Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: This is subject called Industrial Relations.

I want you to write a research paper on Sexual harassment, you should address the following question:

1-What is sexual harassment?
2-How is it different from workplace bullying?
3-How does the law deal with it?
4-What are employers doing about it?


This is a research paper and it is vital that your work be substantiated with relevant and high quality research material. It is expected that at lest 15 peer reviewed articles are cited.

The paper should be set out as a report which includes an executive summary, table of contents introduction, conclusion and bibliography.


MARKING CRITERIA USED:
1-Discussion points: topics and issues raised; level of analysis;
2-References: quality and quantity of research material cited;
3-Written Work: Clarity, logical organization, grammar &spelling.


References:-

Here are some of referncess that can help you to write the paper,

References
ACIRRT 1999 Australia at Work, Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training, Sydney.

Wright, C. 1995, The Management of Labour., A History of Australian Employers, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Alexander, R. and Lewer, J (1998) Understanding Australian Industrial Relations, Harcourt Brace (pub).

Fox, C.B., Howard, W.A., and Pittard, M.J. (1995), Industrial Relations in Australia, Development, Law and Operation, Longman, Australia.

Dabscheck, B., Griffin, G. and Teicher, J. 1992, Contemporary Industrial Relations, Longman Cheshire.

Relevant Journals:
Journal of Industrial Relations
Australian Bulletin of Labour
Labour and Industry
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resource Management;
On-line resources available at the library home page:

Web Resources:
www.airc.gov.au provides information about the Australian Industrial Relations Commission
www.wagenet.gov.au provides all commission decisions and agreements

Essay Instructions: Please use this writer- Writer’s Username: Writergrrl101



1 Review table 2 (p.47). What concerns might you raise to the authors regarding the sample of individuals used for this study?

2. Review the limitations section of the paper (p.57). List three suggestions for the study’s re-design based on concerns raised in this section and describe each of the three suggestions.

3. Discuss the implications of the study and specifically focus on the practical impact the findings might have in the workplace. You may focus on a specific workplace, such as your own, or on workplaces in general.



Does Your Coworker Know What You’re Doing?
Convergence of Self- and Peer-Reports of
Counterproductive Work Behavior
Suzy Fox
Loyola University Chicago
Paul E. Spector, Angeline Goh, and Kari Bruursema
University of South Florida
Most studies of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) are criticized for
overreliance on self-report methodology. This study tested the convergence
of 136 matched self-reports and coworker-reports of work stressors and
CWB. For each participant dyad, the focal employee (“incumbent”) completed
a self-report survey and gave a coworker form to a peer familiar with
the incumbent’s work situation and behavior. Correlations and t tests demonstrated
significant convergence between incumbent and coworker reports
of key study variables, except organization-targeted CWB. Separately, both
incumbent and coworker reports supported the Stressor-Emotion CWB
model. In mixed-source analyses, only interpersonal relationships were significant—
conflict and CWB targeting persons. Weaknesses in each report
source are discussed, and multisourced triangulation to cover perceptual,
experiential, and behavioral domains is recommended.
Keywords: counterproductive work behavior (CWB), report convergence, job stress, workplace
emotions
Lately, organizational scholars and practitioners have expressed a great deal
of interest in voluntary behaviors whose intent or effect is to harm the organization
or its members. Such harmful behaviors have been variously conceptualized
as work aggression (Fox & Spector, 1999; Neuman & Baron, 1998),
deviance (Hollinger, 1986; Robinson & Bennett, 1995), antisocial behavior
Suzy Fox, Institute of Human Resources and Employment Relations, Loyola University
Chicago; Paul E. Spector, Angeline Goh, and Kari Bruursema, Department of Psychology,
University of South Florida.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Suzy Fox, Institute of
Human Resources and Employment Relations, Graduate School of Business, Loyola University
Chicago, 820 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611. E-mail:
International Journal of Stress Management Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association
2007, Vol. 14, No. 1, 41–60 1072-5245/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.1.41
41
(Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), or revenge
(Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997). We consider this wide range of behaviors
within the rubric of counterproductive work behavior (CWB).
While these studies have been acknowledged as critical to the well being
of our work organizations and the people within them, the preponderance of
self-report survey methodology in CWB studies is of concern. The current
study suggests an approach that goes beyond single-source self-report, while
at the same time offering some support of the validity of findings in the extant
body of CWB research.
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR
There are many different types of behavior that can harm the organization,
as there are many motives for engaging in such behavior. Without
claiming to account for all forms of CWB, Spector and Fox (2002; Fox &
Spector, 2006) developed a stressor-emotion model, suggesting that many of
these behaviors are responses to stressors at work. By integrating existing
CWB and job stress literatures, this framework takes into account both
cognitive/appraisal and emotional factors underlying behavioral choices.
At the core of both stress and emotion theories, people monitor and
appraise events in the environment (Lazarus, 1991, 1995). Emotion comes
into play when people appraise environmental events as threatening or
challenging to their well being. People’s appraisal of their abilities to meet
environmental challenges and their resulting emotions may motivate behavior
that will rce negative feelings and enhance positive feelings. In the
work organization, one outcome of this process may be CWB.
Fox, Spector, and Miles (2001) demonstrate that a variety of aspects of
the work environment (e.g., situational constraints, interpersonal conflict, and
perceptions of injustice) may be seen as threats to well being. These events
and conditions, appraised as stressors, may induce negative emotional reactions,
such as anger or anxiety (Fox & Spector, 2006). The process may
continue with coping mechanisms the person enacts to manage the situational
demands (problem-focused coping), the negative emotions (emotion-focused
coping), or both. Aversive outcomes of the job stress process, or strain, may
be psychological (e.g., job dissatisfaction or turnover intention), physical
(e.g., somatic symptoms, physiological changes, or long-term pathology), or
behavioral (CWB). Not all perceived stressors lead to intense emotions, nor
to immediate behavioral responses (Spector, 1998). Many personal factors
(such as trait affectivity, control beliefs, and personality) and environmental
factors (such as job characteristics, social support, and organizational culture)
interact with stressors, cognitive appraisals, emotions, and strain outcomes.
42 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
Based upon a typology developed by Robinson and Bennett (1995), it is
useful to classify CWB items as those behaviors targeting persons, CWBP
(“Made fun of someone’s personal life”), and those targeting the organization,
CWBO (“Failed to report a problem so it would get worse”). Prior
studies (Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox et al., 2001) have found consistently
distinct sets of relations between these two forms of CWB and situational and
dispositional antecedents. For example, CWBO was linked to conflict, organizational
constraints, distributive and procral justice, positive and negative
emotion, trait anger and anxiety, and autonomy. CWBP was linked to
the above except for distributive justice, positive emotion, and autonomy,
and, unlike CWBO, the strongest relation was with interpersonal conflict.
Trait anger and anxiety moderated some of the relations with CWBP, but not
with CWBO.
METHODOLOGICAL CONCERNS WITH SELF-REPORT STUDIES
While there is widespread agreement in the research and practitioner
communities about the importance to organizations of understanding and
managing CWB, our progress has been handicapped by methodological
concerns underlying most CWB research to date. With notable exceptions
(e.g., Perlow & Latham, 1993; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), studies of CWB
have relied primarily upon single source self-reports. Attempts to demonstrate
substantive relations among self-reported variables raise concerns such
as shared biases that distort correlations among measures.
This parallels two decades of discussion in the job stress literature where
a number of authors have questioned whether confounding variables such as
negative affectivity (NA), self-deception, or social desirability result in
inflated or spurious relations between stressors and strains in self-report
surveys (e.g., Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, & Webster,1988; Chen &
Spector, 1991; Hurrell, Nelson, & Simmons, 1998). Hurrell et al. (1998) note
that it has become almost pro forma among authors and their journal
reviewers to call for more objective means of measuring stressor-strain
relations, but the majority of studies in the area still rely on single source
designs. Fox and Spector (1999) address this issue, suggesting that self-report
methodology might be the most viable one for early stages of CWB research,
given the particular ethical difficulties in assessing CWB, the privileged
nature of job incumbents’ knowledge of their own covert behaviors, and a
substantive emphasis on incumbents’ perceptions and subjective responses
rather than on objective conditions in the work environment. Nevertheless,
the CWB research community is now at the point that more objective, or
nonincumbent, measures are needed to further our understanding of the
phenomenon.
Counterproductive Work Behavior 43
In the current study, we address the goal of going beyond self-report of
counterproductive work behavior and its antecedents. In so doing, we recognize
serious problems with alternative sources of data on counterproductive
behaviors. Only the job incumbent is fully aware of the acts he or she
actually does. Other sources, such as peers, clients, supervisors, or subordinates,
are privy to only those behaviors they can actually see or the results of
behaviors.
It might be expected that behaviors involving other people, such as
interpersonal conflict, are more readily perceivable by others by virtue of
being inherently “public” behaviors, as opposed to more “private” behaviors,
such as daydreaming or covert productivity slowdowns. A coworker is most
likely to notice behaviors that affect him or her directly. In addition, motivational
attributions play a role in a coworker’s classification of another’s
behaviors as counterproductive or aggressive (Neuman & Baron, 2005). The
behaviors that others see may be falsely attributed to counterproductive
intent; conversely, apparently “beneficial” behaviors may actually be motivated
by counterproductive intent.
At least as problematic is the assessment by others of experienced
environmental stressors, emotions, and linkages among stressors, cognitions,
emotions, and behavior. Once again, “public” stressors, such as an office
atmosphere rife with interpersonal conflict, are more likely to be perceived by
coworkers than “private” stressors, such as lack of necessary information to
perform a task. The accuracy of a coworker’s perceptions of a job incumbent’s
environmental constraints would depend on factors such as physical
proximity, common supervision, and task interdependency between the job
incumbent and the coworker. Finally, assessments of another’s emotions are
basically limited to inferences derived from emotional displays and behavioral
expressions.
The challenge then is that no single source of data is acceptably free of either
contamination or deficiency. Table 1 highlights this complexity, by presenting
examples of contamination and deficiency of self-report (job incumbent), otherreport
(coworker), and “objective” data, respectively. Single-source reports
(whether by the incumbent, a coworker, supervisor, or other source) of antecedent
and outcome variables are vulnerable to contamination by shared biases or
overlapping items. Conversely, reports by others of the incumbent’s work environment
and behaviors can capture only the “public” fraction of those experiences
and responses, making other-report by definition deficient. Objective or
archival data may be most accurate in reporting a very circumscribed range of
behaviors, but cannot be expected to generalize to the broader domain of CWB
and cannot identify incidents in which employees engaged in counterproductive
behavior but were never caught.
The current study attempts to triangulate on behaviors and perceptions of
the work environment by linking job incumbent self-report with coworker-
44 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
report of the incumbent’s behaviors and work environment. The extent of
convergence of these two data sources would be indicative of the usefulness
of this approach. Yet, perceptions of an individual’s work environment and
behaviors from two distinct viewpoints must be expected to demonstrate
substantial, perhaps even systematic differences. Indices of convergence may
fall below the generally accepted norms for internal consistency or even
interrater reliability (see Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Convergence between
self-report and report by others would likely depend on the others’ familiarity
with the incumbent’s environment, habits, and behaviors. The reporter would
be more likely to report on public behaviors and behaviors that directly affect
the reporter. Thus, open hostility and other person-directed behavior would
be more likely to be noticed by a coworker than would covert behaviors
Table 1. Examples of Potential Contamination and Deficiency in Self-Report, Other-Report,
and Objective Data
Data source
Contamination tendency:
Over-report
Deficiency tendency:
Under-report
Self-report
(incumbent) • 3rd variable bias (e.g. negative
affectivity or social
desirability) in perceiving/
reporting predictor and/or
criterion variables
• Item overlap between antecedent
and outcome variables
• Narcissistic pleasure in (over-)
reporting one’s own negative
behaviors
• Tendency to underreport on
questions about sensitive
topics, such as deviant
behavior, for fear of being
caught and punished
• Belief that behavior is
functional/beneficial, when
company and/or researcher
may define it as counterproductive
(e.g., not
following procres)
Other-report
(coworker) • Item overlap between antecedent
and outcome variables
• “Paranoid” perception of
negative intention where none
exists
• 3rd variable bias (e.g. NA) in
perceiving/reporting predictor
and/or criterion variablesa
• Personal agenda (e.g., desire for
revenge)
• Horn and halo errorsb
• Lack of access to “private”
experiences, behaviors, and
intentions
• Fear of retribution for reporting
coworker’s CWB
• Where theorized links are
between incumbent’s
perception, emotions, and
behaviors, coworker
perceptions may be irrelevant
or miss critical connections
“Objective measures”
(HR and
management
records, e.g., theft,
turnover,
absenteeism)
• Withdrawal behaviors may be
multiply determined, or
associated with external
factors such as labor market
conditions and work/nonwork
issues.
• Can represent only those
counterproductive behaviors
in which the employee has
been caught
• Limited types of behaviors
tracked
a Third variable bias: spurious or inflated relationship between two variables due to a third
variable effecting each one. b Halo (horn) errors: tendency of a rater to give higher (lower)
ratings on specific dimensions based on a high (low) global judgment.
Counterproductive Work Behavior 45
affecting productivity, such as daydreaming or pretending to work hard.
Since the incumbents and coworkers may be focusing on variably overlapping
but nonidentical sets of behaviors, we cannot expect total construct
convergence.
Nevertheless, while the agreement is not perfect, a coworker in the same
workgroup would experience or at least be aware of many of the same
constraints, conflicts, and other stressors as the job incumbent. Similarly, a
peer would be aware of at least a substantial portion of the typical work and
interpersonal behaviors of his or her coworker. Therefore, it would be
expected that peer and self-reports of both work conditions and behavior
would converge significantly, although not perfectly.
The following hypotheses address the extent to which incumbent selfreport
and peer-report of job stressors and counterproductive work behaviors
converge and the extent to which incumbent-reported antecedent variables
predict peer-reported behaviors and vice versa.
Hypothesis 1: Incumbent reports of stressors in the work environment
(organizational constraints and conflict) and incumbent outcome behaviors
(CWBP and CWBO) will converge (i.e., will be positively correlated)
with coworker reports of the same variables.
Hypothesis 2: Incumbent reports of stressors in the work environment
(organizational constraints, conflict, and justice) as well as incumbent job
satisfaction and job-related emotions will be correlated with incumbent
self-reported behaviors (CWBP and CWBO).
Hypothesis 3: Coworker reports of stressors in the work environment
(organizational constraints and conflict) will be correlated with coworker
reports of the incumbent’s behaviors (CWBP and CWBO).
Hypothesis 4: Incumbent reports of stressors in the work environment
(organizational constraints, conflict, and justice) as well as incumbent job
satisfaction and job-related emotions will be correlated with coworker
reports of the incumbent’s behaviors (CWBP and CWBO).
Hypothesis 5: Coworker reports of the incumbent’s work stressors (organizational
constraints and conflict) will be correlated with incumbent
self-reported job satisfaction, job-related emotions, and behaviors
(CWBP and CWBO).
46 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
METHOD
Participants and Procre
Surveys were distributed in five organizations in Chicago and Tampa.
Table 2 presents the types of organizations and numbers of surveys distributed
and returned. In addition, students enrolled in a Master of Science in
Human Resources program in Chicago, all full-time employees and mostly
managers, distributed the surveys to employees in their respective organizations.
The participants from the two universities included in the study were
nonacademic, full-time staff employees.
The project was described as a study of how people perceive and respond
to the conditions of their jobs. In each case, two survey booklets were given
to each employee, a self-report form and a separate coworker form, with
instructions to give the coworker form to a peer familiar with the employee’s
work situation and behavior. In all, 169 employee surveys were returned, for
which 136 matching surveys from coworkers were also returned.
Of the 169 employees who responded, 24.4% were men and 75.6% were
women. Of the coworkers who responded, 21.6% were men and 78.4% were
women. However, only 56.2% of the employee-coworker dyads were of the
same gender. Of the employees, 26.4% were managers and 73.6% were
nonmanagerial employees; 91.3% classified themselves as white-collar workers.
Due to the sensitive nature of the questionnaire items, no further
demographic data were collected.
In both cities, surveys were conducted anonymously. Participants were
mailed both their own survey and one for a coworker, except for the
student/managers, who personally passed out the survey booklets in their
organizations. Each job incumbent was given a “Reactions to Work” employee
questionnaire booklet. In addition, he or she was given a “Reactions
to Work” coworker questionnaire booklet, with the instructions to label both
booklets with a matching secret code. The incumbent was to ask a coworker,
Table 2. Study Participants
Type of company
Survey
pairs
distributed
Employee surveys
returned
Survey pairs
returned
Financial consultants 6 6 (100%) 6 (100%)
Accounting 8 6 (75%) 6 (75%)
Private Midwestern University 500 62 (12.4%) 42 (8.4%)
Behavioral health services 12 5 (41.7%) 5 (41.7%)
Graduate students’ coworkers 50 16 (26.7%) 15 (25.0%)
Public Southeastern university 148a 74 (50%) 62 (41.9%)
a This number represents full-time employees who agreed to participate after being contacted
by telephone.
Counterproductive Work Behavior 47
who was familiar with the incumbent’s work, to fill out the coworker
questionnaire with regards to the job conditions and behaviors of the incumbent.
Both questionnaires were to be filled out anonymously and independently.
They were mailed back separately to the researcher. The secret code
enabled the researcher to match the incumbent and coworker reports, without
violating the anonymity of participants.
Measures
The employee (incumbent) survey included measures of job stressors
(organizational constraints, conflict, and organizational justice), job-related
affect and evaluation (positive emotions, negative emotions, and job satisfaction),
and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). The coworker survey
included measures of the incumbent’s organizational constraints, conflict,
and CWB.
Job Stressors
The Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS; Spector & Jex, 1998), an
11-item scale based on constraint areas identified by Peters and O’Connor
(1980), measured the frequency with which employees encountered barriers
to job performance, such as rules and procres, availability of resources,
coworkers, interruptions, and inadequate training. Spector and Jex (1998)
reported a mean Cronbach’s alpha across eight samples of .85.
The four-item Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS; Spector &
Jex, 1998) measured the frequency with which the employee experienced
arguments, yelling, and rudeness in interactions with coworkers. Spector and
Jex (1998) reported a mean Cronbach’s alpha of .74 across 13 samples.
For both the constraints and conflict measures, five response choices
range from 1
Less than once per month or never to 5
Several times per
day, with high scores representing high levels of constraints or conflict. The
coworker filled out the measures of organizational constraints and interpersonal
conflict at work regarding conditions or situations encountered by the
job incumbent (employee).
Organizational justice was assessed with distributive and procral
justice scales reported in Moorman (1991). The six-item Distributive Justice
Index, originally developed by Price and Mueller (1986), measured the extent
to which the employee is fairly rewarded considering work inputs. Five
response choices range from 1
very unfairly to 5
very fairly, with high
scores representing high levels of distributive justice. Procral justice is the
48 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
extent to which the employee perceives the procres used to determine
organizational outcomes to be fair (Moorman, 1991). Many researchers distinguish
between procral and interactional justice. Whereas procral justice
reflects exchange between an employee and the organization or upper management,
interactional justice reflects exchange relationships between an employee
and his or her immediate supervisor (Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002).
However, following Moorman’s findings (personal e-mail correspondence, February
3, 1999) that procral and interactional justice were highly intercorrelated
and lacked an interpretable factor structure, we combined these items into
a single 12-item procral justice scale (as did Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff,
1998). Response choices range from 1
strongly disagree to 5
strongly
agree, with high scores representing high levels of procral justice. Moorman
(1991) reported Cronbach alphas of .94 and .94 for the distributive and procral
justice scales, respectively. Only the job incumbent filled out the justice
scales.
Affect and Job Satisfaction
The Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS), developed by Van
Katwyk, Fox, Spector, and Kelloway (2000), measured a wide range of emotions
experienced in response to the job. The 30 items from the original scale were
rced to 20 items following Fox et al. (2001). Each item asks employees to
indicate how often any part of the present job has made them feel a particular
emotion (e.g., anxious, enthusiastic, or furious). The five response choices range
from 1
almost never to 5
extremely often or always. A positive emotions
score was obtained by summing the scores on the 10 positive affect items, with
high scores representing high levels of positive emotion on the job. A negative
emotions score was obtained by summing scores on the 10 negative affect items,
with high scores representing high levels of negative emotion on the job. Fox et
al. (2001) reported Cronbach alphas of .95 for the positive JAWS and .91 for the
negative JAWS subscales.
Job satisfaction was measured with a three-item scale derived from the
Michigan Organizational Assessment Scale (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, &
Klesh, 1979). Response choices range from 1
Disagree very much to 6

Agree very much. Van Katwyk et al. (2000) reported a coefficient alpha of .90
for this scale.
Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C)
Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) was assessed with a 45-item
behavioral checklist rced from the 64-item checklist used in Fox et al.
Counterproductive Work Behavior 49
(2001). The main difference was that, for 19 items, the original checklist
asked separately about engaging in acts directed against coworkers versus
supervisors, where in the current scale these 19 items just asked about other
people at work. The checklist of behaviors was originally derived from a
compilation of items taken from existing measures (Fox & Spector, 1999;
Hollinger, 1986; Knorz & Zapf, 1996; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Robinson &
Bennett, 1995; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Spector, 1975). Our goal was to
avoid duplication while including as many distinct behaviors as possible.
Each item asks the employee to indicate how often he or she has done each
of the behaviors on their present job. The five response choices range from
1
never to 5
every day. Based on Robinson and Bennett’s (1995)
taxonomy of organizational deviance and Fox and Spector’s earlier studies of
CWB (Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox et al., 2001), the items were categorized as
either behaviors targeting the organization (CWBO; e.g., “Tried to look busy
while doing nothing” and “Told people outside the job what a lousy place you
work for”) or those targeting other persons in the organization (CWBP; e.g.,
“Insulted someone about their job performance,” “Made fun of someone’s
personal life,” and “Started an argument with a coworker”). Fox et al. (2001)
reported Cronbach alphas for CWBO and CWBP of .88 and .96, respectively.
The coworker also filled out the CWB-C regarding the job incumbent’s
behaviors.
RESULTS
Table 3 contains descriptive statistics for the incumbent-reported and
coworker-reported variables in the study, including possible ranges, means,
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Stressors, Affect, and CWB
Variable
Possible
range
Job Incumbent Coworker
Incumbent/
Coworker
Mean SD correlation
Coeff.
Alpha Mean SD
Coeff.
Alpha
Organizational constraints 11–55 24.97 8.0 .87 23.86 7.9 .87 .26*
Interpersonal conflict 4–20 6.01 2.2 .71 5.82 2.4 .77 .49*
Procral justice 12–84 58.65 17.5 .96
Distributive justice 6–30 18.79 6.4 .94
Job satisfaction 3–18 13.77 4.0 .82
Negative emotions 10–50 22.90 7.7 .88
Positive emotions 10–50 30.24 9.3 .91
CWB-person 23–115 26.23 3.8 .79 26.14 8.4 .96 .47*
CWB-organization 22–110 30.01† 5.4 .78 27.07† 7.7 .92 .13
Note. CWB
counterproductive work behavior.
† p  .01, t-test difference between incumbent and coworker variables. * p  .01, significant
correlations.
50 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
standard deviations, and coefficient alphas. Coefficient alphas exceeded the
generally accepted minimum of .70 for all study variables (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). One thing to note is that alphas are considerably higher for
coworker than for incumbent reports of CWB (.96, .92, .79, and .78 for
coworker CWBP, coworker CWBO, incumbent CWBP and incumbent
CWBO, respectively). This reflects the greater discriminant validity among
items completed by the incumbent, which is consistent with other multisource
studies (e.g., Glick, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1986; Spector, Fox, & Van
Katwyk, 1999).
Test of H1: Convergence of Incumbent and Coworker Reports
Table 3 suggests a pattern of little difference between the means of
incumbent and coworker measures. With the exception of CWBO, t tests
found no significant differences between corresponding incumbent and coworker
variables; in general, considering the possible ranges on each scale,
differences were quite small. For example, incumbents and coworkers differed
by 0.19 on the conflict scale, which had a possible range of 16 points
(4 to 20). Incumbents and coworkers differed by .09 on CWBP, with a
possible range of 92 points (23–115). These are the two variables most
focused on interpersonal relationships and behaviors. The largest mean
differences were for stressors and behaviors most closely related to the task
or work itself, namely organizational constraints (a difference of 1.11 in a
range of 44 points) and CWBO (a difference of 2.94 in a range of 88 points,
the only significant mean difference). For all job stressors and CWB variables,
incumbent means were higher than coworkers.
A similar pattern emerges from the correlations between incumbent and
coworker measures (see Table 3). Except for CWBO, all incumbent variables
are significantly related to their respective coworker variables. The highest
correlations are for interpersonal conflict and CWBP (r
.49, p  .01 and
.47, p  .01, respectively), as contrasted with organizational constraints and
CWBO (r
.26, p  .01 and .13, ns, respectively). Thus, convergence
tended to be better for CWB directed toward people than organizations, and
for interpersonal than for resource-constraint stressors.
Test of H2: Incumbent Stressor-Emotion—CWB Relations
The results of zero-order correlational analysis broadly support the
hypothesis that incumbent-reported stressors, emotions, and satisfaction predict
incumbent self-reported CWB. As presented in Table 4, constraints and
Counterproductive Work Behavior 51
procral justice predict both CWBP and CWBO. Conflict predicts CWBP,
but not CWBO. Distributive justice predicts CWBO but not CWBP. This
suggests that CWB directed against persons is more strongly associated with
interpersonal stressors (in this study, procral justice collapses procral
and interactional items), while CWB directed against the organization is
associated with task-related stressors.
Table 5 summarizes the relations of stressor and CWB variables with
incumbents’ job attitudes and affect. Specifically, Table 5 contains correlations
of stressors (interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, distributive
justice, and procral justice) and CWB with job satisfaction, negative
emotion, and positive emotion. As predicted, job satisfaction and positive
emotion are positively correlated with justice and negatively correlated with
constraints, conflict, and CWB targeting the organization but not persons.
Negative emotion is positively correlated with constraints, conflict, and both
organizational and personal CWB, and negatively correlated with justice.
Table 4. Correlations of Incumbent and Coworker-
Reported Stressors With Incumbent and Coworker-
Reported CWB
CWBP CWBO cCWBP cCWBO
Incumbent-reported antecedents
Orgcon .25** .29** .12 .13
Conflict .32** .13 .25** .20*
Pjust .30** .31** .29** .35**
Djust .06 .20* .06 .11
Coworker-reported antecedents
cOrgcon .13 .00 .36**a .40**a
cConflict .38** .06 .61**a .52**a
Note. Orgcon
incumbent report: Organizational constraints;
Conflict
incumbent report: Interpersonal conflict;
Pjust
incumbent report: Procral justice; Djust

incumbent report: Distributive justice; cOrgcon
coworker
report: Organizational constraints; cConflict
coworker
report: Interpersonal conflict; CWBP
incumbent
report: CWB targeting persons; CWBO
incumbent report:
CWB targeting organization; cCWBP
coworker
report: CWB targeting persons; cCWBO
coworker report:
CWB targeting organization; CWB
counter productive
work behavior.
a Corresponding correlations of CWB incumbent versus
coworker is significantly different at p  .05 using the
Williams (1959) test for dependent correlations.
* p  .05. ** p  .01.
52 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
Test of H3: Relations of Coworker-Reported Antecedents and Coworker-
Reported Incumbent CWB
The correlations presented in Table 4 show that coworker-reported
variables follow a similar pattern as incumbent-reported variables, except
that the correlations are significantly higher with coworker reports than with
incumbent reports. Comparing single-source coworker stressor/CWB relations
with incumbent stressor/CWB relations, the correlations of coworkerreported
organizational constraints with coworker-reported CWBP and
CWBO (r
.36, p  .01 and r
.40, p  .01, respectively) are higher than
correlations of incumbent-reported constraints with incumbent-reported
CWBP and CWBO (r
.25, p  .01 and r
.29, p  .01). Similarly, the
correlations of coworker-reported conflict with coworker-reported CWBP
and CWBO (r
.61, p  .01 and r
.52, p  .01, respectively) are higher
than correlations of incumbent-reported conflict with incumbent-reported
CWBP and CWBO (r
.32, p  .01 and r
.13, ns).
Tests of H4 and H5: Mixed Source Data
Of the job stressor variables reported by both incumbents and coworkers
(constraints and conflict), the only significant correlation with cross-source
reported CWB is, consistently, interpersonal conflict and CWB targeting
persons (see Table 4). That is, incumbent-reported conflict correlates significantly
with coworker-reported CWBP (r
.25) and coworker-reported
conflict correlates with incumbent employee-reported CWBP (r
.38). In
Table 5. Correlations of Incumbent and Coworker Reported Job Stressors and CWB With
Incumbent-Reported Job Satisfaction and Emotion
Stressor or
CWB
Incumbent-reported job
satisfaction
Incumbent-reported
negative emotion
Incumbent-reported
positive emotion
Incumbentreported
Coworkerreported
Incumbentreported
Coworkerreported
Incumbentreported
Coworkerreported
Constraints .44* .26* .58* .15a .38* .18*a
Conflict .38* .30* .53* .18*a .34* .19*a
CWBO .34* .27* .39* .09a .19* .21*
CWBP .10 .18* .19* .03 .09 .14
Djust .37* na .44* na .42* na
Pjust .40* na .43* na .45* na
Note. n
132–136. CWB
counterproductive work behavior; CWBO
CWB targeting
organization; CWBP
CWB targeting persons; Djust
Distributive justice; Pjust
Procral
justice; na
not applicable.
a Corresponding correlations of CWB and stressors incumbent versus coworker is significantly
different at p  .05 using the Williams (1959) test for dependent correlations.
* p  .05.
Counterproductive Work Behavior 53
addition, procral justice (reported only by incumbents) relates to coworker-
reported CWBP and CWBO (r
.29 and .35, respectively), but
distributive justice does not.
Table 5 contains correlations of stressors and CWB with three attitudinal
and affective variables reported only by the incumbents: job satisfaction,
negative emotion, and positive emotion. Incumbent-reported job satisfaction
relates to coworker-reported CWBP and CWBO (r
.18 and .27,
respectively) and positive emotions relate to coworker-reported CWBO (r

.21). Negative emotion does not relate significantly to coworker CWB,
which is noteworthy as many studies find negative emotions to be among the
strongest predictors of CWB, particularly those targeting persons (e.g., Fox
et al., 2001).
For all but distributive justice and procral justice, Table 5 presents
pairs of correlations from incumbent and coworker reports of stressors and
CWB, with incumbent correlations to the left and coworker correlations to
the right. The Williams (1959) test for dependent correlations was used to
compare each pair. As can be seen, for job satisfaction, there was reasonable
consistency across sources, with no significant differences in correlations
between the pairs, although in three cases the incumbent correlation was
larger and in one the coworker was larger (for CWBP). For negative emotion,
however, there were significant correlations within incumbent reports for
interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, and CWBO, but not for the
mixed cases, and in all three of these comparisons, the mixed case was
significantly smaller. For positive emotion, the incumbent reports were
significantly larger for both stressors, but not for CWB. Both justice variables
correlated significantly with job satisfaction and emotion.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate a methodological issue that
has emerged in much organizational research, but particularly in studies of
counterproductive work behavior. The large part of CWB research is based
upon self-reports of predictor (e.g., perceptions of stress in the work environment
and personality), criterion (e.g., CWB), and intermediary (e.g.,
emotions and job satisfaction) variables. This has raised the concern in CWB
research that this methodology artificially inflates relations, due to shared
biases across different measures within a single questionnaire. To demonstrate
the robustness of our findings across different reporting groups, we
collected both work situational variables and behavioral outcome variables
from both job incumbents and their coworkers, along with additional emotion
and attitudinal variables from the incumbents. Convergence of these two sets
54 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
of reports and relations among antecedents and outcomes from the two
sources were tested.
Job incumbents reported on their perceptions of work stressors (organizational
constraints, interpersonal conflict, and justice). Coworkers reported
on their perceptions of the job incumbents’ work stressors (organizational
constraints and conflict). Both incumbents and coworkers reported on the
incumbents’ behavior (CWBP and CWBO). With the exception of CWBO,
incumbent and coworker reports converged significantly on all study variables.
It is interesting to note that the highest convergence was found for
conflict and CWB targeting persons. Apparently, people who work closely
together may be the best judges of one another’s “public,” interpersonal
behaviors. By contrast, a coworker may not be privy to “private” behavior,
such as taking home supplies without permission, trying to look busy while
doing nothing, or putting in to be paid for more hours than actually worked.
Thus, for some forms of CWB, the best source of information may variably
be job incumbents, peers, supervisors, or others. It must be noted that other
studies (see Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006; Penney & Spector, 2005) have found
convergence for CWBO as well as for CWBP.
As suggested in Table 1, we may conclude that there are more or less
public behavioral items included in both CWBO and CWBP, and the degree
of report convergence will vary according to the reporter’s familiarity with
the incumbent’s work environment and responses, as well as the motivation
of both incumbent and coworker to report honestly and accurately.
As shown in Table 4, there were significant correlations of job stressors
with CWB, although more consistently within single-source than with the
mixed sources. These data provide support for the basic Stressor-Emotion
model of CWB and are generally consistent with Fox and Spector (1999),
who found organizational constraints to predict CWBP and CWBO, and Fox
et al. (2001), who found organizational constraints, conflict, and procral
justice to predict both CWBP and CWBO, and distributive justice to predict
only CWBO. The correlations between coworker reports of antecedents and
CWB are considerably higher than those of incumbent reports, again, with
the strongest relations involving interpersonal relationships (conflict and
CWBP).
Mixed-source analyses correlated incumbent-reported job satisfaction
and emotion with coworker-reported conflict, constraints, CWBO, and
CWBP. Both incumbent and coworker data demonstrated job dissatisfaction
to be related to stressors (conflict and constraints) and CWBO (but not
CWBP). Looking at negative and positive emotion, mixed-source correlations
were significantly lower than single source incumbent reports. However,
significant correlations were not found between incumbent negative
emotion and coworker-reported CWBO and CWBP. These results run
Counterproductive Work Behavior 55
counter to single-source (incumbent) findings by Fox et al. (2001), showing
that negative emotion was related to both forms of CWB.
The discrepant results with emotion across data sources have several
explanations that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. First, it is possible
that incumbent reports are more accurate, which accounts for larger correlations
(Frese & Zapf, 1988). Second, perceptions of stressors and memory
for behavior by employees may be affected by emotional experience or
affective traits. Those individuals who experience frequent negative emotion
might perceive or report more stressors (Brief et al., 1988), while mood
congruence theory (Blaney, 1986; Isen, 1984) suggests they may recall more
negative memories (such as incidents of CWB). Whether this is due to
attentional bias, reporting bias, or accurate reporting of perceptions/memory
is unclear and would be a good topic for future research. Third, beyond
accuracy in perception and memory, employees are aware of the behaviors
they engage in, whereas coworkers will likely observe only a subset, making
the coworker reports based on more limited information. It might well be
possible that dissatisfied employees engage in CWBs that tend to be more
public; and, thus, results with job satisfaction seem affected little by source
of data. On the other hand, perhaps employees who experience negative
emotion tend to hide their feelings and behaviors from coworkers to a greater
extent; and, thus, coworker reports of CWB are not as strongly linked to
negative emotion.
Another possibility is that there are third variables responsible for emotions,
stressors, and CWB. All three of these sets of variables have been
linked to negative affectivity (NA) or trait anxiety (e.g., Fox & Spector, 1999;
Spector, Zapf, Chen, & Frese, 2000). Again, it isn’t clear whether NA would
serve merely as a bias or as a common cause of these behaviors.
Although it might be tempting to confidently conclude that results with
job satisfaction are free of shared biases, this isn’t necessarily the case. It is
possible that both job incumbents and coworkers shared attributional biases,
assuming that dissatisfied employees would experience more stressors and
engage in more CWBO. Spector, Dwyer, and Jex (1988) showed that supervisor
reports of subordinate job satisfaction converged well with those
subordinates’ own reports, and we might expect that coworkers should be as
familiar with incumbents’ job satisfaction as supervisors, if not even more so.
The challenges highlighted by this study parallel those found in efforts to
develop and implement fair and accurate performance evaluation systems,
and similarly, a comprehensive research design utilizing 360 degree reporting
might be an optimal approach. The objective of multisource data is to
overcome the limitations of each form of single-source data; however, it is
likely that increasingly sophisticated research methodologies will need to be
developed, to overcome the many potential sources of contamination and
deficiency discussed in this paper.
56 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
The newer research stream investigating workplace bullying (CWBP from
the perspective of the target rather than the actor; Fox & Spector, 2005) suggests
another potentially powerful source of convergent data. It would be most interesting
to study CWB at the workgroup level of analysis, comparing reports of the
actors with those of targets of abusive behaviors within the workgroup.
Limitations of the Study
While this study tested one possible alternative to single-source selfreport
methodology, it has a number of limitations. The sampling and
self-selection of participants may have impacted both internal and external
validity. The fact that a large majority of participants were women and also
were employees of universities, raises questions about the generalizability of
results to men and to other organizational settings. Perhaps more challenging
was the method of asking each incumbent to choose a coworker. It is possible
that incumbents tended to choose friends who would report on the incumbents’
behavior more benignly than other coworkers or supervisors. It is also
possible that the selection of a workgroup friend increased incumbent-peer
convergence, as they were more likely to have ongoing discussions of their
working conditions, relationships with coworkers, and their own behaviors.
In future research, this could be addressed by obtaining supervisor reports as
well as coworker reports from the entire workgroup, and/or random selection
of the coworker participant.
A related concern is the uneven response rate across the various subsamples.
The rate for the Midwestern university was particularly low. That
can be, in part, attributed to differences in the method by which participants
were recruited: in each of the other sites, employees were approached
personally by research assistants or colleagues; only those who were personally
invited to participate were included in the response rate calculation. In
the case of the Midwestern university, blanket mailings were sent to all
full-time staff, and the low response rate includes mailings that never reached
their intended recipients (such as people no longer employed there). While
researchers must of course be concerned over the possibility that a low
response rate increases the chances of self-selection bias, there is evidence
disputing that response rates have much impact on relationships among
variables in our studies (Schalm & Kelloway, 2001).
Conclusions
Overall, the results of the current study provide stronger evidence that
CWB is associated with job stressors, job satisfaction, and to some extent
Counterproductive Work Behavior 57
emotion than has been provided in the past. While differences between
incumbent and coworker reports certainly emerged, we believe these results
have contributed evidence chipping away at the assumption that self-report of
these types of work perceptions and behaviors necessarily results in systematic
bias and inflated relations. Additional research designed to tap into
additional sources of data on work conditions, perceptions, and behavior is
needed to further triangulate on these critical substantial relations.
REFERENCES
Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social
dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.),
Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 18–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blaney, P. H. (1986). Affect and memory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 229–246.
Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should
negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73, 193–198.
Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviors
link: Are conflicts with supervisors and coworkers the same? Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 11, 145–156.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational
Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of
correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 398–407.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to
distinguish procral from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management, 27,
324–351.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 915–931.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Counterproductive workplace behavior: Investigations of
actors and targets. Washington, DC: APA.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The many roles of control in a Stressor-Emotion Theory of
counterproductive work behavior. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in
occupational stress and well being: Vol. 5 (pp. 171–201). Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI.
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
for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291–309.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological issues in the study of work stress: Objective vs.
subjective measurement of work stress and the question of longitudinal studies. In C. L.
Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work (pp.
375–410). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glick, W. H., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Gupta, N. (1986). Method versus substance: How strong
are underlying relationships between job characteristics and attitudinal outcomes? Academy
of Management Journal, 29, 441–464.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance.
Deviant Behavior, 7, 53–75.
58 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
Hurrell, J. J., Jr., Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (1998). Measuring job stressors and strains:
Where we have been, where we are, and where we need to go. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 3, 368–389.
Isen, A. M. (1984). Toward understanding the role of affect in cognition. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. &
T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Vol. 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Knorz, C., & Zapf, D. (1996). Mobbing—Eine extreme Form sozialer Stressoren am Arbeitsplatz
[Mobbing-a severe type of social stressor in the workplace]. Zeitschrift fu¨r
Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 40, 12–21.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 6, 1–13.
Lazarus, R. S. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. In R. Crandall & P. L. Perrewe
(Eds.), Occupational stress (pp. 3–14). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational
support mediate the relationship between procral justice and organizational citizenship
behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351–357.
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, 391–419.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2005). Aggression in the workplace: A social-psychological
perspective. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations
of actors and targets (pp. 13–40). Washington, DC: APA Press.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work
behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26, 777–796.
Perlow, R., & Latham, L. L. (1993). Relationship of client abuse with locus of control and
gender: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 831–834.
Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The
influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5,
391–397.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield,
MA: Pittman.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
Schalm, R. L., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). The relationship between response rate and effect size
in occupational health psychology research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
6, 160–163.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
procral, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.
Spector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral
reactions of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 635–637.
Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories
of organizational stress (pp. 153–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). The relationship of job stressors to affective,
health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73, 11–19.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some
parallels between counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB). Human Resources Management Review, 12, 269–292.
Counterproductive Work Behavior 59
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., & Van Katwyk, P. T. (1999). The role of negative affectivity in
employee reactions to jobs: Nuisance effect or substantive effect? Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 72, 205–218.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors
and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative
Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.
Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity should not
be controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 21, 79–95.
Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Job-related
Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 219–230.
Williams, E. J. (1959). The comparison of regression variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society (Series B), 21, 396–399.
60 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema

Essay Instructions: Please read article below and answer the ff questions. What steps did the authors taken to address the issues of reliability and validity? Discuss at least two examples in a full page.please stick to the issues.







Fox, S. & Spector, P. E. (2007). Does your coworker know what you're doing? Convergence of self- and peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(1), 41-60.









Fox, S. & Spector, P. E. (2007). Does your coworker know what you're doing? Convergence of self- and peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(1), 41-60. [This document requires Adobe Acrobat Reader to view it. You can download a free version of the software at the previous Web site link.]

What steps did the authors taken to address the issues of reliability and validity? Discuss at least two examples in 500 to 1000 words and submit your response here by the designated due date

Does Your Coworker Know What You’re Doing?
Convergence of Self- and Peer-Reports of
Counterproductive Work Behavior
Suzy Fox
Loyola University Chicago
Paul E. Spector, Angeline Goh, and Kari Bruursema
University of South Florida
Most studies of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) are criticized for
overreliance on self-report methodology. This study tested the convergence
of 136 matched self-reports and coworker-reports of work stressors and
CWB. For each participant dyad, the focal employee (“incumbent”) completed
a self-report survey and gave a coworker form to a peer familiar with
the incumbent’s work situation and behavior. Correlations and t tests demonstrated
significant convergence between incumbent and coworker reports
of key study variables, except organization-targeted CWB. Separately, both
incumbent and coworker reports supported the Stressor-Emotion CWB
model. In mixed-source analyses, only interpersonal relationships were significant—
conflict and CWB targeting persons. Weaknesses in each report
source are discussed, and multisourced triangulation to cover perceptual,
experiential, and behavioral domains is recommended.
Keywords: counterproductive work behavior (CWB), report convergence, job stress, workplace
emotions
Lately, organizational scholars and practitioners have expressed a great deal
of interest in voluntary behaviors whose intent or effect is to harm the organization
or its members. Such harmful behaviors have been variously conceptualized
as work aggression (Fox & Spector, 1999; Neuman & Baron, 1998),
deviance (Hollinger, 1986; Robinson & Bennett, 1995), antisocial behavior
Suzy Fox, Institute of Human Resources and Employment Relations, Loyola University
Chicago; Paul E. Spector, Angeline Goh, and Kari Bruursema, Department of Psychology,
University of South Florida.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Suzy Fox, Institute of
Human Resources and Employment Relations, Graduate School of Business, Loyola University
Chicago, 820 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611. E-mail:
International Journal of Stress Management Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association
2007, Vol. 14, No. 1, 41–60 1072-5245/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.1.41
41
(Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), or revenge
(Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997). We consider this wide range of behaviors
within the rubric of counterproductive work behavior (CWB).
While these studies have been acknowledged as critical to the well being
of our work organizations and the people within them, the preponderance of
self-report survey methodology in CWB studies is of concern. The current
study suggests an approach that goes beyond single-source self-report, while
at the same time offering some support of the validity of findings in the extant
body of CWB research.
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR
There are many different types of behavior that can harm the organization,
as there are many motives for engaging in such behavior. Without
claiming to account for all forms of CWB, Spector and Fox (2002; Fox &
Spector, 2006) developed a stressor-emotion model, suggesting that many of
these behaviors are responses to stressors at work. By integrating existing
CWB and job stress literatures, this framework takes into account both
cognitive/appraisal and emotional factors underlying behavioral choices.
At the core of both stress and emotion theories, people monitor and
appraise events in the environment (Lazarus, 1991, 1995). Emotion comes
into play when people appraise environmental events as threatening or
challenging to their well being. People’s appraisal of their abilities to meet
environmental challenges and their resulting emotions may motivate behavior
that will rce negative feelings and enhance positive feelings. In the
work organization, one outcome of this process may be CWB.
Fox, Spector, and Miles (2001) demonstrate that a variety of aspects of
the work environment (e.g., situational constraints, interpersonal conflict, and
perceptions of injustice) may be seen as threats to well being. These events
and conditions, appraised as stressors, may induce negative emotional reactions,
such as anger or anxiety (Fox & Spector, 2006). The process may
continue with coping mechanisms the person enacts to manage the situational
demands (problem-focused coping), the negative emotions (emotion-focused
coping), or both. Aversive outcomes of the job stress process, or strain, may
be psychological (e.g., job dissatisfaction or turnover intention), physical
(e.g., somatic symptoms, physiological changes, or long-term pathology), or
behavioral (CWB). Not all perceived stressors lead to intense emotions, nor
to immediate behavioral responses (Spector, 1998). Many personal factors
(such as trait affectivity, control beliefs, and personality) and environmental
factors (such as job characteristics, social support, and organizational culture)
interact with stressors, cognitive appraisals, emotions, and strain outcomes.
42 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
Based upon a typology developed by Robinson and Bennett (1995), it is
useful to classify CWB items as those behaviors targeting persons, CWBP
(“Made fun of someone’s personal life”), and those targeting the organization,
CWBO (“Failed to report a problem so it would get worse”). Prior
studies (Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox et al., 2001) have found consistently
distinct sets of relations between these two forms of CWB and situational and
dispositional antecedents. For example, CWBO was linked to conflict, organizational
constraints, distributive and procral justice, positive and negative
emotion, trait anger and anxiety, and autonomy. CWBP was linked to
the above except for distributive justice, positive emotion, and autonomy,
and, unlike CWBO, the strongest relation was with interpersonal conflict.
Trait anger and anxiety moderated some of the relations with CWBP, but not
with CWBO.
METHODOLOGICAL CONCERNS WITH SELF-REPORT STUDIES
While there is widespread agreement in the research and practitioner
communities about the importance to organizations of understanding and
managing CWB, our progress has been handicapped by methodological
concerns underlying most CWB research to date. With notable exceptions
(e.g., Perlow & Latham, 1993; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), studies of CWB
have relied primarily upon single source self-reports. Attempts to demonstrate
substantive relations among self-reported variables raise concerns such
as shared biases that distort correlations among measures.
This parallels two decades of discussion in the job stress literature where
a number of authors have questioned whether confounding variables such as
negative affectivity (NA), self-deception, or social desirability result in
inflated or spurious relations between stressors and strains in self-report
surveys (e.g., Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, & Webster,1988; Chen &
Spector, 1991; Hurrell, Nelson, & Simmons, 1998). Hurrell et al. (1998) note
that it has become almost pro forma among authors and their journal
reviewers to call for more objective means of measuring stressor-strain
relations, but the majority of studies in the area still rely on single source
designs. Fox and Spector (1999) address this issue, suggesting that self-report
methodology might be the most viable one for early stages of CWB research,
given the particular ethical difficulties in assessing CWB, the privileged
nature of job incumbents’ knowledge of their own covert behaviors, and a
substantive emphasis on incumbents’ perceptions and subjective responses
rather than on objective conditions in the work environment. Nevertheless,
the CWB research community is now at the point that more objective, or
nonincumbent, measures are needed to further our understanding of the
phenomenon.
Counterproductive Work Behavior 43
In the current study, we address the goal of going beyond self-report of
counterproductive work behavior and its antecedents. In so doing, we recognize
serious problems with alternative sources of data on counterproductive
behaviors. Only the job incumbent is fully aware of the acts he or she
actually does. Other sources, such as peers, clients, supervisors, or subordinates,
are privy to only those behaviors they can actually see or the results of
behaviors.
It might be expected that behaviors involving other people, such as
interpersonal conflict, are more readily perceivable by others by virtue of
being inherently “public” behaviors, as opposed to more “private” behaviors,
such as daydreaming or covert productivity slowdowns. A coworker is most
likely to notice behaviors that affect him or her directly. In addition, motivational
attributions play a role in a coworker’s classification of another’s
behaviors as counterproductive or aggressive (Neuman & Baron, 2005). The
behaviors that others see may be falsely attributed to counterproductive
intent; conversely, apparently “beneficial” behaviors may actually be motivated
by counterproductive intent.
At least as problematic is the assessment by others of experienced
environmental stressors, emotions, and linkages among stressors, cognitions,
emotions, and behavior. Once again, “public” stressors, such as an office
atmosphere rife with interpersonal conflict, are more likely to be perceived by
coworkers than “private” stressors, such as lack of necessary information to
perform a task. The accuracy of a coworker’s perceptions of a job incumbent’s
environmental constraints would depend on factors such as physical
proximity, common supervision, and task interdependency between the job
incumbent and the coworker. Finally, assessments of another’s emotions are
basically limited to inferences derived from emotional displays and behavioral
expressions.
The challenge then is that no single source of data is acceptably free of either
contamination or deficiency. Table 1 highlights this complexity, by presenting
examples of contamination and deficiency of self-report (job incumbent), otherreport
(coworker), and “objective” data, respectively. Single-source reports
(whether by the incumbent, a coworker, supervisor, or other source) of antecedent
and outcome variables are vulnerable to contamination by shared biases or
overlapping items. Conversely, reports by others of the incumbent’s work environment
and behaviors can capture only the “public” fraction of those experiences
and responses, making other-report by definition deficient. Objective or
archival data may be most accurate in reporting a very circumscribed range of
behaviors, but cannot be expected to generalize to the broader domain of CWB
and cannot identify incidents in which employees engaged in counterproductive
behavior but were never caught.
The current study attempts to triangulate on behaviors and perceptions of
the work environment by linking job incumbent self-report with coworker-
44 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
report of the incumbent’s behaviors and work environment. The extent of
convergence of these two data sources would be indicative of the usefulness
of this approach. Yet, perceptions of an individual’s work environment and
behaviors from two distinct viewpoints must be expected to demonstrate
substantial, perhaps even systematic differences. Indices of convergence may
fall below the generally accepted norms for internal consistency or even
interrater reliability (see Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Convergence between
self-report and report by others would likely depend on the others’ familiarity
with the incumbent’s environment, habits, and behaviors. The reporter would
be more likely to report on public behaviors and behaviors that directly affect
the reporter. Thus, open hostility and other person-directed behavior would
be more likely to be noticed by a coworker than would covert behaviors
Table 1. Examples of Potential Contamination and Deficiency in Self-Report, Other-Report,
and Objective Data
Data source
Contamination tendency:
Over-report
Deficiency tendency:
Under-report
Self-report
(incumbent) • 3rd variable bias (e.g. negative
affectivity or social
desirability) in perceiving/
reporting predictor and/or
criterion variables
• Item overlap between antecedent
and outcome variables
• Narcissistic pleasure in (over-)
reporting one’s own negative
behaviors
• Tendency to underreport on
questions about sensitive
topics, such as deviant
behavior, for fear of being
caught and punished
• Belief that behavior is
functional/beneficial, when
company and/or researcher
may define it as counterproductive
(e.g., not
following procres)
Other-report
(coworker) • Item overlap between antecedent
and outcome variables
• “Paranoid” perception of
negative intention where none
exists
• 3rd variable bias (e.g. NA) in
perceiving/reporting predictor
and/or criterion variablesa
• Personal agenda (e.g., desire for
revenge)
• Horn and halo errorsb
• Lack of access to “private”
experiences, behaviors, and
intentions
• Fear of retribution for reporting
coworker’s CWB
• Where theorized links are
between incumbent’s
perception, emotions, and
behaviors, coworker
perceptions may be irrelevant
or miss critical connections
“Objective measures”
(HR and
management
records, e.g., theft,
turnover,
absenteeism)
• Withdrawal behaviors may be
multiply determined, or
associated with external
factors such as labor market
conditions and work/nonwork
issues.
• Can represent only those
counterproductive behaviors
in which the employee has
been caught
• Limited types of behaviors
tracked
a Third variable bias: spurious or inflated relationship between two variables due to a third
variable effecting each one. b Halo (horn) errors: tendency of a rater to give higher (lower)
ratings on specific dimensions based on a high (low) global judgment.
Counterproductive Work Behavior 45
affecting productivity, such as daydreaming or pretending to work hard.
Since the incumbents and coworkers may be focusing on variably overlapping
but nonidentical sets of behaviors, we cannot expect total construct
convergence.
Nevertheless, while the agreement is not perfect, a coworker in the same
workgroup would experience or at least be aware of many of the same
constraints, conflicts, and other stressors as the job incumbent. Similarly, a
peer would be aware of at least a substantial portion of the typical work and
interpersonal behaviors of his or her coworker. Therefore, it would be
expected that peer and self-reports of both work conditions and behavior
would converge significantly, although not perfectly.
The following hypotheses address the extent to which incumbent selfreport
and peer-report of job stressors and counterproductive work behaviors
converge and the extent to which incumbent-reported antecedent variables
predict peer-reported behaviors and vice versa.
Hypothesis 1: Incumbent reports of stressors in the work environment
(organizational constraints and conflict) and incumbent outcome behaviors
(CWBP and CWBO) will converge (i.e., will be positively correlated)
with coworker reports of the same variables.
Hypothesis 2: Incumbent reports of stressors in the work environment
(organizational constraints, conflict, and justice) as well as incumbent job
satisfaction and job-related emotions will be correlated with incumbent
self-reported behaviors (CWBP and CWBO).
Hypothesis 3: Coworker reports of stressors in the work environment
(organizational constraints and conflict) will be correlated with coworker
reports of the incumbent’s behaviors (CWBP and CWBO).
Hypothesis 4: Incumbent reports of stressors in the work environment
(organizational constraints, conflict, and justice) as well as incumbent job
satisfaction and job-related emotions will be correlated with coworker
reports of the incumbent’s behaviors (CWBP and CWBO).
Hypothesis 5: Coworker reports of the incumbent’s work stressors (organizational
constraints and conflict) will be correlated with incumbent
self-reported job satisfaction, job-related emotions, and behaviors
(CWBP and CWBO).
46 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
METHOD
Participants and Procre
Surveys were distributed in five organizations in Chicago and Tampa.
Table 2 presents the types of organizations and numbers of surveys distributed
and returned. In addition, students enrolled in a Master of Science in
Human Resources program in Chicago, all full-time employees and mostly
managers, distributed the surveys to employees in their respective organizations.
The participants from the two universities included in the study were
nonacademic, full-time staff employees.
The project was described as a study of how people perceive and respond
to the conditions of their jobs. In each case, two survey booklets were given
to each employee, a self-report form and a separate coworker form, with
instructions to give the coworker form to a peer familiar with the employee’s
work situation and behavior. In all, 169 employee surveys were returned, for
which 136 matching surveys from coworkers were also returned.
Of the 169 employees who responded, 24.4% were men and 75.6% were
women. Of the coworkers who responded, 21.6% were men and 78.4% were
women. However, only 56.2% of the employee-coworker dyads were of the
same gender. Of the employees, 26.4% were managers and 73.6% were
nonmanagerial employees; 91.3% classified themselves as white-collar workers.
Due to the sensitive nature of the questionnaire items, no further
demographic data were collected.
In both cities, surveys were conducted anonymously. Participants were
mailed both their own survey and one for a coworker, except for the
student/managers, who personally passed out the survey booklets in their
organizations. Each job incumbent was given a “Reactions to Work” employee
questionnaire booklet. In addition, he or she was given a “Reactions
to Work” coworker questionnaire booklet, with the instructions to label both
booklets with a matching secret code. The incumbent was to ask a coworker,
Table 2. Study Participants
Type of company
Survey
pairs
distributed
Employee surveys
returned
Survey pairs
returned
Financial consultants 6 6 (100%) 6 (100%)
Accounting 8 6 (75%) 6 (75%)
Private Midwestern University 500 62 (12.4%) 42 (8.4%)
Behavioral health services 12 5 (41.7%) 5 (41.7%)
Graduate students’ coworkers 50 16 (26.7%) 15 (25.0%)
Public Southeastern university 148a 74 (50%) 62 (41.9%)
a This number represents full-time employees who agreed to participate after being contacted
by telephone.
Counterproductive Work Behavior 47
who was familiar with the incumbent’s work, to fill out the coworker
questionnaire with regards to the job conditions and behaviors of the incumbent.
Both questionnaires were to be filled out anonymously and independently.
They were mailed back separately to the researcher. The secret code
enabled the researcher to match the incumbent and coworker reports, without
violating the anonymity of participants.
Measures
The employee (incumbent) survey included measures of job stressors
(organizational constraints, conflict, and organizational justice), job-related
affect and evaluation (positive emotions, negative emotions, and job satisfaction),
and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). The coworker survey
included measures of the incumbent’s organizational constraints, conflict,
and CWB.
Job Stressors
The Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS; Spector & Jex, 1998), an
11-item scale based on constraint areas identified by Peters and O’Connor
(1980), measured the frequency with which employees encountered barriers
to job performance, such as rules and procres, availability of resources,
coworkers, interruptions, and inadequate training. Spector and Jex (1998)
reported a mean Cronbach’s alpha across eight samples of .85.
The four-item Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS; Spector &
Jex, 1998) measured the frequency with which the employee experienced
arguments, yelling, and rudeness in interactions with coworkers. Spector and
Jex (1998) reported a mean Cronbach’s alpha of .74 across 13 samples.
For both the constraints and conflict measures, five response choices
range from 1
Less than once per month or never to 5
Several times per
day, with high scores representing high levels of constraints or conflict. The
coworker filled out the measures of organizational constraints and interpersonal
conflict at work regarding conditions or situations encountered by the
job incumbent (employee).
Organizational justice was assessed with distributive and procral
justice scales reported in Moorman (1991). The six-item Distributive Justice
Index, originally developed by Price and Mueller (1986), measured the extent
to which the employee is fairly rewarded considering work inputs. Five
response choices range from 1
very unfairly to 5
very fairly, with high
scores representing high levels of distributive justice. Procral justice is the
48 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
extent to which the employee perceives the procres used to determine
organizational outcomes to be fair (Moorman, 1991). Many researchers distinguish
between procral and interactional justice. Whereas procral justice
reflects exchange between an employee and the organization or upper management,
interactional justice reflects exchange relationships between an employee
and his or her immediate supervisor (Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002).
However, following Moorman’s findings (personal e-mail correspondence, February
3, 1999) that procral and interactional justice were highly intercorrelated
and lacked an interpretable factor structure, we combined these items into
a single 12-item procral justice scale (as did Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff,
1998). Response choices range from 1
strongly disagree to 5
strongly
agree, with high scores representing high levels of procral justice. Moorman
(1991) reported Cronbach alphas of .94 and .94 for the distributive and procral
justice scales, respectively. Only the job incumbent filled out the justice
scales.
Affect and Job Satisfaction
The Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS), developed by Van
Katwyk, Fox, Spector, and Kelloway (2000), measured a wide range of emotions
experienced in response to the job. The 30 items from the original scale were
rced to 20 items following Fox et al. (2001). Each item asks employees to
indicate how often any part of the present job has made them feel a particular
emotion (e.g., anxious, enthusiastic, or furious). The five response choices range
from 1
almost never to 5
extremely often or always. A positive emotions
score was obtained by summing the scores on the 10 positive affect items, with
high scores representing high levels of positive emotion on the job. A negative
emotions score was obtained by summing scores on the 10 negative affect items,
with high scores representing high levels of negative emotion on the job. Fox et
al. (2001) reported Cronbach alphas of .95 for the positive JAWS and .91 for the
negative JAWS subscales.
Job satisfaction was measured with a three-item scale derived from the
Michigan Organizational Assessment Scale (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, &
Klesh, 1979). Response choices range from 1
Disagree very much to 6

Agree very much. Van Katwyk et al. (2000) reported a coefficient alpha of .90
for this scale.
Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C)
Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) was assessed with a 45-item
behavioral checklist rced from the 64-item checklist used in Fox et al.
Counterproductive Work Behavior 49
(2001). The main difference was that, for 19 items, the original checklist
asked separately about engaging in acts directed against coworkers versus
supervisors, where in the current scale these 19 items just asked about other
people at work. The checklist of behaviors was originally derived from a
compilation of items taken from existing measures (Fox & Spector, 1999;
Hollinger, 1986; Knorz & Zapf, 1996; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Robinson &
Bennett, 1995; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Spector, 1975). Our goal was to
avoid duplication while including as many distinct behaviors as possible.
Each item asks the employee to indicate how often he or she has done each
of the behaviors on their present job. The five response choices range from
1
never to 5
every day. Based on Robinson and Bennett’s (1995)
taxonomy of organizational deviance and Fox and Spector’s earlier studies of
CWB (Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox et al., 2001), the items were categorized as
either behaviors targeting the organization (CWBO; e.g., “Tried to look busy
while doing nothing” and “Told people outside the job what a lousy place you
work for”) or those targeting other persons in the organization (CWBP; e.g.,
“Insulted someone about their job performance,” “Made fun of someone’s
personal life,” and “Started an argument with a coworker”). Fox et al. (2001)
reported Cronbach alphas for CWBO and CWBP of .88 and .96, respectively.
The coworker also filled out the CWB-C regarding the job incumbent’s
behaviors.
RESULTS
Table 3 contains descriptive statistics for the incumbent-reported and
coworker-reported variables in the study, including possible ranges, means,
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Stressors, Affect, and CWB
Variable
Possible
range
Job Incumbent Coworker
Incumbent/
Coworker
Mean SD correlation
Coeff.
Alpha Mean SD
Coeff.
Alpha
Organizational constraints 11–55 24.97 8.0 .87 23.86 7.9 .87 .26*
Interpersonal conflict 4–20 6.01 2.2 .71 5.82 2.4 .77 .49*
Procral justice 12–84 58.65 17.5 .96
Distributive justice 6–30 18.79 6.4 .94
Job satisfaction 3–18 13.77 4.0 .82
Negative emotions 10–50 22.90 7.7 .88
Positive emotions 10–50 30.24 9.3 .91
CWB-person 23–115 26.23 3.8 .79 26.14 8.4 .96 .47*
CWB-organization 22–110 30.01† 5.4 .78 27.07† 7.7 .92 .13
Note. CWB
counterproductive work behavior.
† p  .01, t-test difference between incumbent and coworker variables. * p  .01, significant
correlations.
50 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
standard deviations, and coefficient alphas. Coefficient alphas exceeded the
generally accepted minimum of .70 for all study variables (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). One thing to note is that alphas are considerably higher for
coworker than for incumbent reports of CWB (.96, .92, .79, and .78 for
coworker CWBP, coworker CWBO, incumbent CWBP and incumbent
CWBO, respectively). This reflects the greater discriminant validity among
items completed by the incumbent, which is consistent with other multisource
studies (e.g., Glick, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1986; Spector, Fox, & Van
Katwyk, 1999).
Test of H1: Convergence of Incumbent and Coworker Reports
Table 3 suggests a pattern of little difference between the means of
incumbent and coworker measures. With the exception of CWBO, t tests
found no significant differences between corresponding incumbent and coworker
variables; in general, considering the possible ranges on each scale,
differences were quite small. For example, incumbents and coworkers differed
by 0.19 on the conflict scale, which had a possible range of 16 points
(4 to 20). Incumbents and coworkers differed by .09 on CWBP, with a
possible range of 92 points (23–115). These are the two variables most
focused on interpersonal relationships and behaviors. The largest mean
differences were for stressors and behaviors most closely related to the task
or work itself, namely organizational constraints (a difference of 1.11 in a
range of 44 points) and CWBO (a difference of 2.94 in a range of 88 points,
the only significant mean difference). For all job stressors and CWB variables,
incumbent means were higher than coworkers.
A similar pattern emerges from the correlations between incumbent and
coworker measures (see Table 3). Except for CWBO, all incumbent variables
are significantly related to their respective coworker variables. The highest
correlations are for interpersonal conflict and CWBP (r
.49, p  .01 and
.47, p  .01, respectively), as contrasted with organizational constraints and
CWBO (r
.26, p  .01 and .13, ns, respectively). Thus, convergence
tended to be better for CWB directed toward people than organizations, and
for interpersonal than for resource-constraint stressors.
Test of H2: Incumbent Stressor-Emotion—CWB Relations
The results of zero-order correlational analysis broadly support the
hypothesis that incumbent-reported stressors, emotions, and satisfaction predict
incumbent self-reported CWB. As presented in Table 4, constraints and
Counterproductive Work Behavior 51
procral justice predict both CWBP and CWBO. Conflict predicts CWBP,
but not CWBO. Distributive justice predicts CWBO but not CWBP. This
suggests that CWB directed against persons is more strongly associated with
interpersonal stressors (in this study, procral justice collapses procral
and interactional items), while CWB directed against the organization is
associated with task-related stressors.
Table 5 summarizes the relations of stressor and CWB variables with
incumbents’ job attitudes and affect. Specifically, Table 5 contains correlations
of stressors (interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, distributive
justice, and procral justice) and CWB with job satisfaction, negative
emotion, and positive emotion. As predicted, job satisfaction and positive
emotion are positively correlated with justice and negatively correlated with
constraints, conflict, and CWB targeting the organization but not persons.
Negative emotion is positively correlated with constraints, conflict, and both
organizational and personal CWB, and negatively correlated with justice.
Table 4. Correlations of Incumbent and Coworker-
Reported Stressors With Incumbent and Coworker-
Reported CWB
CWBP CWBO cCWBP cCWBO
Incumbent-reported antecedents
Orgcon .25** .29** .12 .13
Conflict .32** .13 .25** .20*
Pjust .30** .31** .29** .35**
Djust .06 .20* .06 .11
Coworker-reported antecedents
cOrgcon .13 .00 .36**a .40**a
cConflict .38** .06 .61**a .52**a
Note. Orgcon
incumbent report: Organizational constraints;
Conflict
incumbent report: Interpersonal conflict;
Pjust
incumbent report: Procral justice; Djust

incumbent report: Distributive justice; cOrgcon
coworker
report: Organizational constraints; cConflict
coworker
report: Interpersonal conflict; CWBP
incumbent
report: CWB targeting persons; CWBO
incumbent report:
CWB targeting organization; cCWBP
coworker
report: CWB targeting persons; cCWBO
coworker report:
CWB targeting organization; CWB
counter productive
work behavior.
a Corresponding correlations of CWB incumbent versus
coworker is significantly different at p  .05 using the
Williams (1959) test for dependent correlations.
* p  .05. ** p  .01.
52 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
Test of H3: Relations of Coworker-Reported Antecedents and Coworker-
Reported Incumbent CWB
The correlations presented in Table 4 show that coworker-reported
variables follow a similar pattern as incumbent-reported variables, except
that the correlations are significantly higher with coworker reports than with
incumbent reports. Comparing single-source coworker stressor/CWB relations
with incumbent stressor/CWB relations, the correlations of coworkerreported
organizational constraints with coworker-reported CWBP and
CWBO (r
.36, p  .01 and r
.40, p  .01, respectively) are higher than
correlations of incumbent-reported constraints with incumbent-reported
CWBP and CWBO (r
.25, p  .01 and r
.29, p  .01). Similarly, the
correlations of coworker-reported conflict with coworker-reported CWBP
and CWBO (r
.61, p  .01 and r
.52, p  .01, respectively) are higher
than correlations of incumbent-reported conflict with incumbent-reported
CWBP and CWBO (r
.32, p  .01 and r
.13, ns).
Tests of H4 and H5: Mixed Source Data
Of the job stressor variables reported by both incumbents and coworkers
(constraints and conflict), the only significant correlation with cross-source
reported CWB is, consistently, interpersonal conflict and CWB targeting
persons (see Table 4). That is, incumbent-reported conflict correlates significantly
with coworker-reported CWBP (r
.25) and coworker-reported
conflict correlates with incumbent employee-reported CWBP (r
.38). In
Table 5. Correlations of Incumbent and Coworker Reported Job Stressors and CWB With
Incumbent-Reported Job Satisfaction and Emotion
Stressor or
CWB
Incumbent-reported job
satisfaction
Incumbent-reported
negative emotion
Incumbent-reported
positive emotion
Incumbentreported
Coworkerreported
Incumbentreported
Coworkerreported
Incumbentreported
Coworkerreported
Constraints .44* .26* .58* .15a .38* .18*a
Conflict .38* .30* .53* .18*a .34* .19*a
CWBO .34* .27* .39* .09a .19* .21*
CWBP .10 .18* .19* .03 .09 .14
Djust .37* na .44* na .42* na
Pjust .40* na .43* na .45* na
Note. n
132–136. CWB
counterproductive work behavior; CWBO
CWB targeting
organization; CWBP
CWB targeting persons; Djust
Distributive justice; Pjust
Procral
justice; na
not applicable.
a Corresponding correlations of CWB and stressors incumbent versus coworker is significantly
different at p  .05 using the Williams (1959) test for dependent correlations.
* p  .05.
Counterproductive Work Behavior 53
addition, procral justice (reported only by incumbents) relates to coworker-
reported CWBP and CWBO (r
.29 and .35, respectively), but
distributive justice does not.
Table 5 contains correlations of stressors and CWB with three attitudinal
and affective variables reported only by the incumbents: job satisfaction,
negative emotion, and positive emotion. Incumbent-reported job satisfaction
relates to coworker-reported CWBP and CWBO (r
.18 and .27,
respectively) and positive emotions relate to coworker-reported CWBO (r

.21). Negative emotion does not relate significantly to coworker CWB,
which is noteworthy as many studies find negative emotions to be among the
strongest predictors of CWB, particularly those targeting persons (e.g., Fox
et al., 2001).
For all but distributive justice and procral justice, Table 5 presents
pairs of correlations from incumbent and coworker reports of stressors and
CWB, with incumbent correlations to the left and coworker correlations to
the right. The Williams (1959) test for dependent correlations was used to
compare each pair. As can be seen, for job satisfaction, there was reasonable
consistency across sources, with no significant differences in correlations
between the pairs, although in three cases the incumbent correlation was
larger and in one the coworker was larger (for CWBP). For negative emotion,
however, there were significant correlations within incumbent reports for
interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, and CWBO, but not for the
mixed cases, and in all three of these comparisons, the mixed case was
significantly smaller. For positive emotion, the incumbent reports were
significantly larger for both stressors, but not for CWB. Both justice variables
correlated significantly with job satisfaction and emotion.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate a methodological issue that
has emerged in much organizational research, but particularly in studies of
counterproductive work behavior. The large part of CWB research is based
upon self-reports of predictor (e.g., perceptions of stress in the work environment
and personality), criterion (e.g., CWB), and intermediary (e.g.,
emotions and job satisfaction) variables. This has raised the concern in CWB
research that this methodology artificially inflates relations, due to shared
biases across different measures within a single questionnaire. To demonstrate
the robustness of our findings across different reporting groups, we
collected both work situational variables and behavioral outcome variables
from both job incumbents and their coworkers, along with additional emotion
and attitudinal variables from the incumbents. Convergence of these two sets
54 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
of reports and relations among antecedents and outcomes from the two
sources were tested.
Job incumbents reported on their perceptions of work stressors (organizational
constraints, interpersonal conflict, and justice). Coworkers reported
on their perceptions of the job incumbents’ work stressors (organizational
constraints and conflict). Both incumbents and coworkers reported on the
incumbents’ behavior (CWBP and CWBO). With the exception of CWBO,
incumbent and coworker reports converged significantly on all study variables.
It is interesting to note that the highest convergence was found for
conflict and CWB targeting persons. Apparently, people who work closely
together may be the best judges of one another’s “public,” interpersonal
behaviors. By contrast, a coworker may not be privy to “private” behavior,
such as taking home supplies without permission, trying to look busy while
doing nothing, or putting in to be paid for more hours than actually worked.
Thus, for some forms of CWB, the best source of information may variably
be job incumbents, peers, supervisors, or others. It must be noted that other
studies (see Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006; Penney & Spector, 2005) have found
convergence for CWBO as well as for CWBP.
As suggested in Table 1, we may conclude that there are more or less
public behavioral items included in both CWBO and CWBP, and the degree
of report convergence will vary according to the reporter’s familiarity with
the incumbent’s work environment and responses, as well as the motivation
of both incumbent and coworker to report honestly and accurately.
As shown in Table 4, there were significant correlations of job stressors
with CWB, although more consistently within single-source than with the
mixed sources. These data provide support for the basic Stressor-Emotion
model of CWB and are generally consistent with Fox and Spector (1999),
who found organizational constraints to predict CWBP and CWBO, and Fox
et al. (2001), who found organizational constraints, conflict, and procral
justice to predict both CWBP and CWBO, and distributive justice to predict
only CWBO. The correlations between coworker reports of antecedents and
CWB are considerably higher than those of incumbent reports, again, with
the strongest relations involving interpersonal relationships (conflict and
CWBP).
Mixed-source analyses correlated incumbent-reported job satisfaction
and emotion with coworker-reported conflict, constraints, CWBO, and
CWBP. Both incumbent and coworker data demonstrated job dissatisfaction
to be related to stressors (conflict and constraints) and CWBO (but not
CWBP). Looking at negative and positive emotion, mixed-source correlations
were significantly lower than single source incumbent reports. However,
significant correlations were not found between incumbent negative
emotion and coworker-reported CWBO and CWBP. These results run
Counterproductive Work Behavior 55
counter to single-source (incumbent) findings by Fox et al. (2001), showing
that negative emotion was related to both forms of CWB.
The discrepant results with emotion across data sources have several
explanations that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. First, it is possible
that incumbent reports are more accurate, which accounts for larger correlations
(Frese & Zapf, 1988). Second, perceptions of stressors and memory
for behavior by employees may be affected by emotional experience or
affective traits. Those individuals who experience frequent negative emotion
might perceive or report more stressors (Brief et al., 1988), while mood
congruence theory (Blaney, 1986; Isen, 1984) suggests they may recall more
negative memories (such as incidents of CWB). Whether this is due to
attentional bias, reporting bias, or accurate reporting of perceptions/memory
is unclear and would be a good topic for future research. Third, beyond
accuracy in perception and memory, employees are aware of the behaviors
they engage in, whereas coworkers will likely observe only a subset, making
the coworker reports based on more limited information. It might well be
possible that dissatisfied employees engage in CWBs that tend to be more
public; and, thus, results with job satisfaction seem affected little by source
of data. On the other hand, perhaps employees who experience negative
emotion tend to hide their feelings and behaviors from coworkers to a greater
extent; and, thus, coworker reports of CWB are not as strongly linked to
negative emotion.
Another possibility is that there are third variables responsible for emotions,
stressors, and CWB. All three of these sets of variables have been
linked to negative affectivity (NA) or trait anxiety (e.g., Fox & Spector, 1999;
Spector, Zapf, Chen, & Frese, 2000). Again, it isn’t clear whether NA would
serve merely as a bias or as a common cause of these behaviors.
Although it might be tempting to confidently conclude that results with
job satisfaction are free of shared biases, this isn’t necessarily the case. It is
possible that both job incumbents and coworkers shared attributional biases,
assuming that dissatisfied employees would experience more stressors and
engage in more CWBO. Spector, Dwyer, and Jex (1988) showed that supervisor
reports of subordinate job satisfaction converged well with those
subordinates’ own reports, and we might expect that coworkers should be as
familiar with incumbents’ job satisfaction as supervisors, if not even more so.
The challenges highlighted by this study parallel those found in efforts to
develop and implement fair and accurate performance evaluation systems,
and similarly, a comprehensive research design utilizing 360 degree reporting
might be an optimal approach. The objective of multisource data is to
overcome the limitations of each form of single-source data; however, it is
likely that increasingly sophisticated research methodologies will need to be
developed, to overcome the many potential sources of contamination and
deficiency discussed in this paper.
56 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
The newer research stream investigating workplace bullying (CWBP from
the perspective of the target rather than the actor; Fox & Spector, 2005) suggests
another potentially powerful source of convergent data. It would be most interesting
to study CWB at the workgroup level of analysis, comparing reports of the
actors with those of targets of abusive behaviors within the workgroup.
Limitations of the Study
While this study tested one possible alternative to single-source selfreport
methodology, it has a number of limitations. The sampling and
self-selection of participants may have impacted both internal and external
validity. The fact that a large majority of participants were women and also
were employees of universities, raises questions about the generalizability of
results to men and to other organizational settings. Perhaps more challenging
was the method of asking each incumbent to choose a coworker. It is possible
that incumbents tended to choose friends who would report on the incumbents’
behavior more benignly than other coworkers or supervisors. It is also
possible that the selection of a workgroup friend increased incumbent-peer
convergence, as they were more likely to have ongoing discussions of their
working conditions, relationships with coworkers, and their own behaviors.
In future research, this could be addressed by obtaining supervisor reports as
well as coworker reports from the entire workgroup, and/or random selection
of the coworker participant.
A related concern is the uneven response rate across the various subsamples.
The rate for the Midwestern university was particularly low. That
can be, in part, attributed to differences in the method by which participants
were recruited: in each of the other sites, employees were approached
personally by research assistants or colleagues; only those who were personally
invited to participate were included in the response rate calculation. In
the case of the Midwestern university, blanket mailings were sent to all
full-time staff, and the low response rate includes mailings that never reached
their intended recipients (such as people no longer employed there). While
researchers must of course be concerned over the possibility that a low
response rate increases the chances of self-selection bias, there is evidence
disputing that response rates have much impact on relationships among
variables in our studies (Schalm & Kelloway, 2001).
Conclusions
Overall, the results of the current study provide stronger evidence that
CWB is associated with job stressors, job satisfaction, and to some extent
Counterproductive Work Behavior 57
emotion than has been provided in the past. While differences between
incumbent and coworker reports certainly emerged, we believe these results
have contributed evidence chipping away at the assumption that self-report of
these types of work perceptions and behaviors necessarily results in systematic
bias and inflated relations. Additional research designed to tap into
additional sources of data on work conditions, perceptions, and behavior is
needed to further triangulate on these critical substantial relations.
REFERENCES
Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social
dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.),
Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 18–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blaney, P. H. (1986). Affect and memory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 229–246.
Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should
negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73, 193–198.
Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviors
link: Are conflicts with supervisors and coworkers the same? Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 11, 145–156.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational
Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of
correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 398–407.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to
distinguish procral from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management, 27,
324–351.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 915–931.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Counterproductive workplace behavior: Investigations of
actors and targets. Washington, DC: APA.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The many roles of control in a Stressor-Emotion Theory of
counterproductive work behavior. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in
occupational stress and well being: Vol. 5 (pp. 171–201). Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI.
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
for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291–309.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological issues in the study of work stress: Objective vs.
subjective measurement of work stress and the question of longitudinal studies. In C. L.
Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work (pp.
375–410). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glick, W. H., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Gupta, N. (1986). Method versus substance: How strong
are underlying relationships between job characteristics and attitudinal outcomes? Academy
of Management Journal, 29, 441–464.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance.
Deviant Behavior, 7, 53–75.
58 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema
Hurrell, J. J., Jr., Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (1998). Measuring job stressors and strains:
Where we have been, where we are, and where we need to go. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 3, 368–389.
Isen, A. M. (1984). Toward understanding the role of affect in cognition. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. &
T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Vol. 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Knorz, C., & Zapf, D. (1996). Mobbing—Eine extreme Form sozialer Stressoren am Arbeitsplatz
[Mobbing-a severe type of social stressor in the workplace]. Zeitschrift fu¨r
Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 40, 12–21.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 6, 1–13.
Lazarus, R. S. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. In R. Crandall & P. L. Perrewe
(Eds.), Occupational stress (pp. 3–14). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational
support mediate the relationship between procral justice and organizational citizenship
behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351–357.
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, 391–419.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2005). Aggression in the workplace: A social-psychological
perspective. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations
of actors and targets (pp. 13–40). Washington, DC: APA Press.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work
behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26, 777–796.
Perlow, R., & Latham, L. L. (1993). Relationship of client abuse with locus of control and
gender: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 831–834.
Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The
influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5,
391–397.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield,
MA: Pittman.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
Schalm, R. L., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). The relationship between response rate and effect size
in occupational health psychology research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
6, 160–163.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
procral, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.
Spector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral
reactions of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 635–637.
Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories
of organizational stress (pp. 153–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). The relationship of job stressors to affective,
health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73, 11–19.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some
parallels between counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB). Human Resources Management Review, 12, 269–292.
Counterproductive Work Behavior 59
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., & Van Katwyk, P. T. (1999). The role of negative affectivity in
employee reactions to jobs: Nuisance effect or substantive effect? Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 72, 205–218.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors
and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative
Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.
Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity should not
be controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 21, 79–95.
Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Job-related
Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 219–230.
Williams, E. J. (1959). The comparison of regression variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society (Series B), 21, 396–399.
60 Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema

Essay Instructions: Discussion instructions:
How do we determine what is considered ?fair? in the workplace?
What is meant by the term organizational justice?
Using your own experiences, or of those you know, provide an example for each of the three main types of justice: distributive, procedural, and interactional justice.
Explain how each of these types is evident in these examples.
What could the leader or manager, team, or organization have done to correct or avoid these injustices?
Utilize at least one peer-reviewed journal article in your discussion.
Cite sources used in APA format.
Readings
Textbooks: https://secure.coursesmart.com/login
User:: lynneboisrond (at) yahoo.com
Pass: Rigelq93

American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association. ISBN: 1-4338-0561-5

Recommended Readings

1. Articles:
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22
(3), 187-200. (EBSCOHost Accession Number: AN 34357070).

Hill, E. J., Jacob, J. I., Shannon, L. L., Brennan, R. T., Blanchard, V. L., & Martinengo, G. (2008). Exploring the relationship of workplace flexibility, gender, and life
stage to family-to-work conflict, and stress and burnout. Community, Work & Family, 11(2), 165-181. (EBSCOHost Accession Number: AN 32708204).

Yang, L. Q., Che, H., & Spector, P. E. (2008). Job stress and well-being: An examination from the view of person- environment fit. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 81(3), 567-587. (EBSCOHost Accession Number: AN 34308684).

2. Websites:
Affirmative Action and Diversity Project ? http://aad.english.ucsb.edu

American Association for Affirmative Action ? http://www.affirmativeaction.org

American Institute for Managing Diversity (AIMD) ? http://aimd.org

American Institute of Stress ? http://www.stress.org

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Workplace Safety & Health ? http://www.cdc.gov/Workplace/

Cultural Diversity Hotwire ? http://www.diversityhotwire.com

Employee Assistance Professionals Association (EAP) ? http://www.eapassn.org

Job Stress Network ? http://www.workhealth.org

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) ? http://www.cdc.gov/niosh

Occupational Health Psychology ? http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ohp/

Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP) ? www.sohp-online.org

U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Employee Assistance Programs ? http://www.opm.gov/employment_and_benefits/worklife/healthwellness/eap/

Workplace Bullying Institute ? http://www.workplacebullying.org/

Workplace Violence Research Institute (WVRI) ? http://www.noworkviolence.com

Multimedia

1. Videos:
Moffitt, B. (Producer). (2009). Good Work NOW! #9: Workplace wellness part I ? Emotional and Intellectual wellness. Available from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=559aszAsfx4

Moffitt, B. (Producer). (2009). Good Work NOW! #9: Workplace wellness part II ? Occupational and physical. Available from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcHPoeqgoFA

Moffitt, B. (Producer). (2009). Good Work NOW! #9: Workplace wellness part III ? Social and spiritual. Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTY3x2P4i8U

Moffitt, B. (Producer). (2009). Good Work NOW! #10: Removing unnecessary stress. Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkZ7twcK_-k

Moffitt, B. (Producer). (2009). Good Work NOW! #11: Yoga and meditation at work ? Part I. Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mINQmB_EERQ