Pride and hubris in organizations : the influence on organizational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive work behaviour

(1)

Pride and hubris in organizations:

The influence on organizational citizenship behaviour and

counterproductive work behaviour

Wendy Streumer

10057269

Thesis Seminar Business Studies Supervisor: Dr. F. D. Belschak Academic year: 2012-2013 Semester 2, Block 2 & 3

(2)

Abstract

Next to the obligations that are associated with their job description, employees can also engage in organizational citizenship behaviour, which benefits the organization, or in counterproductive work behaviour, which harms the organization. As a manager you would probably want to stimulate organizational citizenship behaviour, but demotivate

counterproductive work behaviour. The literature suggests that employee’s feelings of pride and hubris are related to these two forms of behaviour, however little research has been conducted on these relations. Therefore, this study tried to find out how employee’s feelings of pride and hubris are related to organizational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive work behaviour. A survey in the form of a self-administered questionnaire, with a sample of 114 employees and 103 managers, was used to answer the research question. Two significant relations emerged from this research. First of all, individual pride was significantly, positively related to OCB-O. This suggests that employees who experience individual pride are more inclined to engage in voluntarily behaviour that benefits the organization as a whole.

Secondly, organizational pride was significantly, negatively related to CWB-O. This suggests that employees who experience organizational pride are less inclined to engage in behaviour that harms the organization.

(3)

1. Introduction

There is a widespread belief in the literature that organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) can increase an organization’s performance (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). OCB is

voluntary behaviour that enhances the effective functioning of an organization. The behaviour is not an obligation associated with the job (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Therefore it is sometimes also referred to by extra-role behaviour (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach, 2000). Podsakoff, Ahearne and MacKenzie (1997) investigated the influence of three kinds of OCB on the production quantity and quality at a paper mill. They found that helping

behaviour and sportsmanship had a positive effect on the production quantity and that helping behaviour also improved the production quality. MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Ahearne also investigated the influence of three kinds of OCB on performance in 1996, but then at pharmaceutical sales teams (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). They found that helping behaviour, as well as sportsmanship, had a positive influence on sales team effectiveness. More recently, Podsakoff, Blume, Whiting and Podsakoff (2009) also studied the

consequences of OCB. They found a relationship between OCB and organizational-level outcomes as well. OCB had a positive influence on an organization’s productivity and efficiency, and it reduced costs and unit-level turnover. It also had a positive influence on customer satisfaction (Podsakoff, Blume, Whiting & Podsakoff, 2009). This suggests that OCB indeed increases an organization’s performance. If OCB can increase the performance of an organization, as a manager you would probably want to stimulate this. But what motivates this kind of behaviour?

Job satisfaction, perceptions of fairness and organizational commitment have already been proven to have a positive influence on OCB (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000). Little attention, however, has been paid to feelings of pride in the literature. This while there are also some indications that pride has a positive influence on OCB (Hodson, 1998). For example, Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004), as well as Hodson (1998), found a positive relationship between feelings of pride and OCB. Therefore, this research will focus on the effects of pride on OCB.

However, sometimes pride can get too extreme and it can turn into hubris. Where pride is associated with confidence and success, hubris is associated with conceit and arrogance (Wubben, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2012). There has been a lot of research on the feelings of hubris among CEOs and managers and how this influences their actions. However, we could argue that not only CEOs and managers can suffer from hubris, but also employees.

(6)

The relation between employee’s feelings of hubris and OCB did not receive much attention in the literature. Therefore, this research will also focus on the effects of employee’s feelings of hubris on OCB. While there are indications that pride will enhance OCB (Verbeke, Belschak & Bagozzi, 2004; Hodson, 1998), Wubben, De Cremer and Van Dijk (2012) argue that hubris will lead to uncaring and exploitative behaviour. This suggests that instead of OCB, hubris might even lead to counterproductive work behaviour (CWB). CWB is another form of voluntary behaviour. Though, instead of improving the performance of the

organization, it has the intention to harm the organization (Spector & Fox, 2002).

In short, as a manager you would probably want to stimulate OCB, which benefits your organization, and demotivate CWB, which harms your organization. There are

indications in the literature that employee’s feelings of pride and hubris are associated with OCB and CWB. However, only little attention is paid to these relations. Therefore the main research question in this thesis is: How do employee’s feelings of pride and hubris relate to

organizational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive work behaviour?

The next paragraph will contain a literature review, where the existing literature about this topic will be explored. This is followed by a conceptual model, where the expected relations will be stated. Then the research design and methods will be discussed. Afterwards the results of the study will be given. The thesis will end with a discussion about the findings and finally a conclusion.

(7)

2. Literature Review

In this paragraph, the existing literature related to the research question will be addressed to create a better understanding. First of all the concept of organizational citizenship behaviour will be explained. Next, feelings of pride and hubris will be described. Lastly, the concept of counterproductive work behaviour, as opposed to OCB, will be discussed.

2.1 Organizational citizenship behaviour

Organ (1988, p. 4) defined organizational citizenship behaviour as “individual behavior that

is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization”. By discretionary is

meant that the behaviour is not an obligation associated with the job. Rather, the behaviour is voluntarily. Therefore, omission is not generally punished. In 1997, Organ reviewed his definition of OCB. He came to the conclusion that, in contrast to what he stated in 1988, OCB may be recognized and rewarded by the formal system (Organ, 1997).

Smith, Organ and Near (1983) did a study on the nature and antecedents of OCB. Their results suggest that there are two distinct classes of OCB, namely altruism and generalized compliance. Altruism refers to helping behaviour aimed directly at specific persons. Generalized compliance is about doing something good for the organization rather than for a specific person (Organ & Near, 1983). However, the labels ‘altruism’ and

‘generalized compliance’ created some confusion. First of all, the labels create some

assumptions about external rewards that are inconsistent with the definition of OCB. Altruism suggests that behaviour occurs without any external reward. Generalized compliance, on the other hand, suggests that behaviour occurs because of expected external rewards or

punishments. Second, the labels also create confusion since previous research has used measurements that contained a mix of the two dimensions (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Therefore Williams and Anderson (1991) suggested the labels OCB-I and OCB-O. OCB-I refers to organizational citizenship behaviour directed at an individual, whereas OCB-O refers to organizational citizenship behaviour directed at the organization as a whole.

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) reviewed the literature so far on OCB and identified almost 30 different forms of citizenship behaviour. Overall they

distinguished seven dimensions, these were: helping behaviour, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue and self-development.

(8)

Paillé (2010) showed that in the literature OCB has been investigated in many different ways. He noted four different kinds of configurations. First of all, there is a group of researchers that examines OCB as a whole. According to this group there is no need to distinguish between different kinds of OCB and they blended all different dimensions into one single scale. Secondly, there are researchers who distinguish on the target of OCB, so whether the behaviour is targeted at an individual or at the organization. A third group of researchers distinguishes between helping behaviour, sportsmanship and civic virtue. The last group used a five-factor structure when investigating OCB, consisting of courtesy, altruism,

peacemaking, sportsmanship and civic virtue.

Podsakoff, Blume, Whitening and Podsakoff (2009) argue that these different

dimensions can be reduced to the two different dimensions of Williams and Anderson (1991). Altruism, courtesy and peacemaking are meant to help other individuals and therefore they fit the OCB-I category. Sportsmanship and civic virtue can be included in the OCB-O category. Despite of the different forms of citizenship behaviour found in the literature, Organ and Paine (1999) also believe that the distinction between OCB-I and OCB-O is the most stable one. They argue that this distinction lies beneath the more complex models. Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2004) argue that this distinction on the target of OCB is important because it allows a link between different levels of antecedents with different levels of targets in the organization. Contextual antecedents, such as reward and equity, are related to OCB-O. Personal antecedents, such as empathy, are related to OCB-I (McNeely & Meglino, 1994).

An important part of the definition of OCB by Organ (1988, p. 4) is that it enhances the functioning of the organization. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) looked at four studies that tested whether OCB actually influences organizational

performance. Overall, the results of these studies supported the influence of OCB on the performance of the organization. They found that on average about 19% of the variance in performance quantity and over 18% of the variance in performance quality is caused by OCBs. Also, OCBs accounted for about 25% of the variance in financial efficiency indicators and about 38% of the variance in customer service indicators (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000). Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) show that helping behaviour has a more positive and consistent influence on organizational performance than other forms of OCB. Thus as earlier mentioned, OCB, and especially helping behaviour, is probably something you want to stimulate as a manager. But what influences OCB?

(9)

Roughly, two kinds of antecedents of OCB can be distinguished, namely attitudinal

antecedents and dispositional antecedents (Organ & Ryan, 1995). It has already been proven that job satisfaction, perceived fairness, leader supportiveness and organizational commitment have an influence on OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Organ, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000). These are all examples of attitudinal antecedents. Dispositional

antecedents do not correlate with OCB as strong as attitudinal antecedents. Traits such as agreeableness, positive affectivity and negative affectivity do not significantly influence OCB. The only exception is conscientiousness. This dispositional antecedent do influences generalized compliance, i.e. OCB-O (Organ & Ryan, 1995). In this thesis the focus will be on attitudinal antecedents, and more specific on different forms of pride.

2.2 Pride

Pride is a self-conscious emotion that specifically appears when someone reaches or goes past social standards or expectations (Verbeke, Belschak & Bagozzi, 2004). It is an experience of joy over an action, thought or feeling well done (Lewis, 2000). Pride motivates the

acquirement of skills, confidence and persistence when things get difficult. Therefore, pride creates the ability and the psychological resources to help others (Wubben, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2012).

Pride is a positive emotion and it could lead to a positive mood. Moods have an effect on thought processes, attitudes and behaviours (George & Brief, 1992). People who are in a positive mood see things brighter and respond more positive to stimuli. They are more likely to help others (Isen, Shalker, Clark & Karp, 1978). Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004) investigated the effects of experiencing pride in personnel selling. They found two benefits. First, experiencing pride increases the performance-related motivations of salespersons. Second, experiencing pride positively influences organizational citizenship behaviour.

According to Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004) this OCB is provoked by the broadening tendency of pride. Pride stimulates employees to extend their cognitive repertoires. Positive emotions lead to a focus on the long-term building of resources, instead of short-term problem solving, which is provoked by negative emotions (Verbeke, Belschak & Bagozzi, 2004). Hodson (1998) investigated whether job satisfaction and pride in task completion are associated with organizational citizenship behaviour by analysing different ethnographic studies. He found that job satisfaction as well as pride in task completion was positively related to OCB. Pride does not only motivate employees to act in pro-social ways beyond the job description. By voluntarily acting pro-social, employees might experience pride in task

(10)

completion as well. Hodson (1998) also found that pride in task completion was more closely associated with OCB than job satisfaction. However, while there is a lot of research on the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB, there is only little attention paid to pride as a construct of OCB (Hodson, 1998).

It is possible to distinguish two kinds of pride in the literature. Verbeke, Belschak & Bagozzi (2004) talked about pride as follows: “Feelings of pride emerge when salespeople

experience personal worth because they match or even exceed expectations with respect to performance”. This corresponds to the pride in task completion which has been investigated

in the research of Hodson (1998). Hodson (1998) assumes that pride is closely associated with felt competence at work. However, Boezeman & Ellemers (2008) used the term pride to refer to the belief that the organization is positively valued. So, it is possible to look at pride deriving from the performance of the self, as well as from the organization as a whole.

Gouthier and Reihn (2011) also distinguish between pride based on one’s own performance or job and pride towards the organization.

In the literature there has been some research on the relationship between OCB and pride derived from the performance of the self (Verbeke, Belschak & Bagozzi, 2004; Hodson, 1998), but not on the relationship between OCB and organizational pride. Organizational pride is often included in measures of commitment, but the effects of this form of pride are not explicitly examined. Therefore, this research will focus on both kinds of pride.

2.3 Hubris

Sometimes, pride can get too extreme and it can become hubris. Wubben, De Cremer and Van Dijk (2012) said that pride has a dual nature. On the one hand it means that someone is

confident and successful, they labelled this as authentic pride. On the other hand someone can become conceited and arrogant, they named this hubristic pride. Lewis (2000) defines hubris as exaggerated pride or self-confidence, often leading to retribution.

Petit and Bollaert (2012) describe hubris among CEOs as containing both cognitive and behavioural aspects covering three dimensions. First, a hubristic CEO has a grandiose sense of the self. Second, he or she considers him or herself to be above the community of humans. Last, he or she does not feel constrained by the normal rules and laws, considering him or herself to be above them. Hayward and Hambrick (1997) show that unjustified excessive pride, could have negative consequences for the organization. In their case, hubris leads to CEOs paying too high acquisition premiums. These two studies were about hubris among CEOs or top managers. In this thesis, however, the focus will be on employees.

(11)

People who experience hubristic pride are tending to be less prosocial as people who experience authentic pride (Wubben, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2012). Opposed to authentic pride, hubristic pride is more strongly related to feelings of personal excellence than to specific, actual achievements. Because hubristic pride is connected strongly to feelings of personal excellence, it motivates a narcissistic search for status, dominance and admiration. This often leads to behaviour that is uncaring and exploitative (Wubben, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2012). This suggests that hubris will be negatively related to OCB and perhaps it will even lead to counterproductive work behaviour, a concept that will be explained in the next section. There has not been, however, any research on the relationship between employee’s feelings of hubris and OCB.

2.4 Counterproductive work behaviour

Counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) has the intention to harm the organization, or members of the organization. CWB includes acts like avoiding work, doing things wrong on purpose, physical aggression, insult and theft (Spector & Fox, 2002). CWB could be seen as the opposite of OCB. Where OCB benefits the organization, CWB has a negative effect on the organization (Dalal, 2005).

There are different terms used in the literature to refer to the behaviour described by Spector and Fox (2002). One of these is deviant workplace behaviour. Robinson and Bennett (1995) define employee deviance as “voluntary behavior that violates significant

organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both”. They argue that deviant workplace behaviour differs along two

dimensions. The first dimension is minor versus major deviant behaviour. The second dimension is whether the deviant behaviour is targeted at an individual or at the organization (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Dalal (2005) also argues that counter productive work behaviour can be directed at specific persons or at the organization. He labelled these two different kinds of counterproductive work behaviour as CWB-I and CWB-O. Here CWB-I refers to the interpersonal dimension and CWB-O to the organizational dimension. Thus CWB can be distinguished along the same dimension as OCB. Robinson and Bennett (1995) argued that the existing literature focused too much on deviant behaviour directed at the organization, ignoring the interpersonal side of deviant workplace behaviour.

Spector and Fox (2002) argue that CWB and OCB are the outcome of both employee and organization variables and that they have several similar antecedents. They created a model that considers behaviour as the result of an interaction between an individual and the

(12)

environment. Emotions are an important part in this model. Perceptions of the environment can lead to emotions. Negative emotions are associated with CWB, while positive emotions are associated with OCB. CWB as well as OCB are also influenced by control perceptions and personality. High control raises the probability of positive behaviour and reduces the probability of negative behaviour, whereas low control has the opposite outcomes. Affective traits, such as anger and anxiety, are related to CWB. However, these affective traits are not related to OCB (Spector & Fox, 2002).

(13)

3. Conceptual framework

On the basis of the existing literature explored in the previous paragraph, the conceptual framework will be formed in this section. First, the expected relations between pride and OCB will be stated. Afterwards, the expected relations between hubris and OCB and between hubris and CWB will be discussed.

In the rest of this thesis the distinction between behaviour targeted at a specific person or at the organization as a whole will be used, since this is the most consequent distinction in the literature. The terms OCB-I, OCB-O, CWB-I and CWB-O, as explained in the literature review, will be used. Two different kinds of pride will be investigated, namely pride deriving from the performance of the self as well as pride deriving from the organization. The first will be referred to by individual pride and the latter by organizational pride. There is not any distinction necessary for hubris, since this only refers to the image of the self that someone has, and not to the organization.

3.1 The influence of employee’s feelings of pride

As mentioned earlier in the literature review, pride is a positive emotion that could lead to a positive state of mind. People experiencing pride will probably see the things brighter en will probably respond more positive to the things around them (Isen, Shalker, Clark & Karp, 1978). Therefore they might be more willing to voluntarily help other individuals around them or help the organization as a whole. Since pride motivates the acquirement of skills and confidence (Wubben, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2012), it could be that people experiencing pride are more convinced that they have the capabilities to help other employees or the organization. This combination of responding more positive to stimuli and the belief of having the capabilities to help, could cause people experiencing pride to show more OCB.

Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004), as well as Hodson (1998), found that

individual pride has a positive influence on OCB. More specifically, Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004) found that the stronger a sales-person experiences pride, the stronger he or she shows civic virtue, courtesy, and helping behaviour. Helping behaviour and courtesy are two forms OCB targeted at specific persons, while civic virtue is a form of OCB targeted at the organization (Organ, 1997). These findings suggest that individual pride is indeed positively related to OCB-I, as well as OCB-O. This leads to the following two hypotheses.

H1: Individual pride is positively related to OCB-O H2: Individual pride is positively related to OCB-I

(14)

Organizational pride, as well as individual pride, is expected to lead to a positive state of mind. However, it could be that organizational pride is less likely to motivate the acquirement of skills and confidence than individual pride. This might be because individual pride is based on the performance of the self, something that can (almost) be fully contributed to the

individual itself. Organizational pride, on the other hand, is based on the performance of the organization. As an individual, you only play a little role in this performance.

In the literature, there has not been found such an obvious relationship between

organizational pride and OCB as the relationship that has been found between individual pride and OCB. More generally, Spector and Fox (2002) argue that positive emotions will increase the probability of OCB and negative emotions will increase the probability of CWB. In the social psychological literature a lot of studies show that positive moods states are related with helping behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002). If employee’s feelings of organizational pride are seen as a positive emotion, this thus suggest that these feelings are related with helping behaviour, which is a form of OCB-I.

The source of organizational pride is the performance of the organization. By showing both kinds of OCB, the performance of the organization can be increased (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000). Verbeke, Belschak & Bagozzi (2004) mentioned that positive emotions can positively reinforce behaviours. Therefore, it could be that people who experience organizational pride are encouraged to engage in OCB, since this could lead to their organization being even better. This leads to the following two hypotheses:

H3: Organizational pride is positively related to OCB-O H4: Organizational pride is positively related to OCB-I

3.2 The influence of employee’s feelings of hubris

Since hubristic people have a grandiose sense of the self (Petit & Bollaert, 2012), it could be that employees experiencing hubris feel as if they are the only ones who could help the organization, which then could lead to OCB-O. However, because hubristic people consider themselves to be above the community of humans (Petit & Bollaert, 2012), it could also be that they are not willing to help other employees around them. They might think that they are too good to interfere with other ‘less good’ employees. This suggests that feelings of hubris will probably not lead to OCB-I.

Johnson, Silverman, Shyamsunder, Swee, Rodopman, Cho & Bauer (2010) found a negative relationship between workplace arrogance and self-reported OCB. They found this

(15)

relationship for both OCB-I and OCB-O. Since arrogance has an overlap with hubris, it could be expected that there is a negative relationship between hubris and OCB as well. This finding corresponds with the idea mentioned earlier that feelings of hubris would probably not lead to OCB-I. However, the finding of Johnson et al. (2010) contrasts with the suggestion that hubris will increase OCB-O.

People can have different motives for OCB. On the one hand, OCB can be the result of being prosocial and other-oriented. On the other hand, OCB can also be the result of self-interest. By engaging in OCB, you can look good to others. People, who are tended to be narcissistic, are more inclined to engage in OCB as a form of impression management

(Arthaud-Day, Rode & Turnley, 2012). This would probably apply more for OCB-O than for OCB-I, since OCB-O is more visible for others. Hubris does not only have some overlap with arrogance, but also with narcissism. Therefore, it could be that hubristic people are also inclined to engage in OCB-O to show to their managers and other employees how great they are. This corresponds with the idea of a narcissistic search for status, dominance and

admiration that hubris motivates (Wubben, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2012). Overall, the following hypotheses are expected:

H5: Hubris is positively related to OCB-O H6: Hubris is negatively related to OCB-I

Since hubris could lead to uncaring and exploitative behaviour (Wubben, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2012), it could also be argued that it will increase CWB. As Petit and Bollaert (2012) argued, hubristic people do not feel constrained by the normal rules and laws. This could lead to them showing more CWB-O. They might think that they are above the law and therefore they might have the belief that they can do everything they want, for example wasting material or purposely working slowly. The great idea of the self of hubristic people and the consideration of themselves to be above the community of humans (Petit & Bollaert, 2012), could lead to CWB-I. They might feel as if they have a permission to joke about others, since these people are ‘less’ than they are. They may also purposely not help or inform other employees, because they have the idea that those employees would not be able or understand it anyway.

Hubris has some overlap with narcissism, as has already been mentioned. Silverman et al. (2010) argue that narcissism is associated with CWB. Violent behaviour will often be the result when the egos of narcissistic people are threatened (Bush & Baumeister, 1998).

According to Penney and Spector (2002) narcissistic people are expected to encounter

(16)

situations that challenge the positive image that they have of themselves. In response to these threats of their egos, they will likely experience negative emotions, for example anger,

frustration, or hostility. These negative emotions might lead to aggression (Penney & Spector, 2002). Spector and Fox (2002) also argued that negative emotions will increase the

probability of CWB. This leads to the last two hypotheses.

H7: Hubris is positively related to CWB-O H8: Hubris is positively related to CWB-I

(17)

4. Methodology

This paragraph will discuss the methodology that has been used to test the hypotheses composed in the previous section. First the research design will be discussed. Afterwards the sample and the measures will be discussed.

4.1 Research Design

To test the hypotheses composed in the previous section and to answer the research question, a survey in the form of a self-administered questionnaire was used. A survey is suitable for explanatory research, which is the nature of this thesis (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009, p. 362). A survey makes it possible to compare the answers of a large amount of people and makes it possible to reach a large number of people in a short period of time (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009, p. 361). This is in contrast to, for example, interviews or case studies. However, the use of a questionnaire also has some disadvantages, for example that it will not lead to any new, unexpected, information.

Since almost no money was available to conduct this research and there was only limited time, most questionnaires were spread over the internet. This was the fastest and cheapest way of collecting data. A disadvantage of spreading the questionnaires over the internet is a loss of control. There is not a guarantee that the person filling in the questionnaire is really the person that you wanted to fill in the questionnaire (Bryman & Bell, 2003, p. 234). The website ‘qualtrics.com’ was used to develop the online questionnaire. Next to the online version of the survey, some surveys were spread on paper. This was because some of the respondents were less familiar with the internet or just simply found it more pleasant to fill in a questionnaire on paper.

The survey was conducted together with six other Business Studies students who were investigating around the same topic. This made the data collection more efficient in the short amount of time. Since the survey was spread by seven different students, more respondents could be reached. Because the questionnaire would be used for investigating different

research questions, it was a bit longer than that it would have been if it was used for only one research. The length of the questionnaire might have led to some people not being willing to participate.

Two different questionnaires were conducted, one for employees and one for managers. The data will be analysed in pairs. Having data from couples of employees and managers will make the research stronger since it gives two different perspectives on the

(18)

subject. However, the fact that the questionnaires needed to be filled in by couples, instead of just one person, made it harder to find respondents. The questionnaires were in Dutch, since this research only focuses on Dutch employees. The measures adapted from the literature were translated into Dutch. More about the measures used in the questionnaires will be discussed in section 4.3.

4.2 Sample

The research population consists of all Dutch speaking employees in the Netherlands,

working in any firm and sector. The total amount of employees in the Netherlands in 2012 is 6,292,000, of which 53.12% are men and 46.88% are women (CBS, Beroepsbevolking; geslacht en leeftijd, 2013). The total amount of native employees in the Netherlands in 2012 is 5,084,000 (CBS, Beroepsbevolking; leeftijd en herkomst, 2013). In table 1 beneath, the

distribution of age in the population is shown. In table 2, the distribution of education level among the Dutch labour force is shown.

Table 1: Distribution of age in 2012 (CBS, Beroepsbevolking; leeftijd en herkomst, 2013)

Age Percentage of native employees

15-25 years 11.66% 25-35 years 22.46% 35-45 years 24.02% 45-55 years 26.46% 55-65 years 15.40%

Table 2: Distribution of education level in 2011 (CBS, Beroepsbevolking; behaalde onderwijs, 2013)

Education level Percentage of Dutch labour force

Primary school 5.13%

VMBO, MBO 1, AVO ‘onderbouw’ 18.06%

MBO 2, 3, and 4, HAVO or VWO 42.26%

HBO or WO Bachelor 21.79%

WO Masters or Doctor 11.80%

Unknown education level 0.97%

The sample consisted of 114 employees and 103 managers. Because of the time and money constraints, the sample used in this research is a convenience sample. The sample consisted

(19)

mostly of family, friends, and parents of friends and their managers or subordinates. However, using a convenience sample will have the consequence that the sample is probably not a good representation of the population. This in turn, will make the results less generalizable

(Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009, p. 241).

4.3 Measures

In this section the measures used in the survey will be described. First some demographic variables will be described. The measures used for evaluating feelings of pride and hubris will be discussed next. Than the measure used for evaluating organizational citizenship behaviour will be discussed and finally the measure for counterproductive work behaviour. In appendix A and B the complete questionnaires for employees and their managers can be found.

4.3.1 Demographics

At the beginning of the survey, the respondents were asked some demographic questions. These questions were about their age, their gender, their education level, whether they work part-time or full-time and about which industry they were working in. Employees were also asked how long they were working for the company up to now. Managers were asked how long they were managing this particular employee.

These demographic questions were asked for two reasons. First, it could be that one of these variables also has an effect on the dependent variables (OCB and CWB) tested in this study. It could be, for example, that full-time employees are more concerned for the

organization and show more OCB than part-time employees. Second, these demographics tell something about the sample that has been used. Comparing these demographics of the sample with the demographics of the population can give an idea of to what extent the findings of this research will be generalizable.

4.3.2 Pride and hubris

Tracy and Robins (2007) developed two seven-item scales for assessing the facets of individual pride and hubris and they demonstrated the reliability and validity of these two scales. For individual pride this scale consisted of the following keywords: accomplished, successful, achieving, fulfilled, self-worth, confident and productive. For hubris the scale consisted of: snobbish, pompous, stuck-up, conceited, egotistical, arrogant and smug. In the survey these two scales were used to measure employee’s feelings of individual pride and hubris. Respondents were asked to what extent they normally feel like those keywords. A

(20)

seven-point Likert-scale was used ranging from ‘never’ to ‘always’. Tracy and Robins (2007) did research in the United States, while our research focuses on Dutch employees, who have a different culture than Americans. The scale for hubris consisted mostly of very negative keywords. We were not sure whether Dutch employees would evaluate themselves in such a negative way; therefore two keywords were added in the survey to the hubris scale of Tracy and Robins (2007), namely invincible and rounder. These keywords do link with hubris, but are less negative.

The questions in the survey measuring organizational pride are based on the article of Tyler and Blader (2002). Organizational pride was measured by the following four

propositions: “I am proud to work for this organization”, “I am proud to think of myself as a member of this organization”, “I feel good when people describe me as a typical employee of this organization” and “When someone praises the accomplishments of the organization, I feel like it is a personal compliment to me”. Respondents were asked to what extent they agree with these propositions. A seven-point Likert-scale was used, ranging from ‘totally disagree’ to ‘totally agree’.

4.3.3 Organizational citizenship behaviour

Employees were submitted propositions about their organizational citizenship behaviour and managers were submitted propositions about the organizational citizenship behaviour their subordinates show. When measuring OCB, a distinction was made between behaviour directed at the organization and behaviour directed at individuals. To measure OCB-O, five items were taken from Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Two examples of these items are “This particular co-worker speaks up and encourages others in this group to get involved in issues that affect the group” and “This particular co-worker keeps well informed about issues where his/her opinion might be useful to this work group”. All items can be found in appendix A and B. Respondents were asked to what extent they agree with the propositions on a seven-point Likert-scale, ranging from totally disagree to totally agree.

To measure OCB-I, seven items were taken from MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter (1991). Two examples of these items are: “Helps orient new agents even though it is not required” and “Considers the impact of his/her actions on others”. Also here, respondents were asked to what extent they agree with the propositions on a seven-point Likert-scale.

4.3.4 Counterproductive work behaviour

(21)

Employees were also submitted propositions about counterproductive work behaviour that they do or do not show. Managers were not asked about the CWB that their subordinates show, since CWB usually is not noticed by managers. The items used to measure CWB are based on the article of Fox and Spector (1999). There is a distinction made between minor personal CWB and minor organizational CWB. CWB-I is measured by the six items of minor personal CWB taken from Fox and Spector (1999). Some examples of these items are “Failed to help a co-worker” and “Played a practical joke on someone at work”. All items can again be found in appendix A and B. Respondents were asked to what extent they agree with the propositions. Again, a seven-point Likert-scale is used, ranging from totally disagree to totally agree.

To measure CWB-O, eleven items of minor organizational CWB were adapted from Fox and Spector (1999). Two examples of these items are: “Purposely wasted company materials/supplies” and “Purposely did your work incorrectly”. Again, respondents were asked to what extent they agree with the propositions on a seven-point Likert-scale.

(22)

5. Results

In this paragraph the results of the research will be presented. This section will start with discussing some descriptive statistics, in which the sample will be compared with the population investigated. Then the reliability of the scales used in the questionnaire will be discussed. Finally the results from six regressions will be presented, testing the hypotheses composed in the conceptual framework.

5.1 Descriptive statistics

The sample consisted of 114 employees and 103 managers. 50 respondents (43.9%) were male and 64 respondents (56.1%) were female. The sample consisted of more females than the population does. 43 respondents were working part-time (37.7%) and 71 respondents were working full-time (62.3%). The employees had an average age of 36.34, ranging from 20 to 64. Table 3 shows the distribution of age among the respondents. The sample consisted of considerably more young people than the population and less people between the ages of 35 to 45. This is probably caused by the convenience sample that has been used. The sample consisted mainly of friends, who were mostly in their twenties, and of parents, uncles, aunts etc., who were mostly above the age of 45.

Table 3: Distribution of age in sample

Age Number of respondents Percentage of respondents

15-25 years 41 35.96%

25-35 years 22 19.30%

35-45 years 14 12.28%

45-55 years 25 21.93%

55-65 years 12 10.53%

The education level of the respondents is also different from the population. Ten respondents only finished secondary school (8.8%), 23 respondents finished MBO (20.2%), 37 respondents finished HBO (32.5%), 41 respondents finished university (36%) and three respondents finished another form of education (2.6%). Therefore, the sample used in this research has on average a higher level of education than the population. This could also be due to the usage of a convenience sample. Since the questionnaire used for this research is

(23)

spread by seven university students, it is arguable that on average their friends and family members are also more highly educated.

5.2 Reliability of scales

In order to analyze the data, some new variables were created. These variables were created from different propositions in the questionnaire measuring the same thing. The created variables are individual pride, organizational pride, hubris, OCB-O, OCB-I, CWB-O and CWB-I. OCB-O and OCB-I were measured from two perspectives, namely from the perspective of the employee him- or herself and from the perspective of the associated manager. To test whether these new variables were reliable, Cronbach’s alpha was used (Field, 2009, p. 674).

The new variables were ought to be reliable when the Cronbach’s alpha was higher than 0.7 (Field, 2009, p. 675). Table 4 and 5 show the Cronbach’s alpha’s of the created variables. All variables, except CWB-I, have a Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.7 and, therefore, are considered reliable. Only CWB-I has a Cronbach’s alpha lower than 0.7.

Originally, Cronbach’s alpha for CWB-I was 0.614. By deleting one item the value went up to 0.674, which is very close to the boundary of 0.7. Since the Cronbach’s alpha for CWB-I is very close to 0.7 and because the scale is originative from an ‘A’ journal in which it do was proven reliable, the created variable CWB-I has been used further in this analysis.

Table 4: Reliability and description of created variables

N = 114 Cronbach’s alpha Nr. of items Mean Std. deviation

Individual pride 0.774 7 34.65 4.808 Organizational pride 0.875 4 21.08 4.508 Hubris 0.803 9 26.75 7.447 OCB-O 0.868 5 27.45 4.615 OCB-I 0.892 7 40.47 5.535 CWB-O 0.788 11 15.86 5.116 CWB-I 0.674 5 6.69 2.312 22

(24)

Table 5: Reliability of OCB from a manager's perspective

N = 103 Cronbach’s alpha Nr. of items Mean Std. deviation

OCB-O 0.845 5 26.56 4.372

OCB-I 0.806 7 37.73 4.763

5.3 Regressions

To test the hypotheses stated in the conceptual framework, six linear regressions were used. Table 6 sums up the standardized coefficients (β) found in these regressions. In the sections below, the results will be discussed by the different outcome variables. Relations were considered significant if the p-value was 0.05 or lower.

Table 6: Standardized coefficients (β)

OCB-O (employee’s perspective) OCB-O (manager’s perspective) OCB-I (employee’s perspective) OCB-I (manager’s perspective) CWB-O CWB-I Individual pride 0.272*** 0.322*** 0.164 -0.185 -0.132 -0.190* Organizational pride 0.089 -0.042 0.105 0.072 -0.182** -0.174* Hubris -0.026 -0.233* -0.079 0.114 0.081 0.155 Age 0.033 -0.103 0.056 0.111 -0.262** 0.170 Gender 0.003 -0.108 0.195** 0.208* -0.130 -0.139 Education level -0.182* -0.009 -0.150 0.064 0.084 0.206** Part-time/full-time 0.189** -0.014 0.26*** 0.082 -0.208** -0.220** R-squared 0.150 0.089 0.172 0.060 0.223 0.180 No. observations 114 103 114 103 114 114

* = significance at 90% level, ** = significance at 95% level, *** = significance at 99% level

5.3.1 OCB-O

According to the hypotheses stated in the conceptual framework, individual pride,

organizational pride and hubris are positively related to OCB-O. To test these hypotheses two linear regressions were used. The first regression had OCB-O from the perspective of the employee as dependent variable. The second regression had OCB-O from the perspective of the associated manager as dependent variable. The rest of setting was the same for both regressions. The independent variables were individual pride, organizational pride and hubris. As control variables, age, gender, education level and whether someone works part-time or

(25)

full-time were included.

The first regression showed a significant positive relationship between individual pride and OCB-O (β = 0.272, p = 0.01), this supports hypothesis 1. However, hypothesis 3 and 5 were not supported. The first regression did not show a significant relationship between organizational pride and OCB-O (β = 0.089, p = 0.355) or between hubris and OCBO (β = -0.026, p = 0.819). The control variable whether someone works part-time or full-time was also significantly related with OCB-O (β = 0.189, p = 0.046) in the first regression. Full-timers showed more OCB-O than part-Full-timers. The second regression also showed a

significant positive relationship between individual pride and OCB-O (β = 0.322, p = 0.006), also supporting hypothesis 1. The second regression did not show a significant relationship between organizational pride and OCB-O (β = -0.042, p = 0.685) or between hubris and OCB-O (β = -0.223, p = 0.074) as well. Therefore the second regression also did not support

hypothesis 3 and 5.

5.3.2 OCB-I

The stated hypotheses also expect that individual pride and organizational pride are positively related to OCB-I. Hubris, however, is expected to be negatively related to OCB-I. Two linear regressions were used to test these hypotheses. The first regression, again, had OCB-I from the perspective of the employee as a dependent variable. The second regression had OCB-I from the perspective of the associated manager as dependent variable. The independent variables and the control variables were the same as with the regressions that tested the hypotheses about OCB-O.

The first regression did not show any significant relation between individual pride and OCB-I (β = 0.164, p = 0.115), between organizational pride and OCB-I (β = 0.105, p = 0.268) or between hubris and OCB-I (β = -0.097, p = 0.474). Therefore, hypothesis 2, 4 and 6 are not supported. However, the control variables gender (β = 0.195, p = 0.039) and whether an employee works part-time or full-time (β = 0.26, p = 0.006) did have a significant relation with OCB-I. Females showed more OCB-I than men and full-timers showed more OCB-I than part-timers. The second regression also did not support hypothesis 2, 4 and 6. There has not been found a significant relation between individual pride and OCB-I (β = -0.185, p = 0.118), between organization pride and OCB-I (β = 0.072, p = 0.5) or between hubris and OCB-I (β = 0.114, p = 0.363).

5.3.3 CWB-O

(26)

Hypothesis 7 states that hubris is positively related to CWB-O. To test this hypothesis, again a linear regression was used. The dependent variable was CWB-O. The independent variables were individual pride, organizational pride and hubris. The control variables were age, gender, education level and whether someone works part-time or full-time.

The regression did not show a positive relation between hubris and CWB-O (β = 0.081, p = 0.447), therefore hypothesis 7 is not supported. The regression did show a slightly significant negative relation between organizational pride and CWB-O (β = -0.182, p = 0.049). Also the control variables age (β = -0.262, p = 0.012) and whether the employee worked part-time or full-time (β = -0.208, p = 0.022) had a significant relation with CWB-O. Age was negatively related with CWB-O and full-time employees showed less CWB-O than part-time employees.

5.3.4 CWB-I

Hypothesis 8 states that hubris is positively related to CWB-I. Again, a linear regression was used to test this hypothesis. CWB-I was the dependent variable in this regression. The independent variables were individual pride, organizational pride and hubris, just as in the previous regressions. Also the control variables were the same as in the previous regressions. There has not been found a positive relation between hubris and CWB-I (β = 0.155, p = 0.159), therefore hypothesis 8 was not supported. The regression did show a significant positive relation between education level and CWB-I (β = 0.206, p = 0.035) and between whether an employee works part-time or full-time and CWB-I (β = -0.22, p = 0.019). Higher educated employees show more CWB-I than lower educated employees and part-timers show more CWB-I than full-timers.

(27)

6. Discussion

In this section, the findings of the research will be discussed. The results will be linked to the existing literature. Afterwards, the theoretical contributions and managerial implications of this research will be discussed. Lastly, the limitations of this research and some

recommendations for further research will be given.

6.1 Influence of employee’s feelings of pride and hubris on OCB and CWB

Here the influence of employee’s feelings of pride and hubris on OCB and CWB will be discussed, which will give an answer to the research question stated in the introduction. Firstly, the influence of feelings of individual pride will be discussed. Secondly, the influence of feelings of organizational pride will be covered. Then the influence of feelings of hubris will be discussed and finally the influence of some control variables in this research.

6.1.1 Feelings of individual pride

First of all, positive relations were expected between individual pride and OCB-O and between individual pride and OCB-I. A significant positive relation has been found between individual pride and OCB-O, which is in line with results of Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004) and with the findings of Hodson (1998). This suggest that experiencing pride does lead to people seeing things brighter and responding more positive to things around them (Isen, Shalker, Clark & Karp, 1978), which probably leads to them being more willing to voluntarily help the organization. It also suggests that individual pride indeed motivates the acquirement of skills and confidence (Wubben, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2012), which could make people more convinced that the have the capabilities to actually help the organization.

However, no significant relation has been found between individual pride and OCB-I, which contrasts the arguments made in the conceptual framework and the findings of

Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004), as well as Hodson (1998). It also contrasts the fact that in the social psychological literature a lot of studies show that positive moods states are related with helping behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002), which is a form of OCB-I. Therefore, the fact that no significant relationship has been found is probably due to a methodological problem, for example a problem with the sample. The sample used in this research differs from the samples used in previous studies. The sample used in this research consisted mostly of highly educated employees in their twenties or between the age of 45 and 55. The sample used by Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004) consisted mostly of managers between the

(28)

age of 30 and 40. Wagner and Rush (2000) showed that age had a moderating role with regard to the influence of contextual variables and dispositional variables. They argued that

contextual variables such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment were more important predictors of OCB-I for younger employees. The dispositional variable of moral judgement was a unique predictor of OCB-I among older employees. The sample used by Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004) also consisted mainly of men (73%), while the sample used in this research consisted mostly of females (56.1%). Hodson (1998) did not use a survey, but did an analysis on an existing set of workplace ethnographies. These differences in methodology could be a reason why the results of this study do not correspond with the results of previous studies.

6.1.2 Feelings of organizational pride

There were also positive relations expected between organizational pride and OCB-O and between organizational pride and OCB-I. However, neither of these expected relations was found significant in this research. There were indications in the literature that suggested that organizational pride would lead to OCB. However, in the existing literature no such relation has actually been proven. This research is no exception to that. It might be that organizational pride does lead to a positive mind state, which makes people respond more positively to stimuli (Isen, Shalker, Clark & Karp, 1978). Though, because organizational pride is based on the performance of the organization instead of the performance of the self, it might not lead to the same acquirement of skills and confidence as individual pride (Wubben, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2012). Therefore, it could be that people experiencing organizational pride are less convinced of their abilities to help the organization or others around them and therefore show less OCB than people experiencing individual pride.

Although organizational pride does not significantly relate to OCB, there has been found a significant negative relation between organizational pride and CWB-O. This suggests that people who experience organizational pride are less inclined to engage in behaviour that is harmful for the organization than people who do not experience organizational pride. It could be that organizational pride leads to organizational commitment, which do is proven to be negatively related to CWB (Dalal, 2005).

6.1.3 Feelings of hubris

(29)

Hubris was expected to have a positive relation with OCB-O and a negative relation with OCB-I. However, neither a significant relation between hubris and OCB-O or between hubris and OCB-I has been found. Hubris was also expected to have positive relations with CWB-O and CWB-I. Though, these relations were also not proven significant. The fact that hubris does not have a significant effect on any of these outcome variables could be due to a methodological problem. Hubris was measured by different keywords that were quite negative. It could be that people were not comfortable with describing themselves is such a negative way or that people simply do not see themselves in that way. The scales for measuring CWB-O and CWB-I also contained quite negative propositions and therefore it could be that people were also uncomfortable with agreeing with these propositions. The likelihood of social desirable answers could be a reason that there were not found any significant relations here.

The fact that the hypotheses about hubris were not supported could also be due to an incorrect use of theories. Since there was very little research available about hubris, findings about arrogance and narcissism, which had some overlap with hubris, were used in the

conceptual framework. It could be, however, that these findings simply do not apply to hubris. For example, where narcissistic people tend to engage in OCB as a form of impression

management (Arthaud-Day, Rode & Turnley, 2012), it might be that hubristic people do not share the same need to look good to others. Since hubristic people already are overconfident and see themselves above the community of humans (Petit and Bollaert, 2012), they might not see the need to prove their greatness to others by engaging in OCB. This might explain why there has not been found a significant relation between hubris and OCB-O.

6.1.4 Influence of control variables

Next to the independent variables ‘individual pride’, ‘organizational pride’ and ‘hubris’, also some control variables were taken into account in this research. Whether someone works part-time or full-time stood out in this research. This control variable was significantly related to OCB-O, OCB-I, CWB-O and CWB-I as well. Full-timers engaged in more OCB-O and OCB-I than part-timers and full-timers engaged in less CWB-O and CWB-I than part-timers. It could be that full-timers are more committed to the organization than part-timers and therefore are more motivated to engage in behaviour that benefits the organization and less motivated to engage in behaviour that harms the organization. Among others, Schappe (1998) and Lavelle, Brockner, Konovsky, Price, Henley, Taneja and Vinekar (2009) showed that organizational commitment was a predictor of OCB. Dalal (2005) showed that organizational

(30)

commitment is even slightly more strongly related to CWB than to OCB.

Other control variables that showed a significant relation were gender, education level and age. First of all, the findings suggested that women were more engaged in OCB-I than men. In the literature, there is already suggested that helping behaviours, which focus on the welfare of others, are more associated with the female gender role. Other forms of OCB, which are included in OCB-O, are more associated with the male gender role (Kark & Waismel-Manor, 2005). Secondly, higher educated employees showed more CWB-I than lower educated employees. This could be explained by about the same argumentation as why hubris was expected to lead to CWB-I. It could be that higher educated people feel as if they are better than lower educated people. Therefore they might purposely not help or inform other employees, because they have the idea that lower educated employees would not be able or understand it anyway. Lastly, age was negatively related to CWB-O, which suggests that older people are less inclined to engage in CWB-O than younger people. This could be because older people on average work longer for a specific organization than younger people, and therefore might be more committed to this organization. The findings of O’Reilly III and Chatman (1986) suggested that commitment based on pride in connection with the

organization is related with length of service. This commitment might then cause them to engage less in harmful behaviour for the organization (Dalal, 2005).

6.2 Contributions to the existing theory

There were indications in the literature that employee’s feelings of pride and hubris are associated with OCB and CWB. Though, only little attention has been paid to these relationships. This research contributes to the existing literature by making a distinction between individual pride and organizational pride when looking at their influence on OCB. This research is also first to directly investigate the influence of feelings of hubris on OCB and CWB.

The findings of this research strengthen one of the relations found earlier in the literature, namely that individual pride is positively related to OCB-O. The findings of this research also showed that organizational pride is negatively related to CWB-O. The findings of this research thus suggest that pride might be associated with CWB. However, little is written about the influence of pride on CWB. Therefore it might be interesting for further research to also focus on the influence of pride on CWB instead of focusing only on OCB. The findings of this research also showed that whether someone works part-time or full-time

(31)

is related to OCB and CWB. It might also be interesting for further research to focus more on this relationship.

6.3 Managerial implications

OCB benefits the organization, while CWB harms the organization. Therefore, as a manager you would probably want to stimulate OCB and demotivate CWB in your organization. This research contributes to managers by investigating what motivates these two kinds of

behaviours. The findings of this research suggest that by instilling pride in your employees, you can motivate OCB and demotivate CWB. By instilling individual pride, employees might be more willing to engage in OCB-O. By instilling organizational pride, employees might be less inclined to engage in CWB-O.

The fact that in this research no significant negative relation between hubris and OCB and no significant positive relation between hubris and CWB has been found, does not mean that managers do not have to worry about feelings of hubris among employees. Previous research namely did show that hubris could have negative consequences for your organization (Hayward and Hambrick, 1997; Wubben, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2012).

6.4 Limitations and recommendations for further research

This study had some limitations. The first limitation is the sample used in this thesis. Because of time and money constraints, a convenience sample has been used in this research. This has as result that the sample is not a good representation of the population investigated. As mentioned before, the sample consisted on average of more highly educated people than the population did and also the distribution of age was different. This has as a consequence that the findings of this research are not generalizable for all Dutch speaking employees in the Netherlands.

A second limitation is that a self-administered questionnaire, which has been used in this research, does not measure the actual behaviour of the respondents. Therefore it could be that some respondents do engage in some form of CWB, but they are not honest about that in the questionnaire. Or it could be that some respondents do not engage in OCB, but in the questionnaire filled in that they do because this is socially desirable.

A third limitation is that the Cronbach’s alpha for the created variable CWB-I was somewhat below 0.7, which makes the findings about this variable less reliable. This might also be a reason why no significant results were found about CWB-I. A replication in future

(32)

research might be needed to increase the validity of the results.

As earlier mentioned in this paragraph, it might also be interesting for further research to focus on the influence of pride on CWB instead of focusing only on the influence of pride on OCB. And finally it might be interesting for future research to focus more on the relation between whether someone works part-time or full-time and whether someone engages in OCB or CWB.

(33)

7. Conclusion

Next to the obligations that are associated with their job description, employees can also engage in two other kinds of behaviours. Firstly, employees can engage in organizational citizenship behaviour, which benefits the organization. Secondly, they can engage in

counterproductive work behaviour, which harms the organization. As a manager, you would probably want to motivate organizational citizenship behaviour and demotivate

counterproductive work behaviour. The literature suggests that employee’s feelings of pride and hubris are related to these two forms of behaviour, however little research has been conducted on these relations. Therefore, this study tried to find an answer to the question: How do employee’s feelings of pride and hubris relate to organizational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive work behaviour?

A survey in the form of a self-administered questionnaire, with a sample of 114 employees and 103 managers, was used to answer the research question. Two significant relations emerged from this research. First of all, individual pride was significantly, positively related to OCB-O. This suggests that employees who experience individual pride were more willing to engage in voluntary behaviour that enhances the organization as a whole than people who experience no individual pride. Secondly, organizational pride was significantly, negatively related to CWB-O. This suggests that employees who experience organizational pride were less inclined to engage in voluntary behaviour that harms the organization than employees who do not experience organizational pride.

(34)

References

Arthaud-Day, M. L., Rode, J. C., Turnley, W. H. (2012). Direct and contextual effects of individual values on organizational citizenship behavior in teams. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 97 (4), 792-807.

Boezeman, E.J., Ellemers, N. (2008). Pride and respect in volunteers’ organizational commitment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 159–172.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2003). Business research methods, Oxford University Press.

Bush, B. J., Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 219-229.

CBS (2013). Beroepsbevolking; behaalde onderwijs naar herkomst, geslacht en leeftijd. Retrieved from

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71822NED&D1 =0-1&D2=0&D3=0&D4=0-4&D5=a&D6=0&D7=0,4-l&HD=110405-

1452&HDR=T,G2,G1,G5,G6&STB=G4,G3

CBS (2013). Beroepsbevolking; geslacht en leeftijd. Retrieved from

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=71738ned&D1=3- 10&D2=a&D3=a&D4=0&D5=l&VW=T

CBS (2013). Beroepsbevolking; leeftijd en herkomst. Retrieved from

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71738NED&D1 =1-3,6,22-23&D2=0&D3=a&D4=5,7-8&D5=l&HD=120320-

1222&HDR=G4,G1,T&STB=G3,G2.

Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (6), 1241-1255

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 20 (6), 915-931.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309. George, J.M., Brief, A.P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (2), 310-329.

(35)

Ghoutier, H.J., Reihn, M. (2011). Organizational pride and its positive effects on employee behaviour. Journal of Service Management, 22 (5), 633-649.

Hayward, M. L. A., Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the premiums paid for large

acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1), 103-

127.

Hodson, R. (1998). Pride in task completion and organizational citizenship behaviour: Evidence from the ethnographic literature. Work and Stress, 12 (4), 307-321. Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M., Karp, L. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in memory, and behavior: A cognitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 36 (1), 1-12.

Johnson, R. E., Silverman, S.B., Shyamsunder, A., Swee, H. Y., Rodopman, O. B., Cho, E., Bauer, J. (2010). Acting superior but actually inferior?: Correlates and consequences of workplace arrogance. Human Performance, 23, 403-427.

Kark, R., Waismel-Manor, R. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: What’s gender got to do with it? Organization, 12 (6), 889-917.

Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, A. B., Taneja, A., Vinekar, V. (2009). Commitment, procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior: A multifoci analysis. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 30, 337-357.

Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relationships between emotion and cognition. American Psychologist¸ 37 (9), 1019-1024.

Lewis, M. (2000). Self-Conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. Handbook of Emotions, 2d ed. Eds. Michael Lewis and J. M. Haviland-Jones. New York: Guilford, 623-636.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of

salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

50, 123-150.

McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836–844. O’Reilly III, C., Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological

attachment: The effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3), 492-499.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Pride and hubris in organizations : the influence on organizational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive work behaviour