78

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2011), 84, 7894 C 2010 The British Psychological Society

The British Psychological Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

A new perspective on psychological resources: Unanticipated consequences of impulsivity and emotional intelligence
Doan E. Winkel1 , Rebecca L. Wyland2 , Margaret A. Shaffer2 and Patricia Clason3
1 2

College of Business, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, USA Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA 3 The Center for Creative Learning, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
In this study, we sought to understand why people engage in these two forms of voluntary and discretionary behaviours. Expanding upon key resource theories to include individual abilities, we examined the idea of incongruence between resources and behaviours (i.e., resources that have been traditionally framed with a positive tone lead to negative behaviours and resources that have been traditionally framed with a negative tone lead to positive behaviours). Data from 234 employees revealed that impulsivity positively inuenced organizational citizenship behaviours, and that emotional intelligence (EI) signicantly contributed to deviant workplace behaviours. Post hoc analysis revealed that the ability to perceive emotions was the most inuential branch of EI in predicting deviant behaviours. We thus found a non-compatible view of the individual resourcesbehaviour relationship, such that positive personal resources lead to negative behaviours and negative personal resources lead to positive behaviours. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Expanding the workplace behaviour domain beyond employee performance, organizational scholars have focused more intensely on understanding two opposing forms of employee behaviours: counterproductive/deviant work behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviours (hereafter referred to as OCB) (e.g., Dalal, 2005). Deviant behaviours are intentional, harmful behaviours aimed at individuals or the organization; they include acts such as stealing, wasting resources, sabotage, and aggression (e.g., Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Citizenship behaviours are voluntary and discretionary behaviours that contribute to an organizations effectiveness; they include acts such as helping colleagues and meeting workplace rules (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Despite their contrary inuence on organizational effectiveness, both
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Doan E. Winkel, Illinois State University, Campus Mailbox 5580, COB 242, Normal, IL 61790, USA (e-mail: dwinkel@ilstu.edu).
DOI:10.1348/2044-8325.002001

EI, impulsivity and behaviour

79

behaviours are similar in that they are voluntary, often spontaneously enacted, and target either the organization or individuals in the workplace. Intrigued by the common underlying aspects of these two opposing forms of behaviours, we wondered if they share some common personal inputs. In other words, do some individual resources, dened as personal physical, psychological, and social capabilities that facilitate the achievement of goals (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), contribute to both deviant and citizenship behaviours? Although organizational researchers have traditionally conceptualized resources as capabilities that have positive outcomes, the goal of the individual may have negative consequences for another individual or the organization. Thus, we contend that constructs that have been traditionally framed with a positive tone may in fact lead to unanticipated negative consequences such as deviant behaviours. In contrast, constructs that have been traditionally framed with a negative tone may result in unanticipated positive consequences such as OCBs. To investigate this idea of incongruence between resources and behaviours (i.e., positive personal resources lead to deviant behaviours and negative personal resources lead to OCBs), we consider two personal resources that may inuence both behaviours: emotional intelligence (EI) and impulsivity. Although emotion and organization scholars have strongly debated the nature of EI (cf., Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2003), one conceptualization that has shown great promise is that EI is an individuals ability to accurately process and use emotional information (e.g., Ashkanasy & Ashton-James, 2005; Jordan, Dasborough, Daus, & Ashkanasy, 2010; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). As such, EI has generally been used to predict positive outcomes such as employee performance (e.g., Mayer et al., 2008). However, in the context of leadership, Antonakis argued that individuals may suffer from an emotional curse such that as they become more sensitive to others emotional states (one indication of high EI), they get caught up in this interpersonal emotional landscape, which consequently may cause them to be less likely to create positive outcomes (Antonakis et al., 2009). In support of this argument, Antonakis (2009) found in a reanalysis of secondary data that EI was either not predictive or negatively predictive of leadermember exchange (LMX). Another personal resource that could result in both positive and negative outcomes in the workplace is impulsivity, which has been found to be represented by two distinct tendencies (e.g., Dickman, 1990). Functional impulsivity refers to the tendency to act quickly with positive consequences, and has been found to be positively associated with enthusiasm, adventurousness, and extraversion. Dysfunctional impulsivity, on the other hand, refers to the tendency to act hastily with negative consequences (e.g., Dickman, 1990). While most research has linked impulsivity to negative outcomes, such as aggression, deviant behaviour, and violence (e.g., Lynam & Miller, 2004), if an individual is intrinsically motivated toward helping others, their spontaneous actions (impulsivity) will likely result in positive outcomes, such as OCBs and other benecial workplace behaviours (e.g., Omar, 2009).

Understanding workplace behaviours Theoretical framework Key resource theories suggest that individual-level psychological resources such as optimism and self-efcacy are essential resources an individual uses to manage and adapt other resources to achieve favourable outcomes (e.g., Bandura, 1982; Hobfoll, 1989;

80

Doan E. Winkel et al.

Scheier & Carver, 1992). While these theories traditionally focus on individual traits as the resource of interest, one promising extension has been developed by Holahan and colleagues (e.g., Holahan, Moos, Holahan, & Cronkite, 1999), who suggest that social resources are equally as important as psychological resources when investigating individual behaviour. We build upon this foundation to suggest that impulsivity (a psychological resource) and EI (a social abilities resource) are important and underresearched antecedents of both negative and positive workplace behaviours. Scholars generally explore positive outcomes of EI and negative outcomes of impulsivity; however, we suggest that there may also be unanticipated consequences of these resources for workplace behaviours such that EI may contribute to negative outcomes (deviant behaviour) and impulsivity may result in positive outcomes (citizenship behaviour) (e.g., McKinley & Scherer, 2000). Unanticipated consequences result when one does not expect or intend them to in advance; therefore, they are not the objectives of the action, the targets toward which the action is oriented, or the motives that stimulated the action (Merton, 1936). Although exploring intended consequences is important, Merton (1936) urged scholars to investigate the unanticipated consequences of social action, a call which we attempt to answer. Examples of unanticipated consequences would be when individuals leverage a resource such as optimism to engage in deviant behaviours (theft), or leverage a resource such as ingratiation to engage in citizenship behaviours (altruism) (e.g., Grant & Mayer, 2009; Snell & Wong, 2007).

Deviant behaviours Deviant behaviours can be categorized into two broad types: those directed at the organization and those directed at the individual (e.g., Bennett & Robinson, 2000). An extant body of literature has identied many antecedents of these behaviours, such as individual differences, situational determinants, and organizational determinants (e.g., Bennett & Robinson, 2002). A substantial literature shows individual difference traits as predictors of deviant behaviour, such as conscientiousness, emotional stability, selfcontrol and integrity (e.g., Berry et al., 2007; Marcus & Schuler, 2004). Beyond these studies that help explain why people engage in deviant behaviour, relatively few studies have identied abilities and other antecedents that may help explain how employees engage in these behaviours. In one of the few examples, Dilchert, Ones, Davis, and Rostow (2007) found that cognitive ability predicted deviant behaviour. Similarly, an exploration of the link between EI and deviant behaviours seems fruitful.

EI and deviant behaviour Recently, some scholars have questioned whether EI has a dark side that could predict negative behaviours and outcomes (e.g., Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore, 2007). For example, Petrides, Frederickson, and Furnham (2004) found that EI was related to adolescents being excluded from school, which, presumably, is a result of those students deviant behaviour. Further, Austin et al. (2007) suggest that high-EI university students may use this ability to suit their own interests. This provides initial support for the idea that those with high EI may be more likely to engage in deviant behaviour. A body of literature has emerged suggesting that having too much of a given resource could result in a negative outcome (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000). We draw on the ndings presented above to propose and empirically test a potential dark side of EI wherein we

EI, impulsivity and behaviour

81

suggest that deviant workplace behaviour is an unanticipated consequence of EI (e.g., McKinley & Scherer, 2000). Emotions and emotion regulation are a part of everyday organizational life and work roles (e.g., Barsade & Gibson, 2007) and communicated emotions are important cues for strategic information gathering and processing in interpersonal exchanges (e.g., Kopelman, Rosette, & Thompson, 2006; Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004). Thus, ones EI should be a critical determinant of interpersonal workplace behaviour. To investigate this phenomenon, we draw on key resource theories (e.g., Thoits, 1994) to suggest that EI is a key resource (one that is used to obtain valued ends) that facilitates the development and use of other resources (i.e., networks, inuence, status) that lead to an individual engaging in deviant workplace behaviour. We know that emotions, and more specically EI, should be and is predictive of an individuals workplace behaviour (e.g., Berry et al., 2007; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008). Williams (2004) found a signicant relationship between EI ability and environmental adaptation among urban principals, suggesting that those with high EI were more effective in adapting to their environment to achieve valued ends. In the workplace, being able to read situations objectively, to understand group hierarchies through a social awareness, and to develop networks aids individuals in exerting inuence, and this can manifest itself in deviant behaviour (e.g., Boyatzis, 1982). Thus, we predict: Hypothesis 1: EI will be positively related to (a) interpersonal deviant behaviours and (b) organizational deviant behaviours.

Impulsivity and deviant behaviour As discussed earlier, impulsivity can be functional or dysfunctional (e.g., Dickman, 1990). Whereas functional impulsivity may lead to OCB, dysfunctional impulsivity may lead to deviant behaviours as it refers to hasty actions that lead to negative consequences. As discussed earlier, a key resource theories framework suggests that impulsivity is a resource that leads individuals to act spontaneously in the workplace when the opportunity presents itself (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). For example, from the dysfunctional perspective, if a supervisor reprimands or punishes an impulsive employee, he/she is more likely to lash out against the supervisor or the organization that supervisor represents (e.g., Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). Impulsivity generally refers to a group of related constructs that lead to maladaptive outcomes such as aggression and deviant behaviour (i.e., Dickman, 1990; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). Thus, impulsive individuals who tend to act without considering consequences would be more likely to engage in more deviant behaviours than those who are less impulsive (e.g., Lynam & Miller, 2004). Further research found that impulsivity relates to deviant workplace behaviours such as interpersonal aggression, theft, and violence (i.e., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1993; Lynam & Miller, 2004). Therefore: Hypothesis 2: Impulsivity will be positively related to (a) interpersonal deviant behaviours and (b) organizational deviant behaviours.

Organizational citizenship behaviours OCB represent individual behaviours that are discretionary, not directly or implicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promote the efcient and

82

Doan E. Winkel et al.

effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988: 4). Williams and Anderson (1991) argued that these behaviours can be separated into actions that benet the organization (OCBOs), represented by Organs (1988) dimensions of conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue, and those focused on behaviours that immediately benet specic individuals and indirectly contribute to the organization (OCBI), represented by Organs (1988) dimensions of courtesy and altruism (e.g., LePine et al., 2002).

EI and OCB An extensive research stream relates EI to general positive behaviours and outcomes such as life satisfaction, happiness, and health (e.g., Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Carmeli, Yitzhak-Halevy, & Weisberg, 2009). This literature shows that EI is strongly related to social engagement and positive social functioning, in that it leads to positive social relationships through being able to identify, infer, and manage ones own and others emotional states (e.g., Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006). We propose that this positive social functioning will manifest itself in the workplace as OCB, and that high-EI individuals possess the ability to read social situations in the workplace and identify opportunities to lend a helping hand. Thus, EI is a key resource individuals can use to identify situations in which they can engage in behaviours to benet their organization or coworkers. A number of scholars have found that OCB is predicted by constructs that have been found to relate to EI such as concern for others and empathy (e.g., Joireman, Kamdar, Daniels, & Duell, 2006). Therefore, we predict: Hypothesis 3: EI will be positively related to (a) interpersonal OCB and (b) organizational OCB.

Impulsivity and OCB As suggested previously, another resource that would likely inuence ones engagement in OCB is impulsivity. Scholars have suggested that the impulsivity facet of neuroticism may be positively associated with employees OCB (e.g., Nikolaou, Vakola, & Bourantas, 2008). Others have found that motivation predicts OCB (Tang & Ibrahim, 1998), and since impulsivity is one aspect of the intrinsic motivation process, impulsivity could be positively associated with OCB (e.g., Loevinger, 1976; Kegan, 1982). This is supported by ndings that altruistic behaviour (such as OCB) can be a result of impulsivity (e.g., Omar, 2009; Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Although research has identied various antecedents of various OCB factors (conscientiousness, sportsmanship, altruism, civic virtue, and courtesy), each factor is consistently conceptualized as spontaneous and not directly task-focused (e.g., LePine et al., 2002). Applying a key resource theories framework, we suggest that impulsivity is a resource that leads individuals to act spontaneously in the workplace when the opportunity presents itself to assist others or engage in behaviour to benet the organization. In this case, the impulsive individual is less likely to think through the pros and cons of their decision and more likely to act on impulse. For example, if a coworker complains of a heavy workload, an impulsive person is more likely to offer assistance even if the additional responsibility hinders their own productivity. Therefore, we suggest that employees with high impulsivity will be more likely to go above and beyond their job duties and act spontaneously to engage in OCB. Thus, we predict:

EI, impulsivity and behaviour

83

Hypothesis 4: Impulsivity will be positively related to (a) interpersonal OCB and (b) organizational OCB.

Method
Participants and procedures Participants were 234 individuals (44% response rate) who participated in a weekendlong personal and professional development program. An invitation to participate, link to an online survey, and letter offering a rafe-based incentive (opportunity to win one of three $100 Amazon.com gift certicates) was sent to each participant. After completion of the online survey, participants followed a link to the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence (MSCEIT) test. Our sample included individuals from diverse industries, thus inuences from job-specic or organization-specic factors were minimized to some extent, thereby increasing the generalizability of our results. The average age was 39 years (SD = 11.21), 56% were female, and on average, they had 6.40 years of work experience. Education levels varied from a primary school diploma to a university degree, with 88% of respondents having at least a bachelors degree. Of those participating, 35% were single, 57% were married, and the remaining 8% were either widowed or divorced. On average, participants had one child.

Measures All measures were taken from existing studies, and have demonstrated sound psychometric properties.

Deviant behaviours Nineteen items from Bennett and Robinsons (2000) scale were used to measure deviant workplace behaviours on a 17 disagree/agree scale. Seven items measured interpersonal deviance; an example is I have publicly embarrassed people at work. Eleven items measured organizational deviance; an example is I have falsied receipts to get reimbursed for more money than I spent on business expenses. To verify the factor structure of this scale, we conducted conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) using covariance matrices and maximum-likelihood estimation to compare the t of the twofactor model to a one-factor and a null model. According to established standards (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; MacCallum & Austin, 2000), the two-factor model demonstrated the best overall t [ 2 (151) = 667.49, p < .01, CFI = .95, NNFI = .96, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .04, RMSEA CI = 0.020.05]. The two-factor model t the data better than a one-factor model ( 2 = 483.32, df = 1, p < .01).

Organizational citizenship behaviours (OCB) Twenty-four items from Podsakoff et al. (1990) were used to measure OCB on a 1 7 disagree/agree scale, with ve items measuring conscientiousness OCB, ve items measuring sportsmanship OCB, four items measuring civic virtue OCB, which, as discussed earlier were combined to represent OCB directed at the organization (OCBO). An example item of conscientiousness OCB is I obey company rules and regulations even when no one is watching. An example item of sportsmanship OCB is I consume a

84

Doan E. Winkel et al.

lot of time complaining about trivial matters. An example item of civic virtue OCB is I keep abreast of changes in the organization. Further, ve items measured altruism OCB, and ve items measured courtesy OCB, which, as discussed earlier were combined to represent OCB directed at the individual (OCBI). An example item of altruism OCB is I help others with heavy workloads. An example item of courtesy OCB is I do not abuse the rights of others. To verify the factor structure of the OCB scale, we conducted CFA using covariance matrices and maximum-likelihood estimation to compare the t of a one-factor model, a two-factor model, and a ve-factor model. According to established standards (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; MacCallum & Austin, 2000), the two-factor model whereby the conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue subscales comprise an OCBO factor and the altruism and courtesy subscales comprise an OCBI factor, demonstrated the best overall t [ 2 (251) = 570.77, p < .01, CFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.03, RMSEA CI = 0.030.04]. The two-factor model t the data better than a one-factor model ( 2 = 487.86, df = 1, p < .01), and better than a ve-factor model ( 2 = 362.86, df = 9, p < .01).

Impulsivity Eighteen items from Eysenck and Eysenck (1978) measured impulsivity on a 15 never/all the time scale. Example items are How often do you say things without stopping to think? and How often do you get involved in things you later wish you could get out of?

Emotional intelligence EI was assessed with an online version of the MSCEIT V2. This is an ability-based assessment designed by the authors of the four-branch EI model and administered by Multi-Health Systems Inc. (MHS). The test consists of 141 items designed to measure specic skills associated with each of the four branches of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model (see Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002).

Control variables Eight control variables were used in the analyses. We controlled for gender, age, number of children, and education, as research suggests they each may inuence both OCB and deviant behaviour (e.g., Allen, 2006; Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Ferris, Brown, Lian, & Keeping, 2009). Gender was assessed by asking respondents to indicate whether they were male (coded 0) or female (coded 1). Respondents reported their age in years. Number of children was assessed by asking respondents how many children they have. We also asked respondents to indicate their highest level of education achieved, giving options of primary school, secondary school, high school diploma/GED, Bachelors degree, Masters degree, and Doctoral degree. As research shows that a workplaces justice climate inuences OCB and deviant behaviour (e.g., Berry et al., 2007; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001) we also controlled for organizational justice, using the procedural, distributive, interactional, and informational measures from Colquitt (2001) and Scott, Colquitt, and Zapata-Phelan (2007). This allows us to examine the effect of EI and impulsivity on behaviours beyond the situation-based explanation offered by the workplaces justice climate.

EI, impulsivity and behaviour

85

Analyses
Descriptive analyses Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, zero-order correlations, and estimated reliabilities for the measures used in this study. We used multiple hierarchical regression analysis to test our hypotheses (Aiken & West, 1991, see Table 2).

Direct effects As predicted, EI signicantly inuenced organizational deviance ( = 0.15, p < .05), and interpersonal deviance ( = 0.22, p < .01) thus providing support for Hypotheses 1 (see Table 2). In contrast, impulsivity had no inuence on organizational deviance. Thus, Hypotheses 2 was not supported. According to Hypotheses 3 and 4, EI and impulsivity are positive inputs to OCB. Our results, however, provide support only for Hypotheses 4: impulsivity signicantly inuenced organizational OCB ( = 0.50, p < .0001) and individual OCB ( = 0.58, p < .0001). Post hoc analysis Emerging research has begun to make differential predictions for the four branches of the MSCEIT model (e.g., Ashkanasy, Ashton-James, & Jordan, 2004). Due to the dearth of research focused on the EI branches, developing branch-based hypotheses is outside the scope of this paper. Given our ndings that EI predicted deviant behaviours, we conducted post hoc analyses on the differential effects of the branches on deviant behaviours (see Table 3). Our results show that perceiving emotions seems to be the most inuential branch in predicting organizational ( = 0.14, p < .05) and interpersonal ( = 0.17, p < .05) deviance.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the idea of (in)congruence between two individual resources that have traditionally been framed with a positive tone (i.e., EI) and a negative tone (i.e., impulsivity) and two opposing forms of workplace behaviours (specically, deviant behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviours). Although the hypothesized congruent relationships were not substantiated, we did nd strong support for our anticipated unanticipated consequences of EI and impulsivity. Even after controlling for the effects of both personal (i.e., gender, age, number of children, and education) and situational considerations (i.e., justice climate), EI had a positive inuence on deviant behaviours and impulsivity contributed to OCBs. After explaining these unanticipated consequences, we elaborate on how these ndings contribute to the theory and practice of management. Consistent with our prediction, but contrary to most literature, we found that EI had a positive effect on individually- and organizationally targeted deviant behaviours. The potential dark side of EI may provide some insight for this relationship (e.g., Austin et al., 2007). For instance, an individual who accurately reads and easily manages anothers emotions (i.e., has high EI) might leverage this ability to suit their own ends. As Carr (2000) argues, the value of EI depends upon the moral end which it serves (31); thus, for high EI individuals who are so (im)morally inclined, this ability could be one means of engaging in deviant behaviour. For instance, the unanticipated negative

86

Doan E. Winkel et al.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, zero-order correlations, and Cronbachs alphas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Mean

SD

1. Organizational deviance 2. Interpersonal deviance 3. Organizational OCB 4. Individual OCB 5. Emotional intelligence 6. Impulsivity 7. Gender 8. Age 9. # Children 10. Education 11. Procedural justice 12. Distributive justice 13. Interactional justice 14. Informational justice .87 .16 .15 .19 .05 .01 .00 .12 .09 .07 .12 .04 .10 .78 .40 .02 .48 .07 .11 .21 .02 .01 .09 .01 .15 .73 .01 .49 .04 .10 .08 .05 .02 .04 .13 .05 .75 .02 .09 .20 .11 .01 .11 .04 .13 .16 .85 .01 .05 .18 .07 .15 .09 .08 .16 .11 .16 .09 .14 .09 .09 .01 .03 .05 .01 .00 .07 .04 .12 .12 .03 .02 .03 .03 .07 .07 .10

3.49 3.40 2.42 2.48 0.42 2.66 1.39 39.57 1.43 0.09 2.32 3.03 2.59 2.28

0.63 0.78 0.47 0.62 0.09 0.52 0.49 11.02 1.19 0.29 0.58 0.60 0.64 0.67

.85 .11 .10 .01 .17 .05 .00 .09 .20 .03 .41 .24 .11 .10

.74 .32 .71 .22 .42 .12 .04

.73 .15 .78

Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

EI, impulsivity and behaviour

87

Table 2. Standardized regression results for the direct effects of EI and impulsivity on deviant behaviour and OCB Predictors Controls (Step 1) Gender Age No. of children Education Procedural justice Distributive justice Interactional justice Informational justice F R2 df Resources (Step 2) EI Impulsivity F R2 R2 change df Organizational Deviance .04 .01 .05 .01 .28 .20 .01 .01 3.71 .19 8,166 .15 .02 4.39 .24 .05 10,164 Interpersonal Deviance .02 .00 .03 .13 .06 .07 .06 .13 1.48 .04 8,166 .22 .08 3.31 .10 .06 10,164 Organizational OCB .05 .01 .07 .00 .06 .03 .01 .05 1.11 .05 8,166 .01 .50 6.61 .29 .24 10,164 Individual OCB .02 .01 .07 .03 .04 .04 .17 .01 1.25 .06 8,166 .00 .58 9.87 .38 .32 10,164

Note. EI, Emotional intelligence; OCB, organizational citizenship behaviours. p .05, p .01, p .001.

consequences of EI uncovered in this study could be a result of ones moral predisposition to disregard the impact of their behaviour on the social group or organization. Thus, one avenue for future research would be to investigate how moral development might inuence this relationship. Taking this one step further, future research could study these relationships focusing on the separate EI dimensions, and ltering whether individuals see themselves as part of the affected whole (the organization) or separate from the affected whole. Research in this vein would provide some evidence as to the inuence of moral predisposition. Contrary to previous studies, we also found that impulsivity facilitated outcomes that are benecial to organizations. Impulsivity is generally regarded as a negative trait having negative implications and as being associated with irresponsibility and reckless action (e.g., Dickman, 1990; Lynam & Miller, 2004). However, evidence also points to its positive potential in that impulsivity can refer to engagement in spontaneous actions when an optimal situation arises and there is a tendency to seize the moment (Dickman, 1990, 2000). For instance, Dickman (1990) and Dickman and Meyer (1988) found that those scoring higher on functional impulsivity, compared to those scoring higher on dysfunctional impulsivity, perform better on cognitive and motor tasks, and report greater benets from their behaviour. Further, Dickman (2000) found a positive relationship between functional impulsivity and energetic arousal, which is associated with positive affect and positive incentive motivation (e.g., Depue & Collins, 1999). Our results are consistent with the latter, positive conceptualization; we detected a positive effect of impulsivity on individual and organizational citizenship behaviours. Our ndings

88

Doan E. Winkel et al.

Table 3. Standardized regression results for the direct effects of EI branches on deviant behaviour Predictors Controls Gender Age No. of children Education Procedural justice Distributive justice Interactional justice Informational justice F R2 df EI branches Perceiving emotions Facilitating thought Understanding emotions Managing emotions F R2 R2 change df Note. EI, Emotional intelligence. p .05, p .01, p .001. Organizational Deviance .04 .01 .05 .01 .38 .20 .01 .01 4.86 .19 8,166 .14 .01 .04 .03 3.70 .22 .03 12,162 Interpersonal Deviance .04 .02 .04 .13 .06 .07 .06 .11 .88 .04 8,166 .17 .04 .07 .01 1.34 .09 .05 12,162

suggest that impulsive individuals are likely to seek positive incentives or rewards (e.g., Gray, 1981) and thus may also be disposed to seek opportunities that could result in such rewards. For instance, one OCB is helping coworkers; thus, impulsive individuals may seek out opportunities to help coworkers in order to receive recognition for their efforts. We did not nd signicant relationships that theory and past literature suggest we should have namely that EI predicts OCB and impulsivity predicts deviant behaviours. One reason may lie in moderators and/or mediators to these relationships that we did not explore. For instance, ones family of origin and broader social context during adolescence may inuence how they learn to utilize these resources when engaging in certain behaviours (e.g., Bowlby, 1988). The climate of the particular workplace may also inuence the relationship between individual differences and workplace behaviours (e.g., Berry et al., 2007; Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009). Another possibility is that treatment by ones supervisor would likely affect how one utilizes personal resources in the workplace (e.g., Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008). We urge future researchers to consider the inuence of these sorts of variables in order to more fully investigate the complexity of these resourcebehaviour relationships. Contributions to research and management Our ndings contribute to the psychology and management literature, and also to human resource management. This study offers three theoretical contributions. First,

EI, impulsivity and behaviour

89

we extended the boundaries of key resource theories (e.g., Bandura, 1982; Hobfoll, 1989) to include individual abilities. While most psychological resource theories, and particularly key resource theories, focus on traits such as self-efcacy and optimism, we argue that ones abilities should also be considered and integrated into the key resources framework. Especially in the workplace, individuals rely on and engage in interpersonal interactions to obtain, process, and leverage information (e.g., Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, 2009). While personality and other traits are important determinants in this context, ones ability to engage in effective interpersonal interactions is equally important in their workplace performance. By incorporating EI (an individual ability) into a key resource framework, we expanded the application of psychological resource theory to the behavioural context of the workplace. Second, we assessed independent and dependent variables that are not compatible in tone. Whereas most theories suggest compatibility in tone between these variables (i.e., positivepositive or negativenegative), we show that some individual differences that are conceptually more positive in tone may actually contribute to negative behaviours, and some that are conceptually more negative in tone may have positive effects on positive behaviours. These incongruent results hold for both individually- and organizationally targeted outcomes. This implies that individuals could use key resources in unanticipated ways to adapt to and navigate the workplaces social environment. Third, our results suggest that resources may be more complex than traditionally viewed. Based on our ndings, resources may be considered as dual purpose, in that regardless of their affective tone, they may be used to facilitate the achievement of either positive or negative goals. Contrary to our expectations, the dark side of EI was dominant (i.e., it only inuenced deviant behaviours) while the more functional nature of impulsivity prevailed (i.e., it only inuenced OCBs). Emerging empirical results from this literature mirror ours, nding positive relationships between optimism and deviant behaviour and between ingratiation and altruistic behaviour (e.g., Grant & Mayer, 2009; Snell & Wong, 2007). Although research on incongruent resources has generally focused on personal traits or qualities, it is possible that other resources such as organizational policies and benets have similar duality. For example, the recent spate of suicides at Foxxconn plants in China were ultimately attributed to the generous death benets that were awarded to families of those who died on the job (Barboza, 2010). An extreme example, to be sure, but it does highlight the potential unintended consequences of organizational resources. Practically, this study highlights the importance of understanding how individuals behave at work. We found that individual resources that intuitively should lead to either positive or negative behaviour might in fact lead to counter-intuitive behaviours. This points to the fact that it is important for HR professionals to consider both the situation of the workplace and the individual differences people bring to the workplace. It is also important, particularly as it relates to our impulsivity ndings, to understand peoples motivations for engaging in certain behaviours; providing the proper incentives or rewards could assist in creating a situation conducive to individuals engaging in more citizenship and less deviant workplace behaviour.

Limitations and future research There are several limitations in this study. First, this was a cross-sectional eld study of working adults in the United States, and thus we cannot make causal inferences regarding the relationships. Longitudinal studies could offer a more complete understanding of

90

Doan E. Winkel et al.

how personality and ability-based resources relate to workplace behaviours, and of the timing associated with the resourcebehaviour linkage. Additionally, future research should examine how the idea of incongruence between resources and behaviours plays out across cultures. For instance, in one culture, a particular personal resource may be generally used to attain positive goals, and in another the same resource may generally be used to attain negative goals. Similarly, in one culture, a particular personal resource may be viewed as positive and in another the same resource may be viewed as negative. Understanding resourcebehaviour relationships in a broader cultural context is a necessary extension of our results given the multicultural nature of todays global workforce. Second, although we collected data using two different instruments (a self-report survey and an abilities test), all data was self-reported. This could introduce social desirability as a potential confound, especially given questions about deviant behaviours. To attenuate this potential, future researchers may want to collect information regarding workplace behaviours from supervisors or test for social desirability effects. Additionally, future research investigating how similar resourcebehaviour relationships inuence actual workplace performance would be an insightful extension of our results. Third, in the context of situational workplace measures that may contribute to this phenomenon, we only collected data on organizational justice. Other forms of workplace climate or culture, such as organizational support, may inuence individuals workplace behaviour. Consequently, future researchers may want to incorporate such measures to aid in understanding the inuence of the broader workplace environment. Fourth, we did not control for general intelligence or personality in this study, both of which have been shown to relate to EI and workplace behaviours (e.g., Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). Our omission of these variables was a conscious choice made due to survey length, but future research may attempt to collect this information in such a way as to not create survey fatigue given the instruments length. We also urge future researchers to follow-up on our post hoc analysis. While we have shown that an individuals total EI predicts workplace behaviours, we know that EI is composed of many different facets (e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1997). As a means to better understand the inuence of this individual ability in the workplace, future researchers could make differential predictions for the EI branches instead of the global predictions for total EI most commonly used (e.g., Ashkanasy et al., 2004; Jordan et al., 2003). For instance, ones social awareness may lead them to engage in different behaviours than their self-management or relationshipmanagement abilities. Further theoretical and empirical work in this vein would provide useful insight for both researchers and practitioners into the motivations underlying peoples behaviours. In conclusion, this study examined the relationship between key individual resources and both positive and negative workplace behaviours. We expanded key resource theories to include the inuence of individual abilities and found a non-compatible view of the relationship between individual resources and subsequent behaviours (i.e., positive resources lead to negative behaviours and negative resources lead to positive behaviours). This suggests that resources may have unanticipated consequences in the workplace that could both benet and damage the organization.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

EI, impulsivity and behaviour

91

Allen, T. D. (2006). Rewarding good citizens: The relationship between citizenship behavior, gender, and organizational rewards. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 120 143. Antonakis, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence: What does it measure and does it matter for leadership? In G. B. Graen (Ed.) A volume in LMX leadership: The series, predators gamechanging designs (Vol. VII, pp. 163192). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? Leadership Quarterly, 20, 247261. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Ashton-James, C. E. (2005). Emotion in organizations: A neglected topic in I/O psychology, but with a bright future. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 221269). London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Ashkanasy, N. M., Ashton-James, C. E., & Jordan, P. J. (2004). Performance impacts of appraisal and coping with stress in workplace settings: The role of affect and emotional intelligence. In P. Perrew & D. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and wellbeing, vol. e 3: Emotional and psychological processes and positive intervention strategies (pp. 143). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Austin, E. J., Farrelly, D., Black, C., & Moore, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 179189. Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309328. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efcacy mechanism in human agency. The American Psychologist, 37, 122147. Barboza, D. (2010). After suicides, scrutiny of Chinas grim factories. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/business/global/07suicide.html Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 21, 3659. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587 595. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 349360. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2002). The past, present and future of deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science. New York: Wiley. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410424. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740748. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge. Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Brackett, M. A. & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 11471158. Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780795. Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26, 8198.

92

Doan E. Winkel et al.

Carmeli, A., Yitzhak-Halevy, M., & Weisberg, J. (2009). The relationship between emotional intelligence and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 6678. Carr, D. (2000). Emotional intelligence, PSE and self esteem: A cautionary note. Pastoral Care in Education, 18, 2733. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386400. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425445. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 12411255. Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Will the real emotional intelligence please stand up? On deconstructing the emotional intelligence debate. The Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 41(2), 6972. Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491517. Dickman, S. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 95102. Dickman, S. J. (2000). Impulsivity, arousal, and attention. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 563581. Dickman, S., & Meyer, D. E. (1988). Impulsivity and speedAccuracy tradeoffs in information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 274290. Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., Davis, R. D., & Rostow, C. D. (2007). Cognitive ability predicts objectively measured counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 616627. Eysenck, S. B. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978) Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: Their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychological Reports, 43, 12471255. Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. L., Lian, H., & Keeping, L. M. (2009). When does self-esteem relate to deviant behavior? The role of contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 13451353. Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of afliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900912. Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysencks theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.) A model of personality (pp. 246276). New York: Springer. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513524. Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K., & Cronkite, R. C. (1999). Resource loss, resource gain, and depressive symptoms: A 10-year model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 620629. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155. Joireman, J., Kamdar, D., Daniels, D., & Duell, B. (2006). Good citizens to the end? It depends: Empathy and concern with future consequences moderate the impact of a short-term time horizon on organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1307 1320. Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Hrtel, C. E. J. (2003). The case for emotional intelligence in a organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28, 195197. Jordan, P. J., Dasborough, M. T., Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2010). A call to context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 145148. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

EI, impulsivity and behaviour

93

Kopelman, S., Rosette A. S., & Thompson, L. (2006). The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 81101. Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature. Journal of Management, 35, 634717. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 5265. Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conception and theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2004). Personality pathways to impulsive behavior and their relations to deviance: Results from three samples. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 319 341. MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201226. Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of Counterproductive Behavior at Work: A General Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 647660. Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., Barsade, S. G. (2008). Emerging research in emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507536. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 331). New York: Basic Books. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) users manual. Toronto, ON: MHS. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic mix of traits? American Psychologist, 63, 503517. McKinley, W., & Scherer, A. G. (2000). Some Unanticipated Consequences of Organizational Restructuring. Academy of Management Review, 25, 735752. Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1, 894904. Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159 1168. Nikolaou, I., Vakola, M., & Bourantas, D. (2008). Who speaks up at work? Dispositional inuences on employees voice behavior. Personnel Review, 37, 666679. Omar, A. (2009). The moderating role of interpersonal justice on the relationship between Eysenckian personality dimensions and employee voice and employee silence. In A. G. Antoniou, C. L. Cooper, G. P. Chrousos, C. D. Speilberger, & M. W. Eysenck (Eds.), Handbook of managerial behavior and occupational health (pp. 143156). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775802. Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behaviour at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277293. Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H. W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 2765. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on trust, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107142.

94

Doan E. Winkel et al.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 6878. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201228. Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 15971609. Snell, R. S., & Wong, Y. L. (2007). Differentiating good soldiers from good actors. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 883909. Tang, T. L., & Ibrahim, A. H. S. (1998). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior revisited: Public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East. Public Personnel Management, 27(4): 529549. Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 721 732. Thoits, P. G. (1994). Stressors and problem-solving: The individual as psychological activist. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 143159. Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: A motivated information processing approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 510528. Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 7195. White, J. L., Moftt, T. E., Caspi, A., Bartusch, D. J., Needles, D. J., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). Measuring impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 192205. Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The ve factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669689. Williams, H. W. (2004). Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals: Emotional intelligence, problem-solving competencies, role perception and environmental adaptation. Unpublished dissertation, Case Western Reserve University. Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601617. Received 14 January 2010; revised version received 18 July 2010