Although counterproductive work behavior (CWB) has long been established as a broad domain of job behaviors, little agreement exists about its internal structure. The present research addressed alternative models of broadly defined CWB according to which specific behaviors can be grouped into (a) one general factor, or into (b) two, (c) five, or (d) eleven narrower facets, and a number of possible integrations of these models. First, conceptual differences between these models (including the nature of overall CWB as implying a reflective or formative model, boundaries of the domain, and relations among specific facets) are reviewed with regard to theoretical and practical implications. In Study 1, structural meta-analysis was then used to test whether a reflective higher-order factor underlies meta-analytically constructed correlation matrices of five CWB facets. Analyses supported a general factor model. For Study 2, a primary data set (N = 1,237 employees) was collected in order to test alternative structural models and possible integrations of these models. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the best fit was for a bimodal (nonhierarchical) model in which individual CWBs simultaneously load on one of the eleven facets describing their content (e.g., theft, absenteeism) and on one of three factors describing the target primarily harmed (organization, other persons, self). Less support was found for hierarchical models and for models involving fewer content factors. These findings suggest that CWB is best described by a reflective higher-order factor at the general level and by a complex set of bimodal facets at the more specific level.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 167 citations exist upstream.