The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

Forms of employee negative

word-of-mouth: a study
of front-line workers
Lloyd C. Harris

Employee
negative
word-of-mouth
39

Warwick Business School, The University of Warwick, Warwick, UK, and

Emmanuel Ogbonna
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this article is to supply grounded empirical insights into the forms of negative
word-of-mouth by front-line, customer contact employees.
Design/methodology/approach The article adopts a qualitative approach through interviews
with 54 front-line employees in three retail organizations: food, clothing and electronic goods.
Findings The paper finds four different forms of negative word-of-mouth behaviours which
are labelled customer-oriented, anti-management/firm, employee-oriented and anti-competitor
word-of-mouth. The paper shows how each of these behaviours varied in terms of the target
audience (the intended listeners), the focus of attention (the focal point of comments), the motivation
(the perceived rationale for the behaviour) and the extent to which employees perceived their own
comments to be truthful.
Research limitations/implications The article calls for an expansion of research horizon to
incorporate a fuller understanding of the dynamics of employee (mis)behaviour in the workplace in
relation to resistance, subjectivity, instrumentality and clandestine control of certain aspects of
workplace dynamics.
Practical implications The findings suggest that managers should be concerned with front-line
employee negative word-of-mouth especially because some of the examples which were uncovered
are potentially damaging to both financial and non financial performance measures.
Originality/value The article contributes insights into the neglected area of employee negative
word-of-mouth. The article argues that the identification of the forms of employee negative
word-of-mouth is an important step towards developing a theory of employee negative word-of-mouth
that is especially pertinent to front-line service work. The article develops a series of propositions
which future researchers may find useful in advancing research in this area.
Keywords Employee word-of-mouth, Negative word-of-mouth, Front-line,
Customer contact employees, Organizational misbehaviour, Organizational behaviour,
Employees behaviour
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
It is commonly argued that word-of-mouth (WOM) is an insidious form of
communication which can have profound and pervasive consequences for many
organizational and societal processes. For example, organizational psychologists have
argued that WOM communication can play a major role in helping potential recruits to
gauge their attractiveness to various organizations prior to job applications and the
subsequent acceptance of job offers (see Rynes, 1991; Hoye and Lievens, 2007).
Scholars adopting economic perspectives have taken this beyond the boundaries of
organizations by claiming a correlation between WOM communication and the
economic prosperity of nations; with positive WOM found to be driving business
growth in the UK (see Marsden et al., 2005). However, it is arguable that research into

Employee Relations
Vol. 35 No. 1, 2013
pp. 39-60
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425451311279401

ER
35,1

40

WOM has been more sustained in the marketing discipline where evidence suggests
a widespread management obsession with controlling customer WOM communication
as part of the effort to increase competitive advantage (e.g. Henricks, 1998; Bansal and
Voyer, 2000; Godes and Mayzlin, 2009).
Surprisingly, although there has been research interest into WOM from a range
of organizational disciplines, there is a notable lack of studies on employee negative
WOM behaviours. Indeed, although studies have explored associated topics such
as voice and silence (Morrison and Milliken, 2000; Edwards et al., 2009); and
rumours (Kurland and Pelled, 2000); and while the literature is replete with
contributions on employee behaviours that can be viewed as linked to WOM such as
sabotage (see Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999; Harris and Ogbonna, 2002; Wang et al.,
2011), workplace incivility (see van Jaarsveld et al., 2010) and retaliation (see
Skarlicki and Folger, 1997; Skarlicki et al., 1999), research is lacking into the
dynamics of employee negative WOM behaviours. This inattention is especially
profound in the important business-sensitive context of front-line service work.
Specifically, although there are isolated practical examples of the potentially
destructive nature of WOM by senior organizational members (see the cases of
Ratners Plc and Barclays Bank Plc in the UK Daily Telegraph, 2003a, b), research
contributions have tended to shun the forms of WOM by employees, especially
front-line, customer contact employees who are the direct interface between
organizations and their customers.
We argue that systematic empirical evaluation of the WOM phenomenon
will contribute important insights to the literature on the dynamics of negative
employee behaviour in the workplace, particularly in relation to front-line service
work where there remains a continuing absence of integrated studies of service
encounters (see Korczynski, 2009) especially in relation to face-to-face customer
contact work (Ogbonna, 2010). Such study will also contribute empirical insights
which will help to increase understanding of the ways in which employees manifest
their resistance to the control and routinization that are present in front-line service
work (see Leidner, 1993). In this way, the study will document a broader range
of organizational (mis)behaviour that incorporates negative WOM alongside
those (such as sabotage, incivility, retaliation, voice, resistance) that are commonly
reported in the literature.
Consequently, the aim of this paper is to supply grounded empirical insights into the
forms of front-line, customer contact employee negative WOM. Explicating these forms
of behaviour requires an appreciation of the target audiences, focuses, motives and
employee belief in the truthfulness of each form of WOM that is identified, all of which
are explored in this article. Our findings are synthesized into a series of propositions
which future researchers may find useful in advancing research in this area. The
intended audience of the article therefore is not only scholars interested in
understanding WOM behaviours, but also those concerned with the management,
employee and customer triangle which has been attracting interest in recent years, but
in which commentators have noted a lack of empirical work (see Korczynski, 2009;
Ogbonna, 2010).
The article begins with a review of the relevant studies that help in delineating the
theoretical framework for our study of WOM communication. This is followed by
a discussion of the methods through which data for the study were gathered and
analysed, leading to the presentation of the findings. The final part of the article
presents a discussion of the contributions and limitations of the work.

WOM communication: a review of the literature

Prior to our review of the literature, it is useful to provide a definition of WOM
communication that is used in this study. Our definition is derived from HarrisonWalker (2001, p. 63) who defines WOM communication as informal, person-to-person
communication between a perceived non-commercial communicator and a receiver
regarding a brand, a product, an organization, or a service. In this sense, WOM can
be positive or negative, with the aim of negative WOM being to denigrate the object of
the communication (see Richins, 1983). In this review, we begin by providing an
overview of existing studies of WOM communication in organizations. Given the
relative paucity of studies of employee negative WOM, our review turns to studies
of HRM/organization studies which, whilst not being directly focused on WOM, are
central to understanding the issues which may give rise to employee responses which
can be associated with WOM.
WOM studies in organizations
Our review of the literature on WOM in organizations finds a domination of studies by
organizational psychologists and marketing scholars. These two research disciplines
have called for additional research attention to be paid to the dynamics of employee
WOM, whether in relation to recruitment and selection in psychology (see Shinnar
et al., 2004; Hoye and Lievens, 2007) or in the context of the perceived important
role that WOM plays in the success or failure of a product or brand in marketing
(e.g. Brown and Reingen, 1987; Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2003; Godes and Mayzlin, 2009).
A brief discussion of the research developments in each area is important in
understanding the existing contributions on WOM communication in organizations.
Researchers working from organizational psychology perspectives have explored
the role of WOM as a source of recruitment-related information and concluded that
WOM can impact positively on the attractiveness of potential organizational recruits.
For example, Hoye and Lievens (2007) suggest that organizations should devote
significant resource to minimize or counter negative reputation by encouraging
positive WOM. The importance of this is illustrated by other scholars who argue that
an individuals decision to apply to a particular organization is heavily influenced by
that individuals perception of the culture of the target organization. Thus, it is argued
that applicants commonly rely on WOM information which is typically communicated
through their informal networks to determine whether they should seek employment
in particular organizations (see Shinnar et al., 2004; Rynes, 1991; Popovich and
Wanous, 1982). In assessing the motivation of employees that engage in WOM referrals
for employment, Shinnar et al. (2004) observe that employees generally engage in such
behaviours either as a result of intrinsic motivation or as a consequence of the
inducement that may be offered by their organization. Thus, employees who are
satisfied with their organizations are more likely to engage in positive advocacy which
could help the organization in recruitment and selection.
In contrast, to the interest in the links between WOM and recruitment, marketing
studies of WOM are generally focused on the perceived association between customer
WOM and organizational success. Indeed, some scholars have referred to the control of
customer WOM communication as the best kept secret for increasing organizational
profitability (see Misner, 1999). Such conclusion arises from a number of studies in this
area. These studies include discussions of the attempts by organizations to stimulate
demand for their products or services through the use of new media or what is
commonly linked to buzz marketing (see Carl, 2006). However, this area is dominated

Employee
negative
word-of-mouth
41

ER
35,1

42

by studies of traditional WOM practices by customers. For instance, Anderson (1998)

argues that both very satisfied and very dissatisfied customers are likely to engage in
WOM communication, suggesting the potential for both positive and negative
advocacy arising from WOM. However, Bowman and Narayandas (2001) extension of
this finding through the linking of customer loyalty to the propensity to engage in
WOM provides a useful development of research in the area. Specifically, the finding
that dissatisfied loyal customers are more likely than satisfied loyal customers to
engage in WOM communication poses an interesting conundrum to organizations
and marketers. That is, this finding suggests that while satisfied customers may
remain loyal, they do not necessarily go out of their way to become ambassadors of
the firm in the same way that dissatisfied loyal customers may wish to have their
negative voices heard. This mirrors the conclusion of earlier research that consumers
whose complaints were not resolved to their satisfaction told twice as many
people about their negative experiences when compared with consumers who were
satisfied with the product or service (see Swinyard and Whitlark, 1994). This raises
the question of whether organizations should focus on promoting positive WOM or
whether they should concentrate on minimizing negative WOM. Given the interesting
conclusion that minimizing dissatisfaction should be a more important goal than
maximizing satisfaction (see Swinyard and Whitlarks, 1994 discussion of prospect
theory), it is sensible to suggest that marketers should direct more effort in uncovering
and dealing with negative WOM; yet a vast proportion of the marketing literature
on this issue is dedicated to positive WOM by loyal customers (see Richins, 1983;
Godes and Mayzlin, 2009).
Employee responses
Although scholars have explored the role of WOM in influencing potential
organizational entrants on the one hand, and have examined the impact of customer
WOM on the performance of organizations on the other, research is lacking on
employee negative WOM. In order to improve our understanding of the dynamics of
negative WOM, it is necessary to study the actions of front-line service employees,
who are in direct contact with customers and whose WOM behaviours have
remained largely ignored. To assist in this vein, it is useful to explore the contributions
of researchers who have documented employee behaviours that are contrary to those
that managers require to achieve their profit motive. We begin by exploring behaviours
that are commonly described as the dark side of organizational life, including
employee misbehaviours such as sabotage, incivility and retaliation. This is followed
by a review of employee voice and silence as well as other forms of resistance by
front-line employees to organizational regimes designed to control their subjectivity.
Ackroyd and Thompson (1999) argue that theories which imply that new forms of
management have stifled the capacity of employees to organize effective resistance
represent an incomplete evaluation of the developments in work organization. They
discuss various forms of employee misbehaviour which they argue are commonly
ignored by researchers. Although much of the examples in Ackroyd and Thompsons
(1999) work relate to traditional industrial contexts, scholars have studied
misbehaviour and other aspects of the dark side of organizational life involving
service employees. In this regard, there is a growing literature which finds widespread
evidence of sabotage behaviour amongst front-line customer service employees
(see Analoui, 1995; Crino, 1994; Harris and Ogbonna, 2002, 2006; Skarlicki et al., 2008;
Wang et al., 2011).

Although many antecedents have been put forward by scholars for sabotage
behaviours (e.g. Harris and Ogbonna, 2002, 2006), it is important to understand this
and other negative behaviours in the context of customer sovereignty (see du Gay and
Salaman, 1992). Indeed, many researchers view misbehaviour as employee response
to the excesses of customers. For instance, Wang et al. (2011) note that employee
sabotage is commonly the result of customer mistreatment of service staff. This view
is consistent with the conclusions of earlier research by Skarlicki et al. (2008)
which finds that employee sabotage directed at customers is a way of restoring the
dignity of employees in contexts where the customer is perceived to have treated
workers unfairly.
Other forms of misbehaviour have also been documented by scholars studying the
interaction between customers and employees. Of particular relevance to this study is
workplace incivility which is described as low level deviant behaviour such as making
condescending remarks about customers (see Kern and Grandey, 2009; van Jaarsveld
et al., 2010). Although on the surface, incivility is not as damaging as sabotage; van
Jaarsveld et al. (2010) report a tendency for incivility to spiral, with customer violation
of socially accepted norms of behaviour leading to employee incivility which in turn
encourages customer incivility. Such behaviour is also linked to retaliatory responses
which have been reported in a number of studies of front-line service staff who seek
revenge in cases of customer mistreatment (e.g. Skarlicki and Folger, 1997; Skarlicki
et al., 1999). Both incivility and retaliation are argued to be emotionally exhausting to
employees (see Kern and Grandey, 2009) and ultimately damaging to customer service
and business profitability (see Crino, 1994).
While the discussion so far has assumed that misbehaviour is commonplace in
organizations, it should be noted that there are a range of behavioural choices that are
available to employees. Specifically, in relation to WOM, employees have a choice of
whether to speak (voice) or to remain silent. Indeed, researchers have called for
additional understanding of the emotional issues involved in individual decisions to
speak up or to remain silent especially in the context of whistle-blowing. For example,
Edwards et al. (2009) suggest that organizational climate can play a major role in
moderating employee emotional reactions in contexts where they observe wrongdoing.
Morrison and Milliken (2000) find that certain organizations promote a climate of fear
and that this may discourage employees from voicing their concerns.
To complete our review of the theoretical context for negative WOM behaviours,
it is necessary to provide an overview of the literature on other employee responses to
management actions in the workplace. This literature is dominated by the central
ideological juxtaposition of control and resistance (see Braverman, 1974; Edwards,
1979). Such ideologies are manifested in different ways, but commonly through a range
of practices and structures instituted by managers and that are designed to control
the subjectivity of workers (see Sturdy et al., 2001; Fleming and Spicer, 2003). In the
context of service work, the customer has been viewed as the central source of
the ideological assault on front-line workers. For example, scholars have shown how
a variety of programmes that are supposedly premised on improving the delight
of customers are in reality designed to emphasize the deferential nature of the
relationship between front-line service staff and customers (see Ogbonna and
Wilkinson, 1990; Sturdy, 1998) and constitute what can be construed as expectations of
servitude (e.g. Ogbonna and Harris, 1998). Specifically, scholars have identified
emotional labouring as a significant aspect of the control of service employees. Indeed,
following the seminal work of Hochshild (1983), several studies have documented the

Employee
negative
word-of-mouth
43

ER
35,1

44

ways in which the behaviours of service workers are regulated by a variety of

emotional display rules as well as the consequences of such control (see Ogbonna
and Wilkinson, 1990; ODonohoe and Turley, 2006). Linked to this is the development of
particular types of organizational forms that are commonly repressive of individual
identities (see Casey, 1999; Fleming and Spicer, 2003). Such approaches are
distinguished by the ways in which they erode the little autonomy that front-line
workers may have while simultaneously transferring power to customers. These
customers effectively act as the surrogate agents of managers whose power capacity
over workers is also enhanced in this process. It is for this and other reasons that
a recent work by Korczynski (2009) argued for an appreciation of how power capacity,
emotional content and the frequency of service encounters all combine to influence the
potential for customers to become a source of alienation to service employees. This
mirrors earlier call by Leidner (1993) for a greater understanding of the cultural impact
of routinized customer service work in that the variety of relationships generated by
these encounters have multiple and differential impacts for service workers, customers,
organizations and societies.
Unsurprisingly, the forgoing discussion has contributed to a line of reasoning that
workplace misbehaviour (such as deliberate negative WOM) is an attempt to resist the
excessive power and controlling desire of management (see Jermier et al., 1995;
Lawrence and Robinson, 2007). However, as with any conception of control, there are
always examples of workers attempt to resist such control. In the context of service
work, recent studies of resistance have uncovered a variety of strategies that employees
adopt in their subversion of management control. A useful contribution in this vein
is the work of Mulholland (2004) which highlights the importance of collectivism in the
capacity of call centre workers to resist management control. Such collectivism can
often come in the form of learning to manipulate management policy on customer
service as in the example of front-line service staff that consciously and shrewdly
manipulated the implementation of a management policy of controlling service
behaviour through the institutionalization of tipping for their own financial and other
benefits (see Ogbonna and Harris, 2002).
However, it is arguable that the desire to rationalize employee actions in relation
to management control may conceal wider motives for employee (mis)behaviour
especially those that are legally and morally questionable. This issue has been
highlighted in a number of studies. For example, studies have reported systematic
discrimination and prejudice by front-line employees even in the context of care
provision (see Fearfull and Kamenou, 2007). Indeed, there are instances where the
misbehaviour of service staff resulted in harm and even the death of service recipients
(see Pitt, 1989). These issues suggest the importance of additional insights into the
behaviours of front-line service employers.
The foregoing discussion demonstrates that WOM communication has been studied
from a number of perspectives because of the perceived importance of this type
of communication on many organizational processes. However, a notable gap in
existing conceptualizations is the absence of studies that explore negative WOM
communication of front-line, customer contact service employees. In what follows, we
present our study of negative WOM to address this gap.
Research design and methods
In order to develop a greater understanding of negative WOM behaviours,
a qualitative interview-based approach was adopted as in-depth interviews are

particularly useful in generating rich and deep insights into complex phenomena
(see Miller, 1991; Bryman, 2004). In the current study, the interviews largely focused on
the asking of lead and follow-up open-ended questions which allowed respondents to
use their own language and jargon to describe their experiences, actions and
motivations. Examples of a lead and follow-up questions about in-work WOM
designed to identify the extent of negative WOM include: do you ever talk about
what you think about your firm during or when youre off work? To whom do you
speak? When/Where does this happen? How often? What do you say? Is it always
good/bad? How does this make you feel? Who dont you talk in front of? Why? What
stops you? Does it tend to be about certain things? This approach is argued to generate
rich and real data whilst capturing true depictions of events and feelings from the
participants perspective (Stauss and Weinlich, 1997). Meeting rooms were hired at
appropriate locations and all of the interviews were undertaken in a private setting
away from the place of employment. Typically, interviews lasted between 45 and
60 minutes (although some lasted as long as 90 minutes).
Field research comprised 54 in-depth interviews with employees from three retail
settings (food, clothing and electronic goods); these three sectors providing a range of
contexts with differing forms and types of customer-employee interaction. In each
sector, access was gained into two firms (the lead authors having previously had
contact with four of the six firms). In each of the six firms, two outlets were selected at
random. Subject to confidentiality agreements, the access to employees proved
comparatively straightforward (as the number of employees selected in each outlet
was small and the researchers were happy to fit around the work patterns of the outlet).
The employing organizations of participants ranged from firms with five branches
to multinational organizations with many hundreds of branches. Thereafter, in
conjunction with the local human resource manager, four to five employees from each
unit were selected for inclusion in the study. Efforts were made to gather insights from
a range of different types of employees (such as full/part-time, experienced, newly
hired, as well as a cross-section of ages and genders). Outlet size varied from branches
with 12 employees to outlets with hundreds of staff. At a management level,
participation was contingent on firm anonymity while participants were guaranteed
complete anonymity and assured that their comments were entirely confidential and
would not be reported to the firm. Following the agreed protocol for data collection,
in order to maintain the anonymity of individuals and organizations, details such as
store names, participants names and locations have been altered and pseudonyms
used throughout.
The 54 employees that were interviewed included eight supervisors (five of whom
were male), 12 team leaders (eight of whom were female) and 34 other staff working at
varying roles, including sales, checkout staff and customer advisors (22 of whom were
female). Supervisors and team leaders were designated as such and often (but not
always) paid slightly more than others. However, their main work activities were often
identical to other employees; with the designation supervisor or team leader
universally accepted as an artefact of their experience or long-standing employment.
As such, all of those included in the study believed themselves to be front-line,
customer contact employees. Informants in the food and clothing retailers were
not rewarded by sales incentives or commissions while the electronic goods stores
both offered a limited incentive scheme with small tangible rewards. A total of
24 participants were employed full-time and 30 part-time (although part-time
employees frequently worked full-time during festive or high seasons). The average

Employee
negative
word-of-mouth
45

ER
35,1

46

age of those interviewed was 26, the average length of tenure in the current firm was
3.4 years, with an average industry experience of 6.2 years. Just over a fifth of our
sample came from ethnic minorities (this figure being somewhat higher in the food and
clothing outlets than the electronic goods firms). A total of 32 of the 54 employees were
female, although females were disproportionally underrepresented at the more senior
levels (supervisors or team leaders) with only 11 out of 20 jobs.
Using Korczynskis (2009) framework; the retail contexts studied all involve high
levels of emotional labour with low degrees of customer relationship-forming
interaction repetition and medium (electronic retailing) to high (food and clothing
retailing) levels of customer power. Interactions in food retailing tended to be more
numerous but shorter in length while interactions in the electronic goods stores tended
to be fewer in number and more prolonged (interactions in the clothing outlets falling
between these two). In part, the length and depth of customer-initiated and -driven
interaction appeared to reflect the monetary value or importance to customer
self-image of the intended purchase. Union membership was low at just under 12
per cent for the whole sample (although somewhat higher in the food retailers).
To facilitate rigorous analysis, all interviews were audio recorded and subsequently
transcribed. On average, each interview generated 14 pages of text. Given the volume
of data collected, a systematic approach to data analysis was required. Accordingly, an
iterative approach was adopted, in which the collected data were coded into
theoretically derived categories (see Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Thereafter, each theme
(or sub-theme) was subjected to critical review, resulting in fewer themes; a process
repeated until the point of theoretical saturation was reached (see Strauss and Corbin,
1998). This process followed the recommendation of Strauss and Corbin (1998) and
employed three types of coding to analyse the data. In summary, open coding was
employed to discover and identify the properties and dimensions of concepts in data,
axial coding was used to link the core categories together at the level of properties and
dimensions and selective coding was utilized as a process of integrating and refining
theory. To improve the validity of these processes, the two lead authors conducted
analyses independently, compared results and resolved differences and anomalies
through discussion. Internal veracity checks were made by reviewing our coding
with an experienced qualitative researcher. We also conducted four ex post interviews
with participants to evaluate the external veracity of our findings (largely by checking
factual accuracy).
Findings
During data collection and analysis it was clear that front-line employees undertook a
considerable amount of negative WOM communications. Data analysis revealed four
main forms of negative WOM activity, each of which varied in target audience (the
intended listeners), focus of attention (the focal point of comments), motivation (the
perceived rationale for the behaviour) and the extent to which employees perceived
their comments to be truthful. Table I presents a summary of the forms of negative
WOM undertaken. For each form, we highlight the target audiences, focuses, motives
and employee beliefs in the truthfulness of the WOM. The first three forms of employee
negative WOM can be viewed as wholly negative in nature (in that, the comments are
designed to denigrate the object of the communication see Richins, 1983) while the
final form can be viewed as negative (in that it denigrates competitor firms) but also
partially positive (in that the motivation of such actions are indirectly to praise the
employing firm).

Motive

To exclude difficult
customers and
reduce work
intensification
To exclude ethnic
minority customers
perceived to be
troublemakers

Undesirable
customers
Specific ethnic
minorities
Deliberately false
Often exaggerated

Focus of attention

Employee belief in
truthfulness

Current customers
Potential customers

Target audience

Customer oriented

(a) To protect current

working conditions
(b) To maintain social
identity by excluding
outgroups (e.g. ethnic
minorities)
(c) To protect income levels
and or perks
(d) To protect friends,
neighbours and family
members

Management quality
Employment policies
Product quality
Service quality
Some deliberately
misleading and false
Some truthful and
fair reflection of
comparative
differences
To increase sales
during economic
downturn
To protect jobs and
incomes

Poor employment practices

Exploitative managements

To harm the reputation of the

management/firm
To elicit support and/or sympathy
for the victim

Current customers
Potential customers
Public at large

Fellow employees perceived

to be undesirable
Potential recruits perceived
to be undesirable
Perceived outgroups

Deliberate untruth where

motives (a), (b) and (c) below
are concerned
Truthful where motive (d)
below is concerned

Anti-competitor

Employee oriented

Believed to be accurate and

truthful

Co-workers
Friends
Family
Neighbours
Customers
General public
Perceived perpetrators of injustice
Financial loss by employee
Unfair treatment

Anti-management/firm

Employee
negative
word-of-mouth
47

Table I.
Forms of front-line
employee negative WOM

ER
35,1

48

Customer-oriented WOM
The first form of employee negative WOM is labelled customer oriented, denoting
derogatory comments about the employing organization targeted towards existing
or potential customers. As with the other forms of employee negative WOM, various
sub-categories emerged with differing focuses, motivations and target audiences
(see Table I).
First and most commonly, were comments targeted towards both current and
potential customers which were designed to discourage future patronage. The precise
motivation for such actions varied according to the customer type but appeared
to centre on the desire to exert some control over the employees working lives
(see Jermier et al., 1995). Customers viewed as overly demanding or requiring onerous
efforts during service by employees were perceived as undesirable and were actively
discouraged. For example:
For me, the worst ones are the old women. They come in and they want to talk, talk, talk. Oh,
and do they complain. Moan, whinge, moan, whinge. Its such a drag. I do everything I can
to put them off. I always say that I get my fruit and veg. from Xxxxx in the high street
much better quality there (pursing lips and nodding knowledgably). Total tripe of course but it
gets them out of here (Male, aged 21, two years experience).
The ones that drive me up the wall are the guys that come in expecting me to know
everything in the world everybodys price, everybodys products, the launches of every
new model. I mean, for Gods sake its a TV buy or dont. You get to the point where you just
say have a look on the internet internet sites are much better priced. Mostly the prices are
the same but as long as I dont get them on my case, thats all that I care about (Male, aged 32,
eight years experience).

In such cases, based on previous experience, employees clearly considered these

customers as annoying or as a nuisance which disrupted their control over their work
schedules or which impacted on their informal work patterns and practices. In some
respects, this form of negative WOM provides partial support to the idea that front-line
employees may view customers as potential alienating figures (see Korczynski, 2009).
A form of employee negative WOM also emerged in relation to in-store customers
who were known socially to employees. Particularly common amongst older
employees, were instances where negative WOM by employees was used towards
socially known customers during in-store encounters. One worker explains the
motivations for her actions towards a neighbour:
I saw my neighbour there this morning. Went over to say hello. Told her those are better
at Xxxxs (a competitor). If people know you work at a shop they expect you to be an expert
about it (Female, aged 36, seven years experience).

Interestingly, employees argued that such comments enhanced feelings of self-worth

and (to some degree) countered feelings of social degradation and embarrassment
when adhering to company regulations regarding employee-customer interactions.
One employee commented:
Its embarrassing isnt it? Im calling boys halve my age Sir and smiling politely at pikeys
(a derogatory term for a working class person) as they swagger past chewing gum.
With people you know, well, you just want to show them that youre better than that more
in the know (Female, aged 41, 12 years experience).

A less common form of customer-oriented employee negative WOM cantered on

comments made to in-store customers which are genuinely designed to assist the

customers in getting better value-for-money but which can be viewed as detrimental to

the firm. This form of negative WOM is characterized by employee comments which
unfavourably compare the quality and price of in-store goods and services to those of
competitors or which inform the customer of cheaper alternatives. For example:

Employee
negative
word-of-mouth

The prices can really vary. Theyll put something way up high so that they can then say its
half price. I tell them dont buy that one here. Half the time they can go online and get it
cheaper even from our own website! (Male, aged 42, three years experience).

49

This guy came in for a barbeque set. About three hundred it was. I told him come back
tomorrow and itll be half price saved him a fortune I did. Now thats putting customers
first! (Male, aged 32, eight years experience).

In some regards, this behaviour can be viewed as an unintended consequence of

frequently reported customer-focused programmes in that employees can cynically
interpret this in a manner that enables them to place the need of the customer before
that of the firm. These findings lead to the suggestion that:
P1. Motivated by a desire to exclude customers perceived as undesirable from their
working lives, front-line employees will deliberately falsify or exaggerate
their WOM communications with current and potential customers.
Anti-management/firm WOM
The second form of employee negative WOM refers to sustained derogatory
comments made by employees regarding the company management or employing firm
(see Table I). During the study, much evidence was found of various employees making
negative, critical and disparaging comments about their superiors and their employing
organizations. However, while most of these comments could be classified as short
term, minor grumbles and complaints (almost exclusively discussed between
co-workers), two categories of comments were classified as employee negative WOM
on the basis that they were sustained (reported by participants as longer than three
weeks) and were deliberately sought and targeted to a wide audience including not
only co-workers, but also friends, family, neighbours, customers and the general public
with a view to harm the reputation of the firm or its management.
First, were sustained incidents of employee negative WOM regarding particular
managers or (equally) types or levels of management. Sustained employee negative
WOM is defined as a period longer than three weeks. In three cases, participants
claimed that their behaviour had been occurring for over two years (in one case over
five years). In all but one case, the trigger or starting point for this behaviour was
known to the perpetrator and involved an occasion wherein an individual manager or
level (departmental) or group of managers (e.g. HR managers) was perceived to act
unjustly or unfairly. For example:
I didnt get the upgrade (the in-store term for a promotion to a higher rate of pay) for two
years because of that bastard. He shafted me again and again with lousy appraisals. Second
he moves on (to another department within the store), I get it first time round. He just hated
me cos I wouldnt bow and scrape (Female, aged 39, seven years experience).

Predictably, the focus of the employee negative WOM in such cases were the perceived
perpetrators of the injustice. While instances varied, typically perceived injustices
focused on either a financial loss by the employee (e.g. loss of overtime, promotion) or

ER
35,1

unfair treatment (e.g. the blame for the mistake of another employee commonly a
manager). For instance:
I got the blame! Nothing to do with me! I just did what she said. She just dropped me in it
I know she did (Female, aged 41, 12 years experience).

50

In all such cases, the employee undertaking negative WOM expressed the view that their
comments were entirely accurate and true. While establishing the veracity of such claims
is very difficult, tentative discussions with managers suggested some support for the
claims of front-line employees, although evidence also emerged that such claims were
often embellished or exaggerated (an example being a claim of 20 disputed overtime
hours which contrasted with the rejected formal complaint of the employee regarding ten
overtime hours). Whatever the reality of such incidents, management-oriented employee
negative WOM occurred only when employees believed that an injustice had taken place
and was designed to elicit support (or at least) sympathy for the victim.
Second, were less common cases wherein employee negative WOM was more general
and focused on the employing firm (rather than the managers of the firm). As with
management-oriented negative WOM, this form of behaviour was indiscriminately
targeted towards any individual able to listen. Examples included:
Xxxxx Stores is one thing on the box (television), one thing when its grovelling to customers.
Well, I tell you, you wanna hear what its like to us. Its not sweetness and light then its you
will and be quick about it (Male, aged 54, eight years experience).
Everything for them nothing for me. You work when I say, how I say, whenever I say. Its the
same for the managers those trainees get driven day and night. Its too big, too powerful
(Male, aged 48, six years experience).

Once again contrasting with other forms of employee negative WOM, participants
expressed the view that their comments were accurate and unembellished. However,
the co-workers of such employees were more sceptical:
Yeah, well, you cant believe everything some say. Like Jonny. Hes okay well, -ish. Hes
just got this thing about them telling him when hes gotta work. I mean, theyve got shifts
to cover you cant always pick and choose, its the way it is, you know? He just goes on
and on and on about it getting more and more wound up. I mean, he didnt work all those
shifts last Christmas some, yeah but not all. Its a bit much (Female, aged 36, seven years
experience).

The motivation for firm-oriented negative WOM was to harm the organization whenever
possible. Invariably, those undertaking firm-oriented negative WOM were older employees,
at the bottom of the store hierarchy, with little perceived promotion prospects and a selfexpressed belief that no other job prospects existed. Such employees often exhibited many
of the characteristics of those that are psychologically disconnected from the firm. Hence:
P2. Motivated by a desire to harm the reputation of the firm or its management, or
to elicit support or sympathy, where front-line employees perceive inequitable
treatment, injustices or unfair financial loss, they will employ negative WOM in
their communications with co-workers, friends, family, neighbours, customers
or the general public.
Employee-oriented WOM
The third form of employee negative WOM is labelled employee oriented on the basis
that this form of negative WOM is deliberately targeted at individuals who are

perceived to be unwanted potential future work colleagues. As with some of the other
forms of employee negative WOM, this form of behaviour differs markedly in the
extent to which employees perceive their comments to be truthful (see Table I).
Two types of listeners were commonly, deliberately fed false or exaggerated
negative WOM by current employees. First, were fellow employees who currently
worked for the firm in a separate department or outlet and who were perceived to
be undesirable. For example, two employees explain how they use negative WOM
to discourage potential recruits to their units, particularly those that they deem to be
undesirable:
We dont want them here. Im not being racialist or anything some of them are nice guys but
you have to watch what youre saying, you cant have a laugh with them, can you? Its a lot
easier to put them off from the start, like tell em the bosses are a pain easy to put them off
(Male, aged 55, 15 years experience).
Students are the best you dont want some eager beaver running round the place. Best to
pace yourself, you know what I mean (participant winking knowledgably and nodding head)?
As long as it gets done nobody gives a (expletive) if we go for a ciggie every now and again
[y] I put off the ones that are keen beanies its a job not a career! (Male, aged 21, two years
experience).

Perceptions of undesirability varied considerably from dislikes of perceived

over-keen rate-busting workers, lazy employees, cultural, ethnic, sexual orientation,
age and gender differences to aspects of personality. In each case, notwithstanding
the accuracy of perceptions (and the ethics of the behaviour), the motivation of
employee negative WOM was to protect and preserve current working conditions
and the integrity of the work or team, thereby maintaining a level of indirect power.
Thus, such behaviour was designed often to protect income levels and perks
or to exclude individuals who were perceived to hold incompatible, irreconcilable or
antagonistic personal or work-related characteristics. One member of the night team
comments:
Youve got to get along theres no point having guys that wont fit in you know? Guys
thatll rock the boat, not one of us like (Male, aged 25, three years experience).

The second target of false or exaggerated employee negative WOM were individuals
outside of the firm who were perceived to be potential applicants for job vacancies
which (if filled) could be detrimental to the promotion or remuneration of the employee.
An employee explains:
Simple, right? Five of us we get overtime. Six of us no overtime. What do you think we do?
Wed have to be daft to cut our own throats like that! People around here dont want to work
nights anyway. All you do is tell them about the hours, no overtime, no breaks, managers on
your case, no perks, crappy pay, ghosts in the storeroom, tigers on the roof, any old crap and
theyre off before you know it (Male, aged 32, eight years experience).

In such cases, the target audience of these comments were not necessarily seen as
undesirable colleagues but rather individuals who were perceived to be a potential
threat to earning capacity, perks and promotion prospects.
However, not all employee-oriented negative WOM were intentionally misleading.
In contrast, almost as commonly, employees expressed negative WOM which they
believed to be entirely accurate and truthful. The targets of such truthful negative
WOM were most frequently family members, friends and neighbours who the

Employee
negative
word-of-mouth
51

ER
35,1

employee felt should be protected from unpleasant, exploitative or unsavoury work,

firms or super-ordinates. For example:
My Darren was going to look for a bit of holiday money. I told him straight two minutes
of the hard truth about XXXX Stores put him right. No way was I going to see him treated the
way they treat the holiday staff (Female, aged 42, seven years experience).

52

Ive told all of my kids about work. I dont think any of them would even think about working
for them. Pays the bill but is no sort of job for someone starting off (Male, aged 54, six years
experience).

In this regard, the target audience of such comments were unwanted co-workers not
because of perceived undesirability or threat-status but rather because the employee
wished to protect them.
Each of the varying types of employee-oriented negative WOM shared a similar
focus. Whether the comments were known to be untrue, exaggerated or were believed
to be a fair and true (if unflattering) account, the focus was invariably on the poor
employment practices of the employing organization and its line management. For
instance:
What most people want to know about is money and the bosses. Telling them about those
either gets them running for the hills or reaching for an application form. How much cash you
can make and how much the managers are a pain in the (expletive) thats what matters
(Female, aged 28, four years experience).

This appears to suggest that where the motivation is to discourage potential

employees, a focus on exploitative employment practices is perceived to be the most
effective avenue. Consequently:
P3. Motivated by a desire to protect current working conditions, maintain social
identity or to protect income or personal associates, where front-line employees
perceived poor or exploitative management practices, front-line employees will
use negative WOM in their communications with current or potential employees
or outgroups perceived to be undesirable.
Anti-competitor WOM
The final form of employee negative WOM is labelled anti-competitor WOM and
refers to comments designed to denigrate or malign competitor organizations.
Although the motivation for this form of WOM is to denigrate the object of the
communication and is appropriately labelled as negative WOM (see Richins, 1983),
it can also be viewed as positive given that such communication is indirectly or
comparatively praising of the employing firm (see Table I). As with other forms of
employee negative WOM such behaviours can be categorized into those which are
deliberately misleading or false and those that the communicators believe to be a true
and fair reflection of comparative differences. Indeed, a small number of employees
studied claimed, genuinely, to believe that their employing organization was
appreciably better than competitor firms along various dimensions including,
service/good quality, value for money and product range. These workers argued that
their knowledge of their industry enabled them objectively to comment about the
relative merits of their employing organization. For example:
Ive worked here for years. I know this business back-to-front. I can honestly say that Xxxxx
Stores is the best. Not just the best but head and shoulders above the rest. You take Yyyyy

Stores (a local competitor). Theyre totally, totally crap compared to us. Were miles better
in terms of everything products, service, style, everything (Male, aged 37, eight years
experience).

Employee
negative
word-of-mouth

Its not just what the adverts say we really are much better than the rest. I know I work
here I see it all. Much better (Female, aged 41, 12 years experience).

These employees appeared to exhibit pride in their employing organization and

branch, and typically claimed to comment frequently (at least once or twice a day)
about its comparative merits to existing and potential customers. Interestingly, many
of the interviewees in this category were supervisors and team leaders and this
included a disproportionate number of longer-serving front-line employees. This may
suggest either a level of instrumental compliance or a degree of success in initiatives
designed to endorse management-espoused values (see Ogbonna and Harris, 1998;
Sturdy, 1998).
A more common phenomenon was WOM which was either deliberately false
or intentionally misleading. All types of employees were acutely aware of pressures
in the economy which were decreasing consumer demand and negatively affecting
retail sales. Partly in response to such pressures, many employees admitted an increase
in their anti-competitor comments to current and potential customers. For instance:
These are hard times for everybody. Moneys short. Pressures on. A cut in VAT (value added
tax) helps us but people are wary of spending on big value items. It get put off. You do what
you can rubbish the competitors and talk yourself up [y] I guess it all helps (Male, aged 52,
seven years experience).
I think Im most certainly doing more of that (anti-competitor comments). Times are tough
competitions hard. In times like these you use everything youve got and twice as hard
(Female, aged 28, four years experience).

The motivations for such comments varied between two categories of employees.
First, were a small number of workers whose comments were motivated by a perceived
instrumental need of the employing organization. Thus, one employee claims:
I wont say were (expletive) but were in trouble. Were easily thirty percent down on last year.
Last year was really good but, yeah, deep trouble. Nows the time to dig down hard, use every
trick in the book to keep them here I always stress the big firm card you dont want
to trust these little guys, you dont know if theyll be there next week let alone next year.
Ive been using that against them for years (Male, aged 44, 12 years experience).

In contrast, other front-line employees claimed that such actions were driven by their
own instrumental needs to protect their jobs, hours or work and/or levels of income.
A concerned customer-service employee notes:
Nobodys talking about redundancies but cutting back is on everyones lips. For me, right
now, talking down the competition isnt just fun its about protecting my job. No customers,
no money, no me [y] (Female, aged 24, three years experience).

The focuses of such negative WOM varied accordingly to the truthfulness of the
comments. Where employees claimed genuinely to believe in the comparative virtues
of their employing firm, the focus of negative WOM remarks embraced a wide range of
factors. Narratives were provided that (comparatively) endorsed the management
quality, superior employment policies, standards and ranges of products as well as
service quality. Typically, employees discussing their truthful anti-competitor WOM
did so across multiple bases of comparison. However, while the perpetrators of such

53

ER
35,1

narratives claimed them to be accurate and valid, some evidence emerged that
suggested that their narratives were somewhat biased. For example:
Weve a better range, better prices and much better service than Xxxxx Stores. Better by far.

Later:

54

I havent been to Xxxxx Stores for years theres no point me going there! (Male, aged 34,
nine years experience).

This suggests that the espoused truthfulness of such comments is open to

interpretation. In contrast, the focus of admittedly misleading WOM invariably
concentrated on the quality and value of goods. For instance:
Value for money is what people want. Here we get no commission for sales tell them that
and that Xxxxx works on commission and you get them thinking about how much is going in
the salesmans pocket. Thats why were cheaper I always say (Male, aged 33, eight years
experience).

This, in part, reflects the economic rationale for such actions (see above) and supports
the view that current retail customers are focused on value for money and product
quality. This leads to:
P4. Motivated by a desire to protect jobs and incomes, where threats are perceived
to employment conditions or security, front-line, customer contact employees
will use negative WOM to denigrate competitor organizations when interacting
with the general public and with current and potential customers.
Discussion
Our findings contribute to the understanding of the dynamics of front-line, customer
contact employee behaviour in general and to the literature on negative WOM in
particular. Specifically, we contribute to the literature by providing evidence of
negative WOM behaviour by front-line, customer contact service workers, a previously
neglected phenomenon. Although our review of the literature highlights studies of
behaviour which, whilst not focused on WOM, can be associated with this phenomenon
such as sabotage (see Skarlicki et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2011), workplace incivility (see
Kern and Grandey, 2009; van Jaarsveld et al., 2010) and retaliation (see Skarlicki and
Folger, 1997; Skarlicki et al., 1999), these studies fall short of describing the dynamics of
negative WOM behaviours and the link to negative WOM can only be inferred from the
sometimes verbal element of the behaviours they describe and from the negative
nature of these behaviours. Similarly, these studies typically focus on call centres
where there is no direct face-to-face interaction with the customer and where the
extensive surveillance and monitoring make it difficult for employees to communicate
freely with customers (e.g. Bain and Taylor, 2000; Mulholland, 2004; Skarlicki et al.,
2008; van Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2011). Indeed, Skarlicki et al. (2008, p. 1344)
identify this as a potential limitation and called for additional research involving faceto-face interactions. Our contribution is derived from our presentation and explication
of four forms of WOM behaviours including employee oriented, anti-management/firm,
customer oriented, and anti-competitor oriented. We explain the motivations for each
of these behaviours as well as discuss the target audience, the focus of attention, and
the belief of the employee in the truthfulness of the specific statements. Further, we
present a series of propositions which future researchers can build on. We argue that

the identification of these forms and the delineation of propositions arising from them
are important in the development of a theory of employee negative WOM that is
especially relevant to front-line, customer contact service work.
The findings of this study also contributes important insights to the literature
on employee responses in that negative WOM is presented as a coping mechanism
by service workers. That is, some forms of negative WOM behaviours enhanced
feelings of self-worth and countered feelings of degradation when adhering to
strict company prescriptions on customer-employee interactions. In this regard, our
study complements the previous contributions of scholars on the importance of
understanding the impact of the routinization and control in service work (Leidner,
1993), the potential for these to be linked to alienation (Korczynski, 2009), and the
attendant resistance and emotional labouring that may be involved (see e.g.
Mulholland, 2004). We argue that the combined impact of control, routinization,
prescriptions on emotional labouring and alienation present cost to service worker
which they resist through a variety means but especially, in the context of this study,
by engaging in some forms of negative WOM.
Our findings also contribute further impetus to the researchers who have called
for additional studies of employee subjectivity, particularly in their relations with
management and in their general behaviours in employment (see Jaros, 2001;
ODoherty and Willmott, 2001). Although more studies are now including issues
of subjectivity in their assessments of management-employee dynamics, and are
providing useful discussions of employee complicity in control processes that
undermine them (e.g. Ogbonna and Harris, 2002), researchers continue to call for
empirical explorations of the radically different outcomes that is characteristic of
what is ubiquitously labelled organizational misbehaviour. In the current study
we contribute empirical insights of employee behaviour that ranges from those that are
seemingly pro-management and customers (whether intentional or not), to those that
are anti-management and customers, to those that merely further the interest of
employees, down to those that are relatively benign to both management and
customers. We demonstrate that some of the negative WOM (e.g. employee-oriented
and anti-competitor WOM) did not reveal premeditated rationales that could be
linked to dissatisfaction with management, cynicism or any form of alienation as
previously theorized (see Jermier et al., 1995; Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999; Fleming
and Spicer, 2003; Lawrence and Robinson, 2007). This suggests that the full gamut
of the behaviours of front-line workers belies simple explanation in that their actions
are not easily packaged analytically into cause and effect contingencies, but are
instead unpredictable and are influenced by varied individual and collective
motivations.
This study also contributes insights which emphasize the need to expand our
research horizon to incorporate fuller understanding of the dynamics of employee
behaviour. Specifically, rather than focusing on management policy as the only or key
driver to employee behaviour, the scope of scholarly enquiries should be broadened to
include the wide array of motivations and rationales that influence employee actions.
For example, the finding that employees deliberately fed false information to existing
and potential colleagues in order to control the social composition and dynamics of the
workplace suggests that lower-level employees may have more clandestine influence
over many aspects of their work than was previously theorized. Specifically, the
implications of such findings for theories of workforce composition, diversity and
discrimination are profound (see Pratto et al., 1997; Fearfull and Kamenou, 2007).

Employee
negative
word-of-mouth
55

ER
35,1

56

Through individual and collective effort, the findings of the study clearly demonstrate
that some front-line workers may exert an element of control over their working lives
through surreptitiously influencing entry and ongoing employee retention in the
workplace. In this way, not only do such actions undermine management claims of
socially responsible human resource management initiatives, they may also constitute
a potentially corrosive cocktail of workplace social dynamics where discriminatory,
immoral and even illegal activities are perpetuated in a manner that is not likely to
be uncovered easily by internal and external audits. While such behaviours may be
beneficial to the current workforce, potentially, such activities could be socially,
organizationally and individually destructive.
An interesting contribution arising from this study is related to the high degree of
self-preservation and instrumentality that characterize front-line service work.
Although instrumentality has been widely documented in the service literature, this is
commonly in relation to individuals seemingly and selfishly acting in a manner that
is consistent with management requirements in order to reduce the pressures on their
working lives. This is that which Ogbonna and Wilkinson (1990) refer to as
behavioural compliance, or in relation to employees acting in their interest to maximize
their income under control systems they perceive to be exploitative, that which
Ogbonna and Harris (2002) label mutual instrumentality. In these contexts, the
behaviour of the employee is commonly theorized to be selfish, thereby supporting the
findings of a high degree of self-preservation and instrumentality in this study.
However, although the current study is on negative WOM, it is interesting to find some
front-line service employees that appeared to express a genuine interest in the
operations and profitability of their employing organizations. While it could be argued
that this is linked to the current economic conditions, these findings provide
a potentially insightful addition to our understanding of the behaviours of
front-line employees. That is, far from universally adopting behaviours that are
anti-management (or anti-firm) and that are potentially damaging to the organization,
some of the front-line workers in this study actively engaged in anti-competitor
WOM that was designed to generate competitive advantage for their firm, and others
were prepared to give customers distorted information in pursuit of this goal. These
conflicting findings add impetus to the suggestion that existing conceptualizations
have not given sufficient consideration to the full gamut of employee dispositions,
behaviours and responses that characterize workplace relations.
A more practical implication of this study lies with the potential for employee
negative WOM to damage management espoused performance metrics. A number of
the instances of employee negative WOM appear potentially extremely damaging to
both financial and non-financial performance measures. Employees were found
intentionally reducing sales volume through discouraging certain types of customers,
potentially harming productivity through excluding potential employees and harming
the reputation of the organization via negative or derogatory comments. While there
have been numerous, well-publicized examples of management behaviour harming
organizations (e.g. Ratners), the less high profile but more pervasive effects of front-line
negative WOM actions have been ignored. The findings of the current study
strongly suggest that the actions of employees can act as a negative force and
potentially significantly harm the performance of outlets and organizations. Although,
conversely, some evidence was found to suggest that employee WOM can also have
positive ramifications, from a management perspective it would seem that
organizationally harmful acts are more immediate concern.

References
Ackroyd, S. and Thompson, P. (1999), Organizational Misbehaviour, Sage, London.
Analoui, F. (1995), Workplace sabotage: its styles, motives and management, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 48-65.
Anderson, E.W. (1998), Customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Bansal, H.S. and Voyer, P.A. (2000), Word-of-mouth processes within a service purchase decision
context, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 166-77.
Bowman, D. and Narayandas, D. (2001), Managing customer-initiated contact with
manufacturers: the impact on share of category requirements and word-of-mouth
behaviours, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 291-7.
Braverman, H. (1974), Labor and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review Press, New York, NY.
Brown, J.J. and Reingen, P.H. (1987), Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behaviour, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 350-62.
Bryman, A. (2004), Social Science Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Carl, W.J. (2006), Whats all the buzz about? Everyday communication and the relational basis of
word-of-mouth and buzz marketing practices, Management Communication Quarterly,
Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 601-34.
Casey, C. (1999), Come, join our family: discipline and integration in corporate organizational
culture, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 155-78.
Chevalier, J.A. and Mayzlin, D. (2003), The effect of word-of-mouth on sales: online book
reviews, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 345-54.
Crino, M.D. (1994), Employee sabotage: a random or preventable phenomenon, Journal of
Management Issues, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 311-30.
Daily Telegraph (2003a), Barclay chief brands credit cards rip-off, Daily Telegraph, 17 October,
available at: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2866142/Barclays-chief-brands-credit-cards-arip-off.html
Daily Telegraph (2003b), Ratner sparkles in online jewellery, Daily Telegraph, 29 December,
available at: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2872573/Ratner-sparkles-in-online-jewellery.
html
du Gay, P. and Salaman, G. (1992), The cult[ure] of the customer, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 615-33.
Edwards, M.S., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Gardner, J. (2009), Deciding to speak up or to remain silent
following observed wrongdoing: the role of discrete emotions and climate of silence,
in Greenberg, J. and Edwards, M. (Eds), Voice and Silence in Organizations, Emerald Group
Publishing, Bingley, pp. 83-109.
Edwards, R. (1979), Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth
Century, Heinemann, London.
Fearfull, A. and Kamenou, N. (2007), Exploring the policy and research implications for
the British National Health Service and its customers, Equal Opportunities International,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 305-18.
Fleming, P. and Spicer, A. (2003), Working at a cynical distance: implications for power,
subjectivity and resistance, Organization, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 157-79.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Godes, D. and Mayzlin, D. (2009), Firm-created word-of-mouth communication: evidence from a
field test, Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 721-39.

Employee
negative
word-of-mouth
57

ER
35,1

58

Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2002), Exploring service sabotage: the antecedents, types, and
consequences of frontline, deviant, anti-service behaviours, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 163-83.
Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2006), Service sabotage: a study of antecedents and
consequences, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 543-58.
Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2001), The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an
investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 60-75.
Henricks, M. (1998), Spread the word, Entrepreneur, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 120-5.
Hochshild, A.R. (1983), The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling, University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Hoye, G.V. and Lievens, F. (2007), Social influences on organizational attractiveness:
investigating if and when word of mouth matters, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 2024-47.
Jaros, S.J. (2001), Labour process theory: a commentary on the debate, International Studies of
Management and Organization, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 25-39.
Jermier, J., Knights, D. and Nord, W. (1995), Resistance and power in organizations: agency,
subjectivity and the labor process, in Jermier, J., Knights, D. and Nord, W. (Eds), Resistance
and Power in Organizations, Routledge, London, pp. 1-24.
Kern, J.H. and Grandey, A.A. (2009), Customer incivility as a social stressor: the role of race and
racial identity for service employees, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 46-57.
Korczynski, M. (2009), The mystery of the customer: continuing absences in the sociology of
service work, Sociology, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 952-67.
Kurland, N.B. and Pelled, L.H. (2000), Passing the word: toward a model of gossip and power in
the workplace, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 428-38.
Lawrence, T.B. and Robinson, S.L. (2007), Aint misbehavin: workplace deviance as
organizational resistance, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 378-94.
Leidner, R. (1993), Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and Routinization of Everyday Life,
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Marsden, P., Samson, A. and Upton, N. (2005), Advocacy Drives Growth: Customer Advocacy
Drives UK Business Growth, London School of Economics, London.
Miller, D.C. (1991), Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, 5th ed., Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Misner, I.R. (1999), The Worlds Best Known Marketing Secret: Building Your Business With
Word-of-Mouth Marketing, Bard Press, Austin, TX.
Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F.J. (2000), Organizational silence: a barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 706-25.
Mulholland, K. (2004), Workplace resistance in an Irish call centre: salmmin, scammin, smokin
an leavin, Work Employment and Society, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 709-24.
ODoherty, D. and Willmott, H. (2001), The question of subjectivity and the labour process,
International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 112-32.
ODonohoe, S. and Turley, D. (2006), Compassion at the counter: service providers and bereaved
consumers, Human Relations, Vol. 59 No. 10, pp. 1429-48.
Ogbonna, E. (2010), Service work and service workers: exploring the dynamics of front-line
service encounters, in Blyton, P., Heery, E. and Turnbull, P. (Eds), Reassessing the
Employment Relationship, Macmillan, Basingstoke Hampshire, pp. 375-400.

Ogbonna, E. and Harris, L.C. (1998), Managing organizational culture: compliance or genuine
change?, British Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 273-88.
Ogbonna, E. and Harris, L.C. (2002), Institutionalization of tipping as a source of managerial
control, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 725-52.
Ogbonna, E. and Wilkinson, B. (1990), Corporate strategy and corporate culture: the view from
the checkout, Personnel Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 9-15.
Pitt, D.E. (1989), Tampering suspected in drug doses given to 2 Lenox Hill patients, New York
Times, 29 April, p. 30.
Popovich, P. and Wanous, J.P. (1982), The realistic job preview as persuasive communication,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 570-8.
Pratto, F., Stallworth, L.M., Sidanius, J. and Siers, B. (1997), The gender gap in occupational role
attainment: a social dominance approach, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 37-53.
Richins, M.L. (1983), Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: a pilot study, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Rynes, S.L. (1991), Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: a call for new
research directions, in Dunnette, M. and Hough, L. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA,
pp. 399-444.
Shinnar, R.S., Young, C.A. and Meana, M. (2004), The motivations for and outcomes of employee
referrals, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 271-83.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,
procedural and interactional justice, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3,
pp. 434-43.
Skarlicki, D.P., Folger, R. and Tesluk, P. (1999), Personality as a moderator in the relationship
between fairness and retaliation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1,
pp. 100-8.
Skarlicki, D.P., va Jaarsveld, D.D. and Walker, D.D. (2008), Getting even for customer
mistreatment: the role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6,
pp. 1335-47.
Stauss, B. and Weinlich, B. (1997), Process-orientation measurement of service quality:
applying the sequential incident technique, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 33-55.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sturdy, A. (1998), Customer care in a consumer society: smiling and sometimes meaning it,
Organization, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 27-53.
Sturdy, A., Grugulis, I. and Willmott, H. (Eds) (2001), Customer Service-Control, Colonization and
Contradictions, Macmillan/Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Swinyard, W.R. and Whitlark, D.B. (1994), The effect of customer dissatisfaction on store
repurchase intentions: a little goes a long way, The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 329-44.
van Jaarsveld, D.D., Walker, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2010), The role of job demands and
emotional exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee incivility,
Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1486-504.

Employee
negative
word-of-mouth
59

ER
35,1

60

Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y. and Shi, J. (2011), Daily customer mistreatment and employee
sabotage against customers: examining emotion and resource perspectives, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 312-34.
Further reading
Grandey, A.A. (2000), Emotion regulation in the workplace: a new way to
conceptualize emotional labour, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 95-110.
Reynolds, K.L. and Harris, L.C. (2006), Deviant customer behaviour: an exploration of
front line employee tactics, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 95-111.
Corresponding author
Emmanuel Ogbonna can be contacted at: Ogbonna@Cardiff.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints