Journal of Applied Psychology 2016 American Psychological Association

2016, Vol. 101, No. 12, 17211729 0021-9010/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000156

RESEARCH REPORT

Beware of Those Left Behind: Counterproductive Work Behaviors Among

Nonpromoted Employees and the Moderating Effect of Integrity
Saul Fine, Judith Goldenberg, and Yair Noam
Israel Defense Forces, Tel Hashomer, Israel

Promotion decisions focus primarily on the successes of those selected, with surprisingly little attention
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

given to the outcomes of those rejected. Negative emotional reactions among rejected candidates, for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

example, may motivate retaliations against the organization in the form of counterproductive work
behaviors (CWBs). Indeed, in a sample of 568 military officer training candidates, we found a greater
incidence of CWB among rejected versus accepted candidates, which peaked within 6 months after
promotion decisions were made (d .44) and gradually decreased thereafter. We also found that overt
integrity moderated the relationship between promotion decisions and CWB, whereby rejected candidates
with high levels of integrity engaged in less CWB than did rejected candidates with low integrity.
Practical implications for mitigating CWB in cases of nonpromotion and considerations for more
accurately evaluating the utility of promotion decisions are discussed.

Keywords: counterproductive work behaviors, promotion, selection, integrity, military

Although more than a century of research has supported the
utility of personnel assessment and selection processes (Ryan &
Ployhart, 2014), they are, by their very nature, centered on the
behavioral outcomes of the candidates selected. As such, these
processes virtually ignore the behaviors of another significant
group of individualsrejected candidates. Certainly, in most pre-
employment selection scenarios, rejected candidates never enter
the organization, making their subsequent behaviors entirely the-
oretical. In other selection scenarios, however, such as in the case
of employee promotions, rejected candidates may remain em-
ployed in the organization, where their future behaviors are still
extremely pertinent. And yet, the behaviors of nonpromoted em-
ployees have been greatly understudied (Hausknecht, Day, &
Thomas, 2004).
The lack of research on this topic is somewhat surprising, given
the prevalence of structured promotion selection procedures and
their potential organizational impact. In military organizations, for
example, officer training candidates are routinely assessed using
batteries of psychological assessments at officer selection centers
(OSCs), and rejected candidates are then summarily returned to
their units, expected to resume their original duties as usual (Jones,
This article was published Online First August 18, 2016.
Saul Fine, Judith Goldenberg, and Yair Noam, Israel Defense Forces,
Tel Hashomer, Israel.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 31st Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, in
Anaheim, California in April 2016.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Judith
Goldenberg, Selection System Development Branch, Behavioral Science
Center, Israel Defense Forces, Military Post 01172, Tel Hashomer, Israel
52621. E-mail: judyg@zahav.net.il
1991; Rumsey, 2012). Such expectations may be presumptuous,
however, when considering the negative emotional effects of being
rejecteda decision that invariably curtails candidates future
career opportunities in the organization (Truxillo, Steiner, & Gil-
liland, 2004). Accordingly, the emotional reactions of some dis-
gruntled employees for being rejected may understandably influ-
ence the quality of their future job performance and perhaps even
lead to counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), which are, by
definition, damaging to the organization and/or its members (Rob-
inson & Bennett, 1995). The purpose of the present study, there-
fore, was to examine the incidence of CWB among nonpromoted
employees.
Still, the relationship between nonpromotion and CWB may be
more complex, given that an individuals decision to engage in
CWB is generally dependent not only upon situational stressors,
such as a negative promotion decision, but on personal dispositions
as well, such as integrity (Sackett & Devore, 2001). High integrity
(and its related constructs) has been shown to inhibit the engage-
ment in CWB following a variety of situational stressors and
perceived injustice, whereas low integrity can elicit such behav-
ioral reactions (Bowling & Eschleman, 2010; Fine, Horowitz,
Weigler, & Basis, 2010; Zhou, Meier, & Spector, 2014) but has yet
to be studied with respect to nonpromotion. Indeed, understanding
the degree to which integrity may inhibit or elicit CWB may help
organizations better manage the potential outcomes of negative
promotion decisions. In light of this, the present study also inves-
tigated the degree to which integrity may moderate the relationship
between nonpromotion and CWB.
Nonpromotion as an Antecedent of CWB
In preemployment selection, rejected applicants have been
shown to perceive greater organizational injustice (i.e., the belief

1721
 1722 FINE, GOLDENBERG, AND NOAM
that the decision process and/or the decision outcome are unjust),
with more negative attitudes toward the organization (Bauer, Mc-
Carthy, Anderson, Truxillo, & Salgado, 2012). Although far less
research is available on the reactions of rejected promotion can-
didates (Ford, Truxillo, & Bauer, 2009; Hausknecht et al., 2004),
their emotional reactions may be arguably more intense than those
of rejected new job applicants for several reasons. First, as de-
scribed by Truxillo et al. (2004), promotion candidates have an
existing relationship and work history with their organizations, in
which the candidates have undoubtedly invested significant time
and effort to perform well and develop professionally. In addition,
during this time, candidates may have likely developed a sense of
organizational commitment and already be familiar with the new
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
jobs requirements and its selection procedures. In this context,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and on the basis of fairness heuristic theory (Lind, 2001), some
nonpromoted candidates may perceive their rejections to be unjust
and experience strong emotional reactions as a result (Ford et al.,
2009; Gilliland, 1993; Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996), including
negative job satisfaction (Ambrose & Cropanzano, 2003; Garca-
Izquierdo, Moscoso, & Ramos-Villagrasa, 2012). Moreover, by
comparing themselves to their promoted peers, whom the rejected
candidates may know personally and feel equally qualified, rejec-
tion decisions can be humiliating and threatening to their self-
esteem (Ambrose & Cropanzano, 2003; Hallier & James, 2000;
Ryan & Ployhart, 2000).
In military promotion settings, these negative reactions may be
enhanced further still, due to the militarys unique organizational
culture. Soeters and Recht (1998) characterized military culture as
having high social hierarchies, for example, in which status and
authority are defined primarily by promotion and rank, with a
significant gap existing between officers and nonofficers that is
highly sought after. Furthermore, the bureaucracy and collectivism
in the military afford rank-and-file soldiers little choice in their job
assignments, for which they may be required to engage in unde-
sirable operations that are physically and emotionally challenging.
As a result, promotions offer rank-and-file soldiers not only an
opportunity for higher status and privilege but new job alternatives
as well, which rejected applicants are formally denied. Finally,
unlike commercial organizations, where employees can choose to
quit following negative promotion decisions, no such option is
available in the military, and rejected candidates may be required
to remain in their positions for extended periods of time with little
or no alternative options.
In terms of a behavioral outlet for these emotional reactions, it
is reasonable to assume that at least some rejected candidates may
be motivated to retaliate against the organization in the form of
CWB (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Indeed, Ford et al. (2009)
hypothesized that CWB would be a logical outcome for some
rejected promotion candidates. In support of this idea, and in the
only study located on this topic, Schwarzwald, Koslowsky, and
Shalit (1992) found a greater degree of perceived injustice and
absenteeism among nonpromoted candidates in a large service
organization when compared to promoted candidates. Although
absenteeism is certainly counterproductive, a more-thorough in-
vestigation of a wider range of CWBs and rule breaking is still
needed. Moreover, because the adherence to rules and regulations
is fundamental for soldiers effectiveness and physical safety (Bor-
man, Motowidlo, Rose, & Hansen, 1987), understanding the rela-
tionship between nonpromotion and CWB in the military is espe-
cially imperative.
From a theoretical perspective, CWB that is committed in re-
taliation to perceived organizational injustices due to nonpromo-
tion can be understood in terms of frustrationaggression theory
(Fox & Spector, 1999). Nonpromotion meets Spectors (1997)
definition of a frustrator, that is, an event that interferes with the
achievement of an individuals personal goals at work. And, ac-
cording to Spector, frustrators that are perceived to be unjust may
lead to an emotional state of stress and experienced frustration,
which may in turn materialize into acts of CWB. In addition, these
emotional states may be heightened by a lack of control in ones
work (see also Allen & Greenberger, 1980) and when the frustrator
influences ones self-esteem (see also Fox & Spector, 1999), such
as in the case of military nonpromotion, as noted earlier.
Two related theories, equity theory (Adams, 1963) and norm
reciprocity theory (Gouldner, 1960), can also explain retaliatory
CWB responses to nonpromotion, whereby some employees may
attempt to get even with their employers for their perceived
injustice and inequity. Supporting these theories, greater perceived
injustice and negative affect has been reported among nonpro-
moted employees (Ambrose & Cropanzano, 2003; McCarthy,
Hrabluik, & Jelley, 2009; Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004), and a good
deal of empirical evidence from other settings has indicated that
perceived injustice may in fact lead to various types of interper-
sonal and organizational targeted CWB (Berry, Ones, & Sackett,
2007). Accordingly, these complementary theories would suggest
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Nonpromoted candidates will exhibit more
CWB than will promoted candidates.
Although CWB may be a fairly straightforward outcome of the
emotional reactions to being denied promotion, the extent to which
such emotional reactions and their behavioral outlets may persist
of over time has remained largely unclear. Understanding the
potentially transient nature of retaliatory CWB is critical to eval-
uating the full possible impact of damages due to nonpromotion,
such that short-lived counterproductivity may be relatively toler-
able and/or manageable compared to such behaviors that persist
over long periods of time.
Although the long-term acts of CWB in response to specific
work stressors have not been well studied, both emotional and
cognitive theories would hypothesize a decrease in retaliatory
CWB over time. According to equity theory (Adams, 1963) and
reciprocity theory (Gouldner, 1960), for example, at some point
after having engaged in CWB, rejected candidates will feel that
equity or reciprocity has been restored and will then cease to be
motivated to engage in further CWB. Cognitive dissonance (Fest-
inger, 1957) would also hypothesize a lessening of CWB over
time, by maintaining that nonpromoted employees will slowly
adjust their attitudes to be more consistent with their current
situations and behaviors and thus become more complacent about
their nonpromoted positions. This feeling of complacency may be
strengthened by confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998), when, for
example, rejected soldiers experience individual achievements in
their current roles and/or after hearing from their promoted col-
leagues about the difficulties of officer training school and the
added responsibilities of being officers. Altogether, it is reasonable
 CWB AND NONPROMOTED EMPLOYEES 1723

to expect the incidence of CWB among nonpromoted soldiers to Method

steadily lessen over time. The following was therefore hypothe-
sized:
Sample
Hypothesis 2: CWB incidents among rejected applicants will
decline over time. This study included a sample of 568 officer candidates from a
Middle Eastern army. The candidates were all serving mandatory
The Moderating Effect of Integrity military duties in noncombat positions (e.g., logistics, personnel, and
intelligence corps) and had already been enlisted in the army for an
In addition to situational stressors at work, personal traits are a average of 12.9 months (SD 6.01) at the date of testing. Of the
well-researched antecedent of CWB. And, one of the more- candidates, 54.4% were male (n 309) and 45.6% were female (n
prevalent personal antecedents of CWB is overt integrity (Berry et 259). The candidates average age was 19.3 years (SD .83).
al., 2007). Overt integrity taps individuals attitudes and opinions
toward CWBs, such that the perceived frequency of CWBs (i.e.,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

projectiveness), leniencies toward offenders (i.e., punitive- Measures

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ness), justifications for CWBs, and admissions of past involve-

Integrity. Overt integrity was measured using the Military
ment in CWB, reflect low overt integrity and a higher risk for
Integrity Test (MIT; Fine et al., 2016). The MIT yields an overall
future engagement in CWB (Murphy, 1993; Sackett & Wanek,
integrity score and four subscales: rationalization, punitiveness,
1996). Accordingly, overt integrity measures are based on attitude
projectiveness, and admissions. Each subscale consists of 12
behavior theory (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977), whereby the previously
Likert-type items, for a total of 48 items, rated on a 5-point scale
mentioned attitudes toward CWB are indicative of possible future
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample
engagement in CWB, as well as on the principle of behavioral
items include It is okay not to obey an order, if you think the
consistency, whereby past performance predicts future perfor-
commander is incorrect (rationalizations) and Any incident of
mance (Wernimont & Campbell, 1968). Finally, in terms of con-
physical fighting should be strictly punished (punitiveness). The
struct validity, overt integrity is typically associated with the Big
MIT was modeled after traditional overt integrity tests, with con-
Five traits of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional sta-
textually adapted items for the military, and its development and
bility (Berry, Sackett, & Wiemann, 2007).
validity have been reported previously for similar samples of
Meta-analytic evidence has estimated overt integrity tests va-
officer training candidates (Fine et al., 2016).
lidity for predicting CWB (self- and other-reports) in a variety of
Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). CWB was mea-
civilian settings to range between .38 and .55 (uncorrected: .30 and
sured as the total number of individually recorded infractions for each
.39, respectively; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993; Van Id-
participant, taken at five consecutive 6-month periods following test-
dekinge, Roth, Raymark, & Odle-Dusseau, 2012). In the military,
ing (i.e., 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months).
recent primary studies have found similar validity indices for overt
These data were derived from the armys manpower database and
integrity in predicting soldiers behavioral infractions and miscon-
included various types of misconduct, such as indiscipline (e.g.,
duct (Fine, Goldenberg, & Noam, 2016; Marcus, te Nijenhuis,
verbal or physical aggression), property theft (e.g., equipment, sup-
Cremers, & van der Heijden-Lek, 2016). The following was there-
plies), negligence (e.g., sleeping on duty, inappropriate use of equip-
fore hypothesized:
ment), and refusal to follow orders, although specific types of mis-
Hypothesis 3: Overt integrity will negatively relate to CWB in conduct per participant were not available.
the military.

Beyond this bivariate relationship, integrity-related measures Procedure and Analyses

have been found to moderate the relationship between situational
The MIT was administered at the armys Officer Selection Center
stressors and CWB, whereby high integrity is associated with
(OSC) in 2012 and 2013 as part of its standard selection and assess-
lower CWB (Fine et al., 2010). Marcus and Schulers (2004)
ment process for junior officers (i.e., 2nd lieutenants). In order to
self-control theory provides an interesting conceptual explanation
establish an approximate baseline for behaviors, we analyzed CWB
for such interactions, in terms of motivational and controlling
incidents reported 4 months prior to the OSC and found no significant
factors. Specifically, situational stressors are considered to be
differences between the subsequently accepted and rejected candi-
motivational triggers for retaliating in the form of CWB, whereas
dates, t(565) 1.64, p .05. Moreover, OSC decision makers did
integrity is a personal control mechanism that can inhibit such
not have access to prior CWB recordings, and this was therefore not
negative behavioral reactions. Accordingly, within the context of
a consideration in their selection decision. All candidates were noti-
nonpromotion, although nearly all rejected candidates are likely to
fied of their selection decisions via their unit commanders within a
be disappointed, those with low integrity may be less inhibited
maximum of 2.5 weeks, and no specific reasons were given to
about retaliating following rejections when compared to candi-
rejected applicants as to why they were not accepted. Immediately
dates with high integrity, which would enhance the relationship
following the OSC, all candidates returned to their original military
between nonpromotion and CWB when integrity is low. We there-
units to carry out their regular soldiering duties until accepted candi-
fore hypothesized the following:
dates began Officer Training Course (OTC) approximately six
Hypothesis 4: Overt integrity will moderate the relationship months later. For this reason, the primary behavioral criteria for
between nonpromotion and CWB, such that high integrity will comparing accepted and rejected candidates, while both groups per-
weaken the relationship and low integrity will strengthen it. formed similar job roles, was CWB 6 months after OSC.
 1724 FINE, GOLDENBERG, AND NOAM

Results Table 2
Total CWB Incidents Over Time for Rejected and
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations can be found in Table Accepted Candidates
1. Of the 568 total promotion candidates, 65.1% (n 370) were
accepted into the next available OTC, and the remainder were Rejected Accepted
rejected. Regarding the bivariate correlations, integrity was corre- (N 198) (N 370)
lated with promotion decisions (.20), which was to be expected, Time from OSC M SD M SD
because the integrity scores served as a partial consideration in the
final promotion decision process. Despite this fact, because both 4 to 0 monthsa .12 .38 .07 .29
16 monthsb .25 .53 .07 .26
accepted and rejected applicants returned to their respective units 712 months .20 .57 .08 .31
for approximately six months after testing and were monitored 1318 months .16 .50 .10 .33
over the same period of time thereafter, there was effectively no 1924 months .09 .37 .09 .40
range restriction on the predictors, as might otherwise have been 2530 months .01 .10 .05 .27
the case in a preemployment selection setting. Therefore, no such Note. CWB counterproductive work behavior; OSC Officer Selec-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

statistical corrections to the correlation coefficients were neces- tion Center.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

sary.
In support of Hypothesis 1, promotion decisions were negatively
related to CWB, indicating that rejections led to greater CWB in
the following 6 months (.23; Cohens d .44). This result was
maintained after controlling for either integrity (b .20, p
.001) or baseline CWB (b .225, p .001) prior to the
promotion decision. The correlation between promotion decision
and CWB was far weaker, although still significant, after 12
months (.13) and became nonsignificant for CWB measures
thereafter. To better measure the trends in CWB over time, we
used a factorial analysis of covariance for repeated measures after
first controlling for baseline CWB. The results indicate a signifi-
cant interaction between CWB and promotion decisions F(4,
562) 8.72, Wilkss .94, p .001, 2 .06, with a
significant linear trend for nonpromoted candidates CWB over
time, whereby CWB incidents lessened, as proposed by Hypoth-
esis 2, F(1, 196) 28.67, p .001, 2 .13. Accepted appli-
cants CWBs, on the other hand, did not change linearly over time,
F(1, 368) 0.24, p .05, 2 .00 (see Table 2 and Figure 1).
Supporting Hypothesis 3, overall integrity was significantly
correlated with CWB 6 months after the selection decisions
a
Pre-OSC baseline CWB (note that pre-OSC is a 4-month period, whereas
post-OSCs are 6-month periods). b Accepted candidates began officer
training school after 6 months.
(.19), and this was maintained after controlling for selection
decision outcomes (b .15, p .001). On the subscale level, all
four overt integrity subscales predicted CWB to a similar degree
(.13 to .17). Although gender has sometimes been associated
with CWB and integrity in civilian settings, with a slightly greater
degree of CWB incidence and lower integrity scores among males
(Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Berry, Sackett, & Wiemann, 2007),
no such relationships were found here. Gender was therefore
excluded from further analyses.
Hierarchical regression analyses were used to examine the hy-
pothesized moderating effects of overt integrity on 6 months CWB
(see Table 3). In support of Hypothesis 4, integrity moderated the
relationship between promotion decision and CWB, whereby this
relationship (i.e., reactions to being rejected) was stronger among
individuals with lower levels of integrity compared to individuals
with higher levels of integrity. The interaction effects are plotted in
Figure 2, wherein low integrity refers to 1 standard deviation

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Internal Reliabilities

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Demographics
Gendera 1.54 .50
Integrity
1. Overall 4.25 .38 .01 (.91)
2. Admissions 4.55 .45 .10 .78 (.82)
3. Projectiveness 4.02 .65 .12 .79 .45 (.88)
4. Rationalizations 4.30 .43 .01 .81 .57 .49 (.77)
5. Punitiveness 4.10 .45 .03 .67 .40 .27 .47 (.74)
CWBb
1. 4 to 0 monthsc .09 .32 .06 .05 .08 .08 .01 .03
2. 16 months .13 .38 .01 .19 .16 .13 .17 .14 .11
3. 712 months .13 .42 .02 .16 .10 .16 .12 .09 .01 .16
4. 1318 months .12 .40 .02 .04 .01 .10 .00 .00 .00 .08 .15
5. 1924 months .09 .39 .08 .03 .05 .00 .01 .04 .04 .04 .02 .02
6. 2530 months .04 .22 .07 .03 .03 .01 .05 .03 .04 .04 .01 .01 .00
Promotion decisiond .65 .48 .05 .20 .15 .15 .15 .15 .07 .23 .13 .08 .00 .09
Note. N 568. Reliability coefficients are presented on the diagonal. CWB counterproductive work behavior.
a
Male 1; female 2. b Total incidents during the reported period. c 4 to 0 months refers to pre-Officer Selection Center baseline CWB. d
1 accepted;
0 rejected.

p .05. p .01.
 CWB AND NONPROMOTED EMPLOYEES
0.3
0.25
0.2
Rejected
CWB
0.15
Accepted
0.1
0.05
0 arguably incomplete without including at least some personal
1-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 25-30
Time (months) after promotion decision
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 1. Mean incidents of counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs)
over time following promotion decisions for rejected and accepted candi-
dates.
and high integrity refers to 1 standard deviation, with the
following simple slopes: low overt integrity: .22, p .001; high
overt integrity: .09, p .05.1
Discussion
Promotions almost invariably provide employees with profes-
sional growth, improved working conditions, increased social sta-
tus, and the recognition of hard work. Therefore, when the oppor-
tunity to achieve these benefits are ostensibly denied by negative
promotion decisions, there are bound to be emotional and behav-
ioral repercussions. And, although personnel selection researchers
and practitioners studying promotion decisions have focused pri-
marily on the outcomes of accepted candidates, the present study
is a reminder to beware of the outcomes of those not promoted as
well. As such, this study offers new theoretical and practical
implications for personnel selection, along with several important
questions that still remain unanswered.
Nonpromotion, CWB, and Integrity
A fundamental risk of nonpromotion, on the basis of the current
results, seems to be the increased likelihood that individuals will
engage in CWB. Furthermore, this risk is highest in the period of
time closest to the selection decision, after which the engagement
in CWB deceases. This phenomenon was hypothesized to reflect a
behavioral outlet for the negative emotional reactions to being
rejected, which becomes less salient over time. Specifically, the
results may be collectively explained in terms of frustration
aggression theory (Fox & Spector, 1999), equity theory (Adams,
1963), and norm reciprocity theory (Gouldner, 1960). Further-
more, the decreased CWB over time supports the notion that
perceived equity and reciprocity may be restored by engaging in
CWB and may be influenced by cognitive biases over time such
as cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and confirmation bias
(Nickerson, 1998).
Nevertheless, given that all of these explanations are hinged on
candidates emotional reactions, it was unfortunate not to have
been able to measure candidates actual emotional reactions and
perceptions directly in this study. Instead, nonpromotion was
treated as a situational stressor from which to broadly test our
1725
hypotheses. And yet, individual perceptions and situations may
still likely vary (e.g., some candidates may have been keener to
become officers than were others). Accordingly, measuring per-
ceived injustice and emotional reactions in future studies may
provide a clearer picture of their mediating effects and help to
further validate the theoretical underpinnings of the current find-
ings.
In addition to investigating the influence of nonpromotion on
CWB, another important aspect of the present study was the
inclusion of integrity. Indeed, any predictive model of CWB is
antecedents in addition to situational antecedents (Sackett & De-
vore, 2001). It was therefore important for us to include integrity,
which is perhaps the most consistently studied personal antecedent
of CWB. In the present case, as with other situational stressors that
lead to negative affect and job dissatisfaction (e.g., Colbert,
Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004; Fine et al., 2010), integrity
proved to buffer the relationship between the nonpromotion and
CWB. In other words, as hypothesized here and conceptualized
previously by Marcus and Schuler (2004), integrity seems to help
to inhibit the retaliatory response to negative promotion decisions.
From an organizational perspective, it is interesting to consider
the implications of these findings. We theorized that retaliation in
response to nonpromotion is related to perceived fairness. There-
fore, although rejection may nearly always be considered a nega-
tive situation, organizations can strive to reduce the degree of
emotional reactions by providing rejected candidates with more-
detailed explanations of the specific organizational-level consid-
erations involved in promotion decisions. In that way, candidates
may be less likely to attribute rejections to unfairly or inaccurately
assessed personal deficiencies (Schinkel, van Dierendonck, van
Vianen, & Ryan, 2011). In support of this approach, Greenberg
(1990) found that sensitive and calming explanations can lessen
employee thefts that might otherwise be induced by pay-cut an-
nouncements. Indeed, in the present study, candidates were not
provided with formal explanations regarding their promotion de-
cisions, which might have influenced their perceived justice and
their subsequent behavioral reactions.
Organizations can also take steps to enhance rejected employ-
ees feelings of satisfaction and autonomy by helping them set new
goals and by allowing them to participate in alternative roles that
have additional responsibilities, opportunities for professional de-
velopment, and social support. Finally, although there is not much
organizations can do to raise an individuals integrity, organiza-
tions would benefit from identifying individuals with low integrity
and monitoring their behaviors more closely.
The Military Setting
Effectively studying nonpromotion, integrity, and CWB re-
quired addressing several methodological challenges that were
uniquely overcome by the inherent nature of military settings.
First, to accurately evaluate the operational relationship between
nonpromotion and CWB, this study used actual promotion candi-
1
These analyses were replicated with a composite of conscientiousness,
agreeableness, and emotional stability as an ad hoc measure of personality-
related integrity, which yielded similar results. Specific results are avail-
able upon request from the Saul Fine.
 1726 FINE, GOLDENBERG, AND NOAM

Table 3
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Predicting CWB After 6 Months, and Integrity
as a Moderator

Predictor b SE b R2 R2 F R2

Model 1 .053 31.74

Constant .253 .026
Promotion decision .185 .033 .230
Model 2 .075 .022 13.52
Constant .237 .027
Promotion decision .161 .033 .200
Integrity .058 .016 .152
Model 3 .083 .007 4.52
Constant .226 .027
Promotion decision .154 .033 .192
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Integrity .097 .024 .253

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Promotion Decision Integrity .068 .032 .131

Note. CWB counterproductive work behavior.

p .05. p .01.

dates and CWB incidents, as opposed to student samples and
simulated CWB, for example. Indeed, in contrast to some previous
literature, Mikulay, Neuman, and Finkelstein (2001) found limited
evidence for an interaction between integrity and several situa-
tional factors and consequently attributed part of their inconclusive
findings to their use of fictional vignettes instead of real scenarios.
In another methodological challenge, Ford et al. (2009) indicated
the need to examine promotions in large-size organizations, such
as in the present study, where the statistical problems associated
with small samples are not an issue and where structured assess-
ments are more typically used in the promotion selection process.
Third, objectively reported incidents of CWB, such as those ob-
servable in the military, are arguably preferable to self-reported
measures of CWB, due in part to the latters underlying common
method bias, which may lead to spuriously high correlations with
other tools (e.g., integrity). Fourth, unlike in the military, in many
commercial organizations, minor infractions are not always reli-
ably recorded, and serious offenders are generally terminated
before they can be studied (Van Iddekinge et al., 2012). Finally,
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
Low
CWB
long-term predictive validity designs, such as in the present study,
are not readily available for the study of CWB and integrity.
Despite the advantages of the military setting in the present
study, one might question the generalizability to commercial work-
place settings. The less-hierarchical nature of nonmilitary organi-
zations, the greater choice in job assignments, the faster transition
from job roles, and the ability to quit ones job might lessen the
emotional effect of a rejection decision and/or allow for other
outlets than CWB to deal more constructively with this outcome.
In addition, although the use of objectively reported CWB is
advantageous, it is still recognized that this is an imperfect mea-
sure that represents only detected incidents and not all committed
offenses.
Selection Utility and Future Research
In addition to studying CWB as an outcome of rejections, and in
light of the fact that CWB is generally considered to be an
independent performance dimension compared to task perfor-
mance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB; Sackett,
Berry, Wiemann, & Laczo, 2006; Sackett & Devore, 2001), it
would be interesting to study the effects of nonpromotion on other
such work behaviors as well. Doing so would provide a unique and
comprehensive understanding of the behavioral impact of rejection
and selection decisions in general. It is plausible, for example, that
some employees may engage in CWB even while still performing
their tasks and perhaps even contributing beyond their tasks. In
fact, recent research has found that nonpromotion may also lead to

integrity
0.15 High
OCB in some situations (Hui, Lam, & Law, 2000).
integrity Evaluating the utility or effectiveness of a selection system,
0.1 whether for hiring or for promoting, should take into consideration
a wide range of performance dimensions. Typically, a selection
0.05 systems utility is estimated on the basis of the outcomes of those
selected (e.g., increased performance), such as the classic Brodgen
0 CronbachGleser model (Gatewood & Feild, 1998). However, the
Rejected Accepted
Promotion decision
potentially damaging behaviors of rejected applicants can, to at
least some degree, detract from the utility gained from the perfor-
Figure 2. Interaction between promotion decisions and overt integrity on mance of those promoted. Unfortunately, estimating the utility of
counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) after 6 months. Low integ- a selection system in the military is difficult, because the very
rity 1 SD; high integrity 1 SD. concept of monetary values of individual damages and perfor-
 CWB AND NONPROMOTED EMPLOYEES
mance are absent. Still, in the past, researchers have suggested
alternative utility estimates for military settings in terms of man-
power savings (Eaton, Wing, & Mitchell, 1985), which could
possibly be adapted to the present scenarios. An anonymous re-
viewer offered the following method for calculating the utility of
the current findings. By aggregating the beta values in Model 3 of
Table 3, the d value between the predicted CWB for rejected
applicants with 1 SD of integrity (.253) and the rejected
applicants with 1 SD of integrity (.253) would be approximately
.506. Multiplying this value by the SD in CWB (.38) from Table
2 would estimate that high-integrity rejected applicants commit
approximately .19 fewer CWBs in the 6 months following rejec-
tion. If 10,000 officer applicants are rejected a year, which is
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
reasonable for some militaries, this translates into a substantial
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
predicted difference of 1,900 CWBs.
Along a similar vein, organizations might also consider the
effect that nonpromoted individuals, and their subsequent behav-
iors, have on their coworkers. Specifically, the possible influence
that dissatisfied and revengeful nonpromoted soldiers may have on
the morale of their military unit is not something that has been well
researched and may be of extreme importance, above and beyond
their own individual outcomes. Indeed, individual-level CWB has
been known to influence group-level performance (e.g., Dunlop &
Lee, 2004; OBoyle, Forsyth, & OBoyle, 2011), and so it is
possible that units (or business teams) with rejected promotion
candidates may have a greater incidence of CWB and lower
overall performance than do units without rejected candidates
and/or with accepted promotion candidates.
Finally, an added element to consider with respect to the impli-
cations of nonpromotion is the seniority level of the promotion.
Just as the utility of a typical selection decision increases with job
level and job complexity (Hunter, Schmidt, & Judiesch, 1990), so
too may the potential damages incurred by more-senior officers or
managers increase (Sagie, Birati, & Tziner, 2002). The present
study looked at a sample of junior-level officer candidates (i.e.,
applying to be 2nd lieutenants), whereas similar promotion deci-
sions are made for senior-level promotion candidates as well (i.e.,
captains, majors, and colonels; Gal & Mangelsdorff, 1991). Given
that at the time of testing, all of those candidates are already
officers who are in the command of others and have access to
sensitive materials, revengeful senior officers who have been re-
jected from their next promotion may potentially cause far greater
damage to the organization than would a rank-and-file soldier.
Moreover, the contagious effect of CWBs committed by leaders
such as officers (or managers) may have a far greater effect on
their subordinates than would the CWBs of single unit members.
When considered from this perspective, nonpromotion may truly
have far-reaching implications for an organization.
It is unfortunate that the individual dimensions of each CWB
incident were unavailable, because they may have helped to pro-
vide important new insight concerning the present findings. Spe-
cifically, it is known that CWBs vary with respect to their severity
(i.e., minor and serious offenses) and target orientation (i.e., inter-
personal and organizational offenses), and although there is high
convergence between these dimensions, there is also reason to
believe that they may be differentially predicted (Berry, Ones, &
Sackett, 2007; Sackett & Devore, 2001). With respect to the
present study, behavioral reactions to nonpromotion decisions
might be more characteristic of certain types of CWB than others.
1727
Specifically, if one accepts that rejected candidates are likely to be
revengeful against the organization, one might hypothesize that
more CWBs would target the organization rather than its members.
In addition, because serious CWBs (e.g., abuse, sabotage) have
been found to be more strongly associated with anger and stress
compared to minor CWBs (e.g., withdrawal), which have been
associated with boredom (Spector et al., 2006), one might hypoth-
esize that there would be a greater incidence of serious CWBs as
well.
Concluding Remarks
Although there will probably always be disgruntled and re-
vengeful nonpromoted employees, this study offers insight to
better understand their possible negative emotional and behavioral
reactions and to more accurately estimate the utility of promotion
decisions in general. Nevertheless, a great deal of additional re-
search is still needed to confirm and build upon the present
findings in nonmilitary settings and using new measures in order to
better understand the consequences of nonpromotion.
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 67, 422 436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0040968
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical
analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84,
888 918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
Allen, V. L., & Greenberger, D. B. (1980). Destruction and perceived
control. In A. Beum & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Applications of personal
control (Vol. 2, pp. 85109). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of
organizational fairness: An examination of reactions to tenure and pro-
motion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 266 275. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.266
Bauer, T. N., McCarthy, J., Anderson, N., Truxillo, D. M., & Salgado, J. F.
(2012). What we know about applicant reactions on attitudes and
behavior: Research summary and best practices. Bowling Green, OH:
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
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, 410 424. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410
Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Wiemann, S. (2007). A review of recent
developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271
301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00074.x
Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S. J., Rose, S. R., & Hansen, L. M. (1987).
Development of a model of soldier effectiveness (Tech. Rep. No. 741).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences.
Bowling, N. A., & Eschleman, K. J. (2010). Employee personality as a
moderator of the relationships between work stressors and counterpro-
ductive work behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15,
91103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017326
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R.
(2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work
situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
599 609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.599
Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational
citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do
spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 67 80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.243
 1728 FINE, GOLDENBERG, AND NOAM
Eaton, N. K., Wing, H., & Mitchell, K. J. (1985). Alternative methods of
estimating the dollar value of performance. Personnel Psychology, 38,
27 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00539.x
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Fine, S., Goldenberg, J., & Noam, Y. (2016). Integrity testing and the
prediction of counterproductive behaviors in the military. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89, 198 218. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12117
Fine, S., Horowitz, I., Weigler, H., & Basis, L. (2010). Is good character
good enough? The effects of situational variables on the relationship
between integrity and counterproductive work behaviors. Human Re-
source Management Review, 20, 73 84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.hrmr.2009.03.010
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Ford, D., Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N. (2009). Rejected but still there:
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Shifting the focus in applicant reactions to the promotional context.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 402 416. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00482.x
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915931. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:6915::AID-JOB9183.0.CO;2-6
Gal, R., & Mangelsdorff, A. D. (1991). Handbook of military psychology.
Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Garca-Izquierdo, A. L., Moscoso, S., & Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J. (2012).
Reactions to the fairness of promotion methods: Procedural justice and
job satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20,
394 403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12002
Gatewood, R. D., & Feild, H. S. (1998). Human resource selection (4th
ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An
organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18,
694 734.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.
American Sociological Review, 25, 161178. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2092623
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment ineq-
uity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
561568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.561
Hallier, J., & James, P. (2000). The decline of cooling out applicant failure:
Some adaptations to organizational changes by self-regulating groups.
Employee Relations, 22, 1337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0142
5450010310789
Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions
to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 57, 639 683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004
.00003.x
Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of
organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A field quasi-
experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 822 828. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.822
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Judiesch, M. K. (1990). Individual
differences in output variability as a function of job complexity. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75, 28 42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.75.1.28
Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate
identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns. Psycholog-
ical Science, 7, 40 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996
.tb00664.x
Jones, A. (1991). The contribution of psychologists to military officer
selection. In R. Gal & A. D. Mangelsdorff (Eds.), Handbook of military
psychology (pp. 63 80). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal
cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano
(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56 88). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive be-
havior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 647 660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.647
Marcus, B., te Nijenhuis, J., Cremers, M., & van der Heijden-Lek, K.
(2016). Tests of integrity, HEXACO personality, and general mental
ability, as predictors of integrity ratings in the Royal Dutch Military
Police. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 24, 6370.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12130
McCarthy, J. M., Hrabluik, C., & Jelley, R. B. (2009). Progression through
the ranks: Assessing employee reactions to high-stakes employment
testing. Personnel Psychology, 62, 793 832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1744-6570.2009.01158.x
Mikulay, S., Neuman, G., & Finkelstein, L. (2001). Counterproductive
workplace behaviors. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Mono-
graphs, 127, 279 300.
Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in
many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175220. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
OBoyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., & OBoyle, A. S. (2011). Bad apples or bad
barrels: An examination of group-and organizational-level effects in the
study of counterproductive work behavior. Group & Organization Man-
agement, 36, 39 69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601110390998
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive
meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for
personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 679 703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4
.679
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 555572. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256693
Rumsey, M. G. (2012). Military selection and classification in the United
States. In J. H. Laurence & M. D. Matthews (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
book of military psychology (pp. 129 147). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399325
.013.0054
Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants perceptions of selection
procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future.
Journal of Management, 26, 565 606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
014920630002600308
Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2014). A century of selection. Annual
Review of Psychology, 65, 693717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
psych-010213-115134
Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2006).
Citizenship and counterproductive behavior: Clarifying relations be-
tween the two domains. Human Performance, 19, 441 464. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1904_7
Sackett, P. R., & Devore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at
work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology
(Vol. 1, pp. 145164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sackett, P. R., & Wanek, J. E. (1996). New developments in the use of
measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trust-
worthiness, and reliability for personnel selection. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 49, 787 829. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996
.tb02450.x
Sagie, A., Birati, A., & Tziner, A. (2002). Assessing the costs of behavioral
and psychological withdrawal: A new model and an empirical illustra-
tion. Applied Psychology, 51, 67 89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-
0597.00079
 CWB AND NONPROMOTED EMPLOYEES
Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. (2004). Comparing lots before and after:
Promotion rejectees invidious reactions to promotes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Resource Processes, 94, 33 47. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.01.001
Schinkel, S., van Dierendonck, D., van Vianen, A. E. M., & Ryan, A. M.
(2011). Applicant reactions to rejection: Feedback, fairness, and attri-
butional style effects. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10, 146 156.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000047
Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Shalit, B. (1992). A field study of
employees attitudes and behaviors after promotion decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77, 511514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.77.4.511
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The
roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Applied Psychology, 82, 434 443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.82.3.434
Soeters, J., & Recht, R. (1998). Culture and discipline in military acade-
mies: An international comparison. Journal of Political and Military
Sociology, 26, 169 189.
Spector, P. E. (1997). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work.
In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in
organizations (pp. 117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
1729
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler,
S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counter-
productive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68,
446 460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
Truxillo, D. M., Steiner, D. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (2004). The importance
of organizational justice in personnel selection: Defining when selection
fairness really matters. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 12, 39 53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.00262.x
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Raymark, P. H., & Odle-Dusseau, H. N.
(2012). The criterion-related validity of integrity tests: An updated
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 499 530. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0021196
Wernimont, P. F., & Campbell, J. P. (1968). Signs, samples, and criteria.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 372376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0026244
Zhou, Z. E., Meier, L. L., & Spector, P. E. (2014). The role of personality
and job stressors in predicting counterproductive work behavior: A
three-way interaction. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 22, 286 296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12077
Received September 20, 2015
Revision received July 22, 2016
Accepted July 22, 2016