109 Correlates of Counterproductive Work Behaviour Bhavana Arya and Shrutika Khandelwal The IIS University, Jaipur Understanding the correlates of counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) is of increasing importance in organisational literature, both because of its relation with job performance and because of its collective cost to individuals and organisations. This study attempts to explore the relationship between CWB and the locus of control, organization-based self-esteem and the affective well-being of employees. Results showed a positive correlation between CWB and the external locus of control. Regression analysis indicated organization-based self-esteem to be the strongest predictor of CWB among employees. Keywords: Counterproductive work behaviour, organization-based self-esteem, affective well-being There is growing interest among organisational researchers on the topic of counterproductive work behaviour (CWB). CWB refers to the behaviour of employees that harms an organisation or its members (Spector & Fox, 2002), and it includes acts such as theft, sabotage, verbal abuse, withholding efforts, lying, refusing to cooperate and physical assault (Penney & Spector, 2005). Workplace deviant behaviour (WDB) and CWB are used interchangeably in the literature. While there are similarities between CWB and WDB, the concept of CWB is broader than WDB (Hogan & Hogan, 1989). CPW is defined as potentially destructive behaviour (such as sabotaging work equipment, cheating or intentionally breaking work rules), which is intended to have harmful consequences on co-workers and the organisation (Miles, Borman, Spector & Fox, 2002; Fox, Spector & Miles, 2001), whereas WDB is defined as voluntary behavior of organizational members that violates significant organizational norms, and in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organisation and/or its members (Robinson & Bennett, 1995, p. 556). In the current study, CWB refers to any form of behaviour that is deviant or negative behaviour, ranging from gossip or withholding effort to verbal abuse and sabotaging organisational property. Both legal and illegal behaviours are included, as are behaviours that violate organisational norms or policies, and those that do not violate organisational policies but inflict harm on others within the organisation. The concept of CWB in recent years has generated high interest among organisational researchers and practitioners because of its pervasiveness in organisations. An act can be counterproductive if it violates the major rules of organisational life (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector & Fox, 2002). CWB occurs in many different forms and with varying levels of severity. An employee may indulge in something as minor as not being punctual to something as serious as theft (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Victims of such behaviour include employers, other employees or both. CWB is pervasive and costly for organisations (Aquino, Galperin & Bennett, 2004). Previous studies (Ambrose, Seabright & Schminke, 2002; Giacalone, Riordan & Rosenfeld, 1997; Harris & Ogbonna, 2002; Shamsudin, 2003; Thoms, Wolper, Scott & Jones, 2001) have revealed that most employees engage in some form of workplace deviance. This includes absenteeism, abusing sick day privileges, abusing drugs and alcohol, filing fake accident claims, sabotaging, breaking organisational rules, withholding effort, stealing, taking long breaks, working slowly, harassing other employees and hiding needed resources. ' Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology January 2013, Vol.39, No.1, 109-116.