Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is employee behavior that goes against the goals of an

organization.[1] These behaviors can be intentional or unintentional and result from a wide range of
underlying causes and motivations. It has been proposed that a person-by-environment interaction
can be utilized to explain a variety of counterproductive behaviors.[2] For instance, an employee who
steals from the company may do so because of lax supervision (environment) and
underlying psychopathology (person) that work in concert to result in the counterproductive behavior.
Counterproductive work behavior is a topic of research in industrial and organizational psychology.



Dimensional Models of Counterproductive Work Behaviors Edit
The variety of acts that are considered CWBs has led to attempts by researchers to create a
coherent typology of CWBs. One four-class typology of CWBs divided the CWBs into the following
categories:
(1) production deviance, involving behaviors like leaving early,
intentionally working slow, or taking long breaks;
(2) property deviance, involving sabotage of equipment, theft of
property, and taking kickbacks;
(3) political deviance, involving showing favoritism, gossiping, or
blaming others; and,
(4) personal aggression, involving harassment, verbal abuse, and
endangerment.[3]
Another typology proposed the following five factors:
(1) abuse against others;
(2) production deviance;
(3) sabotage;
(4) theft; and
(5) withdrawal.[4]
One of the larger typologies included a total of eleven categories of CWBs:
(1) theft of property;
(2) destruction of property;
(3) misuse of information;
(4) misuse of time and resources;
(5) unsafe behavior;
(6) poor attendance;
(7) poor quality of work;
(8) alcohol use;
(9) drug use;
(10) inappropriate verbal action; and
(11) inappropriate physical action.[5]

In this study, we developed a typology of deviant workplace behaviors using multidimensional
scaling techniques. Results suggest that deviant workplace behaviors vary along two
dimensions: minor versus serious, and interpersonal versus organizational. On the basis of
these two dimensions, employee deviance appears to fall into four distinct categories:
production deviance, property deviance, political deviance, and personal aggression.
Theoretical and empirical implications are discussed.


1. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256693
2. Bennett, R. J.; Robinson, S. L. (2000). "Development of a measure of workplace
deviance". Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (3): 349360. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.85.3.349. PMID 10900810.
3. Jump up^ Bowling, N. A.; Gruys, M. L. (2010). "New perspectives in the study of
counterproductive behavior in organizations". Human Resource Management 20 (1): 54
61. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.008
4. Robinson, S. L.; Bennett, R. J. (1995). "A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study". Academy of Management Journal 38 (2): 555
572.doi:10.2307/256693.
5. Jump up^ 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(3), 446-460. doi: