Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Stealing Time on the Company’s Dime: Examining the Indirect Effect of Laissez-Faire Leadership on Employee Time Theft

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Employee time theft is a costly and prevalent unethical work behavior. Yet, this construct has received less attention compared to other unethical behaviors, and as such, the literature has only a rudimentary understanding of why employees engage in time theft. Thus, the primary goal of this research is to provide greater insight into both why employees engage in time theft and who is most likely to engage in time theft. To do so, we draw from social information processing theory to examine the effect of laissez-faire leadership on employee time theft. More specifically, we propose that laissez-faire leadership is related to employee time theft through workplace time theft norms. We further propose that this indirect effect is contingent on employee conscientiousness, such that the indirect effect of laissez-faire leadership on employee time theft is stronger for individuals lower in conscientiousness. We conducted two three-wave field studies to test our predictions. The results of Study 1 supported our prediction that workplace time theft norms mediate the effect of laissez-faire leadership on employee time theft. Study 2 replicated and extended this finding by offering evidence for the conditional indirect effect of employee conscientiousness. Implications for future research and managerial practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Notes

  1. Interested authors may request a copy of our results, with control variables included.

  2. Interested authors may request a copy of our results, with control variables included.

References

  • Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 438–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., Villamor, I., & Ramani, R. S. (2021). Mturk research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Management, 47(4), 823–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. E., & Dunning, D. (2014). Behavioral norms: Variants and their identification. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(12), 721–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah.

  • Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. The International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3–4), 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mind Garden Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell. (2021). Employee time theft: How to uncover and prevent it. Workforce.com. Retrieved February 8, 2022, from https://workforce.com/news/time-theft.

  • Bergman, M. E., & Jean, V. A. (2016). Where have all the “workers” gone? A critical analysis of the unrepresentativeness of our samples relative to the labor market in the industrial–organizational psychology literature. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 84–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 613–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biron, M., & Bamberger, P. (2012). Aversive workplace conditions and absenteeism: Taking referent group norms and supervisor support into account. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 901–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, N. A., Burns, G. N., Stewart, S. M., & Gruys, M. L. (2011). Conscientiousness and agreeableness as moderators of the relationship between neuroticism and counterproductive work behaviors: A constructive replication. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(3), 320–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brock, M. E., Martin, L. E., & Buckley, M. R. (2013). Time theft in organizations: The development of the Time Banditry Questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(3), 309–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. (2014). A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), 547–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 956–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crede, M., Jong, J., & Harms, P. (2019). The generalizability of transformational leadership across cultures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(3), 139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Six approaches to the explication of facet-level traits: Examples from conscientiousness. European Journal of Personality, 12(2), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(9), 887–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Den Hartog, D. N. (2015). Ethical leadership. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 409–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 374–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellatly, I. R. (1995). Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: Test of a causal model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(5), 469–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 486–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, S. (2018). The most common type of incompetent leader. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved July 21, 2021, from https://hbr.org/2018/03/the-most-common-type-of-incompetent-leader.

  • Harold, C. M., Hu, B., & Koopman, J. (2021). Employee time theft: Conceptualization, measure development, and validation. Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henle, C. A., Reeve, C. L., & Pitts, V. E. (2010). Stealing time at work: Attitudes, social pressure, and perceived control as predictors of time theft. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). An examination of “nonleadership”: From laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1234–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, G. (1994). Absenteeism estimates by employees and managers: Divergent perspectives and self-serving perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Craighead, C. W., & Buckley, M. R. (2008). Time bandits: How they are created, why they are tolerated, and what can be done about them. Business Horizons, 51(2), 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 757–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 546–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laissez-faire. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved August 10, 2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laissez-faire.

  • Lardieri, A. (2018). DMV Employee Slept 3 Hours Per Day on the Job. U.S. News. Retrieved July 22, 2021, from https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-07-26/dmv-employee-slept-3-hours-per-day-on-the-job-costing-california-40-000.

  • Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434–1452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., & Berry, C. M. (2013). Identity, moral, and equity perspectives on the relationship between experienced injustice and time theft. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S., Wang, M., Bamberger, P., Shi, J., & Bacharach, S. B. (2015). The dark side of socialization: A longitudinal investigation of newcomer alcohol use. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 334–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S. B., & Resick C. J. (2014). Hostile climate, abusive supervision, and employee coping: Does conscientiousness matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 737–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 384–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. E., Brock, M. E., Buckley, M. R., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2010). Time banditry: Examining the purloining of time in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milenkovic (2021). Ripping Off the Boss: 33 Surprising Employee Theft Statistics. Smallbizgenius. Retrieved February 8, 2022, from https://www.smallbizgenius.net/by-the-numbers/employee-theft-statistics/#gref.

  • Mitchell, M. S., Baer, M. D., Ambrose, M. L., Folger, R., & Palmer, N. F. (2018). Cheating under pressure: A self-protection model of workplace cheating behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(1), 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (2018). California DMV worker slept 3 hours a day at work for years, auditor’s report says. Washington Post. Retrieved July 22, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/26/alifornia-dmv-worker-slept-hours-day-work-years-auditors-report-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.82e361eaf040.

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Muthén and Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnaly, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterhaus, E. (2015). 43% of employees commit time theft: How software can reduce payroll losses. IndustryView. Retrieved July 22, 2021, from https://www.softwareadvice.com/hr/industryview/timetheft-report-2015/.

  • O’Reilly, C. A., III., & Caldwell, D. F. (1985). The impact of normative social influence and cohesiveness on task perceptions and attitudes: A social information processing approach. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58(3), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pejtersen, J. H., Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., & Bjorner, J. B. (2010). The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3_suppl), 8–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, Y., Jex, S., Zhang, W., Ma, J., & Matthews, R. A. (2020). Eldercare demands and time theft: Integrating family-to-work conflict and spillover–crossover perspectives. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(1), 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. C., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, C. O., Outlaw, R., Gale, J. P., & Cho, T. S. (2019). The use of online panel data in management research: A review and recommendations. Journal of Management, 45(1), 319–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raver, J. L., Ehrhart, M. G., & Chadwick, I. C. (2012). The emergence of team helping norms: Foundations within members’ attributes and behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 616–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 658–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoaib, S., & Baruch, Y. (2019). Deviant behavior in a moderated-mediation framework of incentives, organizational justice perception, and reward expectancy. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(3), 617–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, L. (2015). The top complaints from employees about their leaders. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved July 22, 2021, from https://hbr.org/2015/06/the-top-complaints-from-employees-about-their-leaders

  • Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 721–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). Rmediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 692–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2015). RWA web: A free, comprehensive, web-based, and user-friendly tool for relative weight analyses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, S. L., Seibert, S. E., Goering, D., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2019). A tale of two sample sources: Do results from online panel data and conventional data converge? Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(4), 425–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, N., Newton, D. W., Wang, D., Wei, W., Waldman, D. A., & LePine, J. A. (2019). Meeting the need or falling in line? The effect of laissez-faire formal leaders on informal leadership. Personnel Psychology, 72(3), 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, H. R., Glerum, D. R., Joseph, D. L., & McCord, M. A. (2021). A meta-analysis of transactional leadership and follower performance: Double-edged effects of LMX and empowerment. Journal of Management, 47(5), 1255–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Management & Institute of Organizational Behavior and Organizational Neuroscience, Shanghai International Studies University, 550 Dalian Road (W), Shanghai, 200083, China

    Biyun Hu

  2. Fox School of Business and Management, Temple University, 355 Alter Hall, 1801 Liacouras Walk, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

    Crystal M. Harold

  3. Fox School of Business and Management, Temple University, 1801 Liacouras Walk, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

    Dayoung Kim

Authors
  1. Biyun Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Crystal M. Harold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dayoung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Biyun Hu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 CFA results and alternative models (Study 1)
Full size table
Table 5 CFA results and alternative models (Study 2)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, B., Harold, C.M. & Kim, D. Stealing Time on the Company’s Dime: Examining the Indirect Effect of Laissez-Faire Leadership on Employee Time Theft. J Bus Ethics 183, 475–493 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05077-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05077-2

Keywords

Profiles

  1. Biyun Hu View author profile