Reactions to men’s and women’s counterproductive work behavior

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) gender stereotypicality, and to consider whether despite efforts to systematically evaluate employees through formalized performance appraisal processes, gender-stereotypic bias is likely to enter into performance management systems. Design/methodology/approach: Study 1 used archival data from 197 federal employees to explore actual punishment recommendations allocated to men and women who engaged in a variety of CWBs. Study 2 tested the causal effect of gender stereotypicality on punishment recommendations with 47 EMBA students who participated in a laboratory study. Findings: Study 1 revealed an interaction between appellant gender and CWB stereotypicality with regard to termination decisions suggesting that women who engage in stereotypical (i.e. feminine) CWBs and men who engage in stereotypical (i.e. masculine) CWBs are more likely to be terminated than women and men who engage in gender counter-stereotypic CWB. Study 2 revealed that women (not men) tended to receive harsher punishment recommendations for stereotypical (i.e. feminine) CWB than for counter-stereotypical (i.e. masculine) CWB. Practical implications: Findings illustrate that punishments are not universally extreme, as men and women are denigrated differentially depending on the stereotypicality of their behavior. The current research affirms that there are social constructions for evaluating performance that may continue to confound evaluations of performance. Originality/value: This is one of the first studies to explore the gendered nature of CWB and supports the argument that prescriptive gender stereotypes shape reactions to CWBs.