San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Teses Master's Teses and Graduate Research Summer 2017 An Examination of Predictors of Counterproductive Work Behaviors: Personality Traits and Transformational Leadership Edward Hsi San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: htps://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Hsi, Edward, "An Examination of Predictors of Counterproductive Work Behaviors: Personality Traits and Transformational Leadership" (2017). Master's Teses. 4850. DOI: htps://doi.org/10.31979/etd.35df-r76x htps://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4850 Tis Tesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Teses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Teses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact AN EXAMINATION OF PREDICTORS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIORS: PERSONALITY TRAITS AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Psychology San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree Master of Science by Edward Hsi August 2017 © 2017 Edward Hsi ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled AN EXAMINATION OF PREDICTORS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIORS: PERSONALITY TRAITS AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP by Edward Hsi APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY August 2017 Dr. Megumi Hosoda Department of Psychology Dr. Altovise Rogers Department of Psychology Laura Ricci M.S Uber Technologies Inc. ABSTRACT AN EXAMINATION OF PREDICTORS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIORS: PERSONALITY TRAITS AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP by Edward Hsi Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) has constantly been a problem in companies, with research showing that the phenomenon is costly both monetarily to organizations and psychologically to their employees. However, there are many antecedents of CWB, including individual factors and situation factors, that have been found to reduce such behaviors. The present study examined both individual (i.e., personality) and situational factors (i.e., transformational leadership) in predicting CWBs directed at both individuals and organizations. Specifically, this study examined whether three personality traits (i.e., agreeableness, neuroticism and conscientiousness) and transformational leadership would predict CWBs, and whether transformational leadership would predict CWBs above and beyond these three personality traits. A total of 115 individuals working in a variety of industries participated in an online survey. Results showed that although agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted CWB directed at the organization, transformational leadership was able to predict CWBs directed toward organizations as well as individuals above and beyond the personality traits. These findings suggest that in order to mitigate CWBs, organizations should implement transformational leadership training programs rather than rely on personality-based selection methods. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Without the help and support of those around me I would not have been able to complete my thesis. First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis committee for their countless hours of hard work, support and time spent towards guiding me through the thesis process. Dr. Megumi Hosoda, I am extremely grateful for your kind and patient guidance throughout the entire thesis project. I am so thankful for the constant motivation, inspiration, and support that you have given me. Even when there were times where I felt frustrated because I felt lost on how to proceed, your expertise was able to show me the way. Dr. Altovise Rogers, thank you for your expertise in giving me extremely concise and insightful input throughout my thesis. Your encouragement gave me motivation throughout each step of my thesis. Laura Ricci, thank you for providing me guidance throughout each step of my thesis, whenever I needed it. Secondly, I would like to thank my family for supporting me through this master's program. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to expound my knowledge and obtain a skill set that I am passionate about in order to brighten my future. Lastly, I would like to thank Yuri for motivating, supporting and at times scolding me to finish my thesis. Thank you for being patient with me, the days of me trapped at home in front of my laptop are finally over. v TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Definitions and Conceptualization of Counterproductive Work Behaviors ............................... 2 Individual Antecedents of CWBs ............................................................................................... 5 Agreeableness. ........................................................................................................................ 6 Neuroticism. ............................................................................................................................ 8 Conscientiousness. .................................................................................................................. 9 Situational Antecedents of CWBs ............................................................................................ 10 Perceived organizational support. ......................................................................................... 11 Organizational justice. .......................................................................................................... 11 Transformational leadership. ................................................................................................ 12 Purpose of the Current Study .................................................................................................... 18 Method .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 19 Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 21 Measures ................................................................................................................................... 22 Conscientiousness. ................................................................................................................ 22 Agreeableness. ...................................................................................................................... 23 Neuroticism. .......................................................................................................................... 23 Transformational leadership. ................................................................................................ 23 Counterproductive work behaviors. ...................................................................................... 26 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 27 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................................. 27 Pearson Correlations ................................................................................................................. 30 Testing of Hypotheses............................................................................................................... 31 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Theoretical Implications ........................................................................................................... 44 Practical Implications................................................................................................................ 46 Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research ............................................................................ 47 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 49 References ..................................................................................................................................... 51 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 57 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Demographic Information of Participants.........................................................20 Table 2. Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis for Transformational Leadership Items..................................................................................................................24 Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Cronbach Alphas for Personality Traits, Transformational Leadership Behaviors, and Counterproductive Work Behaviors............................................................................................................29 Table 4. Linear Regression Analysis: Transformational Leadership Predicting CWB-I and CWB-O.......................................................................................................33 Table 5. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis: Personality Traits and Transformational Leadership Predicting CWB-I..............................................36 Table 6. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis: Personality Traits and Transformational Leadership Predicting CWB-O.............................................37 vii Introduction Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), which are defined as employee behaviors that hinder the legitimate interests of an organization (Sackett, Berry, Wiemann, & Laczo, 2006), have been extensively researched due to their prevalence, costs, and consequences to organizations. For example, Holcom, Lehman, and Simpson (1994) reported that almost 25% of employees in their sample knew about drug abuse among their coworkers. According to Bennett and Robinson (2000), 15% of their sample admitted that they had stolen from their employer at least once. Furthermore, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) estimated that global businesses suffered annual losses of $2.9 trillion because of fraudulent activity (Moore, Detert, Klebe Treviño, Baker, & Mayer, 2012). Appelbaum, Iaconi, and Matousek (2007) reported the estimated impact of the widespread theft by employees on the U.S. economy to be $50 billion annually. Furthermore, Berry, Carpenter, and Barratt (2012) showed that in addition to the substantial expenses, CWBs resulted in negative consequences to employees in organizations. Such consequences include decreased job satisfaction, increased stress, and greater intentions to quit. Given its overwhelming prevalence, monetary losses, and its detrimental consequences on employees, it is no surprise that organizations have been increasingly interested in identifying antecedents of CWB. Some factors that have been examined as antecedents of CWBs include personality traits, perceived organizational support, transformational leadership, and organizational justice (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Chen, Fah, & Jin, 2016; Fox, 1 Spector, & Miles, 2001; Lehmann-Willenbrock, Meinecke, Rowold, & Kauffeld, 2015). Organizations could explore these factors to reduce CWBs. However, given that individual behaviors are often determined by personality traits and situations that they are in (Lewin, 1940) and that situational factors exert more effects on behaviors than personality traits (Mischel, 1969), it might be more effective to explore situational factors than individual factors. For example, the only way to minimize CWBs via the knowledge of individual factors is through selection of those individuals who are less disposed to engage in CWBs. In contrast, organizations would have a wider variety of options to combat CWBs via knowledge of situational factors such as transformational leadership and organizational support. Furthermore, research has yet to fully examine whether situational factors (i.e., transformational leadership) may predict CWBs beyond individual factors (i.e., personality traits). Therefore, the present study examined the relationship between personality traits, transformational leadership, and CWBs, and whether transformational leadership would predict CWBs above and beyond personality traits. The following sections present the definition and conceptualization of CWBs, and research on the antecedents of CWBs. The rationale for the study and its hypotheses are also presented. Definitions and Conceptualization of Counterproductive Work Behaviors CWB is traditionally defined as volitional behaviors committed by current employees that harm or are intended to harm the organization or people within the organization (Spector & Fox, 2005). Holligner and Clark (1983) classified deviant 2