Journal of Management & Organization

http://journals.cambridge.org/JMO

Additional services for Journal of Management &

Organization:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Counterproductive work behavior and job satisfaction: A surprisingly rocky

relationship

Joanna Czarnota-Bojarska

Journal of Management & Organization / Volume 21 / Issue 04 / July 2015, pp 460 - 470
DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2015.15, Published online: 03 June 2015

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1833367215000152

How to cite this article:

Joanna Czarnota-Bojarska (2015). Counterproductive work behavior and job satisfaction: A
surprisingly rocky relationship. Journal of Management & Organization, 21, pp 460-470
doi:10.1017/jmo.2015.15

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/JMO, IP address: 128.111.121.42 on 13 May 2016

Journal of Management & Organization, 21:4 (2015), pp. 460–470
© 2015 Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management
doi:10.1017/jmo.2015.15

Counterproductive work behavior and job satisfaction: A surprisingly rocky relationship

JOANNA CZARNOTA-BOJARSKA

Abstract
Counterproductive work behavior is detrimental to the organization or to coworkers. It includes
both breaking rules or laws, as well as social norms. Many authors show a negative relationship
between this behavior and work satisfaction, surmising that the lack thereof – and the ensuing
desire to ‘get back’ at the employer – are the seeds of workplace deviance. A study carried out in
Polish organizations found this relationship to be less clear. The study concerned work satisfaction
and counterproductive behavior, organizational justice, stress at work and propensity for aggressive
behavior. A cluster analysis identified a group of individuals in whom relatively high levels of job
satisfaction are nevertheless accompanied by proclivity for counterproductive behavior. The
configuration of results suggests that this group resorts to counterproductive behavior because of an
inability to balance difficulties at work with personal inclinations. The implications of these results
for personal management is discussed in the conclusions.

Keywords: job satisfaction, organizational behavior, organizational justice, stress,

counterproductive work behavior

Received 3 November 2013. Accepted 20 February 2015

INTRODUCTION

W hile at work, employees have the opportunity to exhibit a full spectrum of behavior. Employers
expect that this behavior will benefit the firm and will involve the meticulous fulfillment of duties and
undertaking various other activities to foster the success of the organization. Employees, however, also harbor
the potential for behavior that is inappropriate and harmful to the firm and their coworkers. The causes and
types of such behavior have long been a subject of interest in organizational psychology. Collectively, such
actions are known as Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB; Spector, Bauer, & Fox, 2010).
The aim of the present study was to explore if CWB could be accompanied with relatively high work
satisfaction. This seems to be a paradox, because CWB is commonly treated as a response to unpleasant
incidents or situations (Spector & Fox, 2002). For some workers, however, the possibility to unburden
the stress of negative emotions by CWB – especially with no adverse consequences – could be a basis
for a positive attitude toward the organization and for satisfaction. To identify these workers, a cluster
analysis was conducted.

The nature of CWB

Research on CWB to date has focused primarily on behavior directed against the organization and on
interpersonal aggression (e.g., Spector, 1975). Robinson and Bennett (1995) classified several such

University of Warsaw, Faculty of Psychology, Warszawa, Poland

Corresponding author: joanna@psych.uw.edu.pl

460 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

 Counterproductive work behavior and job satisfaction

behaviors under the term ‘deviant behavior.’ The widely accepted and frequently quoted typology
developed in that study proposed two dimensions of deviant behavior: against whom it is directed
(organizational/interpersonal), and gravity of the offense (minor/serious). Further research by theese
authors (Bennett & Robinson, 2000) empirically confirmed the existence of such a delineation. Minor
organizational offenses include extending breaks, leaving early, intentionally working slowly, wasting
supplies and gossiping about the organization with outsiders. Serious organizational offenses usually
cause measurable damage (e.g., sabotage, theft, embezzlement). Minor interpersonal offenses can
broadly be understood as a lack of fair play (e.g., favoritism, gossiping, unfair competition, blame
laying and causing disruptions at work). Serious interpersonal offenses are actions explicitly forbidden
at work (e.g., molestation, insults, theft, harassment).

Sources of CWB
The most relevant question in terms of maintaining the functional efficiency of the organization and in
fostering productive relations between coworkers is determining the causes and sources of counter-
productive behavior. Researchers look for them within both dispositional and situational factors and in
the interaction of the two realms.
Dispositional traits studied include age and education. Meta-analyses confirm that age consistently
correlates negatively with CWB, regardless of category. Older workers are less likely to indulge in
aggression, absenteeism or negligence than are younger workers (Ng & Feldman, 2008). Education levels
do not correlate with CWB as clearly. In fact, negative coefficients of the relationship have been found,
indicating that higher education levels are linked to lower CWB for the general index. Partial indexes like
aggression and absenteeism, however, show consistently negative results (Ng & Feldman, 2009).
The Big Five is a useful starting point for an overview of the personality traits that can induce
counterproductive behavior. Meta-analyses carried out by Salgado (2002) and Berry, Ones, and Sackett
(2007), indicate that neuroticism, agreeableness and conscientiousness are the personality traits most
closely linked to counterproductive behavior. Berry, Ones, and Sackett distinguished interpersonal and
organizational offenses in order to demonstrate that conscientiousness shows a markedly stronger
correlation (negative, of course) with organizational than interpersonal offenses, while agreeableness has
the opposite results. Neuroticism, in turn, relates positively to both types of CWB to a similar degree.
The study by Berry, Ones, and Sackett (2007) also identifies fairness perception as a situational variable.
Although weaker than the two aforementioned personality traits, its relationship with CWB is nevertheless
noteworthy. Perceptions of organizational justice turn out to be particularly relevant both at the inter-
personal (e.g., respect from supervisors) and the procedural levels (e.g., influence on the decision-making
process). The study also confirmed that the link between work experience and counterproductive behavior
is stronger for organizational than interpersonal offenses. The interactive effects of the work environment
and personality were addressed by Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, and Barrick (2004). This study showed
that conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism either weaken or strengthen the relationship
between an unfavorably perceived work environment and counterproductive behavior.
Bowling and Eschleman (2010) also attribute counterproductive behavior to a negatively perceived
work environment, but more so to stress. The authors demonstrated that CWB is closely tied to
feelings of repression at work, to an inability to carry out the job, and to a rise in interpersonal
conflicts. The personality traits of conscientiousness and negative affectivity have a significant mod-
erating effect: individuals with high conscientiousness and low negative affectivity are much less likely
to respond to work stressors with CWB.
Fine, Horowitz, Weigler, and Basis (2010) explored the extent to which integrity lies at the root
of CWB, demonstrating that high integrity is tied to low proclivity for counterproductive behavior.
The study also examined the interaction of integrity with other situational variables, including the

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 461

 Joanna Czarnota-Bojarska

degree of involvement in work and perceived levels of job security. Results confirmed the interaction
between situational variables and integrity: employees with high integrity exhibited less counter-
productive behavior even when not deeply engaged in or secure about their positions. Among
employees with low integrity, however, an inclination to CWB related clearly to situational variables:
the less involvement in work and job security, the more CWB.
Many researchers have sought to associate counterproductive behavior with negative reactions, namely
anger and aggression, brought on by stress and negative work situations. (Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006;
Gilboa, Shirom, Fried, & Cooper, 2008; Reisel, Probst, Swee-Lim, Maloles, & König, 2010). Aquino,
Galperin, and Bennett (2004) found trait aggressiveness to be an important predictor of workplace-deviant
behavior. In recent years, however, attention has increasingly been paid to other possible causes for CWB:
boredom and inadequate stimulation at work. Initial empirical data supporting this school of thought can
be found in Salgado’s (2002) meta-analysis, which, in corroborating the relationship between Big Five
traits and various types of counterproductive behavior, verified that openness to experience correlates
positively to accident proneness and inappropriate behavior such as consuming alcohol on the job. Rodel
and Judge (2009), studying the roles various stressors play, confirmed that jobs requiring less attention or
involvement have higher rates of counterproductive behavior.
Bruursema, Kessler, and Spector (2011) took the unique angle of combining the dispositional and
situational traits associated with a need for stimulation. This study attributed counterproductive behavior
to boredom, treating CWB as an additional source of stimulation or as a potentially functional means of
adding variety to a dull job. The authors determined, however, that boredom stems not only from the
nature of responsibilities, but that it can also be fueled by individual predispositions that they termed
‘propensity for boredom.’ The authors employed a survey that distinguished an internal propensity for
boredom (e.g., inability to independently find cognitive stimulation) from an external propensity (e.g.,
expecting strong stimulation from surroundings). The survey also determined how respondents viewed
their jobs in terms of routine and boredom. Results showed that external propensity for boredom
moderated the link between counterproductive behavior and boredom: at low levels of external propensity
for boredom (in other words weak need for external stimuli), boredom at work does not link to CWB.
However, at high external propensity for boredom, counterproductive behavior increased with boredom.
This brief perusal of existing research suggests that counterproductive behavior can be fueled by
unmet expectations (stress, boredom) of individuals who lack the necessary tools (high neuroticism,
low conscientiousness, high need for stimulation) to cope with them. This particular configuration
triggers not necessarily conscious revenge mechanisms that fuel behavior that is harmful to the
organization and to coworkers (Bordia, Restubog, & Tang, 2008). Studies examining revenge as a
direct source of counterproductive behavior (Hung, Chi, & Lu, 2009; Jones, 2009), confirm that it is
inexorably linked with the intensification of CWB.

CWB and satisfaction

The problems of definitions, measures and origins of work satisfaction have been studied by psychologists
for almost a century (e.g., see a review by Hoppock, 1935). Work satisfaction as stated by Staw (1984) is
the most commonly investigated dependent variable in industrial–organizational psychology. It can be
treated as a derivative both of permanent personality traits (e.g., the negative association of satisfaction with
neuroticism and positive with extraversion: Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), and of the work situation
(e.g., types of duties, behavior of management, degree of involvement: Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim,
& Carson, 2002).
The relationship between work satisfaction and counterproductive behavior, it seems, should con-
sistently be negative. Meta-analyses (e.g., Dalal, 2005) confirm this result, although the coefficients
reported are not very high. Detailed studies substantiate the interactive influence of various kinds of traits

462 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

 Counterproductive work behavior and job satisfaction

on this relationship. The moderating effect of conscientiousness was demonstrated by Bowling (2010): for
respondents with low conscientiousness the relationship between job satisfaction and CWB was negative
(the less satisfaction, the more counterproductive behavior), while for those with high conscientiousness,
this relationship was marginally positive (the more job satisfaction, the more counterproductive behavior).
The interactive influence of conscientiousness, agreeableness and extraversion and job satisfaction on
counterproductive behavior was shown by Mount, Ilies, and Johnson (2006). Other works confirm the
combined influence on CWB of satisfaction and commitment (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006) or
satisfaction and perceptions of interpersonal justice (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006).

Research questions
The basic purpose of this study was to determine whether it is possible to identify a group of individuals in
whom high job satisfaction can be accompanied by relatively high proclivity for counterproductive
behavior. This expectation seems reasonable given that CWB can occur in reaction to unpleasant incidents
(Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007) or in pursuit of stimulation during moments of passing boredom (Rodel
& Judge, 2009). It is possible to hypothesize that high work satisfaction in these individuals can stem
precisely from the fact that certain types of inappropriate behavior are socially acceptable in their circles,
enabling them to maintain a high comfort zone. In subsequent steps, it would be worthwhile to ascertain
whether differences exist between dispositional traits and attitudes toward work and toward the organi-
zation among individuals with varying levels of satisfaction and counterproductive behavior. To these ends
and in light of the preliminary, exploratory, nature of the presentresearch, stress at work and organizational
justice were selected for the study from variables related to work while propensity for aggression was
selected for study from dispositional variables. The work pressure (stress) and perceived unfairness of
organizational rules (organizational justice) were chosen from variables mentioned in research exploring the
revenge hypothesis (Bordia, Restubog, & Tang, 2008; Hung, Chi, & Lu, 2009; Jones, 2009). The
propensity for aggression was selected because of its close relationship to low agreeableness and anger,
mentioned as antecedents of CWB (Aquino, Galperin, & Bennett, 2004; Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006;
Gilboa et al., 2008; Reisel et al., 2010).

METHOD
Sample
There were 212 respondents, 149 (75.65%) women, all of whom were administrative/office workers,
aged 23 to 65 years, with an average age of 43 years. They were employed by a local government
institution, located in Warsaw, Poland.

Procedure
The survey was fully anonymous. The respondents were handed the survey in an envelope and asked to
drop off the sealed responses in a designated container. This step was taken in order to assure the
respondents of there being no possibility of identifying their answers. Only index data concerning
gender, age and years worked at the present position were collected.

Measures
Propensity for aggressive behavior
A scale comprising 21 questions concerning reactions to ones’ own or others’ anger, irritation or vexation
directly related to manifestations of aggression and openly referring to such behavior, was employed
(Janiak, 2003). Sample items include: ‘In a fierce debate I happen to lose control of myself,’ ‘When I’m

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 463

 Joanna Czarnota-Bojarska

angry, slap the door’ or ‘I fall in anger easily.’ Respondents rated each question on a 4-point scale from
1 = ‘I definitely agree’ 4 = ‘I definitely disagree.’ The psychometric properties of this scale were verified in
earlier studies (e.g., among professional drivers: Janiak, 2003), which confirmed that scores relate to
accident proneness. The Cronbach’s α was 0.91 in the validation study and 0.89 in the present study.

Stress at work
The scale was constructed based on the Polish adaptation of the Occupational Stress Indicator – OSI-2
(Widerszal-Bazyl, 2001). The resulting questionnaire comprised 41 descriptions of situations or factors
that could be potential sources of stress at work. Respondents were asked to consider each question on a
6-point scale (0 = ‘this does not occur at my work’, 1 = ‘this occurs at my work but is decidedly not a
source of tension for me’ to 5 = ‘this occurs at my work and is decidedly a source of tension for me’).
Questions concerned managing others, physical working conditions, opportunities for advancement,
support from supervisors and coworkers, and work-life balance. Answers marked 0 – this does not occur at
my work, were discarded and the average value was calculated from the remaining ratings. The higher the
score, the higher the levels of perceptible tension at work. The Cronbach’s α in the present study was 0.92.

Organizational justice
On the basis of tools measuring organizational justice proposed by Colquitt (2001), we created an
abridged, Polish version comprising eight questions relating to four aspects of organizational justice:
procedural (e.g., ‘Were procedures consistent with earlier agreements?’); distributional (e.g., ‘Does your
salary reflect your contribution to the organization?’), interpersonal (e.g., ‘Was your supervisor candid
in discussing your salary?’) and informational (e.g., ‘Did your supervisor explicitly explain the terms
governing salary?’). Respondents were asked to select one out of five answers, from 1 = ‘decidedly no,’
to 5 = ‘decidedly yes.’ The score for perceived organizational justice was the average of eight questions
included in the scale. The higher the score, the higher the perception of organizational justice at the
organization. The Cronbach’s α in the present study was 0.83.

Work satisfaction
The same scale was used as in earlier studies (Czarnota-Bojarska, 2010). This scale contains seven items
that pertain to the following aspects of work: earnings, opportunities for advancement, independence
at work, opportunities for learning, relations with supervisors, relations with coworkers, feelings of job
security. Respondents were asked to answer on a scale from 1 = ‘I am very unsatisfied’ to 7 = ‘I am
very satisfied’. The overall result was the average from all the questions on the scale. The higher the
result the higher the level of job satisfaction. The Cronbach’s α in the present study was 0.77.

Counterproductive behavior
A preliminary list of questions was formulated based on examples cited by Robinson and Bennett
(1995). It consisted exclusively of descriptions of behaviors that break some rule or regulation (e.g.,
I arrive at work late). Questions that show refraining from optional behavior (e.g., I don’t help my
coworkers with their duties) were not employed. We were guided by comments formulated by Spector,
Bauer, and Fox (2010). Care was taken that the descriptions pertained to concrete behavior, as opposed
to personal views or positions.
A total of 33 descriptions of counterproductive behavior involving serious or minor organizational or
interpersonal offenses was formulated. Examples from each category are:
∙ Minor organizational offenses: ‘Making personal use of company property’ (12 items total).
∙ Serious organizational offenses: ‘Dishonest billing and expense reporting and other financial questions’
(10 items).

464 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

 Counterproductive work behavior and job satisfaction

∙ Minor interpersonal offenses: ‘Gossiping about coworkers/supervisors’ (five items total).

∙ Serious interpersonal offenses: ‘Harassing a coworker for no reason’ (six items total).
The categories were intermixed. Responses were provided on a 5-point scale, where 1 = ‘I never did this,’
2 = ‘I did this once,’ 3 = ‘I did this a few times,’ 4 = ‘I did this occasionally,’ 5 = ‘I did this frequently.’

RESULTS
A preliminary perusal of responses showed that a significant majority of respondents usually
answered 1 – I never did this to the counterproductive behavior items. This is understandable given the
lack of social acceptance for CWB, although it could be expected that anonymity would encourage
truthfulness. Moreover, it seems reasonable that the type of behavior in which the decided majority of
respondents denied participating, actually occurs very rarely. For example, questions to which over
95% of those surveyed answered ‘1 = never’ include:
∙ harassing a coworker for no reason;
∙ impeding a coworker on purpose;
∙ sabotaging the employers organizational work;
∙ spreading rumors/false information about the organization.
Factor analysis did not confirm the existence of the four forecasted behavior groups (minor orga-
nizational, serious organizational, minor interpersonal, serious interpersonal). Given such a clearly
skewed distribution of variables, exploratory analysis predictably presented a multifactorial, unin-
terpretable solution. The basic descriptive statistics for the indicator of CWB counted as the mean of
all items show the distribution is skewed to the right. The value of the mean is 1.60, standard deviation
0.38, skewness 1.01 with standard error 0.17. Because of the skewed distribution any further para-
metric analysis was unreasonable. It was therefore decided to limit analyses to those items to which
‘never’ responses did not exceed 55%. This condition was applied exclusively based on the analysis of
the frequency of answers to specific items. Therefore, an average result was calculated based on
questions selected in this way and this became the indicator for CWB. Ultimately, the indicator of
proclivity for counterproductive behavior comprised the following questions (parentheses show the
aggregate percentage of positive – i.e., not ‘never’ – responses):
∙ negatively speaking about my firm to third parties (44.6%);
∙ spending time loafing instead of carrying out my assigned tasks (48.8%);
∙ taking care of private matters during work hours (50.2%);
∙ extending breaks (55.9%);
∙ talking about my company’s problems with outsiders (62.4%);
∙ complaining during crisis moments at work (76.5%);
∙ arriving late to work (78.9%);
∙ using company equipment for private use (79.3%);
∙ gossiping about coworkers and/or management (81.2%).
The basic descriptive statistics for the indicator of CWB counted as the mean of items listed above
show the distribution is close to normal. The value of the mean is 2.46, the standard deviation 0.74,
skewness 0.18 with standard error 0.16.
The Pearson correlation of work satisfaction and CWB was −0.220, which is statistically significant
(p < .001) but weak. A search for groups of different configurations of the both variables seemeds
reasonable. The indicator of counterproductive behavior was included, together with a general index of
work satisfaction, in a cluster analysis. Four clusters were identified by k-means clustering, forming

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 465

 Joanna Czarnota-Bojarska

clusters that were similar in size, but had differing levels of the analyzed variables. The final centroids
are shown in the table below.
Cluster 1 (Avengers): displayed relatively low levels of work satisfaction and high levels of coun-
terproductive behavior. It can be said that these are individuals who, predictably, ‘get back’ at the
organization and coworkers because they perceive their work as unsatisfactory.
Cluster 2 (Self-Confident): is the group predicted to stand out: individuals whose high levels of job
satisfaction are nevertheless accompanied by inclinations toward counterproductive behavior.
Cluster 3 (Satisfied): is, in turn, a reversal of the first cluster: higher job satisfaction is accompanied
by low proclivity for counterproductive behavior. These individuals give no reason to suspect that they
present a threat to their organization or coworkers.
Cluster 4 (Withdrawn): is characterized by the lowest level of job satisfaction, but this is not
accompanied by a proclivity for counterproductive behavior; in fact, this group exhibited the lowest
amount of such behavior (Table 1).
In subsequent analyses of the differing levels of dispositional and situational variables in specific clusters,
it is the potential differences between the Avengers and the Withdrawn as well as the Satisfied and the Self-
Confident that seem most interesting. The first pair both exhibit relatively low levels of job satisfaction but
have different levels of proclivity for CWB. The second pair, in turn, are satisfied employees, some of
whom are nevertheless prone to behave in a way that is harmful to the organization and to coworkers.
With regard to levels of perceived tension at work, both a notable primary effect in the one-way
variance analysis, as well as interesting differences between clusters (see Table 2) were noted. The
Avenger and Self-Confident clusters had the highest and nearly identical levels of tension, while the
Satisfied and Withdrawn clusters had significantly lower, though also very similar, levels of tension.
These results indicate that higher levels of tension at work correlate with increased proclivity for
counterproductive behavior regardless of perceived job satisfaction.

TABLE 1. RESULTS OF THE CLUSTER ANALYSIS

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

(Avengers) (Self-Confident) (Satisfied) (Withdrawn)

Work satisfaction 3.22 4.62 5.77 4.40

CWB 2.89 3.04 2.19 1.76
N 52 55 43 62

TABLE 2. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR STRESS IN CLUSTERS

Mean SD

Avengers 3.05a 0.72

Self-Confident 2.89b 0.65
Satisfied 2.17ab 0.66
Withdrawn 2.09ab 0.79
Total 2.66 0.80

Note: F = 12.21, p < .000.

Means with the same superscripts differ on p < .05 level.

466 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

 Counterproductive work behavior and job satisfaction

TABLE 3. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE IN CLUSTERS

Mean SD

Avengers 2.39abc 0.69

Self-Confident 3.07a 0.75
Satisfied 3.37b 0.89
Withdrawn 3.06c 0.77
Total 2.94 0.84

Note: F = 8.05, p < .000.

Means with the same superscripts differ on p < .05 level.

TABLE 4. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR AGGRESSION IN CLUSTERS

Mean SD

Avengers 1.96ab 0.32

Self-Confident 1.86c 0.35
Satisfied 1.64ac 0.20
Withdrawn 1.71b 0.31
Total 1.82 0.32

Note: F = 6.09, p < .001.

Means with the same superscripts differ on p < .05 level.

The Avengers also turned out to harbor the lowest perceptions of organizational justice. Analysis of
this variable also resulted in a notable primary effect of one-way variance analysis (see Table 3). The
highest average appraisal of organizational justice was seen in the Satisfied cluster, followed by mar-
ginally lower results in the Self-Confident and Withdrawn clusters. The Avengers showed substantively
lower scores, confirming the hypothesis that ‘getting back’ is a mechanism of proclivity for counter-
productive behavior in this group.
Analysis of the inclination toward aggression showed a very different pattern of results. The main
effect of one-way variance analysis proved significant (see Table 4). The Avengers and Self-Confident
clusters were most inclined to indulge in aggressive behavior. In the pairs of interest to this study, two
significant differences were noted: the Withdrawn were less likely to be aggressive than the Avengers
and the Satisfied were more likely to be aggressive than the Self-Confident. This demonstrates that
inclinations toward aggression can lead to counterproductive behavior regardless of their potential
objective causes or levels of work satisfaction.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research was twofold: to ascertain whether the fundamental cause for counter-
productive behavior is work dissatisfaction and – once established that it is not – to determine whether
there are other factors linked to this behavior. Both goals were accomplished, despite certain difficulties
stemming from the overall low frequency of CWB as a result of which only those examples of
counterproductive behavior that appear relatively frequently were ultimately included in the analysis.
The groups created in the cluster analysis differ both in terms of satisfaction and CWB in such a way
as to represent every expected combination of variables. The Self-Confident group, which shows both

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 467

 Joanna Czarnota-Bojarska

substantial proclivity toward counterproductive behavior and relatively high job satisfaction, is of
greatest interest to this study. In terms of perceptions of organizational fairness, this group had similar
results as the Satisfied group (high satisfaction + low CWB). However, in terms of perceived tension at
work and inclination toward aggressive behavior, their scores aligned more closely with the Avengers
group (low satisfaction + high CWB).
This particular configuration of results suggests that the Self-Confident group resorts to counter-
productive behavior because of an inability to balance difficulties at work with personal inclinations.
Moreover, this group may resort to CWB without any deeper awareness that such actions are
potentially harmful to the organization and/or to coworkers whom they clearly hold in high regard.
These motives are fundamentally unique and require a different correctional approach than those
which drive the Avengers, who are not only inclined toward CWB but also have low job satisfaction,
low perceptions of organizational fairness, high perceptions of tension at work and substantial incli-
nations toward aggression. It can be surmised that the Avengers consciously undertake actions against
surroundings that they perceive as unsatisfactory (Brees, Mackey, & Martinko, 2013).
The difference between the two groups is particularly relevant in terms of planning countermeasures
at the organizational level. For the Self-Confident group, this includes increasing awareness of the harm
caused by this type of behavior, changing the scope of responsibilities or how they are carried out in
order to reduce stress levels, and introducing less destructive ways of managing aggression. The
Avengers, in turn, require a more fundamental reaction whose objective is increasing levels of work
satisfaction and garnering greater respect for the organization and coworkers. Only once the funda-
mental source of CWB is removed is it possible to expect a reduction of these behaviors in this group
(Howard & Wech, 2012).
The Withdrawn group (low satisfaction + low CWB) is also interesting. Compared with the other
groups, these respondents perceive low stress at work and have low inclinations toward aggressive
behavior. Although this group has low work satisfaction, there are no triggers of counterproductive
behavior in the guise of stress and aggression. In fact, the relatively low work satisfaction among the
Withdrawn can often pass unnoticed by management precisely because it is not signaled in any way
that is overtly harmful or threatening to the organization (Sommers, Schell, & Vodanovich, 2002).
This, however, in no way indicates, that the problem does not exist. Future studies should examine
whether employees from this group exhibit other tendencies and behaviors (e.g., desire to change jobs,
low involvement) that are not beneficial in the long run. Presumably, such tendencies or behaviors will
be revealed at the least expected moments, and will therefore be perceived as unreasonable and
incomprehensible. Preventative measures to increase job satisfaction in this group should successfully
ward off such superficially unexpected situations.
This explorative study sought to assess whether expectations formulated on the basis of the analysis
of significantly divergent research results is meaningful. Subsequent steps should test these results on a
wider group of respondents, including non-office workers. Other factors, both situational and dis-
positional, should also be considered. A limitation of the research is the self-descriptive nature of all the
measures. It would be worthwhile to explore the problem using external, observational measure of
CWB. Initial conclusions that can be drawn already, but still warrant further precision, are extremely
relevant for management. A better understanding of the mechanisms and sources fueling undesirable
behavior will allow for planning and carrying out more effective measures to prevent it.

References
Aquino, K., Galperin, B. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2004). Social status and aggressiveness as moderators of the relationship
between interactional justice and workplace ddeviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(5), 1001–1029.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(3), 349–360.

468 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION

 Counterproductive work behavior and job satisfaction

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(2), 410–424.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees strike back: Investigating mediating mechanisms
between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1104–1117.
Bowling, N. (2010). Effects of job satisfaction and conscientiousness on extra-role behaviors. Journal of Business
Psychology, 25(1), 119–130.
Bowling, N. A., & Eschleman, K. J. (2010). Employee personality as a moderator of the relationships between work
stressors and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 91–103.
Brees, J. R., Mackey, J., & Martinko, M. J. (2013). An attributional perspective of aggression in organizations. Journal
Of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 252–272.
Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviors link: Are conflicts with
supervisors and coworkers the same? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(2), 145–156.
Bruursema, K., Kessler, S. R., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Bored employees misbehaving: The relationship between
boredom and counterproductive work behaviour. Work Stress, 25(2), 93–107.
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(4), 599–609.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: Aconstruct validation of a measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.
Czarnota-Bojarska, J. (2010). Person-organization fit and organizational identity (Dopasowanie człowiek – organizacja i
tożsamość organizacyjna). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counter-
productive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241–1255.
Fine, S., Horowitz, I., Weigler, H., & Basis, L. (2010). Is good character good enough? The effects of situational
variables on the relationship between integrity and counterproductive work behaviors. Human Resource Management
Review, 20(1), 73–84.
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance:
Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 227–271.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons
of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305–325.
Hoppock, E. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.
Howard, J., & Wech, B. (2012). A model of organizational and job environment influences on workplace violence.
Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 24(2), 111–127.
Hung, T., Chi, N., & Lu, W. (2009). Exploring the relationships between perceived coworker loafing and counter-
productive work behaviors: The mediating role of a revenge motive. Journal of Business Psychology, 24(3), 257–270.
Janiak, K. (2003). Do aggressive driver committed more accidents? Relation between aggression and temperament on the basis of
EAS theory by Buss and Plomin (Czy agresywni kierowcy powodują więcej wypadków? Związek teorii agresji i temperamentu
na podstawie teorii EAS Bussa i Plomina). Unpublished manuscript. Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw,
Warszawa.
Jones, D. A. (2009). Getting even with one's supervisor and one's organization: Relationships among types of injustice,
desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 525–542.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541.
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(1), 126–138.
Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P. (2002). Assessing the construct validity of the
job descriptive index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 14–32.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors:
The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 591–622.
Ng, T. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(2), 392–423.
Ng, T. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). How broadly does education contribute to job performance? Personnel Psychology,
62(1), 89–134.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 469

 Joanna Czarnota-Bojarska

Reisel, W. D., Probst, T. M., Swee-Lim, C., Maloles, C. M., & König, C. J. (2010). The effects of job insecurity on job
satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, and negative emotions of employees. International
Studies of Management Organization, 40(1), 74–91.
Robinson, S., & Bennett, R. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.
Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can ‘good’ stressors spark ‘bad’ behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links
of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(6), 1438–1451.
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of
Selection Assessment, 10(1/2), 117–125.
Sommers, J. A., Schell, T. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2002). Developing a measure of individual differences in
organizational revenge. Journal Of Business & Psychology, 17(2), 207–222.
Spector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions of employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(5), 635–637.
Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work
behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(4), 781–790.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior some parallels between
counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12,
269–292.
Staw, B. (1984). Organizational behavior: A review and reformulation of the field’s outcome variables. Annual Review of
Psychology, 35, 627–666.
Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R. S. (2007). Who helps and harms whom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal
helping and harming in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 952–966.
Widerszal-Bazyl, M. (2001). Polish adaptation of Occupational Stress Indicator – OSI-2 (Podręcznik do testu „Stres w
pracy”. Polska adaptacja skróconej wersji Occupational Stress Indicator – OSI-2). Warszawa: CIOP.

470 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION