Antecedents of Counterproductive Behavior at Work: A General Perspective Bernd Marcus Chemnitz University of Technology Heinz Schuler University of Hohenheim Counterproductive work behaviors have predominantly been investigated at relatively narrow levels, with the focus limited to subsets of the behavioral domain as well as to specific explanatory approaches. This study took a broader perspective with respect to both dependent and independent variables. A sample of German employees from 2 organizations reported on their levels of general counterproductive behavior (GCB). In predicting GCB, M. R. Gottfredson and T. Hirschi’s (1990) theory of self-control as a general explanation for deviant acts was tested and compared with several alternative approaches. Results from simple and moderated hierarchical multiple regression analyses involving 24 predictors of GCB strongly support hypotheses derived from self-control theory. Little support is found for any effects on individual differences in GCB beyond the direct and conditional impact of internal control. Scholars of employee behavior traditionally tend to define their core dependent variable, job performance, as the individual con- tribution to the goals of an organization, varying in content and magnitude but of a generally positive sign. Notwithstanding this tradition to view performance as more or less productive behavior, it is no less true that organizations and their members are often faced with acts that are clearly damaging to their goals. These counterproductive acts can take many forms: theft, fraud, absen- teeism, physical and verbal aggression, or substance use, to name only a few. The bulk of research on counterproductive behaviors has treated these forms as different phenomena, leading to separate literatures for each form of counterproductive behavior. This ten- dency to investigate narrowly defined dependent variables is mir- rored on the predictor side by a tendency to use a limited set of independent variables as emphasized in relatively narrow theoret- ical approaches (for general reviews and anthologies, see Giaca- lone & Greenberg, 1997; Griffin, O’Leary-Kelly, & Collins, 1998; Marcus, 2000; Murphy, 1993; Ones, 2002; Sackett & DeVore, 2001). Hence, one of the most noticeable features of counterpro- ductivity research to date is that of diversity. Although the mani- fold of specific approaches has revealed many insights into mean- ingful relationships between specific antecedents and specific forms of counterproductive behavior, there have also been argu- ments in favor of a more general perspective. One concern with these specialized approaches is that connections between related areas may have been overlooked and researchers sometimes do not appear to have been aware of relevant developments from other fields of research (e.g., see the introduction to Ones, 2002). A related point is the difficulty in pinpointing the appropriate level of theoretical parsimony with a focus on narrowly defined topics. More general theories of counterproductive behavior than are currently predominant in the literature may prove useful once one looks at the overall picture (Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002). In the present study, we therefore adopted the opposite view, looking at counterproductive behavior from a general perspective. We do not suggest that this perspective will replace more specific approaches or make them redundant. We rather expect the general approach to supplement more specific ones and perhaps to clarify some hitherto neglected relations. In this respect, it may make sense to start exploring the field at the highest level of parsimony and from that point to work downward to more narrowly defined areas of research when these other areas are shown to be beyond the scope of the general approach. The broad perspective may contribute to more parsimonious theorizing from a scientific point of view as well as to more cost-effective practical solutions to the problem. For example, theft and substance use may share certain features (e.g., being detrimental to the goals of the organization, implying the risk of termination if detected) but not share others (e.g., directed at others vs. directed at self, discretionary vs. ad- dictive). The common features may translate into common causes and common solutions, whereas the specific features may point to explanations and countermeasures beyond the general approach. Our primary objectives in this study were to outline a possible framework for such a general view on counterproductive behavior and to apply this perspective to an empirical test of one general theory and a broad array of alternative theories. In accordance with recent reviews of the issue (Marcus, 2000; Sackett & DeVore, 2001), we emphasize the fact that different forms of counterproductive behavior are almost always positively correlated. This finding emerged not only in wide-spectrum self- report studies (e.g., Chen & Spector, 1992; Hollinger & Clark, Bernd Marcus, Department of Psychology, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany; Heinz Schuler, Department of Psychol- ogy, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. This research was supported by Grant SCHU 422/9 –2 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and by a doctoral scholarship granted by the Bundesland Baden-Wuerttemberg. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bernd Marcus, Department of Psychology, Chemnitz University of Technology, D-09107, Chemnitz, Germany. E-mail: bernd.marcus@phil.tu-chemnitz.de Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association 2004, Vol. 89, No. 4, 647– 660 0021-9010/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.647 647