The Relationship Between Productive and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: Working Hard or Hardly Working?

Background & Purpose: A new employee takes a risk to speak up to a supervisor about a work-related problem fearful of the risk to their job status. Another employee is considering taking initiative to implement an innovative method of working with clients, but decides it may not be worth the risk. How do employee attempts (or lack thereof) to improve or change work related circumstances impact one's ability to do one's job? Perhaps, in some cases, an employee may disengage after deciding to not speak up. On the other hand, an employee who speaks up, may be less likely to disengage and also decide to productively contribute to the effectiveness of their work organization. These type of situations speaks to the crux of the study—the relationship between productive and counterproductive work behaviors. Specifically, the purpose of this study is (1) to examine the relationship between employee voice and neglect over two time points and (2) draw implications for administration and leadership in child welfare organizations.

Method: The study sample comprised 359 workers in a large child welfare organization. At time 2, 187 of the workers completed the six-month follow-up survey, resulting in a 52.1% response rate. Employee voice and job neglect was measured using pre-existing scales adopted from Rusbult et al (1998). In addition, demographic information was captured and included in the model. Path analysis using the maximum likelihood estimation method was utilized to examine the relationship between voice and neglect over time. Employee demographic characteristics (gender, ethnicity, and job tenure) were also included as controls.

Results: Path analysis results revealed statistically significant paths between voice and neglect at baseline and over time. At baseline the relationship between voice and neglect was not as hypothesized. Unexpectedly, the more employees engaged in voice at time 1, the more they engaged in neglect (ß = .175; p < .o5) in the same time period. Yet, the relationship between voice and neglect changes over time. Employee voice at baseline was inversely related to neglect at the six‐month follow‐up (ß = -.170; p < .05). Although the data do not demonstrate that voice efforts at baseline predicts actual changes in neglect responses at the six‐month follow‐up, the finding suggests that being able to voice may be sufficient to discourage unfavorable work responses over time.

Conclusions and Implications: Based on study findings, leaders are encouraged to examine mechanisms for employees to productively exercise their voice or promote change within child welfare organizations. This may aid in creating engaged and productive child welfare workforce who contribute to organizational innovation and learning.