LITERATURE to in role performance. Researchers have explained and



We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

citizenship behavior basically is a very affective behavior towards any
organization and it has been always a topic of great interest to scholars
(Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Lepine, Erez, & Johnson, 2001). Katz
(1964) research on organizational citizenship behavior, he states that
organizations cannot just rely on employees prescribed behavior. Basically
organizational citizenship behavior is not a formal part of employees’ job
description. It is also the behavior that is not explicitly rewarded (Shore,
& Wayne, 1993). In short, it is a very significant behavior for any
organization. The practical importance of organizational citizenship behavior
for organizations is written by Lievens, Conway, and De Corte (2008) who
specify that raters of job performance may give more weight to organizational
citizenship behavior than to in role performance.  Researchers have explained and indicate different
dimension of organizational citizenship behavior. Organ (1988) indicates the
dimensions of courtesy, sportsmanship, altruism, conscientiousness, and civic
virtue as underlying OCB. Graham (1991) also explained the several dimensions
of organizational citizenship behavior like loyalty, organizational obedience,
and organizational participation. Williams and Anderson (1991) explains the
difference between OCB-O and OCB-I. OCB-O is directed at the organization and
OCB-I directed at the individuals.

citizenship behavior has positive impact on organizational and departmental
productivity (See Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009, for a
meta-analytic review). The research by Podsakoff and colleagues (2009)
identified many consequences of organizational citizenship behavior which
consist positive evaluations and appraisals from managers and positive outcomes
for example reciprocity and fair treatment. Research has also investigate the
conditions under which organizational citizenship behavior accumulate positive
managerial appraisal (Halbesleben, Bowler, Bolino, & Turnely, 2010) as well
as multilevel contextual influences of organizational citizenship behavior on
performance (Bommer, Dierdorff, & Rubin, 2007). Extensive research has
review many determinants of organizational citizenship behavior, such as
fairness (meta-analysis show that all dimensions of perceived organizational
justice relate to organizational citizenship behavior; Cohen-Charash &
Spector, 2001), psychological contracts (Robinson & Morrison, 1995), job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (Williams & Anderson, 1991). The
main focus of our study is on the antecedents of organizational citizenship
behavior specially job demands and job resources. There is a very little
research on the effects of job demands (stressor) on organizational citizenship
behavior with an exception of the examination of role stressor (Eatough et al,
2011). This thesis will adds more in previous research by investigating the
influence of job demands and job resources on employees’ organizational
citizenship behavior. This thesis broadly explains organizational citizenship
behavior as employees’ tendency to engage in behaviors that are helpful to
their supervisor, other organizational members, or their organization in
general (De Cremer, Mayer, Van Dijke, Schouten, & Bardes, 2009).


work behavior consists of volitional actions that hurt or intend to hurt
organizations and their stakeholders for example clients, customers, coworkers,
and supervisors etc (Fox & Spector, 2005). The important characteristics of
Counterproductive work behavior is that the act itself should be purposeful and
not fortuitous that is the employees makes a decision to act or behave in a way
that is willful specifically to hurt the organization and the people within the
organization (Lee & Allen, 2002). Bad performance that is unconscious for
example an employee works hard but has insufficient skill to complete job tasks
successfully is not counterproductive work behavior because the aim of the
employee was not to perform the job wrongly (Lee & Allen 2002).
Counterproductive work behavior is generally considered as unethical and a
erosion to the wellbeing of the organization and their members because this
unethical behavior can lead to income loss (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield,
1999), long lasting damage to the workplace environment and decreased
productivity (Lee & Allen, 2002), it is significant to organizational

work behavior has many categories that affect the organization’s performance in
many ways. These categories consist: production deviance for example purposely
doing your work wrong, purposely doing work slowly when things need to get done.
Second category abuse toward others for example starts or continues harmful
gossip at work, rude behavior to a customer or client (Balducci, Schaufeli,
& Fraccaroli, 2011). Third category sabotage for example purposely damage
your employer’s supplies or material, purposely destroy a piece of property or
equipment. Fourth category is theft for example loot something relating to your
employer, keeping to be paid for more hours than you work (Greenberg, 1990).
Fifth category is withdrawal which means come late on work without permission, make
holiday from work and say you were ill when you were not (Giacalone &
Greenberg, 1997). These all behaviors are dangerous to the organization. They
effect or damage the organization directly like its effectiveness or by
damaging the people in the organization. The main focus of our study is to
investigate how job demands and job resources influence the Counterproductive
work behavior. Counterproductive work behavior means employees tendency to
engage in behaviors that are damaging to their organization or other
organizational members and to their supervisor. The main focus of our study is
on the processes that could lead to Counterproductive work behavior specially
job resources and job demand. Instead of extensive literature over
Counterproductive work behavior but little research has paid attention to the effects
of job resources on Counterproductive work behavior. This thesis will add more
in previous research by investigating the effect of job demands and job
resources on employees Counterproductive work behavior.


The job demand and
resource model derived from the effort reward imbalance model (Siefrist, 1996)
and the demand control support (Karasek, 1979) and is used to apprehend new,
complex and often context specific determinants of occupational well-being and
job stress. The job demand and resource model suggest that high job demands put
more stress on employees such that their work related energy is depleted
(Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). Stress which is caused by demanding work
conditions, employees may save their limited energy in such a way that they
separate themselves from the tasks or actions that are beneficial for their
organization indirectly and just accomplish tasks that are formally required or
instructed. The existence of job resources lead to engagement and motivation
and the absence of job resources stimulate a cynical behavior towards work.