Running Head: WORKPLACE EXCLUSIONhitlan/Hitlan_EJWOP_RRR.pdf · Exclusion, Personality, and CWB 1 Running Head: EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB . The Influence of Workplace Exclusion

Exclusion, Personality, and CWB 1

Running Head: EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB

The Influence of Workplace Exclusion and Personality on Counterproductive Work Behaviors:

An Interactionist Perspective

Robert T. Hitlan and Jennifer Noel

University of Northern Iowa

(In press)

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

Please do not copy of cite without permission

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Robert T. Hitlan Department of Psychology University of Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, IA 50614 Ph: 319-273-2223 Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Abstract

The current research examined some of the person and situation factors that contribute to

counterproductive work behavior (CWB). More specifically, this research examined the unique

and interactive effects of perceived workplace exclusion and personality, as measured via the

NEO-FFI, on two types of CWB: interpersonal and organizational. Participants included 105

employees from a mid-sized Midwestern utility company in the U.S. All employees completed a

Workplace Experiences Survey. As predicted, exclusion via coworkers was related to

interpersonal forms of CWB; whereas, exclusion by supervisors was related to organizational

CWB. Support was also obtained for several of the predicted interactions between workplace

exclusion and personality on CWB such that the relation between exclusion and CWB was

strongest for employees whose personality exhibited less behavioral constraint. Results are

discussed in terms of their implications, limitations, and directions for future research.

Key Words: Workplace Exclusion, Ostracism, Personality, Counterproductive Work Behavior


The Influence of Workplace Exclusion and Personality on Counterproductive Work Behaviors:

An Interactionist Perspective

Arguably, an organization’s human capital represents the most important resource for

ensuring an organization's competitiveness in a local, regional, national, or even global

marketplace. Thus, it stands to reason that organizations would want their employees to feel a

sense of inclusiveness within the organization, especially given the positive relation between

perceived inclusiveness and social support, employee psychological health, organizational

satisfaction, commitment, and productivity (Mor Barak, Cherin, & Berkman, 1998; Mor Barak &

Levin, 2002). Yet, to our knowledge, little research has specifically examined workplace

exclusion as a focal construct. Drawing on previous research investigating social ostracism

(Williams, 2001, 2007) and organizational behavior (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), we define

workplace exclusion broadly as, the extent to which an individual (or group) perceives that they

are being rejected, ignored, or ostracized by another individual (or group) within their place of

work. One basic assumption underlying this definition is that many (if not most) times such

behavior hinders one’s ability to complete those tasks required for successful job performance.

The current research has two primary goals. The first is to examine the link between

workplace exclusion and negative work behaviors. As described more fully below, one important

consideration in trying to predict how exclusion relates to workplace behavior concerns the

source of the exclusion (e.g., coworkers, supervisors). A second goal is to better understand how

individual differences moderate the relation between workplace exclusion and work behavior.

Simply stated, the aim of the current research is to better understand the unique and interactive

effects of workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work behaviors. More

specifically, the current research examines how an employee’s perception of being excluded by


other coworkers or supervisors is related to interpersonal and organizational counterproductive

work behaviors (CWB).

Generally speaking, CWB is defined as, “a set of volitional acts [as opposed to accidental

or mandated] that harm or intend to harm organizations and their stakeholders (e.g., clients,

coworkers, customers, and supervisors)” (Spector & Fox, 2005, pp. 151-152). Thus, CWB

includes a wide range of behaviors from taking extended breaks to stealing to physical violence.

Although there are a number of clearly distinct acts that are subsumed under the broader

definition of CWB (Robinson & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Sackett, 2002; Spector et al., 2006), the

current research focused on those behaviors associated with interpersonal (e.g., arguing with co-

others) and organizational (e.g., stealing from one’s organization) dimensions of CWB. To our

knowledge, research has not specifically examined how broad dimensions of one’s personality

function to moderate the relation between exclusion and outcomes. In addition, the current

research expands on what is currently known about exclusion and CWB by examining how the

sources of exclusion (coworker or supervisor) relate to specific types of CWB.

We begin by briefly reviewing why exclusion represents an important construct for

organizational researchers. Next, we review some of the most relevant social-psychological

research examining how social exclusion influences attitudes and behaviors. Given our focus on

workplace relationships, we rely on Social Exchange and Social Identity theories to aid in

developing specific predictions about the link between sources and outcomes. Finally, and

perhaps most importantly, we outline how one’s personality may function to moderate the impact

of perceived exclusion on CWB.

Social and Organizational Research on Exclusion, Rejection, and Ostracism

According to Belongingness Theory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), people possess an

innate need to feel connected to and belong to something greater than oneself. Research indicates


that being excluded is psychologically aversive to victims. When one’s need for belonging is

thwarted, people seek to reaffirm their sense of self-worth and meaningfulness (Williams, 2007).

Exclusion (either real or perceived) is related to a host of negative emotional states

including sadness, loneliness, jealousy, guilt/shame, embarrassment, social anxiety (Leary, Koch,

& Hechenbleikner, 2001). Research indicates a direct relation between exclusion and increased

desire to avoid future contact with perpetrators (Cheuk & Rosen, 1994; Pepitone & Wilpizeski,

1960), decreased prosocial behaviors, decreased ability to self-regulate one’s behavior, and

impaired cognitive functioning (Baumeister & Dewall, 2005). To the extent that exclusion

decreases self-regulation it may serve to direct employee’s toward short-term behaviors

motivated by self-interest and away from more long-term behaviors focused on the future

success of the organization (Parks & Kidder, 1994). Such a shift in one’s thought processes is

also consistent with the literature on exchange relations within organizations. Thus, when an

employee feels excluded they may engage in behaviors, such as increased aggression and risk-

taking that are not in keeping with their long-term best interests as organizational employees

(Bierman & Wargo, 1995; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001). Yet, exclusion within the

work realm has only been investigated as secondary to other constructs such as workplace

incivility, bullying, retaliation, and harassment. Given this, and the potential importance of

exclusion for one’s well-being, their remains a gap in the literature as to exactly how exclusion

(as a focal construct) contributes to work outcomes.

Exchange Relations and Workplace Exclusion

Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958) posits that social behavior involves

the exchange of both material (e.g., information and equipment) and non-material goods (e.g.,

status and approval). When one person is negligent in the exchange, the other will be more likely

to leave the relationship. Based on the tenants of Social Exchange Theory, several workplace


relevant exchange theories have emerged including Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX)

and Coworker Exchange Theory (CWX; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Sherony & Green, 2002). The

crux of these theories is that the quantity and quality of leader–subordinate and coworker-

coworker relations are determined, at least in part, by how “others” are viewed. For example

when leaders view subordinates as “in-group” members, these individuals are interacted with

differently than when a subordinate is perceived as an “out-group” member. A similar situation

is also thought to develop when both entities are at the same organizational level (i.e.,

coworkers). For example, low-quality or problematic interactions often occur when a supervisor

perceives his or her subordinate as an “out-group” member. Such situations are also

characterized by a lack of trust and support.

Of particular import for the current research, when such group distinctions are made

salient via exclusion, subsequent attitudes and behaviors may reflect such an in-group/out-group

mentality. Such a cognitive and behavioral shift is also consistent with a host of research

supporting Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Hogg & Terry, 2000;

Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002), which is based on the

assumption that one’s self-esteem and self-worth are based, in part, on group membership.

Consistent with a Social Exchange perspective, Thau, Aquino, and Poortvliet (2007) found that

thwarted belonging, defined as the discrepancy between desired and actual level of belonging,

was predictive of self-defeating deviant behavior within organizations (cf. Colbert, Mount,

Harter, Witt, & Barrick; 2004; Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992).

Furthermore, evidence exists that supervisor support and organizational support are

positively related and, therefore, a lack of supervisor support, via exclusion, may be expected to

relate more closely to behaviors traditionally associated with a lack of organizational support,

namely organizational CWB (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). In


contrast, given that coworkers often spend much more of their time with other coworkers, as

compared to supervisors, we believe that suffering exclusion at the hands of other coworkers

would relate to an employee questioning their sense of belonging to that group (i.e., coworkers),

and serve to exacerbate in-group/out-group distinctions between oneself and other coworkers. As

a result, we would expect coworker exclusion to relate to interpersonal forms of CWB (e.g.,

speaking badly of another coworker, gossiping) (Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006; Frone, 2000;

Spector et al., 2006b). Based on the theory and research outlined above, we predict the

following:

H1: Exclusion by one’s supervisor(s) will be positively related to organizational CWB.

H2: Exclusion by one’s coworker(s) will be positively related to interpersonal CWB.

A Person X Situation Approach

There is a large body of research supporting the relation between individual difference

factors (e.g., personality dimensions) and counterproductive attitudes and behaviors (Ones,

Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Reiss, 1994; McCrae & Costa; 1986; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996;

Salgado, 2002). One commonly used measure of personality is the NEO-FFI which measures

individual differences along five conceptually and empirically distinct dimensions which include

neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Costa

& McCrae, 1992). Higher levels of neuroticism are characterized by more anxiety, impulsivity,

anger, and hostility. Higher levels of extraversion are characterized by warmth, gregariousness,

and positive emotions. Openness to experience is characterized by unconventional values and

divergent thinking, being more emotionally expressive (both positive and negative), being more

intellectual, and being more open to reexamine one’s value system. Individuals who score higher

in agreeableness tend to befriend others more easily and are more altruistic and less antagonistic


than those scoring lower on this dimension. Finally, conscientiousness is associated with self-

discipline, dutifulness, and a high level of aspiration.

Higher levels of neuroticism (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 2003), as well as, lower

levels of conscientiousness (Ashton, 1998; Sackett & DeVore, 2001), agreeableness (Graziano &

Eisenberg, 1997; Salgado, 2002), extraversion (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Collins & Schmidt,

1993), and openness to experience (Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006) are linked to higher levels of

anger, aggression, and/or CWB. To wit, the main effects of various person factors on

organizational outcomes are generally well supported by research. However, less research has

been conducted examining the joint contributions of situation and person factors in predicting

workplace behaviors.

Consistent with the views espoused by other researchers, we view the outcomes

associated with exclusionary behavior as a complex interaction between an employee’s

personality and their immediate social situation (cf. Geen, 2001; O’leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew,

1996; Twenge, 2006; Williams, 2001; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; Martinko & Zellars, 1998).

For example, Robinson and Bennett developed a model of workplace deviance in which the

expression of deviant behaviors is thought to be the product of a complex interaction between

situational antecedents (e.g., inequities, unfair treatment, and social pressures) and constraints

(e.g., internalization of norms). Consistent with this, Spector, Fox, and Domagalski (2006) state,

“…the literature demonstrates that violent, aggressive, and counterproductive work behaviors are

best explained when both individual differences and situational factors are examined” (p. 37). In

fact, a number of researchers have provided evidence in support of a person x situation model

(Colbert et al, 2004; Keashly & Harvey, 2004; Neuman & Baron, 1997, 1998; Romero-Canyas &

Downey, 2006; Vardi & Weitz, 2004).


Comparing Additive and Interactive Effects Models

As previously noted we expect that the perception that an employee is being excluded

within their place of work will relate to CWB. We also expect that, individual differences in

personality will relate to CWB. As such, it is important to distinguish theoretically why we

expect interactive over additive effects to emerge. Generally speaking, with an additive effects

model we would expect to see that employees reporting higher levels of exclusion would report

higher levels of CWB, compared to employees reporting lower levels of exclusion. Similarly,

highly neurotic employees would be expected to exhibit higher levels of CWB than employees

reporting lower neuroticism. The net effect of these two unique main effects might be for highly

neurotic employees reporting high levels of exclusion to report the most CWB. Such an effect is

consistent with an additive model.

In contrast, we might expect that personality functions to constrain behavior (cf. Colbert

et al., 2004) such that at low levels of neuroticism (e.g., low anxiety, hostility, impulsiveness,

and vulnerability) CWB would be similar across all levels of exclusion. In this instance, one’s

personality would function as a behavioral constraint. However, at high levels of neuroticism we

would expect more variability in CWB depending on the frequency with which an employee

reports experiencing exclusion. In this case, the employee’s behavior would not be constrained

by their personality and we might expect that the highest levels of CWB would emerge for

highly neurotic individuals experiencing high levels of exclusion. Thus, although the net result

may be the same under both additive and interactive conditions, there is a difference in the

underlying theoretical rationale for why we ought to see these effects.

In sum, consistent with previous findings suggesting that individuals who possess

specific personality characteristics are more or less likely to engage in aggressive, antisocial, and

deviant forms of organizational behavior, we expected that those employees whose personality


exerts a stronger constraint on behavior would report engaging in similar levels CWB

irrespective of how much workplace exclusion they report experiencing. As reviewed above, we

expected that personality would exert stronger constraints on behavior for employees reporting

low levels of neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, as well as, those reporting

higher conscientiousness and agreeableness. In contrast, we expected much more variability in

CWB as a function of workplace exclusion among individuals whose personality imposes fewer

constraints on behavior. As such, we expect that, people whose behavior is less constrained via

their personality will be more reactive to various situational influences, including workplace

exclusion.

H3: Perceived coworker exclusion and personality will interact to influence interpersonal

CWB such that the relation between coworker exclusion and interpersonal CWB will be

stronger for individuals whose personality exhibits less constraint on their behavior (i.e.,

high neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, and low agreeableness and

conscientiousness)

H4: Perceived supervisor exclusion and personality will interact to influence

organizational CWB such that the relation between supervisor exclusion and

organizational CWB will stronger for individuals whose personality exhibits less

constraint on their behavior (i.e., high neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to

experience, and low agreeableness, and conscientiousness).

Method

Participants

Participants included 105 employees from a medium-sized utility company located in the

Midwestern United States. Men comprised 63.8% of the sample (n = 67). Participant ages

ranged from 23-63 years (M = 43.17, SD = 8.66, Mdn = 44). The entire sample identified as


Caucasian (100 %). The majority of participants reported being married (83.8%) and working

full-time (97%). A total of 145 surveys were distributed with 105 surveys returned. According

to Hamilton (2003), this represents an excellent response rate of 72%.

Procedure and Measures

All participants completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire assessing various aspects of

their workplace environment. Questionnaires were administered at departmental meetings

ranging from three to twenty employees per meeting. Small group sessions were used to

adequately communicate the purpose of the questionnaire and answer any questions or concerns

from employees. Upon arrival, participants were informed of their rights as research participants

and asked to read over and sign an informed consent sheet prior to participation. Informed

consent sheets were kept separate from survey responses to ensure confidentiality. Average

completion time of the questionnaire was approximately 25 minutes. Participants had the option

to either complete the questionnaire at the departmental meetings or on their own time and return

the survey to the researcher in a sealed envelope upon completion.

Workplace Exclusion. The Revised Workplace Exclusion Scale (WES-R; see Appendix

A) is a 17-item self-report scale, which asks participants to indicate how often they perceived of

themselves as experiencing different types of exclusionary behaviors during the past 12 months

at their organization. The scale is comprised of three subscales, a 7-item subscale assessing one’s

perception of being excluded by coworkers (e.g., Coworkers shutting you out of their

conversation), a 5-item subscale assessing one’s perception of being excluded by supervisors

(e.g., Supervisors keeping important work-related information from you – e.g., meeting times),

and a 3-item language-based exclusion subscale (e.g., Coworkers speaking to each other in a

language you did not understand.). The final two items represent criterion questions. All

responses were obtained on a 5-point response scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (most of the


time), with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived exclusion. Due to the

demographic make-up of the current sample, and a low base-rate associated with the language-

based exclusion factor (i.e., 4 respondents indicating experiencing language-based exclusion),

the language-based exclusion subscale was not used in subsequent analyses. Previous research

indicates the WES to be reliable with alpha coefficients ranging from .79-.85 across studies

(Hitlan, Cliffton, & DeSoto, 2006; Hitlan, Kelly, & Zárate, under review). Initial research also

supports the validity of the WES (Walsh & Hitlan, 2008). For the current research, the reliability

coefficients for the coworker (α = .76) and supervisor (α = .75) subscales indicated acceptable

reliability estimates.

Individual Differences. Personality was assessed using the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae,

1992), which contains 60-items measuring the “Big Five” dimensions of personality including

neuroticism (e.g., I am not a worrier), extraversion (e.g., I like to have a lot of people around

me), openness to experience (e.g., I find philosophical arguments boring), agreeableness (e.g., I

try to be courteous to everyone I meet), and conscientiousness (e.g., I keep my belongings neat

and clean). Each subscale is comprised of 12-items. Respondents indicate their level of

agreement/disagreement with a series of statements using a 5-point response scale ranging from

1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Composite scores were created by averaging across

scale items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of that particular personality characteristic. The

NEO-FFI scales show correlations of .77-.92 with the NEO-PI, and internal consistency

reliability values range from .68-.86 (Costa & McCrae, 1992). For the current research, the

reliability coefficients for the NEO-FFI were: neuroticism (α = .85), agreeableness (α = .77),

extraversion (α = .79), conscientiousness (α = .75), and openness to experience (α = .70).

Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB). CWB was measured by using the Workplace

Deviance Scale (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999)1. This scale is comprised of two subscales:


organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance. The organizational deviance subscale

includes 8-items assessing deviant behaviors directed toward the organization (e.g., Intentionally

arrived late for work); the interpersonal deviance subscale consists of 6-items assessing

interpersonal deviance (e.g., Swore at a co-worker). Participants responded on an 8-point scale

ranging from 1 (Never) to 8 (More than once a week), with high scores indicating higher

frequency of deviant behaviors. Past research has supported the reliability and validity of the

instrument, with reliability coefficients for interpersonal deviance (α = .73) and organizational

deviance (α = .76; Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999). For the current research, the reliability

coefficients were .74 for organizational deviance and .76 for interpersonal deviance.

Results

Frequency of Workplace Exclusion

The most frequent forms of supervisor exclusion included supervisors not replying to

requests/questions within a reasonable period of time and respondents not being invited by

supervisors to participate in work-related activities. More specifically, 71.2% and 74.3% of

respondents indicated that, at least once or twice, over the course of the previous 12 month

period, a supervisor had not replied to their request within a reasonable period of time and/or that

they were not invited to participate in work-related activities. Moreover, 63.8% of respondents

indicated receiving the ‘silent treatment’ by during this same time period. Of those, 6.7%

indicated that such behavior occurred often or most of the time. Also, 59% of respondents

indicated having been shut out of conversations by coworkers with 7.7% indicating that such

behavior occurred either often or most of the time.

Frequency of Organizational and Interpersonal CWB

The most frequent forms of organizational CWB included employees working on a

personal matter instead of working for their employer (60.6%), gossiping about one’s supervisor


(55.8%), making unauthorized use of organizational property (31.7%), and calling in sick when

not actually ill (21.2%). The least frequent forms of organizational CWB included intentionally

arriving late to work (7.7%), and lying about the number of hours worked (2.9%). The most

frequent forms of interpersonal CWB included regularly teasing a co-worker in front of other

employees (52.9%), refusing to talk to a co-worker (34.6%), and swearing at a coworker

(32.7%). The least frequent forms of interpersonal CWB included making ethnic, racial, or

religious slurs against a co-worker (9.6%) and making an obscene comment or gesture at a

coworker (29.8%).

Correlational Analyses

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, zero-order correlation coefficients, and

reliability coefficients for each of the study variables. Hypothesis 1 predicted a significant

positive relation between perceptions of supervisor exclusion and organizational CWB.

Consistent with this prediction, supervisor exclusion was significantly correlated with

organizational CWB, r(102) = .37, p < .001. In contrast, the relation between supervisor

exclusion and interpersonal CWB was not significant, r(102) = .16, p > .05, ns. Thus, employees

who reported higher levels of supervisor exclusion were also more likely to report engaging in

higher levels of organizational CWB but not interpersonal CWB. Results also indicated that the

relation between supervisor exclusion and organizational CWB was significantly stronger than

the relation between supervisor exclusion and interpersonal CWB, t(101) = 1.81, p = .03, one

tailed.

Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive correlation between coworker exclusion and

interpersonal CWB. As predicted, perceptions of exclusion via coworkers was related to

interpersonal CWB, r(102) = .19, p = .05. Results also indicated a significant relation between

coworker exclusion and organizational CWB, r(102) = .28, p = .004. Employees reporting higher


levels of exclusion via coworkers also reported higher levels of both interpersonal and

organizational CWB. Follow-up analyses indicated that the difference between these two

correlation coefficients was not statistically significant, t(101) = 0.76, p =.23, one tailed.

Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analysis

To assess the interactive effects of perceived exclusion and personality on CWB, a series

of moderated hierarchical regression analyses were computed. The first series of regressions

used interpersonal CWB as the criterion; the second series used organizational CWB as the

criterion. In the first step, the exclusion and moderator conditional effects were entered. In the

second step, the two-way interaction term between perceived exclusion and personality was

entered2. Based on recommendations by Aiken and West (1991), the exclusion and personality

variables were centered prior to entering the conditional effects and interaction term into the

regression model.

Coworker exclusion, personality, and CWB. Hypothesis 3 predicted that coworker

exclusion would interact with personality in predicting interpersonal CWB. More specifically,

the relation between coworker exclusion and interpersonal CWB was predicted to be stronger for

individuals whose behavior was less constrained by their personality (higher neuroticism,

extraversion, and openness to experience, and lower agreeableness and conscientiousness).

Separate regression equations were computed for each test of moderation. Results provided some

support for the predicted interactions (see Table 2). At step 2, after controlling for the main

effects associated with coworker exclusion and personality, the interaction between coworker

exclusion and extraversion accounted for a significant proportion of unique variance in the

prediction of interpersonal CWB, ΔF(1, 100) = 5.16, p = .025, R = .34, ΔR2 = .05. To better

understand the nature of the interaction two methods were used: a simple slope analysis (Aiken

& West, 1991) and the Johnson-Neyman Technique which provides a point estimate for the


range of values of the moderator where the focal independent variable (exclusion) is significantly

related to CWB (Johnson & Newman, 1936; Hays & Matthes, in press).

As illustrated in Figure 1, at low levels of extraversion (-1SD), the relation between

coworker exclusion and interpersonal CWB was not significant, b = .08, SE = .25, t = .31, p =

.76; with a 95% confidence interval of -.4272 to .5829. However, the simple slope was

significantly different from zero at both the mean, b = .49, SE = .19, t(100) = 2.54, p = .01, with

a 95% confidence interval of .1067 to .8663, and high (+1sd) levels of extraversion, b = .90, SE

= .27, t(100) = 3.31, p = .001, with a 95% confidence interval of .3584 to 1.4318. Moreover, the

points estimate indicated that when extraversion is 3.245 or above the coefficient for exclusion is

significantly positive (using alpha = .05). Thus, participants reporting low levels of extraversion

reported little difference in the frequency of interpersonal CWB across levels of coworker

exclusion. However, at higher levels of extraversion this difference became much more

pronounced with the highest levels of interpersonal CWB being observed under conditions of

high extraversion and high coworker exclusion. The other predicted interactions between

coworker exclusion and interpersonal CWB failed to emerge.

Supervisor exclusion, personality, and CWB. Hypothesis 4 predicted that supervisor

exclusion would interact with personality in predicting organizational CWB. More specifically,

the relation between supervisor exclusion and organizational CWB was predicted to be stronger

for individuals whose behavior was less constrained by their personality (higher neuroticism,

extraversion, and openness to experience, and lower agreeableness and conscientiousness).

The procedure was identical to that outlined above with coworker interactions. Consistent with

predictions, at Step 2, after controlling for the main effects of supervisor exclusion and

personality, each of the interaction terms (excluding extraversion) contributed unique variance to

the prediction of organizational CWB including neuroticism, ΔF(1, 100) = 8.00, p <.01, R = .50,


ΔR2 = .06, agreeableness, ΔF(1, 100) = 5.36, p = .02, R = .48, ΔR2 = .04, conscientiousness,

ΔF(1, 100) = 13.42, p < .01, R = .58, ΔR2 = .09, and openness to experience, ΔF(1, 100) = 4.08,

p = .04, R = .41, ΔR2 = .03. The direction for each of these interaction terms is consistent with

predictions (see Figures 2-5). Employees whose personality exerted a stronger constraint over

their behavior were less variable in reporting to have engaged in organizational CWB. Moreover,

the most CWB was evidenced under conditions of high supervisor exclusion and low behavioral

constraint. Table 4 displays the simple slope coefficients, significance values, 95% confidence

intervals, and point estimates along low (-1SD), mean, and high levels (+1SD) of these

personality dimensions.

Discussion

The current research examined how an employee’s perception of being excluded within

their work environment relates to counterproductive work behaviors. Although there is a large

body of literature examining how situational factors influence outcomes, little research has

specifically addressed the phenomena of workplace exclusion, and its associated outcomes

(Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zárate, 2006). One of the goals of the current research

was to begin to fill this gap by examining how both sources of exclusion and one’s personality

contribute to the expression of CWB. We relied on research evidence suggesting that the source

of exclusion (e.g., coworkers, supervisors) may be important to more fully understanding the

behavioral outcomes associated with such behavior.

Higher levels of supervisor exclusion were related to higher levels or organizational

CWB but not interpersonal forms of CWB. In addition, coworker exclusion was positively

related to interpersonal CWB. Somewhat interestingly, a significant relation also emerged

between coworker exclusion and organizational CBW. Although this latter finding was not

specifically predicted in the current research, it is consistent with Frone (2000) who found that


both interpersonal conflict with supervisors and interpersonal conflict with coworkers related to

interpersonal (depression, self-esteem, somatic symptoms) and organizational outcomes (job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover). Although Frone did not attempt to explain

this “cross-over” effect for outcomes we suspect that, interactions with coworkers are shaped by

many different variables (e.g., seniority, personality, job position) that may lead to less

discrimination in the display of CWB. As such, an employee who feels they are being excluded

by coworkers may consider multiple factors when deciding to respond. We contrast this with

perceived exclusion at the hands of one’s supervisor where it is generally recognized that

supervisors are more closely associated with their role agents of an organization.

To test this proposition, we conducted a secondary analysis using the data provided by

Frone (2000) which included the sample size and tabled correlations. We examined whether the

effect sizes between interpersonal conflict with coworkers and interpersonal outcomes (e.g.,

depression, self-esteem, somatic symptoms) differed from those between interpersonal conflict

with coworkers and organizational outcomes (satisfaction, commitment, turnover). None of the

comparisons indicated significant differences in effect size estimates across interpersonal and

organizational outcomes. So, the relations between coworker conflict and outcomes were similar

across both interpersonal and organizational outcomes. Simply stated, all cross-outcome

coefficients were of equal strength. However, for interpersonal conflict with supervisors, all of

the effect sizes associated with organizational outcomes were significantly stronger than the

relations between supervisor conflict and interpersonal outcomes. A similar analysis based on

information provided by Bruk-Lee and Spector (2006) examined the relations among supervisor

conflict, coworker conflict, organizational CWB, and interpersonal CWB, and found a

significantly stronger relation between interpersonal conflict and interpersonal CWB (as

compared to organizational CWB) and no difference in the strength of the relations associated


with supervisor conflict. Thus additional research is needed to better understand the nature of

this discrepancy. For example, Frone (2000) focused on younger employees and attitudinal

outcomes, Bruk-Lee and Spector (2006) examined university employees and behavioral

outcomes, and the current research specifically examined workplace exclusion using employees

from a utility company and behavioral outcome measures. Might there be something inherent in

a specific sample, organization, or outcome underlying these effects?

Personality and CWB

Consistent with previous research, we found that each of the measured personality

dimensions was related to some form of CWB. More specifically, negative relations emerged

between openness to experience (and agreeableness) and interpersonal CWB. Employees

reporting less of these characteristics were more likely to report engaging in interpersonal CWB.

Similar negative relations emerged between organizational CWB and extraversion,

agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Employees scoring lower on these dimensions reported

more organizational CWB compared to those scoring higher on each of these dimensions.

Finally, neuroticism was positively related to organizational CWB.

While these relations are consistent with those obtained in previous research, as one

reviewer of the current manuscript pointed out, these relations may simply reflect a tendency of

some individuals to report acting in more counterproductive ways as opposed to actually

engaging g in counterproductive behaviors. For example, one could argue that conscientious

people attempt to be highly accurate in reporting everything, and those who are less conscientious

might not feel as compelled to report deviant behavior. Although our method and data do not

allow us to entirely rule out this possibility, the negative correlations between conscientiousness

and organizational CWB indicates that less conscientious people actually do report engaging in


more CWB. Nevertheless, this is an important empirical question but one that cannot be fully

disentangled with the current research design.

Personality as a Moderator

For interpersonal CWB, the only significant interaction term to emerge was between

coworker exclusion and extraversion. The effect of coworker exclusion on interpersonal CWB

was dependent on one’s personality. For employees reporting low levels of extraversion, there

was little change in the self-reported display of interpersonal CWB across exclusion levels.

However, at higher levels of extraversion (where we would expect less behavioral constraint),

the difference between low and high levels of coworker exclusion on interpersonal CWB was

much more pronounced when employees scored high in extraversion. Based on this finding, it

seems that the specific characteristics associated with extraversion (e.g., warmth, gregariousness,

assertiveness, activity) are more important for understanding reactions to interactions involving

other coworkers (as opposed to supervisors). One explanation for this finding is reflected in the

amount of time that employees spend interacting with one another. Generally, employees spend a

significant percentage of their time interacting with other coworkers. So, one might expect that:

1) those scoring lower in extraversion would not be as inclined (as those scoring higher) to feel

the need to interact with others in an attempt to satisfy those personality characteristics of

warmth and gregariousness and 2) as a result of this lower need to satisfy oneself via the

company of others, exclusion by coworkers would not be viewed as aversive as it would be by

highly extraverted individuals (more constrained personality). Thus, extraversion seems of

particular importance for coworker interactions, especially when combined with relevant

situations factors, such as exclusion.

For organizational CWB, each of the predicted interactions between supervisor exclusion

and personality emerged, except for the interaction involving extraversion. When employee


behavior was constrained by their personality, little difference emerged on organizational CWB

across levels of supervisor exclusion. In contrast, much more pronounced changes in CWB

emerged for those employees whose personality exerted less control over their behavior (high

neuroticism, high openness to experience, low conscientiousness, and low agreeableness).

Overall, these findings suggest that the likelihood of employees engaging in CWB

depends on both persona and situation factors – especially when trying to predict organizational

forms of CWB. Additionally, consistent with previous research, source characteristics appear to

be important to determining specific types of outcomes. By virtue of the number and strength of

the interaction terms in the current research, it seems that personality dimensions are more

closely associated with CWB directed at the organization. It could be that when exclusionary

behavior is thought to emanate from an organization, as is the case with supervisor exclusion, an

employee not only feels that such behavior has implications for their immediate social milieu but

also to their immediate and future existence and advancement opportunities within their

organization (and thus calling into question those very personality characteristics that makes us

who we are).

Limitations of the Current Research

It is also important to note a few potential limitations to the current research. First, due to

the self-report methodology and the sensitive nature of the information being obtained, responses

may have been influenced by socially desirability or common method variance (Campbell &

Fiske, 1959; Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991). However, others believe that the magnitude of any

such effects is often overstated (Spector, 1994). So, although research has indicated such effects

may inflate relations among variables, there does not appear to be a consensus on the absolute

magnitude of such effects. Also, the common method variance explanation cannot account for

interaction effects which are less likely to be spurious. Second, consistent with previous survey


research, participants completed the survey at a single point in time whereby prohibiting any

firm conclusions regarding cause and effect. Nevertheless, when combined with previous

experimental research, we believe that the current research makes an important contribution to

our understanding of when we might expect workplace exclusion to predict whether or not an

employee will choose to engage in counterproductive work behaviors.

That said, both workplace exclusion and CWB represent broad constructs encompassing

a number of subtypes (Spector et al., 2006b), many of which were not examined in the current

research. Even within the current sample, it seems that some forms of exclusion are experienced

more frequently than others as are specific forms of both interpersonal CWB and organizational

CWB. For example, does it matter if employees were being excluded socially (by others ignoring

them) or physically (by others physically leaving their presence)? Might the mode of exclusion

(e.g., face-to-face, chat-room), and length of time one was excluded influence outcomes?

Additionally, the entire sample reported being Caucasian (100%) and the majority reported

working full-time (97%). As a result, one needs to be careful when making statements about the

applicability of the current findings to other ethnicities, and employees who are employed on a

temporary basis or part-time. Future research in this area would also benefit from examining

samples of different ethnicities, ages, and locations would be of great interest.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we believe this research adds to what is currently known about workplace

behaviors in a few different ways. First, we were able to show that the mere perception of

exclusion is sufficient to increase the likelihood of employees engaging in CWB. Second, this

research provides additional support for the argument that the sources of conflict (or exclusion in

this case) are important to better understanding how employees may choose to respond to their

experiences. Third, it provides additional insight regarding the moderating effects of personality


in the prediction of CWB including an initial assessment of which personality dimensions seem

most important under certain conditions. Finally, while the current research answers some

questions concerning the relations and interactions between workplace exclusion, personality,

and counterproductive work behaviors, it also brings up some additional questions and avenues

for subsequent research in this area. Ultimately, we believe the current research will help in the

development of specific models outlining the antecedents, moderators, and consequences of

CWB.


References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers, Inc.

Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289-303.

Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative

affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073-1091.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job

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

Baumeister, R. F., & DeWall, C. N. (2005). The inner dimension of social exclusion: Intelligent

thought and self-regulation among rejected persons. In K.D. Williams, J.P. Forgas, & W.

von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and

bullying. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

Attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Bierman, K. L., & Wargo, J. B. (1995). Predicting the longitudinal course associated with

aggressive-rejected, aggressive (nonrejected), and rejected (nonaggressive) status.

Development and Psychopathology, 7, 669-682.

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

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup

derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 24, 641-657.

Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Blau


link: Are conflicts with supervisors and coworkers the same? Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 11, 145-156.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitrait-

multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Cheuk, W. H., & Rosen, S. (1994). Validating a “spurning scale” for teachers. Current

Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, and Social, 13, 241-247.

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.

Collins, J. M., & Schmidt, F.L. (1993). Personality, integrity, and white collar crime: a construct

validity study. Personnel Psychology, 46, 295-311.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. (1992). The NEO Personality Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Douglas, S.C., & Martinko, M.J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in

the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 547-559.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.

Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351.

Duhart, D. T. (2001). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: Violence in the workplace,

1993-1999 (NCJ 190076). Washington, DC: US Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).

Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and

employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565-573.

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.

Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model

among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246-255.

Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of

Management, 17, 235-271.

Geen, R. G. (2001). Human aggression (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a

multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.

Graziano, W. G. & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R.

Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp.795-

842). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hamilton, M. B. (2003). Online survey response rates and times: Background and guidance for

industry. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://www.supersurvey.com

Hays, A. F., & Matthes, J. (in press). Computational Procedures for probing interactions in OLS

and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavioral Research Methods.

Hewstone, M, Rubin, M,. & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology,

53, 575-604.

Hitlan, R. T., Cliffton, R. J., & Desoto, M. C. (2006). Perceived exclusion in the workplace: The

moderating effects of gender on work-related attitudes and psychological health. North

American Journal of Psychology, 8, 217-236.

Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, M, Schepman, S., Schneider, K. T., & Zárate, M. A. (2006). Language

exclusion and the consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace. Group

Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 56-70.

http://www.supersurvey.com/


Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, K. M., & Zárate, M. A. (2006). The nature and correlates of workplace

exclusion. Manuscript under review.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in

organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.

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

606.

Jockin, V., Arvey, R. D., & McGue, M. (2001). Perceived victimization moderates self-reports

of workplace aggression and conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1262-1269.

Johnson, P. O., & Newman, J. (1950). The Johnson-Neyman technique: Its theory and

application. Psychometrica, 15, 349-363.

Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2004). Emotional abuse at work. In P. Spector & S. Fox (Eds.),

Counterproductive workplace behavior: An integration of both actor and recipient

perspectives on causes and consequences (pp. 201-236). Washington DC: American

Psychological Association.

Leary, M. R., Koch, E. J., & Hechenbleikner, N. R. (2001). Emotional responses to interpersonal

rejection. In M. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 145-166). New York, NY:

Oxford Press.

Martinko, M. J., & Zellars, K. L. (1998). Toward a theory of workplace violence and aggression:

A cognitive appraisal perspective. In S.B. Bacharach (Eds.), Dysfunctional Behavior in

Organizations: Violent and Deviant Behavior (Vol. 23, pp.1-42). Stanford, CT: JAI Press

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult

sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385-405.

Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal

dimensions in diversity climate. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 82-104.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Homans


Mor Barak, M. E., Levin, A. (2002). Outside of the corporate mainstream and excluded from the

work community: A study of diversity job satisfaction, and well-being. Community,

Work, and Family, 5, 133-157.

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

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

Psychology, 59, 591-622.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R. A., Giacalone & J.

Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression Evidence

concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of

Management, 24, 391-411.

O’Brien, T. B., & Delongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of problems-, emotion-, and

relationship-focused coping: The role of the big five personality factors. Journal of

Personality, 64, 775-813.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M, Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression:

A research framework. Academy of Management, 21, 225-253.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2003). Personality and absenteeism: A

meta0analysis of integrity tests. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39-66.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Reiss, A. D. (1994, August). The validity of

honesty and violence scales of integrity tests in predicting violence at work. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.

Parks, J. M., & Kidder, D. L. (1994). Changing work relationships in the 1990s. In D. M.

Rousseau & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp 111-136).

Oxford, England: Wiley.


Pepitone, A., & Wilpizeski, C. (1960). Some consequences of experimental rejection. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 359-364.

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

and its consequences (pp. 3-27). In R. J. Lewicki, R. J., Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.)

Research on negotiation in organizations, City, State: JAI Press.

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

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

Romero-Canyas, R., & Downey, G. (2005). Rejection sensitivity as a predictor of affective and

behavioral responses to interpersonal stress (pp. 131-154). In K.D. Williams, J.P. Forgas,

& W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and

bullying. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and

relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 10, 5-11.

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

Ones, D., Sinangil, C., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.). International handbook of work

psychology (pp145-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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

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

Schat, A. C. H., Frone, M. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression in

the U.S. workforce: Findings from a national study. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J.

Hurrell (Eds.). Handbook of Workplace Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with


subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689-695.

Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for

fairness in the workplace. New York, NY: Lexington Books/Macmillan, Inc.

Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers,

leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 542-

548.

Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report measures in OB research: A comment on the use of a

controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385-392.

Spector, P.E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work

behavior. In P. E. Spector and S. Fox (Ed.) Counterproductive work behavior:

Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-174).Washington DC: APA.

Spector, P. E., Fox, S., & Domagalski, T. (2006a). Emotions, violence, and

counterproductive work behavior. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell, J. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006b). The

dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created

equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446-460.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.

Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup Relations (pp 7-24).

Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P. M. (2007). Self-defeating behaviors in organizations: The

relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. Journal of


Applied Psychology, 92, 840-847.

Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist

model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617.

Twenge, J. M. (2006). When does social rejection lead to aggression? The influence of

situations, narcissism, emotion, and replenishing connections. In K.D. Williams, J.P.

Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion,

rejection, and bullying. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them,

beat them: The effects of social exclusion on antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 81, 1058-1069.

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

management. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Walsh, B. M. & Hitlan, R. T. (April, 2008) Convergent and discriminant validity of the

workplace exclusion scale. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), San Francisco, CA.

Williams, K. D., (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452.

Williams, K.D. (2001). Ostracism: the power of silence. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.


Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, Zero-Order Correlations, and Reliability Estimates for Study

Variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Supervisor Exclusion 2.21 .76 (.75)

2. Coworker Exclusion 1.99 .61 .31** (.76)

3. Interpersonal CWB 1.87 1.21 .16 .19* (.76)

4. Organizational CWB 1.53 .68 .37** .28** .22* (.74)

5. Neuroticism 2.64 .65 .22* .39** -.03 .31** (.85)

6. Extraversion 3.38 .54 -.27** -.22* .14 -.25** -.39** (.79)

7. Openness to Exp. 2.99 .48 -.04 .02 -.19* -.02 .12 .01 (.70)

8. Agreeableness 3.71 .46 -.29** -.37** -.28** -.33** -.33** .40** .15 (.77)

9. Conscientiousness 3.89 .42 -.22* -.20* -.01 -.41** -.40** .23* .04 .31** (.75)

Note. N = 104. *p < .05, **p < .01. Reliability estimates are displayed in parentheses along the diagonal.


Table 2

Moderated Multiple Regression Analysis for Coworker Exclusion and Personality on Interpersonal CWB

Interpersonal CWB

Step Regression Models R ΔR2 B S.E. β t p

1 Coworker Exclusion .50 .22 .25* 2.33 .02

Neuroticism .22 .05 -.22 .20 -.12 -1.11 .27

2 Coworker Exclusion X Neuroticism .23 <.01 -.19 .29 -.07 -.65 .52


Extraversion .27 .07* .37 .22 .17 1.69 .09

2 Coworker Exclusion X Extraversion .34 .05* .76 .33 .21* 2.272 .02


Openness to Experience .27 .07* -.50 .24 -.20* -2.05 .04

2 Coworker Exclusion X Openness .27 <.01 -.16 .43 -.04 -.37 .71

1 Coworker Exclusion .23 .21 .12 1.11 .26

Agreeableness .30 .09** -.68 .27 -.26* -2.49 .02

2 Coworker Exclusion X Agreeableness .31 <.01 .36 .39 .09 .93 .36

1 Coworker Exclusion .39 .20 .19 1.94 .06

Conscientiousness .19 .04 .09 .29 .03 .32 .75

2 Coworker Exclusion X Conscientiousness .20 <.01 .23 .53 .04 .44 .66

Note. *p < .01, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Coefficients represent the values obtained after all variables, including the interaction term, were entered into the regression equation.


Table 3. Moderated Multiple Regression Analysis for Supervisor Exclusion and Personality on

Organizational CWB

Organizational CWB

Step Regression Models R ΔR2 B S.E. β t P

1 Coworker Exclusion .29 .08 .33** 3.71 <.01

Neuroticism .44 .19*** .21 .09 .20* 2.25 .03

2 Coworker Exclusion X Neuroticism .50 .06** .32 .11 .25** 2.29 .01

1 Coworker Exclusion .26 .09 .29* 2.99 <.01

Extraversion .40 .16* -.21 .12 -.17 -1.79 .08

2 Coworker Exclusion X Extraversion .42 .02 -.18 .14 -.13 -1.34 .18


Openness to Experience .37 .14*** -.04 .13 -.03 -.27 .79

2 Coworker Exclusion X Openness .41 .03* .27 .13 .19* 2.02 .04


Agreeableness .44 .19*** -.39 .14 -.27** -2.89 <.01

2 Coworker Exclusion X Agreeableness .48 .04* -.44 .19 -.21* -2.32 .02

1 Coworker Exclusion .25 .07 .28** 3.38 .001

Conscientiousness .50 .25*** -.47 .14 -.29** -3.41 .001

2 Coworker Exclusion X Conscientiousness .58 .09*** -.56 .15 -.30** -3.66 .001

Note. *p < .01, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Coefficients represent the values obtained after all variables, including the interaction term, were entered into the regression equation.


Table 4 Test of the Simple Slope Effects for the effect of Supervisor Exclusion on Organizational CWB as a function of differing levels of personality dimensions.

Slope Coefficients

95% CI

B S.E. β t p LL UL Point EstimateModerator Neuroticism 2.272 Low(-1SD) .08 .10 .09 .78 .43 -.1258 .2901 Mean .29** .08 .33 3.72 <.01 .1361 .4475 High (+1SD) .50** .11 .57 4.52 <.01 .2812 .7217 Openness 2.544 Low .19 .10 .22 1.85 .07 -.0144 .3997 Mean .32** .08 .36 3.99 <.01 .1621 .4821 High .45** .10 .51 4.44 <.01 .2500 .6532 Agreeableness 3.841 Low .43** .11 .49 3.98 <.01 .2166 .6471 Mean .23** .08 .26 2.84 <.01 .0705 .3958 High .03 .13 .04 .27 .79 -.2197 .2885 Conscientiousness 4.054 Low .48** .10 .54 5.04 <.01 .2908 .6688 Mean .25** .07 .28 3.38 <.01 .1029 .3953 High .02 .10 .02 .19 .85 -.1772 .2140 Note. *p<.05, **p<.01. Alpha level used for the Johnson-Neyman point estimate is .05.


Figure Captions Figure 1. Interaction between perceived coworker exclusion and extraversion on interpersonal CWB. Figure 2. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and neuroticism on organizational CWB. Figure 3. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and conscientiousness on organizational CWB. Figure 4. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and agreeableness on organizational CWB. Figure 5. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and openness to experience on organizational CWB.


11.21.41.61.82

2.22.42.62.83

Low Exc. Mean Exc. High Exc.

High extraversion

Mean extraversion

Low extraversion

InterpersonalDeviance

Figure 1

Figure 2


Figure 3

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6


High agreeableness

Mean agreeableness

Low agreeableness

OrganizationalDeviance

Figure 4


1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6


High openess

Mean openness

Low openness

OrganizationalDeviance

Figure 5


Endnotes

1. Based on comments made by an anonymous review, we choose to use the term

Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) instead of Workplace Deviance because of the

conceptual distinctions between these two constructs (see introduction) and because we were not

able to confidently determine if the interpersonal and organizations behaviors actually

constituted organizational norm violations. As pointed out by the reviewer, although arriving late

for work may be counterproductive, it may not represent a norm violation if most all employees

engage in such behavior.

2. Previous research indicates that, overall, men are more likely than women to engage in (Geen,

2001; Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006) and experience deviant workplace behaviors (Duhart,

2001). Men and women have also been found to respond differently to experiences of workplace

exclusion (Hitlan, Cliffton, & DeSoto, 2006). Thus, we examined gender differences across

CWB and personality. Results indicated that, even after entering the main effects and the

interaction terms, gender contributed a significant proportion of unique variance to the prediction

of interpersonal CWB (for both coworker and supervisor analyses). Follow-up mean

comparisons between males and females indicated that, overall, men engaged in significantly

higher levels of interpersonal CWB (M = 2.16, SD = 1.40) than did women (M = 1.39, SD = .51),

t = 4.02, p < .001, equal variances not assumed (Levene’s Test of equality of variances: F =

17.99, p < .001). In contrast, gender did not contribute significantly to the prediction of

organizational CWB.


Appendix A

Workplace Exclusion Scale (WES-R) Items

1. Your boss or supervisor complimenting you on a job well done. (Supervisor - R)

2. Coworkers giving you the “silent treatment.” (Coworker)

3. Coworkers shutting you out of their conversations. (Coworker)

4. Coworkers giving you the impression that they enjoy your company. (Coworker - R)

5. Coworkers interacting with you only when they are required to do so. (Coworker)

6. Feeling accepted by other employees at your organization. (Coworker - R)

7. Employees updating you about important work-related activities. (Coworker - R)

8. Supervisors not replying to your requests/questions within a reasonable period of time. (Supervisor)

9. Coworkers making you feel like you were not a part of the organization. (Coworker)

10. Supervisors inviting you to participate in work-related activities (Supervisor - R)

11. Coworkers speaking to one another in a language you do not understand. (Language)

12. Coworkers not speaking English on the job. (Language)

13. Being unable to interact with others at work due to language communication difficulties. (Language)

14. Supervisors keeping important work-related information from you (e.g., deadlines) (Supervisor)

15. Supervisors interacting with you at work. (Supervisor - R)

16. Felt as if you were being ostracized by coworkers. (Criterion)

17. Felt as if you were being ostracized by supervisors. (Criterion)

Documents

Running Head: WORKPLACE EXCLUSIONhitlan/Hitlan_EJWOP_RRR.pdf · Exclusion, Personality, and CWB 1 Running Head: EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB . The Influence of Workplace Exclusion