Service Sabotage: A Study

of Antecedents and Consequences

Lloyd C. Harris
Emmanuel Ogbonna
Cardiff University, United Kingdom

Although much of the existing research on employee

sabotage and deviance focuses on the manufacturing
sector, studies have also found evidence of deliberate
employee misbehavior in a variety of service settings. In
this study, the authors conceptualize and test a model
of service sabotage dynamics that incorporates both
the antecedents and the consequences of such behaviors.
In doing so, the study contributes contemporary empirical evidence of factors associated with the deliberate
sabotage of service by frontline customer-contact personnel. Using a survey-based approach, the authors collected data from 259 respondents from a sample of 1,000
respondents. The findings largely support the hypothesized antecedents of service sabotage and show that a
range of individual characteristics, management control
efforts, and perceived labor market conditions are linked
with service sabotage. Furthermore, the analysis suggests that service sabotage behaviors are associated with
individual and group rewards, effects for customers, and
other performance measures.
Keywords : service sabotage; employee deviance; service
dysfunction; frontline employees; customercontact employees

Scholars have estimated that up to 75 percent (Harper

1990), 85 percent (Harris and Ogbonna 2002), and even
96 percent (Slora 1991) of employees routinely behave in
a manner that can be described as either deliberately
deviant or intentionally dysfunctional. Although the costs
of employee sabotage are difficult to calculate, Murphy
(1993) suggested that such behaviors could cost U.S.
firms up to $200 billion annually. Such insights appear
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Volume 34, No. 4, pages 543-558.
DOI: 10.1177/0092070306287324
Copyright 9 2006 by Academy of Marketing Science.

particularly pertinent in the context of services, in which

it is widely acknowledged that the behavior of frontline
service personnel constitutes the most salient factor
affecting customers' perceptions of service performance
(Sergeant and Frenkel 2000) and ultimately organizational
survival (e.g., Singh 2000). Thus, Harris and Ogbonna
(2002:166) argued that service sabotage, or organizational
member behaviors that are intentionally designed negatively to affect service," is likely to be especially damaging
not only to service encounters but also to firm profitability
and growth. Harris and Ogbonna documented an array of
deliberate actions by service personnel designed to sabotage customers' service experience that have an immediate
impact on service.1
The prevalence and costs of employee sabotage and
deviance are mainly uncovered in studies of manufacturing
firms (Ackroyd and Thompson 1999). However, the acts
of service sabotage uncovered by Harris and Ogbonna
(2002) contrast markedly with prior studies of sabotage
in contexts in which, typically, the effects of sabotage
are delayed (rather than the almost immediate impact in
the case of services), the target of sabotage is commonly
the firm itself or coworkers (as opposed largely to customers
in a service setting), and sabotage is commonly viewed as
a hidden phenomenon (in contrast to service sabotage, in
which 64% of the cases described were public). In the services context, anecdotal evidence of sabotage by customercontact personnel has been presented (e.g., Crino 1994).
Such qualitative insights have focused on the motives
(Crino 1994) and forms of sabotage in a services context
(Analoui 1995). Harris and Ogbonna (2002) adopted an
exploratory interview-based approach and put forth (but
did not test) several propositions about the nature and
dynamics of service sabotage. In this sense, our understanding of service sabotage is constrained by the limited
empirical or descriptive research in the area. Although the
services context is highly diverse (with variations from lowwage, high customer contact to high-wage, low customer

544 JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE

FALL 2006

contact), it has been suggested that research on service

dynamics has overconcentrated on customer interpretations,
to the relative detriment of investigations into the actions
of frontline service providers, particularly low-wage,
high-customer-contact employees (Chebat and Kollias
2000; Hartline and Ferrell 1996). Thus, despite the widespread acceptance of the pivotal role of service personnel,
commentators have recently observed that the actions and
behaviors of frontline service employees are poorly understood and insufficiently studied (see Bettencourt, Gwinner,
and Meuter 2001). In this sense, Harris and Ogbouna (2002)
noted that much of the extant research on service encounters
is premised on the assumption that frontline service personnel are compliant, obedient, and constructive. However,
the validity of this assumption appears questionable in the
face of considerable conceptual (Warren 2003), empirical
(Robinson and Bennett 1995), and practical (e.g., Laabs
1999) evidence that suggests that frontline employees
knowingly misbehave in counterproductive ways (Bennett
and Robinson 2000; Boye and Jones 1997).
Our study aims to contribute empirically through the
testing of a conceptual model of service sabotage that simultaneously estimates the linkages between service sabotage and its antecedents and consequences. Furthermore,
our study also intends to contribute useful practical insights
into the drivers, nature, and effects of the darker side of
service dynamics, particularly in the context of lowwage, high-customer-contact employees.
In the following section, we present a model of the
antecedents and consequences of service sabotage. After
developing our conceptual model, we outline our surveybased approach and describe the nature of the measures
employed. Thereafter, we describe the approach used to
evaluate and subsequently to test the forwarded model.
Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings for
both theory and practice.

several tentative links, they are not empirically evaluated.

Overall, despite an increasing recognition of the importance of service sabotage and the existence of a wide range
of anecdotal evidence of this phenomenon, to date, no study
has empirically evaluated either the antecedents or the consequences of service sabotage.
Although the study of service sabotage has been
neglected, industrial sociology has a relatively long tradition of exploring workplace deviance and sabotage (see
Ackroyd and Thompson 1999). However, this research has
concentrated almost exclusively on the study of sabotage
in nonservice sectors. Such studies have typically focused
on the explication of single drivers or consequences of sabotage. While a comprehensive review of these studies is
interesting and has generated valuable insights into the
fields of sociology and allied disciplines, such a review is
beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to note that such studies predominantly concentrate
on employee motives (Crino 1994) or on factors such as
petty crime (Ditton 1977), pilfering (Mars 1982), damage
to the means of production (Hollinger and Clark 1982),
falsifying of work records (Lupton 1963), intentional substandard production (Kombluh 1968), and the speed of
assembly line systems (Watson 1972).
Although studies of sabotage in manufacturing are
worthwhile, their generalizability to services is limited at
best. As we mentioned previously, the effects of sabotage
are typically delayed in manufacturing but are immediate
in a services context. This immediacy affects both the
antecedents and the consequences of such actions in service settings. For example, whereas a proverbial "spanner
in the works" may be undetected by managers for months
and even years in a manufacturing context, the sabotage
of a service encounter is likely to affect customers' evaluations of that encounter immediately (including, e.g., perceptions of service quality and customer satisfaction).
Similarly, whereas manufacturing sabotage is commonly
designed to affect the firm or coworkers, the target of
service sabotage is the customer. Thus, in a manufacturing
setting, sabotage actions interrupt production and negatively affect the operation and performance of the organization. In services, however, sabotage behaviors disrupt
service encounters and negatively affect employeecustomer dynamics (e.g., the extent of customer-employee
rapport). Finally, service sabotage is predominantly public (as opposed to the largely covert and private nature of
manufacturing sabotage). Thus, the antecedents and consequences of sabotage differ between the two contexts.
Indeed, the motivations and drivers of a public act of service sabotage are likely to include factors that are irrelevant to the clandestine actions of a manufacturing worker.
In this regard, the antecedents and consequences of service
sabotage must reflect the effects of public displays and
group dynamics (e.g., group pressures to conform, group
benefits or sanctions for sabotage behaviors).

MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

Jermier (1988) concluded that "well developed concepts

of workplace sabotage are not incorporated into organizational social science, leaving its meaning, causes, and consequences subject to folk wisdom, popular opinion, and
causal conjecture"(p. 103). More recent reviews have found
a continuing dearth of research on employee sabotage,
although some studies have explored this concept in the
context of manufacturing firms (Ackroyd and Thompson
1999). Although Harris and Ogbonna (2002) suggested that
sabotage is likely to be more pervasive and the impact more
profound in the context of customer-contact employees, the
evidence on services is limited and typically seems to focus
on single case studies (e.g., Analoui 1995) and anecdotal
evidence (e.g., Crino 1994). Furthermore, although Harris
and Ogbonna's (2002) interview-based study presents

Harris, Ogbonna / SERVICESABOTAGE 545

FIGURE 1
The Antecedents and Consequences of Service Sabotage
I

[
t

Employees'RiskTakingProclivity

i+H1

SocialApprovel

[ Eampl~ :Dl~21r~:~

Firm

~.

e'2I-H3[

i i I '"OT'O /

RapportwithCustomers

-H5
.~

Employees'Perceptionsof thei+H6 I
Extentof Employee-CustomerI ~

Employees'Perceptionsof
TeamSpirit

SERV,OEL . _ ~ Employees'Perceptionsof

EmployeeSelf-Esteem

Employees'Perceptionsof i+H71
LaborMarketFluidity I

Employees'Perceptionsof
FunctionalQuality

-H12 Employees'Perceptionsof
CompanyPerformance

~, Hypothesizedlinks ..... -~ Respecifiedlink I

Our conceptualization draws heavily from the few

studies of sabotage and is supplemented by insights into
more general studies of employee deviance and dysfunctional behaviors. In particular, our work draws from that
of Harris and Ogbonna (2002), whose interview-based
study of low-income, high-customer-contact employees
led to the presentation of a conceptual model of service
sabotage. However, some aspects of this model are highly
specific to individual workplaces and are impossible to
operationalize and measure without employing a casestudy approach. (For example, gauging the prevalence and
strength of subcultures would require an in-depth analysis
of intraorganizational dynamics as well as a longitudinal
ethnographic approach; see Schein 1996.) Consequently,
our framework is a refinement and extension of the
exploratory model that Harris and Ogbonna presented.
Whereas Harris and Ogbonna identified 28 factors associated with service sabotage, our model focuses on seven
antecedents and five consequences. We identified these
factors in the following way: first, we reevaluated Harris
and Ogbonna's original data and coding procedures and
removed workplace-idiosyncratic or highly unusual factors
from the analysis. Thereafter, we critically reviewed the
remaining factors in relation to existing theory and excluded
them from subsequent study if we found limited support
in the literature. For example, although Hams and Ogbonna
proposed that extroversion is linked to sabotage actions,
the theory they cite pertains only to two suggestions that
personality types are linked to deviance and not explicitly

to sabotage actions. This is in contrast to a large number

of studies that theorize that sabotage may be linked to more
conscious individual characteristics, such as risk taking and
the need for social approval. Figure 1 illustrates the culmination of this procedure.
Before we present our rationale for linkages between
factors and service sabotage, it is worthwhile to outline
our justification for the mediating role of service sabotage. Our rationale for the conception of service sabotage
as a mediating factor is grounded in contemporary labor
process theory (see Gabriel 1999). Research from this
tradition views corporate attempts to control fronfline
employees as ideological assaults that subjugate and
dehumanize employees principally through the intensification of their work and the suppression of individual
identities (see Jaros 2000). Thus, labor process theorists
argue that employees naturally resist attempts to control
them and manifest their discontent through various forms
of resistance (e.g., through strike action, working to rule,
absenteeism, and sabotage). In the current study, we conceptualize service sabotage as the central means through
which service employees are able to manifest their discontent, thus directly affecting service and performance
outcomes. We subsequently outline both our rationale for
the linkages between individual concepts and we provide
further details of the theory on which we rely.
Before we discuss the antecedents to service sabotage, it
is useful to revisit the definition we adopted for this study.
Our definition is adapted from the work of Harris and

546 JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE

FALL2006

Ogbonna (2002) and views service sabotage as employees'

conscious actions that are designed to affect negatively
customer service. In this regard, our definition focuses
on employee intentions rather than merely customer
perceptions.

some cases, in ways that potentially advocate or encourage deviant behavior (see Harris and Ogbonna 1998).
Second, labor process theory suggests that deviant subcultural norms and behaviors inevitably arise as the only
practical medium for meaningful dissent, particularly
among low-wage employees (Ackroyd and Thompson
1999). Third, group theories support this argument, indicating that group norms exert a powerful influence over the
behavior of both individuals (e.g., Robinson and O'LearyKelly 1998) and groups (Brief, Buttram, and Dukerich
2001), while forming a key determinant of employee
deviance or conformity (Warren 2003). Finally, research
into sabotage activities has consistently suggested that
the need for group conformity or approval is related to
illicit or deviant behaviors (e.g., Ackroyd and Thompson
1999). Thus,

ANTECEDENTS OF SERVICE SABOTAGE

A review of extant literature leads us to present seven
main antecedents to service sabotage (see Figure 1). The
first factor centers on the risk-taking proclivity of service
personnel. Conchar, Zinkhan, Peters, and Olavarrieta (2004)
noted that there is indeterminacy in the conceptualization
of risk taking in the consumer behavior literature.
However, our definition of risk taking is derived from the
work of Raju (1980), who defined risk-taking proclivity
as an individual tendency or "preference for taking risks
or being adventurous" (p. 278). Whereas risk taking by
managers has been studied extensively (see Forlani
2002), frontline risk taking is comparatively understudied (Ackroyd and Thompson 1999). However, existing
research supports the view that employees' deviant
behaviors are linked to various personality types and
traits (see Giacalone and Greenberg 1997). Furthermore,
and specifically, it has been contended that employee acts
that are knowingly destructive or counter to firm rules
involve conscious decisions to take risks (Brehm and
Gates 1997), which in turn balance a desire to act in a
deviant way even with the (potential) risk of dismissal
and, in some cases, criminal prosecution (Giacalone,
Riordan, and Rosenfeld 1997). Therefore, Harris and
Ogbonna (2002) proposed that people with greater risktaking tendencies are more likely to be involved in overt
acts of sabotage. Thus,

Hypothesis 1: The greater the risk-taking proclivity of

service employees, the greater is the likelihood of
service sabotage.
The second factor argued to be linked with service
sabotage is the extent to which a service worker feels the
need for social approval from work colleagues. 2 In this
sense, social approval refers to the extent to which individual employee actions are influenced by a desire to be
accepted by others or to belong to a group (see Fisher
1993). Support for this association is derived from diverse
literature streams and academies. First, contemporary culture theory argues that firm cultures are typically mosaics
of subcultures that represent groupings of employees
who share assumptions, views, and opinions (Detert,
Schroeder, and Mauriel 2000). Furthermore, culture theorists maintain that many of the subcultures that emerge are
orthogonal to the espoused corporate culture (Alvesson
2002) and that low-wage customer-contact employees
frequently perceive culture in fragmented terms and, in

Hypothesis 2: The greater the need for social approval

from colleagues, the greater is the likelihood of service sabotage.
The third factor is the extent to which service personnel have a desire to stay with their current firm. In this
sense, an employee's desire to stay is an attachment to
the organization, which is generally informed by a perception of a match between the individual's career preferences and the organization's characteristics (Geartner
and Nollen 1992). Such attachment to an organization
has been positioned as an outcome of commitment (see
O'Reilly and Chatman 1986) and, in general, is considered an integral part of organizational commitment, as
many scholars conceptualize (e.g., Meyer, Stanley,
Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky 2002). In this regard,
research on the consequences of employee commitment
has reported a positive and strong link with job performance (e.g., Suliman and Iles 2000). Similarly, studies of
organizational control find evidence that employees'
work performance is related to their individual preferences and to their perceptions of opportunities in the
organization. Thus, the desire to stay with an organization depends on the extent to which a firm is capable of
manipulating perceptions of career rewards and opportunities (Casey 1995). Harris and Ogbonna (2002) proposed that service sabotage is unlikely to occur when
service personnel wish to remain with and pursue a
career in that organization. Thus,

Hypothesis 3: The greater the extent to which service

employees desire to stay with and pursue a career
in their current firm, the lower is the likelihood of
service sabotage.
The fourth factor is the association between the level
of surveillance of service personnel and the extent to
which service sabotage occurs. Consistent with the work

Harris, Ogbonna/ SERVICESABOTAGE 547

of Ogbonna and Wilkinson (1990) on the control of frontline service personnel, we use the term surveillance to
refer to the systems and devices that management installs
to ensure that service staff complies with agreed-on
service guidelines. Sewell (1998) claimed that one of the
central themes in the development of contemporary organizations was the growth in the sophistication of labor
process control through vertical and horizontal surveillance. As such, Sewell argued that the principal effect of
such new surveillance technologies was increased worker
compliance to management demands. This view is consistent with studies that find an increasing prevalence of
high-tech surveillance mechanisms (e.g., Ball and Wilson
2000) that are designed to control employees' behavior in
a manner described by Korczynski (2001) as a "customeroriented bureaucracy" and by Ackroyd and Thompson
(1999) as akin to Foucauldian panopticism (see Foucault
1977). Empirical support for a negative surveillancedeviance association is also found in a variety of settings.
For example, Parilla, Hollinger, and Clark (I988) found
theft rates to be linked to security levels, and other sabotage
researchers found that workplace deviance behavior by
low-wage, high-customer-contact employees was lessened
by overt and covert employee surveillance (e.g., Harris
and Ogbonna 2002). Thus,

Hypothesis 4: The greater employees' perceptions of

surveillance during service, the lower is the likelihood of service sabotage.
The fifth factor is the extent to which low-wage, highcustomer-contact employees perceive cultural control.
Cultural control pertains to the interventions by managers
that lead to the internalization of control and the "selfmanagement" of behavior (see Ackroyd and Thompson
1999). La Nuez and Jermier (1994) argued that sabotagerelated behaviors are more likely to occur when managers
and employees perceive a lack of control. Conversely,
Dandeker (1994) argued that when frontline workers
are exposed to subtle cultural control mechanisms, they
typically assume that "all-knowing" managers are acting in their best interests and, in effect, become selfdisciplining and self-managing (also see Deetz 1992).
This finding is related to research on group and team
dynamics that suggests that if group or team members are
exposed to shrewd cultural control initiatives, they will
develop cultural norms and exert peer pressure that
operates as a highly effective form of mutual control (see
Sewell 1998). This finding is also consistent with
Robinson and Bennett's (1995) theory that conceptualizes workplace deviance as cultural norm violation. Such
insights appear especially relevant in services contexts
in which a series of recent studies have argued that the
existence of cultural control is central to frontline employees' customer-oriented behaviors (Hartline, Maxham, and

McKee 2000). These arguments lead to the following

suggestion:

Hypothesis 5: The greater employees' perceptions of

cultural control over frontline employees, the lower
is the likelihood of service sabotage.
The sixth factor is the extent of contact between frontline employees and customers, that is, the extent to which
frontline service workers are exposed to and interact with
external customers (see Sturdy 1998). Harris and Ogbonna
(2002) proposed a link between the extent to which lowwage frontline employees interact with customers and their
level of service sabotage. This argument is premised on
the assumption that prolonged contact generates not only
the motive but also the opporttmity for deviant behavior.
This suggestion parallels existing research on customeremployee interaction that finds that frontline employees
respond psychologically, emotionally, and behaviorally to
customer contact (e.g., Ashforth and Humphrey 1993).
Sturdy (1998:30, 39) claimed that such reactions are typical of contemporary pressures, whereby the "consumer is
omnipresent and sovereign" and managers accept that customers form "a source of frustration, pressure, and anger."
Such observations led Rafaeli (1989) to suggest that the
most significant factor influencing service dynamics is not
peer pressure or cultural control but rather the extent of
customer-employee contact. Thus,

Hypothesis 6: The greater the contact between customers

and frontline employees, the greater is the likelihood
of service sabotage.
The seventh and final antecedent is the extent of labor
market fluidity, that is, the extent to which frontline employees believe that alternative employment opportunities exist
and can be exploited (see Noe, Steffy, and Barber 1988).
Support for this contention can be found in the economics
literature that indicates that the existence of fluidity and flexibility in the labor market is linked to levels of employee
productivity (e.g., Applebaum and Berg 1995). Furthermore,
numerous commentators have observed that a lack of organizational commitment is probable and that resistance is
more likely when employees perceive that there are more
extraorganizational opportunities than intraorganizational
ones (e.g., Schraeder 2001). This observation parallels industrial relations research that finds a relationship between labor
market conditions and the prevalence of organized industrial
action (see Ackroyd and Thompson 1999). In specific relation to service contexts, these arguments led Harris and
Ogbonna (2002) to propose a positive link between labor
market fluidity and frontline employee deviance. Thus,

Hypothesis 7: The greater employees' perceptions of

labor market fluidity, the greater is the likelihood
of service sabotage.

548

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

CONSEQUENCES OF SERVICE SABOTAGE

On the basis of the existing literature, we argue that
there are five consequences of service sabotage (see
Figure 1). The first factor is frontline employees' selfesteem. Self-esteem can be viewed as the extent to which
customer-contact employees experience feelings of selfworth at work (see Oliver and Bearden 1985). The contention that self-esteem may accrue from sabotage-related
behavior is consistent with a range of studies of labor
process that find links between deviant workplace behavior and a person's feeling of self-worth (e.g., Ackroyd
and Thompson 1999). Indeed, numerous commentators
have observed that self-esteem is frequently derived from
antisocial activities (Gabriel 1999), whereas deviant
behaviors are often linked with both positive (e.g.,
Robinson and Bennett 1995) and negative (e.g., Best and
Luckenbill 1982) effects. Notably, such activities are not
restricted to frontline employees but also extend to middle managers who, when lacking organizational attachment, have been found to pursue self-interests (see Guth
and MacMillian 1986). These and other findings led
Crino (1994) to point out that a central aim of sabotage is
to establish or enhance feelings of self-worth, a conclusion
mirrored in Analoui's (1995) and Harris and Ogbonna's
(2002) studies, both of which note that although service
sabotage may negatively affect the organization, the
saboteur may gain social status and self-esteem. Thus,

Hypothesis 8: The greater the extent of service sabotage,

the greater is frontline employees' self-esteem.
The second hypothesized consequence of service sabotage is the level of team spirit among low-wage frontline
service employees. We define team spirit as the extent
to which people feel a sense of group togetherness (see
Jaworski and Kohli 1993). As Hypothesis 8 indicates, sabotage behaviors have previously been linked to positive individual consequences. However, existing research has also
highlighted potential links with group dynamics or team
spirit (e.g., McKinley and Taylor 1996). Boye and Jones
(1997) argued that in many contexts, sabotage activities
form central components of work group norms and team
dynamics, and Hawkins (1984) found that individual or
group deviant activity affects team harmony. This is in concord with McKinley and Taylor's (1996) study, which finds
strong links between team resistance to a managementespoused change initiative and worker camaraderie. Thus,

Hypothesis 9: The greater the extent of service sabotage, the greater is the extent of perceived team
spirit among frontline employees.
The third and fourth consequences of service sabotage
are the negative relationships between service sabotage

FALL 2006

and two facets of service performance: rapport with

customers and functional quality. Following the work
of Gremler and Gwinner (2000), we define rapport as
a general feeling of psychological connection between
the customer and the employee. The issue of customeremployee rapport has long been acknowledged as a key
feature of service (e.g., Berry 1995). Gremler and Gwinner
explored the nature of service rapport and suggested that
the extent of rapport between a service employee and a
customer is contingent on the extent of reflexively evaluated perceived personal connection and enjoyed interaction. In this regard, Gremler and Gwinner concluded that
poor service erodes rapport, and Harris and Ogbonna
(2002) extended the logic of this conclusion and proposed a negative link between intentionally disrupted
service and employee-customer rapport. Thus,

Hypothesis 10: The greater the extent of service sabotage, the lower is the extent of perceived rapport
between frontline employees and customers.
The fourth consequence of service sabotage pertains
to functional quality. In the context of service delivery,
Mittal and Lassar (1998) defined functional quality as
"the quality of how the service is delivered" (p. 179).
Stewart and Chase (1999) found that unintentional errors
during service significantly affected quality, and Harris
and Ogbonna (2002) argued that deliberate sabotage
was likely to have a large impact on service delivery.
Research into dysfunctional work behaviors consistently
finds negative links between various forms of workplace
deviance and the quality of the work produced (e.g.,
Analoui 1995). Indeed, Laabs (1999) noted that angry
employees have committed felonies and "have put
rodents into food products, put needles into baby food,
set companies on fire, and wiped out entire company
databases" (p. 33). Other mischievous acts of sabotage
have less spectacularly eroded service delivery and quality. Furthermore, Analoui (1995) documented more than
450 examples of workplace sabotage over a 6-year period
in a single-case company, the majority of which negatively affected quality. Thus,

Hypothesis 11: The greater the extent of service sabotage, the lower is the extent of perceived functional
quality.
The fifth and final consequence of service sabotage is
related to company performance (i.e., the growth and profitability of the firm). In this regard, Murphy (1993) estimated that U.S. firms lose up to $200 billion a year as a
consequence of employee deviance and sabotage. Indeed,
many definitions of workplace deviance and sabotage focus
on employees' intentions to cause harm to the organization
(e.g., Robinson and Bennett 1995). In a study of a broad

Harris, Ogbonna/ SERVICESABOTAGE 549

range of dysfunctional work behaviors, Griffin, O'LearyKelly, and Collins (1998) argued that such employee activities are likely to be "injurious" to the firm and have both
specific and general financial costs. In a study that mirrors
these behaviors, Kacmar and Carlson (1998) found a negative link between dysfunctional employee behaviors and
company turnover. Similarly, Laabs (1999) argued that sabotage behaviors affect company growth and, eventually,
market share. In relation to services, both Sykes (1997) and
Harris and Ogbonna (2002) found some support for this
view, each concluding that sabotage and deviance during
service delivery disproportionately affect the performance
of service organizations. Thus,

Hypothesis 12: The greater the extent of service sabotage, the lower is the firm's perceived financial
performance.

We tested nonresponse bias using a time-trend extrapolation test (Armstrong and Overton 1977). We found
no significant differences between the demographic characteristics of early and late respondents or between any
of the constructs used in subsequent analyses. To evaluate
respondent authenticity, we took and independently
assessed a randomly selected sample of usable questionnaires from the sample. This process involved recontacting
respondents by telephone and requesting confirmation of
demographic data. This evaluation found no significant
discrepancies. An analysis of responses indicated that the
gender split favored female respondents (64%) who were
full-time employees (78%) and had an average age of 33.
The workplaces of informants ranged from single outlet
operations to nationwide chains.

MEASURES AND MEASUREMENT

PROPERTIES

DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLING

To test the developed hypotheses, we adopted a descriptive research design and used a self-administered postal
survey method. To evaluate service sabotage dynamics,
insights were required from informants at a customer interface in which customer-employee contact is close and service encounters are relatively protracted. Consequently,
data collection focused on frontline customer-contact
employees within the food and beverage service sector of
the hospitality industry. We considered this sector particularly appropriate for this study because customeremployee encounters are diverse and unpredictable,
comparatively prolonged, and sufficiently intimate (Harris
and Ogbonna 2002). Furthermore, commentators have
observed that the hospitality industry and restaurant sectors constitute particularly worthy and understudied contexts for research on "dysfunctional" employee and
customer interaction (Gill, Moon, Seaman, and Turbin
2002). We obtained a sample of 1,000 restaurants from a
data brokerage agency. Criteria for inclusion in the sample
included turnover and number of employees. Prospective
respondents were personally contacted by telephone to
obtain agreement for involvement, to ensure suitability,
and to communicate guarantees of anonymity. To improve
response rates, informants were offered the incentive of
inclusion within a small ($150) prize drawing, Thereafter,
each respondent was mailed a personalized, signed letter
of introduction; the questionnaire; a prize drawing form;
and a prepaid reply envelope. Of the 1,000 firms contacted,
we received 259 completed and 27 incomplete questionnaires. In addition, of the firms, 43 were ineligible (typically on grounds of size), and 52 declined to participate
(principally because of company policy). Through the
use of the Council of American Survey Research
Organizations (1982) response rate calculation, our procedures generated a response rate of just under 34 percent.

Although some research on employee dysfunctional

behavior and service sabotage has been undertaken (as we
previously mentioned), to gauge the concepts we put forward, scale development and adaptation was required. We
developed the scales employed using conventional psychometric procedures; we predominantly adapted them
from existing measures but also on the basis of scale development work conducted during pretesting. Pretesting procedures included initial panel review by experienced
scholars, followed by two pilot surveys of 40 frontline
customer-contact employees. Detailed notes were taken
regarding difficulties, criticisms, and suggestions, and we
amended the survey instrument accordingly. The instrument was deemed to be suitable for data collection after a
final review by senior faculty members (the appendix
shows the wording of items). In total, we used 13 scales,
11 of which were adapted from existing scales. We adopted
7-point Likert-type scoring for all items (Likert 1932),
because 7-point scales have been found to increase reliability of data findings (Churchill and Peter 1984).
To measure the extent of service sabotage, we developed a nine-item scale specifically for the study. We
designed this scale to gauge the extent to which service
personnel deliberately manipulated, disrupted, or otherwise detrimentally affected service encounters (see the
appendix). As such, the developed measure draws on
both Harris and Ogbonna's (2002).conception of service
sabotage and prior studies of intentional employee "misbehavior" in other service settings (e.g., Analoui 1995;
Crino 1994). During the first round of pretesting, it was
revealed that respondents were deeply uncomfortable
admitting personally engaging in sabotage activities that,
in some cases, were not only grounds for instant dismissal but also criminal acts. Indeed, 38 of the 40 respondents involved in the administered pretest claimed that they
would not respond to such questions in a mailed survey

550 JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE

FALL2006

(despite guarantees of anonymity). Consequently, at the

suggestion of several respondents in the first pretest, we
introduced the subsequent measures of service sabotage
by a lead question (i.e., "Considering the standards of
service where you work, please comment on your actions
at work") and followed that with items that referred not
to the acts of the individual but, more generically, to people (see the appendix). We designed this "nonthreatening" approach to allay respondents' fears and improve
response rates. In the second pretest, respondents were
supplied with two measures of service sabotage, one
requesting details about personal acts of sabotage (as in
the first pretest) and one comprising the newly designed,
less threatening measure. An analysis revealed a strong
correlation between the two measures (p < .01), although
more than 92 percent of respondents noted that they
would not respond to the first measure in a mailed survey,
and 100 percent agreed that the nonthreatening measure was
preferable. Given these findings, we adopted the second
nonthreatening measure.
We also developed seven scales that gauged the
hypothesized antecedents to service sabotage (see Figure 1
and the appendix). We gauged risk-taking proclivity
using an eight-item scale that was derived from Raju's
(1980) measure of risk taking, and we measured the
extent to which respondents had a need for social approval
by work colleagues through an adaptation o f Fisher's
(1993) measure of perceived importance of social
approval from others. We measured the extent to which
employees desired to stay with their current firm using an
extended (from six to nine items) and adapted version of
Meyer and Allen's (1991) measure of occupational and
organizational commitment. We assessed the extent of
frontline employees' perceptions of surveillance and cultural control through Jaworski and MacInnis's (1989)
four-item work controls (process) and the three-item work
controls (self) scales, respectively. We assessed the perceived extent of employee-customer contact using a fouritem scale developed for the study. Finally, we measured
perceived labor market fluidity through the use of an
adapted version of Noe et al.'s (1988) scale of movement
opportunities.
We also developed five scales that measured the hypothesized consequences of service sabotage (see Figure 1
and the appendix): We measured employee self-esteem
with six items that were derived from the work of Oliver
and Bearden (1985) and originated from the work of
Bown and Richek (1967). We measured perceived team
spirit using an adapted seven-item version of the measure
developed by Jaworski and Kohli (1993), and we gauged
perceived employee-customer rapport using a modified
form of Gremler and Gwinner's (2000) six-item scale. In
particular, we developed, evaluated, and pretested the two
remaining measures (i.e., perceived functional quality
and perceived firm performance) because such issues are

traditionally gauged through surveys of nonfrontline

personnel (i.e., customers and management). A review of
the quality literature revealed that customers were the
conventional source of data. However, Baydoun, Rose,
and Emperado (2001) found significant links between
customer and employee evaluations of customer service,
and Lytle, Horn, and Mokwa (1998) provided a useful
measure designed to evaluate customer treatment through
the questioning of service employees. Consequently, we
assessed perceived functional quality using an adaptation
of Lytle et al.'s (1998) four-item measure of customer
treatment. The appendix shows the wording of the items of
the three-item measure of perceived company performance.
To evaluate the extent to which frontline customer-contact
personnel were able to gauge firm performance, during
both pretests, we compared employees' perceptions of
company performance relative to the competition (the
subjective measure) with objective performance measures. The objective measures of performance also gauged
both profitability by calculating the average retum on investment over the past 3 years and sales growth by computing the Net Sales Index. That is, we indexed firm sales
over a 3-year period by setting the 1st year's sales equal
to 1.00 and thereafter computing the 3rd year's sales as
an index of the 1st year. For both pretests, the subjective
performance measure was significantly (p < .05) correlated to the objective measure. Thus, it appears that
employees are reasonably well informed of their finns'
overall performance (perhaps aided by internal communications, such as weekly management briefings and
monthly company newsletters).
We examined the reliability of the measures through
confirmatory factor analysis and the calculation of
Cronbach's (1951) alpha coefficients. Confirmatory factor
analysis revealed that each indicator loaded significantly on
its designated factor (p < .01) and produced a chi-square/
degrees of freedom ratio that was well below Marsh and
Hocevar's (1985) criterion; the Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit
Index was significantly better than an atheoretical onefactor model. We also gauged reliability through an examination of Cronbach's alpha coefficients, which, for scale
acceptability, Nunnally (1978) suggested should be over
.7, with each indicator reliability above .50 (Fornell and
Larcker 1981). By calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficients (see the appendix), we found coefficients that
ranged from.7126 (Employee Perceptions of Labor Market
Fluidity) to .9047 (Employees' Need for Social Approval
by Work Colleagues), which thus conformed to NunnaUy's
(1978) criterion.
Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) observed
that construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity) can be gauged in various ways. As mentioned previously, we pretested the survey instrument to improve
content validity. To assess the validation of index operationalization, we correlated items in each scale to the

Harris, Ogbonna/SERVICE SABOTAGE

TABLE 1
Standardized LISREL Estimates
Structural Link

Coefficient

t-Value

+. 107'

+2. I

+. 153"

+3.2

-.427*

-6.2

-. 134*

-2.5

-.090*

-2.0

Hypothesized antecedent
links to service sabotage
Employees' risk-taking
proclivity (Hypothesis 1)
Employees' need for
social approval by work
colleagues (Hypothesis 2)
Employees' desire to stay
and pursue career in
current finn (Hypothesis 3)
Employees' perceptions of
the extent of surveillance
(Hypothesis 4)
Employees' perceptions of
the extent of cultural
control (Hypothesis 5)
Employees' perceptions of
employee-customer contact
(Hypothesis 6)
Employees' perceptions of
the fluidity of the labor
market (Hypothesis 7)

On inspection of the average variances extracted, we

found further evidence for convergent validity, all of
which had loadings in excess of .5 and were significantly
related to their underlying factor (t-value > 5.15) (see
Fornell and Larcker 1981). Similarly, we found evidence
of discriminant validity through the application of Fornell
and Larcker's (1981) test, which recommends comparing
the average variance extracted with the variance shared
(i.e., the squared phi correlation) between the construct
and other constructs in the model. This analysis found
that the average variance extracted estimates were greater
than the squared correlations between all constructs.

RESULTS

ns

ns

+.079*

+2.1

+.268*

+3.0

+. 172"

+3.0

-.258*

-3.5

-.490*

-7.4

-. 149"

-3.1

+.245*

+3.2

Hypothesized consequences of
service sabotage
Employee self-esteem
(Hypothesis 8)
Employees' perceptions of
team spirit (Hypothesis 9)
Employees' perceptions of
employee-customer
rapport (Hypothesis 10)
Employees' perceptions of
functional quality
(Hypothesis 11)
Employees' perceptions of
company performance
(Hypothesis 12)
Employees' perceptions of
quality to company
performance

551

Diagnostic statistics
Z2 = 328.08
d f = 78
~2/df = 4.21
RMSEA = .047
Probability level (p) = .000
Number of observations = 259
IFI = .930
CFI = .947
NOTE: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; IFI =
Incremental Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index.
*p < .05.

whole scale (see Nunnally 1967). This analysis indicates

that each correlation is both statistically significant (p < .01)
and in the expected direction (see Cook and Campbell
1979) and provides an indication of convergent validity.

Given the nature of the hypothesized relationships, we

used LISREL to test our hypotheses (see Table 1). We
began the analysis by testing the hypothesized model.
Shook, Ketchen, Hult, and Kumar (2004) concluded that
there is no consensus regarding which measures of overall model fit should be employed, but they concurred
with several commentators that no single measure should
be relied on but rather that multiple indexes from different families of measures should be used (e.g., Marsh,
BaUa, and McDonald 1988). In the current study, we
used absolute (e.g., root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]), incremental (e.g., Comparative Fit
Index [CFI]), and parsimonious (e.g., normed chi-square)
fit measures (see Table 1). The testing of the proposed
model depicted in Figure 1 revealed fit statistics marginally below acceptable levels. Consequently, following the
recommendations of Gerbing and Anderson (1988), to
improve model fit, we deemed respecification to be worthy
of consideration and reexamined extant theory to explore
overlooked paths.
A reevaluation of extant theory suggested that the initial
proposed model (see Figure 1) neglected to recognize
well-established links between perceived functional quality
and perceived firm performance. Oliver (1997) documented in detail the direct and indirect links between
quality and profitability, arguing that "high quality allows
firms to charge higher premiums, thereby reaping higher
margins" (p. 404). Indeed, direct links between quality
and profit have been widely reported (e.g., Aaker and
Jacobson 1994). Consequently, we respecified the model
with an added path between perceived functional quality
and perceived performance (see Figure 1).
To evaluate the initially specified model and the respecified model (Figure 1), we compared the two competing
models with chi-square differences and the chi-square/
degrees of freedom (2/dJ) ratio and also with comparative
assessments of parsimony (parsimony-adjusted Normed
Fit Index and parsimony-adjusted CFI). These evaluations revealed that the respecified model (see Figure 1)

552 JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE

FALL2006

was a better fit than the initially specified model across

all indexes examined. Consequently, we examined the
respecified model to gauge overall validity.
Table 1 documents the results of this analysis. To
ascertain the validity of the estimated model, we used
a range of absolute, incremental, and parsimonious fit
measures. The parsimonious fit measure was Marsh and
Hocevar's (1985) test of dividing chi-square by the degrees
of freedom (z2/df); our calculation generated a ratio of
4.21, which is slightly above the ideal ratios suggested by
Byrne (1989). We evaluated incremental fit with Bollen's
(1989) Incremental Fit Index (IF1) and Bentler's (1990)
CFI, both of which represent comparisons between the
estimated model and a null model. The CFI of .947 and IFI
of .930 indicate strong support for the estimated model.
Finally, we evaluated absolute fit with the RMSEA, which
further supported acceptance of the model. Thus, on the
basis of these diagnostic tests, we concluded that the model
was sufficiently valid.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 respectively state that employees'
risk-taking proclivity and need for social approval by work
colleagues are positively associated with the extent of service sabotage by frontline service employees. Hypothesis
3 argues that the extent of employees' desire to stay with
the current firm is negatively linked. The results lend support to the claim that service personnel's individual characteristics are linked to service sabotage because the
estimated parameter between Employees' Risk-Taking
Proclivity and Service Sabotage is both positive and significant (7 =. 107), and the link between Employees' Need
for Social Approval by Work Colleagues and Service
Sabotage is significant (7 = .153). Similarly, Hypothesis 3
is supported by the calculation of a strong and significant
parameter (1' = -.427). Thus, service workers' characteristics seem to be linked to their tendencies to sabotage
service encounters intentionally. Therefore, and formally,
Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are fully supported.
Hypotheses 4 and 5 respectively contend that employees' perceptions of the extent of employee surveillance
and of the extent of cultural control are negatively linked
with service sabotage. Thus, we argue that two different
forms of control (direct and cultural) reduce the incidence of service sabotage. The structural equation modeling in Table 1 provides support for these hypotheses,
in that each is estimated to be significantly associated
with service sabotage. We find evidence in support of
Hypotheses 4 and 5 in the significant links with service
sabotage (7 = -.134 and 3t = -.090, respectively). Thus,
our results support the acceptance of both Hypotheses 4
and 5. However, we find insufficient evidence to support
Hypothesis 6. Indeed, our statistical analysis reveals no
empirical support for the claim that higher levels of
employee-customer contact lead to service sabotage.
Hypothesis 7 focuses on perceived environmental conditions and service sabotage. Specifically, Hypothesis 7

argues that when frontline employees perceive high

levels of fluidity in the labor market, their incidence of
service sabotage increases. The analyses demonstrate
some support for the acceptance of this hypothesis, in
that we find significant links between labor market fluidity and service sabotage (7 = .079). Thus, it appears that
when frontline service personnel believe that the opportunities for employment outside their current firm are
high, they are more likely to disrupt service intentionally.
Hypotheses 8 and 9 are related to the links between
service sabotage behavior and perceived individual and
group rewards for such behavior. These hypotheses
respectively argue that higher levels of service sabotage
are associated with higher levels of frontline employee
self-esteem and perceived team spirit. Thus, we contend
that deliberate acts of sabotage in the service context are
linked to both individual and group perceptions of the
psychological benefits arising from such actions. Our
results (see Table 1) support both Hypotheses 8 and 9 and
show significant links between service sabotage and both
employee self-esteem (7 = .268) and perceived team
spirit (t' = .172), leading to the acceptance of these
hypotheses. Indeed, it appears that the extent of service
sabotage behaviors is linked with intangible individual
and group benefits.
Whereas Hypotheses 8 and 9 focus on employees,
Hypotheses 10, 11, and 12 concentrate on the impact of
such actions on both customers and organizational performance. Hypotheses 10 and 11 focus on the effects on
service (perceived employee-customer rapport and perceived functional quality), whereas Hypotheses 12 pertains
to the links with firm performance. We find similar results;
service sabotage is strongly and negatively linked with
both Perceived Employee-Customer Rapport (y = -.258)
and Perceived Functional Quality (7 = -.490), in support
of both Hypotheses 10 and 11. We also find sufficient
support for Hypothesis 12 in the finding of a direct link
between service sabotage and perceived company performance (1' = -. 149). However, as discussed previously, the
analysis reveals an additional, indirect association
through the mediator of functional quality.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we argue that existing research on the
incidence of intentional sabotage in service contexts is
limited to exploratory qualitative or anecdotal studies
(e.g., Laabs 1999). Through a survey of frontline customercontact employees, we develop and test a conceptual model
of the antecedents and consequences of service sabotage.
The results show support for many of the predicted associations with service sabotage. In the remainder of the text,
we briefly review the main implications of these findings
and provide suggestions for future study.

Harris, Ogbonna/ SERVICESABOTAGE 553

One of the main contributions of this study stems from
the modeling, operationalization, and testing of a framework of service sabotage dynamics. Research on sabotage commonly focuses on nonservice contexts (see
Ackroyd and Thompson 1999), whereas studies that
explore services are typically qualitative (see Harris and
Ogbonna 2002). Thus, to our knowledge, our study contributes the first quantitative evaluation of contemporary
sabotage in a low-wage, frontline services context. Thus,
a key contribution of our study is derived from our presentation of a model that indicates that a range of factors
drive intentional sabotage. Specifically, the results show
that six antecedent factors (i.e., risk-taking proclivity,
need for social approval, desire to stay with and pursue a
career in a firm, perception of the extent of surveillance,
perception of the extent of cultural control, and perception of the fluidity of the labor market) are significantly
linked to service sabotage. Furthermore, our findings
present five consequences of service sabotage, including
self-esteem, team spirit, employee-customer rapport, functional quality, and company performance. Of particular
significance is that our study contributes insights from
the perspectives of low-wage, frontline customer-contact
employees.
Our study also contributes methodologically. That is,
we operationalize, successfully test, and largely confirm
a model of service sabotage dynamics and document the
creation and evaluation of a valid multi-item measure
of the extent of service sabotage. Although researchers
commonly develop and test new measures, in the current study, we focused on a construct that gauges covert,
clandestine, and (often) criminal activity. Studying such
employee acts necessitated the adoption of measurement
techniques that protected both the informant and the
researcher (who, in some cases, could be legally or morally
obligated to report certain activities to the relevant authorities). However, informants were encouraged to relate information about illicit activities that are, without exception,
grounds for gross misconduct or instant dismissal.
Consequently, we operationalized and tested a multi-item
scale of service sabotage (ultimately adopting what we label
a "nonthreatening" measurement instrument). Although
there are limitations in the approach adopted, and we
endorse efforts to refine and extend this measure, we
believe that our measure supplies a useful starting point
from which to explore, describe, and analyze the hidden
face of service dynamics.
This study also contributes to the literature on labor
process through the findings that customer service may
have potentially negative consequences for frontline
workers and through the discovery that service sabotage
may represent an insidious form of resistance and even
equalization in labor-management relations. These two
issues require further discussion. The finding of a positive
association between service sabotage and self-esteem

indicates that the practice of customer service arising

from notions of customer sovereignty (see Harris and
Ogbonna 2002; Sturdy 1998) may be damaging to
employees (as well as groups) who come into direct contact and interact with customers. In this regard, it could
be argued that through sabotage, employees are responding to the actions of dysfunctional customers or reacting
to management's espoused levels of customer satisfaction, which they have no role in constructing but which,
nonetheless, impose certain pressures and stresses on
their working lives. Indeed, although the ideology of consumption and customer sovereignty has become a central
aspect of management thinking in contemporary organizations (du Gay 1996; Thompson and Ackroyd 1995), the
findings of this study suggest that frontline employees
reconstruct this ideology in ways that suit their individual
and collective identities and that are manifestly different
from the ideals espoused by managers and executives.
Linked to these findings is the contribution derived
from the strategy of resistance, which employees in this
study employed. Although previous studies have documented various conventional forms of worker resistance,
such as strikes, work-to-rules, and even labor turnover
(see McDonald 2000), the finding of service sabotage
suggests that traditional forms of resistance do not produce the outcomes that many employees desire. Indeed,
studies of human resource management report the limited
success of traditional forms of employee resistance, as
managers have generally succeeded in shaping employee
subjectivity in ways that reduce their capacity to express
their identities while narrowing their scope for resistance
(Gabriel 1999). Thus, service sabotage may be conceived
of as the employee's covert form of equalization against
the actions of manipulative management and should be
included in conceptualizations of employee resistance in
studies of labor-management relations.
Our study also has several worthwhile implications for
managers. An implication arises from the finding of a
range of significant links between antecedent factors and
service sabotage. The finding that individual characteristics are linked to service sabotage demonstrates that the
qualities of frontline staff play an important role in influencing behaviors at work. Therefore, an implication of the
study is that practitioners and, in particular, human
resource managers should consider these factors during
recruitment, induction, training, and periodic appraisal:
That is, managers recruiting employees into positions
where service sabotage is possible should critically evaluate the qualities of job applicants in an effort to minimize
the possibility of service sabotage incidents. Furthermore,
appraisers of service staff should vet current staff in an
effort to identify those who are mo~t likely to sabotage
service and should implement measures to control their
behavior. In this respect, managers should reflect on the
sabotage-dampening effects of direct control through

554 JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE

FALL2006

surveillance and the more subtle control exerted through

organizational culture. That is, the use of direct control
mechanisms (e.g., overt surveillance techniques; see
Hypothesis 4) can control employee behavior, and the use
of cultural control efforts (see Kunda 1995) can affectively
change employees' mind-set and thus control the actions
of service personnel when direct controls are ineffective.
Thus, a key implication of this study is that although service sabotage is prevalent, managers are not powerless to
reduce or even eliminate its occurrence. Executives and
outlet managers can select from an array of well-developed
mechanisms and programs that are designed directly or
indirectly to control the actions of frontline employees,
including organizational culture interventions, psychological profiling and selective recruitment, electronic surveillance (both overt and covert), and a range of bureaucratic
control mechanisms.
Implications also arise from the study of the consequences of service sabotage. It is clear that deliberately
disrupted service is linked to a raft of negative serviceperformance indicators. Whatever the individual motivations for service sabotage, it appears that customer-contact
employees intentionally sabotage and, in doing so, gain
"benefits" both individually in the form of increased selfesteem and collectively through improved team spirit.
This implies that rather than condemning such employees as irrational, astute managers should recognize the
latent needs of frontline staff for status and self-esteem.
Therefore, in light of these findings, executives and managers may wish to develop strategies and tactics that are
designed to enhance employees' sense of self-worth. In
this regard, human resource management texts are replete
with suggestions of techniques and programs that are
designed to enhance frontline employees' sense of selfworth (e.g., programs of employee empowerment, job

enrichment, group-based socialization and reward systems,

job rotation, self-development, self-improvement).

Limitations and Extensions

This study has limitations that future research projects
can address. First, we derived data regarding outcome
measures from frontline employees. In doing so, the current study relies on employees to provide unbiased views
of issues such as rapport with customers and other performance measures. Future studies could benefit from collecting information from alternative data sources. Second,
whereas this study presents a cross-sectional evaluation of
service sabotage, a longitudinal study could enrich the findings and generate a deeper understanding of the dynamics
of service dysfunction. Third, although the results confLrm
the measures developed for this study, further work could
scrutinize and evaluate the proposed scale for service sabotage. Finally, and more broadly, future research could
extend our model of service sabotage antecedents and
consequences. Our conceptual framework and subsequent
empirical results point to seven drivers and five consequences of service sabotage. However, future studies could
further explore the breadth and range of these factors (e.g.,
customer satisfaction, employee incentive programs, job
satisfaction, organizational culture, firm climate, a range
of job characteristics). Future research could also explore
service sabotage from alternative theoretical frameworks.
An especially promising avenue would be to examine the
concept from an agency theory perspective.
Although our study is limited by the research design
and methods adopted, we highlight an important but
neglected dimension of contemporary service dynamics.
Thus, we culminate with a call for additional research on
these intriguing issues.

APPENDIX

Employees'Risk-Taking Proclivity (8 items) (Cronbach's ~ = .8054). a

I am the kind of person who would try any new product once.
When I go to a restaurant, I feel it is safer to order dishes that I am familiar with. (R)
I am cautious in trying new/different products. (R)
Even for an important date, I wouldn't be wary of trying somewhere new.
I would rather stick with a brand I usually buy than try something new. (R)
I never buy something I don't know about at the risk of making a mistake. (R)
I will buy only well-established brands. (R)
I enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar brands.

Employees'Need for Social Approval by Work Colleagues (5 items) (Cronbach's ~ = .9047). a

It's very important to me that my work colleagues approve the way I do my job.
It's not important to me that my work colleagues approve the way I talk to customers. (R)
It's very important to me that my work colleagues approve how I get on with the manager.

Harris, Ogbonna / SERVICESABOTAGE 555

APPENDIX

(continued)

It's not important to me that my work colleagues approve the way I organize my work. (R)
It's very important to me that my work colleagues approve how quickly I work.

Employees' Desire to Stay With and Pursue Career in Current Firm (9 items) (Cronbach's a = .8670)."
I have put too much into this job to consider changing now.
Changing jobs now would be difficult for me to do.
Too much of my life would be disrupted if I were to change my job.
It would be costly for me to change my job now.
Changing jobs now would require considerable personal sacrifice.
I feel a sense of pride and accomplishment as a result of the type of work I do.
I very much dislike the work I am doing for this firm. (R)
My job performance improves form year to year.
My job offers me a career path that I am pleased with.

Employees' Perceptions of the Extent of Frontline Employee Surveillance (4 items) (Cronbach's a = .8280)."
My line manager monitors the extent to which I follow established procedures.
My line manager evaluates the procedures I use to accomplish a given task.
My line manager modifies my procedures when desired results are not obtained.
I receive no feedback on my performance. (R)

Employees'Perceptions of the Extent of Cultural Control (3 items) (Cronbach's a = .7678). b

The major satisfactions in my life do not come from my job.
The work I do on this job is very meaningful to me.
I feel that I should take credit or blame for the results of my work.

Employees' Perceptions of the Extent of Employee-Customer Contact (4 items) (Cronbach's a = .7678). b

On
On
On
On

an
an
an
an

average
average
average
average

working
working
working
working

day, how
day, how
day, how
day, how

much
much
much
much

time
time
time
time

do
do
do
do

you
you
you
you

spend
spend
spend
spend

talking to customers?
away from customers? (R)
around customers?
where customers can see you?

Employees'Perceptions of Labor Market Fluidity (3 items) (Cronbach's a = .7126)."

If I left my current job, I could easily get another.
Given my experience, there are other jobs I could do.
There are few opportunities for promotion outside of this firm. (R)

Service Sabotage (9 items) (Cronbach's c~ = .7472)."

People here take revenge on rude customers.
People here hurry customers when they want to.
It is common practice in this industry to "get back" at customers.
People here ignore company service rules to make things easier for themselves.
Sometimes, people here "get at customers" to make the rest of us laugh.
People here never show off in front of customers. (R)
Sometimes, when customers aren't looking, people here deliberately mess things up.
At this outlet, customers are never deliberately mistreated. (R)
People here slow down service when they want to.

Employee Self-Esteem (6 items) (Cronbach's ~ = .7659). a

I seem to have a great deal of self-respect.
I feel sour and pessimistic about life in general. (R)
In almost every respect, I'm very glad to be the person I am.
Thinking back, in a good many ways I don't think I have liked myself very well.
I would give a good deal to be very different than I am. (R)
When I think about the kind of person that I have been in the past, it makes me feel very happy or proud.

(continued)

556

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

FALL 2006

APPENDIX (continued)

Employees" Perceptions of Team Spirit (7 items) (Cronbach's ~ = .8742)?

People here are genuinely concerned about the problems of each other.
We have a good team spirit here.
Working here is like being part of a big family.
People here feel emotionally attached to each other.
People here feel they are "in it together."
We lack a team spirit here. (R)
People here view themselves as individuals who have to tolerate others. (R)

Employees' Perceptions of Employee-Customer Rapport (6 items) (Cronbach's ~ = .8400)?

I do not enjoy interacting with customers. (R)
Serving customers creates a feeling of "warmth."
Customers relate well to me.
I have harmonious relationship with customers.
Customers have a good sense of humor.
I am comfortable interacting with customers.

Employees'Perceptions of Functional Quality (4 items) (Cronbach's c~ = .8668)?

Employees here care for customers as they would like to be cared for themselves.
Employees here will not go the "extra mile" for customers. (R)
Here, we are noticeably friendlier than our competitors.
Employees here go out of their way to reduce inconvenience for customers.

Employees' Perceptions of Company Performance (3 items) (Cronbach's (x = .8784)?

How would you rate the performance of your firm compared with that of your nearest competitors in terms of:
Sales and profit?
Growth?
Overall/in general?
NOTE: Questions marked with a (R) are reversed coded.
a. On a 7-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
b. On a 7-point scale from none of the time (1) to all of the time (7).
c. On a 7-point scale from much worse (1) to much better (7).

NOTES
1. Harris and Ogbonna (2002) list a wide range of service sabotage
acts, including the intentional disregard of company service standards, the
manipulation of the speed of service opposite to that desired by the customer, the adherence to bureaucratic procedures that negatively affect service delivery (e.g., time-consuming credit card veracity confirmation),
patronizing or rude behavior, the public or private sabotage of goods
served, and even cases in which the personal property of customers was
damaged or employees deliberately physically harmed customers.
2. The link between work colleagues' need for social approval and
service sabotage assumes that such employees perceive the social pressure from colleagues as supportive of deviant behavior. Although it is
possible to argue that the reverse might also be the case in some contexts (i.e., work colleagues exert social pressure to behave "functionally"), this seems unlikely given findings that indicate that up to
85 percent of service personnel commit sabotage acts (Harris and
Ogbonna 2002) as well as findings that show that 96 percent (Slora
1991) of employees routinely behave in a manner ~batcan be described
as either deliberately deviant or intentionally dysfunctional.

REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. and Robert Jacobson. 1994. "The Financial
Information Content of Perceived Quality." Journal of Marketing
Research 31 (May): 191-201.

Ackroyd, Stephen and Paul Thompson. 1999. Organizational Misbehavior.

London: Sage.
Alvesson, Mats. 2002. Understanding Organizational Culture. London:
Sage.
Analoui, Farhad. 1995. "Workplace SabOtage: Its Styles, Motives
and Management." Journal of Management Development 14 (7):
48 65.
Applebaum, Eileen and Peter Berg. 1995. Financial Market Constraints
and Business Strategy. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton. 1977. "Estimating NonResponse Bias in Mail Surveys." Journal of Marketing Research
14 (August): 396-403.
Ashforth, Blake E. and Ronald H. Humphrey. 1993. "Emotional Labor
in Service Roles: The Influence of Identity." Academy of Management Review 18 (1): 88-115.
Ball, Kirstie and David C. Wilson. 2000. "Power, Control and ComputerBased Performance Monitoring: Repertoires, Resistance and
Subjectivities." Organizational Studies 21 (3): 539-565.
Baydoon, Ramzi, Dale Rose, and Teresa Emperado. 2001. "Measuring
Customer Service Orientation: An Exam/nation of the Validity of
the Customer Service Profile." Journal of Business and Psychology
15 (4): 605-620.
Bennett, Rebecca J. and Sandra L. Robinson. 2000. "Development of a
Measure of Workplace Deviance." Journal of Applied Psychology
85 (3): 349-360.
Bender, Peter M. 1990. "Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models."
Psychological Bulletin 107 (2): 238-246.

Harris, Ogbonna / SERVICE SABOTAGE

Berry, Leonard L. 1995. "Relationship Marketing of Services: Growing

Interest, Emerging Perspectives,' Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 23 (4): 236-245.
Best, J. and D. E Luckenbill. 1982. Organizing Deviance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bettencourt, Lance A., Kevin P. Gwinner, and Matthew L. Meuter. 2001.
"A Comparison of Attitude, Personality, and Knowledge Predictors
of Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behaviors." Journal
of Applied Psychology 86 (1): 29-41.
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1989. "A New Incremental Fit Index for General
Structural Equation Models?' Sociological Methods and Research
17 (3): 303-316.
Bown, Oliver H. and Herbert G. Richek. 1967. "The Bown Self-Report
Inventory SRI: A Quick Screening Instrument for Mental Health
Professionals?' Comprehensive Psychiatry 8 (February): 45-52.
Boye, Michael W. and John W. Jones. 1997. "Organization Culture and
Employee Counter-Productivity?' In Anti-Social Behavior in
Organizations. Eds. Robert Giacalone and Jerald Greenberg.
London: Sage, 172-184.
Brehm, John and Scott Gates. 1997. Working, Shirking, and Sabotage:
Bureaucratic Response to a Democratic Public. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
Brief, Arthur P., Robert T. Buttram, and Janet M. Dukerich. 2001.
"Collective Corruption in the Corporate World: Toward a Process
Model?' In Groups at Work: Theory and Research. Ed. Marlene E.
Turner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 471-499.
Byrue, Barbara M. 1989. A Primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and
Programming for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Casey, Catherine. 1995. Work, Self and Society: After Industrialism.
London: Routledge.
Chebat, Jean-Charles and Paul Kollias. 2000. ''l'he Impact of Empowerment on Customer Contact Employees' Roles in Service Organizations." Journal of Service Research 3 ( 1): 66-81.
Churchill, Gilbert A. and J. P. Peter. 1984. "Research Design Effect on the
Reliability of Rating" Journal of Marketing Research 16 (November):
360-375.
Conchar, Margy P., George M. Zinkhan, Cara Peters, and Sergio
Olavarrieta. 2004. "An Integrated Framework for the Conceptualization of Consumers' Perceived-Risk Processing?' Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 32 (4): 418-436.
Cool Thomas D. and Donald T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation:
Design and Analysis Issuesfor Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Council of American Survey Research Organizations. 1982. On the
Definition of Response Rates. C.A.S.R.O. Special Report. Port
Jefferson, NY: Council of American Survey Research Organizations.
Crino, Michael D. 1994. "Employee Sabotage: A Random or Preventable
Phenomenon?' Journal of Management Issues 6 (3): 311-330.
Cronbach, Lee J. 1951. "Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of
Tests" Psychometrica 16: 297-334.
Dandeker, Christopher. 1994. Surveillance, Power, and Modernity:
Bureaucracy and Discipline from 1700 to the Present Day.
Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Deetz, Stanley. 1992. "Disciplinary Power in the Modern Corporation."
In Critical Management Studies. Eds. Mats Alvesson and Hugh
Willmott. London: Sage, 21-45.
Detert, James R., Robert G. Schroeder, and John J. Mauriel. 2000.
"A Framework for Linking Culture and Improvement Initiatives in
Organizations." Academy of Management Review 25 (4): 850-863.
Ditton, Jason. 1977. "Perks, Pilferage and the Fiddle: The Historical
Structure of Invisible Wages ?' Theory and Society 4 (1): 39-7 I.
du Gay, Paul. 1996. Consumption and Identity at Work. London: Sage.
Fisher, Robert J. 1993. "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of
Indirect Questioning."Journal of Consumer Research 20
(September): 303-315.
Forlani, David. 2002. "Risk and Rationality: The Influence of Decision
Domain and Perceived Outcome Control on Managers' High-Risk
Decisions." Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15 (2): 125-140.
Fornell, C. and D. G. Larcker. 1981. "Evaluating Structural Equation
Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error?'
Journal of Marketing Research 18 (February): 39-50.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
London: Allen and Lane.

557

Gabriel, Yannis. 1999. "Beyond Happy Families: A Critical Reevaluation

of the Control-Resistance-Identity Triangle." Human Relations 52 (2):
179-203.
Geartner, Karen N. and Stanley D. Nollen. 1992. "Turnover Intentions
and Desire Among Executives." Human Relations 45 (5): 447-466.
Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson. 1988. "An Updated Paradigm
for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its
Assessment." Journal of Marketing Research 25 (2): 186-192.
Giacalone, Robert A. and Jerald Greenberg. 1997. Antisocial Behavior
in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
, Catherine A. Riordan, and Paul Rosenfeld. 1997. "Employee
Sabotage: Toward a Practitioner-Scholar Understanding." In
Antisocial Behavior in Organizations. Eds. Robert A. Giacalone
and J. Jerald Greenberg. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 109-129.
Gill, Martin, Chris Moon, Polly Seaman, and Vicki Turbin. 2002.
"Security Management and Crime in Hotels." International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14 (2): 58-64.
Gremler, Dwayne D. and Kevin E Gwinner. 2000. "Customer-Employee
Rapport in Service Relationships." Journal of Service Research
3 (1): 82-104.
Griffin, Ricky W., Anne O'Leary-Kelly, and Judith Collins. 1998.
"Dysfunctional Work Behaviors in Organizations." In Trends in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5. Eds. Cary L. Cooper and Denise
M. Rousseau. New York: John Wiley, 66-82.
Guth, William D. and Ian C. MacMillian. 1986. "Strategy Implementation
Versus Middle Management Self-Interest." Strategic Management
Journal 7 (July/August): 313-327.
Hair, Joseph E, Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William C.
Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. London: Prentice Hall
International.
Harper, D. 1990. "Spotlight Abuse--Save Profits." Industrial Distribution
79 (10): 47-51.
Harris, Lloyd C. and Emmanuel Ogbonna. 1998. "A Three Perspective
Approach to Understanding Culture in Retail Organizations."
Personnel Review 27 (1/2): 104-123.
and - - .
2002. "Exploring Service Sabotage: The
Antecedents, Types, and Consequences of Frontline, Deviant,
Antiservice Behaviors." Journal of Service Research 4 (3): 163-183.
Hartline, Michael D. and O. C. Ferrell. 1996. "The Management of
Customer-Contact Service Employees: An Empirical Investigation."
Journal of Marketing 60 (October): 52-70.
--,
James G. Maxham III, and Daryl O. McKee. 2000. "Corridors
of Influence in the Dissemination of Customer-Oriented Strategy
to Customer-Contact Service Employees?' Journal of Marketing
64 (April): 35-50.
Hawkins, R. 1984. "Employee Theft in the Restaurant Trade: Forms of
Ripping Off by Waiters at Work." Deviant Behavior 5 (1): 47-69.
Hollinger, Richard C. and John P. Clark. 1982. "Formal and Informal
Social Controls of Employee Deviance,' Sociological Quarterly
23:333-343.
Jaros, Stephen J. 2000. "Labour Process Theory: A Commentary on the
Debate." International Studies of Management and Organizations
30 (4): 25-39.
Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay K. Kohli. 1993. "Market Orientation:
Antecedents and Consequences." Journal of Marketing 57 (July):
53-70.
and Deborah J. Maclnnis. 1989. "Marketing Jobs and
Management Controls: Toward a Framework." Journal of
Marketing Research 26 (November): 406-419.
Jermier, John. 1988. "Sabotage at Work: The Rational View." In
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 6. Ed. Samuel B.
Bachrach. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 101-134.
Kacmar, K. Michele and Dawn S. Carlson. 1998. "A Qualitative
Analysis of the Dysfunctional Aspects of Political Behavior in
Organizations." In Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations. Eds.
R. W. Griffin, A. M. O'Leary-KeIly, and J. Collins. Stamford, CT:
JAI, 195-218.
Korczynski, Marek. 2001. Human Resource Management in Service
Work. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan/Palgrave.
Kombhih, Joyce L., ed. 1968. Rebel Voices: An I. W. W. Anthology. Ann
Arbor, MI: Free Press.
Kunda, Gideon. 1995. Engineering Culture, Control and Commitment
in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
-

558

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

Laabs, Jennifer. 1999. "Employee Sabotage: Don't Be a Target."

Workforce 78 (July): 32-42.
La Nuez, Danny and John Jermier. 1994. "Sabotage by Managers and
Technocrats: Neglected Patterns of Resistance at Work." In
Resistance and Power in Organizations. Eds. John Jermier, David
Knights, and Walter Nord. London: Routledge, 219-251.
Likert, Rensis. 1932. "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes?'
Archives of Psychology 140:44-53.
Lupton, Tom. 1963. On the Shopfloor: Two Studies of Workshop
Organization and Output. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Lytle, Richard S., Peter W. Horn, and Michael P. Mokwa. 1998.
"SERV*OR: A Managerial Measure of Organizational ServiceOrientation." Journal of Retailing 74 (4): 455-457.
Mars, Gerald. 1982. "Dock Pilferage." In Deviance and Social Control.
Eds. Paul Rock and Mary Mclntosh. London: Tavistock.
Marsh, Herbert W., John R. Balla, and Rodrick P. McDonald. 1988.
"Goodness-of-Fit Indexes in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The
Effect of Sample Size." Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 391-410.
and Dennis Hocevar. 1985. "Applications of Confirmatory
Factor Analysis to the Study of Self Concept: First- and HigherOrder Factor Models and Their Invariance Across Groups."
Psychological Bulletin 97 (3): 562-582.
McDonald, James Ted. 2000. "Industrial Dispute Tactics in Australian
Manufacturing." Industrial Relations 39 (1): 115-139.
McKinley, Paul and Phil Taylor. 1996. "Power, Surveillance, and
Resistance: Inside the 'Factory of the Future.'" In The New Workplace
-

and Trade Unionism: CriticalPerspectiveson Workand OrganizatiorL

Eds. Peter Ackers, Chris Smith, and Paul Smith. London: Sage.
Meyer, John P. and Natalie J. Allen. 1991. "A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment?' Human Resource
Management Review 1 (1): 61-98.
--,
David J. Stanley, Lynne Herscovitch, and Laryssa Topolnytsky.
2002. "Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the
Organization: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and
Consequences." Journal of Vocational Behavior 61 (1): 20-52.
Mittal, Banwari and Walfried M. Lassar. 1998. "Why Do Customers
Switch? The Dynamics of Satisfaction Versus Loyalty." Journal of
Services Marketing 12 (3): 177-193.
Murphy, Kevin R. 1993. Honesty in the Workplace. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Noe, Raymond A., Brian D. Steffy, and Alison E. Barber. 1988. "An
Investigation of the Factors Influencing Employees' Willingness to
Accept Mobility Opportunities?' PersonnelPsychology 41 (Autumn):
559-580.
Nunnally, Jum C. 1967. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
--.
1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ogbonna, Emmanuel and Barry Wilkinson. 1990. "Corporate Strategy
and Corporate Culture: The View From the Check-out?' Personnel
Review 19 (4): 9-15.
Oliver, Richard L. 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the
Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
and William O. Bearden. 1985. "Crossover Effects in the
Theory of Reasoned Action: A Moderating Influence Attempt."
Journal of Consumer Research 12 (December): 324-340.
O'Reilly, Charles, III. and Jennifer Chatman. 1986. "Organizational
Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of
Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial
Behavior." Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3): 492-499.
Padlla, P. E, Richard C. Hollinger, and John P. Clark. 1988. "Organizational Control of Deviant Behavior: The Case of Employee Theft."
Social Science Quarterly 69 (2): 261-280.
Rafaeli, Anat. 1989. "When Cashiers Meet Customers: An Analysis of
the Role of Supermarket Cashiers." Academy of Management
Journal 32 (2): 245-273.
Raju, Puthankurissi S. 1980. "Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship
to Personality, Demographics, and Exploratory Behavior." Journal
of Consumer Research 7 (December): 272-282.
Robinson, Sandra L. and Rebecca J. Bennett. 1995. "A Typology of
Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study?'
Academy of Management Journal 38 (2): 555-574.
- and Anne M. O'Leary-Kelly. 1998. "Monkey See, Monkey Do:
The Influence of Work Groups on the Antisocial Behavior of
Employees?' Academy of Management Journal 41 (6): 658-672.

FALL 2006

Schein, Edgar. 1996. "Culture: The Missing Concept in Organizational

Studies?' Administrative Science Quarterly 41:229-240.
Schraeder, Mike. 2001. "Identifying Employee Resistance During the
Threat of a Merger: An Analysis of Employee Perceptions and
Commitment to an Organization in a Pre-Merger Context." The
Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business 37 (4): 191-203.
Sergeant, Andrew and Stephen Frenkel. 2000. "When Do CustomerContact Employees Satisfy Customers?" Journal of Service Research
3 (1): 18-34.
Sewell, Graham. 1998. "The Discipline of Teams: The Control of TeamBased Induslrial Work Through Electronic and Peer Surveillance?'
Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (June): 397-428.
Shook, Christopher L., David J. Ketchen, G. Tomas M. Hult, and
K. Michele Kumar. 2004. "An Assessment of the Use of Structural
Equation Modeling in Strategic Management Research?' Strategic
Management Journal 25 (4): 397-404.
Singh, Jagdip. 2000. "Performance Productivity and Quality of Frontline
Employees in Service Organizations" Journal of Marketing 64 (April):
15-34.
Slora, Karen B. 1991. "An Empirical Approach to Determining Employee
Deviance Base Rates?' In Preemployment Honesty Testing: Current
Research and Future Directions. Ed. J. Jones. Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.
Stewart, Douglas M. and Richard B. Chase. 1999. "The Impact of Human
Error on Delivering Service Quality." Production and Operations
Management 8 (3): 240-263.
Sturdy, Andrew. 1998. "Customer Care in a Consumer Society: Smiling
and Sometimes Meaning It?" Organization 5 (1): 27-53.
Suliman, Abubakar and Paul Iles. 2000. "Is Continuance Commitment
Beneficial to Organizations? Commitment-Performance Relationship: A New Look." Journal of Managerial Psychology 15 (5):
407-426.
Sykes, Claire. 1997. "Restaurant Survey Links Employee Theft, Other
Counter-Productive Behaviors?' Stores 79 (5): 74-76.
Thompson, Paul and Stephen Ackroyd. 1995. "All Quite on the
Workplace Front? A Critique of Recent Trends in British Industrial
Sociology" Sociology 29 (4): 615-633.
Warren, Danielle E. 2003. "Constructive and Destructive Deviance in
Organizations?' Academy of Management Review 28 (4): 622-632.
Watson, Bill. 1972. "Counter-Planning on the Shop Floor." Radical
America 5 (3): 22-45.

ABOUTTHE AUTHORS
Lloyd C. Harris (Harris@Cardiff.ac.uk) (PhD, Wales) holds the
Sir Juliarl Hodge Chair in Strategic Marketing at Cardiff Business
School. His main research interests include dysfunction at work,
the marketing-organizational behavior interface, market orientation, dysfunctional behavior during consumption, e-loyalty, and
organizational culture. His work has been published in the Journal

of Retailing, the Journal of Service Research, the Journal of

Business Research, the Journal of Management Studies, the
International Journal of Human Resource Management, and the
Journal of Services Marketing.
E m m a n u e l Ogbonna (Ogbonna@Cardiff.ac.uk) (PhD, Wales)
is a professor of management and organizational behavior at
Cardiff Business School. His major research interests are in the
areas of organizational strategy, culture, human resource management, and the U.K. food retail sector. His other research
interests cover all aspects of race discrimination on governmentsponsored training programs. His work has been published
in the Journal of Business Research, the Journal of Service

Research, the Journal of Management Studies, the British Journal

of lndustrial Relations, and Work, Employment and Society. He
serves on the review board of several international journals.