Explain sabotage and absenteeism at work
Evaluate Giacalone and Rosenfeld’s sabotage study and apply Blau and Boal’s job-involvement and organisational-commitment model to absence categories.
Section Paper 3 · Specialist Options: Approaches, Issues and Debates
Original StudyForA teaching mapped to Cambridge 9990 Organisational Psychology for 2028–2030. Example studies are independent learning support, not Cambridge material or official mark schemes. Findings are limited to their samples, measures and settings.
Before you begin
- Job satisfaction and work attitudes are related but distinct. Identify the construct, sample and measurement method before interpreting a score or applying a model to an organisation.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Which pair of attitudes does the Blau–Boal model combine?
What you will learn
- Workplace sabotage methods and reasons; Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987)
- Blau–Boal absenteeism and organisational-commitment model, types of absence and commitment categories
Workplace sabotage concerns intentional disruption or damage
Workplace sabotage refers to deliberate acts intended to hinder or damage work, equipment, output or organisational activity. Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987) asked unionised factory workers to rate reasons that might justify sabotage and the justifiability of four broad methods: slowdowns, destructiveness, dishonesty and causing chaos.
Workers who accepted a wider range of reasons were more likely to justify several methods, but dishonesty was an exception. The study measured participants’ ratings of hypothetical justifiability; it did not observe how often they sabotaged work or prove that the named reasons caused sabotage.
Possible explanations include perceived injustice, conflict, frustration, self-defence or revenge, but these are hypotheses to investigate in a particular context. A responsible response examines working conditions, grievances, safety and fair procedures rather than assuming an individual’s motive from one event.
Blau and Boal combine two work attitudes
Job involvement is the extent to which a person identifies psychologically with their job. Organisational commitment concerns identification with and attachment to the organisation. They are related but distinct: a person can care about the work while feeling little attachment to the employer, or feel attached to the organisation while the job itself is not central to their self-image.
Blau and Boal’s model uses high or low job involvement and high or low organisational commitment to describe four patterns: institutionalised stars (high/high), lone wolves (high/low), corporate citizens (low/high) and apathetic employees (low/low). These are conceptual categories, not fixed personality types or diagnoses.
The model proposes different ways the two attitudes may relate to absence and turnover. Use the categories as a framework for interpreting a pattern, not as a label that explains an individual worker without evidence. Job demands, health, family responsibilities, access to leave and workplace fairness can also shape attendance.
Distinguish absence categories and individual circumstances
Absence can be involuntary, such as time away because of illness, or voluntary. Cambridge’s specimen mark scheme describes four absence categories in relation to the model: medical (high involvement/high commitment), career-enhancing (high involvement/low commitment), normative (low involvement/high commitment) and calculative (low involvement/low commitment).
The four labels connect a model profile with a proposed reason for absence; they do not establish that every absence in a category is chosen or morally blameworthy. For example, a medical absence is not evidence of low commitment. Real attendance records need context and fair treatment of health information.
A study can record objective absence frequency and timing, then use confidential, voluntary methods to understand reasons. Keep measures of absence, job involvement and organisational commitment distinct. Do not infer a motive from a count alone or use the model to penalise workers.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 syllabus, 2028–2030
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 Reference List, 2028–2030
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 specimen mark scheme Paper 4 (2024): Blau–Boal profiles and absence categories
- Cambridge International 9990 Principal Examiner Report, June 2023: Blau–Boal absence categories
- Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987), Reasons for employee sabotage in the workplace
- Blau and Boal (1987), Conceptualizing how job involvement and organizational commitment affect turnover and absenteeism
Pause and explain
What did Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987) directly ask workers to judge?
Worked example
A worker cares deeply about nursing but feels little loyalty to the hospital after repeated unfair scheduling. They miss work to attend a professional course. Apply Blau and Boal carefully.
Show the worked solution
- High job involvement and low organisational commitment correspond to the lone-wolf profile.
- A career-enhancing absence is a possible category for time away connected with professional development.
- The model provides a framework, not proof of the worker’s motive; scheduling and access to leave need contextual assessment.
Answer The pattern is consistent with high job involvement and low organisational commitment, called a lone wolf in the model; the course absence could be discussed as career-enhancing. This is a conceptual interpretation, not proof of motive. The hospital should examine fair scheduling and discuss leave under its policies without turning a category into a judgment about the worker.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
A worker identifies strongly with the job but feels little attachment to the organisation. Which profile fits, and what should you not infer from it?
Give me a hint
Locate the two attitudes separately and treat the cell as a model category.
Compare my reasoning
- High job involvement means the job is important to the person’s self-image.
- Low organisational commitment means weaker attachment to the employer.
- Together these correspond to the lone-wolf profile; this does not diagnose the worker or establish an absence motive.
The profile is a lone wolf: high job involvement and low organisational commitment. It is a conceptual category and does not prove why a particular worker is absent or how they will behave.
Look for these in your work
- Both axes defined
- Correct profile named
- Individual inference limited
A researcher gives factory workers scenarios about sabotage and asks how justified each action would be. What can this measure, and what cannot it show?
Give me a hint
Separate attitudes to hypothetical actions from behaviour at work.
Compare my reasoning
- It can measure reported judgments about the justifiability of scenarios or methods.
- Responses may reflect social desirability, wording, context or what participants think the researcher expects.
- It cannot establish how frequently participants actually sabotage work or prove that a stated reason causes behaviour.
The measure concerns stated attitudes to hypothetical sabotage. It does not directly measure behaviour or establish causation; an ethical, confidential study should avoid enabling harm and explain how responses will be protected.
Look for these in your work
- Measure identified
- Response limitations included
- Behavioural claim avoided
A manager sees two absence days in a worker’s record and labels them ‘calculative’. Explain why this is not justified and suggest a fairer assessment.
Give me a hint
An attendance count cannot reveal the worker’s commitment or reason for absence.
Compare my reasoning
- The count does not measure job involvement or organisational commitment, which are the model’s two axes.
- Absence may be involuntary or connected with health and other circumstances; the dates alone do not reveal the reason.
- Use a consistent, confidential process, ask only appropriate questions and consider policy and context before interpreting patterns.
The label is unsupported because two absence days reveal neither attitude nor motive. A fair process should apply policy consistently, protect health information and consider relevant context rather than classify a worker from a count.
Look for these in your work
- Missing evidence identified
- Absence categories treated carefully
- Fair and confidential process proposed
Common mistakes
- Treating sabotage ratings as observed sabotage behaviour
- Assuming every workplace conflict leads to deliberate damage
- Confusing job involvement with organisational commitment
- Using a model category as a fixed personality label
- Treating illness absence as evidence of low commitment or misconduct
What can you explain now?
Which Blau–Boal profile has high job involvement and low organisational commitment?
Compare with the explanation
The lone-wolf profile.
Keep involvement in the job distinct from commitment to the organisation.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Distinguish job involvement from organisational commitment. Recall the four Blau–Boal profiles and the corresponding medical, career-enhancing, normative and calculative absence categories.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.