An Exploratory Study On Counterproductive Work Behaviors of Nurses

www.ijemr.
net
ISSN (ONLINE): 2250-0758, ISSN (PRINT): 2394-6962

Volume-6, Issue-3, May-June 2016
International Journal of Engineering and Management Research
Page Number: 685-692
An Exploratory Study on Counterproductive Work Behaviors of Nurses

D.N. Roopa 1, Dr. T.S. Nanjundeswaraswamy2, Dr. Swamy D.R.3
Assistant Professor, JSS Academy of Technical Education, Bengaluru, Karnataka, INDIA
2
Associate Professor, JSS Academy of Technical Education, Bengaluru, Karnataka, INDIA
3
Professor, JSS Academy of Technical Education, Bengaluru, Karnataka, INDIA
1
ABSTRACT
Counterproductive Work Behaviours have a
major negative effect on organisations and their employees.
Since employees engage in various forms of
counterproductive work behaviour for various reasons,
there is a need to analyse the different forms of
counterproductive work behaviour. The existence of CWBs
such as abuse against others, withdrawal behaviors,
lateness etc. in an organization, can harm organizations or
people in organization including employees and clients,
customers or patients as documented in the body of the
literature.
This research is to investigate the counterproductive
work behaviour of nurses in 13 hospitals in Bengaluru. The
components of counterproductive work behaviour were
evaluated using a questionnaire in a sample size of 143
nurses. Among the finding the major parameter i.e.
abusing others is the predominant behavior shown by
employees. The research also reveals that the age,
experience, gender, salary does not show in any significance
in counterproductive work behaviors of employees.
Keywords--- Counterproductive Work Behavior,

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Workplace
incivility, workplace bullying, Nurses.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Counterproductive Work Behaviours (CWB) is

defined as an intentional unacceptable behaviour that has
the potential to have negative consequences to an
organisation and their employees. CWB leads to
destruction of property, misuse of time, information and
resources, drug and alcohol use, inappropriate actions,
etc.
Due to the huge potential losses to an institution
from CWBs it is very important these behaviours are not
overlooked. Measures need to be taken to reduce the
higher risk of potential loss due to CWB, because these
not only affect the organisation but also the well-being
and performance of employees in workplace.
Through the available literature it is observed
that counterproductive behavior is widespread among
685
employees in organizations. Despite the growing

literature on employees' counterproductive work
behavior and organizational citizenship behavior, few
studies have examined the various dimensions of
workplace counterproductive behavior and the extent of
its occurrence of counterproductive behavior in the
hospitals amongst nurses.
II.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Robert .T. Hitlan and Jennifer Noel (2009)

research identified that workplace exclusion, ostracism
and personality contribute to Counterproductive Work
Behaviour (CWB). Research reveals that higher levels of
supervisor exclusion were related to higher levels of
organizational CWB but not interpersonal forms of
CWB. In addition, co-worker exclusion was positively
associated to interpersonal CWB. Research also reveals
that, a signicant relation between co-worker exclusion
and organizational CWB.
Frone (2000) study found that both
interpersonal conict with supervisors and with co workers arises depression, self-esteem, somatic
symptoms, job satisfaction related to individual level and
reduced in organizational commitment and higher
turnover at organizational level.
Emily. M. Hunter and Lisa. M. Penny (2014)
Study reveals that customer stressors were more strongly
correlated with customer-directed CWB, in this study
they used following drives of CWB customer stressors,
emotional dissonance, and emotional exhaustion.
Matrecia S.L. James, Angela K. Miles and
Terry Mullins (2011) study reveals that there is a strong
positive relationship between Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour (OCB) and spirituality with CWB.
Hui, L., & Tian-yao, S(2014) study depicts
transactional leadership style effectively reduce the
CWB of employees.
Chirumbolo (2015) study shows that job
insecurity positively effects on counterproductive work
behaviours, study also reveals that HonestyHumility
were negatively associated to CWB of employees.
Copyright 2016. Vandana Publications. All Rights Reserved.
www.ijemr.net
Chang, K., & Smithikrai, (2010) study found

that to reduce CWB of employees by changing
personality
characteristics
through
proper
implementation of organizational justice enhancement
policies and programs to enhance OCB.
Bruursema, K., Kessler, S. R., & Spector, P. E
(2011) research identified that job boredom showed
significant relationships with various dimensions of
CWB like abuse against others, production deviance,
sabotage, withdrawal and theft.
Anjum, M. A., & Parvez, A. (2013) examines
the significance of abuse against others, production
deviance, sabotage, theft, withdrawal behavior
dimensions of CWB and tried to find the relationship
between CWB, interpersonal Conflict and job
satisfaction. The study reveals that the higher the job
satisfaction minimizes the CWB and frequent
interpersonal conflict mounts up the CWB.
Suzy Fox, Paul E Spector and Don Miles
(2001) examines the relationship among job stressors,
perceived justice, negative emotional reactions to work,
CWB, autonomy, and affective traits. Study identified
that CWB of employees is because of different types of
stressors such as organizational constraints, interpersonal
conflict, and perceived injustice.
Ayoko, Oluremi B., Victor J. Callan, and
Charmine EJ Hrtel (2003) examined the relationship
between CWB and victims of bullying. It reveals that
bullying events and their related emotions arouses CWB
in the workplace. (14)
Lisa M. Penney and Paul E Spector (2005)
examined the relationship between workplace stressors
such as workplace incivility, interpersonal conflict and
organizational constraint, and counterproductive work
behavior (CWB). The research found that workplace
incivility and other job stressors appears to increase the
likelihood that an individual will engage in CWB.
Arno R. Kolz (1999) examined the influence of
Big five traits on CWBs. The result shows that,
conscientiousness is the major trait which could be used
to predict CWBs such as theft, absenteeism, tardiness,
lack of cooperation, taking long breaks and excess
socializing.
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003), study
investigated the eleven dimensions of CWB Theft and
Related Behaviour, Destruction of Property, Misuse of
Information, Misuse of Time and Resources, Unsafe
Behaviour, Poor Attendance, Poor Quality Work,
Alcohol Use, Drug Use, Inappropriate Verbal Actions,
Inappropriate Physical Actions. It was found that CWB
dimensions are positively related. Interpersonal
components, organizational components and task
relevance components were positively related to CWB.
From the literature it is identified that many
components instigates CWB of employees in an
686
organization. It also reveals that different researchers

used different components to quantify CWB.
Keeping in view the available literature and
based on the frequency of usage of different researchers
the five dimensions i.e. Sabotage, Withdrawal Behavior,
Production Deviance, Theft and Abuse against others of
CWB are considered for the present study.
III.
OBJECTIVES
This empirical study aims to identify the

existence of counterproductive work behaviour of nurses
working in hospitals.
The objective of this study includes, identifying
the extent of occurrence of CWB of nurses working in
hospitals, effect of demographical factors on CWB and
finally to find the relationship between the parameters of
CWB.
IV.
METHODOLOGY
To know the existence of CWBs in employees,

a modified Spector et.al. (2006) were used. It consists of
32 questions which includes five dimensions such as
sabotage, theft, abuse against others, production
deviances and withdrawal behaviour.
All the questions are in 5-point likert scale ranging from
1-Never to 5-Very Often, questionnaires also includes
demographical characteristics of employees like age,
gender, salary and experience. The questionnaire was
distributed to 200 staff nurses from various 13 hospitals
in Bengaluru. 147 filled questionnaires were collected
out of that 143 questionnaires were appropriate and
considered for analysis.
Using MS Excel and Mini Tab 14 software data
was analysed and carried out different statistical test like
Chi Square test, correlation analysis and regression
analysis to draw the inferences.
V.
RESULTS
Level of occurrence of CWB

To explore the extent of occurrence of CWB,
employees were divided into two groups namely, Never
and Very Often, based on their average score. The
individual response choices, ranged between 1 to 5. The
maximum average score for an individual is 5, while
minimum score is 1. Those scoring more than the overall
mean were assigned as CWB and those scoring less
than overall mean were assigned as NCWB. For the
present study overall mean is 2. According to Jerome
(2013), Vijay Anand (2013), Srinivas and Swamy D R
(2013), Nanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy D R (2013),
Nanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy D R (2015) the
overall mean is considered as cut off score.
www.ijemr.net
Fig 1: Level of occurrence of CWB

From the above figure 1, based on the average
score 49% of employees have counterproductive work
behaviors and 51% of employees are categorized as
NCWB.
Gender wise level of occurrence of CWB
The analysis on the extent of occurrence of
CWB gender wise is done for the present sample. It is
represented in the figure 2. In the total sample of 143,

the male employees are 17 and 126 are female
employees. Among 17 male employees 5 agreed to have
shown behaviours of CWB. Among 126 female
employees 65 agreed to have shown the behaviours of
CWB.
Fig 2: Gender wise Level of occurrence of CWB
Fig 3: Percentage of gender wise employees showing CWB
687
www.ijemr.net
From the above figure 3, it is observed that the

level of occurrence of CWB is very high in female
nurses as compared to male nurses. But the sample is
further tested for significance of gender with CWB.
Relationship between gender and CWB:
The sample is tested for likely-hood of gender
having significance with counterproductive behaviours.
CWB
NCWB
For this purpose a null hypothesis is formulated as given

below.
H 0 : There is an association between gender and
counterproductive work behaviour.
The below table 1 shows the analysis.
2
Table
value
3.84
2
Calculated
Value
2.948
Male
Female
5
65
12
61
Table 1: Gender and counterproductive behaviour
The critical value is 3.84. The Chi-square value

was 2.948, which is less than 3.8. Thus, there is no
significant difference in CWB between men and women
in our sample. It is concluded that based on this sample,
men and women in general seem equally likely to be
showing CWB.
P
value
Significant
0.086
Not
significant
Age wise level of occurrence of CWB

The sample is further subjected to test for the
extent of occurrence of CWB with respect to age. It is
represented in the figure 4. It is clear from the figure
that, more number of employees from age group of 2630 have shown the CWB.
Fig 4: Age wise Level of occurrence of CWB

But in order to get a clear picture, the
percentage analysis is done by considering number of
employees categorized as CWB in each group to total
number of employees in that group. It is shown in the

figure 5.
Fig 5: Percentage of employees showing CWB Age wise
688
www.ijemr.net
From the above figure 5, the percentage of

employees increases linearly with age. But the sample is
further tested for its significance of age with CWB.
Relationship between Age of employees and CWB:
The sample is tested for likely-hood of age
having any significance with counterproductive work
Age groups
20-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
CWB
NCWB
behaviours. For this purpose a null hypothesis is

formulated as given below. The data is fed into a
Minitab worksheet and a chi-square analysis is done.
The below table 2 shows the results.
H 0 : There is an association between age and
counterproductive work behaviour.
2
Table
value
2
Calculated
Value
P
value
16
26
37
33
7.81
4.196
0.241
10
11
7
3
Table 2: Relationship between age and counterproductive work behaviors

significant difference in CWB between different age
groups in our sample. It is concluded, that based on this
sample, age does not have any significance in showing
counterproductive work behaviours. Employees in any
age group are equally likely to show the
counterproductive behaviours.
Work experience and level of occurrence of CWB
Significant
Not
significant
The sample is tested for the extent of

occurrence of CWB with respect to experience. It is
represented in the figure 6. As it can be understood from
figure 6 and figure 8, it is very difficult to draw any
conclusion on relationship between work experience and
CWB. Thus, the sample was further statistically tested to
find any relationship between work experience and
CWB.
Fig 6: Work experience and Level of occurrence of CWB
Fig 6: Percentage of employees in different work experience groups showing CWB

Relationship between work experience of employees
and CWB:
The sample is tested for likely-hood of work
experience
having
any
significance
with
689
counterproductive work behaviours. For this purpose a

null hypothesis is formulated as given below.
H 0 : There is an association between work experience
and counterproductive work behaviour.
www.ijemr.net
The below table 3 shows the analysis.

Work
2
2
P
experience
CWB
NCWB
Table
Calculated
Significant
value
groups (years)
value
Value
Less than 2
15
22
Not
3-5
45
40
5.99
1.604
0.448
significant
6-8
10
11
Table 3: Relationship between work experience and counterproductive work behaviors
significant
difference
in
employees
showing
counterproductive work behaviours with experience. It
can be concluded based on this sample that, work
experience does not have any significance in showing

counterproductive work behaviours. Employees with any
work experience are equally likely to show the
counterproductive behaviours.
Level of existence of components of CWB
CWB
NCWB
Sabotage
88
21
Withdrawal behavior
90
21
Production Deviance
78
18
Theft
98
23
CWB Parameters
Abuse against others
68
Table 2: Level of existence of each parameter of CWB
16
Fig 7: Percentage of existence of components of CWB

It is clear from the above figure 7 that, amongst
5 parameters the, 23% of employees engage in theft
dimension of CWB. As per the sample, theft is the most
common CWB amongst employees. 42 % of employees
engage in Sabotage and withdrawal behaviours CWBs.
Only 18% of employees engage in production deviance
behaviour and 16% of employees engage in abusing
against others CWB.
Correlations between CWB and components of CWB
Further the sample is tested for the magnitude

of influence of CWB components on employees CWB,
Pearson correlation test was conducted for 5% level of
significance and it reveals that p<0.05 for all the
components. The results of hypotheses test were
presented in Table 4. From this, it is concluded that there
is a positive correlation between Components of CWB
and employees CWB in surveyed hospitals and
relationship is statistically significant.
CWB
Theft
Sabotage
Production Deviance
0.624
0.971
0.667
0.451
P - value
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Result
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Withdrawal behavior
0.763
0.000 Significant
Table 4: Magnitude of each components of CWB
690
www.ijemr.net

strongly correlated counterproductive behaviours are
Withdrawal behaviours and abuse against others. The
least correlated CWBs are Production deviance and
Sabotage.
Correlations between each components of CWB

Using Excels Correlation data analysis tool,
the sample is computed for the pairwise correlation
coefficients for the components of CWB. The results are
shown in table 5. From this, it is observed that the
Withdrawal
Behaviour
-
Production
Deviance
-
Abuse against
others
-
Withdrawal Behaviour
0.516969
Production Deviance
0.134325
0.375682
Theft
0.340892
0.457628
0.309793
CWB Components
Sabotage
Sabotage
Theft
0.582313
0.366895
0.513916
0.641241
Table 5: Correlation between each component of CWB
Regression equation for CWB and components of CWB

of employees
Components of CWB
In this research, CWB the dependent variable and FIVE

components of CWB are the independent variables.
Symbols
Theft
C1
C2
Sabotage
C3
Production deviance
C4
Withdrawal behavior
C5
The regression equation is

CWB = 0.003 + 0.113 C1 + 0.625 C2 + 0.086 C3 + 0.058 C4 + 0.114 C5
The following interpretation can be drawn from
the above equation.
The highly occurring behavior is abuse against
others, followed by withdrawal behavior, theft, sabotage
and production deviance respectively.
VI.
CONCLUSION
The findings of the study not only enhance our

understanding of counterproductive work behaviours
among nurses in hospitals of Bengaluru. The impact of
each component of CWB is analyzed using regression
analysis. Abuse against others is the predominant factor
which is contributing to the overall CWB in the
organization. The most frequently combined parameter
which occur together are abuse against others and
withdrawal behaviour. The prevalence rates of CWB
highlights the need for having an effective control
mechanism to curb them in order to increase the
efficiency of the organization.
REFERENCES
[1] Boye, M. W., & Wasserman, A. R. (1996).
Predicting counterproductivity among drug store
applicants. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(3),
337-349.
691
[2] McGurn, M. (1988). Spotting the thieves who work

among us. Wall Street Journal, 7(March), A16.
[3] Hitlan, R. T., & Noel, J. (2009). The influence of
workplace
exclusion
and
personality
on
counterproductive work behaviours: An interactionist
perspective. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 18(4), 477-502.
[4] Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work
and psychological outcomes: testing a model among
young workers. Journal of occupational health
psychology, 5(2), 246.
[5] Hunter, E. M., & Penney, L. M. (2014). The Waiter
Spit in My Soup! Antecedents of Customer-Directed
Counterproductive
Work
Behaviour.
Human
Performance, 27(3), 262-281.
[6] James, M. S., Miles, A. K., & Mullins, T. (2011).
The interactive effects of spirituality and trait cynicism
on citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors.
Journal of management, spirituality & religion, 8(2),
165-182.
[7] Hui, L., & Tian-yao, S. (2014, August). Effect of
transactional leadership style on the new generation
employees counterproductive work behavior. In
Management Science & Engineering (ICMSE), 2014
International Conference on (pp. 1078-1083). IEEE.
[8] Meurs, J. A., Fox, S., Kessler, S. R., & Spector, P. E.
(2013). It's all about me: The role of narcissism in
exacerbating the relationship between stressors and
www.ijemr.net
counterproductive work behaviour. Work & Stress,

27(4), 368-382.
[9] Chirumbolo, A. (2015). The impact of job insecurity
on counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating
role of honestyhumility personality trait. The Journal of
psychology, 149(6), 554-569.
[10] Chang, K., & Smithikrai, C. (2010).
Counterproductive behaviour at work: an investigation
into reduction strategies. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 21(8), 1272-1288.
[11] Bruursema, K., Kessler, S. R., & Spector, P. E.
(2011). Bored employees misbehaving: The relationship
between boredom and counterproductive work
behaviour. Work & Stress, 25(2), 93-107.
[12] Anjum, M. A., & Parvez, A. (2013).
Counterproductive Behavior at Work: A Comparison of
Blue Collar and White Collar Workers. Pakistan Journal
of Commerce and Social Sciences, 7(3), 417-434.
[13] 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.
[14] Ayoko, Oluremi B., Victor J. Callan, and Charmine
EJ Hrtel. "Workplace conflict, bullying, and
counterproductive behaviors." The International Journal
of Organizational Analysis 11.4 (2003): 283-301.
[15] 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.
[16] Kolz, A. R. (1999). Personality predictors of retail
employee theft and counterproductive behavior. Journal
of professional services marketing, 19(2), 107-114.
[17] Raver, J. L. (2013). Counterproductive work
behavior and conflict: Merging complementary domains.
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(3),
151-159.
692
[18] Rotundo, M., & Xie, J. L. (2008). Understanding

the domain of counterproductive work behaviour in
China. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management,, 19(5), 856-877.
[19] Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M.
(2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of
organizational injustice. Organizational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 947-965.
[20] Jerome, S. (2013). A study on quality of work life
of employees at Jeppiaar Cement Private Ltd:
Perambalur. International Journal of Advance Research
in Computer Science and Management Studies, 1(4), 4957.
[21] Anand, V. (2013). Quality of work life among
employees in Indian textile industryA pragmatic
approach. Global research analysis, 2(5), 153-154.
[22] Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S., & Swamy, D. R.
(2013). Quality of work life of employees in private
technical institutions. International Journal for Quality
Research, 7(3), 431-441.
[23] Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. (2015). Leadership styles
and quality of work life in SMEs. Management Science
Letters, 5(1), 65-78.
[24] Srinivas, R., & Swamy, D. (2013). Quality
Management Practices In Rural And Urban SMEsA
Comparative Study. International Journal for Quality
Research, 7(4), 479-492.
[25] Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema,
K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of
counter productivity: Are all counterproductive
behaviors created equal? Journal of vocational behavior,
68(3), 446-460.
[26] Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating
the dimensionality of counterproductive work behaviour.
International journal of selection and assessment, 11(1),
30-42.
[27] Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (Eds.). (2005).
Counterproductive work behaviour: Investigations of
actors and targets.

An Exploratory Study On Counterproductive Work Behaviors of Nurses

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

An Exploratory Study On Counterproductive Work Behaviors of Nurses

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

www.ijemr.

ISSN (ONLINE): 2250-0758, ISSN (PRINT): 2394-6962