No description available.

The vast majority of social exclusion research has taken place outside of the workplace (i.e., in social settings). In addition, researchers often use a myriad of terms (i.e., ostracism, exclusion, rejection) when describing and investigating exclusion-related phenomena thus contributing to widespread conceptual confusion with respect to this construct. Moreover, past studies have failed to consider the role of social exchange in determining how individuals may react to being excluded by others particularly in a work setting. I sought to address these issues by conducting three multi-wave studies which develop and test a social-exchange based model of interpersonal workplace exclusion (IWE). Specifically, I created and validated two measures (i.e., coworker and supervisor) of IWE. In addition, I examined the discriminant, convergent and predictive validity of these scales. The results of these studies produced two distinct, unidimensional measures of IWE an 8-item coworker IWE scale and an 8-item supervisor IWE scale. Additional analyses revealed that IWE is negatively related to, albeit distinct from, workplace inclusion and is part of the broader conceptual domain of antisocial workplace behavior which includes theoretically similar constructs namely, workplace incivility, counterproductive workplace behavior and workplace bullying. In addition, IWE was found to be negatively related to perceived interpersonal fair treatment, job satisfaction and leader-member exchange (LMX) as well as positively related to job induced tension. Lastly, results of the third study provided support for an exchange-based model of IWE such that both coworker and supervisor IWE measures were associated with employee social undermining behavior, reduced effort and lower levels of organizational citizenship behaviors.

This research examined the effect of social class on the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Within the social class literature we found conflicting theoretical arguments regarding the effect that social class would have on responses to abuse. To address this discordance we examined the effect of social class on responses to abusive supervision in four samples using multiple methods. Results confirmed that social class moderates the association between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Specifically, the effect of abusive supervision on workplace deviance was stronger for higher social classes. In our laboratory research, the use of an abusive supervision prime and a subjective social class manipulation provided preliminary evidence for this effect. Our multi-wave field research provided evidence that these findings extend to actual employee behavior (i.e., interpersonal and organizational deviance). Implications for the abusive supervision literature are discussed.

This research examined the effect of social class on the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Within the social class literature we found conflicting theoretical arguments regarding the effect that social class would have on responses to abuse. To address this discordance we examined the effect of social class on responses to abusive supervision in four samples using multiple methods. Results confirmed that social class moderates the association between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Specifically, the effect of abusive supervision on workplace deviance was stronger for higher social classes. In our laboratory research, the use of an abusive supervision prime and a subjective social class manipulation provided preliminary evidence for this effect. Our multi-wave field research provided evidence that these findings extend to actual employee behavior (i.e., interpersonal and organizational deviance). Implications for the abusive supervision literature are discussed.

Abusive supervision research has found that subordinates engage in deviance following abuse despite the negative consequences of doing so. Why do individuals engage in deviance despite the expected sanctions? To explain this relationship a model is proposed based on moral licensing theory wherein the relationship of abusive supervision and subsequent negative voluntary work behaviors will be moderated by the extent to which subordinates performed positive voluntary work behaviors. In Study 1, I demonstrate that high organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) as rated by subordinates’ significant others significantly increased the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational deviance, while the relationship was not significant at low levels of significant other rated OCB. In Study 2 I replicate and extend this finding using time-lagged data, finding that in the context of abusive supervision, OCB directed at the supervisor at day t significantly increased the incidence of counterproductive work behaviors directed at the supervisor and organization at day t + 1. Implications for moral licensing and abusive supervision research are discussed.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Thèse réalisée grâce au soutien du Fonds Québécois de Recherche en Science et Culture (FQRSC) / La déviance organisationnelle ou encore les comportements contre-productifs au travail sont un sujet d’intérêt important pour les chercheurs en psychologie du travail. Que ce soit sur le plan individuel, organisationnel ou plus globalement sur toute l’économie, les impacts de ces comportements destructeurs suscitent l’intérêt des chercheurs en psychologie du travail et des organisations. De façon plus spécifique, la présente thèse s’intéresse aux comportements volontaires des membres d’une organisation et qui ont des conséquences négatives pour celle-ci (ci-après CAOT ou comportements anti-organisationnels au travail). Ainsi, nous mettrons l’accent sur les gestes qui portent une atteinte directe à l’organisation plutôt qu’à ses membres ou à ses clients. Les recherches précédentes ayant identifié des antécédents individuels, dont certains facteurs de personnalité, ainsi que différents antécédents liés à l’environnement organisationnel, la présente thèse vise à enrichir les connaissances dans le domaine en explorant certaines interactions entre ces variables. En d’autres mots, nous tenterons de déterminer si au-delà des prédispositions individuelles susceptibles d’accroître le risque de commettre des CAOT, la personnalité n’agirait pas comme un modérateur sur le lien entre différentes variables organisationnelles qui ont été identifiées comme de potentiels déclencheurs de CAOT. Le premier article de la thèse propose un modèle théorique intégrant différents mécanismes explicatifs des CAOT. Il identifie comme antécédents directs des CAOT les dimensions de personnalité amabilité et conscience ainsi que la justice organisationnelle, les normes perçues envers les CAOT et les mécanismes de contrôle et opportunités. Par ailleurs, trois interactions entre les dimensions de personnalité et différents antécédents organisationnels sont également suggérées en lien avec la documentation scientifique répertoriée. Le deuxième article consiste en la traduction, l’adaptation et la validation d’un instrument de mesure des CAOT. Une structure factorielle en quatre dimensions est identifiée suite à une analyse factorielle exploratoire. Une comparaison des dimensions retrouvées dans la mesure traduite et adaptée par rapport à la mesure originale ainsi que les implications pratiques de l’instrument mis à la disposition des chercheurs et des organisations sont discutées. Le troisième article vise principalement à vérifier les hypothèses des liens directs ainsi que des interactions qui ont été proposées dans le modèle théorique du premier article. Les liens directs entre la justice organisationnelle et la dimension de personnalité conscience avec les CAOT, pourtant largement supportés dans la littérature scientifique antérieure, ne sont pas confirmés, alors que les liens entre la dimension de personnalité amabilité, les normes perçues quant aux CAOT et les mécanismes de contrôle et opportunités avec les CAOT sont supportés. Aucune interaction significative n’a également pu être confirmée entre la personnalité et des variables organisationnelles. En somme, cette thèse met de l’avant un modèle théorique intégrant différents antécédents des CAOT qui agissent de façon additive pour expliquer une plus large portion de variance qu’un seul antécédent ne pourrait expliquer. Les différents mécanismes pouvant déclencher la manifestation des CAOT qui sont mis en lumière soulignent la complexité du phénomène. La présente thèse en appelle à poursuivre les recherches en gardant à l’esprit que les CAOT ne sont pas seulement le propre de certains individus, de certaines dynamiques de groupe ou de contextes organisationnels, mais d’une composition de tous ces facteurs. / Organizational deviance or counterproductive work behaviors are a subject of interest for work and organization psychologists. On the individual, organizational or economical levels, the impacts of these potentially destructive behaviors call the researchers to investigate. Specifically, this dissertation will address voluntary behaviors committed by organizational members that negatively impact the organization (hereafter AOWB for anti-organizational work behaviors). Henceforth, the focus is put on behaviors that directly target the organization rather than the behaviors that target its members or clients. Previous studies having identified individual predictors of AOWB, like personality factors, and work environment factors, this dissertation aims to further investigate the domain by exploring possible moderating relations between those variables. As such, we will examine the possibility that some individual dispositions can not only enhance the risk that an individual commit those behaviors, but that personality could act as a moderator on the relationship between different organizational variable that have been identified as triggers for AOWB. The first article of this dissertation propose a theoretical model integrating different mechanisms explaining AOWB. Agreeableness and conscientiousness personality factors are identified as individual predictors of AOWB. Organizational justice, perceived group norms regarding AOWB and control mechanism and opportunities are identified as organizational predictors of AOWB. Moreover, three interactions between personality dimensions and different organizational predictors are also suggested based on the review of the scientific documentation. The second article presents the translation, adaptation and validation of an instrument measuring the AOWB. A four dimensions’ structure is found following an exploratory factorial analysis. Comparison of the dimensions found in the translated and adapted measure with the original instrument are discussed. Practical implications regarding the instrument for researchers and organizations are also discussed. The main objective of third article is to test the direct relationships and moderating effects hypotheses presented in the theoretical model of the first article. Direct relationships between organizational justice and conscientiousness predicting AOWB were not supported event though the benefited from a large support from the previous scientific literature. Direct relationships between agreeableness, perceived group norms regarding AOWB, control mechanisms and opportunities as predictors of AOWB were supported. No moderating effect between personality and organizational variables could have been confirmed. Finally, this dissertation proposes a theoretical model integrating different predictors of AOWB that act in complementarity to explain a larger portion of variance that any single predictor could explain. The presented multiple mechanisms that can trigger AOWB underline the complexity of the phenomenon. This results of this dissertation invite the researchers to pursue the investigation while keeping in mind that AOWB can not be explained by individuals, work group dynamics or organizational contexts separately, but by a composition of those variables.