Objective: To explore the causes of unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) of sales staff and the influence mechanism of personality traits on UPB. Methods: The questionnaire method was used to obtain the sample data. The personality traits scale, performance pressure scale and UPB scale were adapted and questionnaires were designed based on the previous mature scales. The questionnaires were distributed to the sales staff by random sampling and a total of 600 valid questionnaires were obtained in the end. And the data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, regression analysis and mediated effects analysis using SPSS 26.0. Results: The mean value of personality traits of the sales staff was 3.683 with a standard deviation of 0.503; the mean value of performance pressure was 3.367 with a standard deviation of 0.475; and the mean value of UPB was 3.658 with a standard deviation of 0.523. Personality traits of sales staff had significant positive effects on performance pressure and UPB (P<0.05). Performance pressure had a significant positive effect on UPB (P<0.05). Performance pressure partially mediated the relationship between personality traits and UPB. Conclusions: The adoption of UPB by sales staff is not only directly influenced by personality traits, but also indirectly influenced by performance pressure. Therefore, organizations should guide employees to form positive personality traits, and give them more support and care to alleviate the negative emotions caused by performance pressure, so as to avoid the occurrence of bad behavior.
| Published in | Humanities and Social Sciences (Volume 11, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.hss.20231102.14 |
| Page(s) | 62-69 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Sales Staff, Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior, Personality Traits, Performance Pressure
| [1] | Ajzen I. (1987). Attitudes, Traits, and Actions: Dispositional Prediction of Behavior in Personality and Social Psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 1-63. Doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60411-6. |
| [2] | Bui H. N. (2017). Big Five personality traits and job satisfaction. Journal of General Management, 42, 21-30. Doi: 10.1177/0306307016687990. |
| [3] | Bush V., Bush A. J., Oakley J., et al. (2017). The Sales Profession as a Subculture: Implications for Ethical Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 549-565. |
| [4] | Costa P. T., McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality: Another "hidden factor" in stress research. Psychological Inquiry, 1 (1), 22–24. Doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0101_5. |
| [5] | Costa P. T., McCrae R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64 (1): 21-50. Doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2. |
| [6] | Craft J. L. (2013). A Review of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature: 2004-2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 221-259. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1518-9. |
| [7] | Crant J. M. (2000). Proactive Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 435-462. Doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00044-1. |
| [8] | Ferrell O. C., Johnston M. W., Marshall G. W., et al. (2019). A New Direction for Sales Ethics Research: The Sales Ethics Subculture. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 27, 282-297. Doi: 10.1080/10696679.2019.1615839. |
| [9] | Hao J., Sun B. (2019). Research on the influence mechanism of inclusive leadership on employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior: from the perspective of LMX and proactive personality. Journal of Lanzhou University of Finance and Economics, 35 (06), 28-38. Doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-5465.2019.06.003. |
| [10] | Harris L. C., Ogbonna E. (2002). Exploring service sabotage: The antecedents, types and consequences of frontline, deviant, anti-service behaviors. Journal of Service Research, 4 (3), 163-183. Doi: 10.1177/1094670502004003001. |
| [11] | He X. (2022). A study on the effect of performance pressure on employees' work engagement: the moderating role of self-efficacy. Marketing Management Review, 774 (06), 136-139. Doi: 10.19932/j.cnki.22-1256/F.2022.06.136. |
| [12] | Ivancevich J. M., Matteson M. T. (1984). A Type A-B person–work environment interaction model for examining occupational stress and consequences. Human Relations, 37 (7), 491-513. Doi: 10.1177/001872678403700701. |
| [13] | Jia S., Gou L., Cai Z., et al. (2022). Double-edged-sword effect of performance pressure in organizational contexts. Advances in Psychological Science, 30 (12), 2846-2856. |
| [14] | Kundi Y. M., Sardar S., Badar K. (2022). Linking performance pressure to employee work engagement: the moderating role of emotional stability. Personnel Review, 51 (3), 841-860. Doi: 10.1108/PR-05-2020-0313. |
| [15] | Lepine J. A., Podsakoff N. P., LePine M. A. (2005). A Meta-Analytic Test of the Challenge Stressor–Hindrance Stressor Framework: An Explanation for Inconsistent Relationships Among Stressors and Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764-775. Doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803921. |
| [16] | Li M. (2010). A study on the relationship between auditors' job characteristics, personality traits and job satisfaction. Shaanxi Normal University. |
| [17] | Liu Y., Zhang J., Jin S. (2005). The influence of social support and personality on university students’ stress. Acta Psychologica Sinica, (01), 92-99. Doi: CNKI:SUN:XLXB.0.2005-01-013. |
| [18] | Mitchell M. S., Greenbaum R. L., Vogel R. M., et al. (2019). Can You Handle the Pressure? The Effect of Performance Pressure on Stress Appraisals, Self-Regulation, and Behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 62 (2), 531-552. Doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0646. |
| [19] | Oishi S. (2014). Socioecological psychology. Annual review of psychology, 65, 581-609. (2014). Socioecological Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 65 (1), 581-609. Doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-030413-152156. |
| [20] | Ozutku H., Altındiş S. (2011). Big five personality factors and other elements in understanding work stress of Turkish health care professionals. African Journal of Business Management, 5, 10462-10473. Doi: 10.5897/AJBM11.2110. |
| [21] | Parmer L. L., Dillard J. E. (2015). The Relationship between Personality and Consumer Behavior Buying Patterns within the Automobile Industry. Global Conference on Business & Finance Proceedings, 10 (1), 286-295. |
| [22] | Song M., Hu H., Wang Z. (2022). The double-edged effects of performance performance pressure on employee well-being. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 36 (06), 68-79. Doi: 10.13587/j.cnki.jieem.2022.06.006. |
| [23] | Suciu N., Meliț L. E., Mărginean C. O. (2021). A Holistic Approach of Personality Traits in Medical Students: An Integrative Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (23), 12822. Doi: 10.3390/ijerph182312822. |
| [24] | Thau S., Derfler-Rozin R., Pitesa M., et al. (2015). Unethical for the sake of the group: Risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (1), 98-113. Doi: 10.1037/a0036708. |
| [25] | Umphress E. E., Bingham J. B., Mitchell M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (4), 769-780. Doi: 10.1037/a0019214. |
| [26] | Wang Y. (2015). The impact of individual’s social characteristics on unethical behavior: the mediating role of reciprocity. Zhejiang Gongshang University. |
| [27] | Wang Y. (2023). Sales personnel management and control mode reflects the wisdom of enterprise development. Business China, 362 (01), 120-121. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2753-7. |
| [28] | Yin K., Zhao J., Zhou J., et al. (2021). The big-five personality profiles: A person-centered approach. Advances in Psychological Science, 29 (10), 1866-1877. Doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01866. |
APA Style
Zheng Jiahuan, Zeng Zhi, Jiang Xiaohan. (2023). A Study on the Relationship Between Personality Traits and Unethical Pro-organizational Behaviors of Sales Staff: The Mediation of Performance Pressure. Humanities and Social Sciences, 11(2), 62-69. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20231102.14
ACS Style
Zheng Jiahuan; Zeng Zhi; Jiang Xiaohan. A Study on the Relationship Between Personality Traits and Unethical Pro-organizational Behaviors of Sales Staff: The Mediation of Performance Pressure. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2023, 11(2), 62-69. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20231102.14
AMA Style
Zheng Jiahuan, Zeng Zhi, Jiang Xiaohan. A Study on the Relationship Between Personality Traits and Unethical Pro-organizational Behaviors of Sales Staff: The Mediation of Performance Pressure. Humanit Soc Sci. 2023;11(2):62-69. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20231102.14
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.hss.20231102.14,
author = {Zheng Jiahuan and Zeng Zhi and Jiang Xiaohan},
title = {A Study on the Relationship Between Personality Traits and Unethical Pro-organizational Behaviors of Sales Staff: The Mediation of Performance Pressure},
journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences},
volume = {11},
number = {2},
pages = {62-69},
doi = {10.11648/j.hss.20231102.14},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20231102.14},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hss.20231102.14},
abstract = {Objective: To explore the causes of unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) of sales staff and the influence mechanism of personality traits on UPB. Methods: The questionnaire method was used to obtain the sample data. The personality traits scale, performance pressure scale and UPB scale were adapted and questionnaires were designed based on the previous mature scales. The questionnaires were distributed to the sales staff by random sampling and a total of 600 valid questionnaires were obtained in the end. And the data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, regression analysis and mediated effects analysis using SPSS 26.0. Results: The mean value of personality traits of the sales staff was 3.683 with a standard deviation of 0.503; the mean value of performance pressure was 3.367 with a standard deviation of 0.475; and the mean value of UPB was 3.658 with a standard deviation of 0.523. Personality traits of sales staff had significant positive effects on performance pressure and UPB (PConclusions: The adoption of UPB by sales staff is not only directly influenced by personality traits, but also indirectly influenced by performance pressure. Therefore, organizations should guide employees to form positive personality traits, and give them more support and care to alleviate the negative emotions caused by performance pressure, so as to avoid the occurrence of bad behavior.},
year = {2023}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - A Study on the Relationship Between Personality Traits and Unethical Pro-organizational Behaviors of Sales Staff: The Mediation of Performance Pressure AU - Zheng Jiahuan AU - Zeng Zhi AU - Jiang Xiaohan Y1 - 2023/04/27 PY - 2023 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20231102.14 DO - 10.11648/j.hss.20231102.14 T2 - Humanities and Social Sciences JF - Humanities and Social Sciences JO - Humanities and Social Sciences SP - 62 EP - 69 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-8184 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20231102.14 AB - Objective: To explore the causes of unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) of sales staff and the influence mechanism of personality traits on UPB. Methods: The questionnaire method was used to obtain the sample data. The personality traits scale, performance pressure scale and UPB scale were adapted and questionnaires were designed based on the previous mature scales. The questionnaires were distributed to the sales staff by random sampling and a total of 600 valid questionnaires were obtained in the end. And the data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, regression analysis and mediated effects analysis using SPSS 26.0. Results: The mean value of personality traits of the sales staff was 3.683 with a standard deviation of 0.503; the mean value of performance pressure was 3.367 with a standard deviation of 0.475; and the mean value of UPB was 3.658 with a standard deviation of 0.523. Personality traits of sales staff had significant positive effects on performance pressure and UPB (PConclusions: The adoption of UPB by sales staff is not only directly influenced by personality traits, but also indirectly influenced by performance pressure. Therefore, organizations should guide employees to form positive personality traits, and give them more support and care to alleviate the negative emotions caused by performance pressure, so as to avoid the occurrence of bad behavior. VL - 11 IS - 2 ER -
Email: