Employees behaving badly - personality and counterproductive
work behaviours
Andrew Marty Managing Director
SACS Consulting
SACS Consulting
• Human Resource Management Consulting Firm – Executive Search and Selection. – Human Resource Management Consulting.
The Science of People Management
Offerings
Objectives
• To consider the importance of counterproductive work behaviours (CWBs)
• To consider the relationship between personality and CWBs
• To outline the results of the SACS 2011 research project into CWBs and personality
• To outline what all this means and where to from here.
Employees behaving badly - CWBs
• CWBs matter! Bullying, harassment, theft, dodging work, etc
• Links between minor CWBs – incivility and major CWBs – sexual harassment
• Badly behaving employees affect the behaviours of other employees…………..
Mirror neurons, yawning, and emotional contagion
Icare4autism (2008) ‘Broken Mirror Neurons Linked to Autism?’ Retrieved May, 16, 2011, from http://icare4autism.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/broken-mirror-neurons-linked-to-autism/
CWBs
• More CWBs mean less OCBs……………….
• Dalal, R.S. (2005) A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 6, 1241–1255
Recruitment approaches - Integrity
Integrity tests • Surprisingly predictive of job success
– .41 by themselves and when coupled with cognitive ability tests .65. They add together well because they are assessing such different things.
– They get more predictive over the years. Bizarre but true!
• Aim to eliminate candidates with negative characteristics – up to 90% in some studies
• Targeting candidates with positive attitudes – i.e. organisational citizenship behaviours.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703.
Examples
• Overt – they ask rude questions – EG Reid Report – People with high integrity can’t believe that people
answer yes to these things, but they do! – Excellent results in terms of eliminating people with
negative characteristics – Also identifies those who are likely to be exemplary
citizens • Personality based – slightly less accurate, considerably
less confronting, much longer to complete.
Integrity tests
• Well worth doing • Are they really measuring “integrity”? The
questions typically relate to CWBs. The term “integrity” can be misleading.
• Questions about their currency. The world of research into CWBs has moved on.
More recent research into CWBs – employees or employer………
• 10 areas of CWBs turn out to be very common: 1. Lateness – unpunctuality 2. Not attending work when not too sick to do so 3. Inability to get on with others 4. Being distracted from core work tasks 5. Incivility – intentional impoliteness or disrespect to others 6. Theft of organisation property 7. Ignoring OHS policies and practices 8. Being openly critical of the employer 9. Ignoring broader work policies or practices 10. Incivility - ignoring or snubbing other employees Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 11(1), 0-42
Previous research into personality and CWBs
• Strong links identified in three different countries – using different measures of CWB – employee integrity index
• Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Morrison, D. L., Cordery, D., & Dunlop, P. D. (2008). Predicting integrity with the HEXACO personality model: Use of self- and observer reports. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 147-167
The first part of the SACS study – an Australian measure for CWBs…..
Key points:
• N = 2049 – big enough to form a normative sample
• 1120 male participants • 929 female participants • Average age of participants = 43 years • Average time to complete = 50 minutes • Candidates on our employee database • Questions relating to the 10 areas of CWB and
the personality dimensions as assessed by HEXACO personality inventory.
1. I am late for appointments
.2% 3.1%
17.8%
55.0%
24.0%
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 0.2% 3.1% 17.8% 55% 24%
Cumulative percentage 0.2% 3.3% 21.1% 76% 100%
2. When I have been ill but not so ill that I could not attend work, I have taken a sick day
0.7% 3.0%
22.1%
47.3%
27.0%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage .7% 3% 22.1% 47.3% 27%
Cumulative percentage .7% 3.7% 25.7% 73% 100%
3. I have left jobs in the past because I could not get on with someone I worked with
0.1% 1.9%
20.2%
33.8%
44.0%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage .1% 1.9% 20.2% 33.8% 44%
Cumulative percentage
.1% 2% 22.2% 56.0% 100%
4. When I am at work I have found myself distracted by activities such as conversing with colleagues on non-work related matters
1.0%
7.7%
52.2%
36.1%
3.0%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 1% 7.7% 52.2% 36.1% 3%
Cumulative percentage 1% 8.7% 60.9% 97.0% 100%
5. I have found it necessary to be impolite to others at work
0.3% 0.8%
14.3%
51.1%
33.3%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage .3% 0.8% 14.3% 51.1% 33.3%
Cumulative percentage .3% 1.2% 15.5% 66.7% 100%
6. I have taken the property of organisations I have worked for
0.3% 0.8%
10.3%
43.9% 44.7%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage .3% 0.8% 10.3% 43.9% 44.7%
Cumulative percentage .3% 1.1% 11.4% 55.3% 100%
7. I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health and Safety rules at work
0.4% 1.7
19.2
46.3
32.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 0.4% 1.7% 19.2% 46.3% 32.3%
Cumulative percentage 0.4% 2.1% 21.4% 67.7% 100%
8. I have been critical of organisations I have worked for to others
0.6
7.5
49.6
35.8
6.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 0.6% 7.5% 49.6% 35.8% 6.5%
Cumulative percentage 0.6% 8.1% 57.7% 93.5% 100%
9. I have ignored or got around policies at work which I did not respect
0.4
6.9
38.7 39.6
14.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 0.4% 6.9% 38.7% 39.6% 14.3%
Cumulative percentage 0.4% 7.4% 46.1% 85.7% 100%
10. If I don’t like someone at work I have ignored or snubbed them
0.6
4.6
35.8
45.8
13.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 0.6% 4.6% 35.8% 45.8% 13.2%
Cumulative percentage 0.6% 5.3% 41% 86.6% 100%
Two facets of CWB Structure matrix Component 1 Component 2 Facet 10. If I don’t like someone at work I have ignored or snubbed them
0.684 Interpersonal 5. I have found it necessary to be impolite to others at work
0.669 Interpersonal
9. I have ignored or got around policies at work which I did not respect
0.606 0.341 Interpersonal
8. I have been critical of organisations I worked for to others
0.568 0.493 Organisational 3. I have left jobs in the past because I could not get on with someone I worked with 0.566
Interpersonal
7. I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health and Safety rules at work 0.553 0.478
Organisational
4. When I am at work I have found myself distracted by activities such as conversing with colleagues on non work-related matters
0.69 Organisational 1.I am late for appointments 0.593
Organisational
2. When I have been ill but not so ill that I could not attend work, I have taken a sick day 0.577
Organisational
6. I have taken the property of organisations I have worked for 0.45 0.541
Organisational
Distribution of total CWB scale
Distribution of Interpersonal CWB scale
Distribution of Organisational CWB scale
Gender differences? Age differences?
Counterproductive work behaviours: The differences between males and females
2.11
2.14
2.10
2.15
2.04
2.22
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.25
Total CWB scale means Interpersonal CWB scalemeans*
Organisational CWB scalemeans*
Males
Females
* Statistically significant difference p<.000
N= 2049
Total CWB Scale- Gender and age differences
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.25
30 years or younger 31-40 years 41-50 years 51 years or older
Male
Female
Interpersonal CWB Scale- Gender and age differences
1.75
1.8
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
30 years or younger 31-40 years 41-50 years 51 years or older
Male
Female
Organisational CWB Scale- Gender and age differences
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.25
2.3
2.35
30 years or younger 31-40 years 41-50 years 51 years or older
Male
Female
Evidence Based Leadership SACS Consulting is carbon neutral certified.
How does the CWB scale relate to an overt integrity test?
CWB scale and Reid Report: Convergent Validity
Total CWB scale Interpersonal CWB scale Organisational CWB scale
Reid Report -.337* -.338* -0.232
N= 40; * = sig <.05
There is a statistical relationship between the CWB scale and the Reid Report (overt integrity test).
Personality – Australian norms
Lee and Ashton’s HEXACO
1: Honesty-Humility
• Sincerity
• Fairness
• Greed Avoidance
• Modesty
2: Emotionality
• Fearfulness
• Anxiety
• Dependence
• Sentimentality
3: Extraversion
• Social Self-Esteem
• Social Boldness
• Sociability
• Liveliness
4: Agreeableness
• Forgiveness
• Gentleness
• Flexibility
• Patience
5: Conscientiousness • Organization
• Diligence
• Perfectionism
• Prudence
6: Openness to Experience
• Aesthetic Appreciation
• Inquisitiveness
• Creativity
• Unconventionality
7: (Interstitial scale)
• Altruism
HEXACO FACTORS: Australian Professional Population vs Canadian General Population
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Honesty-Humility Emotionality Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness toExperience
Altruism
Australian Professional Population Means Canadian General Population Means
HEXACO FACETS: Australian Professional Population vs Canadian General Population
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Australian professional population means (n=2049) Canadian general population means (n=887)
Gender differences: HEXACO Factors
Honesty-Humility Emotionality Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness toExperience Altruism
Female means 3.73 3.16 3.74 3.15 3.68 3.53 4.11Male means 3.63 2.85 3.77 3.2 3.72 3.56 3.92
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Fact
or M
eans
Australian professional population HEXACO Factor norms: Males vs Females
Gender differences: HEXACO facets
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Face
t Mea
ns
Australian professional population HEXACO Facet norms: Males vs Females
Female means Male means
Can personality predict counter-productive work behaviours?
Personality predicting Interpersonal CWB
(HH) Sincerity (HH) Fairness (HH) Greed-Avoidance (HH) Modesty (EMO) Fearfulness (EMO) Anxiety (EMO) Dependence (EMO) Sentimentality (EX) Social Self-Esteem (EX) Social Boldness (EX) Sociability (EX) Liveliness (A) Forgiveness (A) Gentleness (A) Flexibility (A) Patience (C) Organisation (C) Diligence (C) Perfectionism (C) Prudence (O) Aesthetic Appreciation (O) Inquisitiveness (O) Creativity (O) Unconventionality Altruism
Model Summary Model R R
Square Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .549a .301 .293 .44166
Best predictors of Interpersonal CWB Beta weights
(EX) Sociability -0.182 (A) Forgiveness -0.164 (HH) Fairness -0.124 (A) Flexibility -0.109 (A) Patience -0.105
Interpersonal CWB
Personality predicting Organisational CWB
(HH) Sincerity (HH) Fairness (HH) Greed-Avoidance (HH) Modesty (EMO) Fearfulness (EMO) Anxiety (EMO) Dependence (EMO) Sentimentality (EX) Social Self-Esteem (EX) Social Boldness (EX) Sociability (EX) Liveliness (A) Forgiveness (A) Gentleness (A) Flexibility (A) Patience (C) Organisation (C) Diligence (C) Perfectionism (C) Prudence (O) Aesthetic Appreciation (O) Inquisitiveness (O) Creativity (O) Unconventionality Altruism
Organisational CWB
Best predictors of Organisational CWB Beta weights
(HH)Fairness -0.238
(C) Diligence -0.163
(C) Prudence -0.158
(C) Organisation -0.157
Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .638a .406 .399 .34717
Personality predicting Total CWB
(HH) Sincerity (HH) Fairness (HH) Greed-Avoidance (HH) Modesty (EMO) Fearfulness (EMO) Anxiety (EMO) Dependence (EMO) Sentimentality (EX) Social Self-Esteem (EX) Social Boldness (EX) Sociability (EX) Liveliness (A) Forgiveness (A) Gentleness (A) Flexibility (A) Patience (C) Organisation (C) Diligence (C) Perfectionism (C) Prudence (O) Aesthetic Appreciation (O) Inquisitiveness (O) Creativity (O) Unconventionality Altruism
Total CWB
Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .653a .427 .420 .31314
Best predictors of CWB Beta weights
(HH) Fairness -0.219 (C) Prudence -0.141 (C) Organization -0.116 (A) Forgiveness -0.112 (C) Diligence -0.112 (A) Flexibility -0.109 (EX) Sociability -0.106 (HH) Sincerity -0.1
Key points……..
• There is a strong relationship between personality and counterproductive work behaviours
• The findings are similar to the relationships Lee and Ashton found between personality and overt integrity tests – particularly very similar strength of relationships
• It is possible to generate a personality based risk assessment of CWBs in potential employees.
Where to from here?
• We now have an Australian normed CWB assessment, validated against the HEXACO
• We now have Australian professional population norms for the HEXACO personality inventory
• We now know the personality factors which present the most accurate indicators of the likelihood of CWBs
• We will be offering all this to our clients, both in our executive level psychological assessment offering, as well as our self managed psychological assessments portal.