Visit our website: http://www.sacsconsult.com.au/ Vist us on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/sacs-consulting

1. Employees behaving badly -
personality and counterproductive work
behaviours
Andrew Marty
Managing Director
SACS Consulting

2. SACS Consulting
• Human Resource Management Consulting Firm
– Executive Search and Selection.
– Human Resource Management Consulting.

3. The Science of People Management

4. Offerings

5. Objectives
• To consider the importance of counterproductive
work behaviours (CWBs)
• To consider the relationship between personality
and CWBs
• To outline the results of the SACS 2011
research project into CWBs and personality
• To outline what all this means and where to from
here.

6. Employees behaving badly - CWBs
• CWBs matter! Bullying, harassment, theft,
dodging work, etc
• Links between minor CWBs – incivility and
major CWBs – sexual harassment
• Badly behaving employees affect the
behaviours of other employees…………..

7. Mirror neurons, yawning, and
emotional contagion
Icare4autism (2008) ‘Broken Mirror Neurons Linked to Autism?’ Retrieved May, 16, 2011, from
http://icare4autism.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/broken-mirror-neurons-linked-to-autism/

8. CWBs
• More CWBs mean less OCBs……………….
• Dalal, R.S. (2005) A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between
Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 6, 1241–1255

9. Recruitment approaches - Integrity

10. Integrity tests
• Surprisingly predictive of job success
– .41 by themselves and when coupled with cognitive
ability tests .65. They add together well because
they are assessing such different things.
– They get more predictive over the years. Bizarre but
true!
• Aim to eliminate candidates with negative
characteristics – up to 90% in some studies
• Targeting candidates with positive attitudes
– i.e. organisational citizenship behaviours.
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, 78, 679–703.

11. Examples
• Overt – they ask rude questions – EG Reid Report
– People with high integrity can’t believe that people
answer yes to these things, but they do!
– Excellent results in terms of eliminating people with
negative characteristics
– Also identifies those who are likely to be exemplary
citizens
• Personality based – slightly less accurate, considerably
less confronting, much longer to complete.

12. Integrity tests
• Well worth doing
• Are they really measuring “integrity”? The
questions typically relate to CWBs. The term
“integrity” can be misleading.
• Questions about their currency. The world of
research into CWBs has moved on.

13. More recent research into CWBs
– employees or employer………
• 10 areas of CWBs turn out to be very common:
1. Lateness – unpunctuality
2. Not attending work when not too sick to do so
3. Inability to get on with others
4. Being distracted from core work tasks
5. Incivility – intentional impoliteness or disrespect to others
6. Theft of organisation property
7. Ignoring OHS policies and practices
8. Being openly critical of the employer
9. Ignoring broader work policies or practices
10. Incivility - ignoring or snubbing other employees
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of
counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection & Assessment,
11(1), 0-42

14. Previous research into personality
and CWBs
• Strong links identified in three different
countries – using different measures of CWB –
employee integrity index
• Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Morrison, D. L., Cordery, D., & Dunlop, P. D. (2008).
Predicting integrity with the HEXACO personality model: Use of self- and
observer reports. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
81, 147-167

15. The first part of the SACS study – an
Australian measure for CWBs…..

16. Key points:
• N = 2049 – big enough to form a normative
sample
• 1120 male participants
• 929 female participants
• Average age of participants = 43 years
• Average time to complete = 50 minutes
• Candidates on our employee database
• Questions relating to the 10 areas of CWB and
the personality dimensions as assessed by
HEXACO personality inventory.

17. 1. I am late for appointments
.2%
3.1%
17.8%
55.0%
24.0%
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 0.2% 3.1% 17.8% 55% 24%
Cumulative
percentage
0.2% 3.3% 21.1% 76% 100%

18. 2. When I have been ill but not so ill that I could not attend
work, I have taken a sick day
0.7%
3.0%
22.1%
47.3%
27.0%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage .7% 3% 22.1% 47.3% 27%
Cumulative
percentage
.7% 3.7% 25.7% 73% 100%

19. 3. I have left jobs in the past because I could not
get on with someone I worked with
0.1%
1.9%
20.2%
33.8%
44.0%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentag
e
.1% 1.9% 20.2% 33.8% 44%
Cumulativ
e
percentag
e
.1% 2% 22.2% 56.0% 100%

20. 4. When I am at work I have found myself distracted by activities
such as conversing with colleagues on non-work related matters
1.0%
7.7%
52.2%
36.1%
3.0%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 1% 7.7% 52.2% 36.1% 3%
Cumulative
percentage
1% 8.7% 60.9% 97.0% 100%

21. 5. I have found it necessary to be impolite to
others at work
0.3% 0.8%
14.3%
51.1%
33.3%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage .3% 0.8% 14.3% 51.1% 33.3%
Cumulative
percentage
.3% 1.2% 15.5% 66.7% 100%

22. 6. I have taken the property of organisations
I have worked for
0.3% 0.8%
10.3%
43.9% 44.7%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage .3% 0.8% 10.3% 43.9% 44.7%
Cumulative
percentage
.3% 1.1% 11.4% 55.3% 100%

23. 7. I have ignored or not followed safety or
Occupational Health and Safety rules at work
0.4%
1.7
19.2
46.3
32.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 0.4% 1.7% 19.2% 46.3% 32.3%
Cumulative
percentage
0.4% 2.1% 21.4% 67.7% 100%

24. 8. I have been critical of organisations I have
worked for to others
0.6
7.5
49.6
35.8
6.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 0.6% 7.5% 49.6% 35.8% 6.5%
Cumulative
percentage
0.6% 8.1% 57.7% 93.5% 100%

25. 9. I have ignored or got around policies at work
which I did not respect
0.4
6.9
38.7
39.6
14.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 0.4% 6.9% 38.7% 39.6% 14.3%
Cumulative
percentage
0.4% 7.4% 46.1% 85.7% 100%

26. 10. If I don’t like someone at work I have
ignored or snubbed them
0.6
4.6
35.8
45.8
13.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Percentage
N= 2049
Percentage 0.6% 4.6% 35.8% 45.8% 13.2%
Cumulative
percentage
0.6% 5.3% 41% 86.6% 100%

27. Two facets of CWB
Structure matrix Component 1 Component 2 Facet
10. If I don’t like someone at work I have ignored or snubbed them
0.684 Interpersonal
5. I have found it necessary to be impolite to others at work
0.669 Interpersonal
9. I have ignored or got around policies at work which I did not respect
0.606 0.341 Interpersonal
8. I have been critical of organisations I worked for to others
0.568 0.493 Organisational
3. I have left jobs in the past because I could not get on with someone I
worked with 0.566 Interpersonal
7. I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health and
Safety rules at work 0.553 0.478 Organisational
4. When I am at work I have found myself distracted by activities such
as conversing with colleagues on non work-related matters
0.69 Organisational
1.I am late for appointments 0.593 Organisational
2. When I have been ill but not so ill that I could not attend work, I have
taken a sick day 0.577 Organisational
6. I have taken the property of organisations I have worked for
0.45 0.541 Organisational

28. Distribution of total CWB scale

29. Distribution of Interpersonal CWB scale

30. Distribution of Organisational CWB scale

31. Gender differences?
Age differences?

32. Counterproductive work behaviours:
The differences between males and females
2.11
2.14
2.10
2.15
2.04
2.22
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.25
Total CWB scale means Interpersonal CWB scale
means*
Organisational CWB scale
means*
Males
Females
* Statistically significant difference p<.000
N= 2049

33. Total CWB Scale-
Gender and age differences
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.25
30 years or younger 31-40 years 41-50 years 51 years or older
Male
Female

34. Interpersonal CWB Scale-
Gender and age differences
1.75
1.8
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
30 years or younger 31-40 years 41-50 years 51 years or older
Male
Female

35. Organisational CWB Scale-
Gender and age differences
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.25
2.3
2.35
30 years or younger 31-40 years 41-50 years 51 years or older
Male
Female

36. Evidence Based Leadership
SACS Consulting is carbon neutral certified.
How does the CWB scale relate to
an overt integrity test?

37. CWB scale and Reid Report:
Convergent Validity
Total
CWB scale Interpersonal CWB scale Organisational CWB scale
Reid Report -.337* -.338* -0.232
N= 40; * = sig <.05
 There is a statistical relationship between the
CWB scale and the Reid Report (overt integrity
test).

38. Personality – Australian norms

39. Lee and Ashton’s HEXACO
1: Honesty-Humility
• Sincerity
• Fairness
• Greed Avoidance
• Modesty
2: Emotionality
• Fearfulness
• Anxiety
• Dependence
• Sentimentality
3: Extraversion
• Social Self-Esteem
• Social Boldness
• Sociability
• Liveliness
4: Agreeableness
• Forgiveness
• Gentleness
• Flexibility
• Patience
5: Conscientiousness
• Organization
• Diligence
• Perfectionism
• Prudence
6: Openness to Experience
• Aesthetic Appreciation
• Inquisitiveness
• Creativity
• Unconventionality
7: (Interstitial scale)
• Altruism

40. HEXACO FACTORS: Australian Professional
Population vs Canadian General Population
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Honesty-Humility Emotionality Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness to
Experience
Altruism
Australian Professional Population Means Canadian General Population Means

41. HEXACO FACETS: Australian Professional
Population vs Canadian General Population
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Australian professional population means (n=2049) Canadian general population means (n=887)

42. Gender differences:
HEXACO Factors
Honesty-Humility Emotionality Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Altruism
Female means 3.73 3.16 3.74 3.15 3.68 3.53 4.11
Male means 3.63 2.85 3.77 3.2 3.72 3.56 3.92
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
FactorMeans
Australian professional population HEXACO Factor norms:
Males vs Females

43. Gender differences:
HEXACO facets
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
FacetMeans
Australian professional population HEXACO Facet norms:
Males vs Females
Female means Male means

44. Can personality predict counter-
productive work behaviours?

45. Personality predicting
Interpersonal CWB
(HH) Sincerity
(HH) Fairness
(HH) Greed-Avoidance
(HH) Modesty
(EMO) Fearfulness
(EMO) Anxiety
(EMO) Dependence
(EMO) Sentimentality
(EX) Social Self-Esteem
(EX) Social Boldness
(EX) Sociability
(EX) Liveliness
(A) Forgiveness
(A) Gentleness
(A) Flexibility
(A) Patience
(C) Organisation
(C) Diligence
(C) Perfectionism
(C) Prudence
(O) Aesthetic
Appreciation
(O) Inquisitiveness
(O) Creativity
(O) Unconventionality
Altruism
Model Summary
Model R R
Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .549a .301 .293 .44166
Best predictors of Interpersonal CWB Beta weights
(EX) Sociability -0.182
(A) Forgiveness -0.164
(HH) Fairness -0.124
(A) Flexibility -0.109
(A) Patience -0.105
Interpersonal
CWB

46. Personality predicting
Organisational CWB
(HH) Sincerity
(HH) Fairness
(HH) Greed-Avoidance
(HH) Modesty
(EMO) Fearfulness
(EMO) Anxiety
(EMO) Dependence
(EMO) Sentimentality
(EX) Social Self-Esteem
(EX) Social Boldness
(EX) Sociability
(EX) Liveliness
(A) Forgiveness
(A) Gentleness
(A) Flexibility
(A) Patience
(C) Organisation
(C) Diligence
(C) Perfectionism
(C) Prudence
(O) Aesthetic
Appreciation
(O) Inquisitiveness
(O) Creativity
(O) Unconventionality
Altruism
Organisational
CWB
Best predictors of Organisational CWB Beta
weights
(HH)Fairness -0.238
(C) Diligence -0.163
(C) Prudence -0.158
(C) Organisation -0.157
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .638a .406 .399 .34717

47. Personality predicting
Total CWB
(HH) Sincerity
(HH) Fairness
(HH) Greed-Avoidance
(HH) Modesty
(EMO) Fearfulness
(EMO) Anxiety
(EMO) Dependence
(EMO) Sentimentality
(EX) Social Self-Esteem
(EX) Social Boldness
(EX) Sociability
(EX) Liveliness
(A) Forgiveness
(A) Gentleness
(A) Flexibility
(A) Patience
(C) Organisation
(C) Diligence
(C) Perfectionism
(C) Prudence
(O) Aesthetic
Appreciation
(O) Inquisitiveness
(O) Creativity
(O) Unconventionality
Altruism
Total CWB
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .653a .427 .420 .31314
Best predictors of CWB
Beta
weights
(HH) Fairness -0.219
(C) Prudence -0.141
(C) Organization -0.116
(A) Forgiveness -0.112
(C) Diligence -0.112
(A) Flexibility -0.109
(EX) Sociability -0.106
(HH) Sincerity -0.1

48. Key points……..
• There is a strong relationship between
personality and counterproductive work
behaviours
• The findings are similar to the relationships Lee
and Ashton found between personality and overt
integrity tests – particularly very similar strength
of relationships
• It is possible to generate a personality based
risk assessment of CWBs in potential
employees.

49. Where to from here?
• We now have an Australian normed CWB
assessment, validated against the HEXACO
• We now have Australian professional population
norms for the HEXACO personality inventory
• We now know the personality factors which
present the most accurate indicators of the
likelihood of CWBs
• We will be offering all this to our clients, both in
our executive level psychological assessment
offering, as well as our self managed
psychological assessments portal.

50. For further information please contact Andrew
Marty, Managing Director of SACS Consulting
on +613 8622 8508 or
andrewm@sacsconsult.com.au