Causes of Ineffective Performance
Common causes of ineffective performance fall into three categories: (1) inability
to perform due to skill or knowledge deficits, (2) unwillingness to exert sufficient
effort or effort in the right direction, and (3) environmental constraints such as
poor job design or inadequate support. Despite advancements in selection
methods (Guion & Highhouse, 2004), hiring errors still occur, often placing
individuals in roles for which they lack necessary competencies or cultural fit
(Kristof, 1996).
Preventing such errors requires systematic hiring practices that include validated
assessments, background checks, and comprehensive reference evaluations.
Another contributor to performance failures is inadequate onboarding and
training. New employees must be effectively socialized into both job-specific
tasks and organizational culture (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). Without proper
orientation, even capable employees may struggle.
Additionally, environmental constraints—such as incompatible task design or lack
of authority—can impede employee performance (Campion & Berger, 1990;
Campion & Thayer, 1985). Even when task structures are appropriate, external
disruptions like insufficient resources, faulty equipment, or poor communication
may limit productivity (Peters & O’Connor, 1980; Spector & Jex, 1998).
Managing Ineffective Performance
Given the complexity of underperformance, managers must first explore its root
causes through open dialogue and active listening (Meyer, Kay, & French, 1965).
Depending on the identified causes, targeted interventions such as skills training
may resolve the issue. For instance, poor writing skills can be improved with
specific communication training.
When causes are unclear, more immersive solutions such as coaching may be
necessary. This hands-on process allows managers to observe employee
behavior directly and provide performance-specific feedback. Coaching, while
time-intensive, enables deeper analysis and active learning.
In cases where personal issues—like financial or marital stress—impact work,
employee assistance programs (EAPs) and counseling services may be
appropriate (Cooper, Dewe, & O’Driscoll, 2003). Nevertheless, managers must
approach such recommendations with sensitivity to avoid resistance or stigma.
A one-size-fits-all approach is rarely sufficient, and managerial flexibility,
empathy, and evidence-based practices are crucial to successful intervention.
Employee Absenteeism
Defining and Measuring Absenteeism
Researchers often distinguish between types of absences, particularly excused
versus unexcused absences. Excused absences are sanctioned by the
organization (e.g., due to illness or caring for a sick child), whereas unexcused
absences occur for reasons deemed unacceptable (e.g., shopping) or when
proper reporting procedures are not followed (e.g., failing to notify a supervisor).
This distinction is critical because different types of absences have different
predictors. For instance, Kohler and Mathieu (1993) discovered that absences
due to nonwork obligations—such as child care or transportation problems—
correlated strongly with dissatisfaction with extrinsic job features, role conflict,
role ambiguity, and somatic tension. In contrast, absences triggered by stress
reactions (e.g., illness) were more strongly related to dissatisfaction with both
internal and external job features, fatigue, and gender, with women more
frequently absent.
Two primary methods are used to quantify absenteeism: time-lost and frequency
metrics (Hammer & Landau, 1981). Time-lost metrics measure total hours or
days missed within a specified period, while frequency metrics count the number
of absence occurrences, regardless of their length.
Predictors of Absenteeism
Steers and Rhodes (1978) proposed that absenteeism is determined by two
overarching factors: the ability to attend and the desire to attend. Ability
relates primarily to health, transportation reliability, and family responsibilities,
while desire is influenced by organizational attitudes and external opportunities.
Three notable nonaffective predictors of absenteeism have emerged. First,
gender plays a role: women are consistently found to be more frequently
absent than men (Farrell & Stamm, 1988; Steel & Rentsch, 1995; VandenHeuvel
& Wooden, 1995). This trend likely reflects the disproportionate burden of
caregiving and household responsibilities women bear, even in dual-career
households (Hochschild, 1989).
Second, the rigor of an organization's absence-control policy significantly
affects absenteeism rates. Organizations vary widely in their approach—from
minimal monitoring to stringent documentation and disciplinary actions.
Research has shown that stricter policies are associated with lower absenteeism
(Farrell & Stamm, 1988; Kohler & Mathieu, 1993; Majchrzak, 1987). However,
effectiveness depends on clarity and consistency.
Third, absence culture—defined by Brown (1982) as the shared beliefs and
norms governing absence behaviors within a group—also plays a pivotal role. As
Hackman (1992) suggested, group norms exert a powerful influence on individual
behavior, including absenteeism. Mathieu and Kohler (1990) found that group-
level absence rates predicted individual absenteeism among transit operators.
Similarly, Martocchio (1994) demonstrated that group-level absence culture was
predictive of paid absences, while individual beliefs predicted unpaid absences.
These findings are summarized in Figure 6.1, which illustrates how affective,
demographic, cultural, and policy-related factors influence absenteeism.
Understanding Employee Turnover and Its Organizational Impact
Employee turnover, much like absenteeism, is closely linked to job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. However, affective factors (such as
dissatisfaction or lack of commitment) have been found to be more potent
predictors of turnover than of absenteeism. Abelson and Baysinger (1984)
introduced the concepts of optimal turnover—where the departure of low-
performing employees may benefit the organization—and dysfunctional
turnover, which includes the loss of high-performing employees or excessive
turnover rates that damage the organization's image and increase recruitment
and training costs. The distinction between avoidable and unavoidable
turnover further refines this understanding. Avoidable turnover arises when
retention strategies could have mitigated exits, whereas unavoidable turnover
reflects external or personal circumstances beyond organizational control.
Performance as a Nonaffective Predictor of Turnover
Performance has emerged as a significant nonaffective predictor of turnover,
although the relationship is often weak and influenced by several factors. First,
the statistical detection of turnover-performance relationships is hampered by
the infrequent nature of turnover events and the restricted variance in job
performance measurements. More importantly, organizational reward
contingencies can modulate this relationship; where rewards are strongly tied to
performance, the negative correlation between low performance and turnover
becomes more apparent (Williams & Livingstone, 1994). Jackofsky (1984)
advanced this discourse by proposing a curvilinear (U-shaped) relationship:
both low and high performers are more likely to leave, the former due to
dissatisfaction and the latter due to more attractive external opportunities.
Empirical studies, including Schwab (1991) and Trevor et al. (1997), provide
partial support for this theory, especially in contexts with low salary growth and
high promotion rates.
External Labor Market Conditions and Job Tenure
The state of the external labor market also shapes turnover tendencies. When
job opportunities abound, employees are more inclined to leave. Steel and
Griffeth (1989) found a modest positive relationship between perceived job
opportunities and turnover. Job tenure plays a dual role by increasing
continuance commitment and shaping how turnover drivers evolve over time.
Early in tenure, job satisfaction is a stronger predictor of turnover, whereas over
time, family and lifestyle considerations gain prominence.
Less Common Forms of Counterproductive Behavior
Employee Theft
Employee theft is broadly defined as the unauthorized taking of organizational
property by employees. This behavior ranges from minor infractions, such as
taking office supplies, to serious violations, including the theft of sensitive
documents. Research tends to concentrate on mid-level theft, such as retail
workers stealing merchandise or employees manipulating cash registers.
Studies suggest that theft is prevalent enough to pose a significant problem for
many organizations. Estimates indicate that approximately 35% of employees
engage in theft, leading to financial losses totaling billions of dollars (Kuhn,
1988). More recent data suggest that 52% of individuals have taken property
from work without permission, while 25% have falsified receipts to obtain
reimbursements for unspent funds (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Unfortunately,
these losses are often absorbed by consumers, amplifying the broader societal
impact of such behavior.
Two dominant themes emerge from the literature concerning the causes of
employee theft. The first emphasizes individual characteristics. For example,
studies have demonstrated that theft is more likely among individuals with
certain personality traits, particularly low conscientiousness—associated with
unreliability, poor self-discipline, and disregard for authority (Collins & Schmidt,
1993; Jones & Boye, 1992; Ones et al., 1993).
The second theme identifies environmental factors as potential catalysts. For
instance, Greenberg (1990) found that poorly communicated and insensitive pay-
reduction policies led to higher rates of theft, compared to similar settings where
management explained such policies thoroughly and with empathy. According to
Spector (1997b), theft may also result from workplace-induced frustration—when
employees encounter barriers that obstruct their goals, such as inefficient
equipment, excessive regulations, or time-wasting policies.
Spector proposed that individual differences, such as locus of control, moderate
the relationship between frustration and counterproductive behavior. Employees
with an external locus of control—those who believe they have little influence
over their circumstances—are more likely to engage in destructive behaviors like
theft. Conversely, those with an internal locus of control may channel their
frustrations through constructive means, such as participating in management
initiatives. (Storms & Spector, 1987).
Workplace Violence and Mistreatment
Although less common than other forms of counterproductive behavior,
workplace violence has become increasingly concerning. Beyond physical
violence, employees often encounter more subtle forms of mistreatment, such as
rudeness, verbal abuse, or exclusion.
Workplace violence, as discussed here, refers to physical aggression enacted by
organizational members within the workplace. These acts can be directed at
coworkers, supervisors, or even customers. While the literature primarily
examines aggression between employees (Schat & Kelloway, 2005), client-
initiated aggression is also common (Büssing & Höge, 2004).
Three primary factors have been identified in understanding employee-initiated
violence: the physical environment, individual characteristics, and organizational
context. Although physical environments—such as those that are monotonous or
machine-paced—have been speculated to contribute to violence, empirical
evidence is limited (Broadbent, 1985; Worchel et al., 2000).
More robust findings concern individual predispositions. Day and Catano (2006)
identified a history of violent behavior, substance abuse, low conscientiousness,
low agreeableness, and poor emotional stability as key risk factors. Hostility has
also been associated with higher aggression levels (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006).
From an organizational standpoint, unjust treatment and poor management
practices can heighten the risk of violent behavior. Leaders who fail to intervene
or who model passive behavior may inadvertently foster antisocial conduct
(Greenberg, 1990; Skogstad et al., 2007). Nonetheless, even in negative work
environments, actual incidents of violence remain rare, suggesting that
environmental factors typically interact with individual predispositions rather
than act as sole causes.
Generalized Mistreatment
While physical violence is relatively infrequent, less overt forms of mistreatment
are common in many organizations. These behaviors include verbal hostility,
privacy violations, and efforts to undermine coworkers. Scholars refer to such
actions using various terms—workplace incivility, bullying, mobbing, and
deviance—but collectively they fall under the broader category of generalized
mistreatment (Bowling & Beehr, 2006).
Research on the outcomes of mistreatment shows that it negatively affects
employee well-being. Bowling and Beehr's (2006) meta-analysis, which included
90 samples, revealed that mistreated individuals often experience higher levels
of anxiety and depression, lower job satisfaction, more physical symptoms, and
increased absenteeism.
Although fewer studies have examined the causes of generalized mistreatment,
existing research highlights the role of supervisors. Leaders who are hostile,
disengaged, or perceived as unfair may foster environments conducive to
mistreatment (Skogstad et al., 2007). Employees who feel emotionally drained or
dissatisfied may also be more prone to engage in such behaviors (Blau &
Andersson, 2005; Judge et al., 2006). Moreover, some scholars suggest that
workplace mistreatment may reflect a broader societal trend toward declining
civility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999).
Substance Use in Organizations
Frone (2006) highlights the significant prevalence of substance use within the
U.S. workforce, with approximately 14% of employees reporting illicit drug use
and 3% using substances on the job. Alcohol consumption, being legal, is
considerably more widespread. These figures represent a major concern for
organizations due to the association between substance use and a range of
counterproductive workplace behaviors, including increased absenteeism,
reduced performance, higher accident rates, job withdrawal, and antagonistic
interactions (Frone, 2004; Roman & Blum, 1995). Beyond organizational impact,
substance use is linked to broader social problems such as traffic fatalities,
domestic violence, and violent crime.
Research has sought to predict substance use through various lenses. Personality
traits associated with antisocial behavior have been shown to correlate with
substance use patterns. Additionally, personal history factors such as low self-
esteem, prior arrests, family substance abuse, and peer associations have been
identified as significant predictors (Lehman et al., 1995). Environmental factors,
including stressful job conditions, also contribute but appear to exert a modest
effect (Cooper, Russell, & Frone, 1990). More notably, social norms within work
groups significantly influence substance use behaviors; positive workplace
drinking climates increase both individual and peer substance use (Bennett &
Lehman, 1998).
Prevalence of substance use varies across occupations, reflecting differences in
workplace culture and availability (Frone, 2003, 2006). In response, organizations
are advised to implement preventive strategies that focus both on screening
prospective employees—mindful of legal protections such as the Americans with
Disabilities Act—and fostering workplace environments that discourage
substance use. Drug testing, though costly and contentious, can be an effective
tool if applied fairly and coupled with treatment options. The balance between
punitive measures and supportive interventions, such as Employee Assistance
Programs, is crucial, as treatment-oriented approaches tend to be viewed as
more equitable (Stone & Kotch, 1989). This dual approach helps avoid
perceptions of tolerance while addressing the issue constructively.
Sexual Harassment in Organizations
Sexual harassment has emerged as a highly visible and critical issue within
organizational settings, encompassing a spectrum of unwelcome behaviors
defined legally and socially (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1980).
It manifests primarily in two forms: quid pro quo harassment, where
employment conditions depend on submission to sexual advances, and hostile
work environment harassment, characterized by pervasive inappropriate
conduct that creates an intimidating or offensive workplace atmosphere.
Notably, hostile environment harassment can include subtle, non-malicious
behaviors that nevertheless cause discomfort.
The prevalence of sexual harassment is challenging to quantify precisely, but
empirical studies indicate high incidence rates of unwanted sexual attention and
gender-related harassment, particularly among women (Bates, Bowes-Sperry, &
O’Leary-Kelly, 2005; Fitzgerald et al., 1997). Research consistently shows women,
especially those in male-dominated or visible positions, are disproportionately
affected. Moreover, sexual harassment is often embedded within a broader
pattern of workplace mistreatment, with evidence linking it to general incivility
and indicating higher vulnerability among minority women (Lim & Cortina, 2005;
Berdahl & Moore, 2006).
Effective prevention hinges on clearly articulated organizational policies that
define unacceptable behavior and outline consequences for violations.
Communication of these policies plays a pivotal role in raising awareness and
guiding employee behavior. Despite the complexity of defining sexual
harassment precisely, common societal norms generally provide a shared
understanding of appropriate conduct in mixed-gender contexts. Ignorance of
these norms is not a valid defense.
