Federal, state, and city governments spend substantial funds on programs intended to aid homeless people, and such programs attract widespread public support. In recent years, however, state and local governments have increasingly enacted policies, such as bans on panhandling and sleeping in public, that are counterproductive to alleviating homelessness. Yet these policies also garner substantial support from the public. Given that programs aiding the homeless are so popular, why are these counterproductive policies also popular? We argue that disgust plays a key role in the resolution of this puzzle. While disgust does not decrease support for aid policies or even generate negative affect towards homeless people, it motivates the desire for physical distance, leading to support for policies that exclude homeless people from public life. We test this argument using survey data, including a national sample with an embedded experiment. Consistent with these expectations, our findings indicate that those respondents who are dispositionally sensitive to disgust are more likely to support exclusionary policies, such as banning panhandling, but no less likely to support policies intended to aid homeless people. Furthermore, media depictions of the homeless that include disease cues activate disgust, increasing its impact on support for banning panhandling. These results help explain the popularity of exclusionary homelessness policies and challenge common perspectives on the role of group attitudes in public life.
counterproductive
At the same time, however, cities and states are increasingly adopting policies that are counterproductive to the goal of helping homeless people (e.g., Amster 2003; Foscarinis et al. 1999). These policies include bans on sleeping in public, loitering, lying down in public, living in vehicles, and panhandling. Some cities have even outlawed feeding homeless people in public.Footnote 3 These policies are harmful, causing homeless people to be regularly cycled through prisons and jails, in turn making it more difficult for them to hold a job and escape from poverty. Indeed, these costly policies work in direct opposition to efforts to improve the lot of homeless people.
Strangely, however, these counterproductive policies are nearly as popular as policies designed to help homeless people (Link et al. 1995; Phelan et al. 1997). Pluralities of Americans support government prohibitions of behaviors that are impossible to avoid if one does not have a home, such as sleeping, lying down in public, and living in vehicles.Footnote 4 As will be seen, even among those respondents who support increased government aid to homeless people, a plurality also supports policies that exclude them from public life. Given that policies intended to help homeless people are so popular, why do these counterproductive policies also draw substantial public support?Footnote 5
This unfortunate decision is counterproductive to ongoing efforts by DMF and the industry to further reduce entanglement risk. Throughout this past November, state and federal officials working with teams of fishermen met to devise plans to further reduce entanglement risk as mandated by recent federal court decisions. Then, in early December, the federal Large Whale Take Reduction Team met for two days to review and combine these into regional strategies affecting all East Coast fixed gear fishermen.
Meisler, G., Drory, A. and Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2020), "Perceived organizational politics and counterproductive work behavior: The mediating role of hostility", Personnel Review, Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 1505-1517. -12-2017-0392
It is well accepted that perceptions of organizational politics (POP) play a central role in shaping undesirable work outcomes such as job burnout, job dissatisfaction and turnover intentions (Chang et al., 2009; Ferris et al., 1996; Miller et al., 2008). Recently, the notion that POP shapes counterproductive work behavior (CWB), meaning, the destructive attempts of employees to intentionally harm the organization and/or its other members (Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Robinson and Bennett, 1995, 1997; Spector and Fox, 2005; Spector et al., 2006), has also been acknowledged. Specifically, studies have proposed and documented that POP is positively related to CWB. Furthermore, they have established the honesty-humility personality factor (see Ashton and Lee, 2005, 2008) as a moderator of the POP-CWB relationship (Wiltshire et al., 2014; Zettler and Hilbig, 2010). Nevertheless, the mechanism through which POP relates to CWB remains unknown, limiting our understanding about the motives that drive organizational members to engage in CWB in response to POP. Such a lack of knowledge impedes our ability to plan and execute interventions designed to reduce deviant behavior, which is a consequence of POP. Indeed, and as noted above, several studies have determined that honesty-humility moderates the relationship between POP and CWB (Wiltshire et al., 2014; Zettler and Hilbig, 2010). However, the stability of this personality factor challenges the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase it. Therefore, identifying intervening variables that can be developed through training in an attempt to reduce the negative implications of POP on CWB seems extremely necessary. The current research addresses these issues. Relying on Penney and Spector (2008), who argued that perceived organizational stressors elicit negative emotions that result in CWB, we maintain that POP prompts hostility, which then leads organizational members to engage in CWB toward the organization and its other members. We then test these hypotheses empirically.
A key issue in assessing the decarceration trend is American sentencing policy and practice related to the length of prison terms. Defendants convicted of felonies in the U.S. are more likely both to be sentenced to prison and to serve more time in prison than in comparable nations.2 The excessive nature of punishment in the U.S. is not based on a rational analysis of incarceration and the fundamental objectives of sentencing policy. Moreover, unduly long prison terms are counterproductive for public safety and contribute to the dynamic of diminishing returns as the prison system has expanded.
A counterproductive work behavior, or CWB, is any employee behavior that undermines the goals and interests of a business. Counterproductive work behaviors come in many different forms, but can include tardiness, theft, fraud, sexual harassment, workplace bullying, absenteeism, substance abuse, workplace aggression, or sabotage. These types of behavior not only impact the quality of work produced by the employee engaging in CWBs but also can negatively affect the productivity of other employees in the company and create undesirable risks for the employer.
In general, employers should seek to hire individuals who are less likely to engage in any counterproductive work behaviors, and some pre-employment tests can help assess the likelihood that an individual is more prone to CWBs. Specifically, behavioral tests and integrity/honesty tests can help employers mitigate risk related to CWBs by measuring conscientiousness, rule adherence, attitudes towards theft, and overall reliability.
Aydinay, M., Cakici, A., & Cakici, A. (2021). The effect of destructive leadership on self-efficacy and counterproductive work behaviors: A research on service sector employees in Mersin, Turkey. Journal of Global Business Insights, 6(2), 186-206. -6489.6.2.1166
When counterproductive workplace behavior is in kept in check, employees engage in more positive, organizational citizenship behavior. These are actions and behaviors not required by a job role but are beneficial to a team. A workforce that exhibits organizational citizenship behaviors is seen as going above and beyond and giving their all.
A widely held definition of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is that it is a destructive or deviant behavior that harms either employees or the organization as a whole. Many industrial-organizational psychologists agree that there are five general categories of counterproductive working behavior:
The information outlined above is critical to disseminate to employees such that everyone is abundantly clear regarding the expectations for being on time and at work. This is the first step in curbing this issue of counterproductive work behavior. Each employee has likely come from a different work background, some of which might have taken a laissez-faire approach to this issue. Outlining these guidelines at the very start will nip that problem in the bud.
For example, banning the use of electronic devices during the workday is a little draconian and could be counterproductive. Yet, if employees are observed spending time on their phones or computers checking their Twitter feed, some measure of intervention is needed.
Of course, mitigating breakdowns in communication needs to start from the get-go. Business leaders need to create a set of actions to offset counterproductive behaviors. Employee training manuals should be outfitted with a healthy section on how to communicate in the workplace and emphasize the importance of timely communication. By establishing the expectations for communication upfront, a business or organization is more likely to develop a culture of communication amongst its employees.
Addressing counterproductive work behavior is more than a matter of saving a bit of money. Instead, for some employers, improving overall worker productivity plays a decisive role in establishing a competitive advantage in the market and ensuring long-term success. 2ff7e9595c
Comments