See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/7453313

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship

Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior

Article  in  Journal of Applied Psychology · December 2005

DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
760 23,470

1 author:

Reeshad Sam Dalal

George Mason University
61 PUBLICATIONS   3,607 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Reeshad Sam Dalal on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association
2005, Vol. 90, No. 6, 1241–1255 0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship

Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior
Reeshad S. Dalal
Purdue University

Job performance is increasingly being seen to encompass constructs such as organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). To clarify the OCB–CWB relationship,
a meta-analysis was conducted. Results indicate a modest negative relationship (␳ ⫽ ⫺0.32). The
relationship strength did not increase appreciably when the target of the behavior (the organization vs.
other employees) was the same. Moreover, OCB and CWB exhibited somewhat distinct patterns of
relationships with antecedents. The OCB–CWB relationship was moderated by the source of the ratings,
the presence of antithetical items, and the type of response options. An employee-centric perspective is
proposed whereby both OCB and CWB are perceived as adaptive behavior. Implications for organiza-
tions are discussed.

Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior, meta-analysis, deviant

behavior, job performance

Job performance is so important to industrial– organizational izenship behavior (OCB), and counterproductive work behavior
(I/O) psychology that it is often simply referred to as “the crite- (CWB).
rion.” The traditional view restricts the performance space to what There has been much interest in the relationship between the
Borman and Motowidlo (1997) call task performance—that is, latter two domains (Bennett & Robinson, 2002; Bennett &
“the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activities Stamper, 2001; Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Fisher & Locke, 1992; Fox,
that contribute to the organization’s technical core” (p. 99). Al- Spector, Goh, & Bruursema, 2003; Hunt, 1996; Jermier, Knights,
though it has long been recognized that job performance is mul- & Nord, 1994; Kelloway, Loughlin, Barling, & Nault, 2002;
tidimensional (Austin & Villanova, 1992; Schmidt & Kaplan, Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Organ & Paine, 1999;
1971), only more recently has the research literature (e.g., Borman Puffer, 1987; Sackett & DeVore, 2001; Sackett, Berry, Wiemann,
& Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; Campbell, 1990; Organ & Paine, 1999) & Laczo, 2005; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Spector & Fox, 2002).
acknowledged the role of employee work behaviors that fall out- A priori, however, empirical findings on the OCB–CWB relation-
side the rubric of task performance. Borman and Motowidlo ship do not present a united picture. Some studies (e.g., Bennett &
(1997) have reasoned that such behaviors are important because Stamper, 2001; Sackett & DeVore, 2001) have indicated strong
they “shape the organizational, social, and psychological context OCB–CWB relationships, whereas others (e.g., Dunlop & Lee,
that serves as the catalyst for task activities and processes” (p. 2004; Kelloway et al., 2002; Sackett et al., 2005) have found
100). Some researchers (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Sackett, 2002; weaker relationships.
Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000) have suggested that there are three The present research uses meta-analysis to (a) estimate the
broad performance domains: task performance, organizational cit- strength of the relationship between OCB and CWB (at both the
global and facet levels), (b) estimate these constructs’ relationships
with a common set of antecedents, and (c) determine whether the
magnitude of the OCB–CWB relationship is moderated by other
This research was funded by the Center for Human Resources Manage- variables. Several lines of theory and empirical research are pre-
ment, University of Illinois; the Seymour Sudman Dissertation Award from sented, some of which argue for a strong negative OCB–CWB
the Survey Research Laboratory, University of Illinois; and the Field relationship and others for a weaker relationship.
Research Fund of the Industrial/Organizational Psychology Division, Uni-
versity of Illinois.
Construct Definitions
This article is based on a portion of Reeshad S. Dalal’s doctoral
dissertation at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Some of the Inspired by some of the classic early research in I/O psychology
analyses were also presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for (e.g., Barnard, 1938; Katz & Kahn, 1966), OCB was originally
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Illinois, April 2004. defined as intentional employee behavior that is discretionary and
I thank Tatana Olson for helping to code the primary studies. Charles
typically not recognized or rewarded but that nonetheless improves
Hulin and Carra Sims very kindly commented on drafts of this article. I am
also grateful to Marcus Credé, Michael Bashshur, and the many other
the functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988; Schnake, 1991).
researchers who willingly shared their theses and unpublished data. More recently, however, it has been acknowledged that OCB may
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Reeshad be recognized and rewarded during performance appraisals (Or-
S. Dalal, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 gan, 1997). CWB, on the other hand, is defined as intentional
Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47097. E-mail: [email protected] employee behavior that is harmful to the legitimate interests of an

1241
1242 DALAL

organization (Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Martinko, Gundlach, & 2002; Kelloway et al., 2002). Heckert and Heckert (2002) argued
Douglas, 2002; Sackett & DeVore, 2001; see also Bennett & for a continuum, consisting of conforming acts in the middle, acts
Robinson, 2000; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Skarlicki & Folger, that violate norms (CWB-O) on one end, and acts that surpass
1997). From a definitional perspective, therefore, OCB and CWB normative expectations (OCB-O) on the other (see also Jermier et
could be considered opposites in the sense that the former benefits al., 1994). On the basis of construct definitions, therefore, OCB-O
the organization, whereas the latter harms it. Similar definitional and CWB-O should be strongly negatively related.
notions of behavior exist in the social–personality psychology Although one might expect strong relationships between OCB-I
domains. As Batson and Powell (2003) stated, “The word proso- and CWB-I and between OCB-O and CWB-O, it may not be as
cial does not appear in most dictionaries; it was created by social meaningful to examine the relationship between OCB-I and
scientists as an antonym for antisocial” (p. 463). CWB-O or between OCB-O and CWB-I. In addition to comparing
Despite the aforementioned variance in empirical results, there- OCB and CWB, these latter relationships involve behaviors di-
fore, on the basis of construct definitions one might expect that rected toward different targets. As an example, it is easier to
employees who typically engage in OCB will tend not to engage in interpret the relationship between behaviors designed to help oth-
CWB—that is, that there exists a strong negative relationship ers and those designed to harm others than it is to interpret the
between OCB and CWB. However, several additional issues need relationship between behaviors designed to help others and those
to be considered. Specifically, (a) there are different categories of designed to flout organizational regulations concerning work re-
OCB and CWB, (b) there are several reasons why an employee quirements. A finer grained analysis is provided by examining
might engage in OCB and CWB, and (c) the OCB–CWB relation- OCB and CWB directed toward the same target.
ship is likely to be moderated by several variables. However, the precise importance of the targets of behavior has
not yet been conclusively established. Although, as mentioned
Dimensionality previously, both the OCB and CWB literatures make the distinc-
tion between interpersonally directed and organizationally directed
Organ and colleagues (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) reported behavior, there is also some evidence that global OCB and CWB
two dimensions of OCB, namely an interpersonal dimension constructs are meaningful. For example, a recent OCB meta-
(OCB-I) and an organizational dimension (OCB-O). This taxon- analysis (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002) concluded that research-
omy was formulated on the basis of the target of the behaviors: ers have not done enough to justify separating the general or global
individual employees or the organization as a whole, respectively. dimension of OCB into more specific dimensions. On the CWB
Examples include volunteering to help a coworker (OCB-I) and side, Lee and Allen (2002) found that CWB-I and CWB-O factors
praising the organization to outsiders (OCB-O). Although more could not be empirically distinguished. Further, as Sackett (2002)
elaborate taxonomies of OCB have subsequently been developed stated, “It appears reasonable to think in terms of an overall
(e.g., Coleman & Borman, 2000; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & counterproductivity construct” (p. 8). Marcus, Schuler, Quell, and
MacKenzie, 1994), Organ and Paine (1999) argued that the orig- Hümpfner (2002) and Sackett and DeVore (2001) have also de-
inal two-factor OCB model is the most stable and tends to underlie scribed a global CWB factor.
the more complex models. It may well be that a hierarchical structure, with interpersonal
On the CWB side, Robinson and Bennett (1995) made a similar and organizational behaviors both loading on a general factor, best
distinction between the interpersonally directed and organization- describes CWB (Marcus, et al., 2002; Sackett, 2002; Sackett &
ally directed aspects of what they called workplace deviance. DeVore, 2001) and OCB. For this reason, the present meta-
Examples include gossiping about coworkers (CWB-I) and taking analysis assesses OCB–CWB relationships at both the global and
overly long breaks (CWB-O). The interpersonally directed versus facet levels. Therefore, the following research questions were
organizationally directed distinction was also observed by Bennett investigated:
and Robinson (2000) and Gruys and Sackett (2003, Study 2). In
contrast, additional dimensions (e.g., Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Rob- Research Question 1: What is the magnitude of the relationship
inson & Bennett, 1995) have not been widely replicated. between OCB and CWB?
Both OCB and CWB, therefore, can be separated into behavior Research Question 2: What is the magnitude of the relationship
that is directed toward other employees and behavior directed between OCB and CWB directed toward the same target? Moreover,
toward the organization as a whole. Further support for this prop- is this relationship substantially stronger than the one between OCB
osition comes from Bennett and Stamper’s (2001) Q-sort and and CWB directed toward different targets?
multidimensional scaling analyses of both positive and negative
discretionary work behaviors. These authors found that OCB and Antecedents
CWB were opposite poles of one dimension; the other dimension
pertained to the target of the behavior. The relationship between OCB and CWB can also be inferred
Bennett and Stamper’s (2001) results suggest that OCB-I and by these constructs’ relationships with external variables. If OCB
CWB-I represent behaviors designed to help and harm other em- and CWB are very strongly related to each other, their relation-
ployees, respectively (see also, in this regard, Kelloway et al., ships with antecedents should be of similar magnitude or, failing
2002). There should, consequently, be a strong negative relation- that, should at least exhibit similar patterns (Hunter & Gerbing,
ship between OCB-I and CWB-I. Moreover, OCB-O represents 1982).
behaviors designed to surpass required levels, whereas CWB-O Of particular interest is the fact that the sets of antecedents
represents employees behaving in ways they should not and/or identified by the OCB and CWB literatures are very similar. The
failing to meet minimum requirements (Bennett & Robinson, antecedents discussed next include those mentioned as shared
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1243

antecedents by Bennett and Stamper (2001)—that is, job satisfac- Conscientiousness

tion, perceptions of organizational justice, positive affectivity, and
A meta-analysis by Organ and Ryan (1995) found that consci-
negative affectivity. In addition, conscientiousness and organiza-
entiousness was the best personality predictor of OCB. Similarly,
tional commitment are included because they too have featured
Sackett and DeVore (2001), after reviewing “meta-analytic evi-
fairly prominently in both OCB and CWB literatures. dence from the integrity test literature, the Big 5 literature, and the
literature on the prediction of military performance” (p. 156),
Job Attitudes and Organizational Justice concluded that the strongest relationships between personality and
CWB were exhibited by conscientiousness or its facets. Of partic-
Social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), the theory of ular interest is the fact that the meta-analytic findings from Organ
psychological contracts (e.g., Rousseau, 1989), and the norm of and Ryan (1995) and Sackett and DeVore (2001) suggest that the
reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) have been used as explanatory mech- conscientiousness–OCB and conscientiousness–CWB relation-
anisms for the relationship between OCB and CWB on the one ships do not differ greatly in magnitude (although see LePine et al.,
hand and organizational justice, job satisfaction, and organiza- 2002). One would accordingly expect that conscientious people
tional commitment on the other. These theories predict that em- will typically engage in OCB, whereas unconscientious people will
ployees respond to working conditions that are satisfying and to typically engage in CWB.
workplace processes, outcomes, and interactions that are fair by
Positive and Negative Affect
behaving in ways that benefit the organization and/or other em-
ployees (i.e., OCB) and by exhibiting commitment to the organi- Spector and Fox (2002) argued that affect is associated with
zation. In contrast, according to the theories, employees retaliate general physiological arousal and induces “action tendencies” (p.
against dissatisfying conditions and unjust workplaces by engag- 5) that engender behavior via the formulation of behavioral inten-
ing in behavior that harms the organization and/or other employees tions and/or the initiation of readiness to act. Spector and Fox
(i.e., CWB) and by a lack of organizational commitment. asserted that the behavior may take the form of either constructive
The social exchange, psychological contract, and reciprocity action (corresponding to OCB) or destructive action (correspond-
perspectives are reflected in much of the literature examining the ing to CWB). Although the relationship between affect and be-
relationship between antecedents and OCB or CWB. In their havior is rather complex (Carlson, Charlin, & Miller, 1988; Carl-
chapter on CWB, Sackett and DeVore (2001) wrote, “There is a son & Miller, 1987), there is some evidence that CWB is designed
certain poetry in behaving badly in response to some perceived to ameliorate negative affect (NA; Spector & Fox, 2002), whereas
injustice” (p. 160). Hollinger (1986) discussed a social bonding OCB is designed to maintain positive affect (PA; Carlson et al.,
model and showed that organizational commitment (or lack 1988; George & Brief, 1992).
thereof) predicted amount of CWB. With regard to job satisfaction, In general, Spector and Fox (2002) predicted strong PA–OCB
Hanisch and Hulin (1990) defined employee withdrawal (work and NA–CWB relationships. In fact, their model posits PA as the
proximal cause of OCB and NA as the proximal cause of CWB.
withdrawal can be conceptualized as a subset of CWB-O) as a “set
Extrapolating from the model, one could argue that people scoring
of behaviors dissatisfied individuals enact to avoid the work situ-
high on PA would typically engage in OCB but that those scoring
ation” (p. 63).
low on PA may or may not engage in CWB. Similarly, it could be
Likewise, Organ’s (1977) conceptualization of OCB was largely
argued that those scoring high on NA would typically engage in
shaped by his belief that satisfaction was a strong predictor of em-
CWB but that those scoring low on NA may or may not engage in
ployee performance despite consistent findings of weak satisfaction–
OCB. However, Spector and Fox did not completely discount the
performance relationships. Specifically, Organ stated that employee possibility of nontrivial PA–CWB and NA–OCB relationships.
job satisfaction might indeed predict employee actions that were
excluded from researchers’ notions of performance but that nonethe- Conclusion
less improved the functioning of organizations (i.e., OCB). Organi-
zational commitment has also been included as an important predictor Thus, the same constructs have been identified as antecedents by
of OCB (Becker, 1992; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; although see both the OCB and CWB research literatures. Yet there is insuffi-
Williams & Anderson, 1991). Finally, Greenberg (1993) has stated cient information to indicate whether similar patterns across ante-
that the relationship between organizational justice and OCB has cedent relationships can be observed for OCB and CWB. Although
the relationships of the aforementioned antecedents with OCB
preoccupied philosophers for centuries.
have all been estimated by previous meta-analyses, on the CWB
To summarize, then, one should expect OCB and CWB to be
side only relationships with justice and conscientiousness have
related, in opposite directions, to the constructs of job satisfaction,
previously been assessed. The present study (partially) rectifies
organizational commitment, and organizational justice. With re-
this lacuna so that antecedent– behavior relationships for OCB and
gard to the latter, however, Organ and Paine (1999) speculated that
CWB can be compared.
the (in)justice–CWB relationship may be much stronger than the
justice–OCB relationship. That is, perceived injustice will defi- Research Question 3: Do OCB and CWB exhibit similar patterns of
nitely prompt CWB; in contrast, perceptions of high levels of relationships with antecedents?
justice may or may not prompt OCB. Yet meta-analytic research
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Por- Potential Moderator Variables
ter, & Ng, 2001) suggests that the difference between justice– There is reason to believe that the relationship between OCB
CWB and justice–OCB relationships is probably slight. and CWB will be moderated by several variables. Four potential
1244 DALAL

moderators are examined here: source of ratings, inclusion of inventories (e.g., “volunteer[s] to finish a project for a coworker
antithetical items, format of response options, and education level who is sick”; Morris, 2001) are very similar to OCBs. It is
of rater. This is by no means an exhaustive list of moderators; as therefore hypothesized that the magnitude of the OCB–CWB
discussed later, other potentially important moderators could not relationship is moderated by the presence versus absence of anti-
be assessed because of lack of variance in the primary studies. thetical items within measures of OCB and CWB. Specifically, the
magnitude of the OCB–CWB correlation should be stronger (neg-
Source of Ratings ative) when such practices are adopted than when they are not.
Sackett et al. (2005; see also Sackett, 2002) have recently
conjectured that OCB–CWB relationships may be much smaller Format of Response Options
when self-reports are used than when supervisor reports are used.
Even if OCB and CWB are, in fact, very strongly negatively
They reasoned—as did Spector and Fox (2002)—that although
related, the strength of this relationship may appear to be lower in
some interpersonally directed CWBs may be easily observable by
certain circumstances. Consider the case in which OCB and CWB
others, most CWBs are intended by the perpetrators to be private
are so strongly negatively related that they may be considered
and, hence, unobservable. It therefore follows that supervisors
opposite poles of a single latent factor of discretionary work
have little basis for judging many CWBs. These authors have, in
behavior. The correlation matrix in this case should exhibit only
fact, made similar arguments with regard to some forms of OCB
strong relationships: The relationship between two OCB items or
(see also Schnake, 1991). Sackett et al. have therefore proposed
between two CWB items will be strongly positive, whereas the
that supervisors will make judgments about employee CWBs (and
relationship between an OCB item and a CWB item will be
perhaps some OCBs too) on the basis of their general impressions
strongly negative.
of the employees, an instance of halo error. Thus, a supervisor is
However, these strong OCB–CWB relationships should not be
likely to assign an employee consistent scores on OCB or CWB—
observed if the data conform to an unfolding model as opposed to
that is, high OCB and low CWB scores if the supervisor has a good
the traditional dominance model (Spector, Van Katwyk, Brannick,
impression of the employee and vice versa in the case of a bad
& Chen, 1997; van Schuur & Kiers, 1994). The dominance model
impression. This will inflate OCB–CWB relationships.
assumes that relationships between observed and latent variables
It is therefore hypothesized that the OCB–CWB relationship
are linear or at least monotonic, whereas the unfolding model
will be moderated by the source of the ratings. Specifically,
assumes quadratic or at least single-peaked relationships (Coombs,
relationships should be more strongly negative when the behaviors
1975; Davison, 1977). The difference can be illustrated by con-
are rated by supervisors than when they are rated by the job
sidering a continuous latent factor on which the locations of both
incumbents themselves (i.e., self-ratings).
items and respondents are mapped. The dominance model assumes
that a respondent typically will not endorse those positively
Inclusion of Antithetical Items
worded items (or reverse-scored negatively worded items) that
As Socrates recounts in Plato’s Symposium (360 BC/2001), have a more positive standing on the latent variable than he or she
what is not beautiful need not be ugly and what is not good need does. In contrast, the unfolding model assumes that a respondent
not be bad. That is, negation (the addition of not) does not typically will not endorse those items that have a more positive or
necessarily imply the lexical opposite (hereafter referred to as the a more negative standing on the latent variable than he or she
antithesis). The distinction between these two forms is well estab- does—that is, the respondent typically will not endorse items that
lished in the disciplines of philosophy and linguistics/pragmatics are distant, in either direction, from his or her position.1
(Jordan, 1998). It therefore cannot be said that an employee fails to If the data conform to an unfolding model, the correlation matrix
meet minimum required standards merely because he or she does (after ordering items from severe CWB to severe OCB) will
not exceed requirements. Put differently, the absence of OCB is exhibit a simplex form: Correlations between items occupying
not identical to the presence of CWB (or vice versa). adjacent positions on the latent factor will be high, whereas those
This issue becomes important during the construction of OCB between items on opposite poles of the latent factor will be close
and CWB inventories. Although some researchers (Fox et al., to zero or, at best, weakly negative (van Schuur & Kiers, 1994).
2003; Schnake, 1991) have suggested that the practice of including The relationship between two OCB items or between two CWB
any dysfunctional behaviors (that are subsequently reverse-scored) items will therefore be strongly positive, but the relationship
in OCB scales is undesirable, and others (Organ & Paine, 1999) between an OCB item and a CWB item will be trivial. In other
have indicated their awareness of this issue (although they appear words, the OCB–CWB relationship is likely to be stronger (neg-
not to have taken a conclusive stand either way), many existing ative) when the underlying data structure conforms to the tradi-
OCB inventories (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fet-
ter, 1990; Smith et al., 1983) do contain examples of dysfunctional
1
behavior. In contrast, the inclusion of examples of functional Consider, for instance, the item “Did as much work as was expected of
behavior in CWB inventories does not appear to have been as me.” Dominance models assume that people will not endorse this item if
they have done less work than was expected of them. In contrast, unfolding
prevalent, although it has occurred occasionally (e.g., Marcus et
models recognize that people will not endorse the item either if they have
al., 2002; Morris, 2001). done less work than was expected of them or if they have done more work
Dysfunctional behaviors in OCB inventories (e.g., “consumes a than was expected of them. As a consequence, the latter category of people,
lot of time complaining about trivial matters,” “always finds fault who would be on the high end of the latent factor under an unfolding
with what the organization is doing”; Podsakoff et al., 1990) are model, would be (mis)classified as being on the low end of the latent factor
very similar to CWBs. Equally, functional behaviors in CWB under a dominance model.
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1245

tional dominance model than when it conforms to the unfolding Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology,
model. Human Performance, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
The unfolding model has been posited to underlie attitudinal and Processes from 1995 (publication year of the Robinson and Bennett study
personality data. Such a model is most likely to operate when on workplace deviance) onward. Reference sections of located primary
studies and previous meta-analyses of relevance (Cohen-Charash & Spec-
respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or
tor, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; LePine et al., 2002; Meyer, Stanley,
disagree that they would engage in particular OCBs and CWBs or
Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff,
when they are asked about the extent to which these behaviors are MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Riketta, 2002; Salgado, 2002) were
characteristic or uncharacteristic of them. In contrast, the tradi- also perused for citations of relevance. Finally, an e-mail requesting
tional dominance model is likely to remain appropriate when unpublished manuscripts was sent to the Academy of Management’s
participants report the frequencies of having engaged in particular Research Methods Network.
OCBs and CWBs. Therefore, it is predicted that the OCB–CWB
relationship will be moderated by the type of response options. In
particular, a stronger negative relationship is hypothesized for Inclusion Criteria
behavioral frequency response options than for agreement–
Only those studies were included that involved work behavior that was
disagreement or characteristic– uncharacteristic response options. intentional and (at least potentially) discretionary. Inclusion also required
Additional support for this proposition comes from the affect either (a) explicit mention of OCB or closely related constructs (e.g.,
literature. Some evidence indicates that the use of frequency for- organizational spontaneity) and CWB or closely related constructs (e.g.,
mats requires respondents to make logical and empirical connec- workplace deviance behavior) or (b) behavior measures that facilitated the
tions between PA and NA, thereby increasing the strength of the creation of composites approximating these constructs. However, it was
(negative) relationship between them (Warr, Barter, & Brown- also necessary for the behavior constructs to be identifiable as either
bridge, 1983). beneficial (OCB) or harmful (CWB) to the legitimate interests of the
organization or its employees. Note that these procedures resulted in the
Education Level of Rater exclusion of two projects cited in Sackett and DeVore (2001) as examples
of the relationship between OCB and CWB.2
The magnitude of OCB–CWB relationships may be influenced With regard to the facet analyses, furthermore, inclusion required the
by the education level of the rater. Stone, Stone, and Gueutal behavior constructs to be targeted primarily at the organization as a whole
(1990) observed that most developers and users of questionnaires (organizational) or employees therein (interpersonal). Finally, because
in I/O psychology have not been unduly concerned about whether satisfaction with any one facet of the job (e.g., coworkers) alone is a
deficient measure of overall job satisfaction, satisfaction– behavior rela-
respondents can comprehend questionnaire items and instructions,
tionships were only included in the present analyses if the satisfaction
despite one third of the current U.S. workforce currently being
measure was either global or included more than one facet of satisfaction
functionally illiterate. Moreover, research in the field of education (so that a satisfaction composite could be calculated); in this regard, the
(e.g., Mathewson, 1984) has found that special pedagogical tools present research follows Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patten (2001). It
are needed in the schools to aid in the recognition and understand- should be noted that the exclusion of a particular facet measure of behavior
ing of opposites and the ability to draw correct inferences from or a particular measure of satisfaction did not automatically necessitate the
them. In general, therefore, the ability to detect opposites is likely omission of the entire study from the meta-analysis.
to vary as a function of amount of education received (but see
Cordery & Sevastos, 1993). Conceptual or definitional opposition
2
(e.g., going above and beyond vs. not doing enough), of the kind In these two studies—Project A (Campbell, 1990; McHenry, Hough,
Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990) and Viswesvaran, Schmidt, and
potentially exhibited by OCB versus CWB, may be especially hard
Ones (1999)—Sackett and DeVore’s (2001) determination of which di-
to detect. Therefore, provided that the source of OCB and CWB
mensions constitute OCB versus CWB is not the only plausible one. All the
ratings is the same, it is predicted that the rater’s education level dimensions, in fact, could be considered instances of either OCB or CWB:
will moderate the OCB–CWB relationship. In particular, the rela- Employees could go beyond what is expected on a given dimension (OCB)
tionship is hypothesized to be more strongly negative in studies or they could do less than what is required (CWB). For instance, although
with more highly educated respondents than in studies with less Sackett and DeVore classified the Project A dimension of effort and
highly educated respondents. leadership as OCB, they themselves (p. 146) have classified examples of
behavior pertaining to effort as CWB. (Moreover, Robinson & Bennett,
Moderation Hypotheses: The relationship between OCB and CWB 1995, have classified examples of both effort and leadership as CWB.)
will be stronger (in the negative direction) (a) when the source of Because of the lack of completely defensible criteria on which to partition
ratings is the supervisor rather than the job incumbent him- or herself, lower order constructs into OCB versus CWB, the present research does
(b) when the citizenship and counterproductive behavior measures not include the Project A and Viswesvaran et al. studies in the list of
contain antithetical items than when they do not, (c) when response primary studies. Other studies (e.g., Day & Silverman, 1989; Love &
options pertain to behavioral frequency than when they pertain to the O’Hara, 1987) were excluded for the same reason. An altogether different
degree of agreement or the extent to which they are characteristic of issue pertains to the third study cited by Sackett and DeVore (i.e., Hunt,
the ratee, and (d) when respondents are more highly educated than 1996). The OCB composite Sackett and DeVore constructed from this
when they are less highly educated. study excludes Hunt’s schedule flexibility as a component. Yet Hunt
himself (p. 75) included schedule flexibility in OCB. The uncorrected
Method correlation obtained in the present study between OCB and CWB com-
Literature Search posites was therefore – 0.61 (as opposed to Sackett & DeVore’s estimate of
– 0.67). In addition, although Hunt’s overall sample size was indeed more
PsycINFO searches, using a variety of keywords, were conducted. In than 18,000 (as Sackett & DeVore mentioned), the sample sizes he used to
addition, manual searches were carried out in the Journal of Applied estimate correlations had a mean of about 4,000.
1246 DALAL

Results of Searches and Application of Inclusion Criteria exploratory moderator analyses revealed no racial or national differences in
the OCB–CWB relationship.
Forty-nine independent samples were identified from 38 studies. Two
raters separately coded the samples. The first rater has a PhD in I/O
Procedure
psychology. The second rater was, at the time of coding, a 5th-year
graduate student in I/O psychology (she has subsequently received her The theory of composites and the requisite formulae (Ghiselli, Camp-
PhD). Both coders were familiar with the OCB and CWB research litera- bell, & Zedeck, 1981) were used to create composites, estimate the reli-
tures. The overall agreement level between coders was 96.8%. However, ability of composites, and estimate the correlation between two composites
the most important judgments were those that related to coding behavior (or the special case of a correlation between a composite and a single
measures into the six construct categories (OCB, CWB, OCB-I, OCB-O, external variable). The use of composites was necessary when global
CWB-I, and CWB-O); agreement for only these judgments was therefore measures of OCB, CWB, or presumed antecedents thereof were con-
calculated separately and was found to be 94.1%. All disagreements were structed from lower order dimensions provided in the primary studies.
resolved using a subsequent joint inspection. Meta-analytic procedures specified by Hunter and Schmidt (1990) were
Of the 49 samples, 15 were from published articles; the remaining were used to correct correlations for unreliability and to account for the effects
from conference presentations and posters, unpublished dissertations, mas- of sampling error on the variance of the correlations. When possible,
ter’s theses, honors’ theses, and data sets. The overall sample size was correction for unreliability was performed locally (i.e., at the level of the
16,721 (median across samples ⫽ 169). Not all relationships of interest individual sample). When a reliability estimate was not provided for a
could be assessed in every sample; the analysis-level sample size therefore measure in an individual primary sample, however, the correction was
differs. As can be seen in Table 1, the collection of samples was fairly accomplished using the mean reliability from the reliability distribution
representative across respondent gender, age, level of education, job ex- generated from the primary samples.
perience, and job type. Moreover, although the samples were predomi- The accuracy of the meta-analytic effect size estimate was examined by
nantly Caucasian and were collected predominantly in the United States, means of 90% confidence intervals. Homogeneity of effect sizes was

Table 1
Demographic and Other Characteristics of Primary Sample Respondents

Description or percentage of primary

Characteristic samples with characteristic

Gender
⬎70% women 26.5%
⬎70% men 10.2%
No preponderance of either gender 53.1%
Age (years)
M of primary sample means 37.60
SD of primary sample means 7.99
Ethnicity
⬎70% Caucasian employees 51.0%
⬎70% non-Caucasian employees 4.1%
No preponderance of any ethnicity 12.2%
Level of education (highest level
attained)
⬍70% high school completion 0.0%
⬎70% high school completion 16.3%
⬎70% junior college or technical
school completion 28.6%
⬎70% college completion 16.3%
⬎70% postgraduate degree completion 2.0%
Country in which surveyeda
United States 77.5%
Canada and South Africa 4.1% each
Australia, Austria, Germany, Lebanon,
Mexico, Turkey, and an unspecified
Pacific Rim country 2.0% each
Job experience (years)
M of primary sample means 9.22
SD of primary sample means 5.42
Job type/title (representative selection) Clerical and secretarial staff; computer scientist/information
technologist; crafts employee; educator (teacher/
professor); employed student; foreman/supervisor;
maintenance staff; manager/administrator; mail processor;
military; nurse; professional; protective professions
employee; restaurant employee; vehicle operator

Note. Percentages may sum to less than 100% because of missing data (samples for which information was not
provided).
a
Not all respondents were nationals of the country in which they were surveyed. In the Lebanese sample, for
instance, some respondents were nationals of other Arab countries and yet others were Americans.
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1247

assessed using 90% credibility intervals followed by Hunter and Schmidt’s Table 3
(1990) z tests for moderation. A confidence interval, constructed around Meta-Analytic Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship
the uncorrected sample-size-weighted mean effect size using the standard Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior
error of uncorrected effect sizes, indicates the extent to which sampling
error influences the estimate of the population effect size (Whitener, 1990). k N Mean r Mean ␳ SDr SD␳ 90% CI 90% CrI
In contrast, a credibility interval, constructed around the corrected sample-
size-weighted mean effect size using the standard deviation of corrected 49 16,721 ⫺0.27 ⫺0.32 0.27 0.34 (⫺0.39, ⫺0.15) (⫺0.89, 0.24)
effect sizes, addresses the issue of whether the studies in the meta-analysis
are more appropriately viewed as components of one or of several sub- Note. k ⫽ number of samples in which relationship was estimated; N ⫽
total number of individuals in the k samples; mean r ⫽ mean of uncor-
populations (Whitener, 1990). A confidence interval that contains zero
rected correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); mean ␳ ⫽ mean of
implies that the mean (uncorrected) effect size is not significantly different corrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); SDr ⫽ standard
from zero. A large credibility interval implies that the mean (corrected) deviation of uncorrected correlations; SD␳ ⫽ standard deviation of cor-
effect size is actually an estimate of the average of several subpopulation rected correlations; 90% CI ⫽ lower and upper limits of 90% confidence
parameters (Whitener, 1990) and that moderator analysis is required. interval; 90% CrI ⫽ lower and upper limits of 90% credibility interval.

Results
The presence of a wide credibility interval suggests that there
Reliability of Work Behavior were circumstances in which the obtained relationship was stron-
ger than the overall mean and other circumstances in which it was
Table 2 presents sample-size-weighted mean reliabilities for
weaker. Later I report on variables that moderate the OCB–CWB
OCB and CWB at the global and facet levels. These means were
relationship. First, however, it is necessary to discuss the meta-
imputed for studies that failed to provide the necessary local
analytic relationship between the components of OCB and CWB.
reliability information. The sample-size-weighted mean reliabili-
ties (Cronbach’s alphas) for OCB and CWB were 0.79 and 0.77,
respectively. Relationships Between Facets
In addition to the relationship between global OCB and global
Relationship Between Global Constructs CWB, the relationships between components of OCB and CWB
were examined. As mentioned previously, this level of comparison
Results of the meta-analysis conducted to establish the relation-
is important to ensure that behavioral constructs with similar
ship between the global OCB and CWB constructs are provided in
content are being compared.
Table 3. The sample-size-weighted mean correlation between
Table 4 displays the meta-analytic correlations. The following
OCB and CWB was ⫺0.27. After correcting for unreliability in
conclusions can be drawn: (a) OCB–CWB relationships at the
both OCB and CWB, the sample-size-weighted mean correlation
facet level were not strong; (b) OCB–CWB relationships within
was ⫺0.32. The 90% confidence interval, based on the uncorrected
target–referent (i.e., OCB-I and CWB-I, and OCB-O and CWB-O)
correlations, indicated that the relationship was significantly dif-
were not substantially stronger than OCB–CWB relationships be-
ferent from zero. The finding of a nontrivial negative relationship
tween targets or referents (i.e., OCB-I and CWB-O, and OCB-O
was strengthened by the results of Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990)
and CWB-I), and (c) OCB–OCB and CWB–CWB relationships
version of the file drawer analysis. The analysis revealed that
between targets or referents (i.e., OCB-I and OCB-O, and CWB-I
approximately 110 additional samples with effect sizes of exactly
and CWB-O) were substantially stronger than OCB–CWB rela-
0.00 would be needed to reduce the magnitude of the corrected
tionships within target–referent (i.e., OCB-I and CWB-I, and
relationship to the trivial level of ⫺0.10 (chosen because it would
OCB-O and CWB-O).
imply that OCB and CWB explain only 1% of the variance in each
These results therefore demonstrate that the relationship be-
other). Nonetheless, the other bound (⫺0.39) of the confidence
tween OCB and CWB, at the facet level, is modestly negative. The
interval indicates that OCB and CWB were not strongly related
results also indicate that the OCB versus CWB distinction is more
either.
important than that between interpersonally directed versus orga-
nizationally directed behavior. In other words, the target–referent
of behavior may not be as important as often believed; the previous
Table 2
examination of the global-level OCB–CWB relationship is, there-
Reliability Estimates for Work Behavior Constructs
fore, meaningful and warranted.
Construct k N Reliability
Antecedents of OCB and CWB
OCB 47 16,455 0.79
OCB-I 24 5,864 0.73 If OCB and CWB are strongly related to each other, they should
OCB-O 23 5,607 0.74 have similar patterns of relationships with presumed antecedents.
CWB 49 16,721 0.77
CWB-I 20 4,136 0.68 Job attitudes (job satisfaction and organizational commitment),
CWB-O 27 6,357 0.77 perceptions of organizational justice, and certain dispositional
variables (conscientiousness and trait affect) have been identified
Note. k ⫽ number of samples in which reliability information was pro- in the research literature as antecedents of both OCB and CWB.
vided; N ⫽ total number of individuals in the k samples; Reliability ⫽
mean of reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) estimates, weighted by sample size
Meta-analytic relationships of these variables with OCB and CWB
(N ); OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior; CWB ⫽ counterproduc- are displayed in Table 5. This table contains results from previ-
tive work behavior; I ⫽ interpersonal; O ⫽ organizational. ously published meta-analyses (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;
1248 DALAL

Table 4
Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix for Behavior Facets

Construct OCB-I OCB-O CWB-I CWB-O

OCB-I 0.73
OCB-O 0.64 (0.49)a 0.74
CWB-I ⫺0.11 (⫺0.11)b ⫺0.17 (⫺0.13)c 0.68
CWB-O ⫺0.16 (⫺0.14)d ⫺0.33 (⫺0.27)e 0.70 (0.52)f 0.77

Note. Correlations are weighted by sample size (N). Those outside parentheses are correlations corrected for
unreliability (i.e., mean ␳); those in parentheses are uncorrected correlations (i.e., mean r). Values on the
diagonal (in italics) are internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s alphas). k ⫽ number of samples in which
relationship was estimated; N ⫽ total number of individuals in the k samples; Mean r ⫽ mean of uncorrected
correlations, weighted by sample size (N); Mean ␳ ⫽ mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size
(N); SDr ⫽ standard deviation of uncorrected correlations; SD␳ ⫽ standard deviation of corrected correlations;
90% CI ⫽ lower and upper limits of 90% confidence interval; 90% CrI ⫽ lower and upper limits of 90%
credibility interval; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior; CWB ⫽ counterproductive work behavior; I ⫽
interpersonal; O ⫽ organizational.
a
k ⫽ 22, N ⫽ 4,800, SDr ⫽ 0.15, SD␳ ⫽ 0.18, 90% CI ⫽ (0.36, 0.62), 90% CrI ⫽ (0.34, 0.94).
b
k ⫽ 19, N ⫽ 3,962, SDr ⫽ 0.25, SD␳ ⫽ 0.36, 90% CI ⫽ (⫺0.30, 0.08), 90% CrI ⫽ (⫺0.71, 0.08).
c
k ⫽ 19, N ⫽ 3,962, SDr ⫽ 0.18, SD␳ ⫽ 0.26, 90% CI ⫽ (⫺0.29, 0.03), 90% CrI ⫽ (⫺0.60, 0.26).
d
k ⫽ 21, N ⫽ 4,526, SDr ⫽ 0.25, SD␳ ⫽ 0.32, 90% CI ⫽ (⫺0.31, 0.04), 90% CrI ⫽ (⫺0.70, 0.37).
e
k ⫽ 20, N ⫽ 4,269, SDr ⫽ 0.21, SD␳ ⫽ 0.25, 90% CI ⫽ (⫺0.43, ⫺0.10), 90% CrI ⫽ (⫺0.74, 0.09).
f
k ⫽ 20, N ⫽ 4,136, SDr ⫽ 0.15, SD␳ ⫽ 0.26, 90% CI ⫽ (0.38, 0.66), 90% CrI ⫽ (0.27, 1.00).

Colquitt et al., 2001; LePine et al., 2002; Meyer et al., 2002; Organ stronger than its relationship with OCB (␳ ranges from 0.16 to 0.28
& Ryan, 1995; Riketta, 2002; Salgado, 2002) that have examined including the present results and from 0.24 to 0.28 without them).
one or more of these relationships (refer to the Appendix for Organizational commitment, too, appears to be slightly more
further details). The table also contains meta-analytic results from strongly related to CWB (␳ ⬇ ⫺0.36) than to OCB (␳ ranges from
the primary studies examined in this study; these results, however, 0.20 to 0.32 both with and without the present results). The
are not comprehensive because they are limited to studies that discrepancy appears larger for NA: Its relationship with CWB
examined the OCB–CWB relationship.3 (␳ ⬇ 0.41) seems to be much stronger than its relationship with
As can be seen from Table 5, the analyses from the present set OCB (␳ ⬇ ⫺0.10 both with and without the present results). This
of primary studies represent the only CWB meta-analyses avail- finding supports Spector and Fox’s (2002) contention that NA is
able for four of the six antecedents examined. On the OCB side, in more strongly related to CWB than to OCB.
contrast, there exists at least one previous meta-analysis for each Vis-à-vis PA, however, the situation is less clear. A fairly
antecedent. The comparisons presented here focus on the ranges of substantial discrepancy in the obtained PA–OCB results was ob-
results obtained using the sets of meta-analyses; when possible, served between Organ and Ryan’s (1995) results and the present
results are presented both with and without the results from the results (␳ for Organ and Ryan ⫽ 0.12; ␳ for present results ⫽
present set of primary studies. Antecedent-behavior results based 0.34).4 The true relationship may be intermediate: On the basis of
on only one meta-analysis (usually, the present—noncomprehen- five studies (N ⫽ 985) conducted after Organ and Ryan’s meta-
sive—analysis) are presented in subsequent text with “an approx- analysis, Borman, Penner, Allen, and Motowidlo (2001) reported
imately equal to” (⬇) sign to emphasize their provisional nature. an uncorrected PA–OCB relationship of 0.18, which, when cor-
Note that the OCB versus CWB comparisons pertain to the mag- rected using unreliability estimates from the present set of studies,
nitude, rather than the direction, of their antecedent relationships.
yields ␳ ⫽ 0.23. The wide range of PA-OCB relationship estimates
The first antecedents examined are organizational justice and
renders comparison with the PA-CWB relationship (␳ ⬇ ⫺0.34)
conscientiousness, for which previous CWB meta-analyses (in
difficult. Regardless of which of the aforementioned PA-OCB
addition to the previous OCB meta-analyses) have been conducted.
estimates is considered, however, the results appear not to support
There does not appear to be much difference in organizational
Spector and Fox’s (2002) contention that PA is more strongly
justice’s relationship with CWB (␳ range ⫽ ⫺0.25 to ⫺0.36
related to OCB than to CWB.
including the present results and ⫺0.33 to ⫺0.36 without them)
A preliminary conclusion can therefore be reached: Antecedent–
and its relationship with OCB (␳ range ⫽ 0.20 to 0.34 including
CWB relationships are generally a little stronger than antecedent–
the present results and 0.23 to 0.34 without them). The relation-
OCB relationships, but the extent of discrepancy varies somewhat
ships of conscientiousness with CWB (␳ range ⫽ ⫺0.26 to ⫺0.38
including the present results and ␳ ⬇ ⫺0.26 without them) and
with OCB (␳ range ⫽ 0.23 to 0.30 including the present results and 3
It should be noted that there is very little overlap of primary studies
0.23 to 0.29 without them) likewise appear comparable. between the present results and the previous meta-analyses because the
Conclusions pertaining to the remaining antecedents should be latter predate most of the primary studies used in the present analyses.
regarded as tentative because the only standards of comparison on 4
Note that two of Organ and Ryan’s (1995) studies (i.e., about one third
the CWB side are the present (noncomprehensive) analyses. Job of their total number of studies for this analysis) technically measured
satisfaction’s relationship with CWB (␳ ⬇ ⫺0.37) appears to be extroversion rather than PA.
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1249

Table 5
Meta-Analytic Results for the Presumed Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior

OCB CWB

Antecedent Meta-analysis k N Mean r Mean ␳ k N Mean r Mean ␳

Job satisfaction LePine et al. (2002) 72 7,100 0.20 0.24 — — — —

Organ and Ryan (1995) 9 2,845 0.23 0.28 — — — —
Present study 25 6,106 0.12 0.16 25 6,106 ⫺0.29 ⫺0.37
Organizational commitment LePine et al. (2002) 54 5,133 0.17 0.20 — — — —
Organ and Ryan (1995) 4 1,614 0.18 0.23 — — — —
Meyer et al. (2002) 22 6,277 0.26 0.32 — — — —
Riketta (2002) 42 10,747 0.19 0.25 — — — —
Present study 22 5,582 0.22 0.28 22 5,582 ⫺0.28 ⫺0.36
Organizational justice LePine et al. (2002) 40 1,975 0.20 0.23 — — — —
Organ and Ryan (1995) 17 2,969 0.24 0.28 — — — —
Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) 7 1,758 0.27 0.34 3 597 ⫺0.28 ⫺0.36
Colquitt et al. (2001) 8 1,972 0.25 0.27 18 4,720 ⫺0.30 ⫺0.33
Present study 10 1,997 0.15 0.20 11 2,130 ⫺0.18 ⫺0.25
Conscientiousness LePine et al. (2002) 15 848 0.19 0.23 — — — —
Organ and Ryan (1995) 10 1,979 0.22 0.29 — — — —
Salgado (2002) — — — — 13 6,276 ⫺0.16 ⫺0.26
Present study 10 3,280 0.23 0.30 10 3,280 ⫺0.29 ⫺0.38
Positive affect Organ and Ryan (1995) 6 976 0.10 0.12 — — — —
Present study 23 4,425 0.28 0.34 23 4,425 ⫺0.28 ⫺0.34
Negative affect Organ and Ryan (1995) 5 993 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.10 — — — —
Present study 23 4,101 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.10 23 4,101 0.34 0.41

Note. k ⫽ number of samples in which relationship was estimated; N ⫽ total number of individuals in the k samples; Mean r ⫽ mean of uncorrected
correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); Mean ␳ ⫽ mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship
behavior; CWB ⫽ counterproductive work behavior. Dashes indicate relationships not assessed by the meta-analysis in question. Present study analyses
are restricted to primary studies that examined the OCB–CWB relationship (i.e., they are not exhaustive antecedent-behavior meta-analyses). Further details
concerning the other meta-analyses are provided in the Appendix.

across antecedents. In other words, not only the magnitudes but been confounded. In addition, the dichotomization of modera-
also the patterns of antecedent– behavior relationships for OCB tors—necessary for testing moderation according to Hunter and
versus CWB appear to differ. Schmidt’s (1990) method—resulted in a loss of information. This
may have been problematic, especially in the case of the
education-level variable, because the cut score selected was some-
Moderator Analyses
what arbitrary. Consequently, Hedges and Olkin’s (1985; Lipsey
Four moderators of the OCB–CWB relationship had been hy- & Wilson, 2001) modified weighted least squares (WLS) multiple
pothesized. According to the hypotheses, the OCB–CWB relation- regression approach was also used. This approach examines the
ship would be stronger (in the negative direction) when raters were effect of each moderator while controlling for the effects of other
supervisors or were highly educated, response options pertained to moderators; it also does not require dichotomization of modera-
behavioral frequencies, and measures contained antithetical items. tors. Another difference is that this method operates on correla-
The search for moderators was empirically justified by a wide tions uncorrected for artifacts (such as unreliability). Despite these
credibility interval for the OCB–CWB relationship. Table 6 dis- differences, the WLS regression analysis confirmed that the source
plays the results of the moderator analyses. of ratings, the presence or absence of antithetical items, and the
As hypothesized, the relationship strength differed as a function nature of response options were important moderators of the
of the source of the ratings: Supervisor ratings yielded a much OCB–CWB relationship, whereas the level of education of the
stronger relationship than did incumbent (self) ratings. The OCB– rater was unimportant.
CWB relationship was also stronger, as expected, when measures
contained antithetical items. Furthermore, the relationship was Discussion
influenced by the format of response options; the moderation
effect, however, was in the direction opposite to that hypothesized. Both citizenship and counterproductive behavior are taking their
That is, the OCB–CWB relationship was stronger when response rightful places at the table of job performance. It is, therefore,
options were of the agreement– disagreement or characteristic– necessary to examine the extent to which these two constructs are
uncharacteristic variety than when they were of the behavioral related to each other. The present meta-analytic research estimated
frequency variety. Finally, the extent to which the rater was the true OCB–CWB relationship at both the global and facet levels
educated had little effect on the OCB–CWB relationship. and assessed moderators of this relationship. It also examined the
However, the (potential) moderator variables were themselves relationships of these two constructs with a common core of
intercorrelated; thus, the effects of different moderators may have presumed antecedents.
1250 DALAL

Table 6
Results of Moderator Analyses

Moderator k N Mean r Mean ␳ 90% CI 90% CrI z

Source of ratings
Supervisor 6 4,944 ⫺0.60 ⫺0.71 (⫺0.80, ⫺0.39) (⫺0.93, ⫺0.49) 8.89*
Job incumbent (self) 40 11,348 ⫺0.12 ⫺0.15 (⫺0.25, 0.00) (⫺0.65, 0.34)
Antithetical items included in at least one
behavior measure?
Yes 5 4,634 ⫺0.54 ⫺0.66 (⫺0.90, ⫺0.19) (⫺1.00, ⫺0.17) 3.43*
No 42 11,821 ⫺0.16 ⫺0.19 (⫺0.29, ⫺0.02) (⫺0.76, 0.38)
Format of response options
Behavioral frequency 38 13,702 ⫺0.23 ⫺0.27 (⫺0.37, ⫺0.10) (⫺0.80, 0.26) ⫺6.39*
Agreement–disagreementa 5 1,470 ⫺0.55 ⫺0.68 (⫺0.71, ⫺0.39) (⫺0.83, ⫺0.52)
Rater educational level
College or more 9 1,767 ⫺0.07 ⫺0.10 (⫺0.35, 0.20) (⫺0.61, 0.42) 0.07
High school or less 8 1,623 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.06 (⫺0.36, 0.23) (⫺0.59, 0.47)

Note. k ⫽ number of samples in which relationship was estimated; N ⫽ total number of individuals in the k samples; Mean r ⫽ mean of uncorrected
correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); Mean ␳ ⫽ mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); 90% CI ⫽ lower and upper limits of
90% confidence interval; 90% CrI ⫽ lower and upper limits of 90% credibility interval; z ⫽ Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990) z statistic for moderation (z ⬎
0 indicates that the means were in the hypothesized direction; z ⬍ 0 indicates that the means were in the direction opposite to that hypothesized).
a
Includes “uncharacteristic– characteristic (of me)” response options.
* p ⬍ .05, two-tailed.

OCB–CWB Relationship tial) moderators were examined here. The finding that supervisor
ratings yielded stronger relationships than self-ratings was ex-
Based on studies involving 16,721 participants, the typical re-
pected, as was the finding that the correlation between the mea-
lationship between OCB and CWB was modestly negative. The
sures was higher when antithetical items were included within
relationships between an OCB facet and a CWB facet were also in
measures. The (non)finding with regard to the rater’s level of
the low to modestly negative range. The strength of facet relation-
ships did not increase appreciably when OCB and CWB facets education was also important: It indicated that the estimated rela-
under consideration were directed toward the same target tionship was generalizable across raters with varying levels of
(referent). educational attainment. But what can be said about the stronger
observed correlations for agreement– disagreement (or
Antecedent Analyses characteristic– uncharacteristic) response options than for behav-
ioral frequency response options, an effect opposite to that hypoth-
There was also some evidence of differences in magnitude and esized? As suggested earlier, the use of agreement– disagreement
pattern across antecedent relationships. Antecedent–CWB rela- or uncharacteristic– characteristic response formats probably does
tionships were generally stronger than antecedent–OCB relation- not result in the measurement of behavior at all. What may instead
ships; the extent of this discrepancy, however, appeared to vary be elicited are—in the terminology of Ajzen’s (1991) theory of
across antecedents. Unfortunately, this conclusion was tempered planned behavior—attitudes toward behaviors or behavioral inten-
by the fact that, for most antecedents, the CWB meta-analytic tions (the latter was explicitly true in one primary study). Because
results used here were not comprehensive. For this reason (and, in
situational factors, or perceptions thereof, act as constraining or
general, to further explicate CWB’s nomological network), there is
promoting agents, behaviors may not be as consistent as the
a pressing need for future meta-analytic research on the anteced-
attitudes toward them or the intentions to perform them (Hanisch,
ents of CWB. The antecedents investigated in the present research
Hulin, & Roznowski, 1998).5 Future research should examine this
were theoretically important and also the most frequently re-
searched within the CWB realm; however, additional demographic possibility further.
(e.g., gender and age), personality (e.g., agreeableness), and ap- In the case of (dis)agreement/(un)characteristic response op-
praisal (e.g., stress and leader support) antecedents should also be tions, antithetical items within measures of OCB and CWB, or
examined. The relationships of these additional constructs with supervisor ratings of behavior, the (corrected) OCB–CWB corre-
CWB could then be compared with their relationships with OCB. lation was about ⫺0.70. However, these cases probably do not
Finally, it would be interesting to determine whether the modera- represent instances of good practice. With regard to response
tors of antecedent– behavior relationships are the same for both
OCB and CWB.
5
In the same vein, it may be the case that analysis of perceived similarity
Moderator Analyses (e.g., the work of Bennett & Stamper, 2001, who found that OCB and
CWB were opposite poles of a latent factor) does not always yield results
In any meta-analysis, the overall relationship between focal similar to those obtained by analysis of behavioral frequency. A similar
constructs provides at best an incomplete picture when the pres- argument, albeit in a somewhat different context, was advanced by Gruys
ence of moderator variables has been demonstrated. Four (poten- and Sackett (2003).
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1251

options, it is more desirable to elicit reports of behavioral frequen- mance may be a function of three broad classes of behavior: task
cies than reports about attitudes toward the behaviors or behavioral performance, OCB, and CWB.
intentions. Moreover, antithetical items within OCB and CWB Yet how can behaviors that harm the organization or its em-
measures artificially raise the OCB–CWB relationship. Finally, ployees not be in quantitative opposition to behaviors that benefit
supervisor ratings of CWB are likely to be subject to halo error; the organization or its employees? One answer requires research-
consequently, the OCB–CWB relationship is likely to be inflated ers to focus not on the target of the behaviors (the organization or
in such cases. In fact, although insufficient primary studies that other employees in the organization) but on their source (the
used different-source ratings were available for the present meta- individual employee exhibiting the behaviors). Not only OCB but
analysis to test this proposition, same-source ratings in general also CWB could then be defined as sets of adaptive behavioral
(regardless of who the source is) are likely to yield relationships responses (e.g., Hulin, 1991) or at least as responses that the
that are inflated to an extent. For example, self-ratings may them- employee may perceive at the time as being adaptive.
selves yield a somewhat inflated OCB–CWB relationship as a Such a definition would lead to the prediction— consistent with
result of socially desirable responding (Sackett, 2002). If this is, in the hedonism assumption in the mood regulation literature (Larsen,
fact, the case, the true OCB–CWB relationship would be even 2000; Tice & Wallace, 2000) and in philosophy (Bentham,
lower than the presently obtained estimate for self-ratings (mean 1789)—that both OCB and CWB are geared toward the same goal:
␳ ⫽ ⫺0.15).
achieving a good mood or a high level of satisfaction in the future.
Additionally, because all the primary studies used between-
Some existing research provides hints that this may be the case.
persons cross-sectional data, the present meta-analysis was unable
Bushman, Baumeister, and Phillips (2001), for instance, demon-
to examine one potentially very important moderator of the OCB–
strated using a series of studies that people often engage in ag-
CWB relationship—namely, the level of analysis. Between-
gressive behavior to improve their own affective states (see also
persons cross-sectional approaches attempt to answer the question
Spector & Fox, 2002). Moreover, given that both leisure time after
of whether people who engage in large amounts of OCB over a
work and officially sanctioned work breaks are important sources
certain time interval (e.g., the last 6 months) are also capable of
engaging in large amounts of CWB over that same interval. A of recovery from physical, cognitive, and emotional strain and are
potentially even more interesting question, however, and one that crucial in increasing work engagement and proactive behavior
truly gets at the heart of the OCB–CWB relationship, is whether a (e.g., Boucsein & Thum, 1996; Sonnentag, 2003), occasional
given person is capable of engaging in both OCB and CWB unauthorized work breaks (usually conceptualized as a form of
simultaneously or even within a very small time interval. So, for CWB–O; see Hanisch & Hulin, 1990) may well be motivated by
example, is it possible for an employee to act in a very helpful the desire to obtain similar benefits. Finally, Gomà-I-Freixanet
manner toward a coworker and then, almost immediately, to will- (2001) reported that people who typically engage in large amounts
fully behave in a manner detrimental to that same coworker? In of either prosocial or antisocial behavior score high on the Sensa-
other words, if—as some (e.g., Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) have tion Seeking scale; a person may therefore seek out sensation
suggested—OCB and CWB exhibit significant temporal within- sometimes through OCB and at other times through CWB (see also
person variation, it may be possible for an employee to engage in Riemer, 1981).
large amounts of both OCB and CWB over a period of time, even It is also worthwhile to consider some implications of the
if he or she cannot or will not engage in both simultaneously. This findings for organizational practice. The findings suggest, for
issue should be assessed using experience sampling methods (also instance, that the successful elimination of high-CWB employees
known as ecological momentary assessments) that track OCB and during the applicant screening process may not, in and of itself,
CWB over time within persons. simultaneously achieve the successful selection of high-OCB em-
Levels-of-analysis issues aside, however, the present findings ployees. In the same vein, an organizational intervention designed
bear important implications for psychological theory and practice. to facilitate OCB may not simultaneously deter CWB.
Moreover, OCB and CWB may need to be evaluated separately
during performance appraisals. For example, rather than evaluat-
Implications for Theory and Practice ing employees along a continuum ranging from often harming
Constructs that are very strongly negatively related to each other coworkers to often helping them, it may be necessary to evaluate
(approaching ␳ ⫽ ⫺1.00) and that exhibit very similar patterns of the frequency with which the employee harms coworkers sepa-
relationships with external variables may be considered opposite rately from the frequency with which he or she helps them. In this
poles of the same latent factor. The present findings suggest that, way, one could assess whether the employee (a) frequently helps
at the person level at least, such is not the case with regard to OCB others but also frequently harms them, (b) does not help others but
and CWB. These constructs were found to be relatively distinct does not harm them either, (c) frequently helps others and rarely
factors in their own right. The findings are congruent with some harms them, or (d) frequently harms others and rarely helps them.
past theorizing and empirical results. Kelloway et al. (2002) found Yet, as Sackett and DeVore (2001) recommend, for some pur-
that the OCB–CWB relationship was low even after a “wording poses it may be useful to create an OCB–CWB composite; this can
direction method factor” was fitted (to account for the fact that all be done even if OCB and CWB are not that highly related. One
OCB items in that study included only functional behavior, major purpose of constructing a composite (Schmidt & Kaplan,
whereas all CWB items included only dysfunctional behavior). As 1971) consisting of OCB and CWB—and, indeed, task perfor-
Rotundo and Sackett (2002) and others (e.g., Sackett, 2002; mance as well—would be to assess the employee’s overall contri-
Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000) have suggested, employee perfor- bution to the organization.
1252 DALAL

References Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (1987). Explanation of the relation between
negative mood and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 91–108.
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in
meta-analysis and provided one or more independent primary samples. organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human De-
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Be- cision Processes, 86, 278 –321.
havior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 –211. Coleman, V. L., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying
Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917–1992. structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Man-
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836 – 874. agement Review, 10, 25– 44.
*Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P. (1994). Just and unjust Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y.
punishment: Influences on subordinate performance and citizenship. Acad- (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of
emy of Management Journal, 37, 299 –322. organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: 445.
Harvard University Press. Coombs, C. H. (1975). A note on the relation between the vector model
*Bashshur, M. R. (2003). [Lebanese and Austrian teachers’ work expe- and the unfolding model for preferences. Psychometrika, 40, 115–116.
riences surveys]. Unpublished raw data. Cordery, J. L., & Sevastos, P. S. (1993). Responses to the original and
Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. revised Job Diagnostic Survey: Is education a factor in responses to
In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.), T. Millon, & M. J. Lerner (Vol. Eds.), negatively worded items? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 141–143.
Handbook of psychology: Vol. 5. Personality and social psychology (pp. *Credé, M. (2002). [South African teachers’ work experiences surveys].
463– 484). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Unpublished raw data.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinc- *Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The
tions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232–244. relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors,
*Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159 –180.
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349 –360.
*Dalal, R. S., & Hulin, C. L. (2002). [Illinois job satisfaction and work
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2002). The past, present and future of
experiences surveys]. Unpublished raw data.
workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational be-
Davison, M. L. (1977). On a metric, unidimensional unfolding model for
havior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 247–281). Mahwah, NJ:
attitudinal and developmental data. Psychometrika, 42, 523–548.
Erlbaum.
Day, D. V., & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance:
Bennett, R. J., & Stamper, C. L. (2001). Corporate citizenship and
deviancy: A study of work behavior. In C. Galbraith & M. Ryan (Eds.), Evidence of incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 25–36.
International research in the business disciplines: Strategies and organi- *Donovan, M. A. (1999). Cognitive, affective, and satisfaction variables
zations in transition (pp. 265–284). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. as predictors of organizational behaviors: A structural equation modeling
Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principals of morals and examination of alternative models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
legislation. Oxford, England: Clarendon. versity of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.
*Boh, L., & Hulin, C. L. (2003, May). Role conflict, job attitudes and *Drimmer, L. B. (1998). Job stress: An investigation of professional and
job behaviors: Gender differences among military personnel. Poster pre- organizational commitment as moderators and relationships to organiza-
sented at the annual Undergraduate Psychology Honors Science Fair, tional citizenship behavior and misbehavior. Unpublished doctoral disser-
Champaign, IL. tation, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion *Dunlop, P., & Lee, K. (2004, April). Organizational citizenship behav-
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & ior and workplace deviant behavior: Are they distinct? Paper presented at
W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: the 19th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Jossey-Bass. Psychology, Chicago.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and *Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades,
contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of
Human Performance, 10, 99 –109. Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51.
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Fisher, C. D., & Locke, E. A. (1992). The new look in job satisfaction
Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of research and theory. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job
Selection and Assessment, 9, 52– 69. satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their
Boucsein, W., & Thum, M. (1996). Multivariate psychophysiological performance (pp. 165–194). New York: Lexington Books.
analysis of stress-strain processes under different break schedules during
*Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2003, April). An
computer work. In J. Fahrenberg & M. Myrtek (Eds.), Ambulatory assess-
empirical study of voluntary work behavior (VWB): Do parallel frame-
ment: Computer-assisted psychological and psychophysiological methods
works underlie counterproductive work behavior and organizational citi-
in monitoring and field studies (pp. 305–313). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe &
zenship behavior? Paper presented at the 18th annual conference of the
Huber.
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people
aggress to improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation oppor- George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A
tunity, and aggressive responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity rela-
chology, 81, 17–32. tionship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310 –329.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement
industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Freeman.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. Gomà-i-Freixanet, M. (2001). Prosocial and antisocial aspects of per-
1, pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. sonality in women: A replication study. Personality and Individual Differ-
Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping ences, 30, 1401–1411.
behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary state-
Psychology, 55, 211–229. ment. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1253

Greenberg, J. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship: A commen- *Lehman, W. E. K., & Simpson, D. D. (1992). Employee substance use
tary on the state of the science. Employee Responsibilities and Rights and on-the-job behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 309 –321.
Journal, 6, 249 –256. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review
of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52– 65.
Assessment, 11, 30 – 41. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thou-
*Haaland, S. A. (2001). Understanding organizational citizenship and sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
counterproductive work behaviors: Examining interactions utilizing an Love, K. G., & O’Hara, K. (1987). Predicting job performance of youth
organizational versus interpersonal categorization strategy. Unpublished trainees under a job training partnership act program (JTPA): Criterion
doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor). validation of a behavior-based measure of work maturity. Personnel Psy-
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Retirement as a voluntary chology, 40, 323–340.
organizational withdrawal behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, *Marcus, B., Schuler, H., Quell, P., & Hümpfner, G. (2002). Measuring
60 –78.
counterproductivity: Development and initial validation of a German self-
Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importance
report questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
of individuals’ repertoires of behaviors: The scientific appropriateness of
10, 18 –35.
studying multiple behaviors and general attitudes. Journal of Organiza-
Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an
tional Behavior, 19, 463– 480.
integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal
*Hattrup, K., O’Connell, M. S., & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of
reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
multidimensional criteria: Distinguishing task and contextual performance.
10, 36 –50.
Human Performance, 11, 305–319.
Heckert, A., & Heckert, D. M. (2002). A new typology of deviance: Mathewson, G. C. (1984). Teaching forms of negation in reading and
Integrating normative and reactivist definitions of deviance. Deviant Be- reasoning. Reading Teacher, 37, 354 –358.
havior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 449 – 479. McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., &
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results: The relationship between
Orlando, FL: Academic Press. predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335–354.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002).
employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7, 53–75. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A
Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in orga- meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
nizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of indus- Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 –52.
trial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 445–507). Palo Alto, CA: *Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building
Consulting Psychologists Press. an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of
*Hunt, S. T. (1996). Generic work behavior: An investigation into the counterproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship behavior.
dimensions of entry-level, hourly job performance. Personnel Psychology, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 51–57.
49, 51– 83. *Miner, A. G. (2000a). [Affect over time in the workplace]. Unpublished
Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, raw data.
second-order factor analysis, and causal models. In B. M. Staw & L. L. *Miner, A. G. (2000b). Experience and evaluation: An exploration of
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 267– the structure and function of job attitudes and affect. Unpublished master’s
320). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: *Molitor, D. D. (1998). An examination of the effects of personality and
Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. job satisfaction on multiple non-workrole organizational behaviors. Un-
Jermier, J. M., Knights, D., & Nord, W. (1994). Resistance and power published doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.
in organizations. London: Routledge. *Morris, M. L. (2001). The relational-interdependent self-construal at
Jordan, M. P. (1998). The power of negation in English: Text, context work: An examination of relations to employee attitudes and behaviors.
and relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 705–752. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The
*Munson, L. J. (2000). Assessing the influence of personality, affectivity,
job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantita-
and mood on job satisfaction and job behaviors: A test of alternative
tive review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376 – 407.
models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana–
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations.
Champaign.
New York: Wiley.
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and
*Kelloway, E. K., Loughlin, C., Barling, J., & Nault, A. (2002). Self-
psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and
reported counterproductive behaviors and organizational citizenship be-
internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
haviors: Separate but related constructs. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 10, 143–151. 492– 499.
*Laczo, R. M. (1999). Organizational withdrawal and organizational Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-
citizenship behavior: A comparison of volunteer workers to paid employ- causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2,
ees. Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames. 46 –53.
*Laczo, R. M. (2002). An examination of the dimensionality of non-task Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Minneapolis. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct
Larsen, R. J. (2000). Toward a science of mood regulation. Psycholog- clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.
ical Inquiry, 11, 129 –141. Organ, D. W., & Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance for
*Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and industrial and organizational psychology: Recent contributions to the study
workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied of organizational citizenship behavior. International Review of Industrial
Psychology, 87, 131–142. and Organizational Psychology, 14, 337–368.
1254 DALAL

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal Smith, C. A., Organ, D., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship
and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Per- behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68,
sonnel Psychology, 48, 775– 802. 653– 663.
Plato. (2001). Symposium (S. Benardete, Trans.). Chicago: University of Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and practice behav-
Chicago Press. (Original work published 360 BC) ior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizen- Applied Psychology, 88, 518 –528.
ship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of volun-
31, 351–363. tary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work be-
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. havior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Manage-
(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ ment Review, 12, 269 –292.
trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Lead- Spector, P. E., Van Katwyk, P. T., Brannick, M. T., & Chen, P. Y.
ership Quarterly, 1, 107–142. (1997). When two factors don’t reflect two constructs: How item charac-
teristics can produce artifactual factors. Journal of Management, 23, 659 –
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.
677.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the
*Spencer, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2002, April). Affect in the workplace.
theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.
Poster presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for Indus-
Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
trial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
*Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and
*St. Clair, L. S. (1994). Organizational attachment: Exploring the
work performance among commission sales people. Journal of Applied psychology of the employment relationship. Unpublished doctoral disser-
Psychology, 72, 615– 621. tation, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor).
Riemer, J. W. (1981). Deviance as fun. Adolescence, 16, 39 – 43. *Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? How
Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job per- employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal
formance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 257– of Organizational Behavior, 23, 875– 894.
266. Stone, E. F., Stone, D. L., & Gueutal, H. G. (1990). Influence of
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant work- cognitive ability on responses to questionnaire measures: Measurement
place behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Manage- precision and missing response problems. Journal of Applied Psychology,
ment Journal, 38, 555–572. 75, 418 – 427.
*Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New
do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. York: Wiley.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658 – 672. Tice, D. M., & Wallace, H. (2000). Mood and emotion control: Some
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, thoughts on the state of the field. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 214 –217.
citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job *Townsend, J., Phillips, J. S., & Elkins, T. J. (2000). Employee retali-
performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, ation: The neglected consequences of poor leader-member exchange rela-
87, 66 – 80. tions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 457– 463.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in orga- van Schuur, W. H., & Kiers, H. A. (1994). Why factor analysis often is
nizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139. the incorrect model for analyzing bipolar concepts, and what model to use
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behav- instead. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 97–110.
iors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 5–11. performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216 –
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at 226.
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (1999). The role of halo
work. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.),
error in interdimensional ratings: The case of job performance ratings
Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp.
examined via meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
145–164). London: Sage.
Warr, P., Barter, J., & Brownbridge, G. (1983). On the independence of
*Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2005).
positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: Single continuum or
44, 644 – 651.
distinct constructs? Manuscript submitted for publication.
*Wasti, S. A. (1999). Organizational commitment in a collectivist cul-
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and coun- ture: The case of Turkey. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
terproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assess- Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.
ment, 10, 117–125. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
Schmidt, F. L., & Kaplan, L. B. (1971). Composite vs. multiple criteria: theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affec-
A review and resolution of the controversy. Personnel Psychology, 24, tive experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 1–74.
419 – 434. Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credi-
Schnake, M. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed bility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315–
model, and research agenda. Human Relations, 44, 735–759. 321.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organi-
role of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied zational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
Psychology, 82, 434 – 443. behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601– 617.
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1255

Appendix

Adaptation of Results of Previous Meta-Analyses

Details are provided below about the adaptation, for the present study, of the authors themselves. The relationship of the justice composite with
results from the following previous meta-analyses: negative reactions was taken as the justice–CWB relationship. The rela-
LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002). The authors’ analyses of antecedent tionship of the justice composite with an OCB composite (consisting of
relationships with overall organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) were OCB-I and OCB-O) was used for the justice–OCB relationship. The OCB
used. composite was constructed by using the meta-analytic correlation between
Organ and Ryan (1995). The authors provided analyses estimating the OCB-I and OCB-O from the present set of studies.
relationship of job satisfaction and organizational commitment with overall Salgado (2002). The author’s analysis examining the relationship be-
measures of OCB. With regard to the remaining antecedents, a composite tween conscientiousness and deviant behavior (labeled “counterproductiv-
of altruism (defined by the authors in a manner analogous to OCB- ity criteria” in Sackett & DeVore’s, 2001, reference to this study) was used.
Interpersonal [OCB-I]) and generalized compliance (defined by the authors Two additional points are noteworthy. First, whenever composites were
in a manner analogous to OCB-Organizational [OCB-O]) was constructed constructed (as described previously), the Table 5 entries for k and N are
for the present purposes using the meta-analytic correlation between the harmonic means of the composite components. Second, the above
OCB-I and OCB-O from the present set of studies. meta-analyses did vary, albeit slightly, in procedure, rendering compari-
Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002). The authors did sons across them an inexact science. Many of the differences pertained to
not list uncorrected meta-analytic estimates. For the present purposes, the how (or whether) observed relationships were corrected for attenuation
uncorrected commitment–OCB relationship was approximated using the resulting from artifacts. Most studies corrected for both predictor and
meta-analytic reliability estimates provided by the authors themselves. criterion unreliability using internal consistency reliability. However,
Riketta (2002). The results for extra-role performance were used for Riketta (2002) corrected for criterion unreliability using interrater reliabil-
the present purposes because the construct definition provided by the ity when the criterion was measured using supervisor or peer ratings.
author paralleled common definitions of OCB. Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) did not undertake any artifact correc-
Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001). A composite between distributive tions; for the present purposes, their estimates were corrected as described
and procedural justice was constructed using the meta-analytic correlation previously. Salgado (2002) corrected for range restriction but not predictor
between them reported in Colquitt et al. (2001). Moreover, this study did unreliability. Differences in effect size corrections across the extant meta-
not correct for unreliability. Unreliability corrections were conducted, for analyses can be partially surmounted by assessing both the corrected (␳)
and uncorrected (r) effect sizes.
the present purposes, using the meta-analytic reliability estimates generated
from the present set of studies.
Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng (2001). A composite be- Received December 22, 2003
tween distributive justice and broadly defined procedural justice was Revision received November 22, 2004
constructed using the meta-analytic correlation between them reported by Accepted January 7, 2005 䡲

View publication stats