UNIVERSITY OF GHANA DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY UNIT-LEVEL COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR: THE ROLE OF AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY BY MAWULI KWEKU AMEGAH 10536793 THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MPHIL IN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANISATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE JANUARY, 2023 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY i DECLARATION I, Mawuli Kweku Amegah, this day, do hereby declare that this thesis has been conducted by me under the supervision of Dr. Inusah Abdul-Nasiru and Dr. Eric Delle. This thesis has never been presented to any other examining body in its current or any other form for the award of any degree. Where the views and ideas of others have been used, they have been duly acknowledged. I therefore bear sole responsibility for any inaccuracies and flaws detected in this thesis. …………………….. Date: 31/01/2023 Mawuli Kweku Amegah (10536793) This thesis has been submitted for examination with the approval of: .............................................................. Date: 31/01/2023 Dr. Inusah Abdul-Nasiru (Principal Supervisor) .............................................................. Date: 31/01/2023 Dr. Eric Delle (Co-Supervisor) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First and foremost, to God be the glory for the wonderful things He has done. Throughout the duration of this project, I thank the Almighty God for his undeserved grace and mercies. May He alone be praised. My profound gratitude goes out to my supervisors, Dr. Inusah Abdul-Nasiru and Dr. Eric Delle, whose patience, understanding, and direction have been invaluable over the course of this study. I'm very appreciative. My heartfelt gratitude and appreciation go to my parents, Mr Patrick Amegah and Mrs Faustine Amegah, as well as my sister Mawuena Akosua Amegah, for their prayers, intercession, inspiration, support, and motivation, without which I would not be here. God bless you immensely. I am grateful to my friends and co-workers for their assistance, time, and effort in completing this project. God bless you abundantly. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to all of the study participants across the different banks who went above and beyond to complete my surveys. I am most grateful. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY iii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my Lord and Personal Saviour Jesus Christ, my family, my colleagues and co-workers. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY iv ABSTRACT This study examines the influence of authentic leadership on unit-level counterproductive work behaviour (CWB). It also examines collective personality and its dimensions as a moderator of the relationship between authentic leadership and unit-level counterproductive work behaviour. Three hundred and twenty-one (321) employees were purposively sampled from both public and private-owned banking institutions within the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area for this quantitative cross-sectional study. Data were analysed using hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Results indicated that the authentic leadership dimension of relational transparency was negatively related to CWB. Collective agreeableness and collective extraversion were negatively related to CWB while no relationship was established with collective openness, collective conscientiousness and collective emotional stability. Collective personality was not found to moderate the relationship between authentic leadership and CWB. Findings of this study indicate that authentic leadership reduces CWB. Findings also show that collective extraversion and collective agreeableness reduces CWB within units. In order to reduce CWB at work, organizations must therefore prioritize hiring employees with higher scores on the authentic leadership component, who also are outgoing and prioritize social harmony. Organisations can also undertake authentic leadership programmes to educate and train present and future leaders in the development of authentic leadership traits. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .........................................................................................................ii DEDICATION ......................................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background of the Study ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 9 1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study ................................................................................... 11 1.4 Relevance of the Study .................................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................... 13 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 13 2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................. 13 2.1.0 Social Information Processing Theory.................................................................... 13 2.1.1 Conservation of Resources Theory ......................................................................... 15 2.2 Review of Related Studies ............................................................................................. 16 2.2.1 Authentic Leadership and Unit-level Counterproductive Work Behaviour ........... 16 2.2.2 Collective Personality and Unit-level Counterproductive Work Behaviour .......... 23 2.3 Rationale of the Study .................................................................................................... 36 2.4 Statement of Hypotheses................................................................................................ 38 2.5 Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 39 CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................. 40 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 40 3.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 40 3.1 Research Setting............................................................................................................. 40 3.2 Population and Sample Size........................................................................................... 40 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY vi 3.3 Research Design............................................................................................................. 42 3.4 Sampling Technique ...................................................................................................... 43 3.5 Measures ........................................................................................................................ 43 3.6 Pilot Study ...................................................................................................................... 45 3.7 Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 46 3.8 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................... 47 CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................................... 49 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 49 4.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 49 4.1 Preliminary Analysis ...................................................................................................... 49 4.1.2 Normality and Descriptive Statistics of Variables .................................................. 49 4.1.3 Reliability Analysis of Scales ................................................................................. 50 4.1.4 Intercorrelation among Predictor and Criterion Variables...................................... 52 4.2 Hypothesis Testing......................................................................................................... 54 4.4 Summary of Results ....................................................................................................... 63 CHAPTER FIVE ..................................................................................................................... 66 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... 66 5.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 66 5.1 Discussion of Findings ................................................................................................... 66 5.1.1 Relationship between Authentic Personality and Unit-Level CWB ....................... 66 5.1.2 Relationship between Dimensions of Collective Personality Traits and Unit-Level CWB ................................................................................................................................ 69 5.2 Contribution and Implications for Practice .................................................................... 74 5.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ............................................... 75 5.4 Recommendations of the Study ..................................................................................... 76 5.5 Recommendations for Practice ...................................................................................... 76 5.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 77 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 79 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 99 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ...............................................40 Table 2: Summary of the Means, SD, Reliability, Skew and Kurtosis of Predictor and Criterion Variables .............................................................................................................................................................50 Table 3: Summary of the Reliability Statistics Obtained for the Scales in the Study .................51 Table 4: Summary of Pearson Correlation Matrix of the Relationships between Study Variables ................................................................................................................................................................................53 Table 5: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Authentic Leadership Predicting Unit-level Counterproductive Work Behaviour......................................................................................54 Table 6: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Relational Transparency Predicting Unit-level counterproductive work Behaviour. .......................................................................................56 Table 7: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Moral Perspective Predicting Unit- level counterproductive work Behaviour. .................................................................................................56 Table 8: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Balanced Information Processing Predicting Unit-level counterproductive work Behaviour. ..................................................................57 Table 9: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Dimensions of Personality Traits Predicting Unit-level counterproductive work Behaviour. ..................................................................58 Table 10: The Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis to test the moderation effect of Collective Personality on the relationship between Authentic Leadership and Unit-level Counterproductive Work Behaviour ..........................................................................................................61 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: A summary of the observed relationships between independent, dependent and moderating variables. ............................................................................................................... 64 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study Employees have the opportunity to display a wide range of behaviours at work, and research has increasingly acknowledged the need to investigate these behaviours and how they impact the day-to-day functioning of any organization (Czarnota-Bojarska, 2015; Mackey et al., 2019). Most often, employers anticipate that these behaviours will benefit the firm and will include meticulously fulfilling obligations as well as engaging in a variety of additional activities to promote the organization's interests. Regrettably, some of these behaviours tend to violate organizational standards, harm the organization's interests, and hinder the achievement of organizational objectives and can include actions such as sabotage, absenteeism, verbal abuse, harassing behaviours, and theft. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce reports that organizations lose more than $1 trillion annually as a result of such harmful employee behaviours (Smoktunowicz et al., 2015; U. S. Chamber of Commerce, 2002). Casebier (2014) also reported that an alarming 75% of employees engage in theft, violence and fraud activities at work, while the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) division of the Department of Labour (DOL) revealed that workplace violence cost organisations over 500,000 employees and 1.2 million work hours in turnover rates, amounting to $55 million in wages lost per year (Creighton, 2019; Sun et al., 2017). Research has shown that these behaviours are the products of several behavioural inconsistencies that exist in varying levels within each employee as a function of various environmental and individual factors (Penney et al., 2011). These behaviours are referred to as counterproductive work behaviours (CWB) and represent intentional and voluntary employee behaviours and actions that violate significant organizational norms and threaten the well-being and stability of the organization, its members, or both (Bennett & Robinson, 2003; Liang & Hsieh, 2007; Lubbadeh, 2021). CWB has also been described as deliberate behaviours University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 2 displayed by employees to harm organizations and their stakeholders, which the organization deems contrary to its legitimate interests (Lubbadeh, 2021; Ugwu et al., 2017). As has consistently emerged from CWB research, these behaviours are often volitional and intentional and can range in severity from trivial acts such as taking extended breaks during working hours to more severe ones such as physical assault and sexual harassment (Lebron, 2018). These behaviours are harmful to the organization, either by directly affecting its activities or assets or by negatively influencing personnel in ways that reduce their productivity. In addition to its organizational impact, CWB also has a direct negative effect on employees, who may experience reduced job satisfaction and commitment, increased job stress, and increased turnover intentions as a result (Berry et al., 2012; De-Clercq et al., 2019). CWB is classified according to the direction of its influence with Bennett and Robinson (2000) describing CWB actions that affect individuals as interpersonal CWB (CWB-I), and CWB actions that affect organizations as organizational CWB (CWB-O) (Dalal, 2005). CWB-I can involve actions such as bullying, verbal and physical abuse while CWB-O can involve production deviance, theft and organizational sabotage. CWB has, therefore, been observed to be a multi-dimensional construct with attendant effects on both the individual employee as well as the larger organization. Research has however been particularly biased in its approach to understanding CWB as it has predominantly focused on explaining CWB from an individual-level of analysis, rather than from a multi-level perspective (Carpenter et al., 2021; O'Boyle et al., 2011). This is of particular concern as the majority of CWB’s consequences most often result in unit-level, rather than individual-level outcomes (Carpenter et al., 2021). As a result, this study focuses on understanding CWB from the unit-level (group, team, unit or department level) perspective, thus addressing the biases of past research and attempting to rectify the misalignments between theory and levels of measurement (Carpenter et al., 2021; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Thus, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 3 unit-level CWB is defined as a variable that exists at the unit level and represents intentionally and unintentionally harmful behaviours perpetrated by unit members that potentially harm the unit, the organisation, or both (Carpenter et al., 2021). Simply put, unit-level CWB reveals how prevalent counterproductive work behaviours are throughout a unit. As a result, unit-level CWB can be said to reveal the presence of harmful voluntary behaviours performed by unit members that endanger the unit's well-being. Previous research focused on understanding CWB by assessing individual-level outcomes (Gotz et al., 2019). However, more recent research has emphasized the role of the unit in influencing behaviour and shaping and facilitating employee interactions Carpenter et al. (2021). Organizational psychology researchers have therefore made significant strides in a bid to understand CWB, its diverse nature, considering its antecedents, as well as the causes and consequences of such behaviours, specifically as it applies to organizational units (Berry et al., 2007; Dalal, 2005; Mackey et al., 2019; Penney & Spector, 2005). Leadership has been found to play a significant role in nurturing and boosting employees’ attitudes as well as prescribing behaviours in the workplace (Walumbwa et al., 2008; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). According to Carpenter et al. (2021), leaders are models in the workplace whose behaviours standardize and guide the behaviours and actions of units and as such, form a crucial element of the units’ environment. As a result, various leadership styles have been studied concerning counterproductive work behaviours. Mayer et al. (2012) found that ethical leaders play a strong role in preventing counterproductive work behaviours as they were found to greatly reward appropriate behaviours that support the organization. The same can be said of transformational leaders who were found to encourage behaviours in line with organizational goals and objectives, thus decreasing employee tendencies for deviant behaviour (Resick et al., 2009). The need for leadership that contributes to employees’ positive organizational behaviour from a sustainable, long-term perspective has given rise to an increase University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 4 in authentic leadership research (Caza & Jankson, 2011). However, despite the wealth of studies on the association between leadership behaviours and CWB, there is still a gap in the literature on the relationship between authentic leadership and CWB, in particular, which this study seeks to fill. After the emergence of authentic leadership, researchers have investigated its impact on employees’ job outcomes and performance, especially considering its potential for explaining leaders’ impacts on human interactions in organizational settings (May et al., 2003). Authentic leadership by itself has been widely theorized to positively influence employee voluntary behaviours, attitudes and job performance because of the authentic leader’s ability to generate benefits for employees as well as for entire organizations (Duarte et al., 2021; Rego et al., 2012; Yousaf & Ul Hadi, 2021). Authenticity in leadership is descriptive of leaders with strong abilities to process varied information about themselves, adapt their leadership behaviour in line with their beliefs, have a strong sense of self and can balance their needs and preferences to suit societal demands (Chan et al., 2005). This leadership style is notable because it promotes a healthy and ethical organisational environment as well as increased intellectual capital within the organisation (Yousaf & Ul Hadi, 2021). Authentic leadership is therefore best described as a process that relies on both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organisational framework to produce greater self-awareness and positive self-regulated behaviours in leaders and colleagues, ultimately encouraging positive self-development (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Walumbwa et al. (2008) describe authentic leadership as a multifaceted phenomenon characterized by leaders who display the dimensions of “self-awareness”, exhibit “relational transparency”, demonstrate “balanced information processing” and rely on an “internalized moral perspective” to build trust and a healthy working environment (Wong & Laschinger, 2013). According to Chan et al. (2005), these dimensions of authentic leadership together, describe a leader who who University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 5 exhibits authenticity in their leadership have a strong ability to effectively communicate information about themselves (their values, beliefs, goals, and feelings), the capacity to modify their leadership behaviour in accordance with their own selves, a distinct sense of who they are personally, and the capacity to balance their preferences with societal demands. Self-awareness is the ability of a leader to show that they are aware of how they interpret and give meaning to the world, as well as how this meaning-making process affects how they view themselves over time. It also relates to a leader's awareness of their strengths and weaknesses, as well as their exposure to others' perspectives on themselves and their awareness of how their actions affect others. (Kernis, 2003). Authentic leaders display relational transparency by presenting themselves to others as genuine. These leaders promote trust by openly sharing information and expressing their honest thoughts and feelings while seeking to minimize inappropriate emotional displays (Kernis, 2003). Before making a decision, authentic leaders demonstrate balanced processing by objectively analysing all relevant data that is free of biases. Such leaders also seek different perspectives that challenge their deeply held beliefs (Gardner et al., 2005). Authentic leaders possess an internalized moral perspective which represents an integrated set of moral beliefs and value systems which then characterizes their behaviours and decision-making processes. Authentic leaders are therefore aware of their strengths and weaknesses and desire to understand themselves more in order to serve others better. They function and act according to profound personal values which guide their behaviours to build credibility, earn respect and gain the trust of their followers. They lead in a way that followers see and define as real by encouraging varied opinions and developing diverse networks of collaborative interactions with followers (Avolio et al., 2004). Authentic leadership is therefore a key leader characteristic in understanding behavioural anomalies associated with CWB as it tends to University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 6 influence how individual employees’ CWB interact, aggregate, and emerge as a completely separate and unique construct at the unit level. While leader characteristics are a likely predictor of counterproductive work behaviour, they are insufficient to fully explain the complexities surrounding counterproductive work behaviour because the construct is known to be a function of both individual and environmental antecedents (Penney et al., 2011). As a result, certain aspects of individual and unit personality traits must be highlighted because they may help to explain some of the variation in producing counterproductive work behaviour. In light of this, personality variables have been among the most often researched construct, as they remain reliable predictors of behaviour and have been found to have a profound impact on employee work behaviour at the individual level (Berry et al. 2007; Ferreira & Nascimento, 2016; Kozako et al., 2013; Ozbag, 2019; Salgado 1997). The role of personality traits as a mechanism through which authentic leaders influence the display of CWB within units has however received very limited attention. Personality, according to Denham (2010), refers to the distinguishing qualities embodied by an individual as characterized by their habitual patterns of behaviour, temperament, and emotion. Collective personality emerges only when the behavioural regularities of individuals come together to interact at the unit level, as is the case within work units and teams. These behavioural regularities are commonly referred to as routines, habits, norms, organisational routines, and route dependencies at the collective level (Feldman, 1984). Collective personality thus describes the routines occurring in the collective as a whole (Hofmann et al., 2005). They refer to the patterns of behaviour that exist within a group (Roberge & Huang, 2019). Collective personality applies the big five theories of personality to the unit level, rather than the individual level, as recent literature suggests (Salgado, 2002); Mount et al., 2006, Chang & Smithikrai, 2010). Collective personality has characteristics that facilitate both positive and negative intragroup behaviours. Units with University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 7 personality traits that promote friendship, supportive social relationships, and conflict resolution are more likely to develop prosocial and interpersonal citizenship behaviours. On the other hand, units whose collective personality consists of shared anxious, depressive, and stressful emotions, are more likely to generate a negative working environment and, as a result, engage in counterproductive work behaviour. Many studies have shown links between an employee's CWB and the elements of their distinct characteristics, such as the Big-Five personality dimensions which postulate five basic personality domains namely: “emotional stability”, “extraversion”, “openness to experience”, “agreeableness”, and “conscientiousness” (Colbert et al., 2004; Goldberg, 1990; Otero-Lopez et al., 2021; Ozbag, 2019). Emotionally stable employees can maintain and regulate their emotional states, making them less prone to experiencing negative emotions such as despair, rage and anxiety (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Jia et al., 2013). On the other hand, individuals who lack emotional stability and are unable to manage their emotions as much tend to be high on the neuroticism dimension and thus, experience greater pessimism, nervousness and display withdrawal (Szostek, 2020). The prevalence of counterproductive work behaviours including production deviance, absenteeism, and disengagement among employees and across work units is therefore expected to decrease in emotionally stable employees (Gonzalez-Mulé et al., 2013). Extraversion refers to the qualities of assertiveness, friendliness and dominance. Extroverts are more inclined to be sociable and seek excitement from the outside world. They are more likely to display higher self-confidence, dominance, optimism and ambition. Individuals with low extraversion are more likely to experience anger, emotional exhaustion, and are more sceptical, making them more likely to engage in CWB (Kozako et al., 2013; Jensen & Patel, 2011). Openness to experience represents individuals’ tendencies to be creative and resourceful. Individuals who possess the openness to experience trait are non-traditional in thought, imaginative and take interest in experiencing new things due to their heightened feelings of curiosity. Individuals University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 8 who are high on openness are most often seen to be risk-taking, curious and seeking change whereas those individuals low on the trait are most often unimaginative and conventional in their ways (Abdullah & Marican, 2016). Open individuals are thus more likely to overcome work challenges more easily and will most often find ways to achieve work goals and tasks, reducing chances of engaging in CWB. Similarly, agreeableness represents the tendency to be compassionate, modest, cooperative and kind. Agreeable individuals seek social harmony and unity, concern themselves with the welfare of others, are good-natured, and are generally trusting. Individuals who lack the trait are generally more suspicious, antagonistic, stubborn, uncooperative and mistrustful in their dealings with others and instigate social disruption, which is most commonly reflected as CWB (Ozbag, 2019). Finally, conscientiousness is represented in individuals who are purposeful, persistent, and hardworking and are therefore achievement striving. Conscientious individuals set high but realistic goals for themselves and direct their effort towards achieving those goals, and can therefore be described as task-oriented individuals (Ozbag, 2019). They possess a high sense of moral obligation and place high premiums on being truthful and honest. Individuals high on the conscientiousness trait are therefore assumed to be more likely to avoid CWB as their energies are most often directed towards goal and task achievement (Kozako et al., 2013; Penney et al., 2011). The focus of contemporary organizational psychology research has focused mainly on understanding the relationship between counterproductive work behaviours and other proximal and distal constructs, mostly at the individual level, neglecting the influence of the social environments on the employee. Authentic leadership elicits several desired outcomes for employees and the larger organization as such leaders tend to influence behaviour positively based on moral, objective and fair actions, grounded within the complete understanding of who they are. This implies that authentic leadership strongly influences employee behaviours, attitudes, and subsequent performance. However, authentic leadership remains insufficient as University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 9 it focuses on the social environment of the work unit. Previous research has found that there is substantial evidence backing the relationship between personality differences and counterproductive behaviour, but only when personality traits are linked to theoretically relevant outcome variables. The strongest relationships have therefore been discovered among agreeableness, emotional stability and conscientiousness (Berry et al., 2007; Chang & Smithikrai, 2010; Mount et al., 2006; Pletzer et al., 2019; Salgado, 2002; Scherer et al., 2013). Collective personality thus remains important as it focuses on the individual differences that characterize the work unit, to understand how unit-level CWB is expressed. Both authentic leadership and collective personality thus interact with one another in the prediction of unit- level CWB, which this study seeks to comprehensively examine. 1.2 Statement of the Problem Organizations across the world value human resources as their most critical and valuable asset. Hence, managers across these organizations aim to encourage creativity, innovation and efficiency among employees by giving them the freedom to work at their own pace while instituting policies and protocols to ensure that work goals and objectives are met, and in most cases, exceeded. This self-sufficiency encourages performance because it empowers employees to act more freely within the confines of their jobs. Highly engaged employees give back to their organizations by improving their organization's profitability and efficiency while increasing their productivity thereby promoting improved employee well-being and reducing turnover rates. Nonetheless, not all employee behaviours are directed toward the benefit of the organization. Employees display negative behaviours which are contrary to the organization’s norms and culture and are consequently destructive and harmful to the well-being of the organization. Many organizations incur needless costs as a result of employees’ engagement in counterproductive work behaviour. According to reports, CWBs are pervasive and cost firms University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 10 over $50 billion each year and may be responsible for up to 20% of lost businesses (Bennett, Marasi, & Locklear, 2019). According to a recent poll, nearly 25% of firms have dismissed employees for inappropriate Internet use while at work while 14% of employees have been found to be engaged in workplace violence (American Management Association, 2005; Creighton, 2019). CWB causes inefficiency in organizations in terms of the destruction of resources, resulting in huge losses to the government, especially concerning the financial and human resources available to them (Sypniewska, 2020). Economic and social planning is also hampered, thereby affecting organizational effectiveness (Jabatan Audit Negara, 2011). Khalizani et al. (2013) furthermore, reported that CWB cases have drastically increased over the last 10 years and as a consequence, have led to social and economic risks, resulting in financial meltdowns and negative work-life relationships (Bolin & Heatherly, 2001). Also, the negative psychological impact of CWB should not be overlooked, as it has led to decreased employee morale, organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Hoel & Salin, 2003; Mount et al., 2006), while causing an increase in absenteeism and turnover rates (Salgado, 2002). In line with the above, researchers have reported positive and significant relationships between CWB and leadership (O’Boyle et al., 2011), abusive supervision (Mitchell et al., 2015; Ma et al., 2017), organizational culture (Nacinovic Braje et al., 2020), personality traits (Kozako et al., 2013), HR systems (Götz et al., 2019), job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2006) and performance (Carpenter & Berry, 2017) among corporate and formal sector workers. However, in the context of Ghana’s banking sector, the role of personality in determining unit-level counterproductive behaviours is still an unexplored issue. The banking sector in Ghana is one of the most diverse industries in the country and is represented by people from all walks of life. As a result, various types of people with various personality types make up each unit within these banks. The recent wave of liquidation of banks has been as a result of a mix of both poor leadership, poor person-job fit and poor financial management of these organizations. The University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 11 management of the human resource is a crucial component as it could significantly contribute or otherwise to the organization’s bottom line. The units that make up these Organisations in Ghana's banking sector that ignore these obvious problems are therefore unaware of the dangers that the personalities of unit members pose to their bottom line and overall effectiveness. Understanding these issues in the Ghanaian context will help Ghanaian organisations formulate various interventions, primarily in terms of recruitment while also implementing relevant training plans to develop the capacities of staff while retaining productivity. Also unexplored is the direct relationship between authentic leadership as it relates to unit-level counterproductive work behaviour within the Ghanaian context as it is posited to have a significant influence (Berry et al., 2007; Salgado, 2002). Additionally, studies on leadership and collective personality have mostly been conducted in developed countries with little to no regard for the influences that working in a developing country has on employee attitudes and behaviour. To address these problems, this study focuses on the crucial element which is authentic leadership to determine the mechanisms by which it interacts with unit-level variables to exert their influence on CWB. It also draws on the relationship between collective personality and unit-level counterproductive work behaviour to better understand how the different personality traits of the unit come together to influence and predict CWB within the unit. This study in turn will bridge research gaps by focusing on the developing country of Ghana. 1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study This study aims to assess the role of authentic leadership and dimensions of collective personality in determining how unit-level counterproductive work behaviour is displayed among employees within Ghanaian banks. More specifically, the objectives of this study are: • To examine the relationship between authentic leadership and unit-level CWB among employees in banking institutions in Ghana University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 12 • To investigate the unique relationship that exists between collective personality and unit-level CWB among employees in banking institutions in Ghana • To investigate the extent to which collective personality moderates the relationship between authentic leadership and unit-level CWB among employees in banking institutions in Ghana 1.4 Relevance of the Study When employees engage in counterproductive behaviour, it results in reduced productivity and inefficiency, organizational failure, disruption of work social relationships, and other negative consequences (Shen & Lei, 2022). This study will assist governments, corporate organisations, and other commercial bodies to identify and understand some of the situational and dispositional elements that cause unit-level CWB thus, enabling them to develop concrete ways to reduce and prevent its negative unit and organizational impacts. This study will also help build a case by highlighting the important role of leadership in preventing negative unit and organizational outcomes such as CWB. In this regard, this study will serve as a guide to management to emphasize the components of authentic leadership in designing leadership programmes, strategies, evaluations, and selection procedures to reduce the chances of hiring employees with CWB tendencies. Along with its organizational and practical significance, this study will contribute to academia by stimulating research into this area, thus expanding the knowledge base. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 13 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction The theoretical framework and a review of related studies are presented as the two main sections of the literature review. According to the Social Information Processing theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 2001), leaders provide important cues to subordinates about which behaviours are expected within the organisation. The Conservation of Resources theory by Hobfoll (2001) describes how people direct their energies into work-related behaviour. The section that follows examines additional studies that are related to and relevant to the current study. It also includes the rationale for the study, a statement of hypotheses and the hypothesised model of the relationships between the various variables. 2.1 Theoretical Framework This section provides a supporting structure for the methodical and orderly display of data and aids in the prediction, understanding, and explanation of concepts, as well as the extension and challenge of existing knowledge, based on critically bound assumptions (Abend, 2013). The situational and individual antecedents of counterproductive work behaviours have been the subject of a good number of explanations and assumptions. Thus, the current study is founded on the Social Information Processing theory and Conservation of Resources theory to provide a framework for conceptualizing the relationship between unit-level counterproductive work behaviours, authentic leadership, and collective personality. 2.1.0 Social Information Processing Theory According to Salancik and Pfeffer (1978), the Social Information Processing theory (SIP) asserts that units are inextricably linked to the influence of their work environments as the environment impacts how the units “construct, understand and behave” within each context. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 14 This theory basically investigates how individuals make decisions and form attitudes in a social context, with a particular emphasis on the workplace. The theory explains that people rely heavily on social information available to them in their environments, such as input from colleagues and peers, to shape their attitudes, behaviours, and perceptions the work unit is constantly seeking out “information, perceptions and evaluations” from others within the unit to make sense of their environments and a unit’s leader provides some of the strongest behavioural cues for this sense making process. It implies that people heavily rely on social information available to them in their environments, such as input from colleagues and peers, to shape their attitudes, behaviours, and perceptions. The theory explains that the leader’s behaviour most likely influences the behaviours expressed within the unit, suggesting that if the unit’s perception and evaluation of the environment are negative, the unit will, based on their evaluation, most likely express negative behaviour. Authentic leaders display numerous positive employee behaviours and attitudes such as high levels of organisational commitment, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviours, all of which lead to improved job performance (Mubarak & Noor, 2018). According to the SIP, these attitudes promote a positive organizational climate and optimistic intellectual capital within the unit, and provide important cues to subordinates, as to which behaviours are expected within the unit. This results in a trickle-down effect leading to the creation of an ethical climate which results in positive employee attitudes, behaviours and outcomes (Qureshi & Hassan, 2019). Authentic leaders convey the importance of accepted and required work unit behaviour by demonstrating behaviour based on transparency, trust, integrity, honesty and high moral standards. These attitudes are likely to ultimately shape unit members’ behaviours towards achieving the goals of the unit as a whole (Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 15 2.1.1 Conservation of Resources Theory The Conservation of Resources (COR) theory of job stress emphasizes the importance of resources in preventing psychological strain outcomes (Hobfoll, 2001). The theory depicts resources to be “objects, conditions, personal characteristics or energies” that are of value to an individual or that serve as a means to obtain other “objects, conditions, personal characteristics or energies.” According to the theory, conscientiousness, for example, can act as a resource for employees who are task achieving, by enabling them to draw on their abilities to set and pursue task-related goals as a resource. The theory asserts that employees may invest available resources to obtain additional resources and emphasizes that counterproductive work behaviour, as a behavioural strain, may reflect deliberate resource investment strategies used by employees to address perceived work stressors or obtain resources to achieve work goals. Zellars et al. (2006) argued that because of qualities, or in this case, resources such as dependability, hard work and diligence, conscientious employees tend to deploy fewer resources to accomplish their work-related goals, thus conserving large chunks of their resources. The theory thus suggests that employees who are low in conscientiousness are more likely to engage in CWB as they attempt to invest additional resources into goal achievement. The COR theory also emphasizes that personality interacts with employees’ motivational intentions associated with goal setting to affect job-related behaviour (Barrick et al., 2003) and highlights conscientiousness and emotional stability as the most valid predictors of employee behaviour. With regards to emotional stability, the COR theory explains that emotionally stable employees are more relaxed, secure and calm and thus require fewer resources to regulate their emotions, and therefore have sufficient resources to deploy to attain work-related goals. On the other hand, emotionally unstable employees have to deploy substantial resources to manage their emotions and reduce their negative emotions, leaving little to no additional resources for goal setting. Accordingly, the theory suggests that employees who are low on the openness to University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 16 experience trait and are thus unimaginative and unconventional and hence, do not possess motivation towards goal achievement are more likely to engage in CWB. The theory also indicates that for employee’s low on agreeableness, who are independent of others and lack personal affection, and for those high on extraversion and excitement seeking, expression of CWB will be greater due to their reduced inclinations for goal setting and task performance. As a result, the theory proposes that units with high scores on specific personality dimensions will account for more variance in predicting counterproductive work behaviours than others. COR thus provides a strong basis for explaining personality’s role in understanding the behaviour expressed within units. The theories presented above serve as a foundation for this study. Leaders establish acceptable standards of behaviour and a quality working environment to ensure that employees' needs are met in order for the organisation to function effectively (Laschinger, Wong, Cummings, & Grau, 2014). According to the Social Information Processing Theory, units take cues from their leaders about acceptable and appropriate social behaviour. As a result, authentic leaders are more likely to instil acceptable and appropriate work behaviours in their units in order to reduce the prevalence of CWB. However, according to the COR theory, this leader-member exchange is dependent on whether or not units direct their energies and resources towards achieving work-related goals. When the collective personality of the unit is such that members direct their energies towards work, there will be a likely reduction in unit-level CWB. On the other hand, When units direct their energies towards goals other than work goals, the likelihood of unit- level CWB within the unit increases. This discussion leads to the development of the hypotheses and conceptual framework listed below. 2.2 Review of Related Studies 2.2.1 Authentic Leadership and Unit-level Counterproductive Work Behaviour University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 17 Several studies have been conducted on the relationship between authentic leadership and counterproductive workplace behaviour, most of which have studied the CWB construct under the aggregates of organizational or workplace deviance. According to Laschinger et al. (2012), authentic leaders express themselves clearly, follow through on their promises, look for perspectives that contradict their own, and solicit criticism to enhance interactions and relationships with others. When these behaviours are valued by their followers, they are less likely to engage in organizational deviant behaviour (Reisel et al., 2010). Duarte et al. (2021), based on the social support and social learning theory of Bandura (1977) explained that when employees perceive their supervisors to be respectful, supportive, considerate, and authentic, they may feel obligated to enhance their performance in return. Also, Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) who advanced Gouldner’s norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), revealed that employees who perceive their leader to be authentic may feel compelled to reciprocate the leader's positive behaviours in order to keep the exchange relationship balanced. Liu et al. (2018) surveyed a large health organization to explore how authentic leadership influences employees’ workplace behaviour through the mediating mechanisms of identification with supervisor, psychological safety and job engagement. In the cross-sectional survey, the researcher collected data on about 200 employees, including their direct supervisors on one of the organization’s multiple sites. Based on data analysis using structural equation modelling, it was discovered that authentic leadership was directly negatively related to workplace deviance behaviour. Again, the data revealed a negative relationship between authentic leadership and subordinates’ workplace deviance behaviour, as mediated by identification with supervisor, psychological safety, and job engagement. The results indicated that authentic leadership influences employees’ negative work behaviour through its strong influence on psychological safety and job engagement. By implication, authentic leaders can University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 18 reduce the incidence of counterproductive work behaviour by enhancing high-quality relationships based on the principles of social exchange (Ilies et al., 2005). Examining the relationships between authentic leadership and organizational deviance, Erkutlu and Chafra (2013), tested a random selection of 848 lecturers including the department heads of ten Turkish state universities. The researchers employed the use of hierarchical regression analysis and observed that authentic leadership negatively predicted organizational deviance. The results indicated that leaders who possessed the qualities of an authentic leader were more likely to reduce the rate at which their subordinates engaged in organizational deviant behaviour. In addition, the data analysed using moderated hierarchical regression as stipulated by Cohen and Cohen (1983) revealed that psychological contract violation moderated the negative relationship between authentic leadership and psychological contract violation. Again, the results revealed a strong negative relationship between authentic leadership and organizational deviance when psychological contract breach was high, as opposed to when it was low. The results imply that as followers attribute authenticity, hopefulness, resilience and consistency to a leader’s behaviours and actions over time, it diminishes the tendencies of negative attitudes and behaviours at work. In addition, the results indicate that employees are more likely to exhibit organizational deviant behaviour when they perceive contract breaches and a lack of trust between them and their leaders. The researchers thus suggested the adoption of measures and interventions aimed at increasing authentic leadership in organizations as they were advantageous in consequently increasing organizational effectiveness and minimising employee deviance. They further suggested an investment in fostering trust and managing psychological contracts effectively as it had a significant tendency to decrease employee workplace deviance. According to Rotundo and Sackett (2002) and Dalal (2005), CWB has been considered a negative aspect of performance that can have a substantial detrimental influence on University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 19 organizations. Ribeiro et al. (2018), in testing the assertion, sought to examine the relationship between authentic leadership, affective commitment and employee performance. To achieve this, the researchers using a quantitative method, conveniently sampled 212 Portuguese employees from small and medium-sized companies in the central region of Portugal, using an online survey design. Using the Baron and Kenny (1986) linear regression method and Sobel test (Sobel, 1982), they reported that authentic leadership promotes employee affective commitment which in turn increases individual and organizational performance. In other words, the researchers found that leaders’ authenticity reinforces employees’ emotional connections with their organizations which in turn increases their performance, thereby reducing the tendency to engage in counterproductive work behaviours. The results put authentic leadership forward as a relevant mechanism that allows leaders to create a positive and supportive work environment that edifies employees and reduces negative organizational outcomes such as organizational deviance. Again, Wang et al. (2012), in contributing to organizational behaviour literature, examined the impact of authentic leadership on performance by assessing the role of followers’ positive psychological capital and relational processes. An online survey was used to collect data from 801 employees of a Chinese logistics company for the study. Using a three-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis, results indicated that authentic leadership was positively related to follower performance. Again, a two-way interaction was subsequently assessed revealing that the relationship between authentic leadership and performance was stronger when employees’ psychological capital was low rather than high. Finally, in determining whether leader-member exchange mediated the effects of authentic leadership on performance, the findings revealed that leader-member exchange significantly mediated the relationship between authentic leadership and performance. Since CWB has been considered a negative aspect of performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002), these results imply that followers who University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 20 perceive their leaders as authentic will likely perform better at work, which in turn, leads to reduced engagement in CWB. Again, the results reveal that authentic leaders elicit better performance from followers when followers lacked the core psychological resources of optimism, hope, efficacy and resilience (Luthans et al., 2007). Lastly, the findings suggested that those team members who perceived their leaders as authentic reported positive relationships with their leaders, which was associated with higher job performance. This implies that teams led by authentic leaders who have positive interactions with their followers will engage in low levels of CWB. Furthermore, Mira and Odeh (2019) conducted a study to investigate the role of authentic leadership in mediating the relationship between employee training and employee performance. The researchers used a sample of 260 employees from Jeddah's Islamic Port to validate their data, which was validated using a two-step partial least square structural equation model (PLS-SEM). The results revealed that authentic leadership was positively related to employee performance. Also worth noting is that authentic leadership was a significant mediator of the relationship between employee training and employee performance. These findings emphasize authentic leadership as contributory to higher employee performance, and thereby crucial to reducing negative employee work behaviours such as CWB. The findings of the study furthermore indicate a positive significant mediating role of authentic leadership, employee training and employee performance, further highlighting the importance of authentic leadership in promoting positive employee behaviour consequently leading to a reduction in deviant behaviours such as CWB. In addition, Qureshi and Hassan (2019) investigated the impact authentic leadership had on workplace incivility, which is a known deviant work behaviour (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). They conducted a cross-sectional survey on a sample of 127 employees of profit-oriented private sector organizations in Pakistan’s core economic city of Karachi. The results, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 21 determined using path analysis indicated that authentic leadership significantly negatively predicted workplace incivility. The findings of this study revealed that authentic leadership played a significant role in reducing workplace incivility, which in turn relates to fewer counterproductive work behaviours. Accordingly, this study also supports the notion that a negative perception of leadership among followers is one of the major predictors of workplace incivility and thus, CWB (Bulutlar & Oz, 2009). This, therefore, implies that followers who believe their leaders are authentic are less likely to engage in counterproductive work behaviours. According to the study, authentic leaders establish strong value systems and ethical standards by ensuring an improved ethical climate as well as a positive, supportive, and harmonious working environment, thereby reducing workplace incivility and counterproductive work behaviour. Poormokhtari and Karimi (2017) investigated the relationship between perceptions of authentic leadership and deviant behaviours to understand the basis of deviant behaviours. The study was carried out among employees of an educational organization in Isfahan city using a descriptive survey technique. Based on data analysed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, stepwise regression and analysis of variance, the results indicated a negative relationship between the relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing dimensions of authentic leadership with deviant behaviour. Employees with high levels of relational transparency, internalised moral perspective, and balanced information processing were thus more likely to avoid deviant behaviour than those with low levels of these components. These findings imply that deviant behaviour is unlikely among employees who have demonstrated their true selves to others by openly sharing information and expressing true thoughts and emotions. Employees who conduct an objective analysis of all relevant data before making a decision, maintain consistency between their core principles and the judgments they express, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 22 and demonstrate justice and a high level of professional practice are also more likely to avoid deviant behaviour. Within natural science research, Hao et al. (2020) assessed the positive impact and the action mechanism of authentic leadership on employee performances, explored from the multilevel perspective, particularly involving the transparency of human beings and the employability of artificial intelligence. A cross-sectional survey was conducted on a sample of 799 members comprising both leaders and team members of artificial intelligence development teams in China. The data was analysed using an industry-specific aggregation test, a correlation, hierarchical regression and multilevel linear model analysis. The study revealed that at the individual level, individual-oriented authentic leadership, which describes the perceptions of leader behaviour by each employee in their interactive process with the leader, was positively related to individual performance. Also in this regard, the study discovered that individual- oriented authentic leadership behaviour and an individual's performance are mediated by psychological safety. These findings suggest that followers who perceive their leaders to be authentic were more likely to display positive work behaviours, leading to reduced counterproductive work behaviours. The study also suggested that the good interpersonal relations between leaders and followers that characterize psychological safety mediated the relationship between individual-oriented authentic leadership and individual performance. At the team level, team-oriented authentic leadership, which represents the average perception of leader behaviour by all employees, and individual level performance was found to be mediated by the team atmosphere. The findings suggest that team-oriented authentic leadership, characterized by an environment with open-information communications, characterized by a value and safety of public sharing behaviours, allowing for increased psychological security to share information publicly, facilitates improved individual performance and as a result, reduces counterproductive work behaviours. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 23 To summarise, authentic leadership has been shown to have a direct negative impact on employees' deviant behaviour at work. This relationship has been studied under various aggregates such as workplace incivility, poor job performance, and deviant behaviour. It has also been established that several organisational variables have the potential to mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and counterproductive work behaviour in employees. Despite the consistency of the results, these findings have failed to focus on the direct relationship between authentic leadership and counterproductive work behaviour at the unit level, especially considering that the majority of the outcomes of leader behaviour are related to unit-level, rather than individual-level outcomes, which this study seeks to address. 2.2.2 Collective Personality and Unit-level Counterproductive Work Behaviour Personality traits have also been extensively researched concerning both interpersonal and organizational CWB with conscientiousness, emotional stability and agreeableness having proved to be negative predictors of CWB (Berry et al., 2007; Ozbag, 2019; Sackett et al., 2006). Some researchers have emphasized that the Big Five personality traits affect employee performance through motivational intentions whilst others believe that CWB is a reflection of behaviours that particular traits dispose us to (Barrick et al., 2003; Penney et al., 2011). Berry et al. (2007) used journals, databases, and social science citation indexes to investigate the common correlates of employees' engagement in interpersonal and organisational deviant workplace behaviours across psychological, industrial/organizational, management, industrial, and social science studies. Following a review of the present body of studies on the construct, the results suggested significant negative relationships with interpersonal and organizational deviance and conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability. Ozbag (2019) conducted a study which aimed to analyse the link between the five-factor personality traits and CWB both directed toward organization and people. 144 employees who University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 24 worked within the distinguished industrial provinces in Turkey were sampled for this study. Data was collected via online, mail, and in-person surveys, and it was analysed using partial least squares (PLS) path modelling. PLS-Graph also used the bootstrap method to determine the statistical significance of the path coefficients. The findings of this study revealed that emotional stability, agreeableness and conscientiousness had negative relationships with CWB-O whilst openness to experience and extraversion showed no significant relationships. The study also revealed that conscientiousness was the strongest predictor of CWB-O, as alluded to by Salgado (2002). These findings suggest that employees who appear to be cautious, hardworking, task-oriented, and goal-oriented are less likely to engage in CWB. Again, the results indicate that employees who are high in agreeableness and thus, attentive to subordinates' needs and are concerned about the well-being of others are less prone to engage in CWB. Also, the study revealed that employees who are emotionally stable and thus, experienced less anxiety and depression engaged less in CWB. In examining the relationship between big five personality traits on counterproductive work behaviour, Kozako et al. (2013), using a simple random sampling procedure, gathered survey data on 178 employees of five hotels listed in the Malaysian Association of Hotels. The outcomes of correlation and regression analysis indicated negative relationships between CWB-O and emotional stability and agreeableness, whereas openness to experience was positively related to CWB-O. The findings showed that employees high on emotional stability, and agreeableness were more likely to demonstrate lower CWB-O, compared to their counterparts who are high on openness to experience as they were more likely to demonstrate CWB-O. There were also negative relationships between CWB-I and extraversion, agreeableness and emotional stability whilst conscientiousness recorded no relationship. The study demonstrated that employees high on extraversion, agreeableness and emotional stability University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 25 were more likely to demonstrate interpersonal counterproductive behaviours such as gossiping, aggression, and verbal abuse. Abdullah and Marican (2016) conducted a study to establish the personality profile of public- sector personnel and to investigate the link between that profile and deviant behaviour. A descriptive cross-sectional survey was employed on a non-probability sample of 410 managerial employees in federal ministries in Malaysia. The study findings showed a positive association between surgency, which represents a middle point between extroversion and introversion, and organizational deviance. The findings also revealed a negative association between conscientiousness and openness to experience and organizational deviance whilst agreeableness and adjustment showed no significant relationship with organizational deviance. Also, surgency was positively related to organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance whereas conscientiousness was negatively related to both. Lastly, the relationship between agreeableness and adjustment was not significant with interpersonal deviance (Abdullah & Marican, 2016). The findings suggest that public employees possess the desired personality traits that could contribute to organisational development, allowing them to adapt to different work environments for task performance. Similarly, Guay et al. (2016) examined the relationships between personality traits, organizational commitment and two target-based factors of workplace deviance namely organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance. Using the survey research design, they used data from 150 regular non-managerial staff and their supervisors from a Fortune Global 500 South Korean banking corporation. Results from path analysis showed that both conscientiousness and agreeableness were significantly negatively to organizational and interpersonal deviance respectively. The study results also revealed that the relationship between conscientiousness and organizational deviance, and agreeableness and interpersonal University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 26 deviance were both partially mediated through organizational commitment. The researchers demonstrated that the influences of personality on organizational deviance differed across individuals. Using the five-factor model of personality traits and the social exchange theory, their findings suggest that people with high levels of conscientiousness who are organised, diligent, and responsible are less likely to engage in organisational deviant behaviour such as taking excessively long breaks, producing poor quality work, and sabotage. Again, the findings show that agreeable employees, who are courteous, considerate, cooperative, and good- natured, are less likely to engage in interpersonal deviant behaviour such as gossiping, verbal abuse, and bullying. Furthermore, the findings showed that conscientious individuals are capable of developing emotional attachments to their organisations, and thus employees who are committed to their organisations are less likely to engage in organizational deviance. Employees who are cooperative and generally agreeable are also more easily able to form emotional connections with their organisations and others within the organisation, making them less likely to engage in interpersonal deviance. Lim et al. (2016) investigated the five-factor model of personality with workplace deviance in an empirical study. In a cross-sectional survey, 200 volunteers from six emergency relief centres in Peninsular Malaysia completed self-reported questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to organise the data, which was further analysed using hierarchical multiple regression analysis and Pearson product-moment correlation. The study's findings revealed that neuroticism was positively related to overall workplace deviance, and more specifically, interpersonal deviance, and organizational deviance. This implies that workplace deviance was generally negatively related to emotional stability. The study also determined that extraversion was significantly positively correlated with interpersonal deviance and overall workplace deviance. Lastly, the study also established no significant relationships between agreeableness, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 27 conscientiousness and openness to experience with any of the two target-based workplace deviance components. The study showed that the personality traits of the volunteers were important in determining their behaviour at the volunteer organization. It also showed that employees who are high on extraversion and neuroticism have significant positive relationships with workplace deviance and thus, had the tendency to engage more in workplace deviant behaviour at the organization. The researcher also explained the reasons for the non-significant scores stating that employees who scored high on agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience workplace deviance tended to share, volunteer, and help others, which deterred them from engaging in acts that harm the organisation (Lim et al., 2016). Employees engage in deviant behaviour despite clear ethical guidelines governing workplace behaviour. To understand this, Sudha and Khan (2013) examined how the big five personality traits and motivational traits influence employee engagement in workplace deviance among employees in the public and private sectors. A purposive sample of 60 engineers was obtained from selected IT departments in public and private sector organizations centred around India’s National Capital Region of Delhi. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationships between various components of personality, motivational traits, and workplace deviance in organizations in both the public and private sectors. The findings revealed that interpersonal deviance was higher in private sector organisations than in public sector organisations, and this difference was attributed to high stress levels, arbitrary and unjust managerial actions, and feelings of powerlessness (Bennett, 1998; Sudha & Khan, 2013). Again, the findings indicated that neuroticism was significantly positively related to organizational deviance, implying that emotionally stable employees were less likely to engage in organizational deviance. Also established was that agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience were negatively related to workplace deviance in both the private and public sectors. This suggests that employees within these sectors who University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 28 are easy-going, courteous and compassionate, as well as those who are outgoing and excitement-seeking, as well as those who are detail-oriented, disciplined and hardworking, were less likely to engage in workplace deviance. Extraversion, on the other hand, had a negative correlation with organizational deviance but a positive correlation with interpersonal deviance. The findings of this study underlined the importance of neuroticism in particular, which accounted for between 41 and 58 percent of workplace deviance in both public and private sector organisations. Likewise, Pletzer et al. (2019) carried out a meta-analytic study to compare the validity of the Big Five personality dimensions and the HEXACO domains with workplace deviance to better understand the relationship between personality and workplace deviance. The meta-analysis included 749 articles published between 1998 and 2016 from scientific databases such as EBSCO, Web of Science, JSTOR, and Google Scholar, and was conducted using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria relating to the level of analysis of the workplace deviance construct, the number of personality domains reported, and the size of the samples assessed. Hunter and Schmidt's (2014) method for meta-analyses of correlation coefficients with a random-effects model using the metafor package in R (Viechtbauer, 2010) and a two-stage random-effects meta-analytical structural equation modelling were used to analyse the data (Cheung, 2015) to establish self-ratings of workplace deviance (Pletzer et al., 2019). The study revealed that, unlike in previous research that found conscientiousness to be the strongest predictor of workplace deviance (Barrick et al., 2001; Ozbag, 2019; Salgado, 2002), neuroticism was the most important dimension in predicting and controlling workplace deviance. Again, findings discovered significant relationships between conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism and workplace deviance, while extraversion and openness to experience had no significant relationships with workplace deviance (Pletzer et al., 2019). Concerning the HEXACO domains, conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotionality University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 29 remained significant negative predictors of workplace deviance while openness to experience and extraversion were not significant predictors. More specifically, this study discovered significant negative relationships between conscientiousness and agreeableness with workplace deviance, indicating that highly conscientious and agreeable employees were less likely to engage in workplace deviant behaviour. The study also discovered a significant positive relationship between neuroticism and workplace deviance, implying a negative relationship between emotional stability and workplace deviance (Pletzer et al., 2019). This finding implied that the more depressed, anxious, and insecure an employee was, the more likely he or she was to engage in workplace deviance. On the other hand, the more an employee maintained a stable emotion and was calm, reserved and continuously strived for a greater sense of emotional health, the less likely they were to display workplace deviant behaviour. Finally, extraversion and openness to experience had no significant relationship with organizational deviance suggesting that an employee who is sociable and outgoing, as well as one who is imaginative and risk-taking, did not significantly determine their engagement in workplace deviance. This study discovered that the HEXACO dimensions had a greater explanatory power of the variance in workplace deviance, accounting for 31.97 percent as opposed to the Big Five dimensions' 19.05 percent. As a result, the researchers prioritised the HEXACO in determining workplace deviance. This study was limited, however, by its emphasis on data collected using a cross-sectional design, which does not allow for causal inferences. However, because personality is assumed to be relatively stable (Larsen & Buss, 2005), acting defiantly is unlikely to determine someone's personality. The researchers, therefore, proposed the use of longitudinal designs to investigate the effects of personality on workplace deviance. In the same vein, Kluemper et al. (2015), in a two-part study, compared the validities of self- and acquaintance-reported personality in the prediction of workplace deviance. The first study University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 30 yielded a sample of 391 acquaintance ratings, including supervisors, acquaintances and job incumbents, who were then contacted within two weeks for supervisors to provide an assessment of their incumbents’ workplace deviance. Conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability were proposed as predictors of workplace deviance based on acquaintance- rated personality. As demonstrated by the intercorrelation matrices, acquaintance-rated conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability were negatively related to total workplace deviance. Therefore, higher levels of conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability likely lead to decreases in displays of workplace deviant behaviour. As a result, emotionally stable employees exhibit less reactivity and sensitivity, which leads to greater unity with others, more positive thoughts and feelings, and other positive behavioural responses that allow them to avoid negative workplace reactions and thus workplace deviance. Those high on the agreeableness domain also value the need for harmony and see situations in a positive light, making them less likely to mistreat others at work. As a result, agreeable individuals should be less likely to engage in deviant behaviour than those who are disagreeable. The study also found that conscientious employees who seek to develop and maintain long-term relationships with their organisations by adhering to rules, upholding workplace norms, and striving for goals and objectives are more likely to avoid organisational deviance. The initial study also demonstrated that self/other convergent validity was the lowest for conscientiousness and agreeableness and not for emotional stability suggesting that conscientiousness and agreeableness had the lowest self/other convergent validity, implying that acquaintance-rated conscientiousness and agreeableness will be more useful in predicting workplace deviance than would their self-reported counterparts. Lastly, this initial study revealed significant interactions between conscientiousness and agreeableness in predicting workplace deviance implying that the conscientious and agreeable traits that employees possess would interact with their respective self-rated traits to predict workplace deviance such that University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 31 low levels of both self-rated and acquaintance-rated personality would yield higher levels of deviance. The second study built upon the first as the researchers administered an additional job- incumbent survey 2 weeks after the first which required job incumbents’ supervisors to assess incumbent-reported deviance on a sample of 306 acquaintance-respondents. The intercorrelation matrix revealed that both acquaintance-rated conscientiousness and agreeableness negatively predicted incumbent and supervisor-rated deviance. Emotional stability on the other hand predicted supervisor-rated deviance but not incumbent-rated deviance. Furthermore, the study discovered that Conscientiousness and agreeableness had the lowest self/other convergent validity, implying that because acquaintance ratings are mostly based on past specific observed behaviours, acquaintance-rated conscientiousness and agreeableness will be more useful in predicting workplace deviance than their self-reported counterparts. Finally, this study revealed that acquaintance-reported agreeableness is the most important prosocial personality trait that, when present, helps employees avoid deviant behaviour. Enwereuzor et al. (2017) investigated the moderating role of the personality factors of agreeableness and conscientiousness in the relationship between emotional exhaustion and workplace deviance while studying burnout among teachers. Their study mainly sought to determine whether agreeableness and conscientiousness were relevant in explaining workplace deviance. The study gathered data from 200 teachers recruited from nine schools in Nigeria's south-eastern region, using a self-report measure for the relevant personality domains as well as workplace deviance. The hierarchical moderated regression analysis was conducted to determine the unique contributions of each of the predictors and their interactions with workplace deviance. According to the findings, the personal demographic factors of the teachers were not significantly related to workplace deviance. Agreeableness and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 32 conscientiousness were both significant negative predictors of workplace deviance, accounting for 10.5 percent of the variance in workplace deviance. Therefore, the more agreeable and conscientious teachers were, the less likely they were to engage in and exhibit workplace deviance. However, agreeableness was a more reliable predictor of workplace deviance than conscientiousness. Given previous research linking compound personality traits to a variety of counterproductive behaviours in non-work contexts (Jones & Paulhus, 2010), Scherer et al. (2013) investigated whether compound personality, along with the five-factor model, could predict counterproductive behaviours in the workplace. Scherer et al. (2013) thus attempted to study this relationship beyond the five-factor model of personality to investigate the strength of the compound personality trait of sub-clinical psychopathology to predict CWB. The sample for the study consisted of 193 undergraduates from a large urban Midwestern University whose participation earned them course credit. Results obtained from a correlation matrix revealed a significant negative correlation between conscientiousness and agreeableness and CWB with agreeableness being the stronger predictor, accounting for 11 percent of the predictive power. The study also found neuroticism to be significantly positively correlated with CWB, while openness to experience and extraversion recorded no significant relationships. Sub-clinical psychopathy, the stronger predictor of CWB, was also found to be significantly positively correlated with CWB. Also, Sulea et al. (2013) examined the moderating effects of personality with counterproductive work behaviours and abusive supervision. They sampled and tested 286 employees from three large Romanian organizations on the variables under investigation using a non-probabilistic convenience sampling technique. The survey design was used to collect data from participants, which was then analysed using moderated hierarchical regression. The results showed a positive correlation between abusive supervision and organizational CWB, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 33 while the personality variables of conscientiousness, emotional stability and agreeableness were negatively correlated. In addition, the interaction between the personality dimensions was significant such that when each was low, the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational CWB was stronger. As such, the findings demonstrated that employees experiencing abuse were more likely to engage in CWB-O, as were employees with low levels of conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability. This study emphasised the importance of managers treating their employees fairly by highlighting the consequences of unfair treatment. The study also emphasised the importance of understanding some employees' sensitivity to abuse and predicting their potentially harmful reactions to the company in such situations, as these were important tools for personnel selection, placement, and management. Employees are more likely to engage in CWB-O when abusive supervision is perceived to be present, and they may do so with increasing frequency or severity as abusiveness increases. The study was limited, however, by its concurrent data collection, which did not allow for the drawing of causal inferences between abuse and CWB- O, emphasising the need for a longitudinal research design to fully enable conclusions for generalisation of results to other new work contexts. Despite the important roles that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play in developing countries' development efforts, the sector has been plagued by allegations of corruption, theft, and exploitation of vulnerable groups. Tahir and Shinwari (2019) conducted a study to investigate the relationship between employee personality traits and counterproductive work behaviour in the context of the social sector and NGOs. The researchers used a cross-sectional quantitative research design for this study. Using distributed questionnaires, data was collected on a convenience sample of 170 staff members from five NGOs operating in the social sector and working on projects related to capacity development, women's rights issues, internally displaced citizens, and victims of natural disasters. Counterproductive work behaviour was University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 34 measured based on the dimensions of sabotage, withdrawal, production deviance, theft and abuse whilst personality was measured using the five-factor personality dimensions. The results showed extraversion and conscientiousness were negatively related to employees' counterproductive work behaviours. This implies that outgoing, self-assured employees, as well as those who were hardworking, organised, and disciplined, were more likely to work in ways that reduced their chances of engaging in CWB. Openness to experience and neuroticism were also positively related to counterproductive work behaviour, intimating that staff members who are adventurous and experimental by their nature, as well as those who easily lose control of their emotional states, are more likely to switch between positive and negative work behaviours, increasing the likelihood of engaging in CWB. However, agreeableness was not significantly related to CWB. Likewise, Rahman et al., (2016) conducted a study aimed at assessing the role of personality, emotional intelligence, affectivity, emotional labour and emotional exhaustion with counterproductive work behaviour. The study conducted among a random sample of 512 frontline staff working across 25 ministries found a significant negative relationship between agreeableness and conscientiousness and CWB and a positive relationship between neuroticism and CWB. This implies that frontline employees in the Malaysian public sector who have low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness and are thus uncooperative, disorganised, and lazy, are more likely to engage in CWB. Also, employees who are unable to maintain stable emotions, resulting in excessive anxiety and depression, are more likely to engage in CWB at work. The relationship between extraversion and openness to experience with CWB however reported no significant differences. According to the study, adequate emotional intelligence training, supervisor support, and a friendly and social work environment can help employees identify themselves with the organisation and its goals, leading to the internalisation of organisational norms relating to emotional displays, which can help reduce their emotional University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 35 exhaustion and instances of CWBs. The study was again limited by its data source, which was primarily employee self-reports. The inclusion of supervisor and manager reports would help to eliminate the effects of common variance bias. Barrick et al. (2001) sought to expand the organizational psychology knowledge base by examining personality’s role in determining performance by conducting a quantitative meta- analytic review of 15 other meta-analytic studies that have investigated the relationship between the Five Factor Model (FFM) personality traits and job performance. First, striking similarities were discovered in the findings of other meta-analytic studies measuring the same variables that had previously been reported. Conscientiousness was also found to be the most reliable predictor of overall performance across the various occupational groups studied. Employees who are hardworking, persistent, organised, efficient, and goal-oriented are more likely to perform well at work and, as a result, engage in less counterproductive work behaviour. More specifically, the study found that, while emotional stability was predictive of overall performance, it was less predictive of specific job performance and thus inadequate for predicting counterproductive work behaviour within specific occupational groups. Again, this study discovered that extraversion was a reliable predictor of performance within occupational groups where interactions with others are a significant portion of the job, but poor in predicting general overall performance. The study also found that openness to experience and agreeableness were unreliable predictors of both general job performance and occupational job performance. This implies that openness to experience and agreeableness are not fundamental individual differences variables that determine and predict engagement in counterproductive behaviours on a general or job-specific level. Lastly, Thakur (2017) aimed to investigate the relationship between counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) and personality (Big Five) within the context of a manufacturing industry situated in Baddi, a province in India. The researcher collected responses from 300 employees University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 36 and their supervisors in production and manufacturing organisations using a convenient sampling method. The findings revealed a relationship between CWB-O and CWB-I and Big Five personality traits, except for extraversion which had a weak correlation with both CWB- O and CWB-I. It was discovered that agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism, as well as openness to experience, were associated with higher overall CWB reliability. Agreeableness was found to have a negative relationship with CWB-O and CWB-I, indicating that employees with high agreeableness were less likely to engage in CWB. This study also revealed a negative relationship between conscientiousness and CWB-O and CWB-I. Employees who present themselves as highly conscientious in terms of task planning, organisation, and execution are less likely to exhibit CWBs, according to the findings. In the case of the neuroticism factor, a lower score indicates better emotional adjustment, impulse control, and stress management (Costa & McCrae, 2007). Employees with low neuroticism were thus less likely to engage in counterproductive behaviour both in front of the organisation and co-workers (Jensen & Patel, 2011). Openness to experience was also found to be negatively related to CWB-O and CWB-I intimating that employees high on the openness trait who were imaginative, risk-taking and curious were less likely to engage in CWB. 2.3 Rationale of the Study There have been several studies conducted on the situational and dispositional antecedents of counterproductive work behaviour. These studies have focused on workplace deviance, organizational deviance and counterproductive work behaviour measured at the individual level (Guay et al., 2016; Lim et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2020). Other studies reviewed have also used measures that compared authentic leadership to employees’ workplace behaviour, overall employee performance and organizational deviance (Wang et al., 2012; Erkutlu & Chafra, 2013; Qureshi & Hassan, 2019). Again, almost all the studies reviewed investigated personality using the individual employee as the focal point, even though it has been well established that University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR, AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 37 situational and individual differences within the unit combine to produce organizational-level outcomes (Chu et al., 2019; Penney et al., 2011). Some studies on the relationship between personality and CWB focused on the most valid trait predictors of CWB (conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability), ignoring the other two trait dimensions. Additionally, there appears to be some inconsistency in the relationship between openness to experience in predicting counterproductive work behaviour. Ozbag (2019) and Lim et al. (2016), for example, discovered no significant relationshi