ON UNETHICAL BEHAVIORAL CONTAGION: THE INFLUENCE OF JOB DESIGN
Master thesis, Msc. HRM
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
July, 1st 2012 ANGELA DE WINTER Student Number: 1781006 Nieuweweg 21a 9711 TB Groningen 06 49793522 A.p.f.dewinter@rug.nl Supervisor/University S. N. Ponsioen University of Groningen
2 ABSTRACT
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction page 4
Theoretical framework page 6
Unethical Behavior page 6
Influence of Unethical Exemplar page 6
Job Boredom page 8
Work Overload page 9
Method page 11
Participants and Design page 11
Procedure page 11
Measurements page 12
Results page 14
Manipulation Checks page 14
Unethical Behavior page 14
Discussion page 16
Theoretical Implications page 16
Practical Implications page 17
Limitations page 18
Conclusion page 20
References page 21
Appendix page 29
Results page 29
Job Boredom Condition page 29
Work Overload Condition page 30
Questionnaire Scenario Job Boredom page 31
4
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays many forms of unethical behavior come to light, such as, tax fraud,
insurance fraud, employee theft, and sabotage. Also entire organizations are being associated with unethical behavior, such as Enron (Gino, Ayal & Ariely, 2009). Unethical behavior is very forthcoming in the working environment: the amount of white collar crimes committed per year has more than tripled since 1940 (FBI, 2009).
‘An unethical decision is a decision that is either illegal or morally unacceptable to the larger community’ (Hersfield, Cohen & Thompson, 2011). Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998) state that unethical behavior can be harmful to individuals (and the property) of the organization. Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) is defined as behavior that harms organizations and/or organizational stakeholders, such as supervisors or co-workers (Spector & Fox, 2005). CWB overlaps to a large extent with unethical behavior. Therefore, we define unethical behavior as behavior that is either illegal or morally unacceptable to the larger community and that harms organizations and/or organizational stakeholders.
We argue that unethical behavior can be a consequence of social interactions within an organization. In line with Gino et al. (2009), Goldstein, Cialdini and Griskevicius (2008) state that a wide variety of research has shown that individual’s interpretations of and the responses to the social environment are shaped by the behavior of others. Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998) found that people in social groups are influenced by these groups to behave in similar ways. They show that when people within a social group conduct unethical behavior, other people in this social group are inclined to also participate in this similar, though unethical behavior. Thus, when an individual observes unethical behavior, he or she may believe the behavior is according to the norm and interpret the behavior as appropriate. Consequently, there is an increased chance the unethical behavior will be copied.
5
influence on the job design, than he has on the personality of his employees. An employer only has influence on the personality of the employees during the recruitment process. Therefore this research may be of relevance for employers and applicable in practice, since employers can influence the variables used in this research.
The focus in this research will be on workload as a factor of job design. Workload can be defined as ‘the amount of work that is expected from or assigned to a worker to be
performed in a given time period’ (FreeDictionairy). Workload can be divided into two extremes; namely boredom and work overload. Boredom arises when the perceived workload by the employee is too low. Work overload arises when the perceived workload by the employee is too high. Although boredom and work overload are two extremes of workload, we believe them to be two different concepts.
Together, we argue that unethical behavior multiplies as a result of social interaction between employees and unethical exemplars. Moreover, we argue that the role of job design is of great importance as it can either buffer or expand the effects of unethical behavioral contagion. This leads to the following research question:
How can job design influence the susceptibility of individuals to copy unethical behavior when they are confronted with an unethical exemplar?
6
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Unethical Behavior
Unethical behavior was defined as behavior that is either illegal or morally unacceptable to the larger community and that harms organizations and/or organizational stakeholders. An explanation of why people conduct unethical behavior can be derived by the research of Gino, Schweitzer, Mead and Ariely (2011). Gino et al. (2011) state that the decision to participate in unethical conduct contains two opposing forces, namely ‘the desire to maximize self-interest and the desire to maintain a positive moral self-image and future relationships’. To solve this internal conflict one’s self-control is employed (Mead,
Baumeister, Gino, Schweitzer, & Ariely, 2009). Self control is defined as ‘the psychological capacity that enables people to enact behaviors that are consistent with their long-term goals (e.g., of being an ethical person) and refrain from engaging in behaviors that are driven by short-term, selfish motives’ (Gino et al., 2011). Self-control prohibits people to engage in unethical behavior. Muraven, Pogarsky and Shmueli (2006) found that a decrease of self-control lead to unethical conduct. Furthermore, people with high self-self-control were found to be less likely to conduct unethical work behavior (Bordia, Restubog, & Tang, 2008; Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Sarchione, Cuttler, Muchinsky, & Nelson-Gray, 1998). Thus, unethical behavior is caused by a lack of self-control.
Influence of Unethical Exemplar
In their research, Gino et al. (2009) discuss the effect of the exposure of encounters with unethical behavior on otherwise honest individuals. They argue that individuals may change their estimate of getting caught conducting unethical behavior when exposed to the dishonesty of others. Employees make an estimation of the expected benefits from this unethical behavior, the expected punishment and the chance of being caught conducting unethical behavior. This estimation is influenced by the unethical exemplar. If others display dishonesty and are not punished for this behavior, nor being caught, the individual-cost-benefit calculation provides leeway for unethical conduct. As such, the individual is more likely to also engage in unethical behavior (Gino et al., 2009).
7
a moral standard they are substantially more tempted to practice dishonest behavior (Mazar, Amir & Ariely, 2008). When there is no moral standard to reflect up on, individuals will be more tempted to conduct unethical behavior. This is because their own moral standard is not triggered.
Third, observing others practicing unethical behavior may result in changing another person’s perception of the social norms related to immorality in such a way that the unethical behavior is viewed as being appropriate (Gino et al., 2009). Within this perspective, role modeling and social learning provide an explanation. ‘Role modeling is discussed as behavior on the part of the exemplar perceived by the follower to be an appropriate example to follow that is consistent with both the values the exemplar’s espouses and the goals of the
organization’. ‘Role modeling is critical because followers emulate the work habits, positive attitudes and goals of their exemplars’ (Rich, 1998). Furthermore, role modeling is a key part of social learning theory (Bandura 1977, 1986). According to the social learning theory, ‘people acquire much of their behavior by observation and imitation of others in a social context and, thus, vicariously learn and modify patterns of behavior through the fundamental psychological process called "modeling"’ (Rich 1998). Consequently, when the exemplar within a social context performs unethical behavior, this behavior can be viewed as normative and therefore appropriate. As such, individuals will be inclined to copy the unethical
behavior.
Research by Gino et al. (2009) showed that students cheated substantially more when confronted with a cheating confederate. In line with this, Keizer, Lindenberg and Steg (2008) found that people who observed other people conducting unethical behavior, were more inclined to conduct unethical behavior themselves, causing unethical behavior to spread. These researches support the fact that people copy unethical behavior of an unethical exemplar.
To conclude, individuals can be influenced in three different ways by unethical exemplars. First, their estimation of getting caught conducting unethical behavior may
8 Job Boredom
Boredom has been defined as ‘a state of relatively low arousal and dissatisfaction which is attributed to an inadequately stimulating environment’ (Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993). Boredom consists of job boredom, which is determined by the nature of a specific job, and is defined as ‘a job property that induces boredom in people’ (Kass, Vodanovich & Callender, 2001).
Boredom is an important factor to take into account for organizations, since research has found that boredom relates to many undesirable organizational variables. These include lower job satisfaction (Melamed, Ben-Avi, Luz & Green 1995), absenteeism, (Kass et al., 2001; Melamed et al., 1995), reduced work effectiveness (Drory, 1982) and withdrawal (Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh, & Kessler, 2006 ).
According to Bruursema et al. (2011) job boredom may enforce individuals to engage in unethical behavior. An explanation of why bored employees might be more eager to conduct unethical behavior than non-bored employees is suggested by Fisher (1993) who states that bored employees do so in order to ‘reduce boredom by creating a change of activity, reasserting personal freedom of choice, and providing the excitement of risking injury or discovery’.
9
Hypothesis 1: People are more susceptible to unethical conduct when confronted with an unethical exemplar than without such an exemplar and this effect will be stronger when job
boredom is high as opposed to low.
Work Overload
Next to job boredom we will investigate the moderating effect of work overload. Work overload can be viewed as the opposite of job boredom. ‘Examples of work overload are longer hours, pressure to work overtime, doing tasks in addition to the regular work and a faster pace’ (Fong, Kleiner, 2004). We define work overload as follows: work overload arises when the amount of work that is expected from or assigned to a worker to be performed in a given time period exceeds the time period or arises when the time period is too short relative to the amount of work to be performed.
According to Fong and Kleiner (2004) consequences of work overload are low morale among employees, stress, fatigue, accidents, exhaustion, depression, anxiety, gastrointestinal disorders and other health hazards (Public Service Association of NSW, 1998). Thereby, work overload has a negative effect on productivity (Fong, Kleiner, 2004).
According to Chen and Spector (1992); Fox and Spector (1999); Fox, Spector and Miles (2001); Miles, Borman, Spector and Fox (2002) and Penney & Spector (2002), work overload enforces the practice of unethical behavior. In line with this Bruursema et al. (2011) propose that work overload enforces unethical behavior, and state that ‘Unethical behavior can be viewed as a means of coping with stressful situations’.
Spector (1998) explains that work overload may lead to behavioral job strains, which refer to reactions of individuals to cope with work overload. These include reducing emotions caused by work overload (Penney & Spector, 2005). Reducing emotions caused by work overload may be for example drinking alcohol or avoiding work. Behavioral strains can become unethical when employees start yelling at co-workers, stay home from work or decrease work quality or quantity (Penney & Spector, 2005). McShulskis, (1997) found in a national survey about Sources and Consequences of Workplace Pressure, conducted by the American Society of Chartered Life Underwriters (CLU), Chartered Financial Consultants (ChFC), and the Ethics Officer Association that 58% of all workers considered unethical or illegal behavior when experiencing work overload.
10
overload by means of unethical strains than individuals with no work overload. Then, when they observe an unethical exemplar this may unleash any inhibitions they have with regard to obey to their need of reduced workload. More specific, the unethical exemplar provides them with a reason to reduce their workload by means of unethical strains (e.g. drinking at work, avoiding work). This leads to the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: People are more susceptible to unethical conduct when confronted with an unethical exemplar than without such an exemplar and this effect will be stronger when
people experience work overload as opposed to no work overload.
An overview of the hypothesis and their mutual connections is given in figure 1.
FIGURE 1
11 METHOD
Participants and Design
One-hundred-sixty people (24 % male, 47% female, Mage= 25, SDage = 8.25)
participated in this scenario study. To prepare for valid results the most important criteria was that the people who would fill in the questionnaire had work experience. No reward was given in exchange to the participants. They were randomly assigned to one of the eight scenarios of our 2 (absence versus presence unethical exemplar) x 2 (job boredom low versus high) and 2 (absence versus presence unethical exemplar) x 2 (work overload versus no work overload) scenario design. We made use of the program Qualtrics to develop the questionnaire. The questionnaires were written in Dutch.
Procedure
The survey was distributed online. The link to the survey was posted on different social media pages and was sent by e-mail. After almost two weeks a reminder was sent. Anonymity of the respondents was assured.
Scenario with Job Boredom. The scenario described a working context. Participants
had to imagine themselves being an employee within that given working context. After the introduction of this working context the job boredom manipulation took place. High job boredom was manipulated by describing the job as very boring, very repetitive and little diverse. Low job boredom was manipulated by describing a job with variation and diverse tasks. Subsequently, the unethical exemplar manipulation took place. In the unethical exemplar condition, a colleague was introduced who was updating his Facebook profile during work time. In the no unethical exemplar condition, a colleague was introduced who was performing work related tasks during work time. Following, participants were faced with a dilemma. The dilemma described a situation in which the respondent was waiting for an important e-mail from the real estate agent about the purchase of a new house. The respondent was asked whether he or she would check his or her private e-mail during work time.
Scenario with Work Overload. The scenario described a working context. Participants
12
before the deadlines. Subsequently, the unethical exemplar manipulation took place. In the unethical exemplar condition a colleague was described who told the respondent that he had so many assignments that he secretly threw one assignment away. In the no unethical
exemplar condition a very tired looking colleague was described who tells about his bad night of sleeping, caused by his neighbors having a late night party. Following, participants were faced with a dilemma. In the dilemma the respondent finds a new assignment on his desk as he comes back from his chat. The question was whether the respondent would throw the assignment under a bundle of papers and pretend to not have seen it.
After the scenario, we asked about the respondent’s reaction to the scenario, posed questions about job boredom or work overload. After this, we asked questions with regard to personal norms and social norms. Further, we used manipulation checks and asked for demographics.
Measurements
Unethical Behavior (Job Boredom Scenario). This variable is measured by a
single-outcome item. The item asked was whether the respondent would check his or her e-mail during work time. This was measured on a six point answering scale (1 = I would definitely not check my email, 6 = I would definitely check my email).
Unethical Behavior (Work Overload Scenario). This variable is measured by a
single-outcome item. The item asked was whether the respondent would throw the assignment under a bundle of papers and pretend not to have seen it. This was measured on a six point answering scale (1 = I would definitely not throw the assignment under a bundle of papers, 6 = I would definitely throw the assignment under a bundle of papers).
Manipulation Check Job Boredom. As a job boredom manipulation check
participants were asked the following items: ‘In the scenario I have a job in which I am very bored’; ‘In the scenario I have a job in which my work is diverse and my tasks differ from each other’. Participants answered on a seven point answering scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). The scale was highly reliable (Cronbach’s α = .92).
Manipulation Check Work Overload. As a work overload manipulation check
13
Manipulation Check Unethical Exemplar (Job Boredom Scenario). As an unethical
exemplar manipulation check respondents were asked the following items: ‘In the scenario my colleague is performing private activities during work time’; ‘In the scenario my
colleague is performing work related tasks during work time’. The scale was highly reliable (Cronbach’s α = .93).
Manipulation Check Unethical Exemplar (Work Overload Scenario). As an
unethical exemplar manipulation check respondents were asked the following items: ‘In the scenario my colleague has not performed the assignment, but instead he threw the assignment away; ‘In the scenario my colleague is tired, because he has had a bad night of sleeping’. The scale was not highly reliable (Cronbach’s α = .38). This may be caused by the fact that in both scenario’s the colleague was fatigued, only the cause of fatigue differed. This may have lead to diffusion. The result section will show that this control question was however significant.
14 RESULTS
Manipulation Checks
Job Boredom. A one-way ANOVA-test was computed to check the job boredom
condition. This control question was significant (F(1,50) = 126.62, p < 0,001). In the high job boredom condition participants indicated the job boredom higher (M = 5.11 and SD = 1.27) than in the low job boredom condition (M = 2.02 and SD = 0.91).
Work Overload. Another ANOVA-test was performed to assess the work overload
condition. This control question was significant (F(1,57) = 104.07, p < 0,001). In the work overload condition participants indicated a higher work pressure (M = 5.58 en SD = 1.07) than in the no work overload condition (M = 2.47 en SD = 1.27).
Unethical Exemplar (Job Boredom Scenario). A one-way ANOVA-test was computed to check the unethical exemplar condition. This control question was significant (F(1,50) = 111.72, p < 0,001). In the unethical exemplar condition participants indicated the presence of an unethical exemplar more strongly (M = 5.85 en SD = 1.04) than in the no unethical exemplar condition (M = 2.90 en SD = 1.81).
Unethical Exemplar (Work Overload Scenario). Another one-way ANOVA-test was performed to check the unethical exemplar condition. This control question was significant (F(1,58) = 50.15, p < 0,001). In the unethical exemplar condition participants indicated the presence of an unethical exemplar more strongly (M = 5.37 and SD = 0.99) than in the no unethical exemplar condition (M = 3.00 and SD = 1.40).
Unethical Behavior
Job Boredom. An ANOVA-test was performed to test the moderating effect of job
boredom on the relationship between an individual’s unethical behavior and the confrontation with an unethical exemplar. No significant moderating effect was found (F(1,74) = 0.07, p = 0.79). In the unethical exemplar condition, the high job boredom condition made participants not significantly more inclined to engage in unethical behavior (M = 4.50 and SD = 0.94) when compared to the low job boredom condition (M = 4.19 and SD = 1.47). Also, in the no unethical exemplar condition, the high job boredom condition made participants not
15
Work Overload. The moderating effect of job boredom on the relationship between an
individual’s unethical behavior and the confrontation with an unethical exemplar was assessed by computing an ANOVA-test. No significant moderating effect was found (F(1,70) = 0.03, p = 0.86). In the unethical exemplar condition, work overload made the participants not
16 DISCUSSION
We expected unethical behavior to be copied by others when confronted with an unethical exemplar. Moreover, we expected that job boredom and work overload would moderate this effect such that people high in job boredom are more susceptible to copy unethical behavior than people low in job boredom. Also, people with work overload would be more inclined to copy observed unethical conduct than people with no work overload. However, according to the results no significant moderating effects were found for job boredom nor for work overload. This means that job boredom and work overload do not impact one’s inclination to copy unethical behavior.
Theoretical Implications
The fact that no significant results were found on the main effect of an unethical exemplar on unethical behavior can be explained by the saliency argument by Mazar et al. (2008). Mazar et al. (2008) state that people who are confronted with a moral standard before considering a particular behavior assess this moral standard with their own moral standard and are therefore more reluctant to copy unethical behavior. The people who read the scenario’s about the unethical exemplar may have become aware of the unethicality of the behavior of the exemplar and have therefore chosen not to (substantially) conduct unethical behavior themselves.
17
Neither, work overload had a significant moderating effect. According to Dixon and Schertzer (2005), the way employees respond to work overload differs significantly per employee. This might be an explanation why the behavior of the unethical exemplar was not followed by the respondents. In reality, the respondents may have chosen other manners to deal with work overload, than was provided in the scenario.
In line with this, another explanation for both job boredom and work overload not to have lead to significant results may be the ignorance of personality. Personality was chosen not to take into account, since many research has been done on the relationship between personality and unethical behavior (e.g. McFerran, Aquino, & Duffy, 2010; Ambrose, Arnaud, & Schminke, 2008; Gino & Pierce, 2009; Moore, Detert, Klebe Treviño, Baker, & Mayer, 2012). Personality is defined by Robbins and Judge (2010) as ‘the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts to and interacts with others’. Personality determines (unethical) behavior (Robbins & Judge, 2010). Personality thus plays a crucial role in the reaction of respondents on job boredom and work overload and the degree to which employees are susceptible to conduct unethical behavior as a consequence. Ignoring personality in this research, may have lead to an inaccurate representation of reality and may therefore have not lead to significant results. We therefore recommend to take personality into account when investigating the moderating effects of job design factors on unethical behavioral contagion in future research.
So far, this thesis has proved that workload has no significant moderated effect on unethical behavioral contagion. However, unethical behavior is a very broad concept. Job design characteristics may be causes of only a few forms of unethical behavior. We therefore recommend to narrow the concept of unethical behavior to forms of unethical behavior that are most likely to occur in situations with high job boredom or work overload in future research. This, also in order make the results more concrete.
18 Practical Implications
The influence of unethical exemplars on the unethical behavior of others was not significant. For organizations this means that unethical exemplars will not cause a multiply of unethical behavior. Still, unethical behavior harms organizations and organizational
stakeholders (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998; Spector & Fox, 2005). It is therefore important for organizations to pay attention to unethical behavior and to take measures in order to prevent and monitor unethical conduct. A measure could be the creation of individual awareness of unethical conduct among employees and providing them opportunities to report unethical behavior (anonymously) according to the IREM Code of Professional Ethics (Pountain, 2012).
Although the job design characteristics were not of significant influence on unethical behavioral contagion, they do have negative effects on employee performance. As stated before, job boredom leads among others to lower job satisfaction (Melamed, Ben-Avi, Luz & Green, 1995), absenteeism, (Kass et al., 2001; Melamed et al., 1995), reduced work
effectiveness (Drory, 1982) and withdrawal (Spector et al., 2006).
Also work overload undermines employee performance. Work overload leads, as stated before, to ‘low morale among employees, stress, fatique, accidents, exhaustion, depression, anxiety, gastrointestinal disorders and other health hazards’ (Public Service Association of NSW, 1998). Thereby, work overload has a negative effect on productivity (Fong, Kleiner, 2004).
We advise organizations to take into account job boredom and work overload, not because they moderate unethical behavior, but because they have a negative effect on employee performance.
Limitations
As all research, this thesis has its limitations. The insignificant interaction can be caused by the fact that the survey was especially filled in by students (45%). Although students do have work experience, they have less and probably different work experiences than older people. This may have lead to the students being less able to place themselves in the situation of the scenario and may therefore have lead to insignificant results. Thus, the student sample may have been a limitation to this research.
19
20
CONCLUSION
We studied whether employees would be more inclined to conduct unethical behavior when confronted with an unethical exemplar than without such an unethical exemplar. We expected job design to be of influence on this relationship. Job design was chosen as a moderator on this relationship, because job design in the form of workload, is a factor that can be influenced by the employer.
Workload, in the form of job boredom and work overload does not significantly influence the susceptibility of individuals to copy unethical conduct when they are confronted with an unethical exemplar. An explanation may be that there are many manners in which people can respond to workload and they all respond differently. Another explanation may be the ignorance of personality in this research, which may have caused an inaccurate
representation of reality and therefore not have lead to significant results. Workload is still an important factor to take into account for organizations, because if workload is too low (job boredom) or too high (work overload) it can have negative effects on employees’
performance.
21
REFERENCES
Ambrose, M., Arnaud, A. & Schminke, M. (2008). Individual moral development and ethical climate: The influence of person–organization fit on job attitudes. Journal of Business
Ethics, 77: 323–333.
Ames, G. and Cunradi, C. (2004). Alcohol use and preventing alcohol-related problems among young adults in the military. Alcohol Research and Health, 28: 252–257.
Bargdill, R.W. (2000). The study of life boredom. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 31: 188–219.
Bird, F. B. (1996). Themuted conscience: Moral silence and the practice of ethics in business.
Westport, CT: Quorum.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., and Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees strike back: Investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach
and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1104–1117.
Bruursema K., Kessler. S. R., and Spector, P. E. (2011). Bored employees misbehaving: the relationship between boredom and counterproductive work behavior. Work & Stress, 25(2): 93-107.
Carli, L. L., Ganley, R. and Pierce-Otay, A. (1991). Similarity and satisfaction in roommate relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(4): 419-426.
Chen, P. Y. and Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: an exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 65: 177-184.
Christie, R., Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic
22
Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norm, conformity and
compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2: 151-192). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Culp, N.A. (2006). The relations of two facets of boredom proneness with the major dimensions of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41: 999-1007.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44: 113– 126.
Dixon, A. L., Schertzer, S. M. B. (2005). Bouncing Back: How Salesperson Optimism and Self-Efficacy Influence Attributions and Behaviors Following Failure. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 25, 4: 361–369.
Douglas, S. and Martinko, M. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 547–559.
Drory, A. (1982). Individual differences in boredom proneness and task effectiveness at work.
Personnel Psychology, 35: 141-151.
F.B.I. (2009). Crime in the United States, 2008. Washington, D.C.: US Department of
Justice.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2): 117-140.
Fisher, C.D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46: 395-418.
Fong, K., Kleiner, B. H. (2004). New development concerning the effect of work overload on employees. Management Research News, 27(4): 9-16.
Forsyth DR. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social
23
Fox, S. and Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20: 915-931.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E. and 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.
Free Dictionary. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/workload
Frone, M. R. (1998). Predictors of work injuries among employed adolescents. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83: 565–576.
Gino, F., Ayal, S. and Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior. The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Association for psychological science, 20: 393-398.
Gino, F., Pierce, L. (2009). Dishonesty in the name of equity. Psychological Science, 20: 1153–1160.
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L. and Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 115: 191–203.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B. and Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of consumer
Research, 35.
Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
89: 985–1003.
24
Jex, S. M., Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of work-related stress. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 9: 311-365.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M. (1986). Why do the nation’s students use drugs and alcohol? Selfreported reasons from nine national surveys. Journal of Drug Issues, 16: 29–66.
Kass, S.J., Vodanovich, S.J., and Callender, A. (2001). State-boredom proneness: Relationship to absenteeism, tenure, and job satisfaction. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 16: 317-327.
Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S. and Steg, L. (2008). The Spreading of Disorder. Science
Magazine, 322: 1681-1685.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In DA. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (348–480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Lee, T.W. (1986). Toward the development and validation of a measure of job boredom.
Manhattan College Journal of Business, 15: 22–28.
Loukidou, L., Loan-Clarke, J. and Daniels, K. (2009). Boredom in the workplace: More than monotonous tasks. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4): 381-405.
MacDonald, S., MacIntyre, P. (1997). The generic job satisfaction scale: scale development and its correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13: 1–16.
Mann, S. (2007). The boredom boom. The Psychologist, 20(2): 90–93.
25
Matthews, K. A., Räikkönen, K., Everson, S. A., Flory, J. D., Marco, C. A., Ownes, J. F. and Lloyd, C. E. (2000). Do the daily experiences of healthy men and women vary according to occupational prestige and work strain? Psychosomatic Medicine, 62: 346–353.
Mazar, N., Amir, O., and Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45: 633-644.
McFerran, B., Aquino, K. and Duffy, M. (2010). How personality and moral identity relate to individuals’ ethical ideology. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(1): 35–56.
McShulskis, E. (1997). Job stress can prompt unethical behavior. HRMagazine, 42(7): 22.
Mead, N., Baumeister, R. F., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M., and Ariely, D. (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3): 594–597.
Melamed, S., Ben-Avi, I., Luz, J., and Green, M.S. (1995). Objective and subjective work monotony: Effects on job satisfaction, psychological distress, and absenteeism in blue-collar workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 29-42.
Mikulas, W.L., Voadanovich, S.J. (1993). The essence of boredom. The Psychological
Record, 43: 3-12.
Miles, D. E., Borman, W. C., Spector, P. E. and Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of counterproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1/2): 51-57.
Mulki, K. P., Lassk, F. G. and Jaramillo, F. (2008). The effect of self-efficacy on salesperson work overload and pay satisfaction. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28(3): 285-297.
26
Murray, D. M., Luepker, R. V., Johnson, A. C. and Mittelmark, M. B. (1984). The prevention of cigarette smoking in children: a comparison of four strategies. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 14(3): 274-288.
O’Hanlon, J.F. (1981). Boredom: practical consequences and a theory. Acta Psychological, 49: 53–82.
Penney, L. M., Spector, P. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive behavior: do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1): 126-134.
Penney, L.M., Spector, P.E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behaviour (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 26: 777-796.
Pountain, M. (2012). I have a duty to report, but i'm scared! Journal of Property Management, 77(1): 24-24.
Public Service Association of NSW (1998). 1998 ACTU OHS Campaign Work Overload - What’s it about?. http://www.psa.labor.net.au/unions/psa/news/News-Items/19981028 overload2.html
Rich, G. A. (1998). The Constructs of Sales Coaching: Supervisory Feedback, Role Modeling and Trust. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 18(1): 53-63.
Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A. (2010). Essentials of Organizational Behavior. Pearson
education Inc., New Jersey.
Robinson, S. L., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: the influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 658-672.
Sarchione, C. D., Cuttler, M. J., Muchinsky, P. M., & Nelson-Gray, R. O. (1998). Prediction of dysfunctional job behaviors among law enforcement officers.
27
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review.
European Review of Social Psychology, 12: 1-36.
Spector, P. E. (1998). A control model of the job stress process. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress, 153-169. London: Oxford University Press.
Spector, P.E., Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Human Resources Management Review, 12: 269-292.
Spector, P.E., Fox, S. (2005). A model of counterproductive work behaviour. In S. Fox & P.E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive workplace behaviour: Investigations of actors and Targets, 151-174. Washington, DC: APA.
Spector, P.E., Fox, S., Penney, L.M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., and Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviours created equal?
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 68: 446-460.
Suedfeld, P., Bochner, S. and Matas, C. (1971). Petitioner’s attire and petition signing by peace demonstraters: a field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1(3): 278-283.
Tickner, A. H., Poulton, E. C. (1973). Monitoring up to 16 synthetic television pictures showing a great deal of movement. Ergonomics, 16: 381–401.
Watten, R. G., Sykversen, J. L. and Myhrer, T. (1995). Quality of life, intelligence and mood.
Social Indicators Research, 36: 287–299.
White, K. M., Hogg, M. A. and Terry, D. J. (2002). Improving attitude-behavior
correspondence through exposure to normative support from a salient ingroup. Basic and
28
Wiesner, M., Windle, M. and Freeman, A. (2005). Work stress, substance use, and depression among young adult workers: an examination of main and moderator effect models. Journal of
29 APPENDIX
Results
Job Boredom Condition Table 1
Analysis of Variance for unethical behavior and job boredom condition
Source df MS F p
Exemplar Condition 1 0.26 0.19 0.666
Job boredom Condition 1 1.06 0.76 0.386
Exemplar x Job boredom 1 0.10 0.07 0.790
Error 74 1.39
Table 2
Mean and standard deviation of unethical exemplar and job boredom
30
Work Overload Condition
Table 1
Analysis of Variance for unethical behavior and job work overload condition
Source Df MS F p
Exemplar Condition 1 0.69 1.02 0.316
Job boredom Condition 1 1.36 2.00 0.162
Exemplar x Job boredom 1 0.02 0.03 0.858
Error 70 0.68
Table 2
Mean and standard deviation of unethical exemplar and work overload
31
Questionnaire Scenario Job Boredom
Vragenlijst
Beste deelnemer,
Je zult vandaag meedoen aan een onderzoek naar gedragingen op de werkvloer. Je zult zo een scenario lezen en naar aanleiding hiervan wat vragen beantwoorden. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden, het gaat om jouw mening. Denk niet te lang over je antwoorden na, vaak is het eerste wat in je opkomt het beste antwoord. Alle antwoorden worden anoniem verwerkt, dus beantwoord de vragen zo eerlijk mogelijk. Het is belangrijk dat je alle vragen
beantwoordt.
Alvast bedankt voor je medewerking. Met vriendelijke groet,
Angela de Winter
32 Scenario’s verveling
Hieronder staat een scenario, lees deze goed door en probeer je zo goed mogelijk in te leven in het scenario. Hierna worden er wat vragen over het scenario gesteld.
Vragen
Onderstaande vraag gaat over het scenario wat je zojuist hebt gelezen. Geef je antwoord aan door een kruisje te zetten onder een van de antwoorden.
Bekijk jij de e-mail van de makelaar onder werktijd? Ik bekijk mijn e-mail zeker niet onder werktijd Ik bekijk mijn e-mail niet onder werktijd Ik bekijk mijn e-mail waarschijnlijk niet onder werktijd Ik bekijk mijn e-mail waarschijnlijk wel onder werktijd Ik bekijk mijn e-mail wel onder werktijd Ik bekijk mijn e-mail zeker wel onder werktijd Stellingen
Hieronder staan een paar stellingen over het scenario wat je zojuist hebt gelezen. De collega die wordt genoemd in de stellingen is de collega uit het scenario. Geef je antwoord aan door het cijfer wat jouw antwoord het beste weergeeft te omcirkelen.
(Onethisch voorbeeld)
volledig volledig mee oneens mee eens "Privé dingen doen onder werktijd (bv. face-book profiel updaten, persoonlijke mail checken, etc.) …
… is iets waar niemand achter komt." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is iets waar je mee weg kunt komen." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… blijft waarschijnlijk onopgemerkt" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Wanneer ik merk dat mijn collega privé dingen onder werktijd doet, heb ik een sterke neiging om privé dingen onder werktijd te doen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Wanneer ik merk dat mijn collega geen privé dingen onder werktijd doet, heb ik een sterke neiging geen privé dingen onder werktijd te doen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Wanneer ik merk dat mijn collega privé dingen onder werktijd
33 te doen
volledig volledig mee oneens mee eens Het gedrag van mijn collega is legitiem (legitimiteit) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Het gedrag van mijn collega is rechtvaardig (legitimiteit) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mijn gedrag is legitiem (legitimiteit) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mijn gedrag is rechtvaardig (legitimiteit) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Verveling)
volledig volledig mee oneens mee eens In de situatie zoals beschreven in het scenario…
… ben ik geneigd om een andere activiteit te gaan doen dan mijn
werk (MC (afwezigheid) verveling) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… ben ik geneigd om op te komen voor keuzevrijheid van
werkzaamheden (MC (afwezigheid) verveling) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 … ben ik geneigd spanning op te zoeken, ook als dit mogelijk leidt
tot ongelukken (MC (afwezigheid) verveling) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 … ben ik geneigd spanning op te zoeken door dingen te gaan
onderzoeken (MC (afwezigheid) verveling) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Normen en persoonlijke meningen)
volledig volledig mee oneens mee eens Privé dingen doen onder werktijd …
… wordt als normaal gezien in deze situatie (descriptieve) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is geaccepteerd gedrag in deze situatie (descriptieve) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is iets dat de meeste mensen in deze situatie zouden doen
(descriptieve) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is gewoon voor de meeste mensen (descriptieve) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is iets dat niet mag (inductieve norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is iets dat niet hoort (inductieve norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is een manier van handelen welke is toegestaan (R)
(inductieve) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is verboden (inductieve norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is fout om te doen (inductieve norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34
… beoordeel ik niet negatief (R) (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… keur ik in moreel opzicht af (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… vind ik sociaal aanvaardbaar (R) (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… vind ik prima (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… vind ik niet zo erg (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… vind ik asociaal (R) (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… vind ik onjuist (R) (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Controle)
volledig volledig mee oneens mee eens In het scenario is mijn collega bezig met privé werkzaamheden
onder werktijd (MC (afwezigheid) onethisch voorbeeld) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In het scenario is mijn collega bezig met zaken die voor
organisatie doeleinden zijn (MC (afwezigheid) onethisch
voorbeeld)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In het scenario heb ik een baan waarin ik mij erg verveel (MC
boredom) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In het scenario heb ik een baan waarin mijn werkzaamheden
afwisselend zijn en de taken verschillend van aard (MC boredom) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Demografische gegevens
Tenslotte wil ik graag nog een paar vragen stellen. Uw antwoorden kunt u aangeven door het rondje voor het antwoord in te kleuren, tenzij anders aangegeven.
1. Wat is uw geslacht? o Man
o vrouw 2. Wat is uw leeftijd? …… jaar (vul in)
3. Wat is uw dagelijkse bezigheid: o scholier
o student
o werkende
o werkzoekende
o anders, namelijk
………(vul in)
4. Wat is je hoogst genoten (afgeronde) o Basisonderwijs
35
opleiding / vmbo)
o Middelbaar algemeen voortgezet onderwijs (mavo)
o Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (mbo)
o Hoger algemeen voortgezet onderwijs (havo) o Voorbereidend wetenschappelijk onderwijs
(vwo)
o Hoger beroepsonderwijs (hbo) o Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (wo) o Geen antwoord
Bent u bekend met Facebook? o Ja, ik heb zelf ook een Facebook-profiel o Ja, maar ik heb zelf geen Facebook-profiel o Nee
36
Questionnaire Scenario Work Overload
Vragenlijst
Beste deelnemer,
Je zult vandaag meedoen aan een onderzoek naar gedragingen op de werkvloer. Je zult zo een scenario lezen en naar aanleiding hiervan wat vragen beantwoorden. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden, het gaat om jouw mening. Denk niet te lang over je antwoorden na, vaak is het eerste wat in je opkomt het beste antwoord. Alle antwoorden worden anoniem verwerkt, dus beantwoord de vragen zo eerlijk mogelijk. Het is belangrijk dat je alle vragen
beantwoordt.
Alvast bedankt voor je medewerking. Met vriendelijke groet,
Angela de Winter
37 Scenario’s te hoge werkdruk
Hieronder staat een scenario, lees deze goed door en probeer je zo goed mogelijk in te leven in het scenario. Hierna worden er wat vragen over het scenario gesteld.
Vragen
Onderstaande vraag gaat over het scenario wat je zojuist hebt gelezen. Geef je antwoord aan door een kruisje te zetten onder een van de antwoorden.
Schuif jij de opdracht stiekem onder de andere papieren? Ik schuif de opdracht zeker niet stiekem onder de andere papieren Ik schuif de opdracht niet stiekem onder de andere papieren Ik schuif de opdracht waarschijnlijk niet stiekem onder de andere papieren Ik schuif de opdracht waarschijnlijk wel stiekem onder de andere papieren Ik schuif de opdracht wel stiekem onder de andere papieren Ik schuif de opdracht zeker wel stiekem onder de andere papieren Stellingen
Hieronder staan een paar stellingen over het scenario wat je zojuist hebt gelezen. De collega die wordt genoemd in de stellingen is de collega uit het scenario. Geef je antwoord aan door het cijfer wat jouw antwoord het beste weergeeft te omcirkelen.
(Onethisch voorbeeld)
volledig volledig mee oneens mee eens Een opdracht weggooien en dus niet uitvoeren…
… is iets waar niemand achter komt. (MC (afwezigheid) te hoge
werkdruk) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is iets waar je mee weg kunt komen. (MC (afwezigheid) te
hoge werkdruk) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… blijft waarschijnlijk onopgemerkt. (MC (afwezigheid) te hoge
werkdruk) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Wanneer ik merk dat mijn collega privé dingen onder werktijd doet, heb ik een sterke neiging om privé dingen onder werktijd te doen. (MC (afwezigheid) te hoge werkdruk)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Wanneer ik merk dat mijn collega geen privé dingen onder
38 werktijd te doen. (MC (afwezigheid) te hoge werkdruk) Wanneer ik merk dat mijn collega privé dingen onder werktijd doet, heb ik een sterke neiging geen privé dingen onder werktijd te doen. (MC (afwezigheid) te hoge werkdruk)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Work Overload)
volledig volledig mee oneens mee eens In de situatie zoals beschreven in het scenario…
… ben ik geneigd mijn werkgever te vragen om minder
opdrachten (MC (afwezigheid) hoge werkdruk) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 … ben ik geneigd om te zoeken naar een oplossing (MC
(afwezigheid) hoge werkdruk) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… ben ik geneigd om me ziek te melden en thuis te blijven(MC
(afwezigheid) hoge werkdruk) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… ben ik geneigd om meer alcohol te drinken dan ik normaal
gesproken doe(MC (afwezigheid) hoge werkdruk) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 … ben ik geneigd de kwaliteit van mijn werk te verlagen, zodat ik
mijn opdrachten eerder af heb (MC (afwezigheid) hoge
werkdruk) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… ben ik geneigd om stress af te reageren op collega’s (MC
(afwezigheid) hoge werkdruk) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Normen en persoonlijke meningen)
volledig volledig mee oneens mee eens Een opdracht niet uitvoeren …
… wordt als normaal gezien in deze situatie (descriptieve) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is geaccepteerd gedrag in deze situatie (descriptieve) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is iets dat de meeste mensen in deze situatie zouden doen
(descriptieve) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is gewoon voor de meeste mensen (descriptieve) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is iets dat niet mag (inductieve norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is iets dat niet hoort (inductieve norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is een manier van handelen welke is toegestaan (R)
39
… is verboden (inductieve norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… is fout om te doen (inductieve norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… vind ik oneerlijk (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… beoordeel ik niet negatief (R) (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… keur ik in moreel opzicht af (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… vind ik sociaal aanvaardbaar (R) (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… vind ik prima (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… vind ik niet zo erg (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… vind ik asociaal (R) (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
… vind ik onjuist (R) (personal norm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Controle)
volledig volledig mee oneens mee eens In het scenario heeft mijn collega een de opdracht niet
uitgevoerd maar weggegooid (MC (afwezigheid) onethisch
voorbeeld)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In het scenario is mijn collega moe, omdat hij een nacht slecht
heeft geslapen (MC (afwezigheid) onethisch voorbeeld) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In het scenario heb ik een baan waarin ik de werkdruk als erg
hoog ervaar (MC workload) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In het scenario heb ik een baan waarin ik de werkdruk goed aan
kan (MC workload) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Demografische gegevens
Tenslotte wil ik graag nog een paar vragen stellen. Uw antwoorden kunt u aangeven door het rondje voor het antwoord in te kleuren, tenzij anders aangegeven.
1. Wat is uw geslacht? o Man
o vrouw 2. Wat is uw leeftijd? …… jaar (vul in)
3. Wat is uw dagelijkse bezigheid: o scholier
o student
o werkende
o werkzoekende
40
………(vul in)
4. Wat is je hoogst genoten (afgeronde) opleiding
o Basisonderwijs
o Lager / voorbereidend beroepsonderwijs (lbo / vmbo)
o Middelbaar algemeen voortgezet onderwijs (mavo)
o Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (mbo)
o Hoger algemeen voortgezet onderwijs (havo) o Voorbereidend wetenschappelijk onderwijs
(vwo)
o Hoger beroepsonderwijs (hbo) o Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (wo) o Geen antwoord
