Fairness Perceptions of Work−Life Balance Initiatives: Effects on Counterproductive Work Behaviour
| Date | 01 October 2014 |
| Published date | 01 October 2014 |
| Author | T. Alexandra Beauregard |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12052 |
Fairness Perceptions of Work−Life
Balance Initiatives: Effects on
Counterproductive Work Behaviour
T. Alexandra Beauregard
Employment Relations and Organisational Behaviour Group, Department of Management,
London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK
Email: a.beauregard@lse.ac.uk
This study examined the impact of employees’ fairness perceptions regarding organiza-
tional work−life balance initiatives on their performance of counterproductive work
behaviour (CWB). Moderating effects of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism were
also explored. Quantitative data collected from 224 public sector employees demon-
strated significant main and moderating effects of informational justice, adaptive per-
fectionism and maladaptive perfectionism on CWB. Adaptive perfectionism weakened
the link between informational justice and CWB, while maladaptive perfectionism
strengthened it. Qualitative data collected from 26 employees indicate that both the
social exchange and job stress models are useful frameworks for understanding CWB in
the context of work−life balance initiatives; CWB emerged as both a negative emotional
reaction to unfairness and as a tool used by employees to restore equity in the exchange
relationship with their employer. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
In response to growing workforce concerns
regarding work−life balance (WLB), organiza-
tions increasingly offer initiatives intended to
facilitate the combination of employees’ work
responsibilities with their non-work commitments
(Kersley et al., 2005; US Bureau of Labor, 2011).
Research shows that providing initiatives valued
by employees enhances perceptions of organiza-
tional support, affective commitment to the
organization, and reciprocation in the form of
increased task and contextual performance (Muse
et al., 2008). However, imperfect implementation
of WLB initiatives often results in employees
having little knowledge of the provisions on offer
(Bond and Wise, 2003) and/or unequal access to
the programmes within organizations (Duxbury,
Higgins and Coghill, 2003; McDonald et al.,
2005). Another unintended effect of initiative
implementation is the potential for ‘backlash’
from childfree employees, who may believe that
WLB initiatives target parents and result in
increased workloads for those not using them (de
Janasz et al., 2013; Kirby and Krone, 2002; Nord
et al., 2002). Consequently, the benefits of WLB
initiatives, such as increased organizational com-
mitment, improved performance and reduced
turnover (see the review by Beauregard and
Henry, 2009), may only be realized if staff are
aware of the initiatives on offer and feel able to
use them (Eaton, 2003; Ryan and Kossek, 2008).
The research reviewed above implies that the
ability of WLB initiatives to enhance employee
attitudes and performance depends to some
degree on employees’ perceptions of how fair
those initiatives are. As yet, outcomes of such
fairness perceptions have been under-researched.
How might perceptions regarding access to and
information about WLB initiatives influence
employees’ behaviour at work? Social exchange
This research was funded in large part by the Social
Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada Doctoral
Fellowship, the LSE Basil Blackwell Teaching Fellow-
ship and the Overseas Research Studentship Award. This
funding is gratefully acknowledged.
bs_bs_banner
British Journal of Management, Vol. 25, 772–789 (2014)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12052
© 2014 British Academy of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4
2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
theory (Gould, 1979) and Spector’s (1998) job
stress framework would suggest that employees
perceiving unfairness related to WLB initia-
tives might respond with counterproductive work
behaviour (CWB). Using a mixed-methods
approach, the present study investigates the rela-
tionship between employees’ fairness perceptions
of organizational WLB initiatives and CWB, and
explores the moderating role of individual differ-
ences. This study extends existing knowledge of
WLB initiatives by demonstrating that employee
reactions to their perceived unfairness are mani-
fested in counterproductive behaviours that can
have a detrimental effect on organizational
functioning. The study also contributes to the
organizational justice literature by showing that
employee responses to unfairness depend on dis-
positional proclivities for emotional reactivity
when faced with unfavourable outcomes.
The following sections explain the concept of
CWB and its relevance to organizations, before
outlining the theoretical and empirical justifica-
tion for fairness perceptions of WLB initiatives as
a predictor of CWB and for personality traits as a
moderator of this link.
Counterproductive work behaviour and
fairness perceptions
CWB is defined as ‘any intentional behaviour on
the part of an organization member viewed by the
organization as contrary to its legitimate interests’
(Gruys and Sackett, 2003, p. 30). It can be tar-
geted at the organization (CWB-O), as in theft,
sabotage or withheld effort, or at individual
members (CWB-I) in the form of hostile interper-
sonal relations (Robinson and Bennett, 1995).
Both types of CWB can exert significant negative
effects on organizational functioning, through
financial costs due to theft and fraud, and in
unquantifiable costs to productivity and perfor-
mance (Dunlop and Lee, 2004; Hollinger and
Davis, 2003; KPMG International Cooperative,
2011).
The prevailing theoretical framework used to
explain CWB is based on social exchange (Blau,
1964; Gouldner, 1960). When treated favourably
by others, individuals feel obliged to respond in
kind, through positive attitudes or behaviours
toward the source of the treatment. When treated
poorly, employees will reduce or withdraw their
positive attitudes and behaviours and may insti-
gate negative ones in their place. One of the most
prominent social exchange theories is Adams’
(1965) equity theory, which posits that employees
who feel unfairly treated will seek restitution. This
suggests that employees who are dissatisfied with
the fairness of their employer’s procedures for
allocating WLB initiatives, or with the honesty or
comprehensiveness of the explanations provided
regarding initiative use, may reciprocate with
organizationally oriented CWB such as arriving
late for work, reducing effort and/or taking unau-
thorized breaks, or may engage in interpersonally
oriented CWB such as making disparaging
remarks about their managers, acting rudely
toward others and so on.
Another framework used to understand CWB
derives from the work stress literature. Spector’s
(1998) model of the job stress process posits that
when individuals perceive environmental stressors
(e.g. unfair provision of WLB initiatives) they
experience negative emotions such as anger or
anxiety. These are followed by reactions to the
stressors: psychological, physical or behavioural
job strains. Behavioural strains enable individuals
to cope with stressors, either by decreasing the
emotions elicited by the stressor (e.g. avoiding
work) or by removing the stressor itself (e.g.
talking to one’s manager and creating a solution
to the issue). Behavioural strains such as inten-
tionally slowing down one’s work output, taking
longer breaks than permitted or cursing at a
co-worker can be considered CWB (Penney and
Spector, 2005), and have been found to help
employees cope with unfair outcomes at work by
reducing the employees’ emotional exhaustion
(Krischer, Penney and Hunter, 2010). Spector and
Fox’s (2002) model of voluntary work behaviour
is based on this model, conceptualizing unfairness
as a job stressor and CWB as a behavioural
response to stress at work.
Three major forms of fairness perceptions have
been studied. Distributive justice relates to the
fairness of the outcomes employees receive, rela-
tive to their own contributions and the contribu-
tions and outcomes of others, while procedural
justice refers to the fairness of an organization’s
procedures for making decisions. The third form
of fairness, interactional justice, involves the
quality of interpersonal treatment experienced by
employees, and includes assessments of the degree
of respect and dignity with which employees are
Fairness Perceptions of Work−Life Balance Initiatives 773
© 2014 British Academy of Management.
To continue reading
Request your trial