The Effect of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model - Journal of Organizational Behavior Research

THE EFFECT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR ON COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR: A MODERATED MEDIATION MODEL

Ahmed ASFAHANI¹*

¹Department of Human Resources, College of Business Administration, University of Business and Technology, Saudi Arabia.

*Corresponding Author

E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This research examines the path of the employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCBO) enactment to their Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWBO) acts through moral credentials and moral credits as conceptualized by the moral licensing theory under the moderating role of collective identity orientation (CIO). Data were collected from 336 Saudi employees and then were analyzed following the moderated mediation research design proposed by Hayes’ PROCESS macro models through SPSS and AMOS software. The results revealed that moral credits and moral credentials mediate the significant negative relationship between OCBO and CWBO. Still, it was found that only moral credentials caused a significant negative indirect impact on their relationship. In addition, CIO was a significant moderator between OCBO and both moral credentials and moral credits. The present research findings contribute to the literature by expanding the understating of how enactment of ethical and productive pro-organizational behaviors could activate the employees’ psychological and moral justification for performing unethical counterproductive behaviors in the workplace context. The study formulates advice for HR practitioners and managers and discusses implications for future research and theory.

Keywords: Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), Counterproductive work behavior (CWB), Moderated mediation model, Collective identity orientation, Moral licensing

INTRODUCTION

In the current uncertain global economy with competition in all industries, organizations need prosocial and discretionary behaviors from their employees to survive and achieve their competitive advantage. Positive, prosocial, and discretionary behaviors that support, protect, and enhance social and psychological work context could be defined as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) (Organ, 1997; LePine et al., 2002; Bourdage et al., 2018; Sumarsi & Rizal, 2022). Lately, an enhancing interest has existed in using moral licensing theory (Merritt et al., 2010; Miller & Effron, 2010) as a lens to explain, describe, and investigate the role of moral credentials and moral credits in the relationship between OCBs and Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB), which is defined as the employees’ intentional behavior or actions that harm their organization or its stakeholders (Spector & Fox, 2002). That is, an employee engaged in morally favorable action or behavior (i.e., OCB) in the past might commit justified behaviorally and socially immoral acts (i.e., CWB) in the future (Lasarov & Hoffmann, 2020). Such argument was supported by several theoretical (e.g., Spector & Fox, 2010; Klotz & Bolino, 2013; Bolino & Klotz, 2015) and empirical (e.g., S.-H. J. Lin et al., 2016; Yam et al., 2017; Loi et al., 2020; Griep et al., 2021) and experimental (e.g., Kouchaki, 2011; Vincent et al., 2013) studies.

A more in-depth understanding of moral licensing and its relationship to the following performance of OCB could be reached by incorporating the self-concept orientations into the equation (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Aquino et al., 2011; Klotz & Bolino, 2013a; Marstrand et al., 2021). The current research further empirically expands the specific framework by including self-concept orientation, particularly the collective identity orientation, as a moderator that can provide an in-depth understanding of recognition procedures in organizational settings (Cooper & Thatcher, 2017). The researcher answers the call for research by Griep et al. (2021) by examining that role. To what extent incorporating motives (e.g. collective orientation identity) could differentiate the relationship between OCB, moral licensing, and CWB. Prior research highlights the importance of an individual’s sense of self in evaluating his/her acts and moral behavior (Miller & Effron, 2010). Hence, the role of employees’ identity orientation is especially appropriate for understanding its impact on exchange relationships in organizations (Flynn, 2005; Chang & Kim, 2022) and its consequences on the OCB performance (Johnson et al., 2006) and CWB (Kelloway et al., 2010; Enns & Rotundo, 2012).

The present research applies various techniques to contribute to the literature. First, it contributes to the organizational behavior literature by revealing important theoretical insights into how the collective employee’s ordination identity could strengthen or weaken their moral license and how that could affect the relationship between OCBs and CWBs; to the researcher’s knowledge, no study has investigated this relationship. Second, although existing literature offers valuable insights about OCBs and CWBs, there are not enough studies in developing Arab countries’ contexts, more specifically in Saudi Arabia. The study begins by reviewing the relevant literature to propose a hypothesis associating the performance of OCB-O leading to CWB-O through moral licensing to generate hypotheses about the moderating effect of employees’ collective identity orientation. Succeeding sections include the research methodology followed by data analysis, results, findings, theoretical/managerial implications, future research direction, and conclusion.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

In recent years, the OCB concept has received scholarly interest due to its substantial influence on achieving and protecting the organizational competitive advantage (Ali Alhashedi et al., 2021). OCB can be defined as employees’ voluntary behavior and actions that are not formally or directly recognized by the organizational total reward system but contribute to overall organizational functioning effectiveness (Organ, 1988) in the extent to which an employee goes beyond the minimum requirement of their legitimate job (Smith et al., 1983).

Organ (1988) suggested five dimensions for OCB, namely: (1) Altruism is the willingness of an employee to voluntarily assist other employees in their tasks at some cost to oneself (Lo & Ramayah, 2009). (2) Conscientiousness refers to the employee's behavior in suitable using of time and working following organizational rules (Notanubun, 2021). (3) Civic virtue is the employee’s deep concern for participating in and supporting the organization's activities (Law et al., 2005). (4) Sportsmanship refers to an employee’s readiness to provide tolerance to the suboptimal organizational conditions without complaining (Organ, 1994). (5) Courtesy reflects an employee's behavior relative to the participation in work-related problems other employees face (Damghanian & Ghaleroudkhani, 2022).

Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB-O) and Its Relation to OCB-O

Scholars investigated CWB from different dimensions, including antisocial behavior (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), deviance (Hollinger, 1986), organizational aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1998), revenge (Bies et al., 1997), retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), emotional abuse (Keashly, 2008), destructive behaviors (Murphy & Kroeker, 1988), and mobbing/bullying (Zapf et al., 1996). Just like OCB, Robinson and Bennett (1995) suggested two types of CWB based on whom the behavior or actions were directed: (1) CWB-I, which is directed towards individuals, and (2) CWB-O, which is directed to the whole organization.

In recent years, scholars have started integrating both OCB and CWB and investigating their direct relationship (Spector & Fox, 2002; Dalal, 2005; Dineen et al., 2006; Judge et al., 2006). However, most of those studies showed a strong negative relationship between CWB and OCB, indicating that employees engaged in one form of behavior rarely engage in another. According to Dalal (2005), that was most likely due to the particular research methods employed in those studies. Controlling those methodological artifacts led some further studies to find a small positive relation between OCB and CWB (Fox et al., 2007). Furthermore, a study by Venkataramani and Dalal (2007) conducted in a non-work setting found that harming and helping were positively correlated. Thus, the relationship between CWB and OCB outcomes depends on choosing the appropriate research methodology and context.

Furthermore, Sypniewska (2020) recommended using mediation and moderation variables to investigate the relationship between OCB and CWB. The researcher’s knowledge and both mediation and moderation variables are discussed below. Therefore, the researcher hypothesizes the following assumption, based on the preceding discussion:

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant negative direct relationship between OCBO and CWBO.

The Mediating Role of Moral Licensing

Moral licensing theory (Miller & Effron, 2010) proposes that an employee engaged in a morally desirable behavior or action (e.g., OCB-O) in the past might commit socially and behaviorally immoral acts (e.g., CWB-O) in the future without concern about discrediting themselves (Lasarov & Hoffmann, 2020). Moral licensing is distinguished by Miller and Effron (2010) into two models, including moral credentials and moral credits. The moral credits model has its roots in Nisan's (1990, 1991) moral balance model; it is based on the observation that the employee has a dynamic moral self-concept that swings around an equilibrium point. That is, when employees behave in a “good” ethical manner, their self-concept increases; when they are “bad” or conduct unethically or immorality behavior, their self-concept can decrease (Zhong et al., 2010; Ryoo, 2022). As a result, those employees try to achieve a balanced moral equilibrium. For example, when their moral self-concept gets below the equilibrium point, they motivate themselves to do a good deed to raise their self-concept above the equilibrium point (Tetlock et al., 2000) and allow themselves to conduct a bad deed when it is above the equilibrium point (Monin & Miller, 2001). An employee’s moral self-concept can be simply explained as a bank account; whereas good deeds credit the account, bad deeds deposit the account (Yam et al., 2017). The second mechanism of moral licensing theory is the moral credentials model, whose roots are in the casual attribution theory (Kelley, 1973). According to Miller & Effron (2010), employees’ moral behavior in the past changes the meaning of their current morally vague immoral behavior. The interpretation of the employee’s current questionable behavior is affected by their positive past moral behaviors and actions, which act as a lens to licensing and disambiguating subsequent current immoral behaviors (Merritt et al., 2010).

Moral licensing has received increased interest from scholars within the organizational context, and numeric empirical and experimental studies investigated and supported the mechanisms of moral licensing and its effects. A study by Lin et al. (2016) claim a positive association between the engagement of ethical leadership and the increment of abusive behavior due to the increase of moral credits gained in the past displaying ethical behavior. Yam et al. (2017) noticed that the employees’ engagement with OCB can generate a feeling of entitlement due to external motivation, which gives employees a moral license to contribute to organizational and interpersonal deviance. Liu et al. (2019) found that employees’ OCB positively affects the prosocial rule-breaking through the moral self-image mediator. Nguyen (2021) demonstrates that moral self-concept mediates the positive relationship between focal employees' organizational deviance and other in-group members' OCB. Griep et al. (2021) argued that when employees enact OCB, they obtain moral credentials and credits that might make them more likely to enact CWB.

Hypothesis 2: Moral credits mediate the relationship between OCBO and CWBO; such that moral credits increase, the enactment of CWB increase

Hypothesis 3: Moral credentials mediate the relationship between OCBO and CWBO; such that moral credentials increase, the enactment of CWB increase

The Collective Identity Orientation’s (CIO) Moderating Role

Self-concept refers to the perceptual knowledge of individuals that guides their behaviors, abilities, and unique characteristics (Lord & Brown, 2004; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). According to Brewer and Gardner (1996), self-concept levels are distinguished into relational, personal, and collective identity orientation. Employees with a relational identity orientation consider themselves followers, and their behaviors are mainly driven by the motivation to benefit and satisfy their leaders; employees with a personal identity orientation consider themselves independent individuals and their behaviors are majorly driven by self-interest with a concentration on maximizing their welfare; employees with a collective identity orientation considering themselves as team-members and their behavior is majorly driven by organizational goals and norms with a concentration on maximizing the organizational effectiveness (Cooper & Thatcher, 2017b).

Drawing on the cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), we can argue that employees must not feel morally licensed to engage in CWBs when they act OCBs that are driven by their identity orientation to avoid any possible underlying psychological tension that might be created when their behavior becomes inconsistent with their self-concept. Klotz and Bolino (2013) proposed that when an employee’s strong identity orientation engages in OCBs, the association between moral licensing and OCB-O/CWB-O will be weakened or even not generated. Therefore, the researcher hypothesizes the following assumption, according to the preceding discussion:

Hypothesis 4: The CIO moderates the relationship between OCBO and moral credits; if the CIO is high, the relationship will be weaker and vice versa.

Hypothesis 5: CIO moderates the relationship between OCBO and moral credentials; such CIO is high; the relationship will be weaker and vice versa.

Based on the hypothesis that has been described, the research model is represented in Figure 1.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 1. The conceptual model framework

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Procedure and Participants

The current study was conducted among Saudi employees over 18 years of age who were randomly selected from different organizations within Jeddah city in Saudi Arabia and completed a voluntary, anonymous 10-minutes online survey to ensure their confidentiality. Participants were invited by e-mail, and they were asked to complete a single survey after obtaining their written informed consent. Totally, 336 matched surveys were obtained, representing a response rate of 87.3%, of which 57.1% were male, most of whom (94%) held a college degree, and 44% had more than 10 years of work experience.

Measures

The survey was conducted in Saudi Arabia. Double-blind back translation was used as a quality assessment tool to translate the original developed English scales to Arabic (Brislin, 1980). All scales used were based on a 5-points Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The survey’s overall Cronbach’s α was 0.764, indicating an acceptable reliability level (Hulin et al., 2001).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior-organization Scale. It was assessed using five items out of the original sex items created by Dalal et al. (2009). A sample item was “During the past week, I chose to work rather than take a break.” Cronbach’s α was 0.667, which indicates an acceptable level of reliability (Hulin et al., 2001).

Counterproductive Work Behavior-organization Scale. It was assessed using five items out of sex original items created by Dalal et al. (2009). A sample item was “During the past week, I criticized organizational policies.” Cronbach’s α was 0.629, which indicates an acceptable level of reliability (Hulin et al., 2001).

Moral Credits Scale. It was evaluated by five items created by Lin et al. (2016). A sample item was “Each good deed I performed added to my moral credit.” Cronbach’s α was 0.856, which indicates a very good level (Hulin et al., 2001).

Moral Credentials Scale. It was evaluated by five items created by Lin et al. (2016). A sample item was “. I feel it is significant to be someone who has these characteristics (i.e., compassionate, caring, friendly, fair, helpful, generous, honest, kind, and hardworking)”. Cronbach’s α was 0.891, which indicates a very good level (Hulin et al., 2001).

Collective Identity Orientation Scale. CIO was evaluated by five items created by (Johnson et al., 2006b). A sample item was “. When I’m part of a team, I am worried about the group as a whole instead of whether individual team members like me or whether I like them.”. Cronbach’s α was 0.753, indicating an acceptable reliability level (Hulin et al., 2001).

Control Variables. Demographic information of the participants’ age, gender, level of education, and tenure were used as control variables in this study as they related to OCB (Organ, 1988; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998)

Analyses

The evaluation of moderated mediation model was examined based on the required steps suggested in the academic literature (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Muller et al., 2005). Using an exploratory approach, the statistical significance of the following relationships was tested: (1) the effect of OCB-O on CWB-O (2) the mediating role of moral credits and moral credentials (3) and the moderating impact of CIO on the relationship between OCB-O with both moral credits and moral credentials. In addition, a successful preliminary analysis was conducted before proceeding with the moderated mediation model analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Furthermore, the researcher used Amos 28.0 to test the validity of the research model by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). SPSS and PROCESS macro model 6 (with parallel mediators) and model 7 were used to verify the moderated mediation model (Hayes, 2013). Next, the significance of the indirect effect was analyzed using a bootstrapping methodology (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Hayes, 2009). Lately, unstandardized regression coefficients (b) are presented in the result section below, as Hayes (2013) suggested.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 indicates descriptive statistics and the level of variables’ correlations for study (correlation coefficients, mean, and standard deviations). All the variables in this study are positively associated except for CWB-O, which has negative associations with the other variables.

Table 1. Correlation Matrix and Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1) OCBO	3.66	0.73
2) CWBO	2.44	0.68	-.488^**
3) Moral Credits	4.15	0.73	.291^**	-.311^**
4) Moral Credentials	4.21	0.81	.305^**	-.475^**	.661^**
5) CIO	4.21	0.66	.493^**	-.581^**	.479^**	.583^**

Note. N= 336. OCBO = organizational citizenship behaviors directed at the organization; CWBO= counterproductive work behaviors directed at the organization; CIO= collective identity orientation **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The researcher carried out some confirmatory factor analyses to investigate the main variables' distinctiveness used in the present study. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted using Amos 28.0. As shown in Table 2, the research model (default model) is acceptable as the dependability between the variables is higher than what could be found in the independent model and exceeds 50% (Hair et al., 2014).

Table 2. Confirmatory factory analysis

Model	CFI	GFI	RMR	RMSEA
Default Model	0.625	0.663	0.120	0.155
Saturated Model^a	1.000	1.000	0.000	0.000
Independence Model^b	0.000	0.261	0.302	0.238

Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; RMR = Root Mean-square Residual; RMSEA = absolute fit index; a model that fits the data perfectly; ^b a model in which variables are independent of one another.

Hypothesis Testing

Table 3 presents the conducted regression-based path analysis results for the mediated moderation model. As a first step, the researcher used PROCESS macro model 6 to examine the direct relationship between OCBO and CWBO and the indirect relationship in that relation in the presence of mediations variables. The results show that OCBO has a significant and negative relationship with CWBO (β = - 0.356, p < .001), supporting hypothesis 1. Additionally, the findings indicate that moral credits mediate the negative correlation between OCBO and CWBO (OCBO → moral credit → CWBO) with no significant impact on their relation (β = 0.018, BootSE = 0.013, Boot 95% CI = [-0.0046, 0.0468]), rejecting hypothesis 2. On the other hand, moral credentials mediate the negative relationship between OCBO and CWBO (OCBO→ moral credentials → CWBO) causing a significant negative indirect impact on their relationship (β = - 0.0456, BootSE = 0.0157, Boot 95% CI = [- 0.0746, - 0.0126]), supporting hypothesis 3. Furthermore, the results show a negative significant impact for both mediators (OCBO → moral credit → moral credentials → CWBO) on the relationship between OCBO and CWBO (β = - 0.0679, BootSE = 0.0189, Boot 95% CI = [- 0.1094, - 0.0353]).

Next, the researcher used PROCESS macro model 7 to investigate the moderating impact of the CIO on the correlation between OCBO and moral credit and moral credentials. The findings show that the CIO interaction between OCBO and moral credit (β = 0.409; p < 0.01 level) and moral credentials (β = 0.418; p < 0.01 level) were statistically significant (Figures 2 and 3). In addition, the results show that there was no significant CIO interaction between moral credits and OCB when predicting the enactment of CWBO (β = 0.025, BootSE = 0.019, Boot 95% CI = [- 0.006, 0.0692]). Finally, there is a statically significant CIO interaction between moral credits and OCB when predicting the enactment of CWBO (β = - 0.142, BootSE = 0.043, Boot 95% CI = [-0.228, -0.062]). Those results support hypotheses 4 and 5. A summary of hypothesis constructs analysis can be found in Table 4 below.

Figure 2. Conditional effects of the moral credits on OCBO at values of CIO

Table 3. Regression-based path analysis for the mediated moderation model

Variable	CWBO	Moral credit				Moral credentials			CWBO
	β	β		t		β		t	β		t
OCBO	-.488^**	0.2893**		5.56		0.1346**		2.8811	-.356**		-8.266
Moral credit	-.311^**					0.6934		14.747	0.621		1.127
Moral credentials	-.475^**								-.339**		-0.677
CIO	-.581^**	-.877**		-3.76		-.66**		-2.894
OCBO × CIO		.409**		6.065		.418**		6.018
			β		Boot SE		LL 95% CI			UL 95% CI
Direct effect of OCBO on CWBO			-0.356**				-0.441			-0.272
OCBO → moral credit → CWBO (mediation only)			0.0180		0.0130		- 0.0046			0.0468
OCBO→ moral credentials →CWBO (mediation only)			- 0.0456**		0.0157		-0 .0746			- 0.0126
OCBO → moral credit → moral credentials → CWBO (2- mediation only)			- 0.0679**		0.0189		- 0.1094			- 0.0353
OCBO → moral credit → CWBO (moderated CIO mediation effect)			0.025		0.019		-0.006			0.069
OCBO → moral credentials → CWBO (moderated CIO mediation effect)			-0.142**		0.043		-0.228			-0.062

Note: OCBO = organizational citizenship behavior; CWBO = counterproductive work behavior; CIO = collective identity orientation; N = 336; Bootstrap sample size = 5000; LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit; *p < 0.05 level; **p < 0.01 level

Figure 3. Conditional effects of the moral credentials on OCBO at values of CIO

Table 4. Hypothesis constructs analysis

Hypothesis	Relation	β	Decision
H1	OCBO → CWBO	-0.356**	Supported
H2	OCBO → moral credits → CWB	0.0180	Rejected
H3	OCBO → moral credentials → CWB	- 0.456**	Supported
H4	OCBO → moral credits (moderated by CIO)	0.025	Rejected
H5	OCBO → moral credentials (moderated by CIO)	0.418**	Supported

Note: β = coefficient; OCBO = organizational citizenship behavior; CWBO = counterproductive work behavior; CIO = collective identity orientation; **p < 0.01 level.

This study sought to expand the understanding of when the collective identity orientation relates to employees’ OCBO, moral licensing, and CWBO. Previous research investigating the relationship between OCBO and CWBO through the moral licensing lens focused on other motives, and less emphasis has been placed on employees’ identity orientation (Griep et al., 2021). Building on the moral licensing theory (Miller & Effron, 2010) and social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981), this study investigated the direction of the CIO effect between OCBO and moral credentials and moral credits. It tested its impact on the employees’ enactment of CWBO. The main aim of the present study was to understand whether CIO significantly affected Saudi employees’ moral credits and moral credentials as hypothesized or if the reverse relationship could also hold. First, we examined the direct relationship between OCBO and CWBO and found a significant negative relationship. That is, the employees’ citizenship behavior at one point of time in the past (time 1) will not lead to the enactment of CWBO at one point of time in the future (time 2).

Second, the researcher examined the mediating role of moral credentials and found that enactment of OCBO at time one had a positive relationship with moral credentials, which in turn created a less negative correlation with CWBO at time 2. This shows that CWBOs are affected by the moral credentials of the employees. However, even though moral credits were found to have a significant positive relationship with the OCBO, no significant impact on CWBO was found.

Third, the researcher assessed the collective identification orientation as a moderation condition of the relationship between OCBO and moral credits and credentials. The outcomes showed that the relationship between OCBO and moral credentials was moderated by collective identity orientation. The indirect impact of OCBO on CWBO through moral credentials was moderated by CIO, supporting the moderated mediation model impact.

Theoretical Implications

First, the present study expands the application of moral licensing theory in understanding the employees’ prosocial behavior (e.g., OCBO) and unethical questionable behavior (e.g., CWBO) (Kouchaki, 2011; Vincent et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2016; Yam et al., 2017; Loi et al., 2020; Griep et al., 2021). This research explores the internal process of how OCBO affect CWBO, suggesting that moral credentials would be activated and formed when employees enact “good” behaviors in their work context. As a result, the employees will create some moral justification for performing CWBO, aiming to achieve a balance of their moral self-perception. Previous research examines different roles of moderating variables (Klotz & Bolino, 2013b; Bolino & Klotz, 2015; Griep et al., 2021) on the internal processor mechanisms causing CWBO, but to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, no previous research was conducted to empirically investigate the role of collective identity orientation from the lens of moral licensing theory. Thus, this research filled that gap in the literature, which will expand the understanding and application of moral licensing theory in this context. Furthermore, this research addressed the call by Griep et al. (2021) for research investigating motive moderators of the mediated correlation between OCBO and CWBO through moral credits and moral credentials.

Second, this study found that the employees’ moral justification for conducting CWBO was related to their moral credentials. That was not the case for moral credits, supporting the results of similar previous studies (e.g., Miller & Effron, 2010; Griep et al., 2021). Oppositely, other studies (e.g., Lin et al., 2016) revealed that only moral credits mediate the correlation for the enactment of CWBO. Such differences in results between scholars might be because moral credit and moral credentials operate under different spans or intervals (Miller & Effron, 2010; Zhang & Du, 2022). Thus, the present research contributes to the current recognition of the different forms of employees’ moral justifications and their relation to different timeframes. For example, in this study, all the survey’s statements started with the phrase “during the past week….”, which is associated with the moral credentials characteristic of being less volatile than moral credits.

Finally, the current study contributes to expanding the boundary condition of the indirect relationships between OCBO and CWBO against specific Saudi, Arabic, and Islamic cultures. Simbrunner and Schlegelmilch (2017) stated in their meta-analysis study that most of the previous research on moral licensing mechanisms relied on data from Western countries, encouraging further studies in a cross-cultural context.

Practical Implications

In the current uncertain globalized work environment, organizations need to apply different suitable managerial mechanisms to ensure maximum utilization of their employees' performance and behavior to help organizations achieve their competitive advantage. The results of this study can provide several recommendations and guidance to managers and human resources practitioners. First, due to the rapidly growing pace of globalization, most organizations today hire their employees from different cultural settings with different self-concept identity orientations. Although employees with collective identity orientation are more likely to enact OCBO and prevent conducting CWBO, the strength of these relationships varies across cultures. Therefore, managers and HR practitioners should be aware of the diversity within their organizations as that would increase their understanding of their employees’ different norms and values that shape their self-concept. For example, employees with collectivistic cultures (e.g., Saudi Arabia) are expected to be different than employees with individualistic cultures (e.g., USA) regarding shaping their identity orientation. Thus, managers and HR practitioners are advised to hire employees with high CIOs and provide training, workshops, and awareness for those employees with low CIOs.

Second, managers and HR practitioners are advised to control the causes of generating their employees’ moral credentials, which was found to be the reason behind a morally justified CWBO. Self-management and self-control training needs to be provided to the employees regularly to help them adjust and balance their behaviors more effectively. In addition, employees need to be encouraged to keep their ethical and prosocial behaviors by creating an ethical work environment, making OCBO one of the employees’ personality habits, which would prevent justifying CWBO enactment later.

Limitations and Future Research

Like any other study, the present study has its limitations. First, this research collected its data from a relatively small number of participants, which might cause a second-order sampling error in its results. A careful interpretation of the moderated mediation analysis needs to be considered to avoid such errors as much as possible (Simon et al., 2022). In addition, all variables were collected using one survey, which may cause a common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2011; Bozionelos & Simmering, 2022). Therefore, future research is advised to use larger samples to collect their data, and that collection is suggested to be time-lagged through multisource to test their hypothesis. Second, this study was collected in Saudi Arabia, a culture characterized by a highly collectivistic orientation, which may weaken its outcome’s generalizability. Thus, future cross-cultural studies are encouraged to support the finding of this study. Third, the present research only investigated one boundary condition (i.e., CIO) in the link between OCBO and moral credits/moral credentials. Future research encouraged to examine other moderators such as employees’ depression. Hence, the researcher expected that an employee with a high level of work-related depression might be more willing to rely on their moral credentials and moral credits generated from the previous enactment of OCBO, which would increase the chance of conducting CWBO in the future (Jeong & Lee, 2022).

CONCLUSION

What motivates employees to engage in counterproductive work behavior? Using the moral license theory and operationalized by the moderated mediation research method, this empirical study found that moral credentials and moral credits mediate the significant negative relationship between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. In addition, the study found as the employees have a higher level of collective identity orientation, the possibility of enactment of counterproductive work behavior decreases. This research expands the recognition of the causes of counterproductive work behavior in the workplace context and thus advances the literature from theoretical and practical perspectives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: None

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None

FINANCIAL SUPPORT: None

ETHICS STATEMENT: None

references

Ali Alhashedi, A. A., Bardai, B., Mahyoub Al-Dubai, M. M., & Alaghbari, M. A. (2021). Organizational Citizenship Behavior Role In Mediating The Effect Of Transformational Leadership On Organizational Performance In Gold Industry Of Saudi Arabia. Business: Theory & Practice, 22(1), 39-54. doi:10.0.15.6/btp.2021.12774.

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. I. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1423.

Aquino, K., McFerran, B., & Laven, M. (2011). Moral identity and the experience of moral elevation in response to acts of uncommon goodness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 703-718. doi:10.1037/A0022540.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173.

Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In Antisocial behavior in organizations. (pp. 18–36). Sage Publications, Inc.

Bolino, M. C., & Klotz, A. C. (2015). The paradox of the unethical organizational citizen: the link between organizational citizenship behavior and unethical behavior at work. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 45-49. doi:10.1016/J.COPSYC.2015.03.026.

Bourdage, J. S., Goupal, A., Neilson, T., Lukacik, E. R., & Lee, N. (2018). Personality, equity sensitivity, and discretionary workplace behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 144-150. doi:10.1016/J.PAID.2017.08.018.

Bozionelos, N., & Simmering, M. J. (2022). Methodological threat or myth? Evaluating the current state of evidence on common method variance in human resource management research. Human Resource Management Journal, 32(1), 194-215.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self-representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Cross-Cultural Research Methods. Environment and Culture, 47-82. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0451-5_3.

Chang, W., & Kim, K. (2022). Appropriate service robots in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Business Research, 141, 462-474.

Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2017a). Identification in organizations: The role of self-concept orientations and identification motives. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 516-538. doi:10.5465/AMR.35.4.ZOK516.

Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2017b). Identification in organizations: The role of self-concept orientations and identification motives. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 516-538. doi:10.5465/AMR.35.4.ZOK516.

Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241.

Dalal, R., Lam, H., Weiss, H., Welch, E., & Hulin, C. (2009). A within-person approach to work behavior and performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with effect and overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1051-1066. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.44636148.

Damghanian, H., & Ghaleroudkhani, F. G. (2022). Discretionary Workplace Behaviors: The Effect of Communication Satisfaction on Workplace Deviance and OCB with the Mediation Role of Justice Sensitivity. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 15(1), 155-168. http://sdl.edu.sa/middleware/Default.aspx?USESDL=true&PublisherID=AllPublishers&BookURL=https://sdl.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=154991861&site=eds-live

Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity: relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 622-635. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.622.

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1.

Enns, J. R., & Rotundo, M. (2012). When Competition Turns Ugly: Collective Injustice, Workgroup Identification, and Counterproductive Work Behavior. Human Performance, 25(1), 26-51. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.631646.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. In A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity Orientations and Forms of Social Exchange in Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 737-750. doi:10.2307/20159165.

Fox, S., Spector, P., Bruursema, K., Kessler, S., & Goh, A. (2007). Necessity is the mother of behavior: Organizational constraints, CWB, and OCB.

Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Sage. https://books.google.com/books/about/Antisocial_Behavior_in_Organizations.html?id=nW7FB_2oe8kC.

Griep, Y., Germeys, L., & Kraak, J. M. (2021). Unpacking the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior: Moral Licensing and Temporal Focus. Group and Organization Management, 46(5), 819-856. doi:10.1177/1059601121995366.

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121. doi:10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication monographs, 76(4), 408-420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. An Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the Workplace: Social Bonding and Employee Deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/devbh7&id=53&div=&collection=

Hulin, C., Netemeyer, R., & Cudeck, R. (2001). Can a reliability coefficient be too high? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1/2), 55-58.

Jeong, J., & Lee, J. H. (2022). Customer mistreatment, employee depression, and organizational citizenship behavior: Emotional intelligence as a moderator. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 50(3), 90-98. doi:10.2224/SBP.11167.

Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2006a). When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 175-201. doi:10.1016/J.OBHDP.2005.07.005.

Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2006b). When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 175-201. doi:10.1016/J.OBHDP.2005.07.005.

Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self-and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 762-776. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762.

Keashly, L. (2008). Emotional Abuse in the Workplace. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 85-117. doi:10.1300/J135V01N01_05.

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128. doi:10.1037/h0034225.

Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., Prosser, M., & Cameron, J. E. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior as a protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 18-25. doi:10.1016/J.HRMR.2009.03.014.

Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. (2013a). Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: A moral licensing view. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 292-306. doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.0109.

Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. (2013b). Citizenship and Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Moral Licensing View. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 292-306. doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.0109.

Kouchaki, M. (2011). Vicarious moral licensing: the influence of others’ past moral actions on moral behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 702-715. doi:10.1037/A0024552.

Lasarov, W., & Hoffmann, S. (2020). Social Moral Licensing. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(1), 45-66. doi:10.1007/S10551-018-4083-Z.

Law, S. K., Wong, C. S., & Chen, X. Z. (2005). The construct of organizational citizenship behavior: Should we analyze it after we have conceptualized it? Handbook of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, 47-65.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52-56. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52.

Lin, S. H. J., Ma, J., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). When ethical leader behavior breaks bad: How ethical leader behavior can turn abusive via ego depletion and moral licensing. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 815-830. doi:10.1037/apl0000098.

Liu, C., Liu, T., & Zhou, E. (2019). Influence of organizational citizenship behavior on prosocial rule-breaking: Moral licensing perspective. Social Behavior and Personality, 47(6), 1-9. doi:10.2224/SBP.8079.

Lo, M. C., & Ramayah, T. (2009). The dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in a Multicultural Society: The Case of Malaysia. International Business Research, 2(1), 48-55. doi:10.5539/IBR.V2N1P48.

Loi, T. I., Kuhn, K. M., Sahaym, A., Butterfield, K. D., & Tripp, T. M. (2020). From helping hands to harmful acts: When and how employee volunteering promotes workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(9), 944-958. doi:10.1037/APL0000477.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. In Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Marstand, A. F., Epitropaki, O., van Knippenberg, D., & Martin, R. (2021). Leader and organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviors: Examining cross-lagged relationships and the moderating role of collective identity orientation. Human Relations, 74(10), 1716-1745. doi:10.1177/0018726720938118.

Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. B. (2010). Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344-357. doi:10.1111/J.1751-9004.2010.00263.X.

Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Psychological License: When it is Needed and How it Functions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43(C), 115-155. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43003-8.

Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 33. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33.

Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated, and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852-863. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852.

Murphy, K. R., & Kroeker, L. P. (1988). Dimensions of job performance. Colorado State Univ Fort Collins. doi:10.21236/ADA194951.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24(3), 391-419. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80066-X.

Nguyen, C. M. (2021). The effect of other in-group members' organizational citizenship behavior on employees' organizational deviance: a moral licensing perspective. Journal of Asian Business and Economic Studies, 28(3), 177-190. doi:10.1108/JABES-08-2020-0099.

Nisan, M. (1990). Moral balance: A model of how people arrive at moral decisions.

Nisan, M. (1991). The moral balance model: Theory and research extending our understanding of moral choice and deviation. Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development Application, 213-249.

Notanubun, Z. (2021). The Effect of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Leadership Effectiveness on Public Sectors Organizational Performance: Study in the Department of Education, Youth and Sports in Maluku Province, Indonesia. Public Organization Review, 21(1), 1-18. doi:10.1007/S11115-020-00475-4.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. In Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com.

Organ, D. W. (1994). Personality and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Management, 20(2), 465-478. doi:10.1177/014920639402000208.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s constructed clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569. doi:10.1146/ANNUREV-PSYCH-120710-100452.

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.

Ryoo, Y. (2022). Moral credentials versus moral credits: Two paths to consumers’ licensing of brand transgressions. Journal of Business Research, 146, 13-31.

Simbrunner, P., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2017). Moral licensing: a culture-moderated meta-analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 67(4), 201-225. doi:10.1007/S11301-017-0128-0/TABLES/3.

Simon, M. N., Marroig, G., & Arnold, S. J. (2022). Detecting patterns of correlational selection with sampling error: A simulation study. Evolution, 76(2), 207-224. doi:10.1111/EVO.14412.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-443. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269-292. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00049-9.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010). Theorizing about the deviant citizen: An attributional explanation of the interplay of organizational citizenship and counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 132-143. doi:10.1016/J.HRMR.2009.06.002.

Sumarsi, S., & Rizal, A. (2022). The Effect of Competence and Quality of Work Life on Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) with Organizational Commitment Mediation. International Journal of Social and Management Studies (IJOSMAS), 2(6), 69-88.

Sypniewska, B. (2020). Counterproductive Work Behavior and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 16(4), 321-328. doi:10.5709/acp-0306-9.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. In Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: studies in social psychology. 369.

Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V, Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853-870. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.5.853.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108-119. doi:10.2307/256902.

van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825-856. doi:10.1016/J.LEAQUA.2004.09.002.

Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R. S. (2007). Who helps and harms whom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal helping and harming in organizations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 952-966. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.952.

Vincent, L. C., Emich, K. J., & Goncalo, J. A. (2013). Stretching the moral gray zone: positive affect, moral disengagement, and dishonesty. Psychological Science, 24(4), 595-599. doi:10.1177/0956797612458806.

Yam, K. C., Klotz, A. C., He, W., & Reynolds, S. J. (2017). From good soldiers to psychologically entitled: Examining when and why citizenship behavior leads to deviance. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 373-396. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2014.0234.

Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 215-237. doi:10.1080/13594329608414856.

Zhang, Y., & Du, S. (2022). Moral cleansing or moral licensing? A study of unethical pro-organizational behavior’s differentiating Effects. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10490-022-09807-y.

Zhong, C. B., Ku, G., Lount, R. B., & Murnighan, J. K. (2010). Compensatory Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(3), 323-339. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25621567.