21

Interactional Effect of Various Factors
on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors
Yutaka Ueda
1. Introduction
1-1. The Concept of Organizational Retaliatory Behavior
Since two pioneering papers were published in the early 1980s, organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB) has received considerable attention from organizational
behavior (OB) researchers. Job satisfaction has been a fundamental antecedent of OCB
since the earliest studies on this subject (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, &Near, 1983; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Satisfied individuals are considered
to feel obliged to the organization that offers good treatment and subsequently perform
extra-role contributive behaviors, such as OCB, toward it (Organ, 1988). Furthermore,various individual factors such as attitude, perception, and disposition have been
considered antecedents of OCB (Organ et al., 2006).
Rather than focusing on contributive behaviors to the organization, some researchers
pay attention to employee behaviors that hinder the organization’s effectiveness.
Different researchers have considered various concepts to represent these employees’
negative behaviors toward the organization, such as anti-social behavior (Aquino &Douglas, 2003), work place deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), andcounterproductive work behavior (Sackett, Berry, Wiemann, & Laczo, 2009).
Organizational retaliatory behavior (ORB) was a concept initially proposed by
Skarlicki and Folger (1997). They defined ORB as “adverse reactions to perceived
unfairness by disgruntled employees toward their employer” (p.434). Jones (2009)indicated that “(d)espite conceptual differences among these constructs, they aremeasured in largely the same way” (p.526). However, ORB differs from other concepts
in that it acts as a response to dissatisfactory or unfair treatment from the organization.
For example, some individuals might feign illness to take a vacation or steal small goods
owned by the organization or a coworker regardless of whether they are satisfied withthe organization. These behaviors are not classified as ORB. ORB is conceptually

22

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

limited to behaviors performed as “retaliation” against the organization.
Skarlicki and Folger (1997) referred to referent cognitions theory (Folger, 1987,
1993) as the theoretical basis for dealing with an individual’s retaliation against theorganization. According to them, this theory suggests that “people refer to cognitive
standards for evaluating certain levels of treatment or rewards based on past events,
referent others, and implicit and explicit promises” (p.435). This cognitive standard
determines the degree to which individuals feel dissatisfied and retaliate against theorganization in response to their dissatisfaction. Although Skarlicki and Folger (1997)
emphasized retaliation as a response to unfair treatment by the organization, retaliation
could occur depending on dissatisfaction with various situations in and around theorganization, even if they do not recognize the organization’s injustice treatment.
As can be seen from these descriptions, ORB is regarded as behavior aimed at“getting even” with the organization. However, it should be noted that most ORBs are
not overt. As Skarlicki and Folger (1997) also described, every individual is “lesspowerful than the source of the perceived injustice (e.g., the boss or the corporation),”and most of their ORBs are “subtle and covert forms of retaliation that are not as
dramatic but still might have adverse consequences for an organization’s effectivefunctioning” (p.434). For example, an individual might take home a cheap ballpoint pen
from an organization. A one-breakage ballpoint pen is of little value for the organizationand even the employee who steals it. Even so, individuals sometimes receive consolationin getting such a small pen.
On the other hand, perceived excessive benefits from the organization serve as a cue
to perform OCB (Organ, 1988). In other words, individuals’ perception of organizational
injustice affects their OCB toward the organization. Therefore, from the standpoint oforganizational justice, ORB is in opposition to OCB. This idea is consistent with that of
Skarlicki and Folger (1997), who described “the withdrawal of citizenship behaviors” asa more covert form of retaliation (p.434).
Although the idea of organizational justice or equity appropriately serves as thereason for performing OCB, as described above, OCB research has examined the effectof various attitudinal factors on OCB. ORB can also be considered to stem fromdissatisfaction arising from unfair treatment by the organization. The range oforganizational justice is extensive. For example, poor human relations in the workplace
are regarded as one of the shortcomings of interactional justice. An unfavorable work

Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

23

environment is considered to neglect the distributive justice of the organization.
Therefore, even if ORB has been theoretically discussed according to organizational
justice theory, it is considered to be affected by various attitudinal factors, such as job
satisfaction and organizational commitment.
This study aimed to empirically examine whether various attitudinal factors, whichhave been confirmed as antecedents of OCB, also influence ORB. Each study describedin the following sections is based on the shared data described below. One of thesignificant features of this study is that each study considered the main effect of thesefactors and the interactional effect of two factors on ORB.

1-2. Data Collection Method
The author contracted Macromill Corp. to collect data on ORB and other variablesfrom working persons via the Internet. The corporation has registered people who canbe surveyed at the company’s request. Data were collected in February 2021. A total of
416 workers participated in this study. As the author asked the company to collect data
equally from male and female workers, there were an equal number of male and female
respondents, 213 each. Their ages ranged from 20 to 60 years, with an average age of
39.98. About 46% were unmarried and about 54% were married. While the author andcompany did not specify the respondents’ nationality, most respondents were thought tobe Japanese because all the questionnaire items were presented to them in Japanese.

1-3. Whole Structure of The Paper
Utilizing the above data, the effect of two factors on ORB was empirically examinedin this study. Specifically, the effect of a different combination of two factors on ORB
will be dealt with in each chapter as follows.
Role ambiguity and job satisfaction (Chapter 2)
This study examined whether role ambiguity moderates the negative effect of job
satisfaction on ORB. It reveals a positive effect of role ambiguity on ORB and amoderating effect on the relationship between job satisfaction and ORB. The negative
effect of job satisfaction on ORB was significant only when role ambiguity was high.
Role overload and job satisfaction (Chapter 3)This study examined whether role overload affects ORB. Role overload also has a

24

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

moderating effect on the job satisfaction and ORB relationship, which means that asignificantly negative impact of job satisfaction is only found when role overload is low.
Perceived person-job fit and job satisfaction (Chapter 4)This study examined the interactional effect of job satisfaction and perceived
person-job fit (PJF) on ORB. PJF is an individual’s perception of his or her aptitude or
skills for his or her job. It reveals that job satisfaction negatively influences ORB when
PJF is high. However, when PJF is low, job satisfaction unexpectedly positively affects
ORB. These results indicate that more ORB is performed when one job-related factor ishigh and the other is low.
Organizational commitment and career commitment (Chapter 5)This study empirically examined the interactional effects of organizational andcareer commitment on ORB. The results revealed that only career commitment
significantly affected ORB when both commitment variables were entered into theregression. Contrary to our hypothesis, a positive effect of organizational commitment
on ORB was observed when career commitment was low.
General Overview and Conclusion (Chapter 6)
The final chapter provides an overview and conclusion.

2. The Effect of Role Ambiguity and Job Satisfaction1
2-1. Effect of Role Ambiguity
Organizational retaliatory behavior (ORB) is an action performed in response toorganizational injustice. Individuals’ attitudes toward their jobs and the organization are
critical factors that affect ORB. In a previous study, the author found that job
satisfaction negatively affects ORB (Ueda, 2021). This study examined whether theeffect of job satisfaction on ORB is moderated by role ambiguity.
A role is a set of expectations regarding individuals’ behavior in an organization. A
clear definition of one’s role is necessary and desirable for individuals within theorganization, as it helps them recognize what they should do and what they expect fromcoworkers. In contrast, role ambiguity “occurs when behavioral expectations associated1

An earlier version of this chapter was introduced as “Moderating Effect of Role Ambiguity on the Relationshipbetween Job Satisfaction and Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors” Discussion Paper Series, No. 166, Seikei
University, March 2022.

Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

25

with a role are vague, imprecise, or unclear to a role occupant” (Carter & Harper, 2016,p. 1).
Role ambiguity combined with role conflict and overload is often considered acause of role stress. Therefore, these three variables were treated as proxy variables forrole stress (Peterson et al., 1995). Role stress negatively affects working individuals’
motivation to engage in OCB. Contrary to Organ’s (1988) original concept of OCB,
OCB is sometimes compulsorily performed within an organization (Vigoda-Gadot,
2006, 2007). In such cases, compulsory OCB may be a source of stress. However, therole stress caused by role ambiguity negatively affects OCB.
Discontent and stress caused by high role ambiguity might induce ORB, as ORB issometimes performed to relieve stress. If so, role ambiguity is considered to positively
affect ORB.
Furthermore, role ambiguity affects job satisfaction. Although a negative correlation
between role ambiguity and job satisfaction is expected, individuals are satisfied withmany factors other than role characteristics. They sometimes have high job satisfaction
with high role ambiguity, or low satisfaction with low role ambiguity. In the case of lowrole ambiguity, individuals become aware of their capabilities and effectiveness within
the organization. If satisfied, they are less likely to choose behaviors that negate thevalues of the organization and themselves. Conversely, when role ambiguity is high,individuals do not understand their value and position in the organization. They do notknow the relationship between the organization and themselves. Even if their job
satisfaction is high, they are not considered to have a lower ORB. In other words, roleambiguity moderates the effect of job satisfaction on ORB.
Based on the above argument, the following hypotheses can be proposed.
H1. Role ambiguity negatively affects ORB.
H2. Role ambiguity moderates the relationship between job satisfaction and ORB.
Specifically, the negative effect of job satisfaction on ORB is weaker when roleambiguity is low than when it is high.

26

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

2-2. Method
Participants
Data described in Section 1-3 were utilized.
MeasuresJob satisfaction. Brayfield and Rothe (1951) developed 18 items to measure overall
job satisfaction, and a six-item version of the same was created by Agho, Price, andMueller (1992). Job satisfaction was measured as the mean response to Agho et al.’s(1992) six-item version on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). The
Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.826 in this study.
Role ambiguity. Peterson et al. (1995) regarded role conflict, role ambiguity, androle overload as components of role stress, and investigated the impact of cultural
factors on these elements. Subsequently, the mean of the five-item scale for roleambiguity was calculated. All the scales ranged from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). The
Cronbach’s alpha for role ambiguity was 0.781, implying that both met the criteria forinternal reliability (> 0.7).
Organizational retaliatory behavior. A 17-item ORB scale was developed by
Skarlicki and Folger (1997). However, only eight were utilized to measure ORB in thisstudy, as, from a Japanese standpoint, some items were inappropriate for measuring
ORB. This is because revealing certain transgressions (such as “on purpose, damaged
equipment or work process” or “disobeyed a supervisor’s instructions”) may render
respondents liable to criminal prosecution or subject to disciplinary action. Cronbach’s
alpha for the remaining eight items was 0.786.
Gender and age. Gender (male =1, female =2) and age (real) were used as control
variables.

Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

27

2-3. Result
Basic Statistics and Intercorrelations among Variables
Table 2-1 Basic Statistics and Intercorrelations of Variables

GenderStd.
Mean
Deviation
1.500
0.501

Age

39.976

10.886-0.028Job Satisfaction (JS)

3.037

0.834

*

Role Ambiguity (RA)ORB

variblesGender

Age

JS

RA

ORB

─
─

2.635

0.762

0.103
0.008

0.118*-0.0882.211

0.666 -.162-0.080**(0.826)-0.580**(0.781)-0.253

**

0.291

**

(0.786)

N = 416, ** : p < 0.001, * : p < 0.05

Table 2-1 shows the basic statistics and intercorrelations for the variables.
Cronbach’s alphas of the variables are placed diagonally in the table. According to theresults of the correlation analysis, gender has a significantly negative correlation with
ORB (γ = –0.162, p < 0.01), which means that female employees tend to engage infewer ORBs than their male counterparts. There was no significant correlation between
age and ORB (γ = –0.080, n.s.). As expected, ORBs were significantly negatively
correlated with job satisfaction (γ = –0.253, p < 0.01) and significantly positively
correlated with role ambiguity (γ = 0.291, p < 0.01). Assuming a causal relationshipbetween these variables, individuals’ ORB increases when they have low job satisfaction
or when their roles are highly ambiguous.

28

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Table 2-2 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Unstandardized
CoefficientsModel
1 (Constant)

B
Std. Error
2.745
0.158

Standardized
CoefficientsBetat
17.355Sig.
<0.001F

Gender

-0.2190.064-0.164-3.3940.001 7.119**Age-0.0050.003-0.084-1.7430.082

2 (Constant)

2.649

0.153

17.293<0.001

Gender

-0.2060.062-0.155-3.3220.001

Age-0.0030.003-0.052-1.1240.262 14.155**

Job Satisfaction (JS)-0.0770.046-0.097-1.6860.093

Role Ambiguity (RA)

0.202

0.050

0.231

4.059

<0.0013 (Constant)

2.705

0.148

18.274<0.001

Gender

-0.2170.060-0.163-3.624<0.001Age-0.0020.003-0.036-0.794

0.428

Job Satisfaction (JS)-0.1000.044-0.125-2.241

0.026

Role Ambiguity (RA)

0.205

0.048

0.235

4.279

<0.001

JS×RA
Dependent Variable: ORB

0.219

0.039

0.255

5.663

<0.00118.595**

Adj R2
0.029

0.133

0.175

Table 2-2 presents the results of hierarchical regression analysis. In this analysis,
gender and age were entered first, followed by job satisfaction and role ambiguity.
Finally, the products of job satisfaction and role ambiguity were entered to examine
their interactional effects. As expected from the results of the correlation analysis,
gender had a significantly negative impact on ORB in the first step. The negative effectof age on ORB was marginally significant (β = –0.084, p = 0.082). In the second step,
ORB was negatively affected by job satisfaction (β = –0.097, p = 0.093) and positively
affected by role ambiguity (β = –0.084, p < 0.001), which was also expected. However,the significance of the impact of job satisfaction was not sufficiently low. Finally, asignificant positive impact was observed on the interaction between job satisfaction androle ambiguity (β = 0.255, p < 0.001). Although the effect of job satisfaction on ORB is
expected to be canceled when role ambiguity is high and to increase when it is low,further examination through a simple slope analysis is necessary.

Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

29

Simple Slope Analysis

Figure 2-1 Result of Simple Slope Analysis
Figure 2-1 depicts the results of simple slope analysis. Based on a conventional idea
regarding this analysis, means ± one standard deviation was adopted as the criterion forthe high and low values of the variables. As shown in this figure, in the case of low roleambiguity, ORB is lowered with enhanced job satisfaction (gradient of slope: –0.267,
t-value: –4.810, p < 0.001). By contrast, when role ambiguity was high, the impact ofjob satisfaction on ORB was rendered insignificant (gradient of slope = 0.068, t-value =1.324, p = 0.186). It was hypothesized that the effect of job satisfaction would bestronger when role ambiguity is low than when it is high. Although the effect of job
satisfaction is no longer significant with high role ambiguity, this result seems to
support our hypothesis.

2-4. Discussion and Conclusion
Based on past findings, in which job satisfaction negatively influences ORB, thisstudy further specifies the conditions under which this impact is actually shown.
Naturally, organizations should introduce various personnel policies that satisfy working
persons to minimize individuals’ ORB as much as possible. However, this wasinsuff icient. This study revealed that even satisf ied individuals perform ORBs,
depending on their role ambiguity. Even if they are satisfied with various organizational
personnel policies but stressed by the uncertainty of their role within the organization,

30

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

they are induced to perform ORB as a kind of tit-for-tat behavior toward their situation.
The organization must fully consider enhancing job satisfaction and role clarity.
Although this study demonstrates the interactional effects of job satisfaction androle ambiguity, it has some limitations. It assumes that role ambiguity leads to highstress, which increases ORB as the reason for the positive effect of role ambiguity on
ORB. However, this is only an inference, and there are no data on employee stresslevels. Future studies should empirically investigate the mediating role of stress in therelationship between role ambiguity and ORB by collecting more appropriate data. The
second limitation pertains to the relationship between role ambiguity and job
satisfaction. This study analyzed the interactional effects of these two variables.
However, role ambiguity means that individuals do not understand their roles or jobs,
and the meaning of job satisfaction is not strictly the same depending on role ambiguity.
If role ambiguity is low, employees are satisfied with the jobs they understand well.
However, in the case of high role ambiguity, they must judge whether they are satisfied
with such ambiguous jobs or with organization-level variables, such as an organizational
policy that provides them with an ambiguous job. Therefore, along this line ofconsideration, it might be simplistic to tackle the interactional effect of job satisfaction
and role ambiguity by calculating the product of the two variables and entering it into
the equation.
Despite these limitations, this study has academic significance in that it empiricallyreveals the effect of role ambiguity on ORB, which has not been examined previously.
Researchers are expected to pursue further studies on ORB to overcome the limitations
mentioned above.

3. The Effect of Role Overload and Job Satisfaction
3-1. The Differences between OCB and ORB
This study focuses on the effect of role overload on organizational retaliatory
behavior (ORB). Specifically, it considers that role overload could enhance job stress,
which is one of the sources of ORB. The author’s previous study revealed that job
satisfaction negatively affects ORB (Ueda, 2021). However, this study examines whetherrole overload has a moderating effect on this relationship using data collected differently
from the previous one. This study assumes that the negative effect of job satisfaction onInteractional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

31

ORB is stronger when role overload is higher than when it is low.
Individuals pursue OCB because they are willing to reciprocate various benefits
from the organization, not by task performance for which they are given little discretion,
but by discretionary extra-role contributive behaviors toward the organization (Organ,
1977, 1988).
According to Organ’s (1988) def inition, OCB is an individual’s voluntarily
performed behavior, even if nobody notices it. These behaviors are theoreticallyunrewarded. However, they are often rewarded or used as information for promotion
judgments (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993). Sometimes, employees perform
OCBs to create a good impression of themselves to those who see them (Bolino, 1999).
Because these behaviors are never bad for these individuals, few do not want others to
see their good behaviors. Further, even excessive OCB is tolerable unless it inhibits thefulfillment of a formal duty.
In contrast, ORB researchers assert that individuals retaliate by engaging in minor
destructive behaviors in response to the organization’s unfair treatment. Unlike OCB,
individuals need to consciously retaliate against the organization. No matter how
conscious they are of the organization’s unfair treatment, engaging in explicit retaliation
would be subject to disciplinary penalties. For example, a typical ORB is when
individuals take home a cheap ballpoint pen that the organization supplies, without
permission. Obtaining such an inexpensive pen is meaningless for these individuals.
Although this behavior is a violation of rules in the organization, the organization rarely
punishes individuals only for the action. However, such behavior might provide spiritual
comfort for individuals frustrated by the organization’s poor treatment. Most ORBs
should be performed as discreet behaviors that are not subject to disciplinary action,even if they are caught. Although it would serve as adequate consolation, individuals
never steal an expensive PC supplied by the organization because they might be fired if
it is brought to light. ORB is performed not to damage the organization but to obtain
psychological consolation for organizational frustration.

3-2. Effect of Role Overload
Job satisfaction is one of the essential factors that affect organizational behavior.
Researchers in the field of organizational behavior (OB) have also paid attention to job
satisfaction as the primary factor affecting OCB. The author’s previous study examined32

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

whether job satisfaction influences ORB and found a significantly negative impact ofjob satisfaction on ORB (Ueda, 2021). This result was expected because dissatisfied
employees perform ORB as a tit-for-tat behavior.
Role overload often becomes one of the severe problems associated withorganizational personnel management. Role overload increases workers’ physical andpsychological fatigue and harms them and their organization. Individuals who become
physically and psychologically exhausted because of role overload need an outlet to venttheir frustrations. However, it is not always realistic to complain about their condition
directly to a manager or explicitly act contrary to the organization’s rules. Thus, theycome to terms with their current condition by engaging in ORB without being seen by
their supervisor or coworkers. The following hypothesis can be proposed regarding theimpact of role overload on ORB.
H1: Role overload will positively influence ORB.
Furthermore, role overload is considered to affect ORB interactively with otherfactors. Specifically, we examined the relationship between role overload and job
satisfaction. As previously described, job satisfaction negatively affects ORB. However,this effect of job satisfaction on reducing ORB is considered limited to situations inwhich individuals have room to consider the organization and coworkers around them.
Individuals are vulnerable to the temptation to perform small destructive behaviors
when they feel stressed owing to the high burden of role overload. Thus, the impact ofjob satisfaction is considered weaker in such situations. This argument is proposed in
the following hypothesis.
H2: Role overload moderates the effect of job satisfaction on ORB. Specifically, thenegative impact of job satisfaction on ORB is weaker when role overload is high thanwhen it is low.

3-3. Method
Participants
Data described in Section 1-3 were utilized.
Measures
Role overload. Peterson et al. (1995) regarded role conflict, role ambiguity, and role
overload as component elements of role stress, and investigated the impact of theseInteractional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

33

elements on cultural factors. Subsequently, the mean of the responses on the five-item
scale for role overload was utilized. The scale ranged from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree).
Cronbach’s alpha for role overload was 0.846.
Job satisfaction, organizational retaliatory behavior, gender, and age were measured
using the method described in Section 2-2.

3-4. Result
Basic Statistics and Intercorrelations of Variables
Table 3-1 Basis Statistics and Intercorrelations of Variables

GenderStd.
GenderMean
Deviation
1.500
0.501
─

Age

39.976

10.886-0.028─

Job Satisfaction (JS)

3.037

0.834

0.103*

0.118*(0.826)

Role Overload (RO)

2.904

0.886

-0.047-0.021-0.273**(0.846)

ORB

2.211

0.666 -0.162**-0.080-0.253**0.167**

varibles

Age

JS

RO

ORB

(0.786)n = 416, ** : p < 0.01, * : p < 0.05

Table 3-1 shows means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the variables.
The values of Cronbach’s alpha are displayed on the diagonal line.
ORB had a significantly negative correlation with job satisfaction (γ = –0.253, p <0.01) and a significantly positive correlation with role overload (γ = 0.167, p < 0.01). It
may be assumed that job satisfaction has a negative impact, and role overload positively
affects ORB, but not vice versa.

34

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Table 3-2 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Unstandardized
CoefficientsModel
1 (Constant)Standardized
Coefficients

B
Std. Error
2.745
0.158

Beta

Gender

-0.2190.064-0.164-0.084Age-0.0050.003

2 (Constant)

2.626

0.155

Gender

-0.1830.063

Age-0.0040.003

Job Satisfaction (JS)

-0.163

Role Overload (RO)

0.078

t
17.355Sig.
<0.001-3.3940.001 7.119**F-1.7430.082

16.914<0.001-0.138-2.9150.004-0.057-1.2140.225 10.892**

0.039-0.204-4.132<0.001

0.037

0.104

2.131

0.034

3 (Constant)

2.651

0.153

17.350<0.001

Gender

-0.1980.062-0.149-3.1940.002

Age-0.0030.003-0.048-1.021

0.308

Job Satisfaction (JS)

-0.1690.039-0.212-4.371<0.001

Role Overload (RO)

0.094

0.036

0.125

2.587

0.010

JS×RO

0.137

0.035

0.181

3.878

<0.00112.018**

2

Adj R

0.029

0.087

0.117

a. Dependent Variable: ORB

The results of the hierarchical regression analysis using ORB as the dependent
variable are shown in Table 3-2. In this analysis, two controlling variables were enteredinto the regression equation in the first step. Job satisfaction as an independent variable
and role overload as a moderator were entered in the next step. Finally, the product ofjob satisfaction and role overload was entered into the equation to check theinteractional effect of these two variables.
As can be imagined from the correlational analysis above, job satisfaction had anegative impact (β = –0.204, p < 0.001), and role overload positively affected ORB (β =0.104, p < 0.034) in the second step, as expected. The effect of job satisfaction on ORB
has already been observed in our previous study using different data (Ueda, 2021).
Thus, it can be said that this is a relatively consistent result. The positive effect of role
overload on ORB is a novel finding of this study. This result implies that ORB is used as
an outlet for stress situations stemming from a high level of role overload. This result
supports H1.

Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

35

Finally, the interaction between the two variables had a significantly positive impact
on ORB (β = 0.181, p < 0.001). Combined with the signs of the coefficients of job
satisfaction and role overload, the positive sign of this coefficient means that the effectof one variable is more substantial when the other variable is low than when it is high.
However, the actual relationship between these two variables should be analyzed using
simple slope analysis.

Figure 3-1 Results of Simple Slope Analysis
Simple Slope Analysis
Finally, a simple slope analysis was conducted to examine the moderating effect ofrole overload on the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. As a matter ofconvention, means ± one standard deviation was adopted as the criterion of high or low
values of an independent variable and a moderator.
The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 3-1. According to this analysis,
when role overload was low, the effect of job satisfaction on ORB was –0.068 (t =–5.927, p < 0.001), indicating that job satisfaction had a significantly negative impact on
ORB. By contrast, when role overload is high, its effect is –0.302 (t = –1.400, p =0.162), which means we cannot conclude that job satisfaction has an effect on ORB.
This result is in accordance with H2.

36

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

3-5. Discussion and Conclusion
This study focuses on ORB as a contrapositive concept of OCB and empiricallyexamines the effect of role overload on ORB. Role overload was found to positively
affect ORB, and have a moderating impact on the negative effect of job satisfaction on
ORB. The latter suggests that establishing an organization’s personnel policies toenhance job satisfaction and inhibit role overload is necessary.
Both academic researchers and practitioners have considered job satisfaction
desirable for employees and organizations. Based on this premise, various personnel
policies have been implemented in the organization. For example, job enlargement andenrichment are the most typical policies introduced in several organizations. Policies
aimed at job enlargement and enrichment provide employees with various jobs or jobs
with decision-making authority regarding how to perform the jobs, based on the ideathat employees tend to dislike monotonous jobs or want to perform their job bythemselves. Although these policies are effective in many cases, they may carry asignificant risk of increasing role overload. Suppose that the implementation of thesepolicies enhances employees’ job satisfaction and role overload. In that case, they might
encourage employees to secretly perform minor deviant acts, which seriously affect theorganization if they are accumulated.
Role overload is not a characteristic of jobs given to employees and considerably
depends on how these employees perceive it. It is difficult or impossible to judge how
many jobs would induce too much role overload, because they are perceived differently
depending on the personality and skills of employees. An organization should carefully
consider these policies by considering each employee to increase their job satisfaction
without incurring role overload.
Despite its contribution to OB research, this study had several limitations. The first
concerns data collection. Even though the anonymity of respondents was guaranteed, it
is difficult for researchers to collect data regarding the employees’ transgressions
because no person wants to unmask themselves as villains, and they tend to avoid
expressing their destructive behaviors. Although each ORB is minor, a direct affirmative
response to the questionnaire regarding ORB might lead to the loss of a spiritually
healthy self. Appropriately collecting data is one of the most severe problems in ORB
research. The second limitation concerns the causal relationship between job overload
and ORB. It is challenging to directly associate role overload with ORB. Although we

Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

37

assumed a mediating effect of job stress on this relationship, this study did not trace therole of job stress. Future studies should examine the mediating effect of job stress orother processes by which role overload leads to ORB.
As mentioned initially, ORB has not received sufficient attention from researchers
in OB despite its importance. Although this study has some limitations, as describedabove, it can serve as a catalyst for researchers to pay attention to this critical aspect of
employee behavior.

4. Perceived Person-Job Fit and Job Satisfaction
4-1. Perceived Person-Job Fit
Previously, Ueda (2021) found that ORB was negatively affected by various types ofjob satisfaction. However, it is unclear whether job satisfaction affects ORB in any
condition. For example, although it is not a study on ORB, Ueda (2022a) revealed thatperceived person-job fit (PJF) moderated the effect of job satisfaction on OCB. Whilejob satisfaction is an attitudinal factor representing affective attachment to the job, PJF
is an individual’s perception of the fit of their aptitude and ability to do their job.
Although a high correlation is usually expected between job satisfaction and PJF, it isconceptually different. According to the empirical results of Ueda (2022a), when PJF ishigh and individuals are confident in their ability to do their job, they perform OCB
more actively in return for the benefits that the organization provides them. However, inthe case of low PJF, individuals are unsure about their performance skills and tend tohesitate to exhibit OCB, even if they feel high satisfaction with their job.
This study empirically examined the interactional effects of job satisfaction and PJF
on ORB. Because ORB is the opposite of OCB, PJF and its interaction with job
satisfaction are considered predictors of ORB.
PJF was f irst reported by Xie and Johns (1995). Their study examined themoderating effect of PJF on the U-shaped relationship between job scope and stress.
They considered PJF a subjective indicator of person-environment fit and defined it as“the job holder’s perceptions of the fit between job demands and his or her ability”(p.1292). They found that PJF negatively affects exhaustion and anxiety.
As described above, PJF is a job-related factor similar to job satisfaction; the former
is a perceptual factor, while the latter is an attitudinal factor. Although these two factors

38

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

are expected to have a relatively high positive correlation, it is not always so.
Sometimes, individuals are proud of their high job skills while being dissatisfied withcoworkers and salaries. Alternatively, although they are satisfied with their current
workplace, they may be distressed by their low level of job skills. These discrepancies
between attitudinal and perceptual factors may leave individuals with a feeling of selfcontradiction and stress.

4-2. Hypotheses
A previous study (Ueda, 2022a) revealed that PJF positively affects OCB andmoderates the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. According to this study,
job satisfaction had a significantly positive effect on OCB when PJF was high. No
significant relationship between job satisfaction and OCB was observed in employeeswith low PJF. It can be interpreted that regardless of how highly individuals are satisfied
with their job, they do not understand what contributes to the organization and thus have
low motivation to perform OCB if they have low PJF.
By contrast, this study deals with ORB. First, individuals will feel dissatisfied withthe organization if their roles do not match their ability and aptitude. In this case, apositive correlation between job satisfaction and PJF would be observed. Furthermore,
PJF is related to pride in working correctly. If employees have high PJF, they might
resist the temptation to perform ORB secretly. Then, PJF is considered to negatively
affect ORB.
Furthermore, the impact of job satisfaction differs depending on the level of PJF.
Employees feel highly stressed and dissatisfied if they have low PJF because they
consider that the organization refuses to give them appropriate jobs. Even if they aresatisfied with their jobs but not with their organizations, such high job satisfaction willaffect ORB less. Specifically, the negative impact of job satisfaction on ORB is weaker
when PJF is low than when it is high. This assumption is illustrated in Figure 4-1. In thisfigure, the two lines show the effect of job satisfaction on ORB, depending on PJF. Theline is placed higher, but its gradient is lower when PJF is lower than when it is high.
The following hypotheses can be proposed:
H1: PJF will have a negative impact on ORB.
H2: PJF will moderate the negative impact of job satisfaction on ORB. Specifically, theimpact of job satisfaction on ORB will be weaker when PJF is low than when it is high.

Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

39

Figure 4-1 Hypothesis on Impact of Two Factors on ORB

4-3. Method
Participants
Data described in Section 1-3 were utilized.
Measures
Perceived ability-job fit. Following Xie (1996), perceived ability-job fit wasmeasured as the mean of the responses to a five-item scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to
5 (agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale in this study was 0.744.
Job satisfaction, organizational retaliatory behavior, gender, and age were measured
using the method described in Section 2-2.

40

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

4-4. Result
Basic Statistics and Intercorrelations
Table 4-1 Basis Statistics and Intercorrelations of Variables

GenderStd.
Mean
Deviation
1.500
0.501

Age

39.976

10.886-0.028─

Job Satisfaction (JS)

3.037

0.834

0.103*

0.118*

Perceived Person-Job Fitness (PJF)

3.280

0.735

0.049

*

ORB

2.211

0.666 -0.162**

Variables

gender

age

JS

PJF

ORB

─

0.107

-0.080(0.826)0.699**(0.744)**-0.334-0.253**(0.786)

N = 416, ** : p < 0.01, * : p < 0.05

As shown in Table 4-1, the correlation between job satisfaction and PJF is very
high, as expected. ORB has a significantly negative correlation with job satisfaction (γ =–0.253, p < 0.01) and PJF (γ = –0.334, p < 0.01), which is also expected from ourhypothesis.
Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Table 4-2 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta

Model
1 (Constant)

2.745

0.158

Gender

-0.2190.064-0.164-0.084Age-0.0050.003

2 (Constant)

2.623

0.152

Gender

-0.1950.061

Age-0.003

Job Satisfaction (JS)-0.011

Perceived Job Fitness (PJF)-0.312Sig.
F

17.355<0.001-3.3940.001-1.7430.082

17.279<0.001-0.146-3.173

0.002

0.003

-0.049-1.058

0.290

0.052

-0.014-0.2200.826-0.2830.058

3 (Constant)

2.670

0.148

Gender

-0.1970.060

Age-0.002

Job Satisfaction (JS)-0.014

Perceived Job Fitness (PJF)
JS×PJFa. Dependent Variable: ORB

t-4.863<0.00118.100<0.001-0.148-3.308

0.001

0.003

-0.031-0.683

0.495

0.050

-0.017-0.2750.784-0.3150.057-0.347-5.546<0.001-0.2070.040-0.234-5.181<0.001

2

7.119**

Adj R
0.029

16.118**0.127

19.073**0.179

Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

41

Next, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the main andinteractional effects of job satisfaction and PJF on ORB. Gender and age were enteredinto the equation in the first step, and two job-related factors were added in the second
step. Finally, the results of job satisfaction and PJF were included.
Table 4-2 shows that although job satisfaction has a signif icantly negative
correlation with ORB, it has no significant effect on ORB when simultaneously entering
PJF as another explanatory variable in the second step (β = –0.014, n.s.). However, the
VFI is lower than 2.0, which means an effect of multicolinearity on this result may bedisregarded. In the third step, the interaction between job satisfaction and PJF issignificantly negative (β = –0.234, p < 0.001). This negative coefficient is also as
expected from our hypothesis.
Simple Slope Analysis

Figure 4-2 Simple Slope Analysis
Finally, a simple slope analysis was conducted to confirm whether PJF moderated
the effect of job satisfaction on ORB. According to the convention, means ± one
standard deviation was adopted as the high and low criteria for each variable.
Figure 4-2 depicts this moderating effect. This figure shows that more ORBs areobserved when PJF is low than when it is high. This result was as expected due to thesignificant positive effect of PJF on ORB (Table 4-2). More importantly, job satisfaction
had a significant negative effect on ORB when PJF was high (gradient of slope was

42

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）–0.185, t = –3.160, p = 0.002), whereas its effect on ORB was significantly positive
when PJF was low (gradient of slope was 0.121, t = 2.081, p = 0.038). This is an
unexpected result. The probable cause of this finding is discussed in the next section.

4-5. Discussion and Conclusion
According to the results of the hierarchical regression analysis, with job satisfaction
and PJF as exploratory variables, the effect of job satisfaction on ORB was not
significant. However, when the simple slope analysis considered high and low PJF
situations separately, the effect of job satisfaction was significant in both cases: anegative effect when PJF was high and a positive impact when it was low.
Job satisfaction initially had a negative correlation with ORB. Considering PJF as amoderator in this relationship, the negative impact of job satisfaction on ORB in thecase of high PJF was as expected. However, job satisfaction positively affected ORB
when PJF was low. This result is unexpected.
Researchers have found that self-efficacy is positively related to job satisfaction.
Self-efficacy is associated with PJF, and PJF is also expected to be positively correlatedwith job satisfaction. However, individuals with low PJF and high job satisfaction wereplaced under a self-contradictory condition. There are two probable reasons why job
satisfaction positively affected ORB in this situation.
One possible reason is that when individuals like their job but recognize that theylack the ability to perform it, they feel highly stressed. This highly stressful condition
caused by a feeling of self-contradiction is considered to trigger ORB.
The other possible reason is that ORB might positively affect job satisfaction, rather
than job satisfaction influencing ORB. Individuals may relieve their stress by performing
minor ORBs. However, the validity of this idea should be carefully examined because itleads to the assumption that job-satisfied employees with low self-efficacy might engage
in wrongful behavior behind the scenes.
Individuals with high PJF and low job satisfaction also had a self-contradictory
condition. However, they have great pride in executing their jobs, which might inhibit
ORB.
However, these explanations are based only on inference and not on empiricalanalyses. Future studies should reveal the complicated interactional effects of the two
job-related factors on ORB. In past research on organizational behavior, individuals’Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

43high job satisfaction unconditionally had a desirable effect on them and theorganization. This study’s finding of a positive relationship between job satisfaction and
ORB under some conditions, such as low PJF, is essential for future research.

5. The Effect of Career Commitment and Organizational Commitment
5-1. Introduction
Researchers have found that various attitudinal factors positively or negatively affect
OCB. The earliest studies on OCB focused on the effect of job satisfaction on OCB
among attitudinal factors (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), andorganizational commitment has also been considered an antecedent of OCB (Organ,
Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006 for a review).
According to Meyer and Allen (1991), organizational commitment comprises
affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Affective organizational
commitment is an emotional or psychological attachment to an organization. Although
the organization is a crucial entity for most employees, it is not the only target to which
they feel a psychological attachment. Affective attachment to a career is career
commitment. The organization holds a crucial position in their careers, and career
commitment is closely related to organizational commitment. Career commitment is anentirely different attitudinal factor from organizational commitment because individuals
can consider their career without a relationship with a specific organization if theyattempt to do so. Moreover, the traditional lifetime employment system appears to havealready been disrupted in the Japanese labor market. Thus, it is necessary to address theeffect of career commitment, apart from organizational commitment, on individuals’
behavior.
The author empirically examined the effect of organizational and career
commitment on OCB and found a moderating effect of career commitment on therelationship between organizational commitment and OCB (Ueda, 2022c). Specifically,a significant positive effect of organizational commitment on OCB was observed whencareer commitment was high. By contrast, this effect became insignificant when career
commitment was low.
In contrast to OCB, ORB has received less attention from researchers, despite its
severe effect on the organization if accumulated for a long time. This study empirically44

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

examines the effects of organizational and career commitment on ORB. Even if ORB isconsidered an opposite concept of OCB, it may not be the reason for performing ORB.
Therefore, we must investigate and consider their effect on ORB separately from that on
OCB.

5-2. Effect of Organizational and Career Commitment on ORB
The author examined the effect of various kinds of job satisfaction on ORB andfound that the effects on ORB were different depending on what individuals weresatisfied with (Ueda, 2021). While satisfaction with work itself, supervisors, andcoworkers negatively affected ORB, satisfaction with pay did not significantly influence
ORB (Ueda, 2021).
Organizational commitment has received much attention as an antecedent of OCB,
similar to job satisfaction. If ORB is considered in contrast to OCB, low affective
organizational commitment is expected to lead to high ORB. However, because ORB isa type of criminal behavior, individuals with low affective organizational commitment
do not always perform such behaviors. This type of behavior is related to individuals’
vocational ethics. Career commitment is considered one such vocational ethic.
Career commitment is simply defined as “s the willingness or desire of employees
to keep their jobs and embodies the development of personal career goals as well as
identification with and involvement in those goals” (Zhang, Wu, Miao, Yan, & Peng,2014, p.811). By referring to Vandenberghe and Ok (2013), Arora and Rangnekar(2016) also considered that “career commitment should be viewed as an attitude that
fulfills the goal of personal advancement and is a reflection of one’s commitment to
one’s personal goals” (p.14). An important point regarding this definition of career
commitment is that it is a commitment to the goal of personal advancement. In otherwords, career commitment is associated with individuals’ life objectives rather than withthe organization to which they belong. As exemplified by Arora and Rangnekar (2016),
who focused on the effect of personality factors such as conscientiousness andagreeableness on career commitment, factors unrelated to the organization are often
considered antecedents of career commitment.
How does career commitment affect ORB? Career commitment can also be
considered a variable that represents the degree to which individuals emphasize theirown lives and position their vocations as a means of attaining their life objectives.

Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

45

Individuals with high career commitment tend to hesitate to perform ORB as tit-for-tat
behavior toward the organization because such ORB is not beneficial to them andinvolves significant risk to their career. Career commitment has a negative impact on
ORB.
Furthermore, career commitment moderated the relationship between affective
organizational commitment and ORB. When career commitment is high, individuals
tend to have a solid motivation to defend their career; they hesitate to perform ORB,
regardless of the degree of affective organizational commitment. In other words, thepositive effect of affective organizational commitment is weak when career commitment
is high. In contrast, the expected effect of affective organizational commitment on ORB
is observed when career commitment is low. Therefore, the following hypotheses were
proposed:
H1: Affective organizational commitment will have a negative impact on ORB.
H2: Career commitment will have a negative impact on ORB.
H3: Career commitment will moderate the effect of affective organizational
commitment on ORB. Specifically, the negative impact of affective organizational
commitment is more substantial when career commitment is low than when it is high.

5-3. Method
Participants
Data described in Section 1-3 were utilized.
Measures
Organizational commitment. Following Marsden, Kalleberg, and Cook (1993),
organizational commitment was measured as the mean response to their six-item scaleranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). While Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed a threecomponent organizational commitment model comprising affective, continuance, andnormative commitments, Marsden et al.’s (1993) items were primarily associated withaffective commitment. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.826 in this study.
Career commitment. To measure career commitment, the mean of the responses on
the seven-item scale developed by Blau (1999), ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree),was utilized. This scale has been widely utilized to assess an individual’s commitment totheir occupation and career. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale in this study was 0.877.

46

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

Organizational retaliatory behavior, gender, and age were measured using themethods described in Section 2-2.

5-4. Result
Table 5-1 Basis Statistics and Intercorrelations of Variables

GenderStd.
Deviation
1.500
0.501

Age

39.976variables

Mean

10.886gender

age

OC

CC

ORB

─
-0.028─

Organizational Commitment (OC)

2.730

0.823

0.002

0.072

(0.826)Career Commitment (CC)

2.988

0.918

0.071

0.085

0.771**(0.877)

ORB

2.211

0.666 -0.162**-0.080-0.115*-0.211**(0.786)

N = 416, **: p < 0.01 * : p < 0.05

Table 5-1 shows means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the variables.
Two commitment variables have a highly positive correlation (γ = 0.771, p < 0.01).
From this result, focusing on only one commitment variable might be enough toconsider the effect of such commitment on ORB. However, this correlation value meansthat some individuals have high affective commitment and low career commitment orvice versa. Then, it is necessary to address their interactional effect on ORB. ORB has
significant negative correlations with affective organizational commitment (γ = –0.115,
p < 0.05) and career commitment (γ = –0.211, p < 0.01), which is as expected.

47Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

Table 5-2 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta

Model
1 (Constant)

2.745

0.158

Gender

-0.2190.064-0.164-0.084Age-0.0050.003

2 (Constant)

2.666

0.156

Gender

-0.1920.064

Age-0.004

Organizational Commitment (OC)0.080

Career Commitment (CC)-0.197tSig.
F

17.355<0.001-3.3940.001-1.7430.082

17.063<0.001-0.145-3.029

0.003

0.003

-0.068-1.425

0.155

0.061

0.099

1.326

0.186

0.054

-0.272-3.620<0.0013 (Constant)

2.752

0.151

18.177<0.001

Gender

-0.191

0.061-0.143-3.1130.002

Age-0.0040.003-0.058-1.256

0.210

Organizational Commitment (OC)

0.065

0.058

0.081

1.120

0.263

Career Commitment (CC)-0.2130.053-0.294-4.059<0.001

OC×CC-0.1950.034-0.262-5.673<0.001

2

7.119**

Adj R
0.029

8.307**

0.066

13.585**0.132

a. Dependent Variable: ORB

Next, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test the main andinteractional effects of the two commitment variables on ORB (Table 5-2). In thisanalysis, two control variables were entered into the equation first, and then thecommitment variables were added. Finally, the interaction between the two commitment
variables was entered. In the second step, while career commitment had a negative
impact on ORB (β = –0.272, p < 0.001), as expected, the effect of affective
organizational commitment on ORB was not significant (β = 0.099, n.s.). This result
indicates that H2 is supported but H1 is not. The VIFs of the two commitment variables
were checked and found to be less than 2.60, which means that the effect ofmulticollinearity did not have to be considered. Finally, the interaction between the twocommitment variables negatively influenced ORB (β = –0.262, p < 0.001). This result
implies that the effect of one variable is more substantial when that of the other variable
is low. This prediction was confirmed by simple slope analysis.

48

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

Figure 5-1 Simple Slope Analysis
Figure 5-1 depicts the results of a simple slope analysis. According to a conventional
idea, means ± one standard deviation was adopted as the criterion for the variables’ low
and high values. This figure shows the effect of affective organizational commitment(OC in Figure 5-1) on ORB depending on career commitment (CC in Figure 5-1). When
career commitment was low, the gradient of the slope of affective organizational
commitment was 0.245 (t = 3.727, p < 0.001). However, it became –0.114 (t = –1.670, p= 0.096) in the case of high career commitment. This result contradicts H3.

5-5. Discussion and Conclusion
According to the results in Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1 in the previous section, career
commitment moderated the effect of affective organizational commitment on ORB.
However, contrary to our hypothesis, affective organizational commitment has a positive
impact on ORB at a low career commitment condition and a negative impact at a highlevel. From this result, the insignificant effect of affective organizational commitment
on ORB in the hierarchical regression analysis in Table 2 might be due to its different
impacts on ORB, depending on high or low career commitment.
First, the positive impact of affective organizational commitment on ORB in thecase of high career commitment means that it is necessary, but not sufficient, for theorganization to focus on employee affective organizational commitment to decrease
ORB. The organization should take care of the two employee commitments in workforce

Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

49

management. It is undesirable to neglect the importance of career commitment becausesuch commitment is an individual personality matter.
However, the positive impact of affective organizational commitment in the case of
low career commitment is shocking. There are two possible reasons for this. One
possible reason is that individuals feel high stress when they face self-contradiction
stemming from high affective organizational commitment and low career commitment,
which may increase ORB. The other reason is based on the moral licensing model ofKlots and Bolino (2013). According to this idea, individuals seek to balance their
excellent and destructive behaviors. High affective organizational commitment enhances
OCB, and individuals tend to consider that they are permitted to perform ORB unless it
is equated with OCB. Individuals with high career commitment do not perform ORB
because their careers might be denigrated if their ORB is exposed. However, they takelittle consideration if they have low career commitment. Additional data are needed toconfirm these inferences.
This study examines how these two commitment variables affect ORB. As alreadydescribed, some empirical results contradict our initial hypotheses. Although possible
reasons were inferred, no data were available to confirm them. This was the firstlimitation of the present study. Furthermore, the questionnaire asked the respondents toindicate their ORB. However, each item of the ORB scale utilized in this study waseasily recognized by the respondents as bad behavior toward the organization. Thus, it isuncertain whether the respondents answered these items honestly. Nevertheless, it isalso difficult for a supervisor or peer to evaluate these behaviors because most of thesebehaviors are often hidden. Although a similar problem has been addressed in OCB
studies, collecting ORB data using a standard questionnaire may be more challenging.
Finally, this study deals only with affective organizational commitment in three
dimensions of organizational commitment, which is also a limitation of this study.
Future studies should consider the interactional effect of career commitment on
normative or continuance organizational commitment.
Despite these limitations, to the author’s knowledge, this is the first study focusing
on the effect of two commitment variables on ORB. Future studies should consider the
relationship between various attitudinal factors and ORB.

50

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

6. General Overview and Conclusion
This study conducted four empirical studies on the effects of various factors andtheir interactions on ORB. Job satisfaction has a negative impact on ORB. In otherwords, because ORB is tit-for-tat behavior toward the organization, individuals who aresatisfied with their job tend not to perform such vindictive behaviors toward theorganization. However, the effect of job satisfaction is not always related to ORB. The
effects of role ambiguity and job satisfaction (Chapter 2) and the effects of role overload
and job satisfaction (Chapter 3) were examined. The negative impact of job satisfaction
on ORB was observed only when role ambiguity or role overload was low. In a situationof high role ambiguity or high role overload, job satisfaction did not significantly affect
ORB. These empirical results support our hypotheses.
In contrast, the effect of the interaction of PJF and job satisfaction (Chapter 4) andthat of organizational commitment and career commitment (Chapter 5) did not support
our initial hypotheses. Specifically, when PJF was low, a positive impact of job
satisfaction on ORB was observed. Similarly, organizational commitment positively
affected ORB when career commitment was low. Although already described in theprevious sections, the possibility that high stress stemming from self-contradiction
increases ORB should be considered as the reason for these contradictory results.
Role ambiguity and overload are perceived job characteristics, and job satisfaction
is an attitudinal factor. Although they are expected to have a negative correlation, thisdoes not mean that they must always have such a correlative relationship. Some
individuals prefer busy or ambiguous jobs, reflecting differences in personalities.
On the other hand, the situation of high job satisfaction and low PJF means that jobrelated attitudes contradict job-related perceptions. Individuals experience high levels ofstress in this situation. Similarly, while organizational commitment is conceptuallydifferent from career commitment, the organization is the most crucial factor forindividuals’ careers. Thus, high organizational commitment and low career commitment
produce high-stress situations, which could increase ORB.
Unfortunately, our current data cannot confirm whether this explanation is correct.
Additional data regarding perceived contradictory situations and stress are required infuture studies.
As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, ORB research has lagged behind thaton OCB, which has been conducted over the past 40 years. It is generally difficult forInteractional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

51

researchers to collect data on OCB and ORB because both are very subtle behaviors.
Furthermore, because everyone wants to hide their ill deeds, collecting OCB data
through regular questionnaires is even more challenging. This difficulty is why far lessattention has been paid to ORB research so far, even though ORB can negatively affectthe organization, at least in the long term.
Finally, the relationship between ORB and OCB should be addressed. In introducing
the concept of ORB, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) indicated that “(b)efore resorting todirect retaliation (e.g., theft or sabotage), disgruntled employees may engage in morecovert retaliation, such as the withdrawal of citizenship behaviors, psychologicalwithdrawal, and resistance behaviors” (p.434). This means that when individuals
encounter organizational injustice, they first hesitate to perform OCB; afterwards, thelevel of OCB reaches zero. Subsequently, they start to perform ORB. In other words,
they assume that individuals perform either OCB or ORB depending on their perceptionof organizational justice.
By contrast, Klots and Bolino (2013) indicated the possibility that OCB and ORB
are simultaneously performed. According to their model, when individuals have a strong
consciousness of performing good behaviors such as OCB, they tend to have themindset that they are permitted to perform destructive behaviors such as ORB toward
the organization until bad behaviors offset good ones. Empirical analysis of the otherdata revealed a negative correlation between OCB and ORB. Subsequently, this idea
was statistically rejected. However, it is too simple and incorrect to assume that allindividuals perform either OCB or ORB, and some individuals may mentally use their
OCB as an excuse for their ORB. The complex relationship between OCB and ORB
should be understood both theoretically and empirically.
*This work was financially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 19H01520(Professor, Faculty of Business Administration, Seikei University)

References
Agho, A. O., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1992). Discriminant validity of measures of job
satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 65(3), 185-196.

52

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and anti-social behavior in organizations: The
moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 195-208.
Arora, R., & Rangnekar, S. (2016). The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeablenesson career commitment. Journal of Employment Counseling, 53(1), 14-29.
Bateman, T. S. & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationshipbetween affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587595.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360.
Blau, G. (1999). Early-career job factors influencing the professional commitment of medical
technologies. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 687-695.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?
The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82-98.
Brayfield, A. H. & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 35(5), 307-311.
Carter, M. J. & Harper, H. (2016). Role Ambiguity, Wiley Online Library. (https://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs040).
Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model.
In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social Comparison, Justice, and Relative
Deprivation: Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Perspectives (pp. 183-215). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
─ (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social
Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 161-183). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jones, D. A. (2009). Getting even with one’s supervisor and one’s organization: relationships
among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 525-542.
Klots, A. C. & Bolino, M. C. (2013). Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: A moral
licensing view. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 292-306.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenshipbehavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 70-80.
Marsden, P. V., Kalleberg, A. L., & Cook, C. R. (1993). Gender differences in organizational

Interactional Effect of Various Factors on Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors Yutaka Ueda

53

commitment: Influences of work positions and family roles. Work and Occupations, 20(3),368-390.
Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.
Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance
hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 46-53.
─ (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., Jesuino, J. C.,
D'amorim, M., Francois, P.-H., Hofmann, K., Koopman, P. L., Mortazavi, S., Munene, J.,
Radford, M., Ropo, A., Savage, G., & Setiadi, B. (1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, andoverload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 429-452.
Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo. R. M. (2006). Citizenship andcounterproductive behavior: Clarifying relations between the two domains, Human
Performance, 19(4), 441-464.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-443.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.
Ueda, Y. (2021). Effects of various types of job satisfaction on organizational retaliatory
behaviors. Bulletin of Seikei University, 52(4), 1-12.
─ (2022a). The impact of two job-related factors on organizational citizenship behavior.
The Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 53(2), forthcoming.
─ (2022b). The Moderating Effect of Role Ambiguity on the Relationship between Job
Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Discussion Paper Series, Faculty of
Economics and Business Administration, 166.
─ (2022c). Moderating Effects of Career Commitment on the Relationship between
Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Discussion Paper
Series, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
Vandenberghe, C., & Ok, A. B. (2013). Career commitment, proactive personality, and work
outcomes: A cross-lagged study. The Career Development International, 18(7), 652-672.

54

成蹊大学経済経営論集 第53巻第1号 （2022年7月）

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of thegood soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,36(1), 77-93.
─ (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory
extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 377-405.
Xie, J. L. (1996). Karasek’s model in the People’s Republic of China: Effects of job demands,
control, and individual differences. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1594-1618.
Xie, J. L. & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Academy ofManagement Journal, 38(5), 1288-1310.
Zhang, J., Wu, Q., Miao, D., Yan, X., & Peng. J. (2014). The impact of core self-evaluations on
job satisfaction: The mediator role of career commitment. Social Indicatiors Research,
116(3), 809-822.