Description
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.
Case Study of Environmentally Sustainable Work Behavior
Keywords: Environmentally sustainable behavior, Pro-environmental behavior, Green behavior, Sustainability, Behavior change.
ABSTRACT Promoting environmentally sustainable work behavior has rapidly increased as an area of interest in recent years for OB scholars. This article summarizes how the field has emerged from the broader sustainability agenda, describes the most influential theories and discusses the behavioral techniques employed in intervention studies. Major challenges and opportunities for research into environmentally sustainable work behavior are identified, in particular the need to integrate the diverse literature and utilize common methods and measures to aid theoretical advancement. MAIN TEXT Environmentally sustainable work behavior (also referred to as proenvironmental behavior or "green" behavior) can be defined as workplace "behavior that harms the environment as little as possible, or even benefits the environment" (Steg & Vlek, 2009, p. 309). Such behavior may concern many domains, e.g., energy, water, waste, recycling, transport, purchasing, and product design.
AN EMERGING FIELD Sustainability has gained increasing prominence amongst both academic research and organizational practice over the past two decades. Within this broad agenda, which ranges from corporate social responsibility to sustainable business models, lies corporate environmental sustainability, of which environmentally
sustainable work behavior can be considered a specific determinant. Managers and employees are becoming ever more aware of their organizations' environmental impacts. Indeed, environmental sustainability is increasingly being viewed as an important activity (Crane, 2000), for instance, in relation to enhancing corporate image and meeting regulatory requirements. Although growing rapidly, current literature regarding workplace environmental sustainability is focused predominantly upon top-level Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy, environmental management systems (e.g., ISO14001/EMAS), and fails to consider individual behavior (Bansal & Gao, 2006). Thus, to date, the impact and contribution that individual workers can make in terms of improving an organization's environmental performance through engaging in environmentally sustainable work behavior has been under-represented.
3
MAJOR APPROACHES Environmental psychology has been active both in exploring the mechanisms underlying individuals' willingness to engage in environmentally sustainable behavior, and in evaluating differing behavior change interventions, predominantly with domestic users (Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, & Rothengatter, 2005; Davis & Challenger, 2009). Engaging employees, as opposed to domestic users, in environmentally sustainable behavior poses significant, additional challenges to researchers. An example of such a difficulty would be the lack of direct cost to the employee for energy use. Nonetheless, psychological research rooted in the domestic setting does provide useful insights for OB scholars, as discussed in more detail below. In addition, although organizational researchers have utilized psychological techniques less readily (Bansal & Gao, 2006), they have explored opportunities to capitalize on wider management concepts. Such approaches include the use of preexisting roles, structures and leadership to promote environmentally sustainable work behavior. Attitudes. The greatest body of work concerning the individual-level has taken an attitudinal approach to the study of environmentally sustainable behavior (at both work and home). In particular, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and ValueBelief-Norm model (VBN) have received significant attention. Attitudinal approaches have enjoyed success in predicting willingness to change small-scale behavior and behavioral intentions (Steg & Vlek, 2009). However, the evidence for a relationship between attitudes and overt, observed behavior is less convincing. Informational campaigns aimed at changing environmental attitudes and beliefs have also been popular, with the way in which messages are framed being a particularly important factor. In common with other psychological research (e.g., health behaviors), habit
4
has proved a strong indicator of behavior, often more so than an individual's attitude or belief towards specific environmental action. Behavior change techniques. In addition to attitudinal approaches, a number of other psychology-based techniques have been utilized as part of interventions directed at promoting environmentally sustainable work behavior. Goal-setting and feedback techniques have proved successful, particularly when coupled with sociocognitive strategies (such as competition) or with information that increases procedural knowledge (about how to carry out the sustainable behavior) (e.g., Siero, Bakker, Dekker, & van den Burg, 1996). Research has shown feedback to be most effective when it is located close to the consuming device/activity, is provided continually, is displayed in a meaningful way to the individual and when a comparable referent is provided (Abrahamse et al., 2005). Organizational environment. The organizational environment and its contribution to workplace environmental sustainability have proved to be of interest for OB scholars. For instance, organizational leadership and supervisory support have been identified as key determinants of the success of organizational environmental initiatives (e.g., Ramus & Steger, 2000). Leadership plays a role both in communicating the importance placed upon environmentally sustainable behavior by the organization and in providing a role model for the desired action. Furthermore, the opportunities for employees to be able to engage in environmentally sustainable work behavior can strongly influence action. Thus, the extent to which the organizational environment and its infrastructure, for example, in terms of job roles and responsibilities or characteristics of the built environment, are supportive of the desired behaviors is highly influential. For instance, the convenience, intuitiveness, availability and employees' efficacy to perform such actions are all key. A classic
5
example here would be the positioning of recycling receptacles (e.g., Ludwig, Gray, & Rowell, 1998). As with organizational change more generally, the prevailing culture, presence of change agents and open communication can exert influence on the success or failure of environmentally sustainable behavior interventions. The presence of a formal environmental policy can assist in communicating the organizational values and desired environmental culture. Harnessing employee knowledge. The involvement and engagement of individual employees can act both as a driver of environmentally sustainable behavior within organizations and as a means of identifying specific behaviors and areas to target. For instance, engagement has been found to be an important component in the success of both individual and group-based work interventions (Davis & Challenger, 2009). Moreover, in industrial situations, employee engagement has been used to identify contextual knowledge to inform the design of more efficient production methods (e.g., Rothenberg, 2003)
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Fragmentation. The fragmented nature of research into environmentally sustainable work behavior together with the complex interplay of behavioral, social, technological, design, organizational and regulatory factors, makes it difficult to develop holistic theories, or to offer sophisticated advice to business as to how to enhance environmental sustainability (Davis & Challenger, 2009). The focus upon standards and new technologies has neglected the role of individual employees and individual-level behaviors, limiting theoretical insight. A particular area of both opportunity and challenge for organizational scholars is the integration of environmental psychology principles, honed in the domestic arena, to the workplace.
6
Such theoretical knowledge and practical techniques require greater testing, adaption for the context and integration with existing OB theory, such as job design, organizational change and compliance. Systems approach. The need to consider the systemic nature of environmental sustainability has been highlighted (Starik & Rands, 1995). The high-level strategic, financial, political and operational aspects require integration with more fine-grained, individual-level action, namely environmentally sustainable work behavior. The imbalance of research and practice, skewed towards the technical elements of the organizational system, highlights the particular need for both academic investigation and practical action that utilizes behavioral techniques. This is evident from failures of purely technical "solutions". For instance, researchers and practitioners have noted that although more efficient technologies (e.g., IT) and innovative building techniques have the potential to increase the efficiency and sustainability of workplaces, they are unlikely to produce the desired environmental gains without the recognition of behavioral factors (e.g., Davis, Leach, & Clegg, 2011). Domain spill-over. There is a growing recognition of the potential for environmentally sustainable work behavior to be connected with and influenced by behavior in other domains (Muster & Schrader, 2011). To date, however, there is little work that has empirically explored whether an individual's willingness to engage in environmentally sustainable action at home influences participation at work, or viceversa. In particular, whether the domains exert a positive or negative effect on one another, e.g., individuals performing extensive environmentally sustainable behavior at home feel that they are already "doing their bit" and neglect workplace action. Diversity of approaches. One of the great strengths of the literature concerning environmentally sustainable work behavior has been the disciplinary and
7
methodological diversity exhibited by researchers. This diversity, coupled with rapidly developing mainstream interest, is fostering a vibrant field of enquiry. The many competing theories and approaches that have emerged do require greater rigorous testing and evaluation though. The use of quasi-experimental designs and well crafted, theoretically grounded and incremental behavior change programs would support this objective (c.f., Grant & Wall, 2009). Furthermore, the development and utilization of common specific measures of environmentally sustainable work behavior would aid cross-study comparisons. Such methodological developments and incorporation of commonalities across research approaches will help OB scholars derive maximum benefit from this exciting research area.
Word count: 1348
REFERENCES Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273-291. Bansal, P., & Gao, J. (2006). Building the Future by Looking to the Past: Examining Research Published on Organizations and Environment. Organization Environment, 19(4), 458-478. Crane, A. (2000). Corporate greening as amoralization. Organization Studies, 21, 673-696. Davis, M. C., & Challenger, R. (2009). Climate Change: Warming to the task. The Psychologist, 22(2), 112-114. http://tinyurl.com/davis-climate Davis, M. C., Leach, D. J., & Clegg, C. W. (2011). The Physical Environment of the Office: Contemporary and Emerging Issues. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford
8
(Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 193-235). Chichester, UK: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119992592.ch6 Grant, A. M., & Wall, T. D. (2009). The Neglected Science and Art of QuasiExperimentation: Why-to, When-to, and How-to Advice for Organizational Researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 653-686. Ludwig, T. D., Gray, T. W., & Rowell, A. (1998). Increasing recycling in academic buildings: A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(4), 683-686. Muster, V., & Schrader, U. (2011). Green Work-Life Balance: A new perspective for Green HRM. German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 25(2), 140-156. Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The Roles of Supervisory Support Behaviors and Environmental Policy in Employee "Ecoinitiatives" at Leading-Edge European Companies. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605-626. Rothenberg, S. (2003). Knowledge Content and Worker Participation in Environmental Management at NUMMI. Journal of Management Studies, 40(7), 1783-1802. Siero, F. W., Bakker, A. B., Dekker, G. B., & van den Burg, M. T. (1996). Changing organizational energy consumption behaviour through comparative feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 235-246. Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. (1995). Weaving an Integrated Web: Multilevel and Multisystem Perspectives of Ecologically Sustainable Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 908-935
9
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
10
doc_387937674.docx
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.
Case Study of Environmentally Sustainable Work Behavior
Keywords: Environmentally sustainable behavior, Pro-environmental behavior, Green behavior, Sustainability, Behavior change.
ABSTRACT Promoting environmentally sustainable work behavior has rapidly increased as an area of interest in recent years for OB scholars. This article summarizes how the field has emerged from the broader sustainability agenda, describes the most influential theories and discusses the behavioral techniques employed in intervention studies. Major challenges and opportunities for research into environmentally sustainable work behavior are identified, in particular the need to integrate the diverse literature and utilize common methods and measures to aid theoretical advancement. MAIN TEXT Environmentally sustainable work behavior (also referred to as proenvironmental behavior or "green" behavior) can be defined as workplace "behavior that harms the environment as little as possible, or even benefits the environment" (Steg & Vlek, 2009, p. 309). Such behavior may concern many domains, e.g., energy, water, waste, recycling, transport, purchasing, and product design.
AN EMERGING FIELD Sustainability has gained increasing prominence amongst both academic research and organizational practice over the past two decades. Within this broad agenda, which ranges from corporate social responsibility to sustainable business models, lies corporate environmental sustainability, of which environmentally
sustainable work behavior can be considered a specific determinant. Managers and employees are becoming ever more aware of their organizations' environmental impacts. Indeed, environmental sustainability is increasingly being viewed as an important activity (Crane, 2000), for instance, in relation to enhancing corporate image and meeting regulatory requirements. Although growing rapidly, current literature regarding workplace environmental sustainability is focused predominantly upon top-level Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy, environmental management systems (e.g., ISO14001/EMAS), and fails to consider individual behavior (Bansal & Gao, 2006). Thus, to date, the impact and contribution that individual workers can make in terms of improving an organization's environmental performance through engaging in environmentally sustainable work behavior has been under-represented.
3
MAJOR APPROACHES Environmental psychology has been active both in exploring the mechanisms underlying individuals' willingness to engage in environmentally sustainable behavior, and in evaluating differing behavior change interventions, predominantly with domestic users (Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, & Rothengatter, 2005; Davis & Challenger, 2009). Engaging employees, as opposed to domestic users, in environmentally sustainable behavior poses significant, additional challenges to researchers. An example of such a difficulty would be the lack of direct cost to the employee for energy use. Nonetheless, psychological research rooted in the domestic setting does provide useful insights for OB scholars, as discussed in more detail below. In addition, although organizational researchers have utilized psychological techniques less readily (Bansal & Gao, 2006), they have explored opportunities to capitalize on wider management concepts. Such approaches include the use of preexisting roles, structures and leadership to promote environmentally sustainable work behavior. Attitudes. The greatest body of work concerning the individual-level has taken an attitudinal approach to the study of environmentally sustainable behavior (at both work and home). In particular, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and ValueBelief-Norm model (VBN) have received significant attention. Attitudinal approaches have enjoyed success in predicting willingness to change small-scale behavior and behavioral intentions (Steg & Vlek, 2009). However, the evidence for a relationship between attitudes and overt, observed behavior is less convincing. Informational campaigns aimed at changing environmental attitudes and beliefs have also been popular, with the way in which messages are framed being a particularly important factor. In common with other psychological research (e.g., health behaviors), habit
4
has proved a strong indicator of behavior, often more so than an individual's attitude or belief towards specific environmental action. Behavior change techniques. In addition to attitudinal approaches, a number of other psychology-based techniques have been utilized as part of interventions directed at promoting environmentally sustainable work behavior. Goal-setting and feedback techniques have proved successful, particularly when coupled with sociocognitive strategies (such as competition) or with information that increases procedural knowledge (about how to carry out the sustainable behavior) (e.g., Siero, Bakker, Dekker, & van den Burg, 1996). Research has shown feedback to be most effective when it is located close to the consuming device/activity, is provided continually, is displayed in a meaningful way to the individual and when a comparable referent is provided (Abrahamse et al., 2005). Organizational environment. The organizational environment and its contribution to workplace environmental sustainability have proved to be of interest for OB scholars. For instance, organizational leadership and supervisory support have been identified as key determinants of the success of organizational environmental initiatives (e.g., Ramus & Steger, 2000). Leadership plays a role both in communicating the importance placed upon environmentally sustainable behavior by the organization and in providing a role model for the desired action. Furthermore, the opportunities for employees to be able to engage in environmentally sustainable work behavior can strongly influence action. Thus, the extent to which the organizational environment and its infrastructure, for example, in terms of job roles and responsibilities or characteristics of the built environment, are supportive of the desired behaviors is highly influential. For instance, the convenience, intuitiveness, availability and employees' efficacy to perform such actions are all key. A classic
5
example here would be the positioning of recycling receptacles (e.g., Ludwig, Gray, & Rowell, 1998). As with organizational change more generally, the prevailing culture, presence of change agents and open communication can exert influence on the success or failure of environmentally sustainable behavior interventions. The presence of a formal environmental policy can assist in communicating the organizational values and desired environmental culture. Harnessing employee knowledge. The involvement and engagement of individual employees can act both as a driver of environmentally sustainable behavior within organizations and as a means of identifying specific behaviors and areas to target. For instance, engagement has been found to be an important component in the success of both individual and group-based work interventions (Davis & Challenger, 2009). Moreover, in industrial situations, employee engagement has been used to identify contextual knowledge to inform the design of more efficient production methods (e.g., Rothenberg, 2003)
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Fragmentation. The fragmented nature of research into environmentally sustainable work behavior together with the complex interplay of behavioral, social, technological, design, organizational and regulatory factors, makes it difficult to develop holistic theories, or to offer sophisticated advice to business as to how to enhance environmental sustainability (Davis & Challenger, 2009). The focus upon standards and new technologies has neglected the role of individual employees and individual-level behaviors, limiting theoretical insight. A particular area of both opportunity and challenge for organizational scholars is the integration of environmental psychology principles, honed in the domestic arena, to the workplace.
6
Such theoretical knowledge and practical techniques require greater testing, adaption for the context and integration with existing OB theory, such as job design, organizational change and compliance. Systems approach. The need to consider the systemic nature of environmental sustainability has been highlighted (Starik & Rands, 1995). The high-level strategic, financial, political and operational aspects require integration with more fine-grained, individual-level action, namely environmentally sustainable work behavior. The imbalance of research and practice, skewed towards the technical elements of the organizational system, highlights the particular need for both academic investigation and practical action that utilizes behavioral techniques. This is evident from failures of purely technical "solutions". For instance, researchers and practitioners have noted that although more efficient technologies (e.g., IT) and innovative building techniques have the potential to increase the efficiency and sustainability of workplaces, they are unlikely to produce the desired environmental gains without the recognition of behavioral factors (e.g., Davis, Leach, & Clegg, 2011). Domain spill-over. There is a growing recognition of the potential for environmentally sustainable work behavior to be connected with and influenced by behavior in other domains (Muster & Schrader, 2011). To date, however, there is little work that has empirically explored whether an individual's willingness to engage in environmentally sustainable action at home influences participation at work, or viceversa. In particular, whether the domains exert a positive or negative effect on one another, e.g., individuals performing extensive environmentally sustainable behavior at home feel that they are already "doing their bit" and neglect workplace action. Diversity of approaches. One of the great strengths of the literature concerning environmentally sustainable work behavior has been the disciplinary and
7
methodological diversity exhibited by researchers. This diversity, coupled with rapidly developing mainstream interest, is fostering a vibrant field of enquiry. The many competing theories and approaches that have emerged do require greater rigorous testing and evaluation though. The use of quasi-experimental designs and well crafted, theoretically grounded and incremental behavior change programs would support this objective (c.f., Grant & Wall, 2009). Furthermore, the development and utilization of common specific measures of environmentally sustainable work behavior would aid cross-study comparisons. Such methodological developments and incorporation of commonalities across research approaches will help OB scholars derive maximum benefit from this exciting research area.
Word count: 1348
REFERENCES Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273-291. Bansal, P., & Gao, J. (2006). Building the Future by Looking to the Past: Examining Research Published on Organizations and Environment. Organization Environment, 19(4), 458-478. Crane, A. (2000). Corporate greening as amoralization. Organization Studies, 21, 673-696. Davis, M. C., & Challenger, R. (2009). Climate Change: Warming to the task. The Psychologist, 22(2), 112-114. http://tinyurl.com/davis-climate Davis, M. C., Leach, D. J., & Clegg, C. W. (2011). The Physical Environment of the Office: Contemporary and Emerging Issues. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford
8
(Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 193-235). Chichester, UK: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119992592.ch6 Grant, A. M., & Wall, T. D. (2009). The Neglected Science and Art of QuasiExperimentation: Why-to, When-to, and How-to Advice for Organizational Researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 653-686. Ludwig, T. D., Gray, T. W., & Rowell, A. (1998). Increasing recycling in academic buildings: A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(4), 683-686. Muster, V., & Schrader, U. (2011). Green Work-Life Balance: A new perspective for Green HRM. German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 25(2), 140-156. Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The Roles of Supervisory Support Behaviors and Environmental Policy in Employee "Ecoinitiatives" at Leading-Edge European Companies. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605-626. Rothenberg, S. (2003). Knowledge Content and Worker Participation in Environmental Management at NUMMI. Journal of Management Studies, 40(7), 1783-1802. Siero, F. W., Bakker, A. B., Dekker, G. B., & van den Burg, M. T. (1996). Changing organizational energy consumption behaviour through comparative feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 235-246. Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. (1995). Weaving an Integrated Web: Multilevel and Multisystem Perspectives of Ecologically Sustainable Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 908-935
9
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
10
doc_387937674.docx