Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Work Ethic and Work Outcomes in an Expanded Criterion Domain

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships between dimensions of work ethic and dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and counterproductive work behavior (CWB).

Design/Methodology/Approach

Data were collected from employed individuals in MBA and undergraduate management courses and their work supervisors (N = 233). Participants represented diverse occupations with respect to job levels and industries. Participants completed the work ethic inventory, and participants’ managers completed ratings of OCB and CWB.

Findings

The work ethic dimension of centrality of work was positively related to both dimensions of OCB (i.e., OCB-I and OCB-O), and the work ethic dimension of morality/ethics was negatively related to one of the dimensions of CWB (i.e., CWB-I).

Implications

Modern perspectives on job performance recognize the multidimensional nature of the domain (i.e., the expanded criterion domain). In addition, noncognitive predictors such as work ethic have value as individual differences that are associated with performance outcomes. The assessment of such constructs can help inform selection and placement activities where a focus on OCB and CWB is important to managers.

Originality/Value

This study provides additional evidence on the relationship between work ethic and performance outcomes. Previous research has provided limited information on the relationship between dimensions of work ethic and dimensions of OCB, and no information existed on the relationship between work ethic dimensions and CWB.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A full list of all occupations represented in the sample is available from the authors upon request.

  2. We also examined whether the amount of time that the subordinate and supervisor worked together had an impact on the results. Here, we specifically controlled for this variable and reexamined the relationships in the path model. None of the standardized parameter estimates changed by greater than β = |.01| in magnitude, and we reached the same conclusions about support or lack of support for the hypotheses (i.e., significant or nonsignificant).

References

  • Armstrong, G., & Griffin, M. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Wiemann, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakely, G. L., Srivastava, A., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The effects of nationality work role centrality, and work locus of control on role definitions of OCB. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(1), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blood, M. R. (1969). Work values and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 456–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Potosky, D. (1999). Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52, 561–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H. H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2015). “Well, I’m tired of tryin’!” Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 56–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J. M., & Stroh, L. K. (2003). Working 61 plus hours a week: Why do managers do it? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 67–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., Grover, S. L., & Blonder, M. D. (1988). Predictors of survivors’ job involvement following layoffs: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R. J., & Ng, E. (2006). The changing nature of work and organizations: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 86–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiaburu, D. S., & Byrne, Z. S. (2009). Predicting OCB role definitions: Exchanges with the organization and psychological attachment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 201–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, C. L. (1999). Can we live with the changing nature of work? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(7/8), 569–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop, D. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the bunch. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, D. C. (2002). Managers’ propensity to work longer hours: A multilevel analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 339–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Djurdjevic, E., Chang, C. H., & Tan, J. A. (2013). When is success not satisfying? Integrating regulatory focus and approach/avoidance motivation theories to explain the relation between core self-evaluation and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 342–353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, G. (1994). Attitude more valued than ability. Personnel Journal, 73, 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Counterproductive work behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (1990). The protestant work ethic. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., & Quilley, R. (1989). The protestant work ethic and the prisoner’s dilemma game. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, C. A., & Meriac, J. P. (2016). Examining the work ethic of correctional officers using a short form of the multidimensional work ethic profile. The Prison Journal, 96, 258–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, H. G. (1985). A work orientation scale for the California psychological inventory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 505–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1977). The Protestant work ethic and reactions to negative performance evaluations on a laboratory task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 682–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruys, M., & Sackett, P. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, M. A., & Borman, W. C. (2006). Citizenship performance: An integrative review and motivational analysis. In W. Bennett, C. E. Lance, & D. J. Woehr (Eds.), Performance measurement: Current perspectives and future challenges (pp. 141–173). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschfeld, R. R., & Feild, H. S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 789–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 22–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 555–566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hough, L. M. (1998). Personality at work: Issues and evidence. In M. D. Hakel (Ed.), Beyond multiple choice: Evaluating alternatives to traditional testing for selection. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection, and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence, and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, A. E. (1995). The changing nature of work. Jossey-Bass.

  • Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. Frontiers of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D. (1964). The motivation bias of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131–146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., & Agars, M. D. (2009). Being creative with the predictors and criteria for success. American Psychologist, 64, 280–281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Khaleque, A. (1992). Work values, attitudes, and performance of industrial workers in Bangladesh. Social Indicators Research, 27, 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

  • Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2009). A test of the importation and work environment models: The effects of work ethic, importance of money, and management views on the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of correctional staff. Journal of Crime and Justice, 32, 61–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBreton, J. M., & Tonidandel, S. (2008). Multivariate relative importance: Extending relative weight analysis to multivariate criterion space. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 329–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mael, F., & Jex, S. (2015). Workplace boredom an integrative model of traditional and contemporary approaches. Group and Organization Management, 40(2), 131–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Major, V. S., Klein, K. J., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 427–436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meriac, J. P. (2012). Work ethic and academic performance: Predicting citizenship and counterproductive behavior. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 549–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meriac, J. P. (2014). Examining relationships among work ethic, academic motivation, and performance. Educational Psychology, 1–14, ahead-of-print.

  • Meriac, J. P., Poling, T. L., & Woehr, D. J. (2009). Are there gender differences in work ethic? An examination of the measurement equivalence of the multidimensional work ethic profile. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 209–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meriac, J. P., Slifka, J. S., & LaBat, L. R. (2015a). Work ethic and grit: An examination of empirical redundancy. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 401–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meriac, J. P., Thomas, A. L. E., & Milunski, M. (2015b). Work ethic as a predictor of task persistence and intensity. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 249–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., & Banister, C. (2010). Generational differences in work ethic: An examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 315–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., Gorman, C. A., & Thomas, A. L. E. (2013). Development and validation of a short form for the multidimensional work ethic profile (MWEP). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 155–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrens, M. R., & Garrett, J. B. (1975). The protestant ethic scale as a predictor of repetitive work performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 125–127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M. J., Woehr, D. J., & Hudspeth, N. (2002). The meaning and measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 451–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (1987). Work commitment and job satisfaction over three career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 330–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motowidlo, S. J., & van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. R., & Shiarella, A. H. (1997). Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studying test validity. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubert, J. C., Mainert, J., Kretzschmar, A., & Greiff, S. (2015). The assessment of 21st century skills in industrial and organizational psychology: Complex and collaborative problem solving. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1–31.

  • O’Brien, K. O., & Allen, T. D. (2008). The relative importance of correlates of organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior using multiple sources of data. Human Performance, 21, 62–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology (Monograph), 78, 679–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human performance, 10(2), 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkhurst, J. T., Fleisher, M. S., Skinner, C. H., Woehr, D. J., & Hawthorne-Embree, M. L. (2011). Assignment choice, effort, and completion: Does work ethic predict those who choose higher-effort assignments? Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 575–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bacharach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D. W., Arad, S., Borman, W. C., & Hedge, J. W. (2002). Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of a model of adaptability. Human Performance, 15(4), 299–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riggio, R. E., & Saggi, K. (2015). Incorporating “soft skills” into the collaborative problem-solving equation. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8, 281–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J. J. (2002). Work values and organizational citizenship behaviors: Values that work for employees and organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance [Special issue]. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J. E., & Kabin, M. B. (2001). High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education: Prospects in a post-affirmative action world. American Psychologist, 56, 302–318.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saks, A. M., Mudrack, P. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). The relationship between the work ethic, job attitudes, intentions to quit, and turnover for temporary service employees. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 13, 226–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices. The Academy of Management Executive, 1987–1989, 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior (CWB): An integration of perspectives. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 342–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). Concluding thoughts: Where do we go from here? In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 297–305). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010). Counter productive work behavior and organisational citizenship behavior: Are they opposite forms of active behavior? Applied Psychology, 59, 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 446–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York, NY: Scribners [Original work published 1904–1905].

  • Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri - St. Louis, 425 Stadler Hall, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63121-4499, USA

    John P. Meriac

  2. Department of Management and Marketing, East Tennessee State University, 128 Sam Wilson Hall, PO Box 70625, Johnson City, TN, 37614, USA

    C. Allen Gorman

Authors
  1. John P. Meriac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Allen Gorman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John P. Meriac.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meriac, J.P., Gorman, C.A. Work Ethic and Work Outcomes in an Expanded Criterion Domain. J Bus Psychol 32, 273–282 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9460-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9460-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation