Employees behaving badly - personality and ...s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/prod-wp-offload... · Employees behaving badly - personality and counterproductive work behaviours

Employees behaving badly - personality and counterproductive

work behaviours

Andrew Marty Managing Director

SACS Consulting

SACS Consulting

• Human Resource Management Consulting Firm – Executive Search and Selection. – Human Resource Management Consulting.

The Science of People Management

Offerings

Objectives

• To consider the importance of counterproductive work behaviours (CWBs)

• To consider the relationship between personality and CWBs

• To outline the results of the SACS 2011 research project into CWBs and personality

• To outline what all this means and where to from here.

Employees behaving badly - CWBs

• CWBs matter! Bullying, harassment, theft, dodging work, etc

• Links between minor CWBs – incivility and major CWBs – sexual harassment

• Badly behaving employees affect the behaviours of other employees…………..

Mirror neurons, yawning, and emotional contagion

Icare4autism (2008) ‘Broken Mirror Neurons Linked to Autism?’ Retrieved May, 16, 2011, from http://icare4autism.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/broken-mirror-neurons-linked-to-autism/

http://icare4autism.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/broken-mirror-neurons-linked-to-autism/











CWBs

• More CWBs mean less OCBs……………….

• Dalal, R.S. (2005) A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 6, 1241–1255

Recruitment approaches - Integrity

Integrity tests • Surprisingly predictive of job success

– .41 by themselves and when coupled with cognitive ability tests .65. They add together well because they are assessing such different things.

– They get more predictive over the years. Bizarre but true!

• Aim to eliminate candidates with negative characteristics – up to 90% in some studies

• Targeting candidates with positive attitudes – i.e. organisational citizenship behaviours.

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.

Examples

• Overt – they ask rude questions – EG Reid Report – People with high integrity can’t believe that people

answer yes to these things, but they do! – Excellent results in terms of eliminating people with

negative characteristics – Also identifies those who are likely to be exemplary

citizens • Personality based – slightly less accurate, considerably

less confronting, much longer to complete.

Integrity tests

• Well worth doing • Are they really measuring “integrity”? The

questions typically relate to CWBs. The term “integrity” can be misleading.

• Questions about their currency. The world of research into CWBs has moved on.

More recent research into CWBs – employees or employer………

• 10 areas of CWBs turn out to be very common: 1. Lateness – unpunctuality 2. Not attending work when not too sick to do so 3. Inability to get on with others 4. Being distracted from core work tasks 5. Incivility – intentional impoliteness or disrespect to others 6. Theft of organisation property 7. Ignoring OHS policies and practices 8. Being openly critical of the employer 9. Ignoring broader work policies or practices 10. Incivility - ignoring or snubbing other employees Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 11(1), 0-42

Previous research into personality and CWBs

• Strong links identified in three different countries – using different measures of CWB – employee integrity index

• Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Morrison, D. L., Cordery, D., & Dunlop, P. D. (2008). Predicting integrity with the HEXACO personality model: Use of self- and observer reports. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 147-167

The first part of the SACS study – an Australian measure for CWBs…..

Key points:

• N = 2049 – big enough to form a normative sample

• 1120 male participants • 929 female participants • Average age of participants = 43 years • Average time to complete = 50 minutes • Candidates on our employee database • Questions relating to the 10 areas of CWB and

the personality dimensions as assessed by HEXACO personality inventory.

1. I am late for appointments

.2% 3.1%

17.8%

55.0%

24.0%

.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never

Percentage

N= 2049

Percentage 0.2% 3.1% 17.8% 55% 24%

Cumulative percentage 0.2% 3.3% 21.1% 76% 100%

2. When I have been ill but not so ill that I could not attend work, I have taken a sick day

0.7% 3.0%

22.1%

47.3%

27.0%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Percentage

N= 2049

Percentage .7% 3% 22.1% 47.3% 27%

Cumulative percentage .7% 3.7% 25.7% 73% 100%

3. I have left jobs in the past because I could not get on with someone I worked with

0.1% 1.9%

20.2%

33.8%

44.0%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Percentage

N= 2049

Percentage .1% 1.9% 20.2% 33.8% 44%

Cumulative percentage

.1% 2% 22.2% 56.0% 100%

4. When I am at work I have found myself distracted by activities such as conversing with colleagues on non-work related matters

1.0%

7.7%

52.2%

36.1%

3.0%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Percentage

N= 2049

Percentage 1% 7.7% 52.2% 36.1% 3%

Cumulative percentage 1% 8.7% 60.9% 97.0% 100%

5. I have found it necessary to be impolite to others at work

0.3% 0.8%

14.3%

51.1%

33.3%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Percentage

N= 2049

Percentage .3% 0.8% 14.3% 51.1% 33.3%

Cumulative percentage .3% 1.2% 15.5% 66.7% 100%

6. I have taken the property of organisations I have worked for

0.3% 0.8%

10.3%

43.9% 44.7%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Percentage

N= 2049

Percentage .3% 0.8% 10.3% 43.9% 44.7%

Cumulative percentage .3% 1.1% 11.4% 55.3% 100%

7. I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health and Safety rules at work

0.4% 1.7

19.2

46.3

32.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Percentage

N= 2049

Percentage 0.4% 1.7% 19.2% 46.3% 32.3%

Cumulative percentage 0.4% 2.1% 21.4% 67.7% 100%

8. I have been critical of organisations I have worked for to others

0.6

7.5

49.6

35.8

6.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Percentage

N= 2049

Percentage 0.6% 7.5% 49.6% 35.8% 6.5%


9. I have ignored or got around policies at work which I did not respect

0.4

6.9

38.7 39.6

14.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Percentage

N= 2049

Percentage 0.4% 6.9% 38.7% 39.6% 14.3%


10. If I don’t like someone at work I have ignored or snubbed them

0.6

4.6

35.8

45.8

13.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Percentage

N= 2049

Percentage 0.6% 4.6% 35.8% 45.8% 13.2%

Cumulative percentage 0.6% 5.3% 41% 86.6% 100%

Two facets of CWB Structure matrix Component 1 Component 2 Facet 10. If I don’t like someone at work I have ignored or snubbed them

0.684 Interpersonal 5. I have found it necessary to be impolite to others at work

0.669 Interpersonal

9. I have ignored or got around policies at work which I did not respect

0.606 0.341 Interpersonal

8. I have been critical of organisations I worked for to others

0.568 0.493 Organisational 3. I have left jobs in the past because I could not get on with someone I worked with 0.566

Interpersonal

7. I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health and Safety rules at work 0.553 0.478

Organisational

4. When I am at work I have found myself distracted by activities such as conversing with colleagues on non work-related matters

0.69 Organisational 1.I am late for appointments 0.593

Organisational

2. When I have been ill but not so ill that I could not attend work, I have taken a sick day 0.577

Organisational

6. I have taken the property of organisations I have worked for 0.45 0.541

Organisational

Distribution of total CWB scale

Distribution of Interpersonal CWB scale

Distribution of Organisational CWB scale

Gender differences? Age differences?

Counterproductive work behaviours: The differences between males and females

2.11

2.14

2.10

2.15

2.04

2.22

1.95

2

2.05

2.1

2.15

2.2

2.25

Total CWB scale means Interpersonal CWB scalemeans*

Organisational CWB scalemeans*

Males

Females

* Statistically significant difference p<.000

N= 2049

Total CWB Scale- Gender and age differences

1.95

2

2.05

2.1

2.15

2.2

2.25

30 years or younger 31-40 years 41-50 years 51 years or older

Male

Female

Interpersonal CWB Scale- Gender and age differences

1.75

1.8

1.85

1.9

1.95

2

2.05

2.1

2.15

2.2


Male

Female

Organisational CWB Scale- Gender and age differences

1.85

1.9

1.95

2

2.05

2.1

2.15

2.2

2.25

2.3

2.35


Male

Female

Evidence Based Leadership SACS Consulting is carbon neutral certified.

How does the CWB scale relate to an overt integrity test?

CWB scale and Reid Report: Convergent Validity

Total CWB scale Interpersonal CWB scale Organisational CWB scale

Reid Report -.337* -.338* -0.232

N= 40; * = sig <.05

There is a statistical relationship between the CWB scale and the Reid Report (overt integrity test).

Personality – Australian norms

Lee and Ashton’s HEXACO

1: Honesty-Humility

• Sincerity

• Fairness

• Greed Avoidance

• Modesty

2: Emotionality

• Fearfulness

• Anxiety

• Dependence

• Sentimentality

3: Extraversion

• Social Self-Esteem

• Social Boldness

• Sociability

• Liveliness

4: Agreeableness

• Forgiveness

• Gentleness

• Flexibility

• Patience

5: Conscientiousness • Organization

• Diligence

• Perfectionism

• Prudence

6: Openness to Experience

• Aesthetic Appreciation

• Inquisitiveness

• Creativity

• Unconventionality

7: (Interstitial scale)

• Altruism

HEXACO FACTORS: Australian Professional Population vs Canadian General Population

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Honesty-Humility Emotionality Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness toExperience

Altruism

Australian Professional Population Means Canadian General Population Means

HEXACO FACETS: Australian Professional Population vs Canadian General Population

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Australian professional population means (n=2049) Canadian general population means (n=887)

Gender differences: HEXACO Factors

Honesty-Humility Emotionality Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness toExperience Altruism

Female means 3.73 3.16 3.74 3.15 3.68 3.53 4.11Male means 3.63 2.85 3.77 3.2 3.72 3.56 3.92

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Fact

or M

eans

Australian professional population HEXACO Factor norms: Males vs Females

Gender differences: HEXACO facets

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Face

t Mea

ns

Australian professional population HEXACO Facet norms: Males vs Females

Female means Male means

Can personality predict counter-productive work behaviours?

Personality predicting Interpersonal CWB

(HH) Sincerity (HH) Fairness (HH) Greed-Avoidance (HH) Modesty (EMO) Fearfulness (EMO) Anxiety (EMO) Dependence (EMO) Sentimentality (EX) Social Self-Esteem (EX) Social Boldness (EX) Sociability (EX) Liveliness (A) Forgiveness (A) Gentleness (A) Flexibility (A) Patience (C) Organisation (C) Diligence (C) Perfectionism (C) Prudence (O) Aesthetic Appreciation (O) Inquisitiveness (O) Creativity (O) Unconventionality Altruism

Model Summary Model R R

Square Adjusted R

Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .549a .301 .293 .44166

Best predictors of Interpersonal CWB Beta weights

(EX) Sociability -0.182 (A) Forgiveness -0.164 (HH) Fairness -0.124 (A) Flexibility -0.109 (A) Patience -0.105

Interpersonal CWB

Personality predicting Organisational CWB


Organisational CWB

Best predictors of Organisational CWB Beta weights

(HH)Fairness -0.238

(C) Diligence -0.163

(C) Prudence -0.158

(C) Organisation -0.157

Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R


1 .638a .406 .399 .34717

Personality predicting Total CWB


Total CWB

Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R


1 .653a .427 .420 .31314

Best predictors of CWB Beta weights

(HH) Fairness -0.219 (C) Prudence -0.141 (C) Organization -0.116 (A) Forgiveness -0.112 (C) Diligence -0.112 (A) Flexibility -0.109 (EX) Sociability -0.106 (HH) Sincerity -0.1

Key points……..

• There is a strong relationship between personality and counterproductive work behaviours

• The findings are similar to the relationships Lee and Ashton found between personality and overt integrity tests – particularly very similar strength of relationships

• It is possible to generate a personality based risk assessment of CWBs in potential employees.

Where to from here?

• We now have an Australian normed CWB assessment, validated against the HEXACO

• We now have Australian professional population norms for the HEXACO personality inventory

• We now know the personality factors which present the most accurate indicators of the likelihood of CWBs

• We will be offering all this to our clients, both in our executive level psychological assessment offering, as well as our self managed psychological assessments portal.

Documents

Employees behaving badly - personality and ...s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/prod-wp-offload... · Employees behaving badly - personality and counterproductive work behaviours