Exploring Forms of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) : Antecedents and Outcomes

Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Volume 18- February, 2015
Exploring forms of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB):

antecedents and outcomes
Pamela J. Harper
Marist College
Abstract
An extensive body of research has studied the relationship between Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors (OCB), environment-supporting efforts, and individual task
performance rating. Empirical studies have found a significant positive relationship among
these factors. While these findings have proven both interesting and useful, questions remain
regarding whether OCB focused on others and OCB focused on the organization are related
differently to certain individual-level causes and consequences of OCB. From the
perspectives of work-family conflict and personality theory, we propose a roadmap for future
research to more fully distinguish the forms of OCB and their various antecedents and
outcomes.
Keywords: Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, work-family conflict, personality theory,
forms of OCB, OCBI, and OCBO
Exploring forms of organizational, Page 1
INTRODUCTION
The concept of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) was first formally
articulated by Chester Barnard as the willingness of individuals in organizations to cooperate
(Barnard, 1938). He later defined cooperation as genuine restraint of oneself, actual voluntary
service for no reward and even subjection of ones own personal interests for the betterment of
the organization. Integral to Barnards view is the notion of an individual exercising their freewill while participating in a formal system of cooperation. Katz (1964) later distinguished the
concept of OCB as innovative and spontaneous behaviors as opposed to the more obligatory
role performance. The basis for the differentiation is whether or not the behaviors are found in
an individuals job description, known as in-role performance vs. behaviors that support the
organization but that are not detailed in an individuals job description; extra-role performance.
Examples of OCB include cooperating with others, volunteering for additional tasks, orienting
new employees, offering to help others accomplish their work, and voluntarily doing more than
the job requires (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
Research regarding OCB was accelerated following its formal naming and definition as
voluntary individual behavior that, when aggregated across people and time, contributes to the
improved performance of the organization (Organ, 1988). OCB benefit organizations from
individual contributions that are not necessarily formally structured or mandated as a part of the
individuals assignment or role. Such efforts have been labeled by scholars as organizational
citizenship performance, contextual performance, organizational spontaneity, pro-social
organizational acts and extra-role acts (Borman, 2004; Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003;
VanDyne & LePine, 1998; George & Jones, 1997; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; George & Brief,
1992; George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Brief & Motowidlo, 1986).
OCB has traditionally been defined as discretionary and not specified in an individuals
employment contract with the organization. This definition of OCB which was predicated upon
the notion that no formal mandates drove behaviors to help others (Organ, 1990), went
unchallenged in the literature for over a decade. However, the term has been redefined in recent
years. The current definition of OCB both distinguishes it from task performance and allows for
the possibility that it may be formally appraised or rewarded. Based on progress noted in the
literature, Organ (1997) redefined OCB in terms of the performance that supports the social and
psychological environment in which task performance takes place.
While an extensive body of research has studied OCB as an overall measure, research has
not explored all of its dimensions. The majority of the aggregate- level work has focused on its
potential antecedents (Podsakoff et. al, 2009). Past studies have included employee attitudes and
personal perceptions of fairness (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Niehoff &
Moorman, 1993; Bateman & Organ, 1983; Moorman, 1991;), personality traits (Organ & Ryan,
1995; Konovsky & Organ, 1996; Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001), leader behaviors
(Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999), and characteristics associated with various task
behavior (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). Investigations
have shed little light on the relationship between the forms of OCB, however, important
questions remain regarding whether two forms of OCB (those targeting other individuals; OCBI
and those intending to benefit the organization; OCBO) are related differently with certain
individual-level factors such as project team membership, family involvement and personality
type.
While studies examining the consequences of OCB, even at an aggregated level, have not
occurred as frequently as antecedent-focused studies, past research has explored withdrawal by
employees, employee appraisals and management allocation of employee rewards (Podsakoff et.
al, 2009). As stated earlier, studies that might provide insight into the forms of OCB and the
relationship with individual-level outcomes are infrequent in the literature. Thus, research is
needed to address whether OCBI and OCBO are related differently with certain individual-level
consequences based on managerial and peer evaluations.
Prior OCB research has primarily focused on organizational-level antecedents as they
relate to organizational performance. However, the potential consequences of the individual
employee OCB, is becoming a topic of increasing interest to scholars (Podsakoff et al, 2009;
Podsakoff et al, 2014). This article contributes to the literature by further describing the distinct
nature and full range of citizenship behaviors in its two proposed forms, OCBI and OCBO.
Understanding the relationships between these forms of OCB and both their antecedents and
consequences is important in order to capture the multi-dimensional nature of OCB. This study
is also in part a call for further examination of the effects of the targets of OCBs to help
practitioners understand the influence that the target of OCB has on both the peer and
management performance evaluation process. Such pursuits would significantly inform research
related to OCB and employees family involvement, team membership and personality type.
LITERATURE REVIEW
OCB Conceptualization
OCB has been categorized using a variety of methods. Originally, Organ (1988)
originally offered a model consisting of altruism (selfless concern for the welfare of others),
courtesy (respectful, polite, civil behavior), conscientiousness (characterized by careful;
painstaking devotion to the rules and regulations of the organization), civic virtue (proactive
contribution to the organizations harmony), and sportsmanship (conduct and attitude consistent
with tolerance for sub-optimal circumstances). Organ (1990) expanded the model by
incorporating peacekeeping (serving as a mediator to enact resolutions to disagreements) and
cheerleading (offering praise and encouragement).
A more recent and complete OCB framework was developed by Williams and Anderson
(1991). OCB constructs were grouped based on intended target or direction of the behavior, with
OCBI denoting behaviors intended to benefit other individuals and OCBO primarily benefiting
the organization. This study uses a modified version of William and Andersons
conceptualization, based on the desire for research robustness and consistency with prior studies
by Podsakoff et al. (2009), Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, & Woehr (2007), LePine et al. (2002), and
Organ (1997).
The OCBI categories are said to include altruism, maintaining the peace, and
cheerleading behaviors all of which exhibit intentions to assist others. We include interpersonal
helping (Graham, 1989), interpersonal and coworkers and interpersonal harmony (Farh, Earley,
and Lin, 1997), in addition to Organs dimensions (following the practice of recent studies). The
OCBO categories are conscientiousness, civic virtue and sportsmanship as identified by
Organ(1988) as well as organizational allegiance (Graham, 1991), endorsement and commitment
to the organizations objectives (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997), job dedication (Van Scotter and
Motowidlo, 1996), taking charge (Morrison and Phelps, 1999); and promoting the company
image (Farh, Zhong, and Organ, 2004). Simplified, practical examples of OCBI are voluntarily
assisting a new co-worker gain access to the companys payroll system and congratulating a
fellow employee on a new promotion. Likewise, offering a new idea to management on how the
payroll process might be improved and attending optional company meetings, are examples of
OCBO.
Many researchers (Allen & Rush (1998), Chen, Hui, & Sego(1998); Decktop, Mangel &
Cirka(1999) have utilized an overall OCB measure based on a combination of scores across OCB
survey responses. We contribute to the literature by further exploring the dimensionality of the
OCB construct in its two distinct forms as per Williams and Anderson (1991). Examination of
OCBI and OCBO utilizing foundational OCB, cohesion, work-family conflict, personality and
social exchange theory, allow for more precise and complete investigation of its relationship to
antecedents and consequences, as depicted in Figure 1 (Appendix).
OCB Type relative to Antecedents
In studying the relationship between OCB type and certain individual-level antecedents,
it is appropriate to consider both the environmental and personal context. We intend to explore
the relationship between OCB type and team affiliation, family involvement and personality
type. The term context has been described as the surroundings associated with a particular
phenomenon (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991). The attitudes and actions of members of work groups
are expected to be impacted by the organizations characteristics and facets of the work group.
The immediate work group or team is possibly the most significant context for individuals in
organizations. Team or work group can be defined as a formal, organized system involving
complex relations among a set of employees with common goals (Arrow & McGrath, 1995). It
is reported in the literature that group context has an influence on individual attitudes and
behavior, through interaction.
The group cohesion theory explains the tendency for individuals in a group to
demonstrate OCB toward their team members. For example, the fondness shared by group
members for one another, has been found to support a pattern of interdependence and recurring
relationships. Further, the work by Schacter, Ellertson, McBride and Gregory (1951) suggests
that individuals in cohesive work groups are more sensitive to one another and display greater
willingness to help and support fellow members. In addition, a reciprocal relationship pattern
may also develop as part of the normal and expected interaction (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986),
thus also influencing such OCB behaviors. In such cases, social exchanges within the group
may be done with the expectation that such behaviors will be matched by their team members in
the long-run (Organ, 1990). Van Dyne et al. (1995) identified the connection between group
cohesiveness and facilitative behaviors, similar in concept to OCB based on group members
desires to support one another. George and Bettenhausen (1990) advanced understanding of
group cohesiveness by revealing its relationship to prosocial behavior, measured at the grouplevel. Members of cohesive work groups have also been shown, in social psychological research
literature, to experience more positive moods (Gross, 1954). Such emotional states were
demonstrated by Isen and Baron (1991) to be related with to individual-level tendencies to
exhibit altruism toward others.
Members have been found to highly value positive and cooperative relationships with
their colleagues, based on consistent findings from studies conducted at the most admired
organizations (Becker, OHair, 2007). Consistent with group cohesion theory, is the expectation
of cooperation and social responsibility on the part of team members within the group. While
discretionary pro-social behaviors directed toward the organization may indirectly benefit the
team members, they would not offer direct individual support, facilitate social exchange nor
offer the same reciprocation value (Organ, 1990). In effect, such organizational-focused efforts
by an individual who is part of a team may be viewed as self-promotional and a distraction from
possible social exchanges of the group (Bolino, 1999). Therefore, we hypothesize that team
affiliation is differentially related to OCB type, such that:
Proposition 1a: Team membership is positively related to OCBI
Proposition 1b: Team membership is negatively related to OCBO
Family involvement may also be a key factor in the relationship between OCB type and
certain individual-level antecedents. The study of family, and the related role, is emerging as a
significant explanatory variable of work attitude and behavior (Rothausen, 1999). We adopt
Bogans (1991) and Rothausens (1998) definition of family as spouse, children and kin in the
household as well as all others who meet certain needs or functions formerly thought to be met
by the family. Family membership may obligate individuals to greater role responsibility and
present greater work-family balance challenges (Parasuraman and Simmers, 2001). Role and
work-family conflict theory sheds light on the connection between family involvement and types
of OCB pursued at the individual level.
Role conflict has been defined as two or more sets of demands or pressures coming to
bear on an individual at once, resulting in the need to trade-off execution of one or the other
(Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Role stress at work is said to be related to
work-to-family interference and has consistently been found to be a source of conflict, while role
stress at home is related to family-to-work interference (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999).
Researchers recognize that in addition to the organizational member role, non-work roles (e.g.,
spouse, parent, care-giver for parent) are significant parts of employees lives as well (e.g.,
Kabanoff, 1980). Role and work-family conflict are very important concepts in todays
environment due to their prevalence. Prior research has considered ways in which these
concepts may impact the actions and behaviors of employees (Jackson & Schuler, 1985),
however, very little research has investigated specifically how they might relate to engagement
in OCB and as far as we are aware, no work has focused on their relationship with OCB target.
As previously discussed, the efforts of employees exhibiting OCB may extend beyond
required job obligations and are primarily directed toward the betterment of either the
organization (OCBO) or another individual (OCBI). Work-family conflict theory suggests that
conflict and tension may result as individuals find it increasingly challenging to successfully
perform all their roles due to constrained resources such as time, energy and behavioral
demands (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Thus, based on the nature of OCBO, involvement in
such organization-directed initiatives might mean taking on an additional role, adding additional
employee stress and overload (Organ, Ryan, 1995). Again, role theory posits that as employees
do more and more for their companies, they are likely to have less time and energy to devote to
their spousal and family responsibilities (Hochschild, 1997) and vice versa. Consequently,
conflicts may arise based on an individuals desire to extend their efforts well beyond their
employers expectations while fulfilling their childrens, spouses and/or parents expectations of
them.
Research findings suggest that some forms of OCB may be more time consuming than
are others. Using a generalized measurement for OCB, Tompson and Werner (1997), found that
higher levels of role conflict in the workplace are related to lower levels of organizational
citizenship behavior. Whereas some, such as altruism and courtesy can be done in conjunction
with other types of behavior and within the context of normal job duties, others such as civic
virtue and defending company policies, require dedicated effort. Thus, there may be a difference
in the time cost of different types of OCB, which may result in different individual outcomes
(Bergeron, 2007). Individuals with family responsibilities may seek to avoid personal cost issues
(such as workfamily conflict) related to engagement in highly visible forms of citizenship
behavior by focusing instead on those helping behaviors that are not as time consuming and can
be done in conjunction with their normal job responsibilities.
In contrast, individuals with no or fewer family responsibilities may opt for citizenship
behaviors resulting in greater recognition due to their impact on the organization as a whole. We
expect that those with less family responsibility (i.e. children, spouse and parent-care) tend to
have less organizational status, based on the reported relationship between family responsibility
and tenure (Meyer, Becker, and Van Dick, 2006; Ng, Feldman, 2008), Such individuals are
expected to not only seek OCBO-directed behaviors that might enhance career advancement, but
to also avoid individual-focused helping behaviors based on their desire to maintain versus
disperse knowledge by helping others. Employees my feel empowered and more valuable to the
extent that they accumulate knowledge (Crozier and Friedberg 1977). Thus, all things being
equal we hypothesize that family responsibility or involvement is associated with OCB type,
such that:
Proposition 2a: High Family Involvement is positively associated with OCBI and
negatively associated with OCBO
Proposition 2b: Low Family Family Involvement is positively associated with OCBO and
negatively associated with OCBI
Further, individual-level OCB studies have focused on employee personality traits like
self-esteem, as well as perceptions toward justice and bureaucratic organizational culture and
their relationships with behaviors related to helping others (Graham & Van Dyne, 2006; Stamper
& Van Dyne, 2001). These studies have initiated the examination of OCB, however, there exists
a gap in the literature in understanding the relationship between personality type and the range of
OCBI and OCBO constructs (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, Blume, 2009).
The extraversion-introversion psychological type (Jung, 1928) defines extraverts as
gregarious, assertive, active, sociable, energetic and interested in seeking out excitement
(Roesch, Wee, & Vaughn, 2006). In addition, extraversion has been associated with high
energy and will report higher levels of self-efficacy (Thoms, Moore, & Scott, 1996). Introverts,
in contrast, tend to be more reserved, less outgoing, and less sociable. These specific individual
characteristics provide a good basis for the targets of organizational citizenship behavior.
OCB directed toward the organization (i.e. promoting and/or supporting organizational
mission and objectives) tend to be more visible and have a greater likelihood of affecting more
people (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, Blume, 2009). Accomplishment of these behaviors may
require more energy. The nature of such efforts is consistent with the extraversion personality
type (Jung, 1928). OCB directed toward other individuals may be lower profile and singleperson focused (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, Blume, 2009), thus more compatible with the
introversion personality type who may deliberately seek to be inconspicuous as they offer help
(Williams, Anderson, 1991). Therefore, we hypothesize that there is a relationship between

personality type and OCB type, such that:
Proposition 3a Introversion is more strongly related to OCBI than OCBO
Proposition 3b: Extraversion is more strongly related to OCBO than OCBI
OCB Type relative to Consequences
We now focus on the relationship between OCB type and managerial and peer rating
outcomes. Empirical studies have resulted in findings suggesting the existence of a positive and
significant relationship between engaging in OCB and the evaluation of an individual's job
performance. Managers have been found to favorably consider the extra-role contributions of
sales agent when rating their performance, thereby reciprocating their subordinate's OCB
(MacKenzie et al., 1991). Werner (1994) also reported that the superior performance ratings of
individuals demonstrating frequent extra-role behaviors tended to endure longer than the ratings
given to those with neutral levels of extra-role behavior. Finally, a meta-analytic examination by
Podsakoff, Whiting and Podsakoff, 2009, found that overall OCB is positively related to job
performance.
The literature offers a number of reasons that managers may include OCB in their
performance evaluations such as the recognition that certain OCB (i.e. sportsmanship and
conscientiousness) may in fact make the managers job easier. In addition, scholars have found
that managers may view OCB as an indication of how employees, which are motivated, may
advance the organization, therefore justifying the incorporation of such behaviors in their
employees assessments (Shore, Barksdale, & Shore, 1995). During the evaluation process, the
manager may consider the target of the behavior and may value OCBOs more than OCBIs based
on the fact that behaviors intended to support the organization are likely to impact a greater
number of individuals than behaviors aimed at helping specific people. Therefore, an employee
who takes the initiative to spearhead a company-sponsored community service event has greater
potential to help promote the organization in the community (and possibly the manager within
the organization) more so than an employee who offers to assist a co-worker in learning a new
system (Podsakoff, Podsakoff, Blume, 2009).
Likewise, to the extent that employees engage in behaviors with the intention of helping
others individuals, the theory of social exchange (Blau, 1964) may come to bear. This theory
posits that "giving and receiving material or intangible resources is at least partially predicated
on the expectation of return". Therefore, the target of the beneficial act may feel an obligation to
repay in some way. If a person takes extra steps to help another individual, that other individuals
may take extra steps to reciprocate (Uehara, 1990). Thus, employees who exhibit higher levels
of OCB directed toward the organization should receive higher performance evaluations by
supervisors than those who exhibit OCB directed toward other individuals and employees who
exhibit higher levels of OCB directed toward other individuals should receive higher
performance evaluations by peers than those who exhibit OCB directed toward the organization
(Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, Blume, 2009). We therefore hypothesize that OCB types
(based on target) are differentially related to individual performance rating, based on source,
such that:
Proposition 4a: OCBs targeted toward other individuals (OCBIs) are positively and more
strongly correlated with performance ratings by peers than with those by supervisors
Proposition 4b: OCBs targeted toward the organization (OCBOs) are positively and more
strongly correlated with performance ratings by supervisors than with those by peers
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
We propose future research in the OCB area, based on a specified sample and
measurement formulation. Questionnaire responses from both employees and supervisors in an
organization should prove useful in understanding whether OCB focused on others and OCB
focused on the organization are related differently to certain individual-level causes and
consequences of OCB. A subject survey should be randomly distributed to active employees,
and their performance should be assesses by their co-worker and supervisor based on a separate
survey. In accordance with proper survey methodology, the sample should allow for inclusion of
voluntarily-participating individuals of various ages, with varying team and family statuses that
have been assured of anonymity.
To evaluate and test the proposed research model shown in Figure 1 (Appendix), we
propose that future research draw upon validated instruments that have been developed and
tested in prior research. Specifically, the survey that is to be provided to the randomly selected
subjects should collect demographic and background information; job title, age, sex, race, tenure,
income, team member status (team membership or not), family involvement (self rating of
responsibility for spouse, children, or parent) and personality type. In addition, the subjects coworker and supervisor should be asked to rate the performance of the subject in terms of OCB
and in-task performance, thus avoiding same-source bias. The supervisor and peer rating would
permit researchers to capture others perceptions of the performance of the subject, avoiding the
need for the subjects to indicate their own likely future OCB.
The variables of interest are defined as follows: Team Membership Status requires that
employees indicated their team status (0 = not part of a work team vs. 1 = part of a work
team). The Family Involvement variable would permit assessment of the degree of family care
responsibilities, with subjects being asked to indicate (a) whether they currently have child care
responsibilities and (b) whether they are assisting an adult family member with a health problem
or disability. If so, the degree (frequency, time, effort) of responsibility would be collected. In
addition, items from the Family-Work Conflict scale, as depicted in Table 1 (Appendix), should
be included in the survey. This scales validity and reliability have been verified by Netemeyer
et al. (1996).
The Eysenck Personality Inventory Questionnaire (EPQ) has been proven in the
personality and social psychology literature, and should be completed by the subjects to capture
personality traits. Components of the scale are depicted in Table 2 (Appendix). Lastly, the
three different classes of employee performance can be captured by employing the performance
measure developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). It is a 21-item, 5-point scaled ranging
from one to five (1 meaning strongly disagree and 5 meaning strongly agree) measurement tool
that assesses in-role (task) performance behaviors (adequately completes assigned duties),
OCB-I (helps others who have heavy workloads), and OCB-O (preserves and protects
organizational property). The items are indicated in Table 3 (Appendix). Consistent with the
methodology employed by Halbesleben & Bowler (2007), this survey should be completed by
the participants supervisors and closest coworkers.
CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS
To date, research in OCB has been insightful. However, there are other dimensions of
OCB yet to be explored such as the forms of OCB, as proposed by Williams and Anderson
(1991), and their antecedents and consequences. Therefore, important questions remain
regarding whether two forms of OCB (those targeting other individuals; OCBI and those
intending to benefit the organization; OCBO) are related differently with certain individual-level
antecedents and consequences. This article is intended to serve as both a call and roadmap for
further examination of the effects of the targets of OCBs. Such research would assist in filling a
gap in the academic literature and help practitioners understand the influence that the target of
OCB has on both the peer and management performance evaluation process. Such pursuits
would significantly inform research related to OCB and employees family involvement, team
membership and personality type.
While this research does propose the use of a number of different measurement
instruments and sources of data, there are a number of limitations of the proposed methodology.
In measuring Work-Family conflict via a survey, the respondents may inadvertently take FamilyWork conflict into consideration when responding to the questions. Thereby, the potential for
inclusion of the disruptive impact of work on family exists. While two separate measures of the
Family Involvement construct were recommended (capturing family responsibility as well as
conflict), the definition provided may have been too narrowly defined, given both the variety and
arrangements of responsibility existing in families today. A longitudinal OCB analysis may also
provide greater insight than the cross-sectional approach proposed in this study. Lastly, like
many field studies, the research plan does not meet all requirements to support causal inference
but does have the potential to advance understanding OCB dimensionality and its antecedents
and outcomes.
REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on
performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 247260.
Arrow, H. & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Membership Dynamics in Groups at Work: A Theoretical
Perspective. pp. 373411 in B Staw and L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in
Organizational Behavior, vol 17 N.Y.: JAI Press.
Barnard, C. I. , (1938). The Functions Of The Executive, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship
between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587
595.
Becker, J. A., & Dan O'Hair, H. (2007). Machiavellians motives in organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 246-267.
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good
citizens at what cost?. Academy of Management Review,32(4), 1078-1095.
Blau, G. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include
Elements of Contextual Performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates
(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations: 7198. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of
citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 5269.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: good soldiers or good actors?.
Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82-98.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of
Management Review, 11, 710725.
Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. 1991. The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level
approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13: 55110.
Chen, X. P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. L. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in
turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 922931.
Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1977). L'acteur et le systme.
Decktop, J. R., Mangel, R., & Cirka, C. C. (1999). Getting more than you pay for: organizational
citizenship behavior and pay-for-performance plans. Academy of Management Journal,
42, 420428.
Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.
Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder and Stoughton.
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice
and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42, 421444.
Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the
Peoples Republic of China. Organization Science, 15, 241253.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75, 107116.
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behavior at work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299307.
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance,
and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75, 698709.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling Good-Doing Good: A Conceptual Analysis of the
Mood at Work-Organizational Spontaneity Relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112:
310 329.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational Spontaneity in Context. Human Perform,
10: 153170.
Graham, J. W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition,
operationalization, and validation. Unpublished working paper, Loyola University of
Chicago.
Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilties and Rights Journal, 4: 249-270.
Graham, J. W., & Van Dyne, L. (2006). Gathering information and exercising influence: Two
forms of civic virtue organizational citizenship behavior.Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 18(2), 89-109.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to
workfamily conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 350-370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of management review, 10(1), 76-88.

Halbesleben, J. R., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: the
mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology,92(1), 93.
Hochschild, A. (1997). The time bind. WorkingUSA, 1(2), 21-29.
Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C., Meriac, J., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A
meta-analysis of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 555-566.
Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational-behavior.
Research in organizational behavior, 13, 1-53.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on
role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 36(1), 16-78.
Jung, C. G. (1928). Contributions to analytical psychology.
Kabanoff, B. (1980). Work and nonwork: A review of models, methods, and findings.
Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 60.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational
stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity.
Katz, D. 1964. Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior. Behavioral Science, 9: 131146.
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253266.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 853868.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and Cooperative Behavior as Contrasting Forms
of Contextual Performance: Evidence of Differential Relationships with Big Five
Personality Characteristics and Cognitive Ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
326-336.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behaviour: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52-65.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior
and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123150.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work:
Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 665-683.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate
workplace change. Academy of Management Journal,42, 403419.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work
family conflict and familywork conflict scales. Journal of applied psychology, 81(4),
400.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 392.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43
72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenships behavior: Its construct cleanup time. Human
Performance, 10, 8597.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A metaanalytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 48(4), 775802.
Parasuraman, S., & Simmers, C. A. (2001). Type of employment, workfamily conflict and
wellbeing: a comparative study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 551-568.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327
340.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study.
Journal of Management, 25, 897933.
Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., & Spoelma, T. M.
(2014). Consequences of unitlevel organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and
recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S87S119.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). A metaanalysis of the
relationships between Kerr and Jermiers substitutes for leadership and employee job
attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380
399.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust inleader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107142.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., Blume, B.D. 2009. Individual- and
Organizational-Level Consequences of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A MetaAnalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122-141.
Roesch, S. C., Wee, C., & Vaughn, A. A. (2006). Relations between the Big Five personality
traits and dispositional coping in Korean Americans: Acculturation as a moderating
factor. International Journal of Psychology,41(02), 85-96.
Schacter, S., Ellertson, N., McBride, D., & Gregory, D. (1951). An experimental study of
cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations.
Shore, L. M., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Managerial perceptions of employee
commitment to the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 15931615.
Stamper, C. L., & Dyne, L. V. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A
field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 517536.
Thoms, P., Moore, K. S., & Scott, K. S. (1996). The relationship between self-efficacy for
participating in self-managed work groups and the big five personality dimensions.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 349362.
Tompson, H. B., & Werner, J. M. (1997). The impact of role conflict/facilitation on core and
discretionary behavior: Testing a mediated model. Journal of Management, 23, 583
601.
Uehara, Edwina. (1990). "Dual Exchange Theory, Social Networks and Informal Social
Support." American Journal of Sociology 96:521-57.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee
voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 13591392.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings &
B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215285).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108119.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as
separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525-531.
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role
and extra-role behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
98107.
Williams, L. J., Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17, 601-617.
APPENDIX
Proposed model of antecedents and outcomes of OCB type. P = Proposition; OCB = Organizational Citizenship
Behavior; OCBI = OCB targeting other individuals; OCBO = OCB targeting the organization
Team
Membership
P1a,b
OCBI
Family
Responsibility
P2a,b
OCBO
Personality
Type
Antecedents
P4a
Managerial
Performance
Rating
P4b
Peer
Performance
Rating
P3a,b
OCB Type
Outcomes
Figure 1
Table 1
Family-Work Conflict Scale (Netemeyer, Boles & McMurrian,1996).
1. The demands of my family or spouse/partner interfere with work-related activities.

2. I have to put off doing things at work because of demands on my time at home.
3. Things I want to do at work don't get done because of the demands of my family or
spouse/partner.
4. My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work such as getting to work on
time, accomplishing daily tasks, and working overtime.
5. Family-related strain interferes with my ability to perform job-related duties.
Table 2
Extroversion-Introversion (Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B.G., 1975).
Table 3
Performance Scale (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007)

Exploring Forms of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) : Antecedents and Outcomes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Forms of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) : Antecedents and Outcomes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Forms of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) : Antecedents and Outcomes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management and Marketing Research

Volume 18- February, 2015