In the eyes of the beholder: A non-self-report measure of workplace deviance.

Because employees may be reluctant to admit to performing deviant acts, the authors of this study reexamined the commonly used self-report measure of workplace deviance developed by R. J. Bennett and S. L. Robinson (2000). Specifically, the self-report measure was modified into a non-self-report measure based on multiple other-reported assessments to address methodological concerns with self-reported information regarding deviant workplace behaviors. The authors assessed the psychometric properties of this new measure by first conducting an exploratory factor analysis, which indicated a 3-factor structure (production deviance, property deviance, and personal aggression). Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis on a different sample verified these findings. Taken together, the results suggest that the content and psychometric qualities of this non-self-report measure of workplace deviance closely represent S. L. Robinson and R. J. Bennett's (1995) original typology of workplace deviance. The potential usefulness of this measure in organizational studies is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

An integrative typology of personality assessment for aggression: implications for predicting counterproductive workplace behavior.

This study presents an integrative typology of personality assessment for aggression. In this typology, self-report and conditional reasoning (L. R. James, 1998) methodologies are used to assess 2 separate, yet often congruent, components of aggressive personalities. Specifically, self-report is used to assess explicit components of aggressive tendencies, such as self-perceived aggression, whereas conditional reasoning is used to assess implicit components, in particular, the unconscious biases in reasoning that are used to justify aggressive acts. These 2 separate components are then integrated to form a new theoretical typology of personality assessment for aggression. Empirical tests of the typology were subsequently conducted using data gathered across 3 samples in laboratory and field settings and reveal that explicit and implicit components of aggression can interact in the prediction of counterproductive, deviant, and prosocial behaviors. These empirical tests also reveal that when either the self-report or conditional reasoning methodology is used in isolation, the resulting assessment of aggression may be incomplete. Implications for personnel selection, team composition, and executive coaching are discussed.