Work & Stress Vol. 25, No. 2, AprilJune 2011, 93107 Bored employees misbehaving: The relationship between boredom and counterproductive work behaviour Kari Bruursemaa, Stacey R. Kesslerb* and Paul E. Spectorc a Department of Psychology, Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043, USA; Department of Management and Information Systems, School of Business, Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043, USA; cDepartment of Psychology, University of South, Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA b In this study, the relationships among boredom proneness, job boredom, and counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) were examined. Boredom proneness consists of several factors, which include external stimulation and internal stimulation. Given the strong relationships between both the external stimulation factor of boredom proneness (BP-ext) and anger as well as the strong relationship between trait anger and CWB, we hypothesized that examining BP-ext would help us to better understand why employees commit CWB. Five types of CWB have previously been described: abuse against others, production deviance, sabotage, withdrawal and theft. To those we added a sixth, horseplay. Using responses received from 211 participants who were recruited by email from throughout North America (112 of them matched with co-workers), we found support for our central premise. Indeed, both BPext and job boredom showed significant relationships with various types of CWB. The boredom proneness factor also moderated the relationship between job boredom and some types of CWB, suggesting that a better understanding of boredom is imperative for designing interventions to prevent CWB. Keywords: counterproductive work behaviour; job boredom; boredom proneness; aggression Introduction Researchers have long neglected the role of boredom in organizations. The few researchers who have examined boredom have looked at it as a characteristic of the job (job boredom), a characteristic of the person (boredom proneness), or as an emotion. Traditionally, job boredom has been associated with blue collar jobs that contain monotonous and/or repetitive tasks (Melamed, Ben-Avi, Luz, & Green, 1995). However, researchers have suggested that job boredom is not solely a function of assembly line jobs (Fisher, 1993). In fact, job boredom is also associated with white collar jobs as researchers have found job boredom, sometimes coined ‘‘managerial malaise,’’ in upper echelon positions in organizations (Fisher, 1993). Along these lines, researchers have noted that some individuals are more likely to experience boredom across a range of situations (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). *Corresponding author. Email: kesslers@mail.montclair.edu ISSN 0267-8373 print/ISSN 1464-5335 online # 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2011.596670 http://www.informaworld.com 94 K. Bruursema et al. Researchers have found that boredom relates to many undesirable organizational variables including job dissatisfaction and turnover (Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender, 2001), reduced work effectiveness (Drory, 1982), and withdrawal (Spector et al., 2006). We propose that boredom will also relate to counterproductive work behaviours (CWB), that is, behaviours that harm organizations, and/or organizational stakeholders such as co-workers or supervisors (Spector & Fox, 2005). In order to understand boredom, it is necessary to examine a person’s disposition (boredom proneness) as well as the nature of the specific job (job boredom). In the current study, we examine both aspects of boredom. Counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) CWB is behaviour by employees that harms organizations and/or organizational stakeholders including clients, co-workers, customers, and supervisors (Spector & Fox, 2005). The construct of CWB subsumes workplace aggression that also consists of harmful acts, but generally directed at people as opposed to organizations. Spector et al. (2006) divided CWB into five types that were shown to have different patterns of relationships with other variables. Abuse against others consists of either physically or psychologically harmful behaviours directed towards others in the organization, ranging in severity from ignoring someone to hitting or pushing someone. Production deviance is the purposeful failure to perform job tasks effectively, such as working slowly when there are deadlines. Sabotage refers to the defacing or destroying of organizational property. Withdrawal encompasses behaviour that restricts time spent working to less than what is required by the organization. Finally, theft is taking property belonging to the organization or another individual. We added a sixth category of CWB, termed horseplay, consisting of behaviours that deal with playing games or engaging in time and resource-wasting. The idea behind these behaviours is that they are fun or interesting activities that might harm the organization or other organizational members. Examples include playing nonwork-related games in company time, using the internet for non-work-related activities, gossiping, or playing practical jokes. Boredom Boredom has been defined as ‘‘a state of relatively low arousal and dissatisfaction which is attributed to an inadequately stimulating environment’’ (Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993, p. 3). Kass et al. (2001) distinguish between boredom as a reaction to the conditions of the job and boredom proneness. Job boredom is a job property that induces boredom in people. Jobs with repetitive tasks that have low skill requirements are likely to be widely seen as boring (Melamed et al., 1995). On the other hand, boredom proneness refers to individual differences in people’s likelihood of becoming bored in a given situation (Culp, 2006); a profile of the boredom-prone individual is one who is a-motivational and perceives routine tasks as requiring significant effort (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). Empirical research has found support for differentiating between boredom proneness and job boredom (Kass et al., 2001). As regards job boredom, limited research has suggested that monotonous and repetitive work might adversely affect employees. Individuals reporting high levels of Work & Stress 95 job boredom have higher levels of absenteeism (Kass et al., 2001; Melamed et al., 1995), higher levels of withdrawal (Spector et al., 2006), lower levels of job satisfaction (Melamed et al., 1995), and reduced work effectiveness (Drory, 1982). Jointly, these studies provide preliminary support for a link between job boredom and CWB. Although previous researchers hypothesized relationships between job boredom and CWB, the mechanisms underlying this relationship have not been empirically examined. Fisher (1993) suggests that employees might engage in counterproductive behaviours in order to ‘‘reduce boredom by creating a change of activity, reasserting personal freedom of choice, and providing the excitement of risking injury or discovery’’ (p. 408). Alternately, one might consider the characteristics of jobs that lead to boredom as a form of job stressor that would be expected to contribute to CWB. Specifically, Spector and Fox’s (2002) job stressor model suggests that employees often respond to stressors with CWB. We propose that these two theories are compatible as from both perspectives, CWB is a means of coping with stressful or boring situations. Regarding boredom proneness. Farmer and Sundberg (1986) describe the boredomprone individual as one who tends to report depression, hopelessness, loneliness, and distractibility. Boredom-prone individuals often view common tasks as requiring a great deal of effort and report low levels of job satisfaction and psychological wellbeing (Gould & Seib, 1997; Kass et al., 2001). They are also more likely to experience feelings of alienation (Tolor & Siegel, 1989), are more likely to procrastinate (Vodanovich & Rupp, 1999), and are more likely to report poor mental and physical well-being (Sommers & Vodanovich, 2000). Therefore, individuals who are boredom prone may be especially sensitive to repetitive jobs. This is not to say that those who score low on boredom proneness are never bored and those who score high are always bored. Rather, there are threshold differences depending on the person’s boredom proneness level. Farmer and Sundberg (1986) originally conceptualized boredom proneness as a unidimensional scale. However, other researchers suggest that boredom proneness is multidimensional and consists of two to five factors (Culp, 2006; Vodanovich, 2003; Vodanovich & Kass, 1990; Vodanovich, Wallace, & Kass, 2005). Despite debate as to the exact number of factors, two factors external and internal stimulation consistently emerge across studies (Vodanovich, 2003; Vodanovich et al., 2005). Boredom prone-external stimulation (which we will refer to as BP-ext) refers to an individual’s propensity to view the external environment as having low stimulation while boredom-prone internal stimulation (BP-int) refers to a person’s inability to occupy oneself or to create an exciting environment (Vodanovich et al., 2005). BP-ext individuals are more likely to experience anger, to score highly on trait anger scales, to display aggression and hostility, to lack honesty/humility, to experience a deficit in anger control, and to engage in unsafe/risky driving (Dahlen, Martin, Ragan, & Kuhlman, 2005; Dahlen, Martin, Ragan, & Kuhlman, 2004; Rupp & Vodanovich, 1997). These findings are consistent with Culp’s (2006) idea that these BP-ext individuals are undersocialized and have a tendency towards behaving irresponsibly. Although better able to control their anger (Kass, Beede, & Vodanovich, 2010; Rupp & Vodanovich, 1997), BP-int individuals tend to be less open to experiences, less extraverted, and lack conscientiousness. Given that trait 96 K. Bruursema et al. anger is one of the strongest predictors of CWB (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Spector et al., 2006) and that BP-ext is associated with anger and aggression (Dahlen et al., 2004), it is likely that the BP-ext, as opposed to BP-int, will be related to CWB. This is not to say that BP-int is benign. Rather, given the link between anger, BP-ext, and CWB, it makes theoretical sense to focus on the external stimulation dimension. We do, however, include BP-int for comparison purposes. Current study and hypotheses The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationships between job boredom, BP-ext, and CWB. Although researchers have found empirical support for differentiating between boredom proneness and job boredom (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986; Kass et al., 2001), there are still problems with this distinction. Specifically, some of the items on the job boredom scale that we used in this study are quite objective (e.g., does monotonous describe your job?), while other items seem to ask about an employee’s feelings regarding the job (e.g., do you get bored with your work?). This problem with the job boredom scale highlights the difficulty in disentangling feelings from perceptions. In an attempt to combat this methodological issue, we conducted a factor analysis on the job boredom items and only included items loading on one factor composed of the more objective items. As noted, previous researchers have suggested that boredom proneness, in general, is associated with negative outcomes (e.g., Kass et al., 2001; Watt, 2002). Since researchers have found a link between BP-ext and both anger and aggression, (Dahlen et al., 2004) and that trait anger is among the strongest predictors of both workplace aggression (Douglas & Martinko, 2001) and CWB (Spector et al., 2006), we propose that BP-ext employees are likely to engage in more CWB, but mainly the more direct forms that are most likely to be linked to negative emotions such as anger. Hypothesis 1a: BP-ext will be positively related to the three more active and direct forms of CWB-abuse, sabotage, and production deviance. While anger and aggression are related to acts of CWB, it is also possible that employees who are more prone to BP-ext might do other things in response to this emotion. First, it is possible that employees might need some form of external stimulation to reduce these feelings of boredom. Along these lines, injustice is a common antecedent of theft (e.g., Greenberg, 2000; Payne & Gainey, 2004) and employees high on BP-ext might be more likely to perceive injustice and respond by stealing. It is also possible for employees to engage in theft for amusement purposes. Therefore, we propose that employees who are prone to boredom might commit more acts of theft in an effort to entertain themselves. Hypothesis 1b: BP-ext will be positively related to CWB-theft. Employees who are prone to BP-ext might also withdraw from work situations in an effort to escape their boredom. In this case, their intentions are to reduce the discomfort associated with boredom. Therefore, we propose that employees who score are high on the BP-ext scale may tend to withdraw from work-related activities. Work & Stress 97 Hypothesis 1c: BP-ext will be positively related to CWB-withdrawal. While BP-ext employees might steal materials from the organization or mock others in order to amuse themselves, they might also directly engage in horseplay in order to alleviate feelings of boredom. Therefore, we also propose that these individuals will engage in horseplay behaviours such as searching the internet or playing practical jokes. Hypothesis 1d: BP-ext will be positively related to CWB-Horseplay. The literature examining the link between job boredom and work outcomes is somewhat more developed than that between boredom proneness and work outcomes. Similar to results with boredom proneness, researchers have found significant negative correlations between job satisfaction and job boredom (Lee, 1986; MacDonald & MacIntyre, 1997). Furthermore, Hershcovis et al. (2007) found in their meta-analysis that job dissatisfaction was associated with CWB. Taken together, these findings suggest that job boredom might correlate positively with CWB. Similarly, researchers have found a link between job boredom and absenteeism, a form of CWB withdrawal (Kass et al., 2001). Hypothesis 2a: There will be a positive relationship between job boredom (both self and co-worker reported) and CWB-withdrawal. Researchers have suggested that employees may respond to job boredom with CWBs such as sabotage in order to stimulate themselves and create some excitement in the workplace (Fisher, 1993). Therefore, it is possible that individuals working in jobs perceived as boring might also be prone to engaging in more active types of CWB. Hypothesis 2b: There will be a positive relationship between job boredom (both self and co-worker reported) and CWB (production deviance, abuse, and sabotage). It is also possible that employees view the boring job itself as inherently unjust, and therefore respond to this injustice with more calculated actions. Previous researchers have found a link between injustice and boredom. For example, Spector et al. (2006) found a -.18 correlation between boredom and procedural justice. Fisher (1993) also suggests that employees might engage in theft in an effort to create excitement and alleviate job boredom. Hypothesis 2c: There will be a positive relationship between job boredom (both self and co-worker reported) and CWB-theft. Finally, employees experiencing high levels of job boredom might also engage in behaviours designed to amuse themselves and provide a degree of excitement in the workplace (Fisher, 1993). Therefore, we also propose a relationship between job boredom and horseplay. 98 K. Bruursema et al. Hypothesis 2d: There will be a positive relationship between job boredom (both self and co-worker reported) and CWB-horseplay. Kass and Vodanovich (1990) found that BP-ext was similar to the Type A behaviour pattern in that both types of people exhibit impatience in situations imposing constraints and lacking stimulation. This type of boredom proneness was also similar to sensation seeking in that both show a need for varied, novel, and exciting environments. This finding could suggest that BP-ext individuals would perform particularly poorly under conditions that could yield job boredom (e.g., mundane and repetitive tasks that may lead to understimulation). Furthermore, the presence of impatience could signal emotional reactions to negative environmental conditions that could elicit CWB. Combine this with the finding by Watt and Vodanovich (1992) that boredom proneness significantly correlated with impulsiveness and the finding by Vodanovich, Verner, and Gilbride (1991) that boredom proneness correlated with all sub-facets of negative affect (e.g., depression, hostility, anxiety, dysphoria), and the case for a relationship with CWB strengthens. Essentially, when BP-ext employees are placed in a non-stimulating work environment, they are likely to feel impatient, anxious, and hostile and act impulsively, thus leading them to engage in CWB. Hypothesis 3: The relationship between job boredom and CWB (all 6 types) will be moderated by BP-ext such that the relationship will be stronger when BP-ext is high than when BP-ext is low. Method Participants The sample consisted of 211 employees working 30 hours or more per week throughout North America. Participants held jobs in a wide variety of industries, including arts, education, finance, information technologies, healthcare, human resources, management, and sales. They were asked to choose one co-worker with a similar or identical job to their own to fill out a brief survey on their own perceptions of job boredom. Of the 211 respondents, 114 returned the co-worker survey, resulting in 114 matched pairs. Most of the participants were female (61%) and the mean age of the participants was 35 years. Measures Participants’ surveys included measures of boredom proneness, job boredom, and CWB. Additionally, participants provided the following demographics information: industry type, educational level, hours worked per week, gender, and age. Co-workers only completed the job boredom scale. Boredom proneness. Boredom proneness was measured using Farmer and Sundberg’s (1986) 28-item Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS). The response format was changed from true-false to a 7-point Likert scale (from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree) in order to increase its precision, following the procedure used Work & Stress 99 by Dahlen et al. (2004). For this study, internal consistency for the full scale was .82. This supported prior studies, which have reported internal consistencies between .79 and .84 (e.g., Kass & Vodanovich, 1990; McLeod & Vodanovich, 1991; Watt & Blanchard, 1994). Based upon suggestions from previous researchers (i.e., Vodanovich, 2003; Vodanovich et al., 2005), we also divided these items into two subscales: boredom proneness due to a lack of external stimulation and boredom proneness due to a lack of internal stimulation. An example item for BP-int is, ‘‘In any situation, I can usually find something to do or see to keep me interested’’ and example item for BP-ext is, ‘‘It takes a lot of change and variety to keep me really happy.’’ BP-ext was our main focus, but we included the internal stimulation items as a source of comparison. The external stimulation factor contained 8 items and has an alpha of .75 for the current sample. The internal stimulation factor also contained 8 items and had an alpha of .63. Job boredom. Lee’s (1986) scale was used to measure job boredom. The Job Boredom Scale consists of 17 items along a 7-point Likert scale (1 never to 7 always) that ask respondents to indicate how dull and tedious they tend to find their jobs/work life to be. Previous coefficient alphas for the scale have been reported at .95 (Kass et al., 2001). Researchers have provided validation evidence indicated by significantly negative correlations between job boredom and job satisfaction using the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). While additional validity evidence suggests that the boredom proneness scale and the job boredom scale are distinct concepts (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986), some of the job boredom items were similar to items on the boredom proneness scale. Furthermore, although some items ask about the nature of job tasks, some asked about how the respondent feels about the job. Therefore, we conducted a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation on both the self-reported and co-worker reported items and found three distinct factors (only two factors, though, when assessing the co-workers’ responses). For both sets of items, four items that seemed to best reflect the nature of the job loaded on a single factor. These included: ‘‘Does the job seem repetitive?’’, ‘‘Does monotonous describe your job?’’, ‘‘Is your work tedious?’’, and ‘‘Is your work pretty much the same day after day?’’ Since we were attempting to assess characteristics of the job, we only included these items in our analyses. The alphas were .85 for the self-reported scale and .86 for the co-worker reported scale. Counterproductive work behaviour (CWB). CWB was measured using the 45 items of the Counterproductive Work Behaviour Checklist (CWB-C) developed by Spector et al. (2006). Thirty-three of the items produce five subscales of CWB. These include: abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal. Response choices for the scale were: 1 never, 2 once or twice, 3 once or twice per month, 4 once or twice per week, 5 daily or almost daily. Respondents were instructed to answer the questions with respect to their present job. Since this scale is a causal indicator (formative measure), meaning that the related but conceptually distinct items combine to form the construct, rather than vice versa (Bollen & Lennox, 1991), coefficient alphas for the scale and subscales are not important. For this study, total scale reliability was .91. This supports previous findings as Spector et al. reported an alpha of .87 for the total scale. 100 K. Bruursema et al. Additionally, we included a new subscale of ‘‘horseplay’’ consisting of five items that dealt with playing games or engaging in time and resource-wasting but potentially fun or interesting activities. The five new items are as follows: ‘‘Created or engaged in a non work-related game or activity to entertain myself and/or others during a meeting, seminar, or training session’’; ‘‘Used the internet to browse, blog, email, or otherwise amuse myself for non work-related purposes’’, ‘‘Engaged in amusing activities such as gossiping or joking with co-workers that distract me and others from work’’, ‘‘Played practical jokes on co-workers or customers to entertain myself and/or co-workers during work time’’, ‘‘Wasted company resources or supplies to create something for my own purposes or to amuse myself or others’’. The alpha was .70. Procedure All survey responses were collected in an online format using standard survey software. Respondents were recruited through an email snowball administration. We began by asking networks of colleagues, friends, and acquaintances who then asked their colleagues, friends, and acquaintances to participate. We were also provided with email contact lists from some friends and family members. Due to the nature of the administration, there is no way to determine response rates. In order to measure job boredom independently, we used both self reports and co-worker reports of job boredom. Participants were asked to choose one co-worker who had a job similar to their own to complete the online job boredom scale. The coworker report provides an additional lens for examining aspects of the job itself independently of the target respondent. To match pairs while maintaining anonymity, participants were asked to choose a secret code to enter at the beginning of their survey, and to give the code to their co-worker to enter at the beginning of his/her survey. Note that our moderator hypothesis (Hypothesis 3) was tested with six sets of moderated multiple regression analyses. A hierarchical approach was used with the additive terms included at step 1, and the product term added at step 2. Each analysis included one of the six types of CWB regressed on job boredom and BP-ext at step 1, and job boredom, BP-ext and the product of job boredom and BP-ext at step 2. Significance of the product term at step 2 was taken as evidence of a moderator effect. The form of the significant moderators was plotted by substituting values into the step 2 moderator equations at / one standard deviation from the mean of the BP-ext variable. Results Descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix are presented in Table 1. Hypotheses 1a-1d were all supported, as BP-ext related to all five types of CWB and to our additional horseplay scale. That is, these boredom-prone workers were more likely to have high scores on abuse (r .32), sabotage (r .27), production deviance (r .29), theft (r .30), withdrawal (r .40), and horseplay (r.22; all psB.01). Interestingly, BP-ext was most strongly correlated with withdrawal (.40), suggesting that employees prone to this type of boredom are likely to avoid the work environment by engaging Table 1. Zero-order Pearson correlations among study variables. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 .22** .02 .10 .15 10.66 3.74 .02 .35** .15 27.56 8.12 9 10 11 .33** 13.63 5.06 13.24 5.03 .89** .63** .74** .76** .64** .74** .38** .09 .28** .20* 72.78 15.10 .48** .53** .62** .43** .57** .32** .11 .30** .24** 23.91 5.65 .35** .68** .53** .32** .27** .07 .22** .11 3.53 1.03 .48** .49** .52** .40** .14 .31** .16 9.53 3.18 Work & Stress 1. CWB 2. Abuse 3. Sabotage 4. Withdrawal 5. Production deviance 6. Theft 7. Horseplay 8. BP-ext 9. BP-int 10. Job boredom 11. Co-worker job boredom Mean SD 2 .54** .35** .29** .02 .21** .16 8.31 2.08 .37** .30** .10 .17* .00 5.60 3.74 .20** .03 23.36 5.78 Notes: *pB.05, **pB.01, CWB counterproductive work behaviour, BP-ext external boredom proneness, BP-int internal boredom proneness. N 211 for all correlations except for co-worker reports (N 114). 101 102 K. Bruursema et al. in such activities as taking longer breaks than are permitted or working fewer hours than expected. This makes sense given Spector et al.’s (2006) explanation that withdrawal ‘‘is an attempt to avoid or escape a situation rather than do direct harm [as] an individual might wish to escape . . . situations that induce negative emotions’’ (p. 450). Therefore, BP-ext employees seem most likely to engage in withdrawal behaviours, as compared with other forms of CWB, as a means of avoiding feelings of boredom. Hypotheses 2a2c were fully supported for measures of self-reported job boredom and partially supported for co-worker reported job boredom. More Table 2. Moderated regressions using external stimulation. Abuse Sabotage Production deviance Withdrawal Theft Horseplay Intercept 15.886 .243** Job boredom (JB)a External stimulation (ES)a .171** 2.354 .029* 5.868 .050 4.301 .124** 4.330 .019 7.702 .016 .028** .064** .129** .050** .100** Employee Step 1 Step 2 Intercept Job boredom (JB)a External stimulation (ES)a JB ESa R2 Change 21.341 .144 .034 .014 .011 4.164 .10 .04 8.414 .130 .032 8.762 .193 .039 6.216 .115 .021 10.885 .210 .020 .005** .038** .007* .019* .011* .024* .005* .021* .008 .009 2.399 .016 .033* 5.169 .052 .093** 3.704 .062 .178** 4.366 .014 .068** 6.420 .097 .116* 3.277 .051 .000 6.483 .049 .043 6.507 .152 .072 3.623 .043 .096 12.330 .355 .107 .002 .008 .004 .004 .008 .009 .002 .002 .017 .024 Co-worker Step 1 Intercept 14.601 .239** Job boredom (JB)a External .232* stimulation (ES)a Step 2 Intercept 18.550 Job Boredom (JB)a .062 External .083 stimulation (ES)a .011 JB ESa R2 Change .005 N 211 for employee reported job boredom and N 114 for co-worker reported job boredom. a Unstandardized regression coefficient. * p B.05, ** p B.01. Work & Stress Figure 1. drawal. 103 Boredom proneness (external stimulation) moderating job boredom and with- specifically, job boredom was significantly related to measures of abuse, sabotage, withdrawal, production deviance, and theft, with correlations ranging from .17 to .31 (all psB.05). Co-worker reports of job boredom significantly related to abuse (r.24, pB.01) but not to the other four measures of CWB. Additionally, we did not find support for hypothesis 2d as neither self reports nor co-worker reports of job boredom related to the incumbent’s report of horseplay. Hypothesis 3, our moderator hypothesis, was partially supported using selfreports of job boredom but not using co-worker reports of job boredom (see Table 2 and Figure 1). This means that BP-ext moderated the relationship between selfreported job boredom four types of CWB (sabotage, production deviance, withdrawal, and theft), such that BP-ext employees are more likely to engage in withdrawal behaviours when encountering job boredom than are low BP-ext employees. Please note that Figure 1 presents only one interaction as the other interactions were similar in form to this figure. Discussion Our results suggest that boredom as a function of both the job and an employee’s disposition has important implications for organizations in that both were related to at least some types of CWB. On the disposition side, perhaps this occurred because BP-ext individuals are angry and frustrated because they hold the organization responsible for their boredom. Given the strong link between anger and both aggression (Douglas & Martinko, 2001) and CWB (Spector et al., 2006), it is not surprising that BP-ext would relate to CWB. Our analyses suggested that dispositional boredom serves as a moderator of the job boredom-CWB relationship. Specifically, employees high in BP-ext might attempt to cope with the experience of boredom by destroying property, stealing, or ultimately attempting to avoid work by withdrawing from the environment. This fits with the idea that BP-ext individuals are especially susceptible to the effects of boring situations and will therefore engage in CWB as a means of coping with the 104 K. Bruursema et al. boredom. It is important to note that BP-ext individuals did not abuse their fellow co-workers in response to job boredom. Perhaps this is because BP-ext employees working in boring jobs believe that, at least to some extent, the organization is to blame for the boring job and not their co-workers. Therefore, in keeping with prior findings (Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006), employees directed CWB towards the target of their displeasure, that is the organization, as opposed to their colleagues. Additionally, it should be noted that the BP-int subscale did not correlate with any type of CWB. Theoretical implications and future research Our findings support our proposed link between the boredom literature and the CWB literature. We believe that the key link is anger, as boredom researchers have found relationships between anger, aggression, and BP-ext (Dahlen et al., 2004), while CWB researchers have found a strong connection between anger and CWB (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Spector et al., 2006). We believe that these boredom findings fit nicely within Spector and Fox’s (2002) job stress/emotion CWB model. In line with this model, job boredom seems to be a stressor or an aspect of the work environment that leads to negative emotions and, ultimately, to CWB. In many ways, the reaction of a BP-ext employee fits nicely within the idea of the psychological contract (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Since these contracts are often unspoken, it is quite possible that in a BP-ext person’s schema he or she expects the organization to provide a job free from boredom. Therefore, although this study sought to examine the link between the boredom and CWB literatures, it also provides a roadmap for psychological contract researchers to examine the role of boredom, at least from the employee’s viewpoint. It might be that BP-ext employees need to work in fast-paced jobs where they will not have time to be bored. In other words, perhaps it is unfair to label these boredom-prone types as ‘‘bad employees.’’ Rather, they could be productive and an asset to organizations under the right circumstances. Although our study assessed boredom at the job level, it would be useful to link various job conditions to boredom as an emotional state. Job conditions that might lead to boredom included both qualitative underload (tasks that are too routine and simple given a person’s skills) and quantitative underload (having too little to do to keep busy). Other elements of the job that might contribute to boredom should also be investigated. Given the sparse organizational literature on boredom, it would be fruitful for researchers to explore conditions of work that lead to this emotion. Limitations One of the most important limitations in the current study is our lack of power to detect moderators using the co-worker data, since we only had 114 co-worker responses. Perhaps this explains why the results were stronger with the self-report measure (N 211) of job boredom. Aguinis, Beaty, Boik, & Pierce (2005) noted that a lack of power to detect moderators is not uncommon. In their review of moderator tests, the median effect size was .002 (adjusted F2 for categorical moderators). It is important to note that their paper reviewed studies published in three top journals. Given these common findings of low effect sizes as well as the expected downward Work & Stress 105 biases of effect sizes, our comparatively strong R2 change values are likely quite meaningful. Another limitation is the single source for the CWB data. Research using multisource data has found correspondence between self and other report CWB measures, and in many cases a similar pattern of relationships with other variables (e.g., BrukLee & Spector, 2006; Penney & Spector, 2005). This suggests that it is unlikely that the relationships between self-reported CWB and other variables are due to shared biases among self-report measures. One should keep in mind that while our study was designed to address hypothetical antecedents of CWB, our cross-sectional non-experimental design does not allow for causal conclusions. Although it may be that CWB is the effect of being in a boring job, it is also possible that engaging in CWB is the cause of perceptions of boredom, that is, individuals who engage in such behaviours rationalize their actions using the boredom associated with the job. Implications for practice While a number of authors have expressed concerns that managers need to pay attention to stress and CWB (e.g., Spector & Fox, 2005), our results suggest that managers also need to take steps to reduce workplace boredom. Such steps include reducing the monotonous nature of jobs to the extent that it is feasible, or to provide breaks from long periods of routine work. Some of these reductions are aided by better incorporating technology into the workplace. Managers should also look to qualitatively enhance the nature of employees’ work. One common way to do this, for example, is to enhance the scope of an employee’s project work by allowing employees to work on multiple stages of a project. As proposed by Hackman and Oldham (1976) in their job characteristics model, having feelings of responsibility for outcomes of the work helps to motivate employees. Perhaps motivated employees are less likely to experience boredom and therefore will be less likely to commit CWB. Another implication is the need to teach coping skills to boredom-prone employees so that these employees can handle situations where they are likely to experience boredom. Coping skills can take a variety of forms including teaching the person to take short breaks to reduce feelings of boredom, to switch between multiple tasks often, or even to provide one’s self with rewards in order to maintain a level of motivation. Conclusions The major findings of this study suggest that boredom is a potentially important variable that contributes to CWB in organizations. Individuals who find themselves in boring jobs might engage in various types of counterproductive behaviours. Furthermore, high BP-ext employees are particularly likely to respond to job boredom with CWB. What is unclear from this study is how job boredom and boredom proneness relate to various affective states and traits, such as anger, anxiety, boredom, and perhaps depression (another low arousal state). Our study clearly indicates that boredom should no longer be neglected in research on CWBs. 106 K. Bruursema et al. References Aguinis, H., Beaty, J.C., Boik, R.J., & Pierce, C.A. (2005). Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 94107. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305314. Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P.E. (2006). The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviours link: Are conflicts with supervisors and coworkers the same? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 145156. Culp, N.A. (2006). The relations of two facets of boredom proneness with the major dimensions of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 9991007. Dahlen, E.R., Martin, R.C., Ragan, K., & Kuhlman, M.M. (2004). Boredom proneness in anger and aggression: Effects of impulsiveness and sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 16151627. Dahlen, E.R., Martin, R.C., Ragan, K., & Kuhlman, N.M. (2005). Driving anger, sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and boredom proneness in the prediction of unsafe driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37, 341348. Douglas, S.C., & Martinko, M.J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 547559. Drory, A. (1982). Individual differences in boredom proneness and task effectiveness at work. Personnel Psychology, 35, 141151. Farmer, R., & Sundberg, N.D. (1986). Boredom proneness: The development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 417. Fisher, C.D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46, 395418. Gould, C., & Seib, H.M. (1997). Job satisfaction as a function of boredom proneness and central life interests. Paper presented at the 43rd annual Southeastern Psychological Association Meeting, Atlanta, GA. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561568. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 16, 250279. Hershcovis, M.S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K.A., Dupre, K.E., Inness, M. et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228238. Kass, S.J., Beede, K., & Vodanovich, S.J. (2010). Self-report measures of distractibility as correlates of simulated driving performance. Accident, Analysis and Prevention, 42, 874880. Kass, S.J., & Vodanovich, S.J. (1990). Boredom proneness: Its relationship to Type A behavior pattern and sensation seeking. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 27, 716. Kass, S.J., Vodanovich, S.J., & Callender, A. (2001). State-boredom proneness: Relationship to absenteeism, tenure, and job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 317327. Lee, T.W. (1986). Toward the development and validation of a measure of job boredom. Manhattan College Journal of Business, 15, 2228. MacDonald, S., & MacIntyre, P. (1997). The generic job satisfaction scale: Scale development and its correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13, 116. McLeod, C.R., & Vodanovich, S.J. (1991). The relationship between self-actualization and boredom proneness. [Special issue]. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 6, 137146. Melamed, S., Ben-Avi, I., Luz, J., & Green, M.S. (1995). Objective and subjective work monotony: Effects on job satisfaction, psychological distress, and absenteeism in blue-collar workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 2942. Mikulas, W.L., & Voadanovich, S.J. (1993). The essence of boredom. The Psychological Record, 43, 312. Morrison, E.W, & Robinson, S.L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226256. Work & Stress 107 Payne, B.K., & Gainey, R.R. (2004). Ancillary consequences of employee theft. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 6373. Penney, L.M., & Spector, P.E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behaviour (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26, 777796. Rupp, D.E., & Vodanovich, S.J. (1997). The role of boredom proneness in self-reported anger and aggression. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12, 925936. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally. Sommers, J., & Vodanovich, S.J. (2000). Boredom proneness: Its relationship to psychologicaland physical-health symptoms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 149155. Spector, P.E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behaviour: Some parallels between counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Human Resources Management Review, 12, 269292. Spector, P.E., & Fox, S. (2005). A model of counterproductive work behaviour. In S. Fox & P.E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive workplace behaviour: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151174). Washington, DC: APA. Spector, P.E., Fox, S., Penney, L.M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviours created equal? Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 68, 446460. Tolor, A., & Siegel, M.C. (1989). Boredom proneness and political activism. Psychological Reports, 65, 235240. Vodanovich, S.J. (2003). Psychometric measures of boredom: A review of the literature. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 137, 569595. Vodanovich, S.J., & Kass, S.J. (1990). A factor analytic study of the Boredom Proneness Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 115125. Vodanovich, S.J., & Rupp, D.E. (1999). Are procrastinators prone to boredom? Social Behaviour and Personality, 27, 1116. Vodanovich, S.J., Verner, K.M., & Gilbride, T.V. (1991). Boredom proneness: Its relationship to positive and negative affect. Psychological Reports, 69, 11391146. Vodanovich, S.J., Wallace, J.C., & Kass, S.J. (2005). A confirmatory approach to the factor structure of the boredom proneness scale: Evidence for a two-factor short form. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 295303. Wasson, A.S. (1981). Susceptibility to boredom and deviant behaviour at school. Psychological Reports, 48, 901902. Watt, J.D. (2002). Fighting more than fires: Boredom proneness, workload stress, and underemployment among urban firefighters. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 2637. Watt, J.D., & Blanchard, M.J. (1994). Boredom proneness and the need for cognition. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 167175. Watt, J.D., & Vodanovich, S.J. (1992). Relationship between boredom proneness and impulsivity. Psychological Reports, 70, 688690. Copyright of Work & Stress is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
