Negative work behaviors can generally be characterized by their intentional
nature and detrimental consequences, and be classiWed according to the recipi-
ent(s) of the negative consequences and the severity of harm incurred (GriYn and
O’Leary-Kelly 2004 ; Robinson and Bennett 1995 ). The labels ‘deviance’ and ‘coun-
terproductivity,’ in particular, have been used to refer to acts like absenteeism,
withholding eVort, theft, sabotage, spreading rumors, sexual harassment, and
physical violence (Miles et al. 2002 ; Robinson and Bennett 1997 ). Yet, there is a
lack of consistent support for the parsing of negative behaviors into speciWc
dimensions, partly because hypothesized facets tend to be correlated (Lim and
Cortina 2005 ; Sackett 2002 ; Viswesvaran and Ones 2000 ). Bennett and Robinson
( 2003 ) noted that past research has been plagued with deWnitional problems. They
concluded (p. 251 ): ‘What matters most is not whose deWnition of workplace
deviance [and other related concepts] is used in a given study, but only that the
deWnition matches the theory and the operationalizations used in question.’
Althoughdeviancecan be deWned narrowly as behaviors departing from the
norm, the broader concept ofcounterproductivityappears to clash with the concept
of prosocial behaviors, as well as with general deWnitions of performance. The
fundamental question is: Are positive and negative organizational behaviors merely
two ends of the spectrum? If they are, organizations need only be concerned with
selecting people based on their propensity and ability to perform positive, helpful
behaviors. If the two concepts are distinct, then additional predictors will be needed
to select the best applicants. From a theoretical standpoint, it would be much simpler
to examine employee behaviors without attaching value to them, as Campbell ( 1990 )
suggests, since the same behavior may be seen as positive in one context and negative
or neutral in another (Heilman and Chen 2005 ; Rotundo and Sackett 2002 ).
Miles et al. ( 2002 ) provided data showing diVerent patterns of relationships for
counterproductive and citizenship behaviors with environmental working condi-
tions, aVect, and trait anger and a weak negative correlation between the two types
of performance, suggesting that these concepts represent distinct dimensions.
Kelloway et al. ( 2002 ) came to the same conclusion after conducting conWrmatory
factor analyses of citizenship and counterproductivity. Still, additional theory is
needed to justify this conceptual distinction. For example, Sackett ( 2002 ) provided
evidence of a strong negative relationship between counterproductivity and citi-
zenship, but still concluded that the concepts were mutually exclusive on the
premiss that an employee can engage in all types of performance (i.e. task,
citizenship,andcounterproductive performance).
Beyond strict behaviorism, a focus on intentions can make an examination of
both positive and negative work behaviors more meaningful, given a particular
context (Brief and Motowidlo 1986 ; GriYn and O’Leary-Kelly 2004 ; Harris and
Ogbonna 2002 ). Motivational determinants of counterproductive behaviors such
as coercion by a superior, attempts to resolve injustice, mental illness, whistle-
blowing, and the need toWt in with a culture that happens to be harmful might
312 neal schmitt and brian kim