why people harm the organization and its members: relationships among personality, organizational...

Running Head: Personality, Organizational Commitment, and Deviance

Why People Harm the Organization and Its Members: Relationships among Personality,

Organizational Commitment, and Workplace Deviance

In Press at Human Performance

Russell P. Guay University of Northern Iowa

Daejeong Choi

University of Melbourne

In-Sue Oh Temple University

Marie S. Mitchell

University of Georgia

Michael K. Mount University of Iowa

Kang-Hyun Shin Ajou University

Personality, Organizational Commitment, and Deviance

2

Abstract

Based on the Five-Factor Model of personality traits and social exchange theory, this

study examines the relationships of personality traits, organizational commitment, and two

target-based factors of workplace deviance (organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance),

using a sample of 113 South Korean employees. By the use of path-analysis, we first found that

Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability were meaningfully related to

organizational commitment. In addition, both the effect of Conscientiousness on organizational

deviance and the effect of Agreeableness on interpersonal deviance were partially mediated by

organizational commitment. In sum, results clearly show that the personality traits of

Conscientiousness (impersonal) and Agreeableness (interpersonal) function differently in

predicting workplace deviance.

Key Words: Personality, Disposition, Organizational Commitment, Workplace Deviance, Social

Exchange Theory


3

Why People Harm the Organization and Its Members: Relationships among Personality,

Organizational Commitment, and Workplace Deviance

Over the past many years, organizational scholars have examined workplace deviance,

employee behavior that is harmful to the interests of an organization and its members (Robinson

& Bennett, 1995). Workplace deviance continues to be a pervasive issue and a serious and costly

problem for organizations globally (Detert, Trevino, Burris, & Andiappan, 2007; Dunlop & Lee,

2004; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). A plethora of research has been conducted to examine who is more

likely to engage in workplace deviance. Given the motivational basis of deviant behavior as

voluntary and discretionary actions, personality traits included in the Five-Factor model (FFM)

have been studied as major dispositional antecedents of workplace deviance. Several meta-

analyses (e.g., Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Dalal, 2005; Salgado, 2002) have shown that

Conscientiousness and Agreeableness have the strongest relationships with organizational

deviance (e.g., overly long breaks, intentional poor work quality) and interpersonal deviance

(e.g., gossiping about peers, making fun of others) (Bowling, 2010; Gruys & Sackett, 2003;

Hollinger, 1986; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector, 2011; Spector & Fox, 2010).

However, there is still much to learn about the mediating mechanism through which

relevant FFM personality traits influence workplace deviance. Theorists have argued that

understanding the linkages among individual difference constructs and components of work

performance is critical to further the science of personnel selection (Barrick, Mount, & Judge,

2001; Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller, & Johnson, 2009; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006). To respond

to this call, we have developed and tested a theoretical multivariate model by which relevant

FFM personality traits have both direct and indirect effects on two factors of workplace deviance


4

(interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance) as mediated by organizational commitment.

By examining the mediating role of organizational commitment, we go beyond prior research

that has mostly examined the bivariate relationships of personality traits with job attitudes and

behavior. Our theoretical rationale helps us explain why personality traits are related to

workplace deviance. Furthermore, the methodology we use enables us to test the multivariate

relationships simultaneously so that we can evaluate (1) how important organizational

commitment is in explaining the personality-workplace deviance relationship by comparing the

direct and indirect effects of personality on workplace deviance and (2) the relative importance

of each personality trait in explaining workplace deviance via organizational commitment.

Therefore, we believe examining the mediating role of organizational commitment is an

interesting and significant contribution to the workplace deviance literature. Given that

organizational commitment is negatively related to workplace deviance (Dalal, 2005) and

organizations look for job applicants who are predisposed to be highly committed to their new

employers (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990), we argue that some

individuals are predisposed to be more committed and thus less likely to harm the organization

and its members. Although researchers have found that workplace deviance is influenced by

personality, underlying mechanisms have not been well examined. One exception (Mount et al.,

2006) showed that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between Agreeableness and

interpersonal deviance; however, job satisfaction did not mediate the relationship between

Conscientiousness and organizational deviance. These results partially support the notion that

employees’ job satisfaction mediates the relationship between personality and workplace

deviance, thus opening up the possibility that other job attitudes should also be considered.


5

To explore this possibility, we hypothesize and test the mediating role of organizational

commitment in the personality – workplace deviance relationship. Furthermore, by examining

the relationship between relevant FFM traits and organizational commitment, we intend to

contribute to the personality and commitment literatures. Despite ample evidence for the

relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), there

have been few attempts to systematically relate the FFM traits to organizational commitment

(see Erdheim, Wang, & Zickar, 2006 and Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2012 for exceptions). Yet,

the existing studies on personality and organizational commitment did not articulate its

theoretical framework and relied on the “underpinning affectivity” framework of personality and

work attitudes. Our work extends this body of work by explaining why FFM traits serve to

influence social exchange dynamics that foster commitment from employees, motivating them to

maintain beneficial outcomes for the organization. Thus, we explore the next logical step in the

literature by examining organizational commitment as a mediator of the relationship between

relevant personality traits and two distinct factors of workplace deviance (interpersonal and

organizational) using an international sample of South Korean bank employees to test our model.

Hypotheses Development

Personality and Workplace Deviance

Personality is certainly one of the key ingredients in determining engagement in

workplace deviance. According to Spector (2011), “personality has the potential to affect the

counterproductive work behavior process at every step. It can affect people’s perceptions and

appraisal of the environment, their attributions for causes of events, their emotional responses,

and their ability to inhibit aggressive and counterproductive impulses” (p. 347). Prior research

has consistently shown that high levels of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness may lower


6

individuals’ propensity to engage in workplace deviance (e.g., Berry et al., 2007; Bowling, 2010;

Bowling, Burns, Stewart, & Gruys, 2011; Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004; Dalal,

2005; Michel & Bowling, 2013; Oh, Charlier, Mount, & Berry, 2014; Penney, Hunter, & Perry,

2011; Sackett & DeVore, 2001; Salgado, 2002; Yang & Diefendorff, 2009).

People with high levels of Conscientiousness tend to be careful, thorough, organized,

diligent, responsible, rule-abiding, hardworking, dedicated to their employer, promote the

organization’s image, and avoid acting on impulse. Those who are highly agreeable tend to be

courteous, considerate, flexible, trusting, good-natured, cooperative, helpful, forgiving, tolerant,

team players, and rarely cause relational conflict (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa & McRae,

1992). High levels of these traits do not align well with people who regularly choose to engage in

deviant work behavior in either task-based (private) and/or interpersonal (public) settings (Oh et

al., 2014). Those possessing low levels of these traits, however, tend to put forth minimal effort,

break rules and cheat to get ahead, be irresponsible, inconsiderate, self-focused, argumentative,

and manipulative (Goldberg, 1999; Oh et al., 2014), which all align with engaging in workplace

deviance. Previous studies also reported the negative relationships of Agreeableness and

Conscientiousness with overall workplace deviance (Dalal, 2005; Salgado, 2002).

More recent evidence (Berry et al., 2007; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007) further

shows that interpersonal and organizational deviance are distinct and have different antecedents

and that interpersonally-directed variables better predict interpersonal deviance and

organizationally-directed variables better predict organizational deviance. This connects well to

target-similarity models of social exchange (e.g., Bies & Moag, 1986; Lavelle, Rupp, &

Brockner, 2007; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000), which suggest interpersonal

deviance is more related to predictors with an interpersonal focus (e.g., Agreeableness, coworker


7

support), while organizational deviance is more related to predictors with an impersonal,

organizational/task-based focus (e.g., Conscientiousness, organizational support).

According to social exchange theory, employees and their employer are involved in

forming an interdependent relationship, whereby one party’s behavior influences the other (Blau,

1964; Homans, 1958). Research suggests that Agreeableness and Conscientiousness

differentially influence exchange behavior and benefit different exchange partners (e.g., peers,

supervisors, organizations), which supports target-similarity models of social exchange (Lavelle

et al., 2007). In particular, Conscientiousness, given its task-oriented nature, has been found to

influence behaviors that benefit the organization in general, whereas Agreeableness, given its

interpersonal orientation, influences behaviors that benefit individuals within exchange relations

(e.g., Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Ilies et al., 2009; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Supporting our

prediction, Berry et al. (2007) found that workplace deviance has strong negative relationships

with Agreeableness (-.46 for interpersonal deviance and -.32 for organizational deviance) and

Conscientiousness (-.23 for interpersonal deviance and -.42 for organizational deviance), thus

demonstrating that interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance have differential

relationships with personality traits.

Hypothesis 1: Conscientiousness will be negatively related to organizational deviance.

Hypothesis 2: Agreeableness will be negatively related to interpersonal deviance.

Organizational Commitment and Workplace Deviance

Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) described organizational commitment as a strong

belief in an organization and an acceptance of its goals and values, the willingness to give

considerable effort to the organization, and a strong desire to remain a member of the

organization. Social exchange research suggests that organizational commitment is a primary


8

exchange variable, as it involves employees’ engendered socio-emotional attachment to the

organization and collectively its members (see Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 for a review).

Social exchange theory also suggests that high levels of organizational commitment prompt

positive reciprocity behaviors, wherein these employees feel a strong obligation to engage in

beneficial behavior for the organization and members within it, such as coworkers (O’Reilly &

Chatman, 1986; Randall, Fedor, & Longnecker, 1990; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001;

Shore & Wayne, 1993). Consistent with these ideas, scholars have also theorized and found that

this obligation to do well for the organization and coworkers, generated by organizational

commitment, also translates to them refraining from engaging in workplace deviance (Liao,

Joshi, & Chuang, 2004; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008).

In contrast, employees who are not committed to their organization feel little obligation

to refrain from workplace deviance and instead negative reciprocity patterns emerge in which

these employees seek to harm the organization. In sum, organizational commitment motivates

employees to engage in behavior that seeks to fulfill organizational goals (Bateman & Organ,

1983; Organ, 1988). However, employees who are not particularly committed to their

organization do not feel obligated to help the organization or coworkers and, consequently,

organizational commitment becomes the social-exchange mechanism through which workplace

deviance occurs. Furthermore, meta-analytic evidence has found organizational commitment to

be a valid predictor of workplace deviance (ρ = -.36; Dalal, 2005; no separate meta-analytic

estimates are available for organizational deviance or interpersonal deviance).

Hypothesis 3: Organizational commitment will be negatively related to both

organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance.

Personality and Organizational Commitment


9

We believe the reason that organizational commitment has not been widely examined as

a mediator between personality and workplace deviance is possibly due to the lack of both

empirical and theoretical research on the effects of personality traits on organizational

commitment. In the case of job satisfaction, personality traits have been frequently examined in

numerous studies as dispositional antecedents (see Judge et al., 2002 for a meta-analysis).

However, research has only recently started to examine the effects of personality on

organizational commitment (see Erdheim et al., 2006; Michel & Bowling, 2013; Panaccio &

Vandenberghe, 2012; Spagnoli & Caetano, 2012; Zettler, Friedrich, & Hilbig, 2011; currently,

no published meta-analytic evidence is available).

In the literature, there are two explanations for the dispositional basis of organizational

commitment. The first one is based on the FFM framework and focuses on the “direct” influence

of personality on how people tend to feel about their organization (Erdheim et al., 2006). The

essence of the direct explanation is that individuals strive to fulfill fundamental needs through

the expression of personality traits. The second combines FFM and social exchange theories and

suggests an “indirect” influence of personality on how people behave in their organizations,

based on the quality of their social exchange relations in their organization (i.e., organizational

commitment) (Ilies et al., 2009). We find these two explanations are complementary.

Employees with high Conscientiousness work harder and earn more recognition and

rewards from the organization, leading to heightened levels of organizational commitment

(Barrick & Mount, 2000; Erdheim et al., 2006; Gelade, Dobson, & Gilbert, 2006; Michel &

Bowling, 2013). Conscientiousness is also related to other aspects of organizational commitment,

given its association with work ethic, conformity, and contractual motivational and moral/ethical

forces (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Zimmerman, 2008). Given achievement orientation associated


10

with Conscientiousness, highly conscientious individuals have a strong desire to be recognized

and valued by their organization. Further, those with higher Conscientiousness are loyal and

faithful, which naturally translates into higher emotional attachment to the organization.

Agreeableness is often associated with being cooperative, adaptable, likable, trusting,

compliant, and altruistic (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Zimmerman, 2008). Agreeable people, due to

their motivation to get along with others, are more likely to establish positive and satisfying

relationships with other employees, which may increase the strength of commitment to the

organization and people they get along with (Maertz & Griffeth, 2004). In addition, individuals

with higher Agreeableness tend to trust and be committed to their organization expecting that it

will do the same for them (Erdheim et al., 2006; Michel & Bowling, 2013; Morrison, 1997;

Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2012; Protolipac, Finkelstein, & Stiles, 2006).

Hypothesis 4: Conscientiousness and Agreeableness are positively related to

organizational commitment.

The Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment in the Relationship between Personality and

Workplace Deviance

We suggest that Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are related to workplace deviance

because highly agreeable and/or highly conscientious individuals are predisposed to be

committed to the organization. As explained earlier, we propose that the differential relationships

of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness with interpersonal deviance and organizational

deviance can be understood based on social exchange theory. As social exchange research

suggests organizational commitment is a primary exchange variable (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano &

Mitchell, 2005), we feel that is a more appropriate choice to examine as a mediator. The norm of

reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), the core principle of social exchange theory, guides exchange


11

interactions between exchange partners and suggests beneficial inducements received from one

party generate the obligation to return beneficial behavior.

We argue that personality traits influence individuals’ perceptions of exchange partners’

inducements, their attributions for causes of (un)favorable treatments by the organization,

supervisors, or coworkers, and their capabilities of managing emotional reactions. Further, these

influences may lead them to be more attached to their organization and feel more obligated to

reciprocate. In particular, both direct and indirect explanations of FFM traits on organizational

commitment suggest individuals who have the tendency to work harder and to be loyal and

dutiful (high Conscientiousness) and/or the tendency to form and maintain pleasant relationships

and to be trusting and compliant (high Agreeableness) are more likely to be committed to the

organization and to avoid engaging in workplace deviance that harms either the organization or

its members. Given their natural tendencies, highly agreeable and/or conscientious individuals

are expected to receive greater support from the organization, supervisors, and coworkers, to

remain motivated and engaged by forming long-term reciprocal exchange relationships, and to

be capable of managing their impulse and emotional reactions if their exchange expectations are

not met. Consequently, as explained above, committed employees are willing to benefit the

organization and its members because they tend to identify themselves as organizational

members who share common goals and objectives (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986).

Taken together, we expect that individuals with low levels of Conscientiousness and

Agreeableness are likely to engage in workplace deviance because of their lack of organizational

commitment. For employees with low levels of Conscientiousness, these deviant behaviors are

more likely to be organizational deviance whereas for those with low levels of Agreeableness,

the negative actions are more likely to be interpersonal deviance.


12

Hypothesis 5: Organizational commitment mediates the relationships between (a)

Conscientiousness and organizational deviance and (b) Agreeableness and interpersonal

deviance.

Method

Participants and Procedure

One hundred fifty regular (permanent) non-managerial employees (general bank tellers

responsible for handling cash, financial transactions, and selling insurance products) and their

supervisors were randomly chosen through the support of HR staff at the headquarters of a

Fortune Global 500 South Korean banking corporation to participate in this survey. Surveys

were numerically coded so that we could match surveys from each dyad across administration

periods. Surveys were distributed by a well-trained graduate student to each employee on-site

along with a return envelope and cover letter assuring them that participation was voluntary and

that responses would be kept confidential and used only for research purposes to help understand

the relationship between employee traits and attitudes. All measures in the survey were translated

into Korean using the back-translation procedures as specified in Brislin (1980). To minimize

potential same-source bias, we collected commitment data a week after collecting personality

and other demographic data. Further, we collected workplace deviance data from supervisors a

week after collecting commitment data from employees. Complete sets of data were received

from a total of 113 employees1, yielding a response rate of 75%. Among the respondents, 58.4%

1 There were no significant differences between the 113 employees with usable data and the 37 employees who were not used. Demographic data available for 32 of those employees are as follows: average age was 31.44 years (SD = 5.35) and average organizational tenure was 89 months (SD = 63). 63% of respondents were male and 94% held a junior college degree or higher. These 32 employees were excluded because supervisors failed to complete the deviance measures. The remaining 5 employees did not fill out their surveys but their supervisors provided deviance ratings.


13

were male and 94.7% held a junior college degree or higher. The average age and organizational

tenure were 32.56 years (SD = 5.16) and 92.80 months (SD = 61.54), respectively.

Measures

Personality FFM personality traits were measured using the 50-item version of the

International Personality Item Pool instrument (IPIP: Goldberg, 1999; actual items used are

found in http://ipip.ori.org/newQform50b5.htm). There were 10 items for each of the personality

traits and participants responded to each item based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly

disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The IPIP has acceptable convergent validities with other well-

established personality inventories. For example, it correlates .85 to .92 with corresponding

scales from the NEO-PI-R when corrected for unreliability (Buchanan, Johnson, & Goldberg,

2005). Coefficients alpha (α) in the present study ranged from .75 for Agreeableness to .86 for

Conscientiousness. Sample items include “Am always prepared” (Conscientiousness), “Am

interested in people” (Agreeableness), “Am relaxed most of the time” (Emotional Stability),

“Am the life of the party” (Extraversion), and “Have a rich vocabulary” (Openness to

Experience). Although only Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were primary study variables,

data was collected for the other personality traits as well and examined in our study models.

Organizational commitment Organizational commitment was assessed via a widely used

9-item short-version scale (α = .82) which showed the highest item-total correlations from an

organizational commitment scale developed in Mowday, Steers, and Porter’s (1979) study.

Participants responded to each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =

strongly agree). Example items are: “I really care about the fate of this organization” and “I

would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization.”


14

Workplace deviance Workplace deviance was assessed via supervisor ratings using two

measures (7 items for interpersonal deviance and 12 items for organizational deviance)

developed and validated by Bennett and Robinson (2000). Participants’ direct supervisors

responded to each item on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 2 = once, 3 = several times a year, 4 =

weekly, 5 = daily). In the current study, the two workplace deviance factors showed acceptable

internal reliabilities (αs = .87 and .91 for interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance,

respectively). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) further revealed that the hypothesized two-

factor model (χ2 = 425.47 with df = 151; SRMR = .08; CFI = .92; NFI = .90) substantially fits

the data better than a single-factor model (χ2 = 485.67 with df = 152; SRMR = .08; CFI = .91;

NFI = .88): ∆χ2 = 60.20 with ∆df = 1, p < .01 and ∆CFI = .01. Thus, we used the two factors of

workplace deviance for subsequent analyses.

Path Modeling Strategy

Because it is not clear whether the effect of Conscientiousness on organizational deviance

and that of Agreeableness on interpersonal deviance are fully or partially mediated by

organizational commitment, we tested two path models (full and partial mediation) linking

personality and two factors of workplace deviance through organizational commitment as

hypothesized above using the maximum likelihood estimation method via LISREL 8.54

(Joreskog & Sorbom, 2003). These models were tested while controlling for the effects of

Openness to Experience given its non-zero correlations with other FFM personality traits by

relating it to all the other variables. We corrected for measurement error in the criterion measures

using the meta-analytic inter-rater reliability of .52 reported in Viswesvaran, Schmidt, and Ones

(2005) given that we were not able to compute it directly; each employee was rated by a single


15

supervisor2. We did not correct for measurement error in the predictor (personality) measures

given our applied interest. We used the intra-rater reliability (i.e., coefficient alpha) reported in

Table 1 to correct the correlation between the two workplace deviance factors (rated by the same

rater) for measurement error referring to Viswesvaran et al. (2005).

Results

Descriptive statistics and internal consistency reliability estimates are reported in Table 1.

Consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 2, Conscientiousness (r = -.34; p < .05) and Agreeableness (r

= -.18; p < .05) are significantly related to organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance,

respectively. Organizational commitment is significantly related to both organizational deviance

(r = -.25; p < .05) and interpersonal deviance (r = -.24; p < .05), thus supporting Hypothesis 3.

As expected and supporting Hypothesis 4, the FFM traits are found to be significantly correlated

with organizational commitment. Agreeableness (r = .29; p < .05) and Conscientiousness (r

= .39; p < .05) are the two strongest personality predictors of organizational commitment, while

Extraversion (r = .24; p < .05) and Emotional Stability (r = .23; p < .05) were also shown to be

related to organizational commitment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 In terms of examining the distribution of supervisor deviance ratings before conducting SEM analysis, we found that workplace deviance data were skewed positively to some extent as is typical in deviance research (including many low base-rate items). However, the SEM results corrected for deviation from normality using Mplus 7 also yielded the same conclusion that the two-factor model fit the data significantly better than a single-factor model. To be comparable to prior research, we report the SEM results not corrected for non-normality. We believe this comment is important given the recent work by O’Boyle and Aguinis (2012), who showed that performance data might be better represented by a Paretian curve than a normal curve.


16

However, as highlighted, our interest is more in testing all of our hypotheses

simultaneously in a multivariate manner and, more importantly, in determining whether

organizational commitment fully or partially mediates the effects of Conscientiousness and

Agreeableness on organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance, respectively. The partial

mediation model (χ2 = 26.58 with df = 6; SRMR = .04; CFI = .92; NFI = .91) fits the data better

than the full mediation model (χ2 = 68.92 with df = 8; SRMR = .08; CFI = .70; NFI = .70) given

both the chi-square and CFI difference tests: ∆χ2 = 43.34 with ∆df = 2, p < .00 and ∆CFI = .22

(Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). However, the standardized path coefficients estimated from both

full and partial mediation models are shown in Figure 1 to be more informative. As seen in Table

1 and Figure 1, organizational commitment is slightly more strongly related to organizational

deviance than to interpersonal deviance. Both the effect of Conscientiousness on organizational

deviance [direct = -.34 (p < .05) vs. indirect = -.06 (p < .05)] and that of Agreeableness on

interpersonal deviance [direct = -.28 (p < .05) vs. indirect = -.07 (p < .05)] are substantially

mediated through organizational commitment (see Figure 1 and Table 2), supporting Hypothesis

5. The aforementioned Hypotheses 1 – 4 are also supported in this partial mediation model. In

addition, the indirect effect of Agreeableness on organizational deviance through organizational

commitment is significant (-.08, p < .05), whereas the indirect effect of Conscientiousness on

interpersonal deviance is not significant (-.05, n.s.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 1 AND TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion


17

The present study investigates the mediating role of organizational commitment in the

relationships between relevant FFM personality traits and two factors of workplace deviance.

There are four main findings. First, consistent with previous findings (e.g., Mount et al., 2006),

Conscientiousness (work-related tendency) and Agreeableness (interpersonal tendency) are

negatively related to organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance, respectively. Second,

three FFM traits comprising integrity and customer service orientation (Agreeableness,

Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability) are positively related to organizational commitment

(Frei & McDaniel, 1998; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993). Third, organizational

commitment is negatively associated with both organizational deviance and, to a slightly lesser

extent interpersonal deviance, which is consistent with the target similarity models of social

exchange theory (Bies & Moag, 1986; Lavelle et al., 2007; Masterson et al., 2000). Fourth, the

relationship between Conscientiousness and organizational deviance and the relationship

between Agreeableness and interpersonal deviance are both partially mediated through

organizational commitment. Although not hypothesized, it was found that the relationship

between Agreeableness and organizational deviance is also partially mediated through

organizational commitment. That is, both Conscientiousness and Agreeableness are indirectly

related to organizational deviance through organizational commitment.

Theoretical Implications

From the above findings, it is clear that those with lower levels of Conscientiousness and

Agreeableness tend to have lower levels of organizational commitment and are thus more likely

to engage in workplace deviance detrimental to the organization and other employees.

Conscientiousness and Agreeableness are FFM traits associated with higher commitment,

compliance, and cooperation and are likely to be most beneficial for individuals in customer


18

service-oriented positions (Frei & McDaniel, 1988; Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970).

Conscientious employees tend to achieve high-level job performance leading to an accumulation

of organizational rewards and support (Barrick & Mount, 2000), which heightens their

commitment to the organization and lessens conflict with the organization. Conversely,

agreeable employees are helpful, friendly, and warm and get along well with others. In other

words, as Erdheim et al. (2006, p. 967) discussed, Agreeableness is “related to getting along with

others in pleasant and satisfying ways”, which directly relates to helping others in need of help

and feeling more committed, thus lessening the willingness to engage in conduct harmful to the

organization or its members. This also implies that certain personality variables can be

incorporated to expand previous notions on social exchange theory and, specifically, the issue of

sources and targets of exchange. Interestingly, Emotional Stability was also found to be related

to organizational commitment in the current study as was Extraversion, although its standardized

path (regression) coefficient does not reach statistical significance.

Further, organizational commitment partially mediates the relationship between

Conscientiousness and organizational deviance and between Agreeableness and interpersonal

deviance. Substantively, these findings suggest that organizational deviance and interpersonal

deviance have both dispositional and other underpinnings (e.g., social exchange/commitment).

These findings suggest that conscientious employees help their organization due to their personal

characteristics (loyal and compliant) and their heightened commitment to the organization, and

agreeable people help others due to their personal characteristics (altruistic, cooperative, and

good-natured) and their heightened commitment to the organization.

Limitations and Future Research Directions


19

Although this study may be among the first to empirically explore the mediating role of

organizational commitment in the relationship between personality and two factors of workplace

deviance, there are limitations. First, data used in our study is correlational and despite brief time

intervals across the measurement of variables, causal inferences are limited. However, results

support our model grounded in both theory and empirical research. Further research might seek

to enhance causal inferences by exploring the predicted effects within an experimental setting.

Second, measures used may have provided a limited focus to the nature of the

relationships explored. For instance, we used composite measure of FFM traits, as opposed to

more delineated facets that might comprise Conscientiousness or Agreeableness. Similarly, we

used an overall organizational commitment measure, rather than a measure with three

commitment types (affective, continuance, and normative), which may limit our understanding

of the influence of FFM on organizational commitment. However, our focus on personality and

organizational commitment is consistent with social exchange reasoning. That is, both traits have

been theorized to influence social exchange dynamics previously, and the general form of

organizational commitment embraces organizational membership and identification and that is

explicated by social exchange principles. Further, overall organizational commitment is as

predictive of outcome variables as any of the three specific, narrower types of commitment,

suggesting the use of the overall organizational commitment measure may be justified in that

regard (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005).

Third, as an anonymous reviewer pointed out, the average organizational tenure in this

study could be longer than that of the industry itself, which may have inflated the level of

organizational commitment in this study. In the current study, the average tenure is 92.8 months

(7.7 years) and the standard deviation is 61.54 months (5.13 years) As a point of comparison, the


20

average tenure reported in Hunter and Thatcher (2007) was 10 years (SD = 8.1) with a sample

from a U.S. national bank; note that the current sample is also from a bank in South Korea.

Similarly, Gregersen and Black (1992) reported a mean of 13.8 years (SD = 8.62). In addition,

meta-analytic evidence shows that the relationship between tenure and organizational

commitment is rather week (.17 as reported in Mathieu & Zajac, 1990 and .10 in Cohen, 1993).

Thus, even if the average tenure in this study were longer than the industry average, its impact on

the mean level of organizational commitment would be at best modest.

Lastly, the study uses a sample of South Korean employees in an attempt to

constructively and cross-culturally replicate and extend Mount et al. (2006). However, it is

legitimate to ask whether findings in this study are generalizable to other settings that vary in

occupation and culture. Nevertheless, more and more occupations continue to become more

customer service-oriented, thus making these findings generalizable to additional settings. In

such organizations and industries, the predictive validity of integrity tests, which consist of

Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability, has been well supported (Ones et al.,

1993)3. Building and maintaining employees’ commitment to the organization can produce

many benefits (see Mathieu & Zajac, 1990, for a review). Further, mitigating deviant behavior is

also of importance as these behaviors can be a source of financial drain to organizations (e.g.,

Detert et al., 2007; Dunlop & Lee, 2004).

3 We would like to point out that the organization in question is a Fortune Global 500 Korean banking corporation listed on the NASDAQ. To attract North American investors, the company changed their entire corporate-wide systems (e.g., organizational structure) to meet U.S. standards (such as ISO 9000). Further, given the meta-analytic evidence showing cross-cultural invariance in the organizational commitment-behavior relationships (Meyer, Stanley, Jackson, McInnis, Maltin, & Sheppard, 2012), our findings are likely to be generalizable to Western and North American cultures. Additionally, we have no clear evidence regarding any impediments or constraints from the respondents in our data collection process. Thus, we believe that its corporate systems are similar to those of a typical North American corporation.


21

Despite these limitations, our work provides areas for future research. For example, we

suggest that future research develop an overarching theoretical framework that can explain the

relationships among FFM traits (and its facets), three forms of organizational commitment, and

workplace deviance. For example, a theoretical model can explain dispositional bases of an

emotional attachment to the organization (affective commitment), a felt obligation to stay with

the organization (normative commitment), and the costs and benefits of leaving the organization

(continuance commitment) and why these dispositions are manifested as different forms of

commitment and subsequently as workplace deviance. In current study, we provided promising

empirical evidence showing that social exchange theory can be used to explain the influences of

Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Future research is also needed to integrate the affectivity

approach (e.g., Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003) and the social

exchange approach to build a more comprehensive theoretical framework.

Organizational commitment is found to be significantly associated with organizational

deviance as well as interpersonal deviance to a slightly lesser extent. From the target similarity

perspective, the significant relationship between organizational commitment and organizational

deviance is understandable. However, although employees differentiate the various targets such

as supervisors and coworkers, the information about their exchange relationship with each social

entity might be used interchangeably (Lind, 2001). For example, high quality relationships with a

supervisor, an agent of the organization, can lead to such behaviors as helping the supervisor as

well as following organizational rules; high quality relationships among coworkers can lead to

such behaviors as assisting other coworkers in need of help and promoting organizational public

images (Lavelle et al., 2007). Thus, it would be interesting to further explore when and how a

specific “exchange target” becomes more distinctive than others, which target becomes more


22

salient under what circumstances, and whether the FFM traits can further strengthen the salience

of certain exchange targets. The development and testing of a more integrative, multivariate

model will be helpful to our understanding of the role of personality in predicting and explaining

the personality-social exchange relationship.

Further, it is important for organizational researchers to continue to move beyond the

FFM personality traits to the facet level or to more narrow traits. For example, Conscientiousness

has been found to be a complex trait as it has two different facets (dutifulness and achievement

striving) playing differential roles in explaining work attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Moon, 2001).

Narrow but relevant traits include proactive personality, core self-evaluations, need for

achievement, or resiliency in addition to other personality traits that have started to be examined,

such as hostile attribution bias, negative affect, narcissism, trait anger, and Machiavellianism

(e.g., Spector, 2011; Wu & Lebreton, 2011). It is also important for future research to examine

the relationship between workplace deviance and the various forms of organizational

commitment (affective, normative, and continuance; Meyer & Allen, 1991) as well as consider

other objective individual or organizational-level measures of workplace deviance.

Practical Implications

Practically, our findings suggest that Agreeableness be considered in addition to

Conscientiousness in employment decision making wherever commitment, compliance, and

cooperation are critical to organizational functioning. Mount, Barrick, and Stewart (1998)

advanced this suggestion a decade ago, but Agreeableness has not received its due attention in

the literature and in the practice of personnel selection; this is partly due to not further

distinguishing sub-dimensions of performance. Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are crucial

factors in integrity testing often used in the selection process and are also key to determining


23

who may take part in deviant behavior. To limit workplace deviance, it is important for

organizations to screen for those personality traits to attempt to avoid hiring those predisposed to

engage in deviant behavior but also attempt to limit stressors or other negative emotional

experiences that may lead employees to feel injustice as higher levels of organizational

commitment can decrease workplace deviance. For example, training and support from

organizations, managers, and coworkers can go a long way toward reducing temptations to take

longer breaks, intentional poor work quality, office gossip, and making fun of others. Training

programs can also focus on threats to well-being that often lead to anger and hostility. These can

include dealing with organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, perceived injustice, as

well as role conflict and ambiguity (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). Further, training programs can

enhance employees’ abilities to deal with stressors or negative emotional experiences (e.g.,

Diefendorff, Croyle, & Gosserand, 2005). It is also important for organizational training

programs on the high costs of workplace deviance and the nature of behaviors and causes of

deviant behavior and to train about the importance of organizational commitment as employees

with low levels are more likely to engage in workplace deviance.

Conclusion

The current study furthers our understanding of the relationships among FFM

personality traits, organizational commitment, and target-based workplace deviance. The main

findings are that (a) Conscientiousness and Agreeableness are negatively related to

organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance, respectively, (b) three FFM traits comprising

integrity and customer service orientation (Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional

Stability) are positively related to organizational commitment, (c) organizational commitment is

negatively associated with both organizational deviance and, to a slightly lesser extent


24

interpersonal deviance, and (d) the relationship between Conscientiousness and organizational

deviance and the relationship between Agreeableness and interpersonal deviance are both

partially mediated through organizational commitment. We believe that these findings in

aggregate have added a building block toward a better understanding of the relationships

between personality traits, organizational commitment, and workplace deviance. We hope that

this line of research will advance the science and practice pertaining to the use of personality in

organizational settings, which often faces criticisms due to the lack of theoretical studies on

intervening mechanisms between personality and important workplace outcomes.


25

References Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2000). Select on Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability. E.

A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 15-28). Blackwell

Publishers.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the

beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship

between affect and employee citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 26,

587-595.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360.

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational

deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 410-424.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness.

Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43-55.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bowling, N. A. (2010). Effects of job satisfaction and Conscientiousness on extra-role behaviors.

Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 119-130.


26

Bowling, N. A., Burns, G. N., Stewart, S. M., & Gruys, M. L. (2011). Conscientiousness and

Agreeableness as moderators of the relationship between neuroticism and counterproductive

work behaviors: A constructive replication. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 19, 320-330.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C.

Triandis and J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of crosscultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389-

444). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Buchanan, T., Johnson, J. A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). Implementing a five-factor personality

inventory for use on the internet. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 116-

128.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing

measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.

Cohen, A. (1993). Age and tenure in relation to organizational commitment: A meta-analysis.

Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 143-159.

Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive

effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609.

Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: testing an

integrative framework, Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241-259.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and Five-Factor

model inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review

of conceptual and definitional issues. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900.


27

Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship

behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241-

1255.

Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial modes of

influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level

investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 993-1005.

Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and

antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 339-357.

Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship, and business

unit performance: The bad applies do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 25, 67-80.

Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the Big Five personality constructs to

organizational commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 959-970.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in

response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for

autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309.

Frei, R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998). The validity of customer service orientation measures in

employee selection: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Human Performance, 11,

1-27.

Gelade, G. A., Dobson, P., & Gilbert, P. (2006). National differences in organizational

commitment: Effect of economy, product of personality, or consequence of culture? Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 542-556.


28

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the

lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, and F.

Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe, Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The

Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1992). Antecedents to commitment to a parent company and a

foreign operation. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 65-90.

Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive

work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 30-41.

Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational

identification, Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176-190.

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-

analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of

Management Journal, 49, 302-325.

Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance.

Deviant Behavior, 7, 53-75.

Homans, G. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597-606.

Hunter, L. W., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2007). Feeling the heat: Effects of stress, commitment, and

job experience on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 953-968.

Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and citizenship

behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 945-

959.


29

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship

behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-277.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2003). LISREL 8.54 (package program). Lincolnwood, IL:

Scientific Software International, Inc.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five factor model of personality and job

satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541.

Lavelle, J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of

justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of

Management, 33, 841-866.

Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity

and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57, 969-1000.

Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgment as pivotal cognitions in

organizational relations. In J. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano (Eds), Advances in

Organizational Justice (pp 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Maertz, Jr, C. P., & Griffeth, R. W. (2004). Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: A

theoretical synthesis with implications for research. Journal of Management, 30, 667-

683.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and

social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work

relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,

and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.


30

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Jackson, T. A., McInnis, K. J., Maltin, E. R., & Sheppard, L. (2012).

Affective, normative, and continuance commitment levels across cultures: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 225-245.

Michel, J. S., & Bowling, N. A. (2013). Does dispositional aggression feed the narcissistic

response? The role of narcissism and aggression in the prediction of job attitudes and

counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Business Psychology, 28, 93-105.

Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in

escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 533-

540.Morrison, K. A. (1997). How franchise job satisfaction and personality affects

performance, organizational commitment. Journal of Small Business Management, 35,

39-67.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Personality predictors of performance in

jobs involving interaction with others. Human Performance, 11, 145-166.

Mount, M. K., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and

counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel

Psychology, 59, 591-622.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The

psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.


31

O’Boyle, E., & Aguinis, H. (2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of

individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 79-119.

O’Reilly, III. C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological

attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial

behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.

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, 92-111.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of

integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of

job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.

Panaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2012). Five-factor model of personality and organizational

commitment: The mediating role of positive and negative affective states. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 80, 647-658.

Penney, L. M., Hunter, E. M., & Perry, S. J. (2011). Personality and counterproductive work

behavior: Using conservation of resources theory to narrow the profile of deviant

employees. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 58-77.


32

Protolipac, D. S., Finkelstein, L., & Stiles, P. (2006). Personality and organizational

commitment: Mediational role of job characteristics perceptions. Paper presented at the

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Dallas, TX. May 5–7.

Randall, M., Fedor, D. P., & Longnecker, C. O. (1990). The behavioral expression of

orgazational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 210-214.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization:

The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

825-836.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A

multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.

Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson,

D.Ones, H. Sinangil, and C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and

organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 145-164). London: Sage.

Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117-125.

Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of

affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774-780.

Spagnoli, P., & Caetano, A. (2012). Personality and organizational commitment: The mediating

role of job satisfaction during socialization. Career Development International, 17, 255-275.

Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior

(CWB): An integration of perspectives. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 342-

352.


33

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010). Theorizing about the deviant citizen: An attributional

explanation of the interplay of organizational citizenship and counterproductive work

behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 132-143.

Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive

supervision and subordinates’ organizational deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

93, 721-732.

Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The

affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and

integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914-945.

Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and

management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job

performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error

influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108-131.

Wu, J., & Lebreton, J. M. (2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive

work behavior: The role of aberrant personality. Personnel Psychology, 64, 593-626.

Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace

behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary

study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62, 259-295.

Zettler, I., Friedrich, N., & Hilbig, B. E. (2011). Dissecting work commitment: The role of

Machiavellianism. Career Development International, 16, 20-35.

Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’

turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309-348.

Table 1 Intercorrelations and descriptive statistics

Variable Mean SD REL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Conscientiousness 3.53 .59 .86 1.00

2 Emotional Stability 3.12 .56 .84 .11 1.00

3 Extraversion 2.98 .53 .81 -.02 .07 1.00

4 Agreeableness 3.43 .46 .75 .37 .25 .40 1.00

5 Openness/Intellect 3.21 .46 .79 .15 .18 .29 .18 1.00

6 Org. Commitment 3.27 .54 .82 .29 .23 .24 .39 .09 1.00

7 Org. Deviance 1.50 .50 .91 -.34 .00 -.05 -.12 -.01 -.25 1.00

8 Interper. Deviance 1.46 .50 .87 -.20 -.06 -.06 -.18 .02 -.24 .78 1.00 Note. N = 113: REL = internal consistency reliability; correlations equal to or greater than .18 do not include zero in the 95% confidence interval and thus are significant at .05; correlations equal to or greater than .15 do not include zero in the 90% confidence and thus are significant at .10.


35

Table 2 Total, indirect, and direct effects for final models

Total (Indirect + Direct) Indirect Direct

Variable OC OD ID OD ID OD ID Conscientiousness .22* (.10) -.40* (.05) -.05 (.03) -.06* (.03) -.05 (.03) -.34** (.04) – – Emotional Stability .17* (.08) -.05 (.03) -.04 (.03) -.05 (.03) -.04 (.03) – – – – Extraversion .17 (.11) -.05 (.03) -.04 (.03) -.05 (.03) -.04 (.03) – – – – Agreeableness .28* (.12) -.08* (.04) -.35** (.05) -.08* (.04) -.07 (.04) – – -.28** (.05) Org. Commitment – – -.27** (.08) -.24** (.09) – – – – -.27** (.08) -.24** (.09) Note. Values in parentheses are standard errors. OC = organizational commitment; OD = organizational deviance; ID = interpersonal deviance. ** p < .01 * p < .05


36

CO

EX

Organizational commitment

Organizational deviance

Interpersonal deviance

.17

.22*

-.27** (-.38**)ES

AG

-.32**

-.34**

.17*

.28*

-.24** (-.38**)

R = .55

R = .51 (.38)

R = .44 (.38)

Figure 1 Path models predicting organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance as mediated by organizational commitment. Standardized path coefficients in parentheses are estimated in the full mediation model. CO = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability; EX = Extraversion; AG = Agreeableness. R represents multiple R predicted by all antecedents. Standard errors are reported in Table 2. ** p < .01 * p < .05

why people harm the organization and its members: relationships among personality, organizational...

Documents