The overall problem this research addresses is the costly impact of counterproductive work behaviors. The purpose of this study was to examine whether uncertainty, stress, or frustration are related to variability, or in predicting counterproductive work behaviors. Wavering economic conditions have steadily altered work environments, and with continuous work changes are growing feelings of uncertainty, concerns of employee and organizational safety, performance, and overall wellbeing. The social exchange theory and the workplace social exchange network were used in this study to better understand employee relationships and response behaviors. Research questions compared the relationships among perceived uncertainty, stress, frustration, and levels of counterproductive work behaviors. For this study, a sample of 180 volunteers completed the Psychological Uncertainty Scale, the Perceived Stress Scale-10, the Frustration Scale, and the Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist-10. Volunteers were recruited via invitation by Findparticipants.com. and SurveyMonkey-® hosted the data collection. This non-experimental, quantitative study employed a survey design, and multiple linear regression analysis were used to test the hypotheses. Regression analyses indicated a significant relationship between frustration and counterproductive work behaviors (t = 4.269, p < .001); however, the relationship of uncertainty and stress with counterproductive behaviors was not statistically significant. Predicting employee negative behaviors and gaining a better understanding of factors with negative influences on work behavior allows leadership the opportunity to develop more sustainable strategies designed to influence and encourage positive social change.

This study attempted to expand previous research on employee retaliation against abusive supervision by evaluating both overt and covert retaliatory behaviors and the different mechanisms behind these behaviors. Initial confirmatory factor analysis did not find substantial support for a two-factor retaliation construct, but this may have been a result of the nature of behavioral retaliation items that composed the measures. Correlational analyses did not demonstrate clear discriminate validity between overt and overt retaliation; additionally, regression analyses did not find support for high performing or highly political skilled employees retaliating primarily through one form of retaliation. Highly political skilled and high performing employees performed less retaliatory behaviors overall when experiencing high amounts of abusive supervision. Although initial analyses did not support the distinction between overt and covert retaliation, mediation analyses did find some support for differential pathways. Specifically this investigation found that the relationship between abusive supervision and overt retaliation was mediated by feelings of hostility towards employees’ supervisors, whereas the relationship between abusive supervision and covert retaliation was mediated by perceptions of interactional injustice. Overall, this investigation provides mixed support for the distinction between overt and covert employee retaliatory behavior.

Workplace mistreatment, in the form of both incivility and aggression, can have a major impact on personal and organizational outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine the mental judgments that individuals make before engaging in either uncivil or aggressive behavior. Data was analyzed in terms of both the potential costs and the potential benefits that an instigator could expect from engaging in such behavior, with specific emphasis on gender differences in cost/benefit expectations. There were no significant gender differences in either the perceived costs or the perceived benefits of engaging in incivility. The hypothesis that individuals with a low cost and/or high benefit pattern of responses of incivility were more likely to report instigating uncivil behaviors was also unsupported. The limitation of statistical analyses by a violation of the assumption of equal variances is discussed.

No description available.

Counterproductive employee behaviors are inevitable, unpredictable, and widespread in the U.S. retail industry. The purpose of this multiple case study was to explore U.S. midlevel retail leadership strategies used to prevent and correct employee behaviors that sabotage quality service encounters. Gilbert's behavior engineering model, which links employee behaviors to performance, was the framework used in this study. The data-collection process comprised 7 semistructured interviews with midlevel retail leaders, online company documentation, and researcher observations and assisted in achieving methodological triangulation. Member checking ensured the accuracy of participant responses, while Moustakas' modified van Kaam method was used to guide the data analysis process. Making the customer service experience special, employee rudeness and bad attitudes, and leading by example were the primary emergent themes. The participants revealed key behavior intervention and corrective strategies prior to termination consisted of only 2 steps: coaching or 1-on-1 discussions and formal training. The findings of this study may contribute to retail business practices by expanding existing leadership strategies to engineer employee behaviors that produce consistent quality service encounters, empower employees, improve consumer satisfaction, and increase retail profitability and competitiveness. Resultant retailers' profitability and consumer satisfaction may contribute to social change by directly impacting the U.S. gross domestic product, local communal tax base, and reinforce human civility throughout the retail industry.