Within-Person Dynamics of Job Boredom and Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Latent Change Score Modeling Approach

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3895282/v1

Download PDF

Short Report

Within-Person Dynamics of Job Boredom and Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Latent Change Score Modeling Approach

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3895282/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 07 Aug, 2024

Read the published version in Affective Science →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Job boredom is one of the most common negative affective states experienced in the workplace, yet also among the least well-understood. One stream of research suggests that employees frequently react to job boredom by engaging in counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). However, recent studies show the converse—that engaging in CWB relates to job boredom. As studies on the job boredom-CWB relationship primarily have been cross-sectional and at the between-person level of analysis, the directionality between these constructs remains in question. Therefore, research examining the within-person dynamics of job boredom and CWB within a short timeframe is needed. In the current study, we explore whether job boredom influences subsequent changes in CWB and vice versa. We examined these relationships using latent change score (LCS) modeling with 10-day experience sampling data (N = 120 individuals providing 1,161 observations). Findings supported a reciprocal relationship. Employees’ level of job boredom on a given day was associated with a subsequent increase in CWB on the next day, and the level of CWB on a given day was associated with a subsequent increase in job boredom on the next day. We discuss the implications of our findings and future research directions.

job boredom

counterproductive work behavior

within-person dynamics

experience sampling method

Job boredom can be defined as an “unpleasant, transient affective state in which the individual feels a pervasive lack of interest in and difficulty concentrating on the current activity” (Fisher, 1993, p. 397). Job boredom is one of the most prevalent affective states in the workplace and relates to various harmful outcomes such as job dissatisfaction, greater turnover intentions, and mental health challenges (Fisher, 1993; Mael & Jex, 2015). Yet, job boredom also remains among the least understood forms of affect at work (Fisher, 1993; Loukidou et al., 2009).

One stream of research links job boredom to increased counterproductive work behavior (CWB; e.g., Bruursema et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2021). CWBs are voluntary behaviors detrimental to the well-being of employees and the organization (Dalal et al., 2009). However, these studies primarily have been cross-sectional and at the between-person level (for an exception, see Spanouli et al., 2023), failing to yield insight into within-person dynamics of job boredom and CWB. Consequently, research is unclear about the directionality of the job boredom–CWB relationship at the within-person level. Here, we address this issue by exploring within-person reciprocal relationships between job boredom and CWB.

Research demonstrating a positive linkage between job boredom and CWB (e.g., Bruursema et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2021) mainly is based on the notion that job boredom precedes CWB. Spector and Fox’s (2002) model of voluntary work behaviors, for instance, posits that negative affect leads to CWB. Consistent with this notion, findings from a daily diary study (Spanouli et al., 2023) demonstrated the lagged effect of job boredom on CWB at the within-person level. Thus, we expect job boredom to relate positively to next-day increases in CWB (Hypothesis 1).

However, the reverse directionality may be plausible too: CWB may foster job boredom. Indirectly supporting this notion, researchers have found that CWB tends to trigger other aversive states, including anger, frustration, guilt, and shame (e.g., Ilies et al., 2013; Spector & Fox, 2010). This said, boredom may not function in the same manner as these other emotions. Functional theories of boredom posit that it serves a regulatory mechanism, signaling to individuals that they should pursue other tasks/activities that are more interesting or enjoyable than the current one (Westgate & Wilson, 2018). According to these accounts, engaging in CWB (e.g., cyberloafing; Pindek et al., 2018) to reduce boredom should be functional, resulting in a lower level of subsequent boredom. In sum, given the conflicting notions about the sign of this relationship, we do not offer a hypothesis, examining it in an exploratory manner.

Participants and Procedure

Initially, we recruited 165 individuals who satisfied our eligibility criteria in the initial baseline survey. Of these, we excluded 12 participants who failed one or more of the three attention check items. We also omitted 33 participants who did not complete a minimum of two full days of daily surveys (i.e., four daily surveys). The final sample size was 120 individuals providing 1,161 observations (response rate = 92.49%). On average, participants were 32.93 years old (SD = 3.27), 32.03% of whom were female. They worked for an average of 3.39 years in their current jobs (SD = 0.58). A majority of participants had obtained a bachelor’s degree (55.56%) and were either Black/African American (58.17%) or White (40.52%).

We recruited full-time employees by posting an advertisement on Craigslist, an online community website (see https://www.craigslist.org/about) in multiple large cities in the United States (see Judge et al., 2014; Vogel et al., 2020, for examples using Craigslist). The advertisement contained information about the study procedures, eligibility criteria, and compensation, and was posted for approximately two weeks in June 2022.

Interested participants were requested to email the researchers and were subsequently invited to complete an initial baseline survey, which included informed consent and measures of demographic variables. In this survey, participants were first screened based on three eligibility criteria: (a) age (i.e., 18 + years old), (b) full-time employment status (i.e., 30 + work hours per week), and (c) work schedules (i.e., whether they had a traditional work schedule from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM), the last of which was employed to ease scheduling of daily surveys. At the end of the baseline survey, we employed a commitment device that asked participants to explicitly commit to completing a minimum of 75% of the daily surveys (Gabriel et al., 2019). If respondents failed to commit to completing 75% or more of daily surveys, we kindly asked them to consider increasing their commitment to maximize the utility of their effort in participating in the research study. As a result, all participants chose to commit 75% or more of the daily surveys.

For 10 consecutive workdays (i.e., two consecutive workweeks), participants received two brief surveys per day, the first survey at 10:00 a.m. (Time 1 or T1) and the second survey at 1:00 p.m. (Time 2 or T2). In both surveys, we assessed momentary measures of job boredom and CWB. In exchange for participation, we provided a maximum possible amount of 55.00 U.S. dollars in the form of an Amazon gift card.

To ensure data quality, we followed best practice recommendations for convenience sampling. Specifically, we implemented such strategies as posting the advertisement in major metropolitan areas (Antoun et al., 2016), including attention check items in the initial survey (e.g., “Please select Never for this item.”; Meade & Craig, 2012), and tracking unique identifiers to assure only one survey was completed per participant (Mason & Suri, 2012). Additionally, to ensure that our study had sufficient statistical power, we followed Gabriel et al.’s (2019) sample size recommendations, which were based on their calculation of the mean sample size of the past experience sampling studies. Accordingly, we aimed to obtain a minimum Level 2 sample size of 83 and a minimum Level 1 sample size of 835 by administering three daily surveys for 10 consecutive workdays. This strategy of sampling for two weeks allowed us to capture a generally representative sample of a person’s daily experiences (Wheeler & Reis, 1991).

Measures

Job Boredom

Momentary job boredom was assessed using a 4-item measure (Park et al., 2019). On a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely), participants were asked to rate the extent to which they were feeling each of the following four emotion adjectives at the current moment: “bored,” “sluggish,” “dull,” and “lethargic.” We aggregated momentary job boredom assessed in T1 and T2 up to a morning measure of job boredom. Across the days of data collection, the average Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .99.

Counterproductive Work Behavior

CWB was measured with 2 items from Dalal et al. (2009). Although the full scale originally contained 6 items, we only included 2 of them that may be likely to have greater within-person variability during one’s typical workday (Koopman et al., 2021). On a dichotomous scale (1 = yes, 0 = no), we asked participants to rate each item while thinking about the last two hours at work. Example items include “Did not work to the best of my ability” and “Spent time on tasks unrelated to work.” Across the days of data collection, the average Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .91.

Data Analysis

To study within-person dynamics between job boredom and CWB, we used latent change score (LCS) modeling (see Matusik et al., 2021, for a review). In an LCS model (see Fig. 1), we used 10 daily measurements of both job boredom and CWB and specified constant change effect (i.e., whether and to what extent there is an overall increasing or decreasing trend for a given variable), proportional change effect (i.e., whether and to what extent a level of the variable influences subsequent change in that same variable), and autoregression of change scores for both boredom and CWB. Importantly, we specified a lagged coupling effect of job boredom on change in CWB, as well as lagged coupling effect of CWB on change in job boredom. The lagged coupling effects were the parameters of primary interest in this study. For instance, the lagged coupling effect of job boredom on change in CWB indicates whether and to what extent job boredom at Day i – 1 predicts increases (indicated by a significant, positive effect) or decreases (indicated by a significant, negative effect) in CWB between Day i – 1 and Day i. As is common when using LCS models, all estimates were assumed to be equal across time points (Matusik et al., 2021). The LCS model showed acceptable fit (CFI = .90, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .10).

We first report results regarding constant change (i.e., µ) to examine whether there was a significant overall trend, and then report findings regarding lagged coupling effects (i.e., γ). As reported in Table 1, results from LCS modeling demonstrated that, regarding job boredom, the constant change estimate was not statistically significant (µ = − 1.36, p = .289). The nonsignificant constant change estimate indicates that there was no general increasing or decreasing trend in job boredom over the course of 10 workdays. Regarding CWB, findings demonstrated that the constant change effect was significant and positive (µ = 0.78, p = .030), indicating that there was a general increasing trend in CWB engagement over the course of 10 workdays.

Table 1

*Parameter Estimates for a Latent Change Score Model with Job Boredom and Counterproductive Work Behavior*
Parameter		Estimate (SE)	p
Latent true score mean
	µ_JB0	1.71 (0.07)	< .001
	µ_CWB0	1.17 (0.02)	< .001
Constant change effect
	µ_JB1	–1.36 (1.28)	.289
	µ_CWB1	0.78 (0.36)	.030
Proportional change effect
	β_JB	–1.29 (0.32)	< .001
	β_CWB	–1.11 (0.43)	.010
Autoregression of change scores
	φ_JB	0.42 (0.13)	.001
	φ_CWB	1.27 (0.21)	< .001
Lagged coupling effect
	γ_JB.CWB	0.32 (0.15)	.039
	γ_CWB.JB	2.95 (1.26)	.020
Note. JB = job boredom; CWB = counterproductive work behavior; γ_JB.CWB = latent change in JB between Day i – 1 and Day i determined by latent true score of CWB at Day i – 1; γ_CWB.JB = latent change in CWB between Day i – 1 and Day i determined by latent true score of JB at Day i – 1.

We next report findings regarding lagged coupling effects. Results showed the lagged coupling effect of job boredom on subsequent changes in CWB was significant and positive (γ = 0.32, p = .039). That is, true score values for job boredom at Day i – 1 were positively associated with change score values for CWB at Day i. Consistent with our prediction, this suggests that employees who experience greater job boredom on a given day are likely to engage in more CWB on the next day, compared to those who are less bored. Therefore, findings provide support for Hypothesis 1.

Regarding the reverse-direction relationship, findings also demonstrated that the lagged coupling effect of CWB on subsequent changes in job boredom was significant and positive (γ = 2.95, p = .020). That is, true score values for CWB at Day i – 1 were positively associated with change score values for job boredom at Day i. This suggests that employees who engage in more CWB on a given day are likely to experience greater job boredom on the next day, compared to those who engage in less CWB.

In this study, we examined within-person changes in job boredom and CWB over a short timeframe. Using LCS modeling, we found that reciprocal within-person relationships exist between job boredom and CWB. Consistent with our prediction, we found that job boredom related positively to next-day CWB change. We also found a positive relationship between CWB and next-day boredom change, suggesting that CWB enactment may increase boredom rather than reducing it. Although this latter finding is inconsistent with the theorized regulatory function of boredom, it is consistent with results showing that CWB engagement leads to other negative affective states (e.g., shame, guilt, frustration, anger; Ilies et al., 2013; Spector & Fox, 2010).

Our results extend the literature on job boredom and CWB by providing empirical evidence for within-person change in job boredom and CWB over a short timeframe. Most studies on job boredom have used cross-sectional designs and are at the between-person level of analysis. Using cross-lagged data in the experience sampling framework, the current study provides evidence clarifying the directionality of the within-person relationship between job boredom and CWB. Regarding practical implications, our findings suggest that HR practitioners should be cognizant that CWB enactment may be generative, not reparative, of job boredom. As recent studies show beneficial effects of some CWB forms on employee well-being, such as cyberloafing (e.g., Lim & Chen, 2012), a reasonable inference is that such activities may mitigate boredom. However, the current results suggest that the opportunity to engage in such activities could instead foster (more) boredom. In this sense, those activities may trigger the outcomes they partly are meant to avoid. In general, more research is needed on organizational policies and interventions meant to mitigate job boredom.

Ethical Approval

Ethics approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of George Mason University (Ethics approval number: 1890536-1).

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Competing Interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Funding

This work was supported in part by a research award to the first author from the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Program at George Mason University.

Data Availability

The dataset used in the current study is available in the Open Science Framework repository, https://osf.io/439nc/?view_only=1ffbb172575049939e1d3b1f3e134836.

Author Contribution

JK and SK contributed to the conception of the study. All authors, including JK, SK, JA, and LP, were involved in the creation of survey and the acquisition of data. JK drafted the article and conducted data analysis. JA and LP contributed to the Method section. All authors reviewed the manuscript, provided feedback, and approved the final version of the article.

Antoun, C., Zhang, C., Conrad, F. G., & Schober, M. F. (2016). Comparisons of online recruitment strategies for convenience samples: Craigslist, Google AdWords, Facebook, and Amazon Mechanical Turk. Field Methods, 28(3), 231-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X15603149
Bruursema, K., Kessler, S. R., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Bored employees misbehaving: The relationship between boredom and counterproductive work behaviour. Work & Stress, 25(2), 93-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.596670
Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L. (2009). A within-person approach to work behavior and performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1051–1066. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44636148
Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46(3), 395–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600305
Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J. P., & Butts, M. M. (2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118802626
Ilies, R., Peng, A. C., Savani, K., & Dimotakis, N. (2013). Guilty and helpful: An emotion-based reparatory model of voluntary work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1051–1059. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034162
Judge, T. A., Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., & Kelley, K. (2014). What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034485
Kim, J., Park, J., Sohn, Y. W., & Lim, J. I. (2021). Perceived overqualification, boredom, and extra-role behaviors: Testing a moderated mediation model. Journal of Career Development, 48(4), 400-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319853879
Koopman, J., Conway, J. M., Dimotakis, N., Tepper, B. J., Lee, Y. E., Rogelberg, S. G., & Lount, R. B., Jr. (2021). Does CWB repair negative affective states, or generate them? Examining the moderating role of trait empathy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(10), 1493–1516. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000837
Lim, V. K., & Chen, D. J. (2012). Cyberloafing at the workplace: gain or drain on work? Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(4), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290903353054
Loukidou, L., Loan‐Clarke, J., & Daniels, K. (2009). Boredom in the workplace: More than monotonous tasks. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00267.x
Mael, F., & Jex, S. (2015). Workplace boredom: An integrative model of traditional and contemporary approaches. Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 131–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115575148
Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6
Matusik, J. G., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Mitchell, R. L. (2021). Latent change score models for the study of development and dynamics in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 24(4), 772–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120963788
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
Park, G., Lim, B. C., & Oh, H. S. (2019). Why being bored might not be a bad thing after all. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2017.0033
Pindek, S., Krajcevska, A., & Spector, P. E. (2018). Cyberloafing as a coping mechanism: Dealing with workplace boredom. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.040
Spanouli, A., Hofmans, J., & Dalal, R. S. (2023). Coping with daily boredom: Exploring the relationships of job boredom, counterproductive work behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, and cognitive reappraisal. Motivation and Emotion, 47, 810–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-023-10017-2
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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.06.002
Vogel, R. M., Rodell, J. B., & Sabey, T. B. (2020). Meaningfulness misfit: Consequences of daily meaningful work needs–supplies incongruence for daily engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(7), 760–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000464
Westgate, E. C., & Wilson, T. D. (2018). Boring thoughts and bored minds: The MAC model of boredom and cognitive engagement. Psychological Review, 125(5), 689–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000097
Wheeler, L., & Reis, H. T. (1991). Self‐recording of everyday life events: Origins, types, and uses. Journal of Personality, 59(3), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00252.x

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 07 Aug, 2024

Read the published version in Affective Science →

Editorial decision: Revision requested
20 May, 2024
Reviews received at journal
21 Mar, 2024
Reviews received at journal
06 Mar, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
27 Feb, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
26 Feb, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
20 Feb, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
16 Feb, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
29 Jan, 2024
First submitted to journal
24 Jan, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Within-Person Dynamics of Job Boredom and Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Latent Change Score Modeling Approach

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Method

Participants and Procedure

Measures

Job Boredom

Counterproductive Work Behavior

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion

Declarations

Ethical Approval

Consent to Participate

Competing Interest

Funding

Data Availability

Author Contribution

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1