Multifoci effects of injustice on counterproductive work behaviors and the moderating roles of symbolization and victim sensitivity

• Published date: 01 October 2018
• Date: 01 October 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2280

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Multifoci effects of injustice on counterproductive work

behaviors and the moderating roles of symbolization and victim

sensitivity

James J. Lavelle

1

|Christopher M. Harris

2

|Deborah E. Rupp

3

|David N. Herda

4

|

Randall F. Young

5

|M. Blake Hargrove

6

|Meghan Ann Thornton‐Lugo

7

|

Gary C. McMahan

8

1

College of Business Administration,

Department of Management, University of

Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, U.S.A.

2

School of Management, Texas Woman's

University, Denton, Texas, U.S.A.

3

Department of Psychological Sciences,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana,

U.S.A.

4

Department of Accounting, Louisiana Tech

University, Ruston, Louisiana, U.S.A.

5

Department of Accounting, Texas State

University, San Marcos, Texas, U.S.A.

6

John L. Grove College of Business,

Department of Management, Shippensburg

University of Pennsylvania, Shippensburg,

Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

7

Department of Management, University of

Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas,

U.S.A.

8

College of Business Administration,

Department of Management, University of

Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, U.S.A.

Correspondence

James J. Lavelle, College of Business

Administration, Department of Management,

University of Texas at Arlington, 701 S. West

Street, Arlington, Texas 76019, U.S.A.

Email: lavelle@uta.edu

Summary

Past research suggests that employees, in response to workplace experiences, selec-

tively engage in targeted counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). Taking a retribu-

tive justice and target similarity perspective, we predict that employee perceptions of

unfairness from the organization uniquely predict CWB specifically targeted at the

organization whereas employee perceptions of supervisory unfairness uniquely pre-

dict CWB specifically targeted at the supervisor. We further hypothesized that moral

identity‐symbolization would strengthen these target‐similar relationships. Finally,

drawing from the sensitivity to mean intentions model, we hypothesized that victim

sensitivity would not only strengthen these target‐similar relationships but also lead

to cross‐foci effects of multifoci fairness perceptions on targets of CWB. Results from

3 field studies of full‐time employees provided support for most of our hypothesized

relationships.

KEYWORDS

counterproductive work behavior, moralidentity, organizational justice,victim sensitivity

1|INTRODUCTION

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) refers to intentional

employee behaviors that negatively impact the legitimate interests

of the organization or its members (Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Martinko,

Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002; Sackett, 2002). Such behaviors include

being uncooperative, wasting time and resources, acting rudely or

aggressively, and stealing (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Although

CWB may be considered a low base‐rate phenomenon, its occur-

rence can be costly, resulting in financial losses for organizations

and greater levels of stress and job dissatisfaction for employees

(Jones, 2009).

Past research has suggested that organizations and supervisors

may be unique targets of employee CWBs (termed CWB‐O and

CWB‐S, respectively; Jones, 2009). Examining these specific targets

of CWB is important because the predictors of CWB‐O and CWB‐

S may reflect the quality of the relationship between the employee

and the particular target (Hershcovis & Reich, 2013). Therefore,

identifying factors that uniquely motivate employees to engage in

CWB toward one party and not another can provide researchers

Received: 6 April 2016 Revised: 30 January 2018 Accepted: 8 February 2018

DOI: 10.1002/job.2280

1022 Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J Organ Behav. 2018;39:1022–1039.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job

and managers with a more complete understanding of CWB in the

workplace.

In this paper, we draw from the organizational justice and revenge

literatures to identify differential facets of multifoci justice

1

that

uniquely predict CWB‐O and CWB‐S. Researchers typically define

revenge as an individual's attempts to punish, harm, damage, or injure

another person or party judged as accountable for causing harm or an

offense (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2006; Jones, 2009). As evident in this

definition, CWBs motivated by revenge are likely to be targeted

toward the party seen as accountable for unfairness, as individuals

desire to punish and get even with the perpetrator (Folger &

Cropanzano, 2001).

Prior studies have examined the effects of justice perceptions on

overall measures of CWB and related constructs such as retaliatory

behavior and sabotage. Skarlicki and Folger (1997), for example, exam-

ined the relationship between employee perceptions of fairness and

retaliation using a dependent measure combining behaviors directed

toward supervisors, coworkers, and the organization into a single,

broad measure of retaliatory behavior. Other studies have examined

the effects of justice on CWB toward individuals where the individuals

targeted in the single measure included a combination of supervisors,

coworkers, or “someone”in the workplace (e.g., Bennett & Robinson,

2000; Spector et al., 2006). Despite evidence for an overall link

between justice and CWB‐related factors, it may be that the relation-

ship is more nuanced, and that considering both constructs at a more

specific source‐and target‐based level of abstraction could shed addi-

tional light on employee reactions to workplace experiences (see

Hershcovis et al., 2007). Our research also recognizes the need to con-

sider how justice‐related individual differences serve as boundary con-

ditions to these more nuanced justice–CWB relationships. Specifically,

we examine the moderating effects of moral identity‐symbolization

and victim sensitivity on the relationship between multifoci justice per-

ceptions and target‐specific CWB.

The primary objectives of our research are fourfold. First, in

response to calls for researchers to identify differential predictors of

CWB‐O and CWB‐S (Hershcovis et al., 2007), replicating and extend-

ing the findings of Jones (2009), and drawing from research on target

similarity (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007) and revenge (Aquino

et al., 2006), we argue that injustice stemming from the organization

will more strongly predict CWB‐O than will injustice stemming from

the supervisor whereas supervisory injustice will more strongly predict

CWB‐S than will organizational injustice. Second, we examine the sym-

bolization dimension of moral identity as a moderator of justice effects

on internal targets of CWB. Symbolization reflects the degree to which

one's moral concerns are expressed through behaviors (Aquino &

Reed, 2002). Folger, Cropanzano, and Goldman (2005) suggest that

responding to unfairness in a retributive manner can be considered a

“moral remedy,”demonstrating a victim's desire to hold perpetrators

accountable. Thus, we expect that symbolization will enhance the

effects of supervisory and organizational unfairness on CWB‐S and

CWB‐O, respectively.

Third, we examine the moderating effects of victim sensitivity, a

dispositional variable reflecting the extent to which individuals vary

in the strength of their affective and behavioral responses to experi-

enced injustice (Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes, & Arbach, 2005). Victim

sensitives are especially concerned with being exploited and, conse-

quently, are motivated to defend themselves by engaging in uncooper-

ative, hostile behaviors directed toward the perpetrator (Gollwitzer &

Rothmund, 2009). Thus, we expect that the target‐similar relationship

between unfairness and CWB will be strengthened when employees

are high in victim sensitivity.

Fourth, we respond to Rupp, Shao, Jones, and Liao's (2014) call for

research that identifies moderators that may lead to cross‐foci effects

of unfairness on employee behaviors. We argue that higher levels of

victim sensitivity will not only enhance the target‐similar relationship

between unfairness and CWB but also lead to cross‐foci effects of

injustice on targets of CWB (i.e., supervisor‐focused justice percep-

tions predicting CWB‐O and organization‐focused justice perceptions

predicting CWB‐S). According to the sensitivity to mean intentions

model (Gollwitzer & Rothmund, 2009), victim sensitives experience

heightened levels of a suspicious mindset when unfairly treated. This

mindset is reflected in increased concerns that other parties they

encounter (in addition to the original perpetrator) are also likely to hold

ill intentions toward them and will treat them unfairly if given the

opportunity. Thus, victim sensitives are motivated to engage in unco-

operative behaviors toward others in an effort to preempt and discour-

age them from acting on ill intentions. Considering victim sensitivity as

a variable that heightens the likelihood of cross‐foci effects further

contributes to the development of a more nuanced understanding of

justice–CWB relationships.

2|HYPOTHESES

2.1 |Differential effects of justice source on CWB‐O

and CWB‐S

Traditionally, organizational justice research has focused on norma-

tive rules of fairness typically referred to as “types”of injustice (Rupp

et al., 2014). This includes perceptions of distributive, procedural,

informational, and interpersonal fairness. Distributive justice refers

to perceptions of resource allocation or outcome fairness (Adams,

1965), whereas procedural justice emphasizes the fairness of the pro-

cedures used in the decision‐making process (Leventhal, 1980). Infor-

mational justice refers to the adequacy and clarity of explanations

offered for decisions and treating others in a polite manner, whereas

demonstrating respect and dignified treatment reflects interpersonal

justice (Bies, 2005).

More recently, researchers have become interested in explicitly

considering the various sources of justice that may affect

employee attitudes and behaviors in the workplace. In particular,

the multifoci perspective of justice suggests that employees seek

to identify the party accountable for treating them in an unfair

1

Although we set up our hypotheses and interpret our results in terms of the

positive relationship between unfairness and CWB, throughout this paper, we

use the terms justice and injustice, as well as fairness and unfairness, inter-

changeably. Whereas this is consistent with prior research within the organiza-

tional justice literature, more recent research has begun to discuss the

phenomenological differences between justice and injustice (see Goldman &

Cropanzano, 2015 for a review).

LAVELLE ET AL.1023