Reactions to men’s and women’s counterproductive work behavior

• Published date: 20 August 2018
• Date: 20 August 2018
• Pages: 582-599
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2017-0161
• Author: Whitney Botsford Morgan,Johnathan Nelson,Eden B. King,Victor S. Mancini
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity, equality, inclusion

Reactions to men’s and women’s

counterproductive work behavior

Whitney Botsford Morgan

College of Business, University of Houston–Downtown, Houston, Texas, USA

Johnathan Nelson

College of Business and Public Affairs, Morehead State University, Morehead,

Kentucky, USA, and

Eden B. King and Victor S. Mancini

Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature of counterproductive work behavior (CWB)

gender stereotypicality, and to consider whether despite efforts to systematically evaluate employees through

formalized performance appraisal processes, gender-stereotypic bias is likely to enter into performance

management systems.

Design/methodology/approach –Study 1 used archival data from 197 federal employees to explore actual

punishment recommendations allocated to men and women who engaged in a variety of CWBs. Study 2

tested the causal effect of gender stereotypicality on punishment recommendations with 47 EMBA students

who participated in a laboratory study.

Findings –Study 1 revealed an interaction between appellant gender andCWB stereotypicality with regard to

termination decisions suggesting that women who engage in stereotypical (i.e. feminine) CWBs and men who

engage in stereotypical (i.e. masculine) CWBs are more likely to be terminated than women and men who engage

in gender counter-stereotypic CWB. Study 2 revealed that women (not men) tended to receive harsher punishment

recommendations for stereotypical (i.e. feminine) CWB than for counter-stereotypical (i.e. masculine) CWB.

Practical implications –Findings illustrate that punishments are not universally extreme, as men and

women are denigrated differentially depending on the stereotypicality of their behavior. The current research

affirms that there are social constructions for evaluating performance that may continue to confound

evaluations of performance.

Originality/value –This is one of the first studies to explore the gendered nature of CWB and supports the

argument that prescriptive gender stereotypes shape reactions to CWBs.

Keywords Employment, Counterproductive work behaviour, Deviance, Gender stereotypes

Paper type Research paper

There has been increased scholarly emphasis on understanding counterproductive work

behavior (CWB) given the substantial negative consequences of these behaviors for

individuals (e.g. decreased job satisfaction and increased negative emotions; Bowling and

Beehr, 2006) as well as organizations (e.g. decreased business unit performance; Dunlop and

Lee, 2004). CWB has been defined as “intentional behavior on the part of an organization

member viewed by the organization as contrary to its legitimate interests”(Sackett and

DeVore, 2001, p. 145). CWBs are violations of organizational norms and harm organizational

interests (Sackett, 2002). Much of extant research on CWB has focused on predicting CWB

based on contextual influences (e.g. Priesemuth et al., 2013; Reio and Ghosh, 2009) and

individual differences (e.g. Ng et al., 2016; Penney et al., 2011; Sprung and Jex, 2012).

Researchers have argued that CWB is an umbrella construct that captures and overlaps

with related constructs such as immoral and deviant behaviors (Sackett and DeVore, 2001).

Behaviors defined as CWB include theft, destruction of property, misuse of time and

resources, poor attendance, alcohol/drug use and inappropriate verbal or physical actions

(Gruys and Sackett, 2003). With few exceptions (see Brees et al., 2012; Gruys et al., 2010;

Hershcovis and Barling, 2010; Montgomery and Vance, 2004), similar to existing research on

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 37 No. 6, 2018

pp. 582-599

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-08-2017-0161

Received 20 February 2017

Revised 11 August 2017

17 November 2017

Accepted 17 December 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

582

EDI

37,6

deviant behavior, the CWB literature has largely presumed a socially shared standard

distinguishing counterproductive from non-counterproductive behaviors exists (see Bennett

and Robinson, 2003 for a discussion of this issue as it relates to deviance).

However, because CWB has been defined based upon a socially shared standard, what

has been labeled workplace deviance (or CWB) depends on the perspective of the perceiver

(Robinson and Bennett, 1995). As a result, researchers have argued that individual reactions

to CWB are subjective in nature and likely varied across social groups and over time

(Bennett and Robinson, 2003; Kaplan, 1975); not everyone is expected to react to the same

behavior in the same way depending upon characteristics of the situation, actor and

observer. Indeed, Bennett and Robinson (2003) argued that individuals likely perceived

deviant behaviors quite differentl y, depending upon situational fact ors, including

characteristics of the individual enacting the deviant behavior.

Two of the most significant demographic characteristics in terms of how individuals

differentiate themselves from others are sex and race (Zhu et al., 2014). In the USA, white

men are generally considered as belonging to higher-status and higher-power social groups

as compared to women and minorities (Berger et al., 1977; see Hekman, Johnson, Foo, and

Yang, 2017 for a more thorough discussion of the status and power gap that exists for

females and ethnic minorities). Minority refers to groups that hold relatively few positions of

social power (Schaefer, 1996). Despite organizational actions to promote diversity and help

women and other minority groups obtain greater organizational status, power and

influence, minority groups are still largely underrepresented at senior organizational levels

(Leslie et al., 2014). Perhaps most importantly, a recent meta-analysis indicated that sex

differences in rewards such as salaries, bonuses and promotions was 14 times larger than

differences in performance evaluations ( Joshi et al. , 2015). As such, the focus of the current

research was to take a critical management lens in order to explore people’s reactions to

CWB, specifically, how harshly individuals punish men and women who engage in CWB as

influenced by gender stereotypes.

Just as it is important to consider sex differences in organizational rewards, it is

important to understand sex differences in the application of organizational punishment as

these decisions can have profound influence on the careers of individuals. Given that CWB,

like organizational deviance, is socially constructed, targets’social identity categories

including gender, race, socioeconomic status, age and intersectionality may influence

people’s reactions to CWB. The process of social categorization creates ingroups and

outgroups whereby individuals are no longer perceived as unique, but as representative of

their social category (Shields, 2008; Turner, 1978). Membership to social categories and/or

the intersectionality of simultaneous identities (e.g. race, gender social class) may influence

people’s evaluation and judgment when CWB is observed. While individuals simultaneously

hold any number of identities, one such social characteristic that affects behavioral

judgments is gender (Heilman and Chen, 2005). We chose to focus on gender in the current

research because of its salience compared to many other social identities that individuals

may hold (Zhu et al., 2014).

Stereotypes dictate not only behaviors that are expected for a given individual, but also

behaviors that should not be enacted. Consequently, prescriptive norms regarding how one

should behave cues outsiders to expect certain behaviors from men vs women (Heilman,

1983; Heilman and Parks-Stamm, 2007); as such, these prescriptions should influence

expectations regarding CWBs and some CWBs are likely to be associated with men

(and thus expected from and considered more likely from men) while others are likely to be

associated with women (and thus expected from and considered more likely from women).

Drawing upon expectancy–confirmation (Neuberg, 1994) and expectancy–violation theories

(Burgoon, 1978), we explored through competing hypotheses whether gender consistent

or inconsistent CWB are viewed more harshly. In other words, we examined whether

583

Men’s and

women’s CWB