SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2013, 41(6), 921-932 © Society for Personality Research http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.6.921
CONTENT AND CONSTRUCT OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR IN A CHINESE CONTEXT SHIYONG XU AND QING WANG Renmin University of China CONG LIU Hofstra University YUHUI LI Renmin University of China KAN OUYANG Hong Kong Polytechnic University We conducted 2 studies in order to explore the content and construct of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in a Chinese cultural context. In Study 1 we used a 4-category construct of CWB in China and the results showed that supervisor-related CWB was different from that identified in Western studies. In Study 2 it was indicated that Chinese employees’ interpersonal-related CWB involved indirect communication. The property-related CWB engaged in by Chinese employees was the tendency to abuse power for personal gain. Production-related CWB appeared to be openly expressed. The results in this study deepen and extend our understanding of CWB in 2 important ways. First, they show that culture conditions people’s thoughts about what is considered CWB and which behaviors are highlighted in a specific culture. Second, they lend support to the convergence and divergence perspectives. Keywords: counterproductive work behavior, content, construct, convergence, divergence, China.
Shiyong Xu and Qing Wang, School of Labor and Human Resources, Renmin University of China; Cong Liu, Department of Psychology, Hofstra University; Yuhui Li, School of Labor and Human Resources, Renmin University of China; Kan Ouyang, Department of Marketing and Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant # 70872104), the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities, and the Research Funds of Renmin University of China (Grant # 2010030065). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Qing Wang, School of Labor and Human Resources, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, People’s Republic of China. Email:
[email protected]
921
922
A CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF CWB
In current organizational research, employee job performance is often viewed from three distinct perspectives: task performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and counterproductive work behavior (CWB; Sackett, 2002). CWB is quite different from task performance and OCB. Researchers believe that it both affects organizational performance and harms employees’ well-being. Statistics have shown that CWBs cause approximately $6 to $200 billion in organizational losses annually (Mikulay, Neuman, & Finkelstein, 2001). Due to this double harming effect, CWB has been gaining increased attention from both researchers and practitioners since the 1970s (e.g., Hollinger & Clark, 1983). Thus far, Western scholars have conducted a number of valuable studies on conceptualizing, measuring, and exploring the mechanism of CWB. However, there are still considerable inconsistencies. One of these inconsistencies concerns the content and structure of the CWB. As most CWB research is conducted in Western societies, it is not known if the construct of CWB developed in Western studies is valid in other cultures or in a global context. It is therefore necessary to investigate the content and structure of CWB in a non-Western cultural context. In this study, we examined the CWB construct in China, because 1) Chinese culture contrasts sharply with Western culture (Hofstede, 1991), and 2) Chinese society is in the process of transforming from a traditional society into a modern society. Chinese employees may therefore experience more uncertainty and face more work stress. Consequently, they may engage in different CWBs than do their Western counterparts. Previous Literature on CWB Fox and Spector (2005) defined CWB as a set of distinct acts that are volitional and harm or intend to harm organizations and/or organization stakeholders. Researchers have taken two different courses when investigating the structure of CWB. Those who have taken the first course employed factor analysis or subject matter experts (SMEs) to classify CWB and then correlate the results with external criteria for validation. For example, Gruys and Sackett (2003) developed 11 CWB categories, and their confirmatory factor analysis suggested a moderate fit for the 11-factor CWB model. In contrast, Spector et al. (2006) established a 5-category CWB structure using SMEs. The five types are abuse, theft, sabotage, production deviance, and withdrawal. Those taking the second course have concentrated on the taxonomy of CWB. For example, Robinson and Bennett (1995) obtained a 2-dimensional solution using multidimensional scale (MDS) analysis: the interpersonal-organizational dimension and the minor offense-serious offense dimension. Compared to Western studies, CWB research in China has been insufficient. As far as we know, only one investigation into the content and structure of CWB as
A CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF CWB
923
a composite construct has been published. Using multidimensional scale analysis (MDS), Rotundo and Xie (2008) noted that managers in China conceptualized CWB similarly to managers from the Western culture. They classified CWB according to interpersonal–organizational and task relevance dimensions. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development During the 1960s, the internationalization of business led researchers to investigate the management of organizations. Some researchers believed that organizational and contextual variables (such as structure, technology, business environment, industrialization, and globalization) would lead to a convergence of management practice, workplace attitudes, and behaviors (e.g., Pudelko, 2005). On the other side of the debate, adherents of the divergence approach emphasized that management practices are deeply influenced by relevant sociocultural variables. Thus, management practices should be adjusted to the local cultural context (Cummings & Schmidt, 1972). More recently, some researchers have proposed an integrative view, suggesting that both convergence and divergence may occur simultaneously in the process of human resource management practices (e.g., Khilji, 2002; Rhodes, Walsh, & Lok, 2008). Study 1 In this study, we used the integrative view as the theoretical framework. We contended that CWBs have universal facets (convergence) and unique facets (divergence). Organizations, with their employees and assets, provide products and services through the division of labor among employees (Drucker, 2002). Thus, three types of connections within organizations are formed: connections between person and person, connections between person and position of responsibility, and connections between person and property in organizations. We argued that the three connections come from industrialization and cause CWB to exhibit its universal facets. Production-related CWB, interpersonal-related CWB, and property-related CWB (which correspond, respectively, with the abovementioned connections) were established in most of the studies of CWB in Western culture (e.g., Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Therefore, we predicted that CWB would be displayed in these three categories when employees feel that their justice, dignity, and personal accomplishments are threatened (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004; Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006). We therefore hypothesized that: Hypothesis 1: The Chinese employees will exhibit production-related CWB. Hypothesis 2: The Chinese employees will exhibit interpersonal-related CWB. Hypothesis 3: The Chinese employees will exhibit property-related CWB.
924
A CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF CWB
At the same time, according to the divergence perspective, we believed that the CWBs in China would show some special and unique features, as China is very different from the West in terms of its cultural environment. In Hofstede’s (1996) view, China is a high power distance country, in which power inequalities are common and normally accepted by their members, who either heavily rely on or look down on their supervisors. Under such circumstances, supervisors’ behaviors have a greater influence on their subordinates compared to circumstances where power is more equal. Because of this, subordinates focus on their supervisors’ behavior (Cheng, Huang, & Chou, 2002; Liu, Long, & Li, 2003). We expected that both supervisors and employees would have high recognition and tolerance of authority and power inequality, which might cause managers’ authoritarianism and irregularities in their behavior toward subordinates. At the same time, the subordinates would try to please their supervisor under normal circumstances or accuse their supervisor of incompetence when they find that the supervisor is not qualified. We therefore hypothesized that: Hypothesis 4: Chinese employees will exhibit supervisor-related CWB. Method Sample
Participants in this study were 128 employees. The respondents were, on average, 36.9 years old (SD = 9.7), and their average tenure was 15.5 years (SD = 10.7). Of the 128 participants, 52.4% were male, 47.6% were female, and 66.1% had at least an undergraduate diploma. In terms of organization type, 33.9% were from state-owned enterprises, 19.7% were from private firms, 18.1% were from government institutions, 14.2% were from public institutions, 9.4% were from joint ventures, and 4.7% were from collective enterprises. Procedure
In step one, students who took a required management course distributed open-ended questionnaires. They contacted their parents or the coworkers of their parents, who were asked for their voluntary participation. The completed questionnaires were returned by the students or the participants posted them directly to us by mail. On the questionnaire, we first defined CWB: CWB refers to volitional acts that harm or are intended to harm organizations and/or organization stakeholders. We then asked participants to describe four to seven CWB incidents. To avoid the social desirability bias, we asked them to answer the questions anonymously. The 128 participants listed 609 CWB items. In step two, all 609 items were transcribed onto 9 cm × 5.5 cm cards. We initially screened the entries based on three criteria: (a) having a clear meaning in the Chinese language, (b) involving CWB, and (c) referring to employee
A CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF CWB
925
behavior. After screening, 534 items remained. We then classified the items independently. After several iterations, we devised a 22-category system. All 534 items were placed into the 22 mutually exclusive categories. In step three, in order to test the interrater reliability, we recruited nine doctoral and master’s degree students in the field of human resource management. All of the students participated in a 1-hour training session on the background of this research, the definition of CWB, and the definition of each CWB category. The students also participated in some classifying practice. After the training, the nine students began to sort the 534 incidents back into 22 categories. They were randomly divided into three groups (with three persons in each group), and each panel was assigned one third of the item pool. The three panels operated independently. There were 340 full-agreement items (63.7%), 96 two-agreement items (18.0%), 60 one-agreement items (11.2%), and 38 zero-agreement items (7.1%). We retained the full-agreement and two-agreement items (436 items in all) for the subsequent analysis. In step four, in order to achieve scientific parsimony, three of us (Xu, Wang, and Li) sorted the 22 categories into broader and more abstract categories based on similarities. The original 22 categories were reduced to four categories. Results We put the four broad categories into two groups. One group consisted of common CWB categories, in which the content domain had been documented in Western literature. The other group consisted of China-specific CWB categories. Three common CWB categories are production-related CWB, property-related CWB, and interpersonal-related CWB. Production-related CWB comprises the behaviors that violate organizational requirements in terms of job duty. Production-related CWB was the behavior most frequently mentioned by employees, accounting for 187 items (42.9%). Production-related CWB was composed of eight subcategories: sabotage (92 items), buck-passing (8 items), silent behavior (6 items), violation of procedures (6 items), absenteeism (arriving late and leaving early; 30 items), damaging the organization’s image (21 items), information leakage (12 items), and noncompliance with the company’s and society’s ethical codes (12 items). Property-related CWB (with 92 items, 21.1%) refers to instances in which employees improperly acquire, use, or damage an organization’s property. Property-related CWB was composed of four subcategories: fraud (13 items), vandalism and waste (45 items), using public property for personal purposes (22 items), and abuse of power for personal gains (12 items). The intention behind interpersonal-related CWB is to destroy human relationships in organizations; 120 items (27.5%) are allotted to this category.
926
A CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF CWB
Interpersonal-related CWB was composed of seven subcategories: gossiping about colleagues (42 items), internal personal conflicts (20 items), noncooperation (20 items), stirring up trouble (16 items), developing cliques (9 items), complaining about other people (3 items), and negative behavior toward clients (10 items). Supervisor-related CWB refers to leaders’ improper acts toward subordinates and subordinates’ improper acts toward supervisors. It includes three subcategories: leaders’ misconduct (18 items, including low distribution justice, giving confused orders, and random commitments), insubordination (13 items), and trying to please supervisors (6 items). Discussion Using an inductive method to explore the content of CWB in China, we identified four CWB categories. The specific category under Chinese culture was supervisor-related CWB. We speculated that this issue is related to China’s current stage of economic development and the cultural differences between China and the West. Although specific supervisor behaviors were identified by Robinson and Bennett (1995), such as “Boss blaming employee for own mistakes” (p. 562), a matching category was not developed. In the present study we showed that 8.5% of the total items were related to the relationship between supervisors and their subordinates. Cheng, Chou, and Farh (2000) demonstrated that as a social influence process, leadership is a fits-all phenomenon, not subjected to national boundaries. However, culture does shape the meaning, style, and practices of leadership. A prominent feature of Chinese culture is the high power distance (Hofstede, 1980). Wu, Liu, and Liu (2009) suggested that employees’ individual interests are impacted by both organizational norms and leaders in high power distance cultures, which means supervisors at the core of comments and concerns. This situation might cause the supervisors’ authoritarianism and irregularities and subordinates’ behaviors toward their supervisor. Three of the four categories we identified have been well documented in Western literature on CWB (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Spector et al., 2006), suggesting that these three categories have broad applicability across cultures, thus lending support to the convergence perspective. The results were different from those of Rotundo and Xie (2008), who found that managers in China conceptualized CWB in ways similar to managers from the West, classifying CWB based on the interpersonal–organizational and task relevance dimensions. Of note, most participants were managers (67%) in Rotundo and Xie’s study. As such, they could have been inclined to respond to the standpoint of manager and ignore the CWB of supervisors. However, when we further analyzed these items, we found that the specific behaviors that constitute the domain of these three categories were far from
A CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF CWB
927
identical. For instance, some sabotage-related and easily detected behaviors (such as sleeping during work hours) were listed by Chinese employees, but are not found in Western literature. In contrast, some vague and difficult to detect behaviors (such as daydreaming) mentioned by Western employees were not shown in our study. We conducted Study 2 in order to substantiate the possible differences between items from the same category generated from Chinese employees and those from Western employees. Study 2 In Study 1, when we analyzed the categories common to those of the Western literature (production-related CWB, interpersonal-related CWB, and propertyrelated CWB), we found that Chinese employees’ interpersonal-related CWB was somewhat indirect. An example of such CWB includes talking about someone behind his or her back while pretending to be compliant. In related research it has been shown that, although undesirable, interpersonal relationships are common topics among both Chinese and Western employees. However, two conflicting Chinese employees are likely to act in a more overtly friendly manner than their Western counterparts, yet they release their pent-up anger through covert aggression (Wang, 2011). We therefore hypothesized that: Hypothesis 1: Items underlying interpersonal-related CWB that are generated from Chinese employees will be less overt than items from Western employees. In terms of property-related CWB, we found that Chinese employees appear to abuse power for personal gain. Examples of such behavior include using company cars for personal use and using company funds for recreational activities. We argued that greater power distance allows dominating individuals greater privileges, which they could easily abuse for their own personal gain without being punished (Hofstede, 1991). Regarding CWB, they also tend to abuse power for personal gain. We therefore hypothesized that: Hypothesis 2: Items underlying property-related CWB generated from Chinese employees will involve greater tendency to abuse power for personal gain as compared to those generated from Western employees. Items underlying production-related CWB from Chinese employees demonstrated that their coworkers easily detect their violations against organization rules and policies. One example of this is taking a nap or playing games at work. China is still in the process of transforming from an agricultural society to an industrialized society; many of its citizens are from rural areas. Such a discrepancy between modern organizations and unprepared employees may give rise to employees’ violations of organizational rules and regulations (Wren, 1994/2012). Moreover, modern administration systems in Chinese enterprises exist more in name than in reality. This is still, to some degree, manifested in
928
A CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF CWB
current Chinese enterprises (Gao, 2011) and gives rise to the open expression of production-related CWB. We therefore hypothesized that: Hypothesis 3: Items underlying production-related CWB that are generated from Chinese employees will be more openly expressed as compared to those generated from Western employees. Method Procedure
In step one, we reviewed each incident generated in Study 1 and grouped incidents that were clearly similar but that were provided by different participants (Rotundo & Xie, 2008), leaving 66 items. There were 36 items that involved interpersonal-related CWB, 14 items that involved production-related CWB, and 17 items that involved property-related CWB. In step two, we collected the corresponding items underlying the three common categories from Robison et al. (2000) and Spector et al. (2006). There were 23 items that involved interpersonal-related CWB, 13 items that involved production-related CWB, and 12 items that involved property-related CWB. In step three, we invited 31 professionals to rate the items. Each category was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The average age of the 31 professional raters was 36.37 (SD = 5.01). The average tenure was 13.82 years (SD = 5.80). Results Table 1. Results of SMEs Rating Comparisons CSPropI (3.95, 0.95) – OPropI (2.94, 0.95) CSInterI (3.35, 0.74) – OInterI (2.31, 0.66) CSInterI (3.35, 0.74) – WSInterI (2.49, 0.62) CSProdI (3.92, 0.90) – WSProdI (3.29, 0.74) CSProdI (3.92, 0.90) – OprodI (3.29, 0.73)
t
df
p (2-tailed)
8.723 9.551 9.098 5.927 5.261
30 30 30 30 30
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Note. The left row with “–” displays comparison; The first figure in the parentheses is the mean, the second is the SD. CPropSI = Chinese-specific property-related CWB items; OPropI = Overlapped property-related CWB items; CSInterI = Chinese-specific interpersonal-related CWB items; OInterI = Overlapped interpersonal-related CWB items; WSInterI = Western-specific interpersonal-related CWB items; CSProdI = Chinese-specific production-related CWB items; WSProdI = Westernspecific production-related CWB items; OProdI = Overlapped production-related CWB items.
The rating of Chinese employees’ less overt distinct interpersonal-related CWB items was 3.3487 (see Table 1). This was significantly higher than items shared by Chinese and Western employees (t = 9.551, p < .001) and Western employees’
A CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF CWB
929
distinct CWB items (t = 9.098, p < .001). This supports Hypothesis 1. In a similar vein, the rating of the open expression of Chinese employees’ distinct production-related CWB items was 3.9217. This is significantly higher than items shared by Chinese and Western employees (t = 9.551, p < .001) and Western employees’ distinct CWB items (t = 9.098, p < .001), which supports Hypothesis 2. Moreover, the rating of Chinese employees’ distinct property-related CWB items was 3.9462. This is significantly higher than items shared by Chinese and Western employees (t = 8.723, p < .001), which supports Hypothesis 3. Discussion The results in Study 2 supported our hypotheses. We tend to attribute the distinctiveness of Chinese employees’ CWB to the collectivism and great power distance rooted in Chinese culture and the ill-implemented internal management systems in current Chinese enterprises. In collectivist culture, if one individual initiates direct conflict against another, the initiator is definitely violating the fundamental principle of collectivism. Right and wrong have nothing to do with apportioning blame (Hofstede, 1996). Thus, interpersonal conflict tends to be solved in an indirect way, unless it cannot be settled without overt aggression (Hofstede, 1996). Another distinct characteristic of Chinese culture is great power distance (Hofstede, 1991). Accordingly, people at higher levels are accorded a greater number of rights. When the management system is ill-implemented, people at the top tend to consider it safe to transgress rules and reap personal gains without being punished. Therefore, in our study, Chinese employees’ property-related CWB items showed that people tend to abuse power for personal gains. In terms of the open expression of Chinese employees’ production-related CWB items, we contended that it might be due to the interaction of employees’ adaptation to organization policy and the implementation of organization policy. Yet China is still in the process of transforming from an agricultural society to an industrialized society, whose members still have preindustrialized habits, such as lax discipline (Wang, 2008). Chinese executives have yet to fully embrace that “law is law” (Gao, 2011, p. 52). They themselves often expect different behaviors from their employees according to their closeness, whose interaction with their employees may jointly give rise to the open expression of Chinese employees’ production-related CWB. Conclusion In the present study we have deepened and extended our understanding of CWB in two important ways. First, the results showed that the construct of
930
A CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF CWB
CWB varies significantly across different cultural contexts. Culture conditions people’s perceptions of what is considered CWB and which behaviors are more marked under a specific culture. We argued that supervisor-related CWB could be a specific category in China. Second, under the categories common to Chinese and Western employees, some items were consistent between China and Western countries, while others were not. These included “use public funds for private travel”, “sleep at work time”, and “pretend to promise colleagues but later renege this promise”. The results in the present study lend support to the convergence and divergence perspectives, that is, both divergent and convergent issues act simultaneously (Khilji, 2002; Rhodes, Walsh, & Lok, 2008). Modern organizations, in nature, provide products and services using the collaboration of employees, combined with its assets, thus forming three types of connections within organizations: connections between person and person, connections between person and task, and connections between person and equipment. Accordingly, employees’ CWB is manifested in these three categories. The results in the present study also replicated these general categories, thus lending support to convergence. Moreover, employees’ behaviors are also a function of local culture and economics, which manifest themselves in the behavior patterns of employees within their scope. To illustrate, inappropriate leader behavior indicates Chinese employees’ response to great power distance, and immoral behavior demonstrates the remains of traditionally enclosed society in China (Wei, 1993). A result in this study we found interesting is that Chinese employees’ CWB appears to be somewhat diverse, including the behaviors underlying the shared categories of Chinese and Western employees, which is most likely due to the distinct cultural, economic, and societal context in China. Evidence concerning these three categories showed that there is some element of divergent convergence, which further supported the integrative view of the relationship between convergence and divergence. Our results have important practical implications. First, more attention should be given to the differences between Chinese employees’ CWB and Western employees’ CWB, in spite of their similarities. Accordingly, future researchers should develop an inventory for measuring Chinese employees’ CWB. Second, Chinese employees demonstrate complicated CWB toward their organizations and coworkers, partly due to the distinct Chinese cultural context and currently rapid progress in economy and society. Accordingly, managers have to go farther to learn about their subordinates’ detrimental behavior before they can execute effective interventions. There were several limitations in the present study. First, in Study 1, as there were only 128 participants, our sample may not have been representative of all Chinese employees. However, the group of respondents was diverse in
A CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF CWB
931
gender, age, education level, and organization type, which increased the representativeness of the sample. Second, Study 1 was an exploratory qualitative study, in which we collected behavioral data using open questionnaires, and the classification of behavior depended on the experience of experts. Therefore, the findings need to be verified by further quantitative research. Third, the supporting evidence in Study 2 came from the ratings of 31 subject matter experts. Thus, further evidence is needed to clarify whether or not the differences demonstrated in Study 2 are significant. References Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360. http://doi.org/bswm6x Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Farh, J. L. (2000). Paternalistic leadership scale: Construction and measurement of triad model. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14, 3-64. Cheng, B. S., Huang, M. P., & Chou, L. F. (2002). Paternalistic leadership and its effectiveness: Evidence from Chinese organizational teams. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 3, 85-112. Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609. http://doi.org/dt5m92 Cummings, L. L., & Schmidt, S. M. (1972). Managerial attitudes of Greeks: The roles of culture and industrialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 265-277. http://doi.org/dfv6nh Drucker, P. (2002). Concept of the corporation. Shanghai, China: Shanghai People’s Publishing House. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gao, Y. G. (2011). Max Weber and contemporary Chinese legal belief [In Chinese]. Journal of Comparative Law, 3, 48-58. Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 30-42. http://doi.org/gdt Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture consequences: International difference in work-related value. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London, UK: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (1996). Software of the mind: Surviving in a multicultural world [In Chinese]. Beijing, China: Science Press. Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Judge, T., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126-138. http://doi.org/gdw Khilji, S. E. (2002). Modes of convergence and divergence: An integrative view of multinational practices in Pakistan. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2, 232-253. http://doi.org/b7hwwv Liu, Y., Long, L. R., & Li, Y. (2003). The unique effects of organizational justice dimensions on key organizational outcomes [In Chinese]. Management World, 3, 126-132. Mikulay, S., Neuman, G., & Finkelstein, L. (2001). Counterproductive workplace behavior. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 127, 279-300.
932
A CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF CWB
Rhodes, J., Walsh, P., & Lok, P. (2008). Convergence and divergence issues in strategic management – Indonesia’s experience with the balanced scorecard in HR management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 1170-1185. http://doi.org/csn4pz Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 2, 555-572. http://doi.org/bcp4wk Rotundo, M., & Xie, J. L. (2008). Understanding the domain of counterproductive work behavior in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 856-877. http:// doi.org/bn5ndm Pudelko, M. (2005). Cross-national learning from best practice and the convergence-divergence debate in HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 2045-2074. http://doi.org/dnht2b Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 5-11. http://doi.org/gd5 Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446-460. http://doi.org/gd7 Wang, H. J. (2011). The concept of harmonious world which is based on Chinese traditional culture [In Chinese]. Journal of the Party School of the Central Committee of the C.P.C., 15, 96-100. Wang, Y. R. (2008). Chinese economic history [In Chinese]. Beijing, China: Higher Education Press. Wei, M. H. (1993). New perspective on Chinese social morality [In Chinese]. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Science Edition), 3, 8-17. Wu, L. Z., Liu, J., & Liu, G. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee performance: Mechanisms of traditionality and trust. Acta Psychological Sinica, 41, 510-518. Wren, A. D. (2012). The evolution of management thought. (J. M. Sun, Trans.). Beijing, China: China Renmin University Press. (Original work published 1994)
Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal is the property of Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
