The antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior: A literature review

(1)

1

The antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior:

A literature review

Jurgen van der Linde

s3541134

MSc Business Administration – Small Business & Entrepreneurship

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Supervised by

Evelien Croonen

Co-assessor: Maryse Brand

March 2020

(2)

2

Abstract

Dyadic focused research on the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior in organizational networks has been conducted in the field of organizational behavior. However, this research on opportunistic behavior in organizational networks is limited due to the fact that there are organizational networks that are not solely characterized by dyadic relationships. Therefore, this study contributes further to the literature by discussing the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior from an employer-employee context. This study builds on a systematic review of prior studies regarding the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees. The results of this systematic review are presented in an integrative framework of the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees. Finally, the integrative framework reflects upon the opportunistic behavior of network members within an organizational network. Three categories of antecedents of opportunistic behavior of network members and two categories of consequences of opportunistic behavior of network members are distinguished. The research implications, managerial implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.

(3)

3

1. Introduction

1.1 The value of organizational networks

Organizational networks have been widely discussed in a broad range of academic fields due to their assumed economic value for organizations (Gulati et al., 2000; McIntyre & Srinivasan, 2017). On a micro level, the value of organizational networks is emphasized in several theoretical approaches to organizational networks, including access to resources, trust, power, status, and innovation. Organizational access to resources is positively associated with engaging in organizational networks (Powell et al., 1996; Uzzi, 1997; Laursen and Salter, 2006). Prefble et al. (2000) argue that the collaborative nature of organizational networks offers a range of resources to their members, including access to new technology and knowledge. Trust between partners within an organizational network can yield a number of efficiency benefits that result from creating trust in cooperative relationships, such as reduced transaction costs (Gulati, 1995; Zaheer et al., 1998). Enhanced power of organizations (Cook, 1977; Burt, 1992) and status of organizations (Kim and Higgins, 2007) are also positively associated with engaging in organizational networks. Within innovation research, the impact of organizational networks on innovation performance is also receiving substantial attention (Gulati & Singh (1998). Gulati & Singh (1998) claim that organizational networks are formed between independent firms who are looking for mutual benefits through collaborative partnerships to develop new products, processes, technologies, or services. On a macro level, organizational networks provide value by strengthening the competitive position of the entire network by enhancing market power and increasing efficiencies in the long term (Kogut, 1991; Ahuja, 2000).

1.2 Defining organizational networks

(5)

5

organizational network (Bergenholtz & Waldstrøm, 2011; Provan et al., 2007). Within this perspective, networks are always considered to include at least three organizations. In recent years, numerous literature reviews have summarized the different theoretical concepts and views of organizational networks regarding both perspectives of organizational network research (Provan et al., 2007; Knoben et al., 2006; Oliver & Ebers, 1998; Borgatti & Foster, 2003; Bergenholtz & Waldstrøm, 2011). In general, these literature studies have made considerable progress in understanding what networks are, how they are structured, how they operate, and even how they develop.

Therefore, this article is not an attempt to address the remaining gaps in the literature, to, once again, provide a literature study summarizing the various theoretical concepts and views in organizational network theory, or to offer an overarching definition of organizational networks considering the different perspectives used to study organizational networks. Instead, this study uses the whole network perspective to identify the shortcomings of a solely dyadic relationship perspective on a specific topic of organizational behavior, with the goal to propose a different approach to develop further understanding of this topic. This topic of organizational behavior is the opportunistic behavior of organizations, which is explained in greater detail in the following section.

1.3 Opportunistic behavior and organizational networks: the current state of the literature

Opportunistic behavior in an inter-organizational context is a form of organizational behavior that refers to a lack of honesty in transactions. Such behavior may be exhibited, either sequentially or simultaneously, by one or both organizations in an exchange relationship (Joshi and Stump, 1999). It may involve violation of contractual norms or relational norms. According to Brown et al. (2000), organizations can engage in opportunistic behavior even before the actual formation of a relationship (ex-ante opportunistic behavior), or they may show opportunistic behavior after the relationship has been established (ex-post opportunistic behavior). Ex-post opportunistic behaviors include withholding or distorting information to mislead, distort, obfuscate, or otherwise confuse (Yaqub, 2009). Both types negatively impact the relationship, where the former may paralyze the formation of the relationship and the latter tempers the mutual trust, commitment, and spirit of cooperation (Yaqub, 2009). According to transaction cost economics, an organization is inclined to opportunistic behavior if it is profitable (John, 1984).

(6)

6

consequences derived, such as transaction cost economics, agency theory, strategic behavior theory, and the resource-based view.

1.4 Opportunistic behavior and organizational networks: the missing link

(7)

7

there may be an underdeveloped intra-organizational context within the multilateral ties of franchise networks and cooperatives.

The multilateral relationship within a franchise network can be viewed as an employer-employee relationship. First, in franchise networks, the franchisee must agree with contractual requirements of the franchisor, and the franchisor monitors the franchisee’s compliance. This is analogous to a hierarchical employer-employee relationship, in which an employee agrees with the contractual requirements of the employer, while the employer monitors the employee’s compliance (Croonen and Broekhuizen, 2017; Kidwell et al., 2007). Second, there are relationships between franchisees, since the performance of the whole franchise network depends on the collaborative teamwork between franchisees (Dormann and Ehrmann, 2007; Jambulingam and Nevin, 1999). This is also the case in employer-employee relationships, as employees tend to have relationships with other employees, since the collaborative teamwork between employees determines the performance of the entire organization (Hansen and Wernerfelt, 1989). The multilateral relationship within a cooperative can also be seen as an employer-employee relationship, for the following reasons. First, a single cooperative member must agree with the operational decisions and regulations of the democratically chosen central organization (Bonus, 1986). It seems legitimate to consider this analogous to a hierarchical employer-employee relationship, in which an employee must agree with the decisions of the employer, and the employer monitors employee compliance (Kidwell et al., 2007). Second, cooperative members are likely to know each other, and, therefore, have social relationships among themselves (Hendrikse and Feng, 2013). This is also the case in the employer-employee relationship, as employees tend to have social relationships among themselves (Kidwell et al., 2007).

Thus, employer-employee relationships can also be considered multilateral, with ties between an employer and employee and between employees themselves, and this relationship has some similarities with organizational networks, such as franchise networks and cooperatives. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to contribute to the research on opportunistic behavior in organizational networks by conducting a literature review on the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior in an employer-employee (intra-organizational) context. This is lacking in the current literature. Therefore, the research question of this study is as follows: What are the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior in an employer-employee context? This study proposes to summarize and add the literature on antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior in an employer-employee context to the existing work on opportunistic behavior in organizational networks based on dyadic-focused research. Subsequently, a more complete overview and understanding of opportunistic behavior in networks can be attained.

(8)

8

collect all literature results and bring them together in an integrative framework. Following this, the study concludes with a discussion of the research implications, managerial implications, limitations, and directions for future research.

2. Methodology

This study consists of a literature review that focuses on the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior in an employer-employee context. Literature reviews that intend to provide an overview of research in a particular field can be divided into two types (Bergenholtz & Waldstrøm, 2011). They can be systematic – that is, performed using specified search terms and analyzed on the basis of content – or based on addressing general perspectives or streams in the field (Brass et al., 2004). Each approach has its own advantages, depending on the purpose of the research. In providing a large-scale overview of the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior in an employer-employee relationship over a given time period, it is suitable to conduct a systematic literature review. In this way, the reader knows what journals have been searched, what search terms have been applied, whether a paper is qualitative or quantitative, and from which theoretical perspective the papers were written. Consequently, a systematic literature review provides a quantified overview of the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior in an employer-employee context. In the context of the current study, this method is more valuable than addressing general perspectives of opportunistic behavior.

(9)

9

2.1 Research identification and search

To identify the most relevant literature for the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior in an employer-employee context, the online database Web of Science was used. Web of Science includes all journals that are listed in the Science Citation Index Expanded and provides a scientific and transparent range of literature. Several search criteria were used in this study to generate a suitable sample. First, three categories of journals were included in this study: (1) management journals, (2) economic journals, and (3) business combined with business finance journals. All top-ten-listed journals in each of these categories, ranked according to their five-year impact factor, were taken. This five-year impact factor is determined by Web of Science itself.In a specific year, this factor is equal to the sum of citations of scientific items published in the previous five years, divided by the total number of scientific items published in those five years. In this case, reviews, articles, and proceedings papers are considered as items. This means that the present research is based on the most influential journals. An overview of these journals is presented in Appendix 1.

(10)

10

Ex-ante employee opportunism Ex-post employee opportunism - Unfavorable activities (the candidate - Shirking

exaggerates his real, , knowledge) - Using the working time personally

- Corporate espionage - Work of lower quality

- Concealment of the true purpose - Negligence - Sabotage

- Different backstairs of the staff during the promotion of colleagues

- Concealment of their workplaces' reserve by the employees - Pulling rank - Fraud - Blackmail - Plunder - Free-riding

- Withholding action or information

Table 1. Overview of opportunistic behavior of employees (Popov & Ersh, 2016)

Altogether, the chosen search terms included “opportunism of employees,” “opportunistic behavior of employees,” “free riding of employees,” and “free-riding of employees” – terms that are often used to define opportunistic behavior of employees. This study considers all kinds of opportunistic behavior (both ex-ante and ex-post) to provide a complete overview of the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees.

(11)

11

2.2 Selection and quality assessment

Combining the search criteria and excluding duplicates generated an initial sample of articles (n = 37). Some journals belonged to multiple disciplines. Therefore, in Economics Journals, only additional articles with respect to Management Journals were included. In Business and Business of Finance Journals, only additional journals with respect to both Management Journals and Economics Journals were included. Screening a literature sample to assess its applicability requires identifying publications that are not appropriate for further analysis. Such screening is usually done by reading the abstract of each article (vom Brocke et al., 2015). Therefore, all articles (n = 37) were reviewed based on title and abstract. Of the initial articles (n = 37), seven were excluded because they included (parts of) the search terms in the abstract or title but were not focused on opportunistic behavior of employees. The sample was further evaluated through a full reading, and 14 articles were excluded. These articles mentioned opportunistic behavior, but they did not provide any antecedent(s) or consequence(s) of opportunistic behavior. This full text reading further reduced the initial sample to 16 articles.

(12)

12

often contribute more to knowledge accumulation and development. Selecting the highly cited articles based on the same search criteria as the first sample, but with the additional search terms, generated a second sample of 25 articles. This second search took place on January 4, 2020. Again, the 25 articles were reviewed based on title and abstract (vom Brocke et al., 2015). Of the initial 25 articles, 11 were excluded because they included (parts of) the additional search terms in the abstract or title but were not focused on opportunistic behavior of employees. The sample was further evaluated through a full reading, and seven articles were excluded. These articles mentioned opportunistic behavior of employees, but they did not provide any antecedent(s) or consequence(s) of opportunistic behavior. This full text reading reduced the second sample to seven articles. Ultimately, combining the two samples led to a final sample of 23 articles. Figure 1 presents an overview of the steps in the selection process.

2.3 Data extraction and classification

(13)

(14)

14

3. Results

3.1 Data synthesis of the results

(15)

15

Based on the literature review, two different categories of consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees have been identified: individual outcomes and organizational outcomes.

Lastly, the results revealed two different forms of opportunistic behavior: opportunistic behavior of employees towards other employees and opportunistic behavior of employees towards the organizations directly. This distinction is in line with Robinson and Bennett (1995), who argue that opportunistic behavior can be distinguished on the basis of the target: against the individuals in the organization or against the organization as a whole. Both forms are potentially harmful to organizations (Giacalone & Greenberg 1997; Spector and Fox 2005).

Table 2. Descriptive summary of research on antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees.

1_{Most of the studies were focused on more than one industry, country, antecedent(s), consequence(s), etc.} Number of studies1 Number of studies1 Number of studies1

Total Sample 23 Theory/Perspective Consequences

Methodology Mergers & Acquisitions 1 Individual 3

Quantitative 17 Corporate 1 Performance

Qualitative 6 Entrepreneurship Outcomes

Agency Relationship and 1 Organizational 3

Industries Psychological Contracts Performance

Electronics 1 Transaction Cost Economics 1 Outcomes Financial 1 and Organization Theory

Services Organizational Behavior 8 Forms of

Food 1 Organizational Innovation 1 Opportunistic

Public Sector 3 Organizational Health 2 Behavior

Various 8 Social Exchange Theory 5 Towards 5

Industries Agency Theory 1 Other

Not specified 10 Authentic Leadership Theory 2 Employees

Towards 18

Countries Antecedents Employer

Colombia 1 Employee Characteristics 8

Germany 1 Leadership Characteristics 4

(16)

16

Figure 2. An integrative model of antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees. Non capitalized letters in the antecedents are referring to the mediators. The symbol

(17)

17

3.2 Antecedents of opportunistic behavior of employees

The data synthesis of the results in Figure 2 distinguishes three main categories of antecedents: employee characteristics, leadership characteristics, and organizational characteristics. The main categories are further categorized into multiple subcategories related to the antecedents of opportunistic behavior of employees. These main categories and subcategories are mapped into an integrative framework, with the main categories as building blocks and the subcategories as the contents of the block. Figure 2 presents this integrative framework of the various categories and subcategories. The findings are discussed in greater detail below.

3.2.1 Employee characteristics

The literature review identifies that opportunistic behavior of employees is related to several employee characteristics, including individual self-interest, human-asset specificity, job stress, perceived abusive supervision, personality traits and unemployment rates. These antecedents are divided into soft and hard characteristics. Soft characteristics are based on the feelings and attitudes of the individual employee, while the hard characteristics are based on quantified characteristics of individual employees.

Soft characteristics

Self-interest of individuals(+): Two of the 23 studies indicate that acting with self-interest is an important determinant for opportunistic behavior of employees. This attitude is defined by Yan et al. (2002), who argue that agents (individual employees) are utility maximizers. Therefore, the agent might not pursue the best interests of the principal but, rather, acts opportunistically to pursue his or her own strategic ends. The same definition is given by Caldwell et al. (2006). Both studies indicate that employees - who behave opportunistically – typically can displays opportunistic behavior such as withholding information, withholding helpful action or shirking.

(18)

18

knowledge about product or processes. Employees use this approach to gain bargaining power in their relationships with employers.

Job stress (+): One of the 23 studies (Useche et al., 2017) indicates job stress as an antecedent of opportunistic behavior of employees. Their quantitative study of 524 employees in four transport companies in Colombia found that job stress can lead to opportunistic behavior of employees. According to Useche et al. (2017), job stress is defined as a process of psychosocial stress that occurs in the workplace due to a combination of low salaries, high demands, and low levels of control. If this process of psychosocial stress continues, it may end in lower levels of psychological health. Ultimately, they may deliver work of lower quality, which is as a form of opportunistic behavior. According to Useche et al. (2017), psychological health is the mediator between job stress and opportunistic behavior of employees.

Perceived abusive supervision(+): One of the 23 indicates perceived abusive supervision as a determinant of opportunistic behavior of employees. According to Tepper et al. (2017), perceived abusive supervision is the perception of an employee of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact. In their qualitative study, Tepper et al. (2017) argue that perceived abusive supervision is associated with negative effects on employees, as perceived abusive supervision has been linked to lower levels of psychological health. If employees have lower levels of psychological health, they may deliver work of lower quality, which is as a form of opportunistic behavior. According to Tepper et al. (2017), psychological health is the mediator between perceived abusive supervision and opportunistic behavior of employees.

(19)

19

in all three concepts of the Dark Triad, as individuals with these traits share a tendency to exhibit opportunistic behavior, such as shirking, fraud and blackmail. The data were extracted from original reports published between 1951 and 2011 and consist of 245 independent samples (N = 43.907 individuals).

Hard characteristics

Unemployment rates(-): One study indicates the possible effects of unemployment rates as an antecedent of opportunistic behavior of employees. Based on the findings of Askildsen et al. (2005), Biscardo et al. (2018) argue that unemployment rates are often associated with potentially opportunistic behavior of employees. According to Askildsen et al. (2005), unemployment rates are quantified as the percentage of individuals within the working age that is unemployed. Askildsen et al. (2005) found in their quantitative study that opportunistic behavior of employees in terms of fraud falls as unemployment rates grow. This due to the fact that with higher unemployment rates, individuals are less willing to display fraud because they fear higher consequences of unemployment. Based on this empirical finding, Biscardo et al. (2018) include unemployment rates of the previous month as a control variable in their quantitative study, based on a large administrative dataset, regarding sickness fraud in Italy. However, they did not find a significant positive relationship between opportunistic behavior with respect to job sick leave and unemployment rates.

3.2.2 Leadership characteristics

The literature review identifies that opportunistic behavior of employees is related to several leadership characteristics. Three different leadership characteristics were found: trustworthiness of leaders, ethical leadership and destructive leadership.

(20)

20

demonstrate a negative relation between leader-follower exchange and opportunistic behavior of employees, implying that trustworthiness of leaders lower the level of opportunistic behavior of employees in terms of sabotage, fraud or work of lower quality. This study was based on various countries and industries. According to Ramaswami & Singh (2003) and Martin et al. (2016), trust is the mediator between trustworthiness of leaders and lower levels of opportunistic behavior of employees.

Ethical leadership(-): One study indicates ethical leadership as an antecedent of opportunistic behavior of employees. Mayer et al. (2009) argue that ethical leadership may diminish opportunistic behavior in terms of fraud, sabotage and work of lower quality. They conceptualize ethical leadership as the following: “Ethical leaders communicate the importance of ethics to subordinates, use rewards and punishments to encourage desired behavior, and serve as ethical role models for followers.” They used a sample of 904 employees and 195 managers in 195 departments over various industries in the United States and found a direct negative relationship between ethical leadership and opportunistic behavior of employees. They argued that ethical leadership acts as an example to subordinates, which consequently lowers the level of opportunistic behavior of employees themselves. Therefore, Mayer et al. (2009) argue that leaders as examples to subordinates is the mediator between ethical leadership and opportunistic behavior of employees.

Destructive leadership(+): One study indicates destructive leadership as an antecedent of opportunistic behavior of employees. Schyns & Schilling (2013) define destructive leadership as negative leadership behaviors that are targeted toward the followers, rather than the organization. They reviewed more than 200 studies, of which 57 could be included in their meta-analysis. They found a strong correlation between destructive leadership and opportunistic behavior of employees in terms of negligence, fraud and work of lower quality. Schyns & Schilling (2013) provide two mechanisms for this. First, opportunistic behavior of employees in the context of destructive leadership serves as an act of retaliation against the particular leader, which may provide a safer environment for the employee than direct resistance toward the leader. Second, destructive leaders may be seen as role models for their followers (employees), suggesting a culture that tolerates negative behavior within the organization. This explanation is in line with the idea of Brown et al. (2005) concerning the process of social learning in the area of ethical leadership.

3.2.3 Organizational characteristics

(21)

21

monitoring rates. These characteristics are divided into cultural and structural characteristics. Cultural characteristics are based on perceived cultures and established procedures within the organization, structural characteristics are based on quantified characteristics of the organization.

Cultural characteristics

Lack of organizational authenticity(+): One study emphasizes the lack of organizational authenticity as antecedent of opportunistic behavior of employees. Cording et al. (2014) found that employees will reciprocate positively through additional effort if they notice that the behavior of an organization after a certain merger is consistent with the implicit contracts they have formed through expectations based on espoused firm values. In their quantitative study of 137 acquired firms across different industries, Cording et al. (2014) refer to the latter as organizational authenticity. On the contrast, a lack of organizational authenticity refer to a breach of contracts, through either over-promising or under-promising realized practices set by espoused values. This will lead to negative reciprocity through reduced efforts of employees. This implies that employees display opportunistic behavior, in terms of reduced quality of work, if they notice a lack of organizational authenticity.

(22)

22

is directly influenced by supervisor trust and indirectly by procedural fairness. They claim that procedural fairness has an indirect and diminishing effect on opportunistic behaviors through its effect on supervisor trust. In turn, supervisor trust diminishes the effect of opportunistic behavior in terms of fraud and lower quality of work. According to Ramaswami & Singh (2003), trust acts as a mediator between procedural fairness and lower levels of opportunistic behavior of employees.

Interactional justice(-): One study indicates that Interactional justice is an antecedent of opportunistic behavior. Interactional justice is described as the degree to which an employee feels he or she has been treated sensitively and is respected (Colquitt, 2001; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Berry et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis, over various industries and countries, using this definition. They found that interactional justice has a strong negative relationship with opportunistic behavior. Due to the fact that employees feel that their efforts are respected, they are not willing to engage in behavior such as fraud, sabotage or negligence. This means that the effect of opportunistic behavior of employees diminishes if the level of interactional justice increases.

Structural characteristics

Firm size(+): Two studies indicate that a higher number of employees acts as an antecedent of opportunistic behavior of employees. Knez & Simester (2001) argue that there are obstacles to effectively monitor employees in large firms. Large firms are often unable to observe each other’s efforts and are less willing to incur the costs of monitoring and sanctioning their colleagues. In their quantitative study based on the effect of an incentive scheme on the performance of Continental Airlines, Knez & Simester (2001) claim that organizations are able to overcome these obstacles by dividing employees into smaller divisions. By following this process, organizations can reduce the effects of free-riding of employees, as employees monitor each other more often in smaller groups. Furthermore, Kim & Ouimet (2014) argue that an organization introducing an employee stock ownership plan enhances productivity by improving worker incentives and co-monitoring. Employee stock ownership plans are considered to be a type of tax-qualified pension plan (Beatty, 1995). The effects of these employee stock ownership plans are weaker when there are too many employees to mitigate free-riding effects (Kim & Ouimet, 2014; Chang et al., 2015). Both studies indicate that a monitoring rate acts as a mediator between firm size and opportunistic behavior.

(23)

23

a significant fraction of the employees in the research sample responded to a reduction in monitoring by increasing the rate at which they engaged in opportunistic behavior in terms of lower quality of work.

3.3 Mediators of opportunistic behavior of employees

The literature review showed different mediators between the antecedents of opportunistic behavior of employees and opportunistic behavior employees. The mediators are trust (Ramaswami & Singh, 2003; Martin et al., 2016), psychological health (Useche et al., 2017; Tepper et al., 2017), leaders as example figures (Mayer et al. (2009) and monitoring (Knez & Simester, 2001).

3.4 Consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees

The data synthesis of the previous empirical results section identifies two main categories of consequences: individual outcomes and organizational outcomes. The main factors are further categorized into multiple subcategories related to the consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees. Figure 2 presents the various categories and subcategories regarding the consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees in an integrative framework. The findings are discussed in greater detail below.

3.4.1 Individual outcomes

The literature review has demonstrated that opportunistic behavior of employees affects the wellbeing of employees, job satisfaction, and financial benefits for employees. These consequences are divided into soft and hard consequences. Soft consequences are based on the feelings and attitudes of the individual employee, while hard consequences are based on quantified characteristics of the individual employee.

Soft characteristics

(24)

24

low scores on wellbeing indicators. To explain this, Knoll and van Dick (2013) argue that opportunistic silence might not always be voluntary. In sum, employee wellbeing is negatively affected by opportunistic behavior of employees.

Job satisfaction: One study indicates the financial benefits for employees as a consequence of opportunistic behavior of employees. Berry et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of a wide range of studies (n = 40) in which opportunistic behavior in terms of fraud, shirking, sabotage and lower quality of work is negatively related to job satisfaction. They define the concept of job satisfaction as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of an individual’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of an individual’s job values. This definition is based on the work of Cammann et al. (1979). Berry et al. (2012) argue that opportunistic behavior does not lead to the appraisal of an individual’s job. Therefore, opportunistic behavior of employees negatively affects the job satisfaction. In their study, a broad range of independent samples (n = 50) yielded a significant number of independent correlations (n = 224).

Hard characteristics

Financial benefits for employees: One study indicates the financial benefits for employees as a consequence of opportunistic behavior of employees. Nagin et al. (2002) found in their quantitative study in the financial services industry that individual employees financially benefit from engaging in opportunistic behaviors. They demonstrate that an increasing level of opportunistic behavior is positively associated with increased earnings in terms of money. They argue that committing fraud or using the working time for dealing with personal matters may increase personal earnings. Therefore, increased financial rewards is considered to be a consequence of opportunistic behavior of employees.

3.4.2 Organizational outcomes

The literature review illustrates that opportunistic behavior of employees has an effect on management control, organizational costs, and merger performance.

(25)

25

management control are referred to as constraining management control elements by van der Kolk et al. (2015). Consequently, they found that management control elements are considered necessary to avoid the opportunistic behavior of employees. Therefore, management control elements are considered to be consequences of opportunistic behavior.

Organizational costs: One study indicates organizational costs as a consequence of opportunistic behavior of employees. In their conceptual paper, Yan et al. (2002) illustrate that organizations may suffer from a competitive disadvantage if innovative employees decide to withhold valuable knowledge of new opportunities and ways to improve organizational productivity, effectiveness, or profitability. Based on this finding, their paper contributes to the literature by proposing a number of insights on how organizations can overcome this form of opportunistic behavior and provide mechanisms for how to mobilize organizational innovation potential and knowledge-based resources. Furthermore, although not directly measuring the relationship between opportunistic behavior of employees and organizational costs, Eddleston & Kidwell (2010) build upon empirical findings regarding organizational costs resulting from opportunistic behavior of employees. They argue that opportunistic behavior in terms of sabotage, fraud and lower quality of work threatens important organizational standards and, in so doing, violates the wellbeing of the organization and/or its employees (Robinson & Bennett, 1997).

(26)

26

4. Discussion and conclusions

The presented systematic literature review aimed to collect evidence on the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees. Based on the research question of this study, antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees have been identified. Categorizing these antecedents and consequences into different (sub)categories has led to an integrative framework. This integrative framework provides an overview that contributes greater knowledge to the concept of opportunistic behavior. Following the introduction, the ultimate purpose of this study is to summarize and add the literature on antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior in an employer-employee context to the existing work on opportunistic behavior in organizational networks based on dyadic-focused (Yaqub, 2009). Subsequently, a more complete overview and understanding of antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior in organizational networks is attained. The identified range of antecedents are distinguished into three different categories and multiple subcategories (Figure 2). The identified range of consequences are also in the integrative framework of this study (Figure 2). These consequences are distinguished into two categories and several subcategories. By combining the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior, this review is a valuable resource for future researchers and practitioners and aims to contribute to the literature. This section further elaborates on the contribution of theoretical perspectives to the evidence, managerial implications, and limitations of this study, as well as provides an overview in which further research directions are explained.

4.1 The contribution of theoretical perspectives to the evidence

The heterogeneous nature of opportunistic behavior of employees in the literature made it difficult to develop an integrative framework with all categories and subcategories involved. As shown in the methodology part, opportunistic behavior is characterized by many different behaviors. Nevertheless, this study is the first literature review to summarize conceptual and empirical studies to build an integrative framework of antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees in an employer-employee context. Prior literature reviews on antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior has only been conducted in an inter-organizational context (Yaqub, 2009). Therefore, this integrative framework in an intra-organizational context significantly contribute to the current literature.

(27)

27

(1978) argues that research on organizational behavior is largely focused on individual and intragroup perspectives. Moreover, according to Neal et al. (2000), general organizational behavior has a significant impact on opportunistic behavior in an intra-organizational context. Another theory commonly found in the literature was the social exchange theory. Five of the examined studies were based on social exchange theory. According to Cropanzano & Mitchell (2005), social exchange theory is one of the most influential theories for understanding workplace behavior, including opportunistic behavior in an intra-organizational context.

In sum, including organizational behavior theories and social exchange theories in future research on opportunistic behavior in an intra-organizational context could yield more interesting outcomes. Several other theories and perspectives were used in the other studies examined in this literature review. However, these theories and perspectives were often used in just one or two studies, which makes specific involvement of this study’s topic irrelevant.

4.2 Managerial implications

The presented literature review has identified antecedents and consequences in an employer-employee context. However, as described in the introduction part of this study, organizational networks with an intra-organizational context, such as franchise networks and cooperatives, can use the framework to develop further understanding of opportunistic behavior of network members. Managers of organizations within networks must focus on the described mechanisms behind each antecedent, especially on the mediators that are between the antecedents of opportunistic behavior of employees and opportunistic behavior of employees. The mediators are trust (Ramaswami & Singh, 2003; Martin et al., 2016), psychological state (Useche et al., 2017; Tepper et al., 2017), leaders as example figures (Mayer et al. (2009) and monitoring (Knez & Simester, 2001). For example, managers should foster trust within organizational networks, because trust creates situations in which employees may follow leaders. Moreover, trust may diminishes procedural unfairness, which in turn may lead to reduced opportunistic behavior of employees. Simultaneously, managers should focus on weakening the antecedents that enhance opportunistic behavior of network members.

4.3 Limitations

(28)

28

numerous. An explanation for this outcome might be that there are underlying concepts that follow on opportunistic behavior of employees, but do not have immediate consequences. Consequently, direct links between opportunistic behavior and certain consequences may be difficult to trace. Second, the evidence presented in the studies was counted, but some antecedents and/or consequences were only presented in one study. This low level of evidence may influence the generalizability of the results. Third, most of the studies included in the literature review used a quantitative research design, indicating associations between different concepts. Qualitative research designs can help with identifying underlying concepts (Dada, 2018), of which the importance has previously been described. Lastly, the current literature review was conducted by just one author, which could have led to misinterpretations of the results. Other studies include a second or third reviewer in the case of persistent doubt (Dada, 2018).

4.4 Recommendations for further research

The current literature review revealed various relationships between the antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior in an intra-organizational context (employer-employee context). However, the evidence found in this study is not only based on empirical findings, also conceptual findings are included. Therefore, more evidence found in empirical settings can help in improving the framework that is built on the current evidence.

(29)

29

5. References

Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative science quarterly, 45(3), 425-455.

Askildsen, J. E., Bratberg, E., & Nilsen, Ø. A. (2005). Unemployment, labor force composition and sickness absence: a panel data study. Health economics, 14(11), 1087-1101.

Beatty, A. (1995). The cash flow and informational effects of employee stock ownership plans. Journal of financial economics, 38(2), 211-240.

Bedeke, S., Vanhove, W., Gezahegn, M., Natarajan, K., & Van Damme, P. (2019). Adoption of climate change adaptation strategies by maize-dependent smallholders in Ethiopia. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 88, 96-104.

Bergenholtz, C., & Waldstrøm, C. (2011). Inter-organizational network studies—a literature review. Industry and Innovation, 18(6), 539-562.

Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic

comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 613.

Bijman, J., Iliopoulos, C., Poppe, K. J., Gijselinckx, C., Hagedorn, K., Hanisch, M., ... & van der Sangen, G. (2012). Support for farmers' cooperatives. Wageningen UR.

Biscardo, C. A., Bucciol, A., & Pertile, P. (2019). Job sick leave: Detecting opportunistic behavior. Health economics, 28(3), 373-386.

Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of management, 29(6), 991-1013.

Brown, R. J. (1978). Divided we fall: An analysis of relations between sections of a factory workforce. Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations, 395-429.

Brown, J. R., Dev, C. S., & Lee, D. J. (2000). Managing marketing channel opportunism: the efficacy of alternative governance mechanisms. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 51-65.

Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard university press. Caldwell, C., Karri, R., & Vollmar, P. (2006). Principal theory and principle theory: Ethical

governance from the follower’s perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(2-3), 207-223. Cakir, M., & Balagtas, J. V. (2012). Estimating market power of US dairy cooperatives in the fluid

milk market. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94(3), 647-658.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

(30)

30

Cording, M., Harrison, J. S., Hoskisson, R. E., & Jonsen, K. (2014). Walking the talk: A

multistakeholder exploration of organizational authenticity, employee productivity, and post-merger performance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(1), 38-56.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 386.

Cook, K. S. (1977) Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations, The Sociological Quarterly, 18, 62–82.

Croonen, E. P., & Broekhuizen, T. L. (2019). How do franchisees assess franchisor trustworthiness?. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), 845-871.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900.

Curry, J. P., Wakefield, D. S., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). On the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy of management journal, 29(4), 847-858. Dada, O. (2018). A model of entrepreneurial autonomy in franchised outlets: a systematic review of

the empirical evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 206-226. Dana, P. L. (2001). The education and training of entrepreneurs in Asia. Education+ Training,

43(8/9), 405-416.

Dant, R. P., Grünhagen, M., & Windsperger, J. (2011). Franchising research frontiers for the twenty-first century. Journal of Retailing, 87(3), 253-268.

Davies, M. A., Lassar, W., Manolis, C., Prince, M., & Winsor, R. D. (2011). A model of trust and compliance in franchise relationships. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 321-340. Eddleston, K. A., & Kidwell, R. E. (2012). Parent–child relationships: Planting the seeds of deviant

behavior in the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 369-386.

El Akremi, A., Mignonac, K., & Perrigot, R. (2011). Opportunistic behaviors in franchise chains: The role of cohesion among franchisees. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 930-948.

Elango, B., & Fried, V. H. (1997). Franchising research: A literature review and synthesis. Journal of Small Business Management, 35(3), 68.

Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 97(3), 557.

Gall, R. G., & Schroder, B. (2006). Agricultural producer cooperatives as strategic alliances. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 9(1030-2016-82591), 26-44. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Kumar, N. (1999). A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing

channel relationships. Journal of marketing Research, 223-238.

Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (Eds.). (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Sage. Grünhagen, M., & Dorsch, M. J. (2003). Does the franchisor provide value to franchisees? Past,

(31)

31

Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative science quarterly, 619-652.

Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic management journal, 21(3), 203-215.

Gulati, R., & Singh, H. (1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative science quarterly, 781-814.

Hansen, G. S., & Wernerfelt, B. (1989). Determinants of firm performance: The relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic management journal, 10(5), 399-411.

Helmericks, S. G., Nelsen, R. L., & Unnithan, N. P. (1991). The researcher, the topic, and the

literature: A procedure for systematizing literature searches. The Journal of applied behavioral science, 27(3), 285-294.

Hendrikse, G., & Feng, L. (2013). Interfirm cooperatives. In Handbook of economic Organization. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hung, S. C., Hung, S. W., & Lin, M. J. J. (2015). Are alliances a panacea for SMEs? The achievement of competitive priorities and firm performance. Total Quality Management & Business

Excellence, 26(1-2), 190-202.

Jambulingam, T., & Nevin, J. R. (1999). Influence of franchisee selection criteria on outcomes desired by the franchisor. Journal of Business Venturing, 14(4), 363-395.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of financial economics, 3(4), 305-360.

John, G. (1984). An empirical investigation of some antecedents of opportunism in a marketing channel. Journal of marketing Research, 21(3), 278-289.

Joshi, A. W., & Stump, R. L. (1999). The contingent effect of specific asset investments on joint action in manufacturer-supplier relationships: An empirical test of the moderating role of reciprocal asset investments, uncertainty, and trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3), 291.

Kalmbach, C., & Roussel, C. (1999). Dispelling the myths of alliances. Outlook, (October), 5-32. Keupp, M. M., Palmié, M., & Gassmann, O. (2012). The strategic management of innovation: A

systematic review and paths for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4), 367-390.

Kidwell, R. E., Nygaard, A., & Silkoset, R. (2007). Antecedents and effects of free riding in the franchisor–franchisee relationship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 522-544. Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. Sage.

Kim, J. W. and Higgins, M. C. (2007) Where do alliances come from? The effects of upper echelons on alliance formation, Research Policy, 36(4), 499–514.

(32)

32

Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University, 33(2004), 1-26.

Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O. P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering–a systematic literature review. Information and software technology, 51(1), 7-15.

Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.

Knez, M., & Simester, D. (2001). Firm-wide incentives and mutual monitoring at Continental Airlines. Journal of Labor Economics, 19(4), 743-772.

Knoben, J., Oerlemans, L. A., & Rutten, R. P. (2006). Radical changes in inter-organizational network structures: The longitudinal gap. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(4), 390-404.

Knoll, M., & Van Dick, R. (2013). Do I hear the whistle…? A first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence and their correlates. Journal of business ethics, 113(2), 349-362.

Kogut, B., Shan, W., & Walker, G. (1991). Knowledge in the network and the network as knowledge. Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Snider Entrepreneurial Center.

Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2006) Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms, Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150. Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member exchange

(LMX) and performance: A meta‐analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67-121. Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. (2009). How low does

ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 108(1), 1-13.

Mays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of health services research & policy, 10, 6-20.

McIntyre, D. P., & Srinivasan, A. (2017). Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 141-160.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of applied psychology, 76(6), 845.

Nagin, D. S., Rebitzer, J. B., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. J. (2002). Monitoring, motivation, and management: The determinants of opportunistic behavior in a field experiment. American Economic Review, 92(4), 850-873.

(33)

33

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management journal, 36(3), 527-556.

Nijmeijer, K. J., Fabbricotti, I. N., & Huijsman, R. (2014). Making franchising work: A framework based on a systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1), 62-83. Oh, I. S., Charlier, S. D., Mount, M. K., & Berry, C. M. (2014). The two faces of high self‐monitors:

Chameleonic moderating effects of self‐monitoring on the relationships between personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 92-111.

Oliver, A. L., & Ebers, M. (1998). Networking network studies: an analysis of conceptual

configurations in the study of inter-organizational relationships. Organization studies, 19(4), 549-583.

Pandher, G. S., Mutlu, G., & Samnani, A. K. (2017). Employee‐based Innovation in Organizations: O vercoming Strategic Risks from Opportunism and Governance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(4), 464-482.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of research in personality, 36(6), 556-563. Popov, E. V., & Ersh, E. V. (2016). Institutions for Decreasing of Employee Opportunism 1.

Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 12(2), 131.

Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145

Prasad, B. D. (2008). Content analysis. Research methods for social work, 5, 1-20.

Preble, J. F., Reichel, A., & Hoffman, R. C. (2000). Strategic alliances for competitive advantage: evidence from Israel's hospitality and tourism industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19(3), 327-341.

Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of management, 33(3), 479-516. Ramaswami, S. N., & Singh, J. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of merit pay fairness for

industrial salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 46-66.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of management journal, 38(2), 555-572.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its manifestations, and its causes.

(34)

34

Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138-158. Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 31, 263-284.

Shimizu, K. (2012). Risks of corporate entrepreneurship: Autonomy and agency issues. Organization Science, 23(1), 194-206.

Solis‐Rodriguez, V., & Gonzalez‐Diaz, M. (2012). How to design franchise contracts: The role of contractual hazards and experience. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(4), 652-677. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The Stressor-Emotion Model of Counterproductive Work Behavior. Sue-Chan, C., Au, A. K., & Hackett, R. D. (2012). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between

leader/member behavior and leader-member-exchange quality. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 459-468.

Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 123-152.

Testori, M., Kempf, M., Hoyle, R. B., & Eisenbarth, H. (2019). When Do Psychopathic Traits Affect Cooperative Behavior? Journal of Individual Differences.

Useche, S. A., Ortiz, V. G., & Cendales, B. E. (2017). Stress-related psychosocial factors at work, fatigue, and risky driving behavior in bus rapid transport (BRT) drivers. Accident Analysis &

Prevention, 104, 106-114.

Uzzi, B. (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness,

Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.

Van der Kolk, B., ter Bogt, H. J., & van Veen-Dirks, P. M. (2015). Constraining and facilitating management control in times of austerity: Case studies in four municipal

departments. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(6), 934-965

Vázquez, X. H. (2004). Allocating decision rights on the shop floor: A perspective from transaction cost economics and organization theory. Organization Science, 15(4), 463-480.

Vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Riemer, K., Niehaves, B., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2015). Standing on the shoulders of giants: challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(1), 9. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Firms, Markets, and Hierarchies: The Transaction Cost Economics

Perspective.

Yan, A., Zhu, G., & Hall, D. T. (2002). International assignments for career building: A model of agency relationships and psychological contracts. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 373-391.

Yaqub, M. Z. (2009). Antecedents, consequences and control of opportunistic behavior in strategic networks. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 7(2).

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of

(35)

35

Appendices

Appendix 1: Journals included in the data collection of intra-organizational opportunistic behavior (initial search terms)

Five-year impact factor # of articles on opportunism of employees # of articles on opportunistic behavior of employees # of articles on free riding of employees # of articles on free-riding of employees Management Journals 7 3 1 2

1. Academy of Management Review 14.70 2 0 0 0

2. Academy of Management Perspectives 8.932 1 0 0 0

3. Journal of Organization Behavior 6.533 1 0 0 0

4. Tourism Management 7.581 0 1 0 0

5. International Journal of Project Management 5.617 1 0 0 0

6. Organization Science 5.614 1 1 0 1

7. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 5.410 1 0 0 0

8. International Small Business Journal 4.946 0 0 1 0

9. Human Relations 4.360 0 0 0 1

10. Public Management Review 4.184 0 1 0 0

Economics Journals1 ₄ ₂ ₂ ₄

1. Journal of Finance 9.772 0 0 0 1

2. Journal of Financial Economics 7.976 0 0 0 1

3. Journal of Accounting & Economics 7.058 1 0 0 0

4. American Economic Review 7.048 0 1 0 1

5. Journal of Labor Economics 5.192 0 0 2 0

6. Journal of Banking & Finance 3.527 1 0 0 0

7. Review of Finance 3.190 0 0 0 1

8. Health Economics 2.471 0 1 0 0

9. Economic Development & Cultural Change 2.439 1 0 0 0

(36)

36

1_{Some journals are included in multiple disciplines. Therefore, in Economics Journals, only additional articles with respect to Management Journals are}

included. In Business & Business of Finance Journals, only additional articles with respect to both Management Journals & Economics Journals are included. Five-year impact factor # of articles on ‘opportunism of employees’ # of articles on ‘opportunistic behavior of employees’ # of articles on ‘free riding of employees’ # of articles on ‘free-riding of employees’

Business & Business Finance Journals1 ₆ ₆ ₀ ₀

1. Journal of Business Venturing 10.79 1 0 0 0

2. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 9.547 1 0 0 0

3. Journal of Marketing 8.829 0 1 0 0

4. Journal of Retailing 6.254 1 0 0 0

5. Journal of Marketing Research 6.007 1 0 0 0

6. Accounting Review 5.464 1 0 0 0

7. Accounting Organizations & Society 5.049 0 1 0 0

8. Journal of Business Ethics 4.980 0 3 0 0

9. Business Ethics Quarterly 4.529 1 0 0 0

10. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 4.397 0 1 0 0

(37)

37

Additional journals included in the data collection of opportunistic behavior of employees (additional search terms)

Five-year impact factor # of articles on ‘counterproductive work behavior’ # of articles on ‘workplace deviance’ Various journals

Academy of Management Annals 18.616 1 0

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 18.496 1 0

Academy of Management Journal 11.981 3 2

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 11.381 1 0

Journal of Economic Perspectives 9.932 1 0

MIS Quarterly 9.605 0 1

Journal of Economic Literature 8.722 1 0

Personnel Psychology 7.923 2 1

Journal of Applied Psychology 7.508 3 0

Leadership Quarterly 6.841 1 0

Journal of Organizational Behavior 6.533 0 2

Journal of Business Ethics 4.980 0 1

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 4.149 0 1

Journal of Business and Psychology 3.995 1 0

Human Resource Development Quarterly 3.694 0 1

Accident analysis and prevention 3.524 1 0

(38)

38 Appendix 2: Antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior of employees

Article 11 _{Article 2} _{Article 3}1

Form of

opportunism/counter-productive work behavior

Opportunism towards organizations Opportunism towards organizations Opportunism towards organizations

Antecedent(s) of opportunistic behavior

Self-interest of the agent, low verifiability of the agent's behavior by the principal,

Lack of organizational authenticity in terms of both under-promising and over-promising

Passive monitoring, perceived procedural justice

Consequence(s) of opportunistic behavior

- Affecting outcomes for shareholders due to

effects on long-term merger performance -

Industry or sector Not specified Various industries Not specified

Theory or Perspective Agency relationships and psychological contracts.

Mergers & acquisitions (M&A) Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE)

Country or geographic direction

Not specified United States Not specified

Method Qualitative: A conceptual paper Quantitative study of 137 acquired firms across different industries

Qualitative: A conceptual paper

(39)

39

Article 4 Article 52 _{Article 6}

Form of

opportunism/counter- productive work behavior

Opportunism towards organizations Opportunism towards employees Opportunism towards employees

Antecedent(s) of opportunistic behavior

Human specificity, high centralized strategic decision-making

Personality traits, degree of observability of opportunism

Employee-driven soft innovations within organizations

Consequence(s) of opportunistic behavior

- - Competitive disadvantage in terms of

organizational productivity, effectiveness or profitability

Industry or sector Food and electronics Various industries Not specified

Theory or Perspective

Transaction Cost Economics and Organization Theory

Organizational behavior and social psychology

Organizational innovation

Country or

geographic direction

Spain United States Not specified

Method Quantitative study of 329 firms in the Spanish food and electronics industries

Quantitative study with two samples with university students

Qualitative: A conceptual paper based on a game-theoretic model

(40)

40

Article 7 Article 8 Article 9

Form of

Opportunism towards organizations Opportunism towards organizations Opportunism towards organizations

Low monitoring rates Firm size, interdependency of task forces Firm size

Financial benefits for employees - -

Industry or sector Financial services Not specified Not specified

Organizational behavior and social psychology

Country or

United States United States United States

Method Quantitative study of a telephone company with 16 different sites

Quantitative study based on the effect of an incentive scheme on the performance of Continental Airlines

Quantitative study with data of 1394 firms containing information on options granted to all employees

(41)

41

Article 10 Article 11 Article 12

Form of

Opportunism towards employees Opportunism towards organizations Opportunism towards organizations

Firm size Individual characteristics, employment rates Trust in supervisors, distributive fairness

- - -

Industry or sector Not specified Various industries Not specified

Organizational behavior Organizational health Social exchange theory

Country or

United States Italy Not specified

Method Quantitative study with data of 4594 firms containing information on options granted to all employees

Quantitative study based on a large administrative dataset about job sick leave

Quantitative study based on 154 salespeople of a Fortune-500 firm

The antecedents and consequences of opportunistic behavior: A literature review