Analysis of productive and counterproductive behavior in organizations

Counterproductive & Productive Behaviors in Organizations

In every organization that are some behaviors that are counterproductive, and also there are productive behaviors to be found in every organization. What are those behaviors, what impact to they have on job performance and what strategies would be best to ensure a maximum number of workers are engaged in productive behaviors? This paper reviews those issues and provides answers to the questions.

Productive Behaviors

Productive behaviors are those that contribute to the success of an organization and to the happiness of the individual employee. Those behaviors include cooperation; loyalty; flexibility when being assigned to a new task; genuine concern for doing things correctly; and consistency in attendance and adherence to company guidelines.

There are strategies for increasing or improving productive behavior, according to authors of Getting Things Done (David Allen) and Be Excellent at Anything (Tony Schwartz). Both of these authors were interviewed in the Harvard Business Review (HBR). First of all, Schwartz has advice for managers; people are not meant to run like computers, at "high speeds, continuously, for long periods of time, running multiple programs simultaneously" (HBR, 84). Humans are designed to be "…rhythmic. The heart pulses; muscles contract and relax. We're at our best when we're moving rhythmically between spending energy and renewing it," Schwartz explains.

Schwartz explains that managers should encourage employees to "work intensely for 90 minutes and then take a break to recover"; also, instead of three big meals a day, employees are more productive when they "…eat small, energy-rich meals every few hours" (HBR, 84). Schwartz also recommends proper rest at work -- "We believe napping drives productivity…" (HBR, 84). Schwartz insists that organizations can't "…keep pushing people to their limits and expect them to produce at a sustainably high level of excellence" (HBR, 85). Allen explains that a big roadblock to productivity in many organizations is that people "don't write it down" when they agree to do something; it goes "into a black hole," Allen goes on. When people fail to determine precisely what their commitment is, or what they "want to achieve," they are not being productive. Make lists, in other words. Write it down. "Your head is for having ideas, not holding them," Allen adds. Externalizing things from the head is a "huge step," Allen states (HBR, 85).

Counterproductive Behaviors

An article in The International Journal of Human Resource Management points out that in the United States, approximately $50 billion is lost each year to organizations because of counterproductive behaviors by employees (Chang, et al., 2010, p. 1273). About 20% of business failures (businesses going bankrupt or just closing their doors due to lack of profit / production) are due to counterproductive behaviors, and the "psychological impact of workplace deviance" -- which can't be quantified but can be devastating -- often translates into "reduced employee morale, higher rates of absenteeism and turnover, and lower productivity" (Chang, 1273.

What are the specific kinds of counterproductive behaviors that Chang and colleague are referring to? Counterproductive behaviors go against the interests that the organization is designed to fulfill. There are several examples given by Chang (1273): a) bullying/swearing at colleagues; b) playing mean-spirited pranks; c) "falsifying expense reports"; d) "sabotaging others' work"; and e) theft. The most obvious result of counterproductive behaviors is that overall it reduces the effectiveness of the organization and harms the employees that are serious, well-behaved individuals.

The authors in this article refer to counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) as "deviance," "antisocial," "unruliness…destructive and hazardous behaviors" -- and there is no doubt that they can become "pervasive and costly" (1273). Moreover, the negative effect that CWB have on other employees is substantial and debilitating to moral; in a survey of 1,662 employee participants, 58% of the women reported "experiencing potentially harassing behaviors" and 24% of women have actually been sexually harassed at work (Chang, 1273). Another counterproductive behavior on the job is misuse of the Internet; 25% of companies have fired workers for using the Internet improperly. And a shocking detail is the fact that "95% of organizations find themselves the targets of employee theft and fraud" (Chang, 1273).

Chang offers results of a study into the kinds of personalities that are prone to become counterproductive. Employees with "certain personality characteristics are more likely to demonstrate CWB," and one of the strongest predictors of potential CWB is a personality that shows "conscientiousness" (Chang, 1283). Research shows that, in order of their potential for being CWB, right after conscientiousness is "agreeableness, self-esteem, extraversion, neuroticism and openness to experiences" (Chang, 1283). Given those personality types, when an organization is perceived to be unfair -- and does not provide "distributive justice" or "interactional justice" -- the occurrence of CWB will be expected to be more common.

In other words, when organizational injustice exists, "…employees with extreme personality characteristics are more likely to demonstrate CWB"; extreme personality characteristics include "conscientiousness," "agreeableness," among others. Hence, the authors believe that by implementing "interactional justice" (the "interpersonal treatment and communication by management to employees") and "distributive justice" (employees' perceptions of "the fairness of the outcomes they receive relative to their contributions" and the outcomes"), organizations can reduce CWB (Chang, 1274 / 1284).