EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
ON PRODUCTION DEVIANCE
______
Thesis Presented to
The Faculty of the Department
of Psychology
University of Houston
______
In partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
______
By
Dustin Maneethai
August, 2019 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON PRODUCTION DEVIANCE
______Dustin Maneethai
APPROVED:
______Lawrence A. Witt, Ph.D.
______James E. Campion, Ph.D.
______Lars Johnson, Ph.D.
______Antonio D. Tillis, Ph.D. Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences Department of Hispanic Studies
ii EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
ON PRODUCTION DEVIANCE
______
An Abstract of a Thesis Presented to
The Faculty of the Department
of Psychology
University of Houston
______
In partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
______
By
Dustin Maneethai August, 2019
iii EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
ABSTRACT Production deviance is costly and detrimental to both organizations and the employees within them. The emotion-centered model of counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) provides a framework for the underlying psychological mechanisms that lead to production deviance. It suggests that workplace stressors lead to negative emotions, spurring retaliatory CWB. To inform theory and expand our understanding of this psychological process, I tested a model in which perceptions of a hostile work environment are positively related to production deviance through emotional exhaustion. Individual differences in personality influence how employees perceive and cope with stressful situations. Therefore, I also tested the influence of individual differences in conscientiousness moderate the direct and indirect paths. Results of the analyses from 744 military personnel revealed partial mediation and that conscientiousness moderated the direct path between emotional exhaustion and production deviance (path b). Contrary to my hypotheses, conscientiousness did not moderate the direct effects between hostile work environment and emotional exhaustion (path a), nor did it moderate the path between hostile work environment and production deviance (path c`).
Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
iv EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Effects of a Hostile Work Environment on Production Deviance ...... 1 Theoretical Background and Conceptual Model ...... 2 Counterproductive Work Behaviors ...... 3 Hostile Work Environments ...... 3 Direct Effect of Hostile Work Environments on Production Deviance ...... 5 Indirect Effect of Hostile Work Environments on Production Deviance ...... 8 Conscientiousness ...... 11 Method ...... 15 Participants and procedures ...... 15 Measures...... 15 Results ...... 18 Preliminary Analyses ...... 18 Tests of Mediation and Moderated Mediation ...... 18 Discussion ...... 20 Theoretical Implications ...... 21 Practical Implications ...... 23 Limitations and Future Directions...... 25 Conclusion ...... 26 References ...... 28 Appendix ...... 41
v EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Effects of a Hostile Work Environment on Production Deviance
Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) are harmful volitional behaviors enacted by
employees towards the organization or other organizational members (Spector & Fox, 2005).
They take the form of physical or psychological abuse, sabotage, theft, withdrawal, and
production deviance (Spector et al., 2006). Scholars have sought to understand the mechanisms
and processes that lead to CWB (Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Hershcovis & Barling, 2010). The stressor-emotion model of CWB proposed by Spector and Fox (2005) provides a framework for understanding the psychological process. According to their model, employees embedded within stressful work environments experience negative emotions, such as frustration, anger, and emotional exhaustion, which spur retaliatory behaviors towards the organization or organizational members in the form of CWB (Krischer, Penney, & Hunter, 2010; Penney &
Spector, 2005). A growing body of literature supports the emotion-centered model (Aryee, Sun,
Chen, & Debrah, 2008; Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Spector & Fox,
2002; Sprung & Jex, 2012). Environmental stressors are important antecedents of CWB (Judge,
Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Sackett, 2002; Spector & Fox, 2005). However, there is limited research on the differential effects of various organizational environments that may induce stress. In the present study, I draw from the emotion-centered model of CWB to argue that hostile work environments act as stressors in which employees perceive a climate of discrimination and harassment (Dansby & Landis, 1991). Under such environmental stressors, employees experience emotional exhaustion and may engage in subsequent retaliatory deviant behaviors in
the form of CWB.
Spector and Fox (2005) also noted that personality traits have an important influence on
CWB. Conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness predict CWB (Berry, Ones, &
1 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Sackett, 2007; Fox et al., 2001). Personality traits function as moderators between direct paths of
the stressor-emotion model. For example, Penney and Spector (2005) found that negative
affectivity moderated the relationship between job stress and CWB, such that individuals higher
(lower) in negative affectivity engaged in more (fewer) CWB. However, personality traits influence not only how an individual behaves within an environment, but also how an individual processes and reacts emotionally to a situation (Costa, McCrae, & Kay, 1995; Tett & Guterman,
2000). Following Tett and Guterman's (2000) trait activation theory, I proposed to examine the
conditional person-situation interaction within the stressor-emotion model of CWB (see also Tett
& Burnett, 2003). Specifically, I proposed to explore the extent to which trait conscientiousness attenuates the direct and indirect relationship between perceptions of a hostile work environment and production deviance through emotional exhaustion.
I aim to make several contributions to the literature. First, I seek to extend the current
literature surrounding the relationship between workplace stressors and CWB to include hostile
work environments. Second, I aim to answer the call of Spector (2011) for greater understanding of personality within the CWB literature beyond bivariate relationships.
Theoretical Background and Conceptual Model
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model. In line with the stressor-emotion model of CWB
(Spector & Fox, 2002, 2005), I described a process in which an environmental stressor
(perceived hostile work environment) invokes a negative emotional reaction (emotional
exhaustion), leading to CWB (production deviance). I also proposed that conscientiousness
influences the relationship between hostile work environment and production deviance through
emotional exhaustion at both the direct and indirect paths.
2 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Counterproductive Work Behaviors
CWB encompass a broad range of behaviors, such as theft, absenteeism, intentionally
working slowly, and verbally arguing with co-workers (Dalal, 2005; Robinson & Bennett, 1995;
Sackett, 2002). All CWB are considered deliberate and harmful behaviors. However, they are
differentiated by the intended target, taking the form of organizational and person-directed
deviance (Berry et al., 2007). Organizational deviance refers to deviant behaviors directed
toward the organization, such as leaving work early, wasting materials, sabotaging production,
and theft. Interpersonal deviance are behaviors directed towards organizational members, such as
showing favoritism, blaming, gossiping, and verbally abusing co-workers (Bennett & Robinson,
2000; Berry et al., 2007; Hollinger, 1986; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector et al., 2006).
According to Robinson and Bennett (1995), interpersonal and organizational deviance are further distinguished by the severity or harmfulness of the deviant behaviors, ranging from minor to more serious acts of deviance. Minor acts of organizational deviance are less serious and harmful, such as taking longer breaks, leaving work early, and working slowly (i.e., production deviance). In contrast, serious acts, such as stealing from the company and sabotaging equipment, are more harmful (i.e., property deviance; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Moreover, interpersonal deviance is further distinguished into minor, such as gossiping about others and supervisors showing favoritism (i.e., political deviance), and major acts, such as stealing from co-workers and putting co-workers in danger (i.e., personal aggression, Robinson & Bennett,
1995).
Hostile Work Environments
Hostile work environments reflect employee perceptions of harassment or discrimination in the workplace based on an individual’s race, color, sex, and/or national origin (Landis, Fisher,
3 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
& Dansby, 1988). Harassment and discrimination scholars have focused on experienced
harassment or discrimination (Aryee et al., 2008; Bowling & Eschleman, 2010; Law, Dollard,
Tuckey, & Dormann, 2011). However, individuals react emotionally in response to perceived
environmental stressors rather than to objective reports of the environment (Folkman, Lazarus,
Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987; Perrewe & Zellars,
1999). According to Lazarus and Folkman (1987), perceptions of environmental stressors are cognitive appraisals of the environment in which individuals evaluate whether the environment will provide benefit or cause harm. Consistent with Dansby and Landis (1991), I operationalize hostile work environment as a climate of harassment and discrimination in the workplace that may or may not have been witnessed firsthand. Put another way, employees need only to perceive that harassment and discrimination occurs in the workplace for them to experience environmental stress.
Harassment and discrimination yield negative outcomes. Reporting results of their meta-
analysis, Willness, Steel, and Lee (2007) found that sexual harassment experiences were related
to job satisfaction, workgroup productivity, mental and physical health, and withdrawal
deviance. Targets of workplace aggression are more likely to engage in CWB in terms of both
interpersonal (i.e., wasting time or theft) and organizational deviance (i.e., bullying or gossip;
Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Jensen & Patel, 2011). In sum, hostile work environments: (1)
reflect a perceived environmental stressor that may or may not reflect reality, (2) invoke a negative emotional response, such as emotional exhaustion and depression, and (3) yield CWB directed towards the organization and its members.
4 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Direct Effect of Hostile Work Environments on Production Deviance
Scholars have proposed that the various subdimensions of CWB have differential antecedents (Berry et al., 2007; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector et al., 2006). For example, employees who are abused by co-workers may retaliate directly towards the perpetrator. In contrast, perceived organizational injustice may lead employees to direct deviant behaviors towards the organization, such as stealing from the organization or sabotaging organizational goals. Hostile work environment refers to perceptions of the organizational climate specifically regarding harassment and discrimination (Dansby & Landis, 1991). Accordingly, employees may attribute a hostile work environment to the organization rather than to any organizational member. Therefore, subsequent retaliatory behaviors are likely to be directed towards the organization. In order to avoid the consequences of getting caught, employees perceiving a hostile work environment may engage in less serious and covert acts of deviance towards the organization, in the form of production, rather than more overt acts of deviance, such as property deviance. Accordingly, I argue that employees who perceive a climate of harassment and discrimination engage in deviant behaviors that are covert and directed towards the organization in the form of production deviance.
Production deviance encompasses intentional violations in how work should be done and includes not following instructions, working slowly, and completing work incorrectly (Sackett,
2002; Spector et al., 2006). In contrast to other forms of deviant behaviors, production deviance is covert, in that it might not be perceived by co-workers as intentional behavior and may be difficult for others to observe (Krischer et al., 2010). As previously discussed, employees attribute a hostile work environment to the organization. Therefore, employees who perceive an environment of discrimination and harassment may attempt to retaliate via deviant behaviors
5 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
directed towards the organization. However, they likely consider the consequence of more
serious deviant behaviors, such as sabotage, and instead engage in behaviors not easily detected
by others. Indeed, scholars have found evidence for differential antecedents to the various forms
of CWB. In one such study, Spector and colleagues (2006) examined the dimensions of CWB
and their relationship with various antecedents and found production deviance to be more
strongly related to perceptions of organizational injustice than property deviance. Put another
way, when faced with an organizational stressor, coming to work late or working slowly may be
a means of getting back at the organization with minimal consequences.
What is the nature of the link between hostile work environments and CWB? I suggest
that the link might reflect as many as three different processes. One might be based on emotion.
Affective events theory suggests that employee behaviors are driven by cognitive evaluations or
affective reactions to the environment (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Employees who perceive a lack of growth opportunities within an organization may make a conscious evaluation of the situation and decide to leave the organization (Judge et al., 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002). Similarly, a lack of growth opportunities may spur feelings of frustration that lead to voluntary turnover
(Porter & Steers, 1973; Trevor, Gerhart, & Boudreau, 1997; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). The emotional reaction might also reflect fairness (Bordia et al., 2008; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994;
Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Psychological contract theory (Rousseau, 1989) suggests that
employees hold implicit beliefs of mutual obligation between themselves and the organization.
When one party is perceived to have failed to fulfill his/her obligations in the relationship,
breaches in the psychological contract are perceived to occur (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).
Acknowledging the inequity in the relationship, employees who perceive a breach in the
psychological contract may reciprocate by engaging in retaliatory CWB. Following
6 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
organizational justice theory, I suggest that justice refers to the perception of fair treatment that
take the form of distributive, procedural, and/or interactional justice (Tepper, 2000). Distributive
justice refers to how outcomes are distributed. Procedural justice refers to the fairness of how
decisions are made. An extension of procedural justice, interactional justice, refers to how
employees are treated interpersonally (i.e., treating employees with dignity, honesty, and
politeness; Adams, 1963; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Leventhal, 1980). Hostile work
environments represent perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional injustice climate
in the forms of discrimination and harassment, in which employees perceive the fairness of
treatment due to race, color, sex, or national origin (Goldman, 2001; Goldman, Gutek, Stein, &
Lewis, 2006). Employees who perceive hostile work environments likely experience them as a
breach in the psychological contract and therefore may seek to reduce injustice through retaliatory behaviors (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Tepper, Eisenbach,
Kirby, & Potter, 1998). The past three decades have provided evidence of this direct effect. Two meta-analyses found that employees who experienced injustice in the workplace were more likely to engage in organizational and interpersonal deviance (Berry et al., 2007; Cohen-Charash
& Spector, 2001). Bowling and Beehr (2006) found that employees who experienced harassment were more likely to engage in CWB.
Another process might be based on organizational norms. That is, perceptions of a hostile work environment may normalize unethical behaviors in the workplace through social learning processes. Social learning theory suggests that employee behaviors are modeled from their work environment and the presence of reward and/or punishment (Bandura, 1977; Weiss, 1978).
Employees learn what are acceptable behaviors within an organization by observing others
(Bandura, 1971; Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Manz & Sims, 1981). For example,
7 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB employees who observe others being punished for unprofessional behavior are less inclined to act unprofessionally themselves, as they are cognizant of the potential repercussion. In contrast, when employees perceive a hostile work environment, they may recognize that deviant behaviors are a normalized part of the organization and engage in CWB that are legitimized by the current organizational culture.
Hence, I argue that hostile work environments yield production deviance because they:
(a) create negative feelings stemming from fairness and/or frustration, (b) normalize unprofessional behavior, and/or (c) both. Accordingly, I propose:
Hypothesis 1: Perceived hostile work environment is positively related to
production deviance.
Indirect Effect of Hostile Work Environments on Production Deviance
A third process underlying the link between hostile work environments and production deviance may be based in stress processes. That is, hostile work environments likely function as stressors that yield to strain (e.g., emotional exhaustion), with which people might cope by engaging in production deviance. Hence, some of the effect of hostile work environments on production deviance might be indirect through strain. Below, I first attempt to make the case that hostile work environments yield strain in the form of emotional exhaustion. Then, I argue that production deviance is a coping mechanism for emotional exhaustion.
According to Maslach (1986), burnout consists of three dimensions – emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and feelings of inefficacy or lack of accomplishment (Maslach,
Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Emotional exhaustion refers to feeling physically and emotionally drained from the demands of work (Maslach, 1986; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Emotional exhaustion is considered the core dimension of burnout (Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli, Leiter,
8 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
& Maslach, 2009) as it exemplifies the physical and emotional drain often associated with
burnout (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Indeed, emotional exhaustion has been shown to be more strongly associated with support from organizational members, role stress, and workload than both depersonalization and personal accomplishment (Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Gaines & Jermier,
1983). For these reasons, I focus on the central dimension of burnout, emotional exhaustion.
Emotional exhaustion is a negative emotional response to stressful environmental situations. Indeed, antecedents of emotional exhaustion include constraints (Alarcon, 2011), abusive supervision (Aryee et al., 2008; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), and workplace aggression
(Deery, Walsh, & Guest, 2011; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004). Consistent with this body of research and the emotion-centered model of CWB (Spector & Fox, 2005), I argue that employees perceiving a hostile work environment are likely to experience emotional exhaustion. Hence, I propose:
Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of a hostile work environment are positively related to
emotional exhaustion.
Employees engage in production deviance to cope with emotional exhaustion (Krischer et al., 2010; Spector & Fox, 2002). Hobfoll's (1989) conservation of resources (COR) theory provides theoretical support for the use of CWB as a coping mechanism of workplace strain.
According to COR theory, individuals are motivated to conserve, build, and protect current resources (Alarcon, 2011; Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014; Hobfoll,
2001; Witt, Andrews, & Carlson, 2004). Examples of resources include social support, job enhancement opportunities, autonomy, control, and participation in decision making (Lee &
Ashforth, 1996; Witt et al., 2004). Emotionally exhausted employees have fewer resources to fulfill work demands (Witt et al., 2004) and engage in CWB that help conserve or build
9 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB resources (Krischer et al., 2010; Penney, Hunter, & Perry, 2011). Therefore, employees may work more slowly, not follow instructions, or complete work incorrectly, all forms of production deviance, as a means of conserving resources and coping with emotional exhaustion. Indeed, empirical evidence has indicated that production deviance helps reduce emotional exhaustion.
Krischer, Penney, and Hunter (2010) found that the relationship between a stressful work environment and emotional exhaustion is weaker for employees who engage in higher levels of production deviance. Accordingly, I propose:
Hypothesis 3: Emotional exhaustion is positively related to production deviance.
The indirect relationship between environmental stressors and CWB through negative emotions is central to the emotion centered model of CWB (Spector & Fox, 2005). According to
Spector and Fox (2005), experienced environmental stressors lead to CWB through negative emotional reactions. That is, employees may engage in CWB to cope with and reduce the negative emotions attributed to organizational stressors. This indirect effect has previously found empirical support. For example, Fox, Spector, and Miles (2001) found that environmental stressors in the form of constraints, conflict, procedural justice, and distributive justice led to both organizational and interpersonal deviance through negative emotions (see also Bruk-Lee &
Spector, 2006; Fida et al., 2015). Employees embedded within a hostile work environment deplete valuable resources, increasing strain in the form of emotional exhaustion. In turn, to reduce feelings of emotional drain and recoup lost resources, employees retaliate towards the organization by engaging in production deviance (i.e., work slowly, not following directions, etc.). I argue that there is an indirect effect between hostile work environment and production deviance through emotional exhaustion, such that perceptions of a hostile work environments
10 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
increase emotional exhaustion, which increases CWBs in the form of production deviance.
Accordingly, I propose:
Hypothesis 4: Perceptions of a hostile work environment are positively related to
production deviance directly and indirectly through emotional exhaustion.
Conscientiousness
Personality traits moderate the relationship between stressors and CWB. Penney and
Spector (2005) examined the moderating role of negative affectivity in the relationship between
job stressors and CWB. They found that the relationship was stronger among individuals higher
than lower in negative affectivity. Sprung and Jex (2012) investigated the role of locus of control
as a moderator in the relationship between work stressors and CWB. They found the positive
relationship between workplace stressors and CWB was stronger (weaker) among employees
with an external (internal) locus of control. However, most of the literature primarily has examined moderation of the direct effects of a single path in the process (Bowling & Eschleman,
2010; Penney et al., 2011; Yang & Diefendorff, 2009). I propose to investigate the moderating role of personality in the process of CWB. Trait activation theory (Tett & Guterman, 2000) may help to address this.
According to Tett and Guterman (2000), expression of a trait requires stimulation of that trait by trait-relevant situational cues. Strong situations limit trait expression and weak situations
allow for trait differences to emerge (see also Tett & Burnett, 2003). Put another way, situations
exert various cues that trigger certain traits. However, the extent to which a trait is activated is a
function of situational strength and a person’s individual disposition of that trait. For example, a sales job is relevant to trait extraversion. However, the extent to which extraversion can be expressed by the individual is constrained by situational strength. In a strong situation,
11 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
salespersons may be given specific scripts to follow with little allowance for variance, limiting
individual differences in extraversion. In a weak situation, a sales script may not be present,
allowing individual variation in extraversion to emerge and influence the success or failure of a
sale.
I focus on conscientiousness, one of the personality traits in the Five-Factor Model
(McCrae & Costa, 1987). Individuals high in conscientiousness are competent, well-organized, ethical, dutiful to standards and norms, high-achieving, and disciplined (Costa & McCrae, 1992;
Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991; Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, & Goldberg, 2005). In contrast, individuals low in conscientiousness are disorganized, easily distracted, and careless (Johnson &
Ostendorf, 1993). Indeed, a large body of research has evinced a strong relationship between conscientiousness and organizational behavior (Roberts et al., 2005). For example, conscientious employees generally perform better on tasks (Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford, 2013), feel less exhausted in stressful situations (LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004), and engage in less
CWB (Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006). Therefore, I argue that conscientiousness is particularly relevant to whether an employee engages in CWBs. Put another way, hostile work environments and emotional exhaustion represent trait-relevant situational cues that trigger individual conscientiousness.
I propose that conscientiousness moderates the relationship between perceptions of a hostile work environment and emotional exhaustion (Path a in Figure 1), such that individuals higher than lower in conscientiousness experience less emotional exhaustion in a hostile work environment (i.e., first stage moderation; Edwards & Lambert, 2007). Highly conscientious individuals tend to plan, organize, and persist when faced with stressors (Campbell-Sills, Cohan,
& Stein, 2006). Therefore, when faced with an environmental stressor, highly conscientious
12 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
employees are predisposed to engage in behaviors that help protect against emotional exhaustion.
In contrast, employees who are lower in conscientiousness are likely to be more easily distracted
by stressors, have less endurance, and manifest lower levels of self-discipline (LePine & Van
Dyne, 2001). Thus, employees on the lower end of conscientiousness may not have the stamina or resources to buffer against the stress of perceived hostile work environment, leaving them vulnerable to greater levels of emotional exhaustion. Accordingly, I propose:
Hypothesis 5: The positive direct effect of perceived hostile work environment on
emotional exhaustion is moderated by conscientiousness, such that the
relationship is weaker among individuals higher than lower in conscientiousness.
Conscientiousness also likely moderates the relationship between emotional exhaustion and production deviance, such that individuals higher (lower) in conscientiousness engage in less
(more) production deviance (i.e., second stage moderation; Edwards & Lambert, 2007).
Employees higher in conscientiousness tend to think carefully of consequences before acting, strive for excellence, and adhere to ethical norms and moral obligations (Judge et al., 2013).
Therefore, when faced with emotional exhaustion, highly conscientious employees typically consider the repercussions of engaging in deviant behaviors, make use of their greater resources, and manifest comparatively low levels of behaviors that are inconsistent with ethical norms and moral obligations. In contrast, employees lower in conscientiousness are less likely to be compelled by ethical norms and moral obligations and react to their emotions impulsively and likely slack off to conserve resources. Accordingly, I propose:
Hypothesis 6: The effect of emotional exhaustion on production deviance is
moderated by conscientiousness, such that the relationship is weaker among
individuals higher than lower in conscientiousness.
13 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Conscientiousness likely also moderates the relationship between perceived hostile
environment and production deviance, such that employees who have higher than lower levels of
conscientiousness are less likely to engage in deviant behaviors. Because highly conscientious
individuals work hard to accomplish their goals, carefully consider the consequences of their
actions, and are self-disciplined (Judge et al., 2013), they are less likely to engage in deviant
behaviors that may inhibit their growth, lead to negative outcomes at work, or go against their
moral principles. In contrast, employees who are lower in conscientiousness may not consider
the repercussions of their actions and are not governed by moral obligation. Therefore, they are
more likely to engage in deviant behaviors in response to a hostile work environment.
Accordingly, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 7: The direct effect of perceived hostile work environment on
production deviance is moderated by conscientiousness, such that the relationship
is weaker among individuals higher than lower in conscientiousness.
Hypotheses 5-7 suggest that personality may influence more than a single direct path in a mediation model when situationally relevant cues are present. Hostile work environments and emotional exhaustion both represent situations that may allow for the expression of conscientiousness. Indeed, conscientiousness may influence not only how employees react emotionally to a hostile work environment, but also how they react behaviorally to their emotions. Hence, I suggest that conscientiousness moderates both the effect at both the first (path a in Figure 1) and second stage (path b in Figure 1) of the indirect effect between hostile work environment and production deviance through emotional exhaustion. Therefore, as the indirect relationship is conditional on a moderator, conscientiousness, this indicates moderated mediation
(Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). However, whereas the presence
14 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
of moderation at either or both the first or second stage of the indirect effect indicates the
presence of moderated mediation (Hypothesis 6 and 7), it does not allow for the interpretation of
effect size or testing of the overall moderated mediation effects. Thus, I propose:
Hypothesis 8: The indirect effect of perceived hostile work environment on
production deviance through emotional exhaustion is moderated by
conscientiousness, such that the relationship is weaker among individuals with
higher than lower levels of conscientiousness.
Method
Participants and procedures
Data were collected from 744 military personnel (14.7% female and 36.3% minorities) as
part of a large-scale data collection project. The participants voluntarily provided survey responses while on duty. Participants varied in age, with 19.6% between 18 and 21 years old,
49.2% between 22 and 30 years old, 21.2% between 31 and 40 years old, 89% between 41 and
50 years old, and 1.1% over 50 years old.
Measures
Hostile work environment. I measured hostile work environment using 18 items
developed by Landis and colleagues (1988). Each item measured the likelihood an event could
have occurred on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = there is a very high chance that the action
occurred to 5 = there is no chance that the action occurred. A sample item includes, “Someone
made sexually suggestive remarks about another person.” However, given the limited use of the
hostile work environment scale, I critically examined the use of each item in the 18-item measure using item response theory (IRT).
15 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Using IRT methods (Samejima, 1997; Steinberg & Thissen, 2013), I critically examined
each of the 18 items found in the original measure and included or eliminated items based on the
following decision rules, (1) the clarity or relevance of item content, (2) item pairs showing high local dependence, or (3) a lower relationship to the underlying construct of hostile work environment as defined by the other items. Five items lacked clarity and relevance to item content. Specifically, the content of four items related to socializing and having meals together
(e.g., “Supervisors of different racial or ethnic backgrounds were seen having lunch together” and “Members from different racial or ethnic groups were seen socializing together).
Additionally, one item (“The person in charge of the organization changed the duty assignments when it was discovered that two people of the same race or ethnicity were assigned to the same sensitive area on the same shift”) was semantically confusing and was therefore removed. Item
pairs with high local dependence suggests that these items may be repetitive semantically and
quite literally the same in wording (Thissen & Steinberg, 2009). For example, item 11
“Offensive racial or ethnic names were frequently heard” is quite similar to item “Racial or
ethnic jokes were frequently heard.” Thus, those items exhibiting high levels of local dependence
( > 10; Steinberg & Thissen, 2013) were removed. In total, using IRT methods I made the 2 decision𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝜒𝜒 to remove 11 items from the original hostile work environment scale by Dansby and
Landis (1988). Thus, the final hostile work environment scale includes a total of 7-items and
were used for all subsequent analysis.
Emotional exhaustion. I measured emotional exhaustion using six items from the Job-
Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS; Krischer, Penney, & Hunter, 2010; Van Katwyk,
Fox, Spector, & Kelloway, 2000). I measured each item on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = never to 5 = very often. Sample items include, “Over the past six months, my job has made me feel
16 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
discouraged,” “Over the past six months, my job has made me feel fatigued,” and “Over the past
six months, my job has made me feel frustrated.”
Production deviance. I measured production deviance using three items from the production deviance subscale of CWB-C (Spector et al., 2006). I measured each item on a 5- point Likert scale from 1 = not at all during the past six months to 5 = at least once a day. Items included, “During the past six months, I purposely failed to follow instructions,” “During the past six months, I purposely worked slowly when things needed to get done,” and “During the past six months, I purposely did work incorrectly.”
Conscientiousness. I measured conscientiousness using three items from the Big-Five
Factor Markers (Goldberg, 1999). I measured each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Items include, “In general, I am almost always prepared,” “In general, I pay attention to details,” and “In general, I am precise in my work.” I used this shortened measure of conscientiousness as it was previously validated by Zheng and colleagues (2015), showing good convergent validity with the full measure of Goldberg’s Big-
Five Factor Markers.
Controls. I included emotional stability, age, gender, minority status, and enlistment status as controls, as scholars have previously found that they relate to both emotional exhaustion
(Penney et al., 2011) and CWB (Berry et al., 2007). Similar to the measure of conscientiousness,
I measured emotional stability using three items from Goldberg’s (1999) Big-Five Factor
Markers on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Sample items include, “In general, I get stressed out easily” and “In general, I change my mood a lot.” Demographic variables used for controls include age, gender, minority status, and enlistment status (military officer or enlisted member).
17 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and internal consistency of study variables. I conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses to determine the factor structure of the primary study variables. Analyses were conducted using the statistical software ‘R’ and the package ‘Lavaan.’ I tested three models in which I compared the four-factor
measurement model to two nested models. I present the fit indices and model comparison
statistics in Table 2 and factor loadings for the four-factor model in Table 3. As the results
suggest, a three-factor model consisting of the two predictors of production deviance, hostile
work environment and emotional exhaustion, showed poorer model fit than the four-factor model( = 1849.70, = 3, < .001). Moreover, a two-factor model allowing the 2 predictorsΔ𝜒𝜒 and the moderator,Δ𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 conscientiousness𝑝𝑝 , to load on the same factor also resulted in poorer model fit than the four-factor model ( = 3939.39, = 5, < .001). The 2 confirmatory factor analysis provides evidenceΔ𝜒𝜒 for a four-factorΔ𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 structure𝑝𝑝 of the primary study
variables, indicating the study variables are conceptually distinct from one another (Schreiber,
Stage, King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006).
Tests of Mediation and Moderated Mediation
I conducted mediation and moderated-mediation tests using the methods outlined by
Hayes (2012), again utilizing the statistical software ‘R’ and the package ‘Lavaan.’ I present the
structural model in Figure 2. Hayes (2012) noted that mediation is present when the indirect
effect of X (hostile work environment) on Y (production deviance) is significant, which is
calculated as the product of the regression coefficient of M (emotional exhaustion) regressed on
hostile work environment and the regression coefficient of Y regressed on M, controlling for X
18 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
(M = ab; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). I utilized bootstrapping to generate confidence intervals for ab, as the traditionally used Sobel test violates assumptions of a normal sampling distribution and decreases the power of the study (Hayes, 2018). I tested moderated-mediation by creating cross-product terms for X (hostile work environment) and M (emotional exhaustion) with the moderator (W; conscientiousness; Hayes, 2012). To test for path a moderated mediation, X
(emotional exhaustion) was regressed on X, W, and the cross-product term XW (hostile work environment × conscientiousness). To test for moderation at path b and c`, Y (production deviance) was regressed on the cross-product term MW (emotional exhaustion × conscientiousness). Significant interaction terms suggest moderation at each path respectively
(Hayes, 2012)
As shown in Tables 1 and 4 and consistent with Hypotheses 1-3, hostile work environment was positively related to both emotional exhaustion (Path a, Hypothesis 1; r = .35, p < .01; B = 0.36, z = 7.83, p < .001) and production deviance (Path c; Hypothesis 3; r = .36, p
< .01; B = 0.41, z = 8.72, p <.001), and emotional exhaustion was related to production deviance
(Path b; Hypothesis 2; r = .33, p < .01; B = 0.21, t =5.49, p < .001).
With Hypothesis 4, I predicted a positive indirect relationship between perceived hostile work environment and production deviance through emotional exhaustion. As seen in Table 4, results of the bootstrap confidence interval (CI) revealed an indirect effect (ab indirect effect; B
= 0.08, CI95 = [0.05, 0.11]), as the interval did not include zero. Additionally, there was a direct effect between hostile work environment and production deviance after controlling for emotional exhaustion, providing evidence for partial mediation (c’ effect; B = 0.34, p < .001).
With Hypothesis 5, I predicted that conscientiousness moderates the effect of perceived hostile work environment on emotional exhaustion. As shown in Table 5, contrary to my
19 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
hypothesis, I did not find evidence that the centered hostile work environment x
conscientiousness cross-product term contributed unique variance in predicting emotional
exhaustion (B = 0.06, t = 1.28, p < .202).
With Hypothesis 6, I predicted that conscientiousness moderates the effect of emotional exhaustion on production deviance. As shown in Table 5, the centered emotional exhaustion x conscientiousness cross-product term contributed unique variance to the prediction of production deviance (B = -0.09, t = -2.01, p < .044). As illustrated in Figure 3, the relationship between emotional exhaustion and production deviance was weaker among high-conscientiousness
(simple slope = 0.12, t = 2.44, p = .015) than low-conscientiousness personnel (simple slope =
0.30, t = 4.51, p < .001).
With Hypothesis 7, I predicted that conscientiousness moderates the direct effect of perceived hostile work environment on production deviance. As shown in Table 5, the centered emotional exhaustion x conscientiousness cross-product term was not found to be statistically significant at the = .05 level (B = -0.11, t = -1.89, p < .059), However, as the cross-product term does approach𝛼𝛼 significance, I explore the moderating effects of conscientiousness on the relationship between hostile work environment and production deviance by graphing the simple slopes. As illustrated in Figure 4, the relationship between perceived hostile work environment and production deviance may be weaker among high-conscientiousness (simple slope = 0.13, t =
1.77, p = .077) than low-conscientiousness personnel (simple slope = 0.35, t = 4.70, p < .001).
Discussion
I tested a conditional, indirect process model in which perceived hostile work environment affects production deviance both directly and indirectly through emotional exhaustion. I further examined conscientiousness as a moderator of both the direct and indirect
20 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
effects. The results indicated that perceived hostile work environment predicted production
deviance both directly and indirectly through emotional exhaustion. However, while the data
suggests that conscientiousness moderates the direct effect between emotional exhaustion and
production deviance, conscientiousness was not found to moderate the other direct effects.
Overall, the results indicate that employees higher (lower) in conscientiousness, engage in less
(more) production deviance.
Theoretical Implications
The present study contributes and extends prior research in several ways. First, although
research has examined the influence of experienced harassment and discrimination on individual
stress, few studies have examined the impact perceptions of a hostile work environment may
have on individual stress and behavior. I have argued that perceived hostile work environment
yields production deviance directly via social learning, fairness-based emotional responses, or both. From a social learning perspective (Bandura, 1977), the results of this study suggest that perceptions of a hostile work environment may normalize unprofessional and deviant behaviors through social learning processes. Employees perceiving a hostile work environment may recognize deviant behaviors as normalized behavioral cues of the organization and may therefore feel free to engage in deviant behaviors. The process may also reflect a fairness-based emotional response. Grounded in psychological contract theory (Rousseau, 1989), perceptions of a hostile work environment may be viewed by employees as a break in the psychological contract as a hostile work environment is typified by injustice as it relates the policies, procedures, and treatment of individuals within minority groups. The results of partial mediation suggest that employees who perceive a hostile work environment may engage in production deviance via these proposed processes.
21 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Second, I have also argued that the effect of hostile work environments on production
deviance is indirect through a negative affective response, emotional exhaustion. In line with the
emotion-centered model of CWB (Spector & Fox, 2005), the results support an indirect effect,
such that employees experience stress when in a hostile work environment, which yields strain
via emotional exhaustion, which spurs retaliatory behavior in the form of production deviance.
From a resources perspective (Hobfoll, 1989), the results also suggest that the incivility of the
work environment over time robs individuals of energy, to which they then cope by slacking off
and withholding effort (i.e., production deviance) as a way of conserving resources. Taken
together, the indirect effect suggests employees may engage in production deviance as a means
of retaliation and conserving resources.
Third and following Spector and Fox’s (2005) call for further research in the role of personality in the stress process, the results also indicate that individual differences may affect
the nature of the direct and indirect effects. The results show that highly conscientious employees are less influenced by their own emotional exhaustion and engage in less production deviance. This is consistent with our current understanding of personality and CWB, which suggests that highly conscientious employees are less likely to engage in CWB as they are more
likely to consider the consequences of their actions, are high achieving, and abide by ethical
norms and moral obligations (Berry et al., 2007; Judge et al., 2013). In contrast, low
conscientious employees are more likely engage in production deviance in the face of their
emotional exhaustion. Unrestricted by ethical norms and moral obligations, low conscientious
employees may react impulsively to strain and either retaliate or conserve resources by engaging
in production deviance.
22 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Additionally, I argued that conscientiousness would also moderate the direct effect
between hostile work environment and production deviance. While the results approach
significance, they were not shown to be statistically significant. I speculate that while
conscientious employees are driven by ethical norms, a hostile work environment may signal
strong situational cues in which engaging in deviant behaviors may be in fact the norm rather
than a deviation from the norm, thus attenuating the expression of trait conscientiousness.
However, as current research suggests and as seen in Figure 4, highly conscientious employees may engage in slightly less production deviance than employees low in conscientiousness (Berry et al., 2007). Thus, I implore future research to investigate the extent to which hostile work environment may signal a strong situational norm of deviant behavior, which may limit the manifestation of individual differences in conscientiousness.
Contrary to my hypothesis, the results did not show conscientiousness to moderate the direct path between hostile work environment and emotional exhaustion. It is possible that conscientiousness may buffer against emotional exhaustion when employees are able to exert control over their environment, as is the case in problem-focused coping (Penney et al., 2011).
However, a hostile work environment may not be directly controllable by employees, again indicating a strong situation, thus limiting the expression of highly conscientious behaviors such as creating strategies for reducing stress.
Practical Implications
The results of the present study suggest perceptions of a hostile work environment may lead to production deviance directly through emotion-focused and social learning processes and indirectly through stress processes. As such, the results of this study may also inform implications for practice. Specifically, organizational leadership and human resources
23 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB departments often focus on the outcomes of employees who experience harassment or discrimination in the workplace, which is of course important for both the employee and the organization. However, it is also imperative to understand how perceptions of a climate of discrimination and harassment may have a detrimental effect on employee emotional well-being and may lead to employees engaging in CWB as means to cope with or retaliate against the organization. Therefore, organizations may benefit from developing training programs, implementing policies and procedures, and creating organizational awareness for these policies and procedures. Such practices may foster an environment that does not tolerate harassment and discrimination in the workplace, minimizing the levels of incivility and the costs to both the employee and the organization.
In addition, the findings of the present study also suggest that highly conscientious employees are less likely to engage in production deviance. Regrettably, this may encourage leaders to neglect highly conscientious employees, as they engage in less deviant behaviors and may in fact perform at a level that would not warrant the attention of their managers. An effective strategy may be to engage in conversation with employees regarding their perceptions of a hostile work environment and their current exhaustion level, while simultaneously taking into consideration that individual differences may influence coping strategies. As research suggests, employees high in conscientiousness tend to use more problem-focused coping strategies, compared to low conscientious employees who tend to use more emotion-focused coping strategies (Bartley & Roesch, 2011; Folkman et al., 1986). Thus, when engaging with highly conscientious employees it is important to address the problem and potentially rectify the issues, such as identifying and reprimanding individuals who create a hostile work environment.
In contrast, low conscientious employees may benefit from more emotion-focused coping
24 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
strategies that address their emotional needs, including allowing employees to vent and being a
source of emotional support (Krischer et al., 2010).
Limitations and Future Directions
Limitations of the study include the cross-sectional nature of the study design. The
present process model suggests a causal relationship between hostile work environment,
emotional exhaustion, and production deviance. However, as the data was collected at a single
time point causality cannot be established. As emotional exhaustion is often contingent on
environmental demands of the workplace (Hall, Dollard, Tuckey, Winefield, & Thompson,
2010), the use of longitudinal studies, such as experience sampling methods, may provide a
clearer picture regarding the direction of the relationships and how they may change over time.
A second limitation of the present study is the use of shortened scales, rather than the
established full-scale measures for the emotional exhaustion, production deviance, and
conscientiousness variables. The use of shorter scales was justified by limitations in survey
length and reducing participant survey fatigue, which may have influenced the lower than
desirable internal consistency of the control measure of emotional stability ( = .60). While the
use of short-forms of personality inventories have been shown to retain most𝛼𝛼 of their
psychometric properties in terms of both their reliability and validity, their effects may not be as
strong (Rammstedt & John, 2007). Interestingly, the use of the a broad short-form measure of conscientiousness may have limited the findings of the present study as it does not capture the full breadth of conscientiousness and its respective sub-facets. As prior research in personality has suggested, it may be appropriate to investigate the relationship between hostile work environment, emotional exhaustion, and production deviance in accordance with the sub-facets of conscientiousness that may be activated at each stage (Judge et al., 2013). Thus, I encourage
25 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
future researchers to investigate the differential validity of the sub-facets of conscientiousness, which may further expand our understanding of how trait conscientiousness influences the present process model.
Another limitation of the present study is that the analyses did not take into consideration the nested nature of the data. Specifically, employees within the military are nested in units, which may influence the perceptions of group level variables (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). For example, employees nested in one group may perceive a hostile work environment due to the contextual nature of leadership and the environment, whereas another group may not perceive a hostile work environment. Thus, I enjoin future researchers to examine the multi-level effects of a hostile work environment on emotional exhaustion and production deviance.
A final limitation is the generalizability of the results. The data of the present study was gathered from military personnel, which may not generalize to the population or other organizations. Moreover, the sample consisted of primarily male participants (85.3% male), which may further limit the generalizability of the results. Specifically, a male dominant organization, such as the military, may be less sensitive to the issues of a hostile work environment comparatively to a civilian organization. As such, future research could examine the generalizability of the results across organizational contexts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the present study advances research in CWB by examining the environmental demands a hostile work environment may have on production deviance, both directly and indirectly through emotional exhaustion. I suggest that hostile work environments yield production deviance because they: (a) create negative feelings stemming from fairness and/or frustration, (b) normalize unprofessional behavior, and (c) increase emotional exhaustion,
26 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB with which personnel cope by manifesting production deviance. However, these processes are more robust among individuals lower than higher in conscientiousness. I hope that the present study encourages future researchers to investigate the coping mechanisms that individuals may employ to reduce the stress experienced in a hostile work environment.
27 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67(5), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968
Alarcon, G. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.007
Aryee, S., Sun, L. Y., Chen, Z. X. G., & Debrah, Y. A. (2008). Abusive supervision and
contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating
role of work unit structure. Management and Organization Review, 4(3), 393–411.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00118.x
Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. New York City, NY: General Learning Press.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bartley, C. E., & Roesch, S. C. (2011). Coping with Daily Stress: The Role of
Conscientiousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 79–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.027
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology 4 Star, 85(3), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-
9010.85.3.349
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational
deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(2), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When Employees Strike Back:
Investigating Mediating Mechanisms Between Psychological Contract Breach and
28 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Workplace Deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1104–1117.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1104
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the Victim’s perspective: A
theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998–1012.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998
Bowling, N. A., & Eschleman, K. J. (2010). Employee personality as a moderator of the
relationships between work stressors and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017326
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning
perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviors
link: Are conflicts with supervisors and coworkers the same? Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 11(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.2.145
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to personality,
coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(4),
585–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90237-J
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and
29 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
conscientiousness: A revision of tshe NEO personality inventory. Personality and
Individual Differences, 12(9), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Kay, G. G. (1995). Persons, places, and personality: Career
assessment using the revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment,
3(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907279500300202
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship
behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6),
1241–1255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
Dansby, M. R., & Landis, D. (1991). Measuring equal opportunity climate in the military.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 389–405.
Deery, S., Walsh, J., & Guest, D. (2011). Workplace aggression: The effects of harassment on
job burnout and turnover intentions. Work, Employment and Society, 25(4), 742–759.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017011419707
Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and
business unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of
Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behav, 25, 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.243
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A
general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1),
1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1
Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Fontaine, R. G., Barbaranelli, C., & Farnese, M. L.
(2015). An integrative approach to understanding counterproductive work behavior: The
roles of stressors, negative emotions, and moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics,
130(1), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2209-5
30 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986). The
dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping and encounter outcomes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(50), 992–1003.
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(3), 291–309.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803
Gaines, J., & Jermier, J. M. (1983). Emotional exhaustion in a high stress organization. Academy
of Management Journal, 26(4), 567–586. https://doi.org/10.2307/255907
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7(1), 7–
28. Retrieved from https://projects.ori.org/lrg/PDFs_papers/A broad-bandwidth
inventory.pdf
Goldman, B. M. (2001). Toward an understanding of employment discrimination claiming: An
integration of organizational justice and social information processing theories. Personnel
Psychology, 54(2), 361–386. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.341000
Goldman, B. M., Gutek, B. A., Stein, J. H., & Lewis, K. (2006). Employment discrimination in
organizations: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306293544
Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The customer is not always right: Customer
aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.252
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting
31 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
to the “COR”: Understanding the Role of Resources in Conservation of Resources Theory.
Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130
Hall, G. B., Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., Winefield, A. H., & Thompson, B. M. (2010). Job
demands, work-family conflict, and emotional exhaustion in police officers: A longitudinal
test of competing theories. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1),
237–250. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X401723
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification,
inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100
Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression:
A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.621
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress
process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance.
Deviant Behavior, 7(1), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1986.9967695
Jensen, J. M., & Patel, P. C. (2011). Predicting counterproductive work behavior from the
interaction of personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 466–471.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.016
Johnson, J. A., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). Clarification of the Five-Factor Model with the abridged
32 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Big Five Dimensional Circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(3),
563–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.3.563
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical
representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance:
Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98(6), 875–925. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033901
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance:
Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 126–138.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.126
Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive work behaviors
be Productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 15(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018349
Landis, D., Fisher, G., & Dansby, M. R. (1988). Construction and preliminary validation of an
equal opportunity climate assessment instrument. In Annual Psychology in the DOD
Symposium.
Law, R., Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., & Dormann, C. (2011). Psychosocial safety climate as a
lead indicator of workplace bullying and harassment, job resources, psychological health
and employee engagement. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(5), 1782–1793.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.010
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and
coping. European Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141–169.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The
role of affect and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142.
33 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.131
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three
dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123–133.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.123
LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and Hindrance Stress:
Relationships With Exhaustion, Motivation to Learn, and Learning Performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883–891. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of
contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality
characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326–336.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.2.326
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Social Exchange: Advances
in theory and research (pp. 27–55). Boston, MA: Springer.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1981). Vicarious Learning: The Influence of Modeling on
Organizational Behavior. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 105–113.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1981.4288021
Maslach, C. (1986). Stress, burnout, and workaholism. Professionals in Distress: Issues,
Syndromes, and Solutions in Psychology., 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/10056-004
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across
Instruments and Observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
34 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the
moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4),
1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of Personality Traits and
Counterproductive Work Behaviors: the Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction. Personnel
Psychology, 59(3), 591–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00048.x
Penney, L. M., Hunter, E. M., & Perry, S. J. (2011). Personality and counterproductive work
behaviour: Using conservation of resources theory to narrow the profile of deviant
employees. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 58–77.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02007.x
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work
behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(7), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.336
Perrewe, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of attributions and emotions in the
transactional approach to organizational stress process. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
20(5), 739–752. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100439%5Cnhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3100439?seq=1&cid
=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents%5Cnhttp://about.jstor.org/terms
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee
turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80(2), 151–176.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034829
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),
35 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1),
185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item
short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods (Vol. 2). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of
conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality
questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 103–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2005.00301.x
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: a
Multidimensional Scaling Study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256693
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the
exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(December 1992), 245–259.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150306
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384942
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The Structure of Counterproductive Work Behaviors: Dimensionality and
Relationships with Facets of Job Performance. International Journal of Selection and
36 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Assessment, 10(1&2), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00189
Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W. J. van der Linden & K. R. Hambleton
(Eds.), Handbook of item response theory (pp. 85–100). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2009). Burnout: 35 years of research and
practice. Career Development International, 14(3), 204–220.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430910966406
Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reporting structural
equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of
Educational Research, 99(6), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–443.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434
Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior
(CWB): An integration of perspectives. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 342–
352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.002
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior.
Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-
4822(02)00049-9
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The Stressor-Emotion Model of Counterproductive Work
Behavior. In Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. (pp.
151–174). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/10893-007
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The
37 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
Sprung, J. M., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Work locus of control as a moderator of the relationship
between work stressors and counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of
Stress Management, 19(4), 272–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030320
Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (2013). Item response theory. In J. S. Comer & P. C. Kendall (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of research strategies for clinical psychology. New York City:
Oxford Press.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
Tepper, B. J., Eisenbach, R. J., Kirby, S. L., & Potter, P. W. (1998). Test of a Justice-Based
Model of Subordinates’ Resistance to Downward Influence Attempts. Group and
Organization Management, 23(2), 144–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601198232004
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. SalgadoTettMotowidlo.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-
situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34(4), 397–423. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292
Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (2009). Item response theory. In R. Millsap & A. Maydeu-Olivares
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 148–177). London:
Sage Publications.
Trevor, C. O., Gerhart, B. A., & Boudreau, J. W. (1997). Voluntary turnover and job
38 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
performance: Curvilinearity and the moderating influences of salary growth and
promotions (03 No. 97). Ithaca, NY. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/145
Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Job-Related
Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-
8998.5.2.219
Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 63(6), 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.63.6.711
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Research in
organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, Vol. 18.
Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and
consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 127–162.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x
Witt, L. A., Andrews, M. C., & Carlson, D. S. (2004). When Conscientiousness Isn’t Enough:
Emotional Exhaustion and Performance Among Call Center Customer Service
Representatives. Journal of Management, 30(1), 149–160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.007
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance
and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486–493.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.486
Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace
39 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study
in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 259–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2009.01138.x
Zheng, D., Witt, L. A., Waite, E., David, E. M., van Driel, M., McDonald, D. P., … Crepeau, L.
J. (2015). Effects of ethical leadership on emotional exhaustion in high moral intensity
situations. Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 732–748.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.01.006
40 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Appendix
41 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations, and Internal Consistency
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Hostile Work Environment 1.86 0.81 (.87)
2. Emotional Exhaustion 2.86 1.08 .35** (.94)
3. Production Deviance 1.70 1.10 .36** .33** (.93) 4. Conscientiousness 3.84 0.86 −.23** −.18** −.39** (.89)
5. Emotional Stability 3.26 0.81 −.21** −.43** −.25** .29** (.60)
6. Gender 0.15 0.35 .04 .09* −.05 −.04 −.10** −
7. Minority Status 0.37 0.48 .11** .02 .22** −.16** −.05 .07* −
8. Age 2.23 0.90 −.03 −.07 −.10** .08* .11** −.09* .00 −
9. Enlistment Status 0.90 0.30 .01 .00 .13** −.05 −.09* −.03 .17** −.16** Note. Age was categorized as, 1 = “<20 years old,” 2 = “20 – 25 years old,” 3 = “26 – 30 years old,” 4 = “31 – 40 years old,” 5 = “41 – 50 years old,” and 6 = “51 and over.” Gender coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. Minority status coded as 0 = non-minority, 1 = minority. Enlistment status coded as 0 = military officer, 1 = enlisted member. * p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.
42 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Table 2. Comparison of confirmatory factor analyses models.
Models df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR 2 2 4-Factor model (measurement model) 723.34𝜒𝜒 146.00 Δ𝜒𝜒 0.94 0.93 0.07 0.05
3-Factor model (HWE and EE combined) 2573.05 149.00 1849.70 0.76 0.72 0.15 0.15
2-Factor model (HWE, EE, and 3939.39 151.00 3216.00 0.62 0.57 0.18 0.18 Conscientiousness combined)
Note. HWE = hostile work environment. EE = emotional exhaustion. df = degrees of freedom. CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.
43 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Table 3.
4-Factor Model Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Factor
Item 1 2 3 4 A person of one race or ethnicity told several jokes about a different 0.60 race or ethnicity Members of a particular race or ethnicity were assigned less 0.72 desirable office space than members of a different race or ethnicity When a person complained of sexual harassment, the supervisor 0.73 said, "You're being too sensitive" A supervisor referred to subordinates of one gender by their first names in public while using titles for subordinates of the other 0.72 gender A person made sexually suggestive remarks about the opposite 0.76 gender A well-qualified person was denied a job because the supervisor did 0.72 not like the religious beliefs of the person
A demeaning comment was made about a certain religious group 0.71
During the past six months, I purposely failed to follow instructions 0.93
During the past six months, I purposely worked slowly when things 0.91 needed to get done During the past six months, I purposely did work incorrectly 0.90
Over the past six months, my job has made me feel depressed 0.84
Over the past six months, my job has made me feel discouraged 0.86
Over the past six months, my job has made me feel frustrated 0.84
Over the past six months, my job has made me feel gloomy 0.91
Over the past six months, my job has made me feel fatigued 0.81
Over the past six months, my job has made me feel miserable 0.90
In general, I am almost always prepared 0.79
In general, I pay attention to details 0.91
In general, I am precise in my work 0.87
44 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Table 4. Mediation estimates for direct and indirect effects
Variables Coefficient SE z p Model R2 Total effects Hostile work environment on 0.41 0.05 8.72 .000 production deviance (c) Emotional Exhaustion as DV Constant 3.97 0.25 15.81 .000 Gender 0.13 0.10 1.36 .174 Minority status -0.06 0.08 -0.86 .390 Age -0.03 0.04 -0.75 .451 Enlistment status -0.12 0.12 -0.98 .327 Emotional stability -0.50 0.05 -10.75 .000 Hostile work environment (a) 0.36 0.05 7.83 .000 .26*** Production Deviance as DV Constant 0.69 0.26 2.65 .008 Gender -0.32 0.10 -3.19 .001 Minority status 0.40 0.08 5.04 .000 Age -0.07 0.04 -2.03 .043 Emotion stability -0.12 0.04 -2.77 .006 Enlistment status 0.28 0.10 2.79 .005 Hostile work environment (c`) 0.34 0.05 6.66 .000 Emotional exhaustion (b) 0.21 0.04 5.49 .000 .24*** Indirect effects Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Hostile work environment on 0.08 0.02 0.05 0.11 production deviance (ab) Note: N = 744. DV = dependent variable. SE = standard error. Gender coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. Minority status coded as 0 = non-minority, 1 = minority. Enlistment status coded as 0 = military officer, 1 = enlisted member. Controls include gender, minority status, age, emotional stability, and enlistment status. Boot = 10,000 bootstrap samples. LLCI = bias corrected lower limit confidence interval. ULCI = bias corrected upper limit confidence interval. CI = 95%. All path coefficients are reported as unstandardized OLS regression coefficients. ***p < .001
45 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
Table 5. Moderated mediation estimates for direct and indirect effects
Direct effects Coefficient SE z p Model R2 Moderated mediation model Emotional Exhaustion as DV Constant 1.77 0.22 8.01 .000 Gender 0.13 0.10 1.32 .187 Minority status -0.07 0.08 -0.86 .388 Age -0.02 0.04 -0.66 .511 Enlistment status -0.12 0.12 -0.98 .328 Emotional stability -0.49 0.05 -10.16 .000
Hostile work environment (a1) 0.38 0.05 7.50 .000
Conscientiousness (a2) -0.02 0.05 -0.33 .743 Hostile work environment * 0.06 0.05 1.28 .202 .26*** Conscientiousness (a3) Production Deviance as DV Constant 1.65 0.20 8.18 .000 Gender -0.32 0.09 -3.42 .001 Minority status 0.31 0.08 3.94 .000 Age -0.06 0.03 -1.78 .074 Enlistment status 0.27 0.09 2.99 .003 Emotional stability -0.05 0.04 -1.05 .293
Hostile work environment (c1`) 0.24 0.04 5.29 .000
Emotional exhaustion (b1) 0.21 0.04 5.65 .000
Conscientiousness (c2`) -0.37 0.05 -7.46 .000 Hostile work environment * -0.11 0.06 -1.89 .059 Conscientiousness (c3`) Emotional exhaustion * -0.09 0.04 -2.01 .044 .33*** Conscientiousness (b2) Conditional indirect effects of Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Conscientiousness (M ± 1 SD) - 1 SD (-0.86) 0.10 0.03 3.74 0.00 M (0) 0.08 0.02 4.50 0.00 + 1 SD (0.86) 0.06 0.02 2.25 0.02 Note: N = 744. DV = dependent variable. SE = standard error. Gender coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. Minority status coded as 0 = non-minority, 1 = minority. Enlistment status coded as 0 = military officer, 1 = enlisted member. Controls include gender, minority status, age, emotional stability, and enlistment status. Boot = 10,000 bootstrap samples. LLCI = bias corrected lower limit confidence interval. ULCI = bias corrected upper limit confidence interval. CI = 95%. All path coefficients are reported as unstandardized OLS regression coefficients. Mean centering was used for products. ***p < .001
46 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
______
Conscientiousness (W)
Emotional Exhaustion (M)
a b
Hostile Work Environment (X) Production Deviance (Y)
c`
______
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
47 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
______
eM j Emotional Exhaustion (Mj)
Hostile Work Environment (X)
Conscientiousness (W)
Production eY XW Deviance (Y) j
MjW
______Figure 2. Structural model.
48 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
5
4.5 Low Conscientiousness
4 High Conscientiousness
3.5
3
2.5
2 Production Deviance Production 1.5
1 Low Emotional Exhaustion High Emotional Exhaustion
______Figure 3. Second stage of mediation (path b).
49 EFFECTS OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON CWB
5
4.5 Low Conscientiousness
4 High Conscientiousness 3.5
3
2.5
2 Production Deviance Production 1.5
1 Low Hostile Work Environment High Hostile Work Environment
______Figure 4. Direct effect (path c`).
50