Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
1
Running Head: EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB
The Influence of Workplace Exclusion and Personality on Counterproductive Work Behaviors:
An Interactionist Perspective
Robert T. Hitlan and Jennifer Noel
University of Northern Iowa
(In press)
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
Please do not copy of cite without permission
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
Robert T. Hitlan
Department of Psychology
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50614
Ph: 319-273-2223
Email: rob.hitlan@uni.edu
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
2
Abstract
The current research examined some of the person and situation factors that contribute to
counterproductive work behavior (CWB). More specifically, this research examined the unique
and interactive effects of perceived workplace exclusion and personality, as measured via the
NEO-FFI, on two types of CWB: interpersonal and organizational. Participants included 105
employees from a mid-sized Midwestern utility company in the U.S. All employees completed a
Workplace Experiences Survey. As predicted, exclusion via coworkers was related to
interpersonal forms of CWB; whereas, exclusion by supervisors was related to organizational
CWB. Support was also obtained for several of the predicted interactions between workplace
exclusion and personality on CWB such that the relation between exclusion and CWB was
strongest for employees whose personality exhibited less behavioral constraint. Results are
discussed in terms of their implications, limitations, and directions for future research.
Key Words: Workplace Exclusion, Ostracism, Personality, Counterproductive Work Behavior
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
3
The Influence of Workplace Exclusion and Personality on Counterproductive Work Behaviors:
An Interactionist Perspective
Arguably, an organization’s human capital represents the most important resource for
ensuring an organization's competitiveness in a local, regional, national, or even global
marketplace. Thus, it stands to reason that organizations would want their employees to feel a
sense of inclusiveness within the organization, especially given the positive relation between
perceived inclusiveness and social support, employee psychological health, organizational
satisfaction, commitment, and productivity (Mor Barak, Cherin, & Berkman, 1998; Mor Barak &
Levin, 2002). Yet, to our knowledge, little research has specifically examined workplace
exclusion as a focal construct. Drawing on previous research investigating social ostracism
(Williams, 2001, 2007) and organizational behavior (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), we define
workplace exclusion broadly as, the extent to which an individual (or group) perceives that they
are being rejected, ignored, or ostracized by another individual (or group) within their place of
work. One basic assumption underlying this definition is that many (if not most) times such
behavior hinders one’s ability to complete those tasks required for successful job performance.
The current research has two primary goals. The first is to examine the link between
workplace exclusion and negative work behaviors. As described more fully below, one important
consideration in trying to predict how exclusion relates to workplace behavior concerns the
source of the exclusion (e.g., coworkers, supervisors). A second goal is to better understand how
individual differences moderate the relation between workplace exclusion and work behavior.
Simply stated, the aim of the current research is to better understand the unique and interactive
effects of workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work behaviors. More
specifically, the current research examines how an employee’s perception of being excluded by
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
4
other coworkers or supervisors is related to interpersonal and organizational counterproductive
work behaviors (CWB).
Generally speaking, CWB is defined as, “a set of volitional acts [as opposed to accidental
or mandated] that harm or intend to harm organizations and their stakeholders (e.g., clients,
coworkers, customers, and supervisors)” (Spector & Fox, 2005, pp. 151-152). Thus, CWB
includes a wide range of behaviors from taking extended breaks to stealing to physical violence.
Although there are a number of clearly distinct acts that are subsumed under the broader
definition of CWB (Robinson & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Sackett, 2002; Spector et al., 2006), the
current research focused on those behaviors associated with interpersonal (e.g., arguing with coothers) and organizational (e.g., stealing from one’s organization) dimensions of CWB. To our
knowledge, research has not specifically examined how broad dimensions of one’s personality
function to moderate the relation between exclusion and outcomes. In addition, the current
research expands on what is currently known about exclusion and CWB by examining how the
sources of exclusion (coworker or supervisor) relate to specific types of CWB.
We begin by briefly reviewing why exclusion represents an important construct for
organizational researchers. Next, we review some of the most relevant social-psychological
research examining how social exclusion influences attitudes and behaviors. Given our focus on
workplace relationships, we rely on Social Exchange and Social Identity theories to aid in
developing specific predictions about the link between sources and outcomes. Finally, and
perhaps most importantly, we outline how one’s personality may function to moderate the impact
of perceived exclusion on CWB.
Social and Organizational Research on Exclusion, Rejection, and Ostracism
According to Belongingness Theory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), people possess an
innate need to feel connected to and belong to something greater than oneself. Research indicates
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
5
that being excluded is psychologically aversive to victims. When one’s need for belonging is
thwarted, people seek to reaffirm their sense of self-worth and meaningfulness (Williams, 2007).
Exclusion (either real or perceived) is related to a host of negative emotional states
including sadness, loneliness, jealousy, guilt/shame, embarrassment, social anxiety (Leary, Koch,
& Hechenbleikner, 2001). Research indicates a direct relation between exclusion and increased
desire to avoid future contact with perpetrators (Cheuk & Rosen, 1994; Pepitone & Wilpizeski,
1960), decreased prosocial behaviors, decreased ability to self-regulate one’s behavior, and
impaired cognitive functioning (Baumeister & Dewall, 2005). To the extent that exclusion
decreases self-regulation it may serve to direct employee’s toward short-term behaviors
motivated by self-interest and away from more long-term behaviors focused on the future
success of the organization (Parks & Kidder, 1994). Such a shift in one’s thought processes is
also consistent with the literature on exchange relations within organizations. Thus, when an
employee feels excluded they may engage in behaviors, such as increased aggression and risktaking that are not in keeping with their long-term best interests as organizational employees
(Bierman & Wargo, 1995; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001). Yet, exclusion within the
work realm has only been investigated as secondary to other constructs such as workplace
incivility, bullying, retaliation, and harassment. Given this, and the potential importance of
exclusion for one’s well-being, their remains a gap in the literature as to exactly how exclusion
(as a focal construct) contributes to work outcomes.
Exchange Relations and Workplace Exclusion
Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958) posits that social behavior involves
the exchange of both material (e.g., information and equipment) and non-material goods (e.g.,
status and approval). When one person is negligent in the exchange, the other will be more likely
to leave the relationship. Based on the tenants of Social Exchange Theory, several workplace
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
6
relevant exchange theories have emerged including Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX)
and Coworker Exchange Theory (CWX; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Sherony & Green, 2002). The
crux of these theories is that the quantity and quality of leader–subordinate and coworkercoworker relations are determined, at least in part, by how “others” are viewed. For example
when leaders view subordinates as “in-group” members, these individuals are interacted with
differently than when a subordinate is perceived as an “out-group” member. A similar situation
is also thought to develop when both entities are at the same organizational level (i.e.,
coworkers). For example, low-quality or problematic interactions often occur when a supervisor
perceives his or her subordinate as an “out-group” member. Such situations are also
characterized by a lack of trust and support.
Of particular import for the current research, when such group distinctions are made
salient via exclusion, subsequent attitudes and behaviors may reflect such an in-group/out-group
mentality. Such a cognitive and behavioral shift is also consistent with a host of research
supporting Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Hogg & Terry, 2000;
Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002), which is based on the
assumption that one’s self-esteem and self-worth are based, in part, on group membership.
Consistent with a Social Exchange perspective, Thau, Aquino, and Poortvliet (2007) found that
thwarted belonging, defined as the discrepancy between desired and actual level of belonging,
was predictive of self-defeating deviant behavior within organizations (cf. Colbert, Mount,
Harter, Witt, & Barrick; 2004; Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992).
Furthermore, evidence exists that supervisor support and organizational support are
positively related and, therefore, a lack of supervisor support, via exclusion, may be expected to
relate more closely to behaviors traditionally associated with a lack of organizational support,
namely organizational CWB (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). In
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
7
contrast, given that coworkers often spend much more of their time with other coworkers, as
compared to supervisors, we believe that suffering exclusion at the hands of other coworkers
would relate to an employee questioning their sense of belonging to that group (i.e., coworkers),
and serve to exacerbate in-group/out-group distinctions between oneself and other coworkers. As
a result, we would expect coworker exclusion to relate to interpersonal forms of CWB (e.g.,
speaking badly of another coworker, gossiping) (Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006; Frone, 2000;
Spector et al., 2006b). Based on the theory and research outlined above, we predict the
following:
H1: Exclusion by one’s supervisor(s) will be positively related to organizational CWB.
H2: Exclusion by one’s coworker(s) will be positively related to interpersonal CWB.
A Person X Situation Approach
There is a large body of research supporting the relation between individual difference
factors (e.g., personality dimensions) and counterproductive attitudes and behaviors (Ones,
Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Reiss, 1994; McCrae & Costa; 1986; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996;
Salgado, 2002). One commonly used measure of personality is the NEO-FFI which measures
individual differences along five conceptually and empirically distinct dimensions which include
neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Costa
& McCrae, 1992). Higher levels of neuroticism are characterized by more anxiety, impulsivity,
anger, and hostility. Higher levels of extraversion are characterized by warmth, gregariousness,
and positive emotions. Openness to experience is characterized by unconventional values and
divergent thinking, being more emotionally expressive (both positive and negative), being more
intellectual, and being more open to reexamine one’s value system. Individuals who score higher
in agreeableness tend to befriend others more easily and are more altruistic and less antagonistic
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
8
than those scoring lower on this dimension. Finally, conscientiousness is associated with selfdiscipline, dutifulness, and a high level of aspiration.
Higher levels of neuroticism (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 2003), as well as, lower
levels of conscientiousness (Ashton, 1998; Sackett & DeVore, 2001), agreeableness (Graziano &
Eisenberg, 1997; Salgado, 2002), extraversion (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Collins & Schmidt,
1993), and openness to experience (Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006) are linked to higher levels of
anger, aggression, and/or CWB. To wit, the main effects of various person factors on
organizational outcomes are generally well supported by research. However, less research has
been conducted examining the joint contributions of situation and person factors in predicting
workplace behaviors.
Consistent with the views espoused by other researchers, we view the outcomes
associated with exclusionary behavior as a complex interaction between an employee’s
personality and their immediate social situation (cf. Geen, 2001; O’leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew,
1996; Twenge, 2006; Williams, 2001; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; Martinko & Zellars, 1998).
For example, Robinson and Bennett developed a model of workplace deviance in which the
expression of deviant behaviors is thought to be the product of a complex interaction between
situational antecedents (e.g., inequities, unfair treatment, and social pressures) and constraints
(e.g., internalization of norms). Consistent with this, Spector, Fox, and Domagalski (2006) state,
“…the literature demonstrates that violent, aggressive, and counterproductive work behaviors are
best explained when both individual differences and situational factors are examined” (p. 37). In
fact, a number of researchers have provided evidence in support of a person x situation model
(Colbert et al, 2004; Keashly & Harvey, 2004; Neuman & Baron, 1997, 1998; Romero-Canyas &
Downey, 2006; Vardi & Weitz, 2004).
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
9
Comparing Additive and Interactive Effects Models
As previously noted we expect that the perception that an employee is being excluded
within their place of work will relate to CWB. We also expect that, individual differences in
personality will relate to CWB. As such, it is important to distinguish theoretically why we
expect interactive over additive effects to emerge. Generally speaking, with an additive effects
model we would expect to see that employees reporting higher levels of exclusion would report
higher levels of CWB, compared to employees reporting lower levels of exclusion. Similarly,
highly neurotic employees would be expected to exhibit higher levels of CWB than employees
reporting lower neuroticism. The net effect of these two unique main effects might be for highly
neurotic employees reporting high levels of exclusion to report the most CWB. Such an effect is
consistent with an additive model.
In contrast, we might expect that personality functions to constrain behavior (cf. Colbert
et al., 2004) such that at low levels of neuroticism (e.g., low anxiety, hostility, impulsiveness,
and vulnerability) CWB would be similar across all levels of exclusion. In this instance, one’s
personality would function as a behavioral constraint. However, at high levels of neuroticism we
would expect more variability in CWB depending on the frequency with which an employee
reports experiencing exclusion. In this case, the employee’s behavior would not be constrained
by their personality and we might expect that the highest levels of CWB would emerge for
highly neurotic individuals experiencing high levels of exclusion. Thus, although the net result
may be the same under both additive and interactive conditions, there is a difference in the
underlying theoretical rationale for why we ought to see these effects.
In sum, consistent with previous findings suggesting that individuals who possess
specific personality characteristics are more or less likely to engage in aggressive, antisocial, and
deviant forms of organizational behavior, we expected that those employees whose personality
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
10
exerts a stronger constraint on behavior would report engaging in similar levels CWB
irrespective of how much workplace exclusion they report experiencing. As reviewed above, we
expected that personality would exert stronger constraints on behavior for employees reporting
low levels of neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, as well as, those reporting
higher conscientiousness and agreeableness. In contrast, we expected much more variability in
CWB as a function of workplace exclusion among individuals whose personality imposes fewer
constraints on behavior. As such, we expect that, people whose behavior is less constrained via
their personality will be more reactive to various situational influences, including workplace
exclusion.
H3: Perceived coworker exclusion and personality will interact to influence interpersonal
CWB such that the relation between coworker exclusion and interpersonal CWB will be
stronger for individuals whose personality exhibits less constraint on their behavior (i.e.,
high neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, and low agreeableness and
conscientiousness)
H4: Perceived supervisor exclusion and personality will interact to influence
organizational CWB such that the relation between supervisor exclusion and
organizational CWB will stronger for individuals whose personality exhibits less
constraint on their behavior (i.e., high neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to
experience, and low agreeableness, and conscientiousness).
Method
Participants
Participants included 105 employees from a medium-sized utility company located in the
Midwestern United States. Men comprised 63.8% of the sample (n = 67). Participant ages
ranged from 23-63 years (M = 43.17, SD = 8.66, Mdn = 44). The entire sample identified as
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
11
Caucasian (100 %). The majority of participants reported being married (83.8%) and working
full-time (97%). A total of 145 surveys were distributed with 105 surveys returned. According
to Hamilton (2003), this represents an excellent response rate of 72%.
Procedure and Measures
All participants completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire assessing various aspects of
their workplace environment. Questionnaires were administered at departmental meetings
ranging from three to twenty employees per meeting. Small group sessions were used to
adequately communicate the purpose of the questionnaire and answer any questions or concerns
from employees. Upon arrival, participants were informed of their rights as research participants
and asked to read over and sign an informed consent sheet prior to participation. Informed
consent sheets were kept separate from survey responses to ensure confidentiality. Average
completion time of the questionnaire was approximately 25 minutes. Participants had the option
to either complete the questionnaire at the departmental meetings or on their own time and return
the survey to the researcher in a sealed envelope upon completion.
Workplace Exclusion. The Revised Workplace Exclusion Scale (WES-R; see Appendix
A) is a 17-item self-report scale, which asks participants to indicate how often they perceived of
themselves as experiencing different types of exclusionary behaviors during the past 12 months
at their organization. The scale is comprised of three subscales, a 7-item subscale assessing one’s
perception of being excluded by coworkers (e.g., Coworkers shutting you out of their
conversation), a 5-item subscale assessing one’s perception of being excluded by supervisors
(e.g., Supervisors keeping important work-related information from you – e.g., meeting times),
and a 3-item language-based exclusion subscale (e.g., Coworkers speaking to each other in a
language you did not understand.). The final two items represent criterion questions. All
responses were obtained on a 5-point response scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (most of the
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
12
time), with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived exclusion. Due to the
demographic make-up of the current sample, and a low base-rate associated with the languagebased exclusion factor (i.e., 4 respondents indicating experiencing language-based exclusion),
the language-based exclusion subscale was not used in subsequent analyses. Previous research
indicates the WES to be reliable with alpha coefficients ranging from .79-.85 across studies
(Hitlan, Cliffton, & DeSoto, 2006; Hitlan, Kelly, & Zárate, under review). Initial research also
supports the validity of the WES (Walsh & Hitlan, 2008). For the current research, the reliability
coefficients for the coworker (α = .76) and supervisor (α = .75) subscales indicated acceptable
reliability estimates.
Individual Differences. Personality was assessed using the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae,
1992), which contains 60-items measuring the “Big Five” dimensions of personality including
neuroticism (e.g., I am not a worrier), extraversion (e.g., I like to have a lot of people around
me), openness to experience (e.g., I find philosophical arguments boring), agreeableness (e.g., I
try to be courteous to everyone I meet), and conscientiousness (e.g., I keep my belongings neat
and clean). Each subscale is comprised of 12-items. Respondents indicate their level of
agreement/disagreement with a series of statements using a 5-point response scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Composite scores were created by averaging across
scale items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of that particular personality characteristic. The
NEO-FFI scales show correlations of .77-.92 with the NEO-PI, and internal consistency
reliability values range from .68-.86 (Costa & McCrae, 1992). For the current research, the
reliability coefficients for the NEO-FFI were: neuroticism (α = .85), agreeableness (α = .77),
extraversion (α = .79), conscientiousness (α = .75), and openness to experience (α = .70).
Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB). CWB was measured by using the Workplace
Deviance Scale (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999)1. This scale is comprised of two subscales:
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
13
organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance. The organizational deviance subscale
includes 8-items assessing deviant behaviors directed toward the organization (e.g., Intentionally
arrived late for work); the interpersonal deviance subscale consists of 6-items assessing
interpersonal deviance (e.g., Swore at a co-worker). Participants responded on an 8-point scale
ranging from 1 (Never) to 8 (More than once a week), with high scores indicating higher
frequency of deviant behaviors. Past research has supported the reliability and validity of the
instrument, with reliability coefficients for interpersonal deviance (α = .73) and organizational
deviance (α = .76; Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999). For the current research, the reliability
coefficients were .74 for organizational deviance and .76 for interpersonal deviance.
Results
Frequency of Workplace Exclusion
The most frequent forms of supervisor exclusion included supervisors not replying to
requests/questions within a reasonable period of time and respondents not being invited by
supervisors to participate in work-related activities. More specifically, 71.2% and 74.3% of
respondents indicated that, at least once or twice, over the course of the previous 12 month
period, a supervisor had not replied to their request within a reasonable period of time and/or that
they were not invited to participate in work-related activities. Moreover, 63.8% of respondents
indicated receiving the ‘silent treatment’ by during this same time period. Of those, 6.7%
indicated that such behavior occurred often or most of the time. Also, 59% of respondents
indicated having been shut out of conversations by coworkers with 7.7% indicating that such
behavior occurred either often or most of the time.
Frequency of Organizational and Interpersonal CWB
The most frequent forms of organizational CWB included employees working on a
personal matter instead of working for their employer (60.6%), gossiping about one’s supervisor
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
14
(55.8%), making unauthorized use of organizational property (31.7%), and calling in sick when
not actually ill (21.2%). The least frequent forms of organizational CWB included intentionally
arriving late to work (7.7%), and lying about the number of hours worked (2.9%). The most
frequent forms of interpersonal CWB included regularly teasing a co-worker in front of other
employees (52.9%), refusing to talk to a co-worker (34.6%), and swearing at a coworker
(32.7%). The least frequent forms of interpersonal CWB included making ethnic, racial, or
religious slurs against a co-worker (9.6%) and making an obscene comment or gesture at a
coworker (29.8%).
Correlational Analyses
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, zero-order correlation coefficients, and
reliability coefficients for each of the study variables. Hypothesis 1 predicted a significant
positive relation between perceptions of supervisor exclusion and organizational CWB.
Consistent with this prediction, supervisor exclusion was significantly correlated with
organizational CWB, r(102) = .37, p < .001. In contrast, the relation between supervisor
exclusion and interpersonal CWB was not significant, r(102) = .16, p > .05, ns. Thus, employees
who reported higher levels of supervisor exclusion were also more likely to report engaging in
higher levels of organizational CWB but not interpersonal CWB. Results also indicated that the
relation between supervisor exclusion and organizational CWB was significantly stronger than
the relation between supervisor exclusion and interpersonal CWB, t(101) = 1.81, p = .03, one
tailed.
Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive correlation between coworker exclusion and
interpersonal CWB. As predicted, perceptions of exclusion via coworkers was related to
interpersonal CWB, r(102) = .19, p = .05. Results also indicated a significant relation between
coworker exclusion and organizational CWB, r(102) = .28, p = .004. Employees reporting higher
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
15
levels of exclusion via coworkers also reported higher levels of both interpersonal and
organizational CWB. Follow-up analyses indicated that the difference between these two
correlation coefficients was not statistically significant, t(101) = 0.76, p =.23, one tailed.
Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analysis
To assess the interactive effects of perceived exclusion and personality on CWB, a series
of moderated hierarchical regression analyses were computed. The first series of regressions
used interpersonal CWB as the criterion; the second series used organizational CWB as the
criterion. In the first step, the exclusion and moderator conditional effects were entered. In the
second step, the two-way interaction term between perceived exclusion and personality was
entered2. Based on recommendations by Aiken and West (1991), the exclusion and personality
variables were centered prior to entering the conditional effects and interaction term into the
regression model.
Coworker exclusion, personality, and CWB. Hypothesis 3 predicted that coworker
exclusion would interact with personality in predicting interpersonal CWB. More specifically,
the relation between coworker exclusion and interpersonal CWB was predicted to be stronger for
individuals whose behavior was less constrained by their personality (higher neuroticism,
extraversion, and openness to experience, and lower agreeableness and conscientiousness).
Separate regression equations were computed for each test of moderation. Results provided some
support for the predicted interactions (see Table 2). At step 2, after controlling for the main
effects associated with coworker exclusion and personality, the interaction between coworker
exclusion and extraversion accounted for a significant proportion of unique variance in the
prediction of interpersonal CWB, ΔF(1, 100) = 5.16, p = .025, R = .34, ΔR2 = .05. To better
understand the nature of the interaction two methods were used: a simple slope analysis (Aiken
& West, 1991) and the Johnson-Neyman Technique which provides a point estimate for the
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
16
range of values of the moderator where the focal independent variable (exclusion) is significantly
related to CWB (Johnson & Newman, 1936; Hays & Matthes, in press).
As illustrated in Figure 1, at low levels of extraversion (-1SD), the relation between
coworker exclusion and interpersonal CWB was not significant, b = .08, SE = .25, t = .31, p =
.76; with a 95% confidence interval of -.4272 to .5829. However, the simple slope was
significantly different from zero at both the mean, b = .49, SE = .19, t(100) = 2.54, p = .01, with
a 95% confidence interval of .1067 to .8663, and high (+1sd) levels of extraversion, b = .90, SE
= .27, t(100) = 3.31, p = .001, with a 95% confidence interval of .3584 to 1.4318. Moreover, the
points estimate indicated that when extraversion is 3.245 or above the coefficient for exclusion is
significantly positive (using alpha = .05). Thus, participants reporting low levels of extraversion
reported little difference in the frequency of interpersonal CWB across levels of coworker
exclusion. However, at higher levels of extraversion this difference became much more
pronounced with the highest levels of interpersonal CWB being observed under conditions of
high extraversion and high coworker exclusion. The other predicted interactions between
coworker exclusion and interpersonal CWB failed to emerge.
Supervisor exclusion, personality, and CWB. Hypothesis 4 predicted that supervisor
exclusion would interact with personality in predicting organizational CWB. More specifically,
the relation between supervisor exclusion and organizational CWB was predicted to be stronger
for individuals whose behavior was less constrained by their personality (higher neuroticism,
extraversion, and openness to experience, and lower agreeableness and conscientiousness).
The procedure was identical to that outlined above with coworker interactions. Consistent with
predictions, at Step 2, after controlling for the main effects of supervisor exclusion and
personality, each of the interaction terms (excluding extraversion) contributed unique variance to
the prediction of organizational CWB including neuroticism, ΔF(1, 100) = 8.00, p <.01, R = .50,
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
17
ΔR2 = .06, agreeableness, ΔF(1, 100) = 5.36, p = .02, R = .48, ΔR2 = .04, conscientiousness,
ΔF(1, 100) = 13.42, p < .01, R = .58, ΔR2 = .09, and openness to experience, ΔF(1, 100) = 4.08,
p = .04, R = .41, ΔR2 = .03. The direction for each of these interaction terms is consistent with
predictions (see Figures 2-5). Employees whose personality exerted a stronger constraint over
their behavior were less variable in reporting to have engaged in organizational CWB. Moreover,
the most CWB was evidenced under conditions of high supervisor exclusion and low behavioral
constraint. Table 4 displays the simple slope coefficients, significance values, 95% confidence
intervals, and point estimates along low (-1SD), mean, and high levels (+1SD) of these
personality dimensions.
Discussion
The current research examined how an employee’s perception of being excluded within
their work environment relates to counterproductive work behaviors. Although there is a large
body of literature examining how situational factors influence outcomes, little research has
specifically addressed the phenomena of workplace exclusion, and its associated outcomes
(Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zárate, 2006). One of the goals of the current research
was to begin to fill this gap by examining how both sources of exclusion and one’s personality
contribute to the expression of CWB. We relied on research evidence suggesting that the source
of exclusion (e.g., coworkers, supervisors) may be important to more fully understanding the
behavioral outcomes associated with such behavior.
Higher levels of supervisor exclusion were related to higher levels or organizational
CWB but not interpersonal forms of CWB. In addition, coworker exclusion was positively
related to interpersonal CWB. Somewhat interestingly, a significant relation also emerged
between coworker exclusion and organizational CBW. Although this latter finding was not
specifically predicted in the current research, it is consistent with Frone (2000) who found that
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
18
both interpersonal conflict with supervisors and interpersonal conflict with coworkers related to
interpersonal (depression, self-esteem, somatic symptoms) and organizational outcomes (job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover). Although Frone did not attempt to explain
this “cross-over” effect for outcomes we suspect that, interactions with coworkers are shaped by
many different variables (e.g., seniority, personality, job position) that may lead to less
discrimination in the display of CWB. As such, an employee who feels they are being excluded
by coworkers may consider multiple factors when deciding to respond. We contrast this with
perceived exclusion at the hands of one’s supervisor where it is generally recognized that
supervisors are more closely associated with their role agents of an organization.
To test this proposition, we conducted a secondary analysis using the data provided by
Frone (2000) which included the sample size and tabled correlations. We examined whether the
effect sizes between interpersonal conflict with coworkers and interpersonal outcomes (e.g.,
depression, self-esteem, somatic symptoms) differed from those between interpersonal conflict
with coworkers and organizational outcomes (satisfaction, commitment, turnover). None of the
comparisons indicated significant differences in effect size estimates across interpersonal and
organizational outcomes. So, the relations between coworker conflict and outcomes were similar
across both interpersonal and organizational outcomes. Simply stated, all cross-outcome
coefficients were of equal strength. However, for interpersonal conflict with supervisors, all of
the effect sizes associated with organizational outcomes were significantly stronger than the
relations between supervisor conflict and interpersonal outcomes. A similar analysis based on
information provided by Bruk-Lee and Spector (2006) examined the relations among supervisor
conflict, coworker conflict, organizational CWB, and interpersonal CWB, and found a
significantly stronger relation between interpersonal conflict and interpersonal CWB (as
compared to organizational CWB) and no difference in the strength of the relations associated
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
19
with supervisor conflict. Thus additional research is needed to better understand the nature of
this discrepancy. For example, Frone (2000) focused on younger employees and attitudinal
outcomes, Bruk-Lee and Spector (2006) examined university employees and behavioral
outcomes, and the current research specifically examined workplace exclusion using employees
from a utility company and behavioral outcome measures. Might there be something inherent in
a specific sample, organization, or outcome underlying these effects?
Personality and CWB
Consistent with previous research, we found that each of the measured personality
dimensions was related to some form of CWB. More specifically, negative relations emerged
between openness to experience (and agreeableness) and interpersonal CWB. Employees
reporting less of these characteristics were more likely to report engaging in interpersonal CWB.
Similar negative relations emerged between organizational CWB and extraversion,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Employees scoring lower on these dimensions reported
more organizational CWB compared to those scoring higher on each of these dimensions.
Finally, neuroticism was positively related to organizational CWB.
While these relations are consistent with those obtained in previous research, as one
reviewer of the current manuscript pointed out, these relations may simply reflect a tendency of
some individuals to report acting in more counterproductive ways as opposed to actually
engaging g in counterproductive behaviors. For example, one could argue that conscientious
people attempt to be highly accurate in reporting everything, and those who are less conscientious
might not feel as compelled to report deviant behavior. Although our method and data do not
allow us to entirely rule out this possibility, the negative correlations between conscientiousness
and organizational CWB indicates that less conscientious people actually do report engaging in
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
20
more CWB. Nevertheless, this is an important empirical question but one that cannot be fully
disentangled with the current research design.
Personality as a Moderator
For interpersonal CWB, the only significant interaction term to emerge was between
coworker exclusion and extraversion. The effect of coworker exclusion on interpersonal CWB
was dependent on one’s personality. For employees reporting low levels of extraversion, there
was little change in the self-reported display of interpersonal CWB across exclusion levels.
However, at higher levels of extraversion (where we would expect less behavioral constraint),
the difference between low and high levels of coworker exclusion on interpersonal CWB was
much more pronounced when employees scored high in extraversion. Based on this finding, it
seems that the specific characteristics associated with extraversion (e.g., warmth, gregariousness,
assertiveness, activity) are more important for understanding reactions to interactions involving
other coworkers (as opposed to supervisors). One explanation for this finding is reflected in the
amount of time that employees spend interacting with one another. Generally, employees spend a
significant percentage of their time interacting with other coworkers. So, one might expect that:
1) those scoring lower in extraversion would not be as inclined (as those scoring higher) to feel
the need to interact with others in an attempt to satisfy those personality characteristics of
warmth and gregariousness and 2) as a result of this lower need to satisfy oneself via the
company of others, exclusion by coworkers would not be viewed as aversive as it would be by
highly extraverted individuals (more constrained personality). Thus, extraversion seems of
particular importance for coworker interactions, especially when combined with relevant
situations factors, such as exclusion.
For organizational CWB, each of the predicted interactions between supervisor exclusion
and personality emerged, except for the interaction involving extraversion. When employee
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
21
behavior was constrained by their personality, little difference emerged on organizational CWB
across levels of supervisor exclusion. In contrast, much more pronounced changes in CWB
emerged for those employees whose personality exerted less control over their behavior (high
neuroticism, high openness to experience, low conscientiousness, and low agreeableness).
Overall, these findings suggest that the likelihood of employees engaging in CWB
depends on both persona and situation factors – especially when trying to predict organizational
forms of CWB. Additionally, consistent with previous research, source characteristics appear to
be important to determining specific types of outcomes. By virtue of the number and strength of
the interaction terms in the current research, it seems that personality dimensions are more
closely associated with CWB directed at the organization. It could be that when exclusionary
behavior is thought to emanate from an organization, as is the case with supervisor exclusion, an
employee not only feels that such behavior has implications for their immediate social milieu but
also to their immediate and future existence and advancement opportunities within their
organization (and thus calling into question those very personality characteristics that makes us
who we are).
Limitations of the Current Research
It is also important to note a few potential limitations to the current research. First, due to
the self-report methodology and the sensitive nature of the information being obtained, responses
may have been influenced by socially desirability or common method variance (Campbell &
Fiske, 1959; Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991). However, others believe that the magnitude of any
such effects is often overstated (Spector, 1994). So, although research has indicated such effects
may inflate relations among variables, there does not appear to be a consensus on the absolute
magnitude of such effects. Also, the common method variance explanation cannot account for
interaction effects which are less likely to be spurious. Second, consistent with previous survey
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
22
research, participants completed the survey at a single point in time whereby prohibiting any
firm conclusions regarding cause and effect. Nevertheless, when combined with previous
experimental research, we believe that the current research makes an important contribution to
our understanding of when we might expect workplace exclusion to predict whether or not an
employee will choose to engage in counterproductive work behaviors.
That said, both workplace exclusion and CWB represent broad constructs encompassing
a number of subtypes (Spector et al., 2006b), many of which were not examined in the current
research. Even within the current sample, it seems that some forms of exclusion are experienced
more frequently than others as are specific forms of both interpersonal CWB and organizational
CWB. For example, does it matter if employees were being excluded socially (by others ignoring
them) or physically (by others physically leaving their presence)? Might the mode of exclusion
(e.g., face-to-face, chat-room), and length of time one was excluded influence outcomes?
Additionally, the entire sample reported being Caucasian (100%) and the majority reported
working full-time (97%). As a result, one needs to be careful when making statements about the
applicability of the current findings to other ethnicities, and employees who are employed on a
temporary basis or part-time. Future research in this area would also benefit from examining
samples of different ethnicities, ages, and locations would be of great interest.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we believe this research adds to what is currently known about workplace
behaviors in a few different ways. First, we were able to show that the mere perception of
exclusion is sufficient to increase the likelihood of employees engaging in CWB. Second, this
research provides additional support for the argument that the sources of conflict (or exclusion in
this case) are important to better understanding how employees may choose to respond to their
experiences. Third, it provides additional insight regarding the moderating effects of personality
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
23
in the prediction of CWB including an initial assessment of which personality dimensions seem
most important under certain conditions. Finally, while the current research answers some
questions concerning the relations and interactions between workplace exclusion, personality,
and counterproductive work behaviors, it also brings up some additional questions and avenues
for subsequent research in this area. Ultimately, we believe the current research will help in the
development of specific models outlining the antecedents, moderators, and consequences of
CWB.
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
24
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers, Inc.
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289-303.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative
affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073-1091.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Baumeister, R. F., & DeWall, C. N. (2005). The inner dimension of social exclusion: Intelligent
thought and self-regulation among rejected persons. In K.D. Williams, J.P. Forgas, & W.
von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and
bullying. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
Attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Bierman, K. L., & Wargo, J. B. (1995). Predicting the longitudinal course associated with
aggressive-rejected, aggressive (nonrejected), and rejected (nonaggressive) status.
Development and Psychopathology, 7, 669-682.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup
derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 24, 641-657.
Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviors
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
25
link: Are conflicts with supervisors and coworkers the same? Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 11, 145-156.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Cheuk, W. H., & Rosen, S. (1994). Validating a “spurning scale” for teachers. Current
Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, and Social, 13, 241-247.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive
effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609.
Collins, J. M., & Schmidt, F.L. (1993). Personality, integrity, and white collar crime: a construct
validity study. Personnel Psychology, 46, 295-311.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. (1992). The NEO Personality Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Douglas, S.C., & Martinko, M.J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in
the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 547-559.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351.
Duhart, D. T. (2001). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: Violence in the workplace,
1993-1999 (NCJ 190076). Washington, DC: US Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).
Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and
employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565-573.
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
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
26
for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model
among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246-255.
Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of
Management, 17, 235-271.
Geen, R. G. (2001). Human aggression (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development
of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a
multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Graziano, W. G. & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R.
Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp.795842). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hamilton, M. B. (2003). Online survey response rates and times: Background and guidance for
industry. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://www.supersurvey.com
Hays, A. F., & Matthes, J. (in press). Computational Procedures for probing interactions in OLS
and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavioral Research Methods.
Hewstone, M, Rubin, M,. & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 575-604.
Hitlan, R. T., Cliffton, R. J., & Desoto, M. C. (2006). Perceived exclusion in the workplace: The
moderating effects of gender on work-related attitudes and psychological health. North
American Journal of Psychology, 8, 217-236.
Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, M, Schepman, S., Schneider, K. T., & Zárate, M. A. (2006). Language
exclusion and the consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 56-70.
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
27
Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, K. M., & Zárate, M. A. (2006). The nature and correlates of workplace
exclusion. Manuscript under review.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597606.
Jockin, V., Arvey, R. D., & McGue, M. (2001). Perceived victimization moderates self-reports
of workplace aggression and conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1262-1269.
Johnson, P. O., & Newman, J. (1950). The Johnson-Neyman technique: Its theory and
application. Psychometrica, 15, 349-363.
Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2004). Emotional abuse at work. In P. Spector & S. Fox (Eds.),
Counterproductive workplace behavior: An integration of both actor and recipient
perspectives on causes and consequences (pp. 201-236). Washington DC: American
Psychological Association.
Leary, M. R., Koch, E. J., & Hechenbleikner, N. R. (2001). Emotional responses to interpersonal
rejection. In M. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 145-166). New York, NY:
Oxford Press.
Martinko, M. J., & Zellars, K. L. (1998). Toward a theory of workplace violence and aggression:
A cognitive appraisal perspective. In S.B. Bacharach (Eds.), Dysfunctional Behavior in
Organizations: Violent and Deviant Behavior (Vol. 23, pp.1-42). Stanford, CT: JAI Press
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult
sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385-405.
Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal
dimensions in diversity climate. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 82-104.
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
28
Mor Barak, M. E., Levin, A. (2002). Outside of the corporate mainstream and excluded from the
work community: A study of diversity job satisfaction, and well-being. Community,
Work, and Family, 5, 133-157.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and
counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel
Psychology, 59, 591-622.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R. A., Giacalone & J.
Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression Evidence
concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of
Management, 24, 391-411.
O’Brien, T. B., & Delongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of problems-, emotion-, and
relationship-focused coping: The role of the big five personality factors. Journal of
Personality, 64, 775-813.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M, Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression:
A research framework. Academy of Management, 21, 225-253.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2003). Personality and absenteeism: A
meta0analysis of integrity tests. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39-66.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Reiss, A. D. (1994, August). The validity of
honesty and violence scales of integrity tests in predicting violence at work. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.
Parks, J. M., & Kidder, D. L. (1994). Changing work relationships in the 1990s. In D. M.
Rousseau & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp 111-136).
Oxford, England: Wiley.
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
29
Pepitone, A., & Wilpizeski, C. (1960). Some consequences of experimental rejection. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 359-364.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its manifestations,
and its consequences (pp. 3-27). In R. J. Lewicki, R. J., Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.)
Research on negotiation in organizations, City, State: JAI Press.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
Romero-Canyas, R., & Downey, G. (2005). Rejection sensitivity as a predictor of affective and
behavioral responses to interpersonal stress (pp. 131-154). In K.D. Williams, J.P. Forgas,
& W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and
bullying. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and
relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 10, 5-11.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In Anderson, N,
Ones, D., Sinangil, C., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.). International handbook of work
psychology (pp145-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117-125.
Schat, A. C. H., Frone, M. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression in
the U.S. workforce: Findings from a national study. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J.
Hurrell (Eds.). Handbook of Workplace Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
30
subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689-695.
Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for
fairness in the workplace. New York, NY: Lexington Books/Macmillan, Inc.
Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers,
leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 542548.
Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report measures in OB research: A comment on the use of a
controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385-392.
Spector, P.E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work
behavior. In P. E. Spector and S. Fox (Ed.) Counterproductive work behavior:
Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-174).Washington DC: APA.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., & Domagalski, T. (2006a). Emotions, violence, and
counterproductive work behavior. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell, J. J.
(Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006b). The
dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created
equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446-460.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup Relations (pp 7-24).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P. M. (2007). Self-defeating behaviors in organizations: The
relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. Journal of
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
31
Applied Psychology, 92, 840-847.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist
model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617.
Twenge, J. M. (2006). When does social rejection lead to aggression? The influence of
situations, narcissism, emotion, and replenishing connections. In K.D. Williams, J.P.
Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion,
rejection, and bullying. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them,
beat them: The effects of social exclusion on antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 81, 1058-1069.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and
management. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Walsh, B. M. & Hitlan, R. T. (April, 2008) Convergent and discriminant validity of the
workplace exclusion scale. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), San Francisco, CA.
Williams, K. D., (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452.
Williams, K.D. (2001). Ostracism: the power of silence. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
32
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Zero-Order Correlations, and Reliability Estimates for Study
Variables
Variable
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Supervisor Exclusion
2.21
.76
(.75)
2. Coworker Exclusion
1.99
.61
.31**
(.76)
3. Interpersonal CWB
1.87
1.21
.16
.19*
(.76)
4. Organizational CWB
1.53
.68
.37**
.28**
.22*
(.74)
5. Neuroticism
2.64
.65
.22*
.39**
-.03
.31**
(.85)
6. Extraversion
3.38
.54
-.27**
-.22*
.14
-.25**
-.39**
(.79)
7. Openness to Exp.
2.99
.48
-.04
.02
-.19*
-.02
.12
.01
(.70)
8. Agreeableness
3.71
.46
-.29**
-.37**
-.28**
-.33**
-.33**
.40**
.15
(.77)
9. Conscientiousness
3.89
.42
-.22*
-.20*
-.01
-.41**
-.40**
.23*
.04
.31**
Note. N = 104. *p < .05, **p < .01. Reliability estimates are displayed in parentheses along the
diagonal.
9
(.75)
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
33
Table 2
Moderated Multiple Regression Analysis for Coworker Exclusion and Personality on Interpersonal CWB
Interpersonal CWB
Step
1
Regression Models
R
ΔR2
Coworker Exclusion
B
S.E.
β
t
p
.50
.22
.25*
2.33
.02
Neuroticism
.22
.05
-.22
.20
-.12
-1.11
.27
2
Coworker Exclusion X Neuroticism
.23
<.01
-.19
.29
-.07
-.65
.52
1
Coworker Exclusion
.49
.19
.25*
2.54
.01
.09
Extraversion
.27
.07*
.37
.22
.17
1.69
2
Coworker Exclusion X Extraversion
.34
.05*
.76
.33
.21*
2.272 .02
1
Coworker Exclusion
.40
.19
.20*
2.05
.04
Openness to Experience
.27
.07*
-.50
.24
-.20*
-2.05
.04
2
Coworker Exclusion X Openness
.27
<.01
-.16
.43
-.04
-.37
.71
1
Coworker Exclusion
.23
.21
.12
1.11
.26
Agreeableness
.30 .09**
-.68
.27
-.26*
-2.49
.02
2
Coworker Exclusion X Agreeableness
.31
.36
.39
.09
.93
.36
1
Coworker Exclusion
.39
.20
.19
1.94
.06
Conscientiousness
2
<.01
.19
.04
.09
.29
.03
.32
.75
Coworker Exclusion X Conscientiousness .20
<.01
.23
.53
.04
.44
.66
Note. *p < .01, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Coefficients represent the values obtained after all variables,
including the interaction term, were entered into the regression equation.
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
34
Table 3. Moderated Multiple Regression Analysis for Supervisor Exclusion and Personality on
Organizational CWB
Organizational CWB
Step
1
Regression Models
R
ΔR2
Coworker Exclusion
Neuroticism
.44 .19***
2
Coworker Exclusion X Neuroticism
.50
1
Coworker Exclusion
.06**
B
S.E.
β
t
P
.29
.08
.33**
3.71
<.01
.21
.09
.20*
2.25
.03
.11
.25**
2.29
.01
.26
.09
.29*
2.99
<.01
.32
Extraversion
.40
.16*
-.21
.12
-.17
-1.79
.08
2
Coworker Exclusion X Extraversion
.42
.02
-.18
.14
-.13
-1.34
.18
1
Coworker Exclusion
.32
.08
.36**
4.00
<.01
-.27
.79
Openness to Experience
.37 .14***
-.04
.13
2
Coworker Exclusion X Openness
.41
.27
.13
.19*
2.02
.04
1
Coworker Exclusion
.23
.08
.26**
2.84
<.01
.03*
-.03
Agreeableness
.44 .19***
-.39
.14
-.27**
-2.89
<.01
2
Coworker Exclusion X Agreeableness
.48
-.44
.19
-.21*
-2.32
.02
1
Coworker Exclusion
.25
.07
.28**
3.38
.001
-.47
.14
-.29**
-3.41
.001
.15
-.30**
-3.66
.001
2
.04*
Conscientiousness
.50 .25***
Coworker Exclusion X Conscientiousness
.58 .09***
-.56
Note. *p < .01, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Coefficients represent the values obtained after all variables,
including the interaction term, were entered into the regression equation.
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
35
Table 4
Test of the Simple Slope Effects for the effect of Supervisor Exclusion on Organizational CWB
as a function of differing levels of personality dimensions.
Slope
Coefficients
B
S.E. β
t
p
95% CI
LL
UL
Point Estimate
Moderator
Neuroticism
Low(-1SD)
Mean
High (+1SD)
.08
.10
.29** .08
.50** .11
.09 .78 .43 -.1258
.33 3.72 <.01 .1361
.57 4.52 <.01 .2812
.2901
.4475
.7217
Openness
Low
Mean
High
.19
.10
.32** .08
.45** .10
.22 1.85 .07 -.0144
.36 3.99 <.01 .1621
.51 4.44 <.01 .2500
.3997
.4821
.6532
Agreeableness
Low
Mean
High
Conscientiousness
Low
Mean
High
2.272
2.544
3.841
.43** .11
.23** .08
.03
.13
.49 3.98 <.01 .2166
.26 2.84 <.01 .0705
.04 .27 .79 -.2197
.6471
.3958
.2885
4.054
.48** .10
.25** .07
.02
.10
.54 5.04 <.01 .2908
.28 3.38 <.01 .1029
.02 .19 .85 -.1772
.6688
.3953
.2140
Note. *p<.05, **p<.01. Alpha level used for the Johnson-Neyman point estimate is .05.
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
36
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Interaction between perceived coworker exclusion and extraversion on interpersonal
CWB.
Figure 2. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and neuroticism on organizational
CWB.
Figure 3. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and conscientiousness on
organizational CWB.
Figure 4. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and agreeableness on
organizational CWB.
Figure 5. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and openness to experience on
organizational CWB.
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
Interpersonal
Deviance
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
High extraversion
Mean extraversion
Low extraversion
Low Exc.
Mean Exc.
Figure 1
Figure 2
High Exc.
37
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
38
Figure 3
2.6
2.4
2.2
Organizational
Deviance
2
1.8
High agreeableness
1.6
Mean agreeableness
1.4
Low agreeableness
1.2
1
Low Exc.
Mean Exc.
Figure 4
High Exc.
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
Organizational
Deviance
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
High openess
Mean openness
Low openness
Low Exc.
Mean Exc.
Figure 5
High Exc.
39
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
40
Endnotes
1. Based on comments made by an anonymous review, we choose to use the term
Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) instead of Workplace Deviance because of the
conceptual distinctions between these two constructs (see introduction) and because we were not
able to confidently determine if the interpersonal and organizations behaviors actually
constituted organizational norm violations. As pointed out by the reviewer, although arriving late
for work may be counterproductive, it may not represent a norm violation if most all employees
engage in such behavior.
2. Previous research indicates that, overall, men are more likely than women to engage in (Geen,
2001; Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006) and experience deviant workplace behaviors (Duhart,
2001). Men and women have also been found to respond differently to experiences of workplace
exclusion (Hitlan, Cliffton, & DeSoto, 2006). Thus, we examined gender differences across
CWB and personality. Results indicated that, even after entering the main effects and the
interaction terms, gender contributed a significant proportion of unique variance to the prediction
of interpersonal CWB (for both coworker and supervisor analyses). Follow-up mean
comparisons between males and females indicated that, overall, men engaged in significantly
higher levels of interpersonal CWB (M = 2.16, SD = 1.40) than did women (M = 1.39, SD = .51),
t = 4.02, p < .001, equal variances not assumed (Levene’s Test of equality of variances: F =
17.99, p < .001). In contrast, gender did not contribute significantly to the prediction of
organizational CWB.
Exclusion, Personality, and CWB
41
Appendix A
Workplace Exclusion Scale (WES-R) Items
1. Your boss or supervisor complimenting you on a job well done. (Supervisor - R)
2. Coworkers giving you the “silent treatment.” (Coworker)
3. Coworkers shutting you out of their conversations. (Coworker)
4. Coworkers giving you the impression that they enjoy your company. (Coworker - R)
5. Coworkers interacting with you only when they are required to do so. (Coworker)
6. Feeling accepted by other employees at your organization. (Coworker - R)
7. Employees updating you about important work-related activities. (Coworker - R)
8. Supervisors not replying to your requests/questions within a reasonable period of time. (Supervisor)
9. Coworkers making you feel like you were not a part of the organization. (Coworker)
10. Supervisors inviting you to participate in work-related activities (Supervisor - R)
11. Coworkers speaking to one another in a language you do not understand. (Language)
12. Coworkers not speaking English on the job. (Language)
13. Being unable to interact with others at work due to language communication difficulties. (Language)
14. Supervisors keeping important work-related information from you (e.g., deadlines) (Supervisor)
15. Supervisors interacting with you at work. (Supervisor - R)
16. Felt as if you were being ostracized by coworkers. (Criterion)
17. Felt as if you were being ostracized by supervisors. (Criterion)