructs (e.g. a courtesy scale is more highly
related to the interpersonal deviance scale than to the
organizational deviance scale).
Ashton (1998) reports a similar set of findings from a
study of college students with work experience.
Individual self-report items dealing with eight counter-
productive behaviors all falling into the organizational
deviance category used by Bennett and Robinson (e.g.
absence, tardiness, alcohol use, safety violations, theft)
were used; the mean intercorrelation among the eight
was .30, and the internal consistency reliability for a
composite of the eight was .77. These findings closely
parallel those of Bennett and Robinson.
A different approach to self-reports of counter-
productive behavior was taken by Gruys (1999). First,
she noted that many individual counterproductive
behaviors are specific to certain work contexts, and that
some respondents might never have had the opportunity
to engage in some of the behaviors (e.g. one cannot abuse
an employee discount if one has not worked in a setting
where such a discount is available). Thus Gruys asked
respondents to consider that range of circumstances
under which one could work and respond to behaviors
using a scale anchored from `no matter what the
circumstances, I would not engage in the behavior' to
`in a wide variety of circumstances, I would engage in the
behavior'. Second, ratings of 87 behaviors were obtained,
and composite scores were obtained for the 11 behavior
categories presented at the opening of this chapter (theft,
destruction of property, misuse of information, misuse of
time and resources, unsafe behavior, poor attendance,
Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002
8 PAUL R. SACKETT
poor quality work, alcohol use, drug use, inappropriate
verbal actions, inappropriate physical actions). Thus
correlations are reported not between individual
behaviors, but between behavior categories. Highly
similar findings emerged from a sample of 115 students
and a sample of 343 college alumni; the focus here is on
the alumni sample. The mean correlation among the 11
behavior category composites was .50; the higher values
than those found in studies of individual behaviors are
interpreted here as reflecting the higher reliability of
composites. Combining the 11 category composite into
an overall grand composite results in an internal
consistency reliability of .92.
A second strategy for insight into the covariance of
counterproductive behaviors comes from ratings made by
others (e.g. supervisors) of the degree to which
individuals engage in various counterproductive behav-
iors. Hunt (1996) reported a large-scale study using this
strategy, involving ratings of over 18,000 employees in 36
companies. Individual ratings items were combined into
composites; Hunt reports correlations among the
composites. Five of the dimensions rated fall into the
counterproductivity domain: attendance, off-task
behavior (e.g. unauthorized breaks, personal business
on work time), unruliness, theft, and drug misuse. The
mean correlation among the composite measures for
these five dimensions was .50 ± a figure that corresponds
precisely to the mean correlation reported in Gruys's
study using composites obtained from self-reports of
counterproductivity.
A final strategy for insight into the covariance of
counterproductive behaviors involves obtaining direct
judgments about the likelihood of co-occurrence of
various counterproductive behaviors. Gruys (1999)
employed this strategy in addition to the self-report
research described above. Like Robinson and Bennett
(1995), she obtained direct judgments of the similarity of
counterproductive behaviors. However, while Robinson
and Bennett permitted respondents to construe
`similarity' in whatever fashion they chose, Gruys
explicitly presented respondents with the task of making
judgments of the likelihood that a person who engaged in
one form of counterproductivity on the job would also
engage in another. Gruys reports two dimensions
underlying these likelihood judgements. Like Robinson
and Bennett, a dimension emerged distinguishing acts
that primarily harm the organization (e.g. theft, absence)
from acts that primarily harm other individuals (e.g.
verbal and physical acts toward others). In contrast to
Robinson and Bennett's minor vs. serious dimension,
Gruys's second dimension differentiated acts that detract
from job performance (e.g. absence, intentionally doing
poor quality work, safety violations) from harmful acts
in the workplace not directly related to job performance
(e.g. theft). The direct judgements of likelihood of co-
occurrence do not translate into a correlational metric,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
thus not permitting a direct comparison of these results
with those obtained using self-report or other-report.
However, because Gruys had the same respondents
perform both the paired comparison likelihood of co-
occurrence task and the self-rating task described earlier,
it is possible to compare the matrix of co-occurrence
ratings with the correlation matrix from the self-report
ratings, as both tasks involved the same 11 behavior
categories previously outlined. The correlation between
the elements of the co-occurrence matrix and the
elements of the self-report correlation matrix was ÿ.17,
which was not significantly different from zero. Thus
perceptual data about likelihood of co-occurrence does
not produce a similar pattern of interrelationships among
counterproductive behaviors from that resulting from
self-report. At a more general level, though, the results do
match one aspect of the data emerging from self-report
and other-report research, namely, a pattern of positive
relationship among counterproductive behaviors. On a
scale where 1 means that two behaviors are very unlikely
to co-occur and 7 means that two behaviors are very
likely to co-occur, the average rating was 4.2.
Thus self-report, other-report, and direct judgments of
likelihood of co-occurrence support the notion of
positive interrelationships among counterproductive
behaviors. Self-report data indicates positive correlations
in the range of .30 between individual counterproductive
behaviors, but higher correlations of about .50 between
composites of related behaviors, a finding replicated with
data using supervisor ratings. It appears reasonable to
think in terms of an overall counterproductivity
construct, as the true score correlation between Bennett
and Robinson's two domains of organizational and
interpersonal deviance is .86, the reliability of a grand
overall composite across Gruys's 11 behavioral domains
is .92, and the reliability of a grand composite across five
behavioral domains in Hunt's work is .83.
This proposal of an overall counterproductivity
construct does not argue against research focusing on
more specific forms of counterproductivity. What is
suggested here is a hierarchical model, with a general
counterproductivity factor at the top, a series of group
factors, such as the organizational deviance and
interpersonal deviance factors identified by Bennett and
Robinson (2000) below this general factor, and specific
behavior domains, such as theft, absence, safety, and
drug and alcohol use below these group factors.
Researchers and practitioners may focus at difference
levels of this hierarchy for different applications. For
example, in many personnel selection settings
organizations are interested in identifying prospective
employees who will not engage in the broad range of
counterproductive behaviors, and thus may focus on the
broad counterproductivity construct. In contrast, an
intervention may be sought that will deal effectively
with a single specific problem behavior (e.g. widespread
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
THE STRUCTURE OF CWB
violation of safety procedures). The perspective taken
here is that the decision as to where to focus one's
intervention and/or measurement efforts on this
continuum from general factor to specific behaviors is
best made by recognizing the interrelationships among
counterproductive behaviors.
Counterproductive Behaviors and Job
Performance
The previous section focused on interrelationships
among different forms of counterproductive behavior.
The relationship between counterproductive behaviors
and other behaviors making up the broad domain of job
performance is now considered. The most prominent
contemporary framework for viewing job performance is
that of Campbell (Campbell et al. 1993), who offers eight
performance components: job-specific task proficiency,
non-job specific task proficiency, written and oral
communication, demonstrating effort, maintaining
personal discipline, facilitating peer and team perfor-
mance, supervision/leadership, and management/
administration. The maintaining personal discipline
dimension reflects the counterproductivity domain as
discussed here.
A series of interrelated frameworks have been offered
that focus on a set of behaviors variously labeled as
citizenship behaviors (Smith, Organ and Near 1983)
prosocial behaviors, (Brief and Motowidlo 1986), and
contextual performance (Borman and Motowidlo 1993).
What these have in common is a focus on positive
behaviors that contribute to organizational effectiveness,
but that do not reflect core job tasks. These include
helping others, persistence and extra effort, and
supporting the organization. While there are differences
in emphasis in these different frameworks (e.g. some
frameworks require that a behavior be discretionary, i.e.
not formally rewarded by the organization, while others
do not include this restriction), the behavioral domains
covered by these frameworks are largely overlapping. An
emerging literature differentiates and contrasts the task
performance domain and the citizenship/prosocial/
contextual performance domain (referred to as
citizenship, as a term to reflect the broad domain, e.g.
Conway 1999; Motowidlo and Van Scotter 1994).
Adding the counterproductive behavior domain that is
the focus of this article leads to a broad conception of
three primary performance domains: task performance,
citizenship performance, and counterproductive behav-
ior, and prompts questions as to relationships between
counterproductive behavior and the other two domains.
The focus here in examining this issue is primarily on
three large multi-sample data sets. The first is the US
Army Selection and Classification Project, commonly
referred to as Project A (Campbell 1990; McHenry,
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
9
Hough, Toquam, Hanson and Ashworth 1990). Project A
investigated a broad array of predictor and criterion
variables across a set of military jobs. Of great interest is
the focus on the careful identification of constructs
underlying measured variables. Thirty-two different
criterion measures were obtained; factor analytic work
was done to identify a set of five criterion constructs
underlying these measures. These constructs include core
technical proficiency, general soldiering proficiency,
effort and leadership, physical fitness and military
bearing, and maintaining personal discipline. The two
soldiering proficiency measures reflect the task perfor-
mance domain; effort and leadership the citizenship
domain, and maintaining personal discipline the counter-
productive behavior domain. Construct-level scores were
obtained by combining different measures, including
work samples, supervisor ratings, and indicators from
administrative records, including the number of
disciplinary infractions. Criterion scores were obtained
for 4,039 soldiers in nine military enlisted jobs.
The key findings are observed uncorrected mean
correlations of ÿ.19 and ÿ.17 between counter-
productivity and the general and specific task perfor-
mance dimensions, and a mean correlation of ÿ.59
between counterproductive behavior and the effort/
leadership construct. Thus the relationship between
counterproductive behavior and quantity and quality of
task performance is quite low, in contrast to the
relationship between counterproductive behavior and
effort/leadership, which is quite high.
The second large data set is the work of Hunt (1996),
referenced earlier in the context on the interrelationship
among various forms of counterproductive behavior.
Hunt's focus was on what he termed `generic work
behavior', namely, behaviors common across jobs and
not specific to the tasks of any given jobs. The earlier
discussion focused on five dimensions of counter-
productive behavior; also relevant here are two dimen-
sions labeled industriousness and persistence, which
correspond conceptually to the effort/leadership
dimension in Project A, and to the broad construct we
are labeling citizenship. Hunt derived composite
measures of these dimensions using a sample of over
18,000 supervisory ratings across 36 organizations.
For this article, the psychometric theory of composites
was used to estimate the correlation between a
citizenship composite made up of Hunt's industriousness
and persistence dimensions and a counterproductive
behavior composite, made up of Hunt's five counter-
productive behavior dimensions. The resulting
correlation is ÿ.67, which is quite similar to the value
of ÿ.59 obtained in Project A.
The final source is a meta-analysis by Viswesvaran,
Schmidt and Ones (1999) of the interrelationship among
supervisor ratings. They sorted ratings from the
published literature into eight dimensions. Sample sizes
Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002
10
varied by dimensions, and ranged from roughly 2,000 to
11,000. Here ratings of job knowledge, quantity of
output and quality of output are combined into the broad
dimension of task performance, ratings of interpersonal
competence, effort, and leadership into the broad
dimension of citizenship, and ratings of compliance/
acceptance of authority corresponded to the domain of
counterproductive behavior. The mean unobserved
correlation between counterproductive behavior and
ratings in the citizenship and task domains was ÿ.57
and ÿ.54 respectively.
There is clear convergence with respect to the
relationship between counterproductive behavior and
the citizenship domain: mean observed r is ÿ.59 in
Project A, ÿ.67 in Hunt, and ÿ.57 in Viswesvaran et al.
In contrast, findings regarding the relationship between
counterproductive behavior and task performance are
quite discrepant: a mean r of ÿ.18 in Project A and a
mean r of ÿ.54 in the Viswesvaran et al. meta-analysis. It
is posited here that these differences reflect differences in
the conceptualization and measurement of task
performance in the two studies. The task performance
measures in Project A were work sample and job
knowledge measures. They reflect measures of maximum
performance: what the individual `can do' when
performance is closely monitored. In contrast, the
Viswesvaran et al. study was restricted to supervisor
ratings, which can generally be seen as reflecting
measures of typical performance: what the individual
`will do' over an extended period of time (Sackett,
Zedeck and Fogli 1988). The `can do' measures are
primarily a function of knowledge and skill, while the
`will do' measures are also influenced by the full range of
individually and situationally driven motivational factors
± factors that also affect counterproductive behavior.
Thus counterproductive behavior would be expected to
correlate more highly with typical task performance than
with maximum task performance.
Conclusion
The aim of this article was to examine issues and key
literatures related to the structure of counterproductivity,
including both the interrelationships among various
counterproductive behaviors, and the relationship of
counterproductive behavior to other facets of job
performance. The most general conclusion is the
consistent finding of positive interrelationships among
the full range of counterproductive behaviors. The
strength of the relationship increases as one aggregates
from individual behaviors to sets of behaviors within a
broader conceptual category (e.g. the theft-attendance
relationship is weaker with single items measuring each
one than when multi-item scales are used for each
behavior category). While aggregation within a category
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
PAUL R. SACKETT
produces stronger cross-category correlations, it is also
the case that aggregation across categories yields broad
overall measures of counterproductive behavior with
internal consistency reliability in the .8ÿ.9 range. Similar
findings emerge from research using self-report measures
and from research using evaluations by others (e.g.
supervisor ratings).
While behavior categories are substantially
interrelated, the relationship is not so strong as to
question the value of measuring or attempting to modify
behavior in a specific category. Thus for some purposes it
may be useful to focus on a single category, as in the case
of an organizational intervention in a setting where a
particular behavior or behavior category is of great
concern (e.g. an intervention aimed at curbing increasing
absenteeism). At the same time, the sizable inter-
relationships between categories of counterproductive
behavior indicate that it will often be useful to view
counterproductive behavior broadly. The fact of these
interrelationships indicates that shared antecedents of
different types of counterproductive behaviors are likely,
and the acquisition of knowledge about the counter-
productivity domain would be leveraged by the inclusion
of multiple categories of counterproductive behavior in
individual studies.
Once counterproductive behavior is considered in the
aggregate, rather than as a large number of individual
behaviors, the question of the interrelationships between
counterproductive behaviors and other facets of job
performance arises. Current conceptualizations of job
performance identify a task performance domain and a
set of closely interrelated domains labeled as prosocial
behavior, citizenship behavior and contextual
performance by various scholars; the label `citizenship
behavior' is adopted here. This article examined three
large data sets that shed light on the interrelationships
among task performance, citizenship behavior, and
counterproductive behavior. Relationships between task
performance and counterproductive behavior vary quite
widely across studies, with very low relationships found
when task performance is operationalized as task
proficiency: what the employee can do. Much stronger
relationships are found when both facets of performance
are obtained by the same measurement method (e.g.
supervisor ratings) and when task performance is
operationalized as typical task performance: what the
employee will do.
Of considerable interest is the convergence across
disparate data sets as to the relationship between
citizenship behaviors and counterproductive behaviors.
Correlations of about ÿ.60 emerge consistently, leading
to the consideration of whether the citizenship and
counterproductive domains should be viewed as opposite
poles of a single dimension, with citizenship reflecting the
positive pole and counterproductive behavior the
negative pole (Puffer 1987). The perspective taken here
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
THE STRUCTURE OF CWB
is that while two negatively correlated variables may
usefully be combined into a composite for some
purposes, the treatment of the two as reflecting a single
continuum has implications of mutual exclusivity,
namely, that the fact that an individual with high
standing on citizenship cannot also be high in counter-
productive behavior, and vice versa. There are ready
examples of the highly productive employee who is also
engaging in extensive counterproductive behavior (as
when a high performer viewed as beyond suspicion is
caught embezzling). The fact of a high correlation
between the two domains can be usefully used in
research on common antecedents, and a composite of
the two reflecting an individual's contribution to the
organization can be created without adopting a bipolar
single dimensional view.
In sum, this article argues for the value of a broad and
integrative focus on counterproductive behavior, for
searching for common antecedents in light of the
interrelationships among various individual counter-
productive behaviors, and for viewing counterproductive
behavior as an important facet of job performance.
Note
1. This article contains material that is part of a larger
chapter entitled `Counterproductive behaviors at
work', authored by Paul R. Sackett and Cynthia J.
DeVore, to be published in N. Anderson, D. Ones, H.
Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (eds) International
Handbook of Work Psychology. Sage Publications.
References
Ashton, M.C. (1998) Personality and job performance: The
importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19, 289±303.
Bennett, R.J. and Robinson, S.L. (2000) The development of a
measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 349±360.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993) Expanding the
criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance. In N. Schmitt and W. Borman (eds) Personnel
Selection in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo S.J. (1986) Prosocial organizational
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
11
behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710±725.
Campbell, J.P. (1990) An overview of the Army selection and
classification project (Project A). Personnel Psychology, 43,
231±239.
Campbell, J.P., McCloy, R.A., Oppler, S.H. and Sager, C.E.
(1993) A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt and W.
Borman (eds) Personnel Selection in Organizations. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conway, J.M. (1999) Distinguishing contextual performance
from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 3±13.
Griffin, R.W., O'Leary-Kelly, A. and Collins, J. (1998)
Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations. In C.L.
Cooper and D.M. Rousseau (eds) Trends in Organizational
Behavior, vol. 5. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Gruys, M.L. (1999) The dimensionality of deviant employee
performance in the workplace. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Guastello, S.J. and Rieke, M.L. (1991) A review and critique of
honesty test research. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9
(Fall), 501±523.
Hollinger, R.C. and Clark, J.P. (1983) Theft By Employees.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Company/Lexington Books.
Hunt, S.T. (1996) Generic work behavior: An investigation into
the dimensions of entry-level, hourly job performance.
Personnel Psychology, 49, 51±83.
McHenry, J.J., Hough, L.M., Toquam, J.L., Hanson, M.A. and
Ashworth, S. (1990) Project A validity results: The
relationship between predictor and criterion domains.
Personnel Psychology, 43, 335±354.
Motowidlo, S.J. and Van Scotter, J.R. (1994) Evidence that task
performance can be distinguished from contextual
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475±480.
Puffer, S.M. (1987) Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior,
and work performance among commission salespeople.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 615±621.
Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995) A typology of deviant
workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555±572.
Robinson, S.L and Greenberg, J. (1998) Employees behaving
badly: Dimensions, determinants, and dilemmas in the study
of workplace deviance. In C.L. Cooper and D.M. Rousseau
(eds) Trends in Organizational Behavior. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Sackett, P.R., Zedeck, S. and Fogli, L. (1988) Relationships
between measures of typical and maximum performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 482±486.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983) Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68, 653±663.
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F.L. and Ones, D.S. (1999) The role
of halo error in interdimensional ratings: The case of job
performance ratings examined via meta-analysis.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002