Advertisement

Ambivalent Identification as a Moderator of the Link Between Organizational Identification and Counterproductive Work Behaviors

  • Valeria Ciampa
  • Moritz Sirowatka
  • Sebastian C. Schuh
  • Franco Fraccaroli
  • Rolf van DickEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Although counterproductive work behaviors can be extremely damaging to organizations and society as a whole, we do not yet fully understand the link between employees’ organizational attachment and their intention to engage in such behaviors. Based on social identity theory, we predicted a negative relationship between organizational identification and counterproductive work behaviors. We also predicted that this relationship would be moderated by ambivalent identification. We explored counterproductive work behaviors toward the organization (CWB-O) and other individuals (CWB-I). Study 1, a survey of 198 employees, revealed that employees who identified strongly with their organization reported lower levels of CWB-O, but as predicted, only when ambivalent identification was low. Study 2 involved a manipulation in the form of a scenario presented to 228 U.S. employees, generally replicated the findings of Study 1: the link between organizational identification and CWB-O was stronger for participants in the low ambivalence condition than for those in the high ambivalence condition. The interaction effect of ambivalent and organizational identification on CWB-I was only marginally significant in the second study. These findings provide new evidence for the positive influence of organizational identification under conditions of low ambivalence on counterproductive behaviors toward an organization.

Keywords

Organizational identification Counterproductive work behaviors Ambivalent identification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are also grateful to Farida Youssef and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Al-Atwi, A., & Bakir, A. (2014). Relationships between status judgments, identification, and counterproductive behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 472–489.Google Scholar
  2. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.Google Scholar
  3. Ashforth, B. E., Joshi, M., Anand, V., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2013). Extending the expanded model of organizational identification to occupations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(12), 2426–2448.Google Scholar
  4. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.Google Scholar
  5. Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453–1478.Google Scholar
  6. Basran, S. (2012). Employee views of ethics at work: 2012 continental Europe survey. London: Institute of Business Ethics.Google Scholar
  7. Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555–577.Google Scholar
  8. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.Google Scholar
  9. Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 613–636.Google Scholar
  10. Braun, S., Aydin, N., Frey, D., & Peus, C. (2018). Leader narcissism predicts malicious envy and supervisor-targeted counterproductive work behavior: Evidence from field and experimental research. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(3), 725–741.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., et al. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141–156.Google Scholar
  12. Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad. In R. J. Vandenberg & C. E. Lance (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in organizational and social sciences (pp. 309–335). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 59(2), 143–178.Google Scholar
  14. Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2005). Full-cycle micro-organizational behavior research. Organization Science, 16(4), 434–447.Google Scholar
  15. Cheung, J. H., Burns, D. K., Sinclair, R. R., & Sliter, M. (2017). Amazon Mechanical Turk in organizational psychology: An evaluation and practical recommendations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(4), 347–361.Google Scholar
  16. Christ, O., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2003). When teachers go the extra-mile: Foci of organizational identification as determinants of different forms of organizational citizenship behavior among schoolteachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 329–341.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709903322275867.Google Scholar
  17. Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 151–192). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (2008). Attitudinal ambivalence. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 261–288). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. DeConinck, J. B. (2011). The effects of ethical climate on organizational identification, supervisory trust, and turnover among salespeople. Journal of Business Research, 64(6), 617–624.Google Scholar
  22. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(5), 410–436.Google Scholar
  23. Edwards, M. R., & Peccei, R. (2010). Perceived organizational support, organizational identification, and employee outcomes. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(1), 17–26.Google Scholar
  24. Effelsberg, D., Solga, M., & Gurt, J. (2014). Transformational leadership and follower’s unethical behavior for the benefit of the company: A two-study investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 81–93.Google Scholar
  25. Elsbach, K. D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 163–200.Google Scholar
  26. Enns, J. R., & Rotundo, M. (2012). When competition turns ugly: Collective injustice, workgroup identification, and counterproductive work behavior. Human Performance, 25(1), 26–51.Google Scholar
  27. Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 305–323.Google Scholar
  28. Evans, D. C., Garcia, D. J., Garcia, D. M., & Baron, R. S. (2003). In the privacy of their own homes: Using the Internet to assess racial bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 273–284.Google Scholar
  29. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational identification and organizational commitment: Distinct aspects of two related concepts. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(3), 301–315.Google Scholar
  33. Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2006). Service sabotage: A study of antecedents and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 543–558.Google Scholar
  34. Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Haslam, S. A., Steffens, N. K., Peters, K., Boyce, R. A., Mallett, C. J., & Fransen, K. (2017). A social identity approach to leadership development: The 5R program. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 16(3), 113–124.Google Scholar
  36. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hollinger, R. C., & Davis, J. L. (2006). Employee theft and staff dishonesty. In M. Gill (Ed.), The handbook of security (pp. 203–228). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  38. Jacobs, G., Belschak, F. D., & Denhartog, D. N. (2014). (Un-)Ethical behavior and performance appraisal: The role of affect, support, and organizational justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
  39. Jacobson, R. P., Marchiondo, L. A., Jacobson, K. J., & Hood, J. N. (2019). The synergistic effect of descriptive and injunctive norm perceptions on counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3968-1.Google Scholar
  40. Johnson, S. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (2008). Externalization of employment in a service environment: The role of organizational and customer identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(3), 287–309.Google Scholar
  41. Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 28(5), 629–648.Google Scholar
  42. Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  43. Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (1994). Volition and personality. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  44. Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 33(4), 841–866.Google Scholar
  45. Lee, E. S., Park, T. Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049–1080.Google Scholar
  46. Lee, A., Schwarz, G., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2019). Investigating when and why psychological entitlement predicts unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(1), 109–126.Google Scholar
  47. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.Google Scholar
  48. Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 647–660.Google Scholar
  49. Marique, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Identification to proximal targets and affective organizational commitment. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(3), 107–117.Google Scholar
  50. Martin, C. L., & Nagao, D. H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 72–80.Google Scholar
  51. Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  52. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376–390.Google Scholar
  53. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433.  https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144 Google Scholar
  54. Pagliaro, S., Presti, A. L., Barattucci, M., Giannella, V. A., & Barreto, M. (2018). On the effects of ethical climate(s) on employees’ behavior: A social identity approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 960.Google Scholar
  55. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
  56. Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 456–493.Google Scholar
  57. Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 754–775.Google Scholar
  58. Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358–384.Google Scholar
  59. 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.Google Scholar
  60. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference Chi square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243–248.Google Scholar
  61. Schuh, S. C., Van Quaquebeke, N., Göritz, A. S., Xin, K. R., De Cremer, D., & Van Dick, R. (2016). Mixed feelings, mixed blessing? How ambivalence in organizational identification relates to employees’ regulatory focus and citizenship behaviors. Human Relations, 69(12), 2224–2249.Google Scholar
  62. Setterlund, M. B., & Niedenthal, P. M. (1993). Who am I? Why am I here? Self-esteem, self-clarity, and prototype matching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 769–780.Google Scholar
  63. Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051–1062.Google Scholar
  64. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  65. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460.Google Scholar
  66. Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Schuh, S. C., Jetten, J., & Van Dick, R. (2017). A meta-analytic review of social identification and health in organizational contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(4), 305–335.Google Scholar
  67. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks.Google Scholar
  68. Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 79–92.Google Scholar
  69. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength (pp. 361–386). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  70. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  71. Ullrich, J., Nimmerfroh, M.-C. & van Dick, R. (2010). Politische Orientierung und problematische Formen der Bindung an Parteien (political orientation and forms of attachment toward political parties). 47. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, 26–30 September 2010, Bremen.Google Scholar
  72. Ullrich, J., Wieseke, J., Christ, O., Schulze, M., & Van Dick, R. (2007). The identity-matching principle: Corporate and organizational identification in a franchising system. British Journal of Management, 18, 29–44.Google Scholar
  73. Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769–780.Google Scholar
  74. Vadera, A. K., & Pratt, M. G. (2013). Love, hate, ambivalence, or indifference? A conceptual examination of workplace crimes and organizational identification. Organization Science, 24(1), 172–188.Google Scholar
  75. Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., et al. (2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15(4), 351–360.Google Scholar
  76. Van Dick, R., Grojean, M. W., Christ, O., & Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the extra mile: Relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviour. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 283–301.Google Scholar
  77. Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 357–371.Google Scholar
  78. Van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 571–584.Google Scholar
  79. Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  80. Wang, L., & Pratt, M. (2007). An identity-based view of ambivalence and its management in organizations. In N. Ashkanasy & C. Cooper (Eds.), Research companions to emotion in organizations (pp. 589–604). London, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  81. Yang, J., & Treadway, D. C. (2018). A social influence interpretation of workplace ostracism and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(4), 879–891.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valeria Ciampa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Moritz Sirowatka
    • 3
  • Sebastian C. Schuh
    • 4
  • Franco Fraccaroli
    • 1
  • Rolf van Dick
    • 3
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Cognitive ScienceUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly
  2. 2.Facoltà di Medicina e PsicologiaSapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyGoethe UniversityFrankfurtGermany
  4. 4.Department of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource ManagementChina Europe International Business School (CEIBS)ShanghaiChina
  5. 5.Work Research Institute (AFI)OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations