Podsakoff 2000

Journal of Management
2000, Vol. 26, No. 3, 513–563
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A

Critical Review of the Theoretical and
Empirical Literature and Suggestions for
Future Research
Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie, Julie Beth Paine, and Daniel G. Bachrach
Indiana University
The rapid growth of research on organizational citizenship be-

haviors (OCBs) has resulted in some conceptual confusion about the
nature of the construct, and made it difficult for all but the most avid
readers to keep up with developments in this domain. This paper
critically examines the literature on organizational citizenship behavior
and other, related constructs. More specifically, it: (a) explores the
conceptual similarities and differences between the various forms of
“citizenship” behavior constructs identified in the literature; (b) sum-
marizes the empirical findings of both the antecedents and conse-
quences of OCBs; and (c) identifies several interesting directions for
future research. © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Over a decade and a half has passed since Dennis Organ and his colleagues
(cf. Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) first coined the term
“Organizational Citizenship Behavior” (OCBs). Drawing on Chester Barnard’s
concept (Barnard, 1938) of the “willingness to cooperate,” and Daniel Katz’s
(Katz, 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1966, 1978) distinction between dependable role
performance and “innovative and spontaneous behaviors,” Organ (1988: 4) de-
fined organizational citizenship behaviors as “individual behavior that is discre-
tionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and
that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. By
discretionary, we mean that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the
role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s
employment contract with the organization; the behavior is rather a matter of
personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punish-
able.”
Direct all correspondence to: Philip M. Podsakoff, Department of Management, Kelley School of Business,
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405; Phone: 812-855-9209.
Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. 0149-2063
513
514 P.M. PODSAKOFF, S.B. MACKENZIE, J.B. PAINE, AND D.G. BACHRACH
Although the topic of OCBs initially did not have a very substantial impact
on the field, interest in it and related concepts, such as extra-role behavior (cf. Van
Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995), prosocial organizational behaviors (cf. Brief &
Motowidlo, 1986; George, 1990, 1991; George & Bettenhausen, 1990; O’Reilly
& Chatman, 1986), organizational spontaneity (cf. George & Brief, 1992; George
& Jones, 1997), and contextual performance (cf. Borman & Motowidlo, 1993,
1997; Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994), has
increased dramatically during the past few years. Indeed, as indicated in Figure 1,
while only 13 papers were published on these topics during the six-year period
from 1983 to 1988, more than 122 papers (almost a ten-fold increase) have been
published on these topics during the comparable six-year period from 1993 to
1998. Moreover, during this time period, interest in citizenship-like behaviors
expanded from the field of organizational behavior to a variety of different
domains and disciplines, including human resource management (cf. Borman &
Motowidlo, 1993; Murphy & Shiarella, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui,
1993), marketing (cf. Bettencourt & Brown, 1997; Kelley & Hoffman, 1997;
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Ahearne, 1998;
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Paine, 1999; Netemeyer, Bowles, MacKee, & McMur-
Figure 1. Yearly and Cumulative Publications on Citizenship Behavior and

Related Constructs
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

A REVIEW OF THE OCB LITERATURE 515
rian, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), hospital and health administration
(cf. Bolon, 1997; Organ, 1990b), community psychology (cf. Burroughs & Eby,
1998), industrial and labor law (cf. Cappelli & Rogovsky, 1998), strategic
management (cf. Kim & Mauborgne, 1993, 1998), international management (cf.
Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998; Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997; Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ,
1990; Hui, Law, & Chen, 1999; Kim & Mauborgne, 1996), military psychology
(cf. Deluga, 1995), economics (cf. Tomer, 1998), and leadership (cf. Podsakoff &
MacKenzie, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996a, 1996b; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990).
Although the rapid growth in theory and research undoubtedly has been
gratifying to those interested in organizational citizenship behavior, it also has
produced some unfortunate consequences. For example, Van Dyne et al. (1995)
have noted that much of the empirical research on organizational citizenship
behavior, and the related concepts of prosocial organizational behavior and
organizational spontaneity, has focused more on what Schwab (1980) called
substantive validity, rather than on construct validity. That is, the literature has
focused more on understanding the relationships between organizational citizen-
ship and other constructs, rather than carefully defining the nature of citizenship
behavior itself. Following Schwab (1980), Van Dyne et al. (1995) warned that
unless additional attention is directed toward more comprehensive theoretical
explications of the constructs and their measures, we are in danger of developing
a stream of literature that may prove of little value to the field in the long run.
Related to the above, the proliferation of research on OCBs and other forms
of extra-role behavior has resulted in a lack of recognition of some of the
similarities and differences in some of these constructs. A careful reading of the
conceptual definitions of organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988),
prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), civic organiza-
tional behavior (Graham, 1991), organizational spontaneity (George & Brief,
1992; George & Jones, 1997), and contextual performance (Borman & Motow-
idlo, 1993) suggests that there are some important differences between these
constructs, although it is not uncommon to see these differences glossed over, if
not completely ignored. The danger in not recognizing the differences in these
constructs is that the same construct may have conflicting conceptual connotations
for different people. On the other hand, the literature also indicates that there are
a number of occasions where essentially the same idea or concept has been given
different labels by different researchers. The problem with this practice is that it
becomes difficult to see the overall patterns that exist in the research literature.
Furthermore, even though the dramatic growth of OCB research into other
related management domains, such as human resources management, industrial
and labor relations, strategic management, international business, and leadership,
is healthy for research in this area, one unfortunate outcome of this diversification
is that it has become increasingly difficult for all but the most avid readers to keep
up with developments in the literature. Moreover, as interest in OCBs continues
to expand to other disciplines (e.g., marketing, hospital and health administration,
community psychology, economics, and military psychology) it will become even
more difficult to keep up with the theoretical and empirical developments in this
area, and to assimilate the literature into a coherent whole.
Within the context of the above discussion, the purpose of this paper is to
summarize and review the extant literature on organizational citizenship behavior
(and other, related constructs). The first section of the paper will explore some of
the conceptual similarities and differences between the various forms of “citizen-
ship” behavior constructs that have been identified in the literature. The next
section of the paper will provide a summary of the variables that have been
identified as potential antecedents to OCBs. This is perhaps the most extensively
researched area in this literature, and several patterns of relationships emerge from
our summary that should prove of interest to those focusing their efforts on this
particular research area. Next, we will turn our attention to the consequences of
organizational citizenship behavior. Research in this area is somewhat more
recent than research on the antecedents of OCBs, and focuses primarily on the
effects that citizenship behaviors have on managerial evaluations of performance.
However, there are several recent developments in this area that should prove of
value to those who are interested in the determinants of organization success as
well. In the final section of the paper, we will focus our attention on identifying
those future research directions that appear to have particular promise for making
contributions to the field. In this section we will discuss conceptual/theoretical
issues in need of future research, additional antecedents and consequences that
might be of interest, citizenship behaviors in cross-cultural contexts, and meth-
odological issues.
Types of Citizenship Behavior

Despite the growing interest in citizenship-like behaviors, a review of the
literature in this area reveals a lack of consensus about the dimensionality of this
construct. Indeed, our examination of the literature indicated that almost 30
potentially different forms of citizenship behavior have been identified. The
conceptual definitions of these constructs are presented in Table 1. However, it is
clear from the table that there is a great deal of conceptual overlap between the
constructs. The table captures this by organizing them into seven common themes
or dimensions: (1) Helping Behavior, (2) Sportsmanship, (3) Organizational
Loyalty, (4) Organizational Compliance, (5) Individual Initiative, (6) Civic Vir-
tue, and (7) Self Development.
Helping behavior has been identified as an important form of citizenship
behavior by virtually everyone who has worked in this area (cf. Borman &
Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; George & Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997; Graham,
1989; Organ, 1988, 1990a, 1990b; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Van Scotter &
Motowidlo, 1996; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Conceptually, helping behavior
involves voluntarily helping others with, or preventing the occurrence of, work-
related problems. The first part of this definition (helping others with work-related
problems) includes Organ’s altruism, peacemaking, and cheerleading dimensions
(Organ, 1988, 1990b); Graham’s interpersonal helping (Graham, 1989); Williams
and Anderson’s OCB-I (Williams & Anderson, 1991); Van Scotter and Motow-
idlo’s interpersonal facilitation (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1986); and the helping
others constructs from George and Brief (1992) and George and Jones (1997). The
second part of the definition captures Organ’s (1988, 1990b) notion of courtesy,
which involves helping others by taking steps to prevent the creation of problems
for coworkers. Empirical research (MacKenzie et al., 1993; MacKenzie, Podsa-
koff, & Rich, 1999; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff, Ahearne, &
MacKenzie, 1997) has generally confirmed the fact that all of these various forms
of helping behavior load on a single factor.
Sportsmanship is a form of citizenship behavior that has received much less
attention in the literature. Organ (1990b: 96) has defined sportsmanship as “a
willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work
without complaining.” However, his definition seems somewhat narrower than the
label of this construct would imply. For example, in our opinion “good sports” are
people who not only do not complain when they are inconvenienced by others, but
also maintain a positive attitude even when things do not go their way, are not
offended when others do not follow their suggestions, are willing to sacrifice their
personal interest for the good of the work group, and do not take the rejection of
their ideas personally. Empirical research (cf. MacKenzie et al., 1993; MacKenzie
et al., 1999) that has included this construct in the context of other forms of
citizenship behavior has shown it to be distinct from them, and to have somewhat
different antecedents (cf. Podsakoff et al., 1996b; Podsakoff et al., 1990) and
consequences (Podsakoff et al., 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Walz &
Niehoff, 1996).
Organizational loyalty consists of loyal boosterism and organizational loy-
alty (Graham, 1989, 1991), spreading goodwill and protecting the organization
(George & Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997), and the endorsing, supporting,
and defending organizational objectives construct (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993,
1997). Essentially, organizational loyalty entails promoting the organization to
outsiders, protecting and defending it against external threats, and remaining
committed to it even under adverse conditions. Preliminary research by Moorman
and Blakely (1995) has indicated that this dimension is distinct from several other
forms of citizenship behavior, although a confirmatory factor analysis in a
follow-up study conducted by Moorman, Blakely, and Niehoff (1998) failed to
confirm this. Thus, additional work on these scales appears to be warranted.
As indicated in Table 1, organizational compliance has a long tradition of
research in the citizenship behavior area. This dimension has been called gener-
alized compliance by Smith et al. (1983); organizational obedience by Graham
(1991); OCB-O by Williams and Anderson (1991); and following organizational
rules and procedures by Borman and Motowidlo (1993); and contains some
aspects of Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s job dedication construct (Van Scotter &
Motowidlo, 1996). This dimension appears to capture a person’s internalization
and acceptance of the organization’s rules, regulations, and procedures, which
results in a scrupulous adherence to them, even when no one observes or monitors
compliance. The reason that this behavior is regarded as a form of citizenship
behavior is that even though everyone is expected to obey company regulations,
rules, and procedures at all times, many employees simply do not. Therefore, an
Table 1. Summary of Employee In-Role and

Citizenship Graham (1989);
Behavior Smith, Organ, Organ (1988, Moorman & Graham
Dimension & Near (1983) 1990a, 1990b) Blakely (1995) (1991)
HELPING Altruism—capture(s) Altruism—voluntary Interpersonal

BEHAVIOR behavior that is directly actions that help another Helping—focuses on
and intentionally aimed person with a work helping coworkers in
at helping a specific problem—instructing a their jobs when such
person in face-to-face new hire on how to use help was needed
situations (e.g., equipment, helping a co- (Moorman &
orienting new people, worker catch up with a Blakely, pg. 130).
assisting someone with backlog of work, fetching
a heavy workload) materials that a colleague
(pg. 657). needs and cannot procure
on his own (pg. 96).
Courtesy—subsumes all
of those foresightful
gestures that help
someone else prevent a
problem—touching base
with people before
committing to actions that
will affect them, providing
advance notice to
someone who needs to
know to schedule work
(pg. 96).
Peacemaking—actions
that help to prevent,
resolve or mitigate
unconstructive
interpersonal conflict (pg.
96).
Cheerleading—the words
and gestures of
encouragement and
reinforcement of
coworkers’
accomplishments and
professional development
(pg. 96).
SPORTSMANSHIP Sportsmanship—a
citizen-like posture of
tolerating the inevitable
inconveniences and
impositions of work
without whining and
grievances (pg. 96).

Extra-Role Work Performance Dimensions

Borman &
Williams & George & Brief (1992); Motowidlo Van Scotter &
Anderson (1991) George & Jones (1997) (1993, 1997) Motowidlo (1996)
OCB-I—behaviors Helping coworkers— Helping and Cooperating Interpersonal Facilitation—

that includes all voluntary With Others—[Including] consists of interpersonally
immediately forms of assistance that assisting/helping oriented behaviors that
benefit specific oragnizational members coworkers. . . assisting/ contribute to organizational goal
individuals and provide each other to helping customers. . . [and] accomplishment. . . In addition
indirectly facilitate the altruism (pg. 82). to the spontaneous helping
through this accomplishment of tasks behaviors that Smith et al.
means and attainment of goals. (1983) called altruism, and
contribute to the Helping coworkers George and Brief (1992) labeled
organization includes behaviors helping coworkers, interpersonal
(e.g., helps ranging from helping a facilitation encompasses
others who have coworker with a heavy deliberate acts that improve
been absent, workload and sharing morale, encourage cooperation,
takes a personal resources, to calling remove barriers to performance,
interest in other attention to errors and or help coworkers perform their
employees). . . omissions and providing task-oriented job activities.
Prior research instruction in the use of Thus, interpersonal facilitation
has labeled the new technology when encompasses a range of
OCB-I one is not required to do interpersonal acts that help
dimension as so (George & Jones, pg. maintain the interpersonal and
altruism. . . 154). social context needed to support
(pg. 602). effective task performance in an
organizational setting (pg. 526).
Helping and Cooperating

With Others—[Including]
organizational courtesy and
not complaining. . . (pg. 82).
(Continued on next page)

Table 1.
Behavior Smith, Organ, Organ (1988, Moorman &
Dimension & Near (1983) 1990a, 1990b) Blakely (1995) Graham (1991)
ORGANIZATIONAL Loyalty Organizational

LOYALTY Boosterism— Loyalty—identification
the promotion with and allegiance to
of the organizational leaders and
organizational the organization as a
image to whole, transcending the
outsiders parochial interests of
(Moorman & individuals, work groups,
Blakely, pg. and departments.
130). Representative behaviors
include defending the
organization against
threats; contributing to its
good reputation; and
cooperating with others to
serve the interests of the
whole (pg. 255).
ORGANIZATIONAL Generalized Organizational

COMPLIANCE Compliance. . . pertains Obedience—An
to a more impersonal orientation toward
form of organizational structure,
conscientiousness that job descriptions, and
does not provide personnel policies that
immediate aid to any one recognizes and accepts
specific person, but rather the necessity and
is indirectly helpful to desirability of a rational
others involved in the structure of rules and
system. The behavior regulations. Obedience
(e.g., punctuality, not may be demonstrated by
wasting time) seems to a respect for rules and
represent something akin instructions, punctuality in
to compliance with attendance and task
internalized norms completion, and
defining what a “good stewardship of
employee ought to do” organizational resources
(pg. 657). (pg. 255).

Continued
Borman &
Spreading Goodwill—is Endorsing, Supporting,

the means by which and Defending
organizational members Organizational
voluntarily contribute to Objectives—[Including]
organizational organizational loyalty . . .
effectiveness through concern for unit objectives
efforts to represent their . . . staying with the
organizations to wider organization during hard
communities in a times and representing the
beneficial light, whether organization favorably to
it be describing one’s outsiders (pg. 82).
organization as supportive
and caring or describing an
organization’s goods and
services as being high-quality
and responsive to customers’
needs; instances of spreading
goodwill contribute to
organizational effectiveness
by insuring that organizations
obtain needed resources from
various stakeholder groups.
(George & Jones, pg. 155).
OCB-O—behaviors that Following Organizational Job Dedication—
benefit the organization in Rules and Procedures— centers on self-
general (e.g., gives [Including] following disciplined behaviors
advance notice when orders and regulations and such as following
unable to come to work, respect for authority . . . rules. . . It
adheres to informal rules complying with encompasses Smith et
devised to maintain organizational values and al.’s (1983)
order). . . Prior research policies . . . generalized
has labeled. . . the OCB-O conscientiousness . . compliance
dimension as generalized meeting deadlines (pg. 82). dimension. . .
compliance. . . (pg. 526).
(pp. 601–602).

Table 1.
INDIVIDUAL Conscientiousness— Personal

INITIATIVE is a pattern of going Industry— the
well beyond performance of
minimally required specific tasks above
levels of attendance, and beyond the call
punctuality, of duty (Moorman
housekeeping, & Blakely, pg. 130).
conserving resources,
and related matters of Individual
internal maintenance Initiative—
(pg. 96). communications to
others in the
workplace to
improve individual
and group
performance
(Moorman &
Blakely, pg. 130).
CIVIC Civic Virtue—is Organizational

VIRTUE responsible, Participation—Interest
constructive in organizational
involvement in the affairs guided by ideal
political process of standards of virtue,
the organization, validated by keeping
including not just informed, and
expressing opinions expressed through full
but reading one’s and responsible
mail, attending involvement in
meetings, and keeping organizational
abreast of larger governance. This
issues involving the includes attending
organization (pg. 96). nonrequired meetings,
sharing informed
opinions and new
ideas with others, and
being willing to
deliver bad news and
support an unpopular
view to combat
groupthink (pg. 255).

Continued
Borman &
Making Constructive Suggestions— PERSISTING WITH Job Dedication—

includes all voluntary acts of creativity ENTHUSIASM AND centers on self-
and innovation in organizations. Such EXTRA EFFORT as disciplined behaviors
suggestions can range from the necessary to complete such as. . . working
relatively mundane (a more efficient own task activities hard, and taking the
way to handle paperwork) to the more successfully. [Includes] initiative to solve a
monumental (reorganization of an entire perseverance and problem at work. It
unit to better serve a changing customer conscientiousness . . . encompasses. . . the
base). . . workers who engage in this [and] extra effort on the “will do” factors
form of organizational spontaniety . . . job . . . (pg. 82). identified
actively try to find ways to improve in. . . (Campbell et al.,
individual, group, or organizational VOLUNTEERING TO 1990). Job dedication
functioning (George & Jones, pg. 155). CARRY OUT TASK is the motivational
ACTIVITIES that are foundation for job
not formally part of own performance that drives
job. . . [Includes] people to act with the
suggesting organizational deliberate intention of
improvements. . . [and] promoting the
initiative and taking on organization’s best
extra responsibility (pg. interest (pg. 526).
82).
Protecting the
Organization—includes those
voluntary acts organizational members
engage in to protect or save life and
property ranging from reporting fire
hazards, securely locking doors,
reporting suspicious or dangerous
activities, to taking the initiative to
halt a production process when there is
the potential for human injury (George
& Jones, pg. 155).

Table 1.
SELF-
DEVELOPMENT
employee who religiously obeys all rules and regulations, even when no one is
watching, is regarded as an especially “good citizen.”
Another dimension that several researchers have identified as a form of
citizenship behavior is called individual initiative. This form of OCB is extra-role
only in the sense that it involves engaging in task-related behaviors at a level that
is so far beyond minimally required or generally expected levels that it takes on
a voluntary flavor. Such behaviors include voluntary acts of creativity and
innovation designed to improve one’s task or the organization’s performance,
persisting with extra enthusiasm and effort to accomplish one’s job, volunteering
to take on extra responsibilities, and encouraging others in the organization to do
the same. All of these behaviors share the idea that the employee is going “above
and beyond” the call of duty. This dimension is similar to Organ’s conscientious-
ness construct (Organ, 1988), Graham’s and Moorman and Blakely’s personal
industry and individual initiative constructs (Graham, 1989; Moorman & Blakely,
1995), George’s (George & Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997) making con-
structive suggestions construct, Borman and Motowidlo’s persisting with enthu-
siasm and volunteering to carry out task activities constructs (Borman & Moto-
widlo, 1993, 1997), Morrison and Phelps’ taking charge at work construct
(Morrison & Phelps, 1999), and some aspects of Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s job
dedication construct (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Organ (1988) indicated
that this form of behavior is among the most difficult to distinguish from in-role
behavior, because it differs more in degree than in kind. Therefore, perhaps it is
not surprising that some researchers have not included this dimension in their
studies of organizational citizenship behavior (cf. MacKenzie, Podsakoff, &
Fetter, 1991; MacKenzie et al., 1993) or have found that this behavior is difficult
to distinguish empirically from in-role or task performance (cf. Motowidlo,
Borman, & Schmit, 1997; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996).
Continued
Borman &
Developing Oneself—includes all the

steps that workers take to voluntarily
improve their knowledge, skills, and
abilities so as to be better able to
contribute to their organizations.
Seeking out and taking advantage of
advanced training courses, keeping
abreast of the latest developments in
one’s field and area, or even learning a
new set of skills so as to expand the
range of one’s contributions to an
organization . . . (George & Jones, pg.
155).
The next dimension is derived from Graham’s discussion of the responsi-

bilities that employees have as “citizens” of an organization (Graham, 1991).
Civic virtue represents a macro-level interest in, or commitment to, the organi-
zation as a whole. This is shown by a willingness to participate actively in its
governance (e.g., attend meetings, engage in policy debates, express one’s opinion
about what strategy the organization ought to follow, etc.); to monitor its envi-
ronment for threats and opportunities (e.g., keep up with changes in the industry
that might affect the organization); and to look out for its best interests (e.g.,
reporting fire hazards or suspicious activities, locking doors, etc.), even at great
personal cost. These behaviors reflect a person’s recognition of being part of a
larger whole in the same way that citizens are members of a country and accept
the responsibilities which that entails. This dimension has been referred to as civic
virtue by Organ (1988, 1990b), organizational participation by Graham (1989),
and protecting the organization by George and Brief (1992).
The final dimension is self development. Based on the work of Katz (1964),
George and Brief (1992) identified developing oneself as a key dimension of
citizenship behavior. Self-development includes voluntary behaviors employees
engage in to improve their knowledge, skills, and abilities. According to George
and Brief (1992: 155) this might include “seeking out and taking advantage of
advanced training courses, keeping abreast of the latest developments in one’s
field and area, or even learning a new set of skills so as to expand the range of
one’s contributions to an organization.” Interestingly, self-development has not
received any empirical confirmation in the citizenship behavior literature. How-
ever, it does appear to be a discretionary form of employee behavior that is
conceptually distinct from the other citizenship behavior dimensions, and might
be expected to improve organizational effectiveness through somewhat different
mechanisms than the other forms of citizenship behavior.
Thus, when one examines the different types of citizenship-like behavior that
have been identified in the literature, they seem to fall into one of the following
categories: helping behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organiza-
tional compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue, and self-development. In
view of the fact that almost all of the citizenship behavior research was influenced
by Katz (1964), perhaps it is not surprising that these underlying dimensions bear
a strong resemblance to the dimensions of “innovative and spontaneous” behavior
that he identified in his original article, including (1) cooperating with others, (2)
protecting the organization, (3) volunteering constructive ideas, (4) self-training,
and (5) maintaining a favorable attitude toward the company. For example,
cooperating with others is reflected in the helping and sportsmanship dimensions;
protecting the organization is reflected in the civic virtue and organizational
loyalty dimensions; volunteering constructive ideas is reflected in the individual
initiative dimension; self-training is reflected in the self-development dimension;
and maintaining a favorable attitude toward the company is reflected in the
organizational loyalty and, perhaps, sportsmanship dimensions. Thus, in a sense,
the roots of almost every form of citizenship behavior can be traced back to Katz’s
seminal framework (Katz, 1964).
Antecedents of “Citizenship” Behaviors
Table 2 reports the meta-analytic relationships between OCBs and their

antecedents1. This table shows the mean correlations corrected for sampling error
and measurement reliability, along with the number of studies and the total sample
size (in brackets [# studies/sample size]) on which each correlation is based. As
indicated in this table, the number of studies on which the correlations are based
ranged from 2 to 28, with an average of approximately 6, and the sample size
ranged from 502 to 6,746, with an average size of 2,040. This table focuses on
those forms of organizational citizenship behaviors that have received the most
attention in the research literature, rather than on contextual performance (cf.
Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997) or other less widely researched forms of
“citizenship” behavior (cf. Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Van Dyne, Graham, &
Dienesch, 1994).
Empirical research has focused on four major categories of antecedents:
individual (or employee) characteristics, task characteristics, organizational char-
acteristics, and leadership behaviors. The earliest research in this area (cf. Bate-
man & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983) concentrated primarily on
employee attitudes, dispositions, and leader supportiveness. Subsequent research
in the leadership area (cf. Podsakoff et al., 1996b; Podsakoff et al., 1990)
expanded the domain of leadership behaviors to include various forms of trans-
formational and transactional leadership behaviors. The effects of task and orga-
nizational characteristics are found primarily in the substitutes for leadership
literature (cf. Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996b; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996a; Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie & Williams,
1993).
Table 2. Meta-Analytic Correlations Between Employee Variables, Task Characteristics, Organizational Characteristics, Leader
Behaviors, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
Generalized “Overall”
Altruism Courtesy Conscientiousness Sportsmanship Civic Virtue Compliance OCB
INDIVIDUAL (EMPLOYEE) CHARACTERISTICS

Employee Attitudes
Satisfaction .31*1 [7/2,456] .25*1 [5/1,544] .28*1 [7/2,456] .30*1 [5/1,544] .19*1 [5/1,544]
2
.28* [28/6,746] .28*2 [25/5,975]
(.26*2) [22/5,549] (.24*2) [20/5,189]
Fairness2 .24*[20/3,313] .27* [15/2,690]
(.24*) [11/2,192]
Organizational Commitment .22*1 [7/2,456] .14*1 [5/1,544] .22*1 [7/2,456] .18*1 [5/1,544] .13*1 [5/1,544] .32*2 [10/2,671]
.25*2 [11/2,648] (.26*2) [6/1,992]
Affective Commitment2 .23* [5/1,071] .30* [4/943]
Continuance Commitment2 .01 [4/754] .05 [3/626]
Trust in Leader .24*3 [4/2,729] .24*4 [3/2,252] .26*4 [3/2,252] .20*3 [4/2,729] .093 [4/2,729] .39*5 [2/669]
Dispositional Variables
Conscientiousness2 .22* [11/2,172] .30* [10/1,818]
(.04) [7/1,231] (.23*) [7/1,231]
Agreeableness2 .13* [6/916] .11* [6/916]
Positive Affectivity2 .15* [7/1,021] .07 [6/934]
A REVIEW OF THE OCB LITERATURE
(.08) [5/869]
Negative Affectivity2 ⫺.06 [6/1,201] ⫺.12* [5/847]
Employee Role Perceptions
Role Ambiguity1 ⫺.12* [8/2,651] ⫺.12* [5/1,544] ⫺.10 [7/2,456] ⫺.12* [5/1,544] ⫺.02 [5/1,544]
Role Conflict1 ⫺.08* [7/2,351] ⫺.11* [5/1,544] ⫺.11 [6/2,156] ⫺.16* [5/1,544] .08 [5/1,544]
Demographic Variables
Tenure2 .06 [4/717] .03 [5/871]
Gender2 .03 [5/1,110] ⫺.07 [4/756]

527

528
Table 2. Continued
Generalized “Overall”
Altruism Courtesy Conscientiousness Sportsmanship Civic Virtue Compliance OCB
Employee Abilities and Individual Differences

Ability/Experience/Training/ .06 [8/2,651] ⫺.02 [5/1,544] ⫺.01 [7/2,456] ⫺.08 [5/1,544] .09* [5/1,544]
Knowledge1
Professional Orientation1 .02 [7/2,351] ⫺.14* [5/1,544] .02 [6/2,156] ⫺.14* [5/1,544] ⫺.04 [5/1,544]
Need for Independence1 .02 [8/2,651] .04 [5/1,544] .01 [7/2,456] .02 [5/1,544] ⫺.11* [5/1,544]
Indifference to Rewards1 ⫺.17* [8/2,651] ⫺.17* [5/1,544] ⫺.24* [7/2,456] ⫺.25* [5/1,544] ⫺.15* [5/1,544]
TASK CHARACTERISTICS
Task Feedback1 .18* [7/2,456] .19* [5/1,544] .21* [7/2,456] .17* [5/1,544] .16* [5/1,544]
Task Routinization1 ⫺.25* [8/2,651] ⫺.15* [5/1,544] ⫺.23* [7/2,456] ⫺.10* [5/1,544] ⫺.30* [5/1,544]
Intrinsically Satisfying Task1 .27* [8/2,651] .16* [5/1,544] .22* [7/2,456] .16* [5/1,544] .14* [5/1,544]
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Organizational Formalization1 ⫺.04 [8/2,651] .04 [5/1,544] ⫺.01 [7/2,456] .04 [5/1,544] ⫺.10 [5/1,544]

Organizational Inflexibility1 ⫺.01 [7/2,456] .12 [5/1,544] .06 [7/2,456] .12* [5/1,544] .05 [5/1,544]
Advisory/Staff Support1 .11 [7/2,456] .00 [5/1,544] .11 [7/2,456] .01 [5/1,544] .13 [5/1,544]
Cohesive Group1 .19* [8/2,651] .20* [5/1,544] .12* [7/2,456] .17* [5/1,544] .15* [5/1,544]
Rewards Outside the Leader’s ⫺.14* [8/2,651] ⫺.08* [5/1,544] ⫺.17* [7/2,456] ⫺.03 [5/1,544] ⫺.14 [5/1,544]
Control1
Spatial Distance from Leader1 ⫺.15* [8/2,651] ⫺.09 [5/1,544] ⫺.12 [7/2,456] ⫺.04 [5/1,544] ⫺.08 [5/1,544]
Perceived Organizational Support6 .31* [4/894]
LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS
“Core” Transformational Leadership7 .26* [4/3,053] .24* [3/2,576] .24* [3/2,576] 23* [4/3,053] .11 [4/3,053]
Articulating a Vision7 .20* [2/1,588] .20* [2/1,588] .19* [2/1,588] .23* [2/1,588] .13* [2/1,588]
Providing an Appropriate Model7 .24* [2/1,588] .25* [2/1,588] .21* [2/1,588] .21* [2/1,588] .15* [2/1,588]
P.M. PODSAKOFF, S.B. MACKENZIE, J.B. PAINE, AND D.G. BACHRACH
Fostering the Acceptance of .23* [2/1,588] .21* [2/1,588] .18* [2/1,588] .21* [2/1,588] .12* [2/1,588]
Group Goals7
High Performance Expectations7 .14* [4/3,053] .17* [3/2,576] .15* [3/2,576] .13* [4/3,053] .09 [4/3,053]
Intellectual Stimulation7 .20* [4/3,053] .18* [3/2,576] .18* [3/2,576] .17* [4/3,053] .11 [4/3,053]
Contingent Reward Behavior1 .26* [7/2,351] .26* [5/1,544] .26* [6/2,156] .25* [5/1,544] .15* [5/1,544]
Contingent Punishment Behavior1⫺.04 [7/2,351] .01 [5/1,544] ⫺.03 [6/2,156] ⫺.02 [5/1,544] .01 [5/1,544]
Noncontingent Reward Behavior1 .13* [7/2,351] .08 [5/1,544] .12* [6/2,156] .09 [5/1,544] .07 [5/1,544]
Noncontingent Punishment ⫺.25* [7/2,351] ⫺.19* [5/1,544] ⫺.26* [6/2,156] ⫺.24* [5/1,544] ⫺.08 [5/1,544]
Behavior1
Leader Role Clarification1 .12* [7/2,456] .18* [5/1,544] .12* [7/2,456] .19* [5/1,544] .04 [5/1,544]
Leader Specification of ⫺.09* [7/2,456] ⫺.04 [5/1,544] ⫺.07 [7/2,456] ⫺.09 [5/1,544] ⫺.07 [5/1,544]
Procedures1
Supportive Leader Behaviors .26*9 [12/5,704] .28*9 [8/4,120] .25*9 [10/5,032] .25*9 [9/4,597] .15*9 [9/4,597]
.27*2 [8/3,062] .35*2[8/3,062]
(.23*2) [6/2,562] (.29*2) [6/2,562]
Leader-Member Exchange .36* [4,502] .30* [3/585]
(LMX)8
1
Obtained from the meta-analysis reported by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996a). In this meta-analysis, all of the measures of OCB were obtained from supervisors (not self-ratings).
2
Obtained from meta-analysis reported by Organ & Ryan (1995). Coefficients reported without parentheses include self-rated OCBs; those coefficients with parentheses do not include self-rated
OCBs.
3
Meta-analysis conducted for this paper from the results reported by: Deluga (1995); MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich (1999); Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996b), and Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter (1990).
4
Meta-analysis conducted for this paper from the results reported by: Deluga (1995); Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996b); and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter (1990).
5
Meta-analysis conducted for this paper from the results reported by: Konovsky & Pugh (1994); and McAllister (1995).
6
Meta-analysis conducted for this paper from the results reported by: Moorman, Blakely & Niehoff (1998) [Interpersonal helping dimension]; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden (1996) [OCB-I dimension];
Shore & Wayne (1993) [Altruism dimension]; Wayne, Shore, & Liden (1997) [Altruism dimension].
7
Meta-analysis conducted for this paper from Chen & Farh (1999); MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich (1999); Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996b); and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman
& Fetter (1990). For purposes of determining the relationship between the “core” transformational leadership dimension and the citizenship behaviors in the two studies where the “core”
transformational construct was not examined (i.e., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996b; Chen & Farh, 1999), correlations between each of the components of the “core” transformational
construct (i.e., articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, and fostering the acceptance of group goals) and each of the citizenship dimensions were averaged.
8
Meta-analysis conducted for this paper from the results reported by: Deluga (1998); Hui, Law, & Chen (1999); Settoon, Bennett, & Liden (1996); Tansky (1993); Wayne, Shore, & Liden (1997);
Witt (1991).
9
Meta-analysis conducted for this paper from the results reported by Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer (1996a, 1996b); Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter (1990); Chen & Farh (1999);
and MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich (1999).
*p ⬍ .05.
529

Early research efforts on employee characteristics (cf. Bateman & Organ,

1983; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Smith et al., 1983) focused on two main causes
of OCBs. The first of these is a general affective “morale” factor, which Organ
and Ryan (1995) view as underlying employee satisfaction, organizational com-
mitment, perceptions of fairness, and perceptions of leader supportiveness. As
shown in Table 2, these variables have been the most frequently investigated
antecedents of OCB, and all of them have significant relationships with citizen-
ship behaviors of roughly comparable strength (ranging from .23 to .31). Thus,
those variables comprising employee “morale” do appear to be important deter-
minants of citizenship behaviors. These findings raise the question of whether
there are other variables that comprise employee morale (e.g., trust, more specific
forms of satisfaction, etc.) whose effects may also be important to examine.
In addition to “morale,” Organ and Ryan (1995: 794) argue that various
dispositional factors, such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, positive affectiv-
ity, and negative affectivity, “predispose people to certain orientations vis-a-vis
coworkers and managers. And those orientations might well increase the likeli-
hood of receiving treatment that they would recognize as satisfying, supportive,
fair, and worthy of commitment.” Thus, these dispositional variables could be
seen as indirect contributors of OCBs, rather than direct causes. An examination
of Table 2 indicates that, of the dispositional variables examined in previous
research, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and positive affectivity have the stron-
gest effects. Conscientiousness and agreeableness are related significantly to both
altruism and generalized compliance; and positive affectivity is related positively
to altruism. However, the available evidence suggests that a substantial proportion
(if not all) of these relationships may be due to common method variance (cf.
Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). For example, Organ and Ryan (1995) found that
although the correlation between conscientiousness and altruism was significant
(r ⫽ .22) when all available data were included, this relationship became non-
significant (r ⫽ .04) when studies with self-rated OCBs were excluded from the
analysis. Similarly, the correlation between positive affectivity and altruism
dropped from .15 (significant) to .08 (non-significant) when this bias was con-
trolled. The same really cannot be said for the relationship between conscien-
tiousness and generalized compliance. Indeed, although this relationship was
weaker when common method variance was controlled for, it was still significant.
Role perceptions also have been found to have significant relationships with
at least some of the organizational citizenship behavior dimensions, although the
size of these relationships is not very substantial. Both role ambiguity and role
conflict are significantly negatively related to altruism, courtesy, and sportsman-
ship but not to conscientiousness and civic virtue. However, since both role
ambiguity and role conflict are known to be related to employee satisfaction, and
satisfaction is related to organizational citizenship behaviors, it is likely that at
least a portion of the relationship between ambiguity and conflict and OCBs is
mediated by satisfaction.
Generally speaking, demographic variables (e.g., organizational tenure and
employee gender) have not been found to be related to OCBs. The finding that
gender is not related to citizenship behaviors is somewhat surprising, given that
Kidder and McLean Parks (1993) discussed a number of plausible theoretical

reasons why it ought to be. For example, they noted that empathetic concern and
perspective taking should influence both helping behavior and courtesy, and both
of these traits are associated with females (Davis, 1983). Conversely, Kidder and
McLean Parks (1993) argued that males are more likely to engage in conscien-
tious behavior than females, because “this type of behavior suggests an exchange
orientation or an emphasis on quid pro quo, frequently associated with a male
preference for equity over equality.” Thus, even though the existing empirical
evidence has not been very supportive of the hypothesized effects of gender on
citizenship behavior, additional evidence is needed before this issue can be
resolved conclusively.
Of the remaining employee characteristics examined in the literature, only
indifference to rewards was found to have a consistent relationship with OCBs.
Indeed, indifference to rewards was negatively related to altruism, courtesy,
conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. However, none of the other
employee characteristics including ability, experience, training, and knowledge;
professional orientation; or need for independence had a consistently strong
relationship with any of the citizenship behaviors.
Turning our attention now to the task variables, research primarily in the
substitutes for leadership literature (e.g., Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1995; Podsa-
koff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996a, 1996b; Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie, &
Williams, 1993) reveals that task characteristics have consistent relationships with
citizenship behaviors. Indeed, all three forms of task characteristics included in
the substitutes literature (task feedback, task routinization, and intrinsically sat-
isfying tasks) were significantly related to altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness,
sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Task feedback and intrinsically satisfying tasks
were positively related to citizenship behavior, while task routinization was
negatively related to OCBs. Thus, although not emphasized in the existing OCB
literature, it appears that task characteristics are important determinants of citi-
zenship behavior and deserve more attention in future research.
The relationships between organizational characteristics and OCBs were
somewhat mixed. Neither organizational formalization, organizational inflexibil-
ity, advisory/staff support, nor spatial distance were consistently related to citi-
zenship behaviors. However, group cohesiveness was found to be significantly
and positively related to altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and
civic virtue; and perceived organizational support was found to be significantly
related to employee altruism. In addition, rewards outside the leader’s control
were negatively related to altruism, courtesy, and conscientiousness.
The final category of antecedents included in Table 2 is the leadership
behaviors. These behaviors can be divided into transformational leadership be-
haviors (“core” transformational behaviors, articulating a vision, providing an
appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance
expectations, and intellectual stimulation), transactional leadership behaviors
(contingent reward behavior, contingent punishment behavior, noncontingent
reward behavior, noncontingent punishment behavior), and behaviors identified
with either the Path-Goal theory of leadership (role clarification behavior, spec-
ification of procedures, or supportive leader behavior), or the Leader-Member

Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership. Generally speaking, the transformational
leadership behaviors had significant and consistent positive relationships with
altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Two forms
of transactional leader behavior were significantly related to altruism, courtesy,
conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue; one positively (contingent
reward behavior), and the other negatively (noncontingent punishment behavior).
Of the Path-Goal leadership dimensions, supportive leader behavior was found to
be positively related to every form of OCB, and leader role clarification was
positively related to altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship.
Finally, leader-member exchange was positively related to altruism and “overall”2
citizenship behaviors.
In summary, job attitudes, task variables, and various types of leader behav-
iors appear to be more strongly related to OCBs than the other antecedents.
Consistent with Organ and his colleagues (cf. Bateman & Organ, 1983; Moorman,
1991; Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993; Organ, 1988, 1990a; Smith et al.,
1983), job satisfaction, perceptions of fairness, and organizational commitment
were positively related to citizenship behaviors in Table 2. Task variables also
appear to be consistently related to a wide variety of organizational citizenship
behaviors, although little attention has been given to them in the OCB literature
(see Farh et al., 1990, and Pearce & Gregersen, 1991, for a few exceptions). This
is interesting because it suggests a whole new category of antecedents that has not
been previously considered. Finally, one very strong pattern in the findings
reported in Table 2 is that leaders play a key role in influencing citizenship
behavior. Indeed, with a few exceptions, almost all of the leader behavior–OCB
relationships shown in the table were significant. Supportive behavior on the part
of the leader was strongly related to organizational citizenship behavior and may
even underlie the effects of perceived organizational support on OCBs. Transfor-
mational leadership behavior also had consistent effects on every form of citi-
zenship behavior. Perhaps this should not be surprising, since the heart of
transformational leadership is the ability to get employees to perform above and
beyond expectations (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Kouzes & Posner, 1987), and this
extra effort may show up in the form of citizenship behavior. Leader-member
exchange behavior also was strongly related to OCBs. Thus, it appears that OCBs
play a role in the reciprocal social exchange process hypothesized by Graen and
Scandura (1987); Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996); and Wayne, Shore, and
Liden (1997).
Of course, whether the observed effects of job attitudes, task variables, and
leader behaviors on OCBs are independent or not is impossible to determine using
the bivariate correlations in Table 2. For example, it may be the case that some of
the task variables (e.g., intrinsically satisfying tasks or task routinization) influ-
ence OCBs through job attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction); or that some of the leader
behaviors (e.g., contingent reward behavior or noncontingent punishment behav-
ior) influence OCBs through job attitudes (e.g., employee’s perceptions of fair-
ness). Alternatively, it is possible that some of these relationships would fail to be
significant when controlling for the effects of the other predictors. Thus, future
research needs to include a more complete set of these variables to investigate

these possibilities.
Another pattern that emerged from the data in Table 2 is that reward
contingencies influence the frequency of organizational citizenship behavior. As
shown in the table, when employees are not indifferent to the rewards made
available by the organization, when employees perceive that their leaders control
those rewards, and when their leaders administer rewards contingent upon per-
formance, organizational citizenship behavior increases. This suggests at least two
possibilities. First, it is possible that managers (either implicitly or explicitly) have
a relatively broad conception of performance and view citizenship behavior as a
part of it. Consequently, when they administer rewards contingent upon perfor-
mance, they reward OCBs as well as in-role aspects of performance, thus
increasing the frequency of citizenship behavior. Although the contingency be-
tween rewards and citizenship behaviors is inconsistent with Organ’s original
definition of OCBs (Organ, 1988), this interpretation is consistent with the
findings reported by MacKenzie et al. (1991, 1993, 1999) and Werner (1994),
among others. These findings indicate that managers do take OCBs into account
when evaluating the performance of their subordinates, while the findings of Park
and Sims (1989), and Allen and Rush (1998), indicate that managers administer
rewards contingent upon citizenship behavior.
Another possibility is that employees have a broad conception of perfor-
mance that includes OCBs. Thus, when they value organizational rewards, and
believe that their leader administers them contingent upon good performance, they
engage in citizenship behavior as a means of obtaining rewards. This line of
reasoning is consistent with Morrison (1994), who found that employees often
view OCBs as an expected part of their job.
With the exception of conscientiousness, dispositional variables generally
were not found to be strongly related to the dimensions of OCBs after common
method variance was taken into account. The same is true for demographic
variables (e.g., organizational tenure and gender). Although on the face of it, this
data contradicts the assertion of some (cf. Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ &
Ryan, 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) that dispositional variables are
important antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors, it is important to
recognize that only a limited set of dispositions have been examined in the
literature (cf. Organ & Ryan, 1995).
Consequences of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Although the majority of the early research efforts focused on the anteced-
ents of citizenship behavior, more recent research has devoted an increasing
amount of attention to the consequences of OCBs. More specifically, recent
research has focused on two key issues: (a) the effects of OCBs on managerial
evaluations of performance and judgments regarding pay raises, promotions, etc.,
and (b) the effects of OCBs on organizational performance and success. In the
next section, we will examine the literature on the effects that OCBs have on these
two areas.
Effects of OCBs on Performance Evaluations and Other Managerial Decisions

MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and their colleagues (MacKenzie et al., 1991, 1993;
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993) have suggested several reasons why man-
agers may value OCBs and take them into account when evaluating employee
performance. These reasons are summarized in Table 3. As indicated in the table,
some of the reasons have to do with norms of reciprocity and fairness, some have
to do with the way managers form their evaluations, and others have to do with
the informational distinctiveness and accessibility of OCB information in mem-
ory. However, regardless of the underlying mechanism, the available empirical
evidence summarized in Tables 4a, 4b, and 5 suggests that OCBs do, in fact,
influence managers’ evaluations of performance and other related decisions.
Table 4a summarizes the results of seven field studies that have examined the
relative effects of OCBs and objective performance on performance evaluations.
The first two rows in the table indicate the names of the researchers who
conducted the study, and the sample characteristics. The next row specifies the
nature of the objective measures of performance used in each study. Following
this, the next four rows report the proportion of variance attributable to in-role and
extra-role performance. The first of these rows reports the unique contribution of
objective performance to the managers’ evaluations, while the next row reports
the unique contribution of OCBs to this evaluation. The next two rows report the
proportion of variance shared by the objective performance measures and the
OCBs, and the total variance explained, respectively. For example, in Avila, Fern,
and Mann’s study of computer salespeople (Avila, Fern, & Mann, 1988), 12% of
the variance in employee performance evaluations was uniquely attributable to
objective sales performance, 48% was uniquely attributable to organizational
citizenship behaviors, and 3% of the variance was shared between objective sales
performance and the OCBs.
The row entitled “Common Methods Variance Controlled?” indicates
whether the authors statistically controlled for the fact that the measures of OCBs
and managerial performance evaluations were obtained from the same source.
Typically, this was done by adding a first-order “common-method” latent factor,
which had each measure obtained from the same source as an indicator, to the
hypothesized model. In those studies for which this biasing factor was controlled,
the adjusted proportions of variance attributable to the various factors are shown
in brackets [ ]. Thus, in the MacKenzie et al. (1993) sample of 261 insurance
agents, objective performance accounted for 13% of the variance in overall
evaluations when common method variance was not controlled, and 24% of the
variance when this bias was controlled. Similarly, whereas OCBs accounted for
44% of the variance in performance evaluations when common method variance
was not controlled, they accounted for only 9% when this factor was controlled.
Finally, as indicated in this column, while the percent of variance shared between
the objective measures and OCBs was 8% before common method variance was
controlled, it was 13% after this bias was controlled.
The bottom six rows of the table identify which of the individual OCBs had
significant effects on the overall performance evaluations. In these rows, a (⫹)
Table 3. Summary of Reasons Why OCBs Might Influence Managerial Evaluations of Performance
Potential Reason Explanation
Norm of Reciprocity/Fairness Gouldner (1960), Homans (1961), and Blau (1964) have noted that people try to reciprocate those who help them, do them a favor,
or treat them fairly. Therefore, if citizenship behaviors have positive effects for both the manager and the organization, managers
might repay employees who exhibit OBCs (perhaps out of a sense of fairness) by giving them higher performance evaluations.
Implicit Performance Berman and Kenny (1976) and Bruner and Tagiuri (1954) have noted that raters often possess implicit theories about the co-
Theories occurrence of events or behaviors. Thus, if a manager implicitly believes that citizenship behavior and overall performance are
related, and the manager frequently observes an employee engaging in citizenship behaviors, the manager’s “implicit performance
theory” might cause him/her to infer that an employee is a high performer.
Schema-Triggered Affect Fiske (1981, 1982) and Fiske and Pavelchak (1986) have argued that, when an object is identified by a person as an example of a
previously defined, affectively laden category, the affect associated with the category is quickly retrieved and applied to the
stimulus object. Thus, if managers include citizenship behaviors, along with high levels of task performance, in their definition of
“good employees,” employees who exhibit OBBs will trigger positive affect and subsequently will be evaluated more favorably
than those that do not exhibit these behaviors.
Behavioral Distinctiveness DeNisi, Cafferty, and Meglino (1984) have proposed that managers search for distinctiveness information when they are asked to
and Accessibility make evaluations of employees. Since OCBs are generally not considered to be formally required by the organization, they may be
particularly distinctive forms of behavior that the managers may seek out and remember in the evaluation process.
Attributional Processes DeNisi, Cafferty, and Meglino (1984) also have noted that incidents of performance that are attributed to stable, internal causes are
(Stable/Internal) and most likely to be retained in memory, recalled, and considered in the [manager’s] final evaluation” (pg. 376). Because citizenship
Accessibility behaviors are less likely to be considered a required part of an employee’s job, managers are more likely to attribute these
behaviors to internal, stable characteristics of the subordinate—which would make these behaviors more accessible and exert a
bigger impact on managers’ evaluations of performance.

Illusory Correlations Chapman (1967) and Chapman and Chapman (1967) have argued that illusory correlations result from the tendency of people to
see two things or events as occurring together more often than they actually do. In addition, Cooper (1981) has noted that there are
several sources of illusory correlations that may occur in rating tasks, including: (1) the rater may have an insufficient sample of
either in-role or citizenship behavior (undersampling); (2) the rater may be influenced by a single, salient incident of behavior
(engulfing); (3) the rating scales may be abstract and insufficiently defined (insufficient concreteness); (4) the rater may not be
sufficiently motivated or have sufficient knowledge to do a good job; and (5) the rater’s recall of the ratee’s performance may be
distorted—all of which may lead the rater to give greater weight to the OCBs in forming his or her evaluations (cf. Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, and Hui, 1993).
Adapted from Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui (1993). Used with permission.
535

Table 4a. Summary of the Percent of Variance Accounted for in Managerial
Avila, Fern, & MacKenzie, Podsakoff, &

Researchers Mann (1988) Fetter (1991)
Computer Computer Insurance Insurance

Salespeople Salespeople Agents Agents
Sample (N ⫽ 70) (N ⫽ 198) (N ⫽ 259) (N ⫽ 113)
Measures of Objective Performance % Quota % Quota Commission $ Commission $

Net Gain Net Gain # of Apps # of Apps
in Accounts in Accounts % Quota % Quota
Unique Contribution of Objective .12 .19 .12 [.09] .25 [.10]

Performance 3 Overall Evaluation
Unique Contribution of OCBs 3 Overall .48 .21 .23 [.19] .27 [.20]
Evaluation
Variance in Overall Evaluation Shared by .03 .19 .09 [.17] .09 [.30]
Objective Performance and OCBs
Total R2 .63 .59 .44 [.45] .61 [.60]
Common Methods Variance Controlled? Not Not Statistically Statistically
Controlled Controlled Controlled Controlled
Altruism/Helping 3 Overall Evaluation (⫹)a (⫹)a (⫹) (⫹)
Courtesy 3 Overall Evaluation NA NA ns ns
Sportsmanship 3 Overall Evaluation NA NA ns ns
Conscientiousness 3 Overall Evaluation NA NA NA NA
Civic Virtue 3 Overall Evaluation NA NA (⫹) (⫹)
Composite OCB 3 Overall Evaluation NA NA NA NA
Note: In the bottom half of the table, (⫹) indicates that the variable of interest was significantly (positively)
of interest was included in the study, but was not significantly related to the managers’ overall evaluation after
The row entitled “Common Method Variances Controlled?” indicates whether the researchers examined the
from the same source. In this row, “statistically controlled” indicates that the authors statistically partialled out
In the studies that did control for common methods variance, the percent of variance accounted for before
after method variance is controlled for is reported inside the brackets [ ].
a
For the purposes of our analysis, the single item of measure of “citizenship” behavior (“contributions to
of goal achievement were used to represent objective performance, and the two measures of the sales manager’s
b
In this study, aspects of altruism and courtesy were combined into an overall “helping” behavior construct. The
indicates that the OCB dimension had a significant positive relationship with the
performance evaluation, a NA indicates that this dimension was not included in
the study, and a ns indicates that although the OCB dimension was included, it did
not have a significant relationship with the overall evaluation.
On average, across the eleven samples reported in Table 4a, objective
performance uniquely accounted for 9.5% of the variance in performance evalu-
ations, organizational citizenship behaviors uniquely accounted for 42.9% of the
variance in performance evaluations, and the combination of OCBs and objective
Evaluations by Objective Performance and OCBs

Podsakoff &
MacKenzie
(1994)/
Podsakoff & MacKenzie, Lowery & MacKenzie,
MacKenzie Podsakoff, Krilowicz Podsakoff &
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter (1993) (1992) & Paine (1999) (1994) Paine (1999)
Pharmaceutical Office Sewing Insurance
Insurance Petrochemical Sales Furniture Insurance Machine Sales
Agents Salespeople Managers Makers Agents Operators Managers
(N ⫽ 261) (N ⫽ 204) (N ⫽ 108) (N ⫽ 379) (N ⫽ 987) (N ⫽ 73) (N ⫽ 161)
Commission $ Commission $ % Quota Piece-rate # Policies Piece-rate Unit-level

# of Apps pay Commission $ pay Performance
% Quota Personal Sales
Performance
.13 [.24] .03 [⫺.01] .03 [.05] .00 .09 [.22] .06 .03 [.10]
.44 [.09] .43 [.08] .54 [.37] .72 .43 [.13] .50 .47 [.29]
.08 [.13] ⫺.02 [.30] .04 [.09] .08 .06 [⫺.02] .17 .15 [.11]
.65 [.46] .44 [.37] .61 [.51] .80 .58 [.33] .73 .65 [.50]
Statistically Statistically Statistically Not Statistically Not Statistically
Controlled Controlled Controlled Controlled Controlled Controlled Controlled
(⫹) ns ns (⫹) (⫹)b NA (⫹)b
ns ns ns (⫹) NAb NA NAb
(⫹) (⫹) (⫹) (⫹) (⫹) NA ns
NA (⫹) (⫹) (⫹) NA NA NA
(⫹) ns (⫹) ns (⫹) NA (⫹)
NA NA NA NA NA (⫹) NA
related to the managers’ overall evaluation when controlling for the other predictors: ns indicates that the variable
controlling for the other predictors; and NA indicates that the variable of interest was not included in the study.
potential biasing effects of the fact that the OCB measures and the measure of overall performance was obtained
the effects of a common methods factor to determine whether it had any effect on the conclusions of the study.
methods variance was controlled for is reported outside the brackets, while the percent of variance accounted for
cooperating and working with others in the company”) was used to represent “altruism,” while the two measures
overall assessment were used to represent the manager’s overall evaluation in this study.
coefficient for the effect of helping behavior on overall evaluations is shown in the “altruism” row in the table.
performance accounted for a total of 61.2% of the variance in overall performance

evaluations. This suggests that OCBs accounted for substantially more variance in
performance evaluations than objective performance. The bottom half of the table
indicates that altruism or helping was significantly related to performance eval-
uations in eight out of ten studies in which it was included; courtesy had
significant effects in only one of six studies in which it was included; sportsman-
ship was significant in five out of the eight studies in which it was included;
conscientiousness was significant in all three of the studies in which it was
Table 4b. Summary of Percent of Variance Accounted for in Managerial Evaluations by Subjective Measures of In-Role
538
Performance and Contextual Performance/OCBs
MANAGERIAL EVALUATIONS
Motowidlo & Van Scotter &
Van Scotter Borman, White, & Motowidlo Allen & Rush
Researchers (1994) Dorsey (1995) (1996) (1998) Conway (1999)a
U.S. First-tour First-tour U.S. Employees from
Air Force U.S. Army U.S. Army Air Force multiple Meta-analytic Meta-analytic Meta-analytic
Mechanics Soldiers Soldiers Mechanics organizations data from data from data from
Sample (N ⫽ 421) (N ⫽ 493) (N ⫽ 631) (N ⫽ 760) (N ⫽ 148) several studies several studies several studies
“In-Role” Measure 1 supervisor Scores from Scores from Scores from Supervisors Supervisors Peers Self
Obtained From: ratee tests ratee tests ratee tests
“Contextual” Performance/ 2nd supervisor 1 supervisor 1 peer 1 set of Same Same Same Peers Self
OCB Measure supervisors Supervisors Supervisors
Obtained From:

“Overall” Evaluation 3rd supervisor 2nd supervisor 2nd peer 2nd set Same Same Same Peers Self
Obtained From: of supervisors Supervisors Supervisors
Unique Contribution of .13 .10 .02 .09 .09 .15 .08 .08
“In-Role”
Performance 3 Overall
Evaluation
Unique Contribution of .11 .17 .12 .14 .07 .08 .16 .11
Contextual
Performance/
OCBs 3 Overall
Evaluation
Variance in Overall .05 .02 .05 .22 .33 .38 .41 .20
Evaluation Shared by
“In-Role” Performance
and Contextual
Performance/OCBs
Total R1 .29 .29 .19 .45 .49 .61 .65 .39
Common Methods Controlled Controlled Controlled Controlled Not Not Not Not
Variance Controlled? Controlled Controlledb Controlledb Controlledb
Job Dedication 3 Overall NA NA NA (⫹) NA (⫹) (⫹) ns
Evaluation
Interpersonal Facilitation NA NA NA (⫹) NA ns (⫹) ns
3 Overall Evaluation
“Other” Contextual (⫹) (⫹) (⫹) NA NA NA NA NA
Performance 3
Overall Evaluation
Composite OCB 3 NA NA NA NA (⫹) NA NA NA
Overall Evaluation
Note: In the bottom part of the table, (⫹) indicates that the variable of interest was significantly positively related to the managers’ overall evaluation when controlling
for the other predictors: ns indicates that the variable of interest was included in the study, but was not significantly related to the manager’s overall evaluation when
controlling for the other predictors; and NA indicates that the variable of interest was not included in the study. The row entitled “Common Methods Variance Controlled?”
indicates whether the researchers obtained any of their measures of “in-role” performance, contextual performance (or OCBs), and/or overall performance, from the same
source. Those studies that did not obtain any of the measures from the same source indicate that common methods variance is “controlled.” Those studies in which any
two of the measures were obtained from the same source indicate that common methods variance was “not controlled,” and may have influenced the findings of the study.
a
Only managerial samples were included in this meta-analysis.
b
Conway (1999) recognized the potential biasing effects of common methods variance and did provide an estimate of the proportion of variance in managerial evaluations
that was attributable to trait as well as method variance for each source (supervisors, peers, and self-reports) from which he obtained data. However, the meta-analytic
data that was reported in his tables did not control for method variance.
539

540
Table 5. Summary of Experimental Studies Designed to Examine the Effects of In-Role Performance and OCB/Contextual
Performance on Performance Evaluations, Reward Allocation Decisions, and Estimates of the Standard Deviation of Performance
SALARY/REWARD PROMOTION SDy
OVERALL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION ESTIMATES
Orr. Sackett &
Park & Werner (1994) Allen & Park & Allen & Kiker & Park & Mercer (1989)
Sims [Quasi-experimental Rush Sims Rush Motowidlo Sims [Policy Capturing
Researcher(s) (1989) study] (1998) (1989) (1998) (1999) (1989) Study]
Subjects of Study 137 working 116 supervisors 136 business 137 working 136 business 494 undergraduate 137 working 17 managers/
professionals from large and psychology professionals and business students professionals supervisors
and managers state university students and managers psychology and managers of programmer
students analysts
“In-Role” Performance Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant
Manipulation

Contextual/Prosocial Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant
Behavior/OCB
Performance
Manipulation
Interaction Between Significant Significant NR Significant NR Significant Significant Significant
“In-Role” and
Contextual/Prosocial
Behavior/OCB
Performance
Manipulations
Total R2 NR .43 .40 NR .51 .61 NR .84a
Note: In this table, NR indicates that the researchers either: (a) did not examine or report the interaction effect; or (b) did not report the total amount of variance explained
by the main and interactive effects.
a
For the purposes of this study, the percent of variance reported represents the average total variance accounted for in the study across the 17 raters.
included; civic virtue was significant in six out of the eight studies in which it was
included; and the “composite” OCB measure was significant in the one study in
which it was included. Thus, with the possible exception of courtesy, each of the
citizenship behavior dimensions had a significant effect on performance evalua-
tions in the majority of the studies in which it was included.
Turning our attention now to the effects of common method variance, an
examination of the findings summarized in Table 4a indicates that controlling for
common method variance: (a) reduced the proportion of overall variance ex-
plained; and (b) generally reduced the proportion of variance uniquely accounted
for by the OCBs; but (c) generally did not eliminate the effects of the individual
OCB dimensions on performance evaluations. Across all of the 11 studies
reported in Table 4a, the overall proportion of variance explained by in-role and
citizenship behaviors averaged 61.2% when common method variance was not
controlled, but averaged only 46% when this form of bias was controlled. In
addition, the table indicates that when common method variance was not con-
trolled, the proportion of variance accounted for in overall evaluations by the
OCBs averaged 42.9%, and the amount of variance accounted for by objective
performance averaged 9.5%; while in the seven studies in which it was controlled,
the average accounted for by the OCBs averaged 19.3%, and the amount of
variance accounted for by objective performance averaged 11.3%. Thus, these
findings suggest that common method variance had a substantial impact on the
observed relationships in the studies where it was not controlled.
Table 4b summarizes the results of those field studies that have examined the
relative effects of subjective measures of “in-role” and “extra-role” performance
on performance evaluations. The studies reported in this table differ from those
reported in Table 4a in that they are subjective measures of “in-role” performance,
rather than objective measures. With the exception of Allen and Rush (1998), all
of the studies reported in this table used contextual performance dimensions to
represent extra-role behavior.
The first two rows in the table indicate the names of researchers who
conducted the study, and the sample characteristics. The next three rows indicate
the sources from which the data were obtained. When both predictor and criterion
variables were obtained from the same source, there is the possibility that
common method variance may bias the estimated relationships. The row entitled
“Common Methods Variance Controlled?” indicates whether this form of bias
was controlled in the study. For example, in Motowidlo and Van Scotter’s study
of 421 Air Force mechanics (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994), the “in-role”
measure was obtained from one supervisor, the contextual performance measure
was obtained from a second supervisor, and the “overall” performance evaluation
was obtained from a third supervisor. Therefore, since all three measures were
obtained from different sources, this study controlled for common method vari-
ance.
Rows six through nine in the table report the proportion of variance attrib-
utable to in-role and extra-role performance. For example, the first of these rows
reports the unique contribution of “in-role” performance to the managers’ eval-
uations, while the next row reports the unique contribution of contextual perfor-
mance (or OCBs) to this evaluation. The next two rows report the proportion of
variance shared by the “in-role” performance measures and contextual perfor-
mance, and the total variance explained, respectively. Thus, in the Motowidlo and
Van Scotter (1994) study, 13% of the variance in performance evaluations was
uniquely attributable to “in-role” performance, 11% was uniquely attributable to
contextual performance, and 5% of the variance in the evaluations was shared
between “in-role” and contextual performance.
The bottom four rows of the table identify which of the individual contextual
performance dimensions had significant effects on the overall performance eval-
uations. As in Table 4a, the symbol (⫹) in a row indicates that the dimension had
a significant positive relationship with the performance evaluation, NA indicates
that this dimension was not included in the study, and ns indicates that although
the contextual performance dimension was included, it did not have a significant
relationship with the overall evaluation.
On average, across the eight samples reported in Table 4b, in-role perfor-
mance uniquely accounted for 9.3% of the variance in performance evaluations,
contextual performance uniquely accounted for 12.0% of the variance in perfor-
mance evaluations, and the combination of contextual performance/OCBs and
in-role performance accounted for a total of 42.0% of the variance in overall
performance evaluations. This suggests that contextual performance accounted for
at least as much variance in performance evaluations as did in-role performance.
The bottom half of the table indicates that job dedication was positively and
significantly related to performance evaluations in three of the four samples in
which it was included; interpersonal facilitation had significant positive effects in
two of the four samples in which it was examined; and the “other” contextual
performance dimensions, as well as the composite OCB dimension in the Allen
and Rush (1998) sample, were significant in the four samples in which they were
tested.3 In addition, empirical evidence from a field study conducted by Allen and
Rush (1998), not shown in Table 4b, indicates that both in-role performance
(subjectively measured) and OCBs are significantly related to reward recommen-
dations made by managers. Thus, generally speaking, the OCB/contextual per-
formance dimensions appear to be related consistently to performance evaluations
and reward recommendations.
As was the case in Table 4a, common method variance also was found to
have a significant effect on the findings. More specifically, in the four studies for
which common method was not controlled, the overall proportion of variance
explained by in-role and contextual performance averaged 53.5%, while in the
four studies in which this bias was controlled, the overall proportion of variance
averaged 30.5%. In addition, the table indicates that when common method
variance was not controlled, the proportion of variance accounted for by in-role
(task) performance averaged 10% and contextual performance averaged 10.5%,
while the proportion of variance accounted for by task performance averaged
8.5% and contextual performance averaged 13.5% in those four studies in which
this form of bias was controlled. Thus, these findings suggest that common
method variance had a substantial impact on the observed relationships in the
studies where it was not controlled.
Table 5 provides a summary of those experimental studies that have exam-

ined the effects of citizenship behaviors or contextual performance on perfor-
mance evaluations or reward allocation decisions. The distinction between these
studies and those discussed in Tables 4a and 4b is that in these studies, the
independent variables of interest (e.g., in-role performance and OCB/contextual
performance) were manipulated, and the effects on the dependent variables
(performance evaluations, reward allocation decisions, etc.) were observed. Thus,
these studies provide stronger evidence than the cross-sectional (correlational)
field studies of the direction of causality between OCB/contextual performance
and a broader array of criterion measures (e.g., performance evaluations, salary
recommendations, promotion recommendations, and estimates of the dollar value
of a standard deviation difference in performance).
As indicated in Table 5, the manipulation of both in-role performance and
OCB/contextual performance influenced overall performance evaluations, thus
providing stronger evidence of the direction of causality than the field studies.
This table also indicates that both forms of performance have important influences
on salary recommendations, promotion recommendations, and managers’ esti-
mates of SDy. This suggests that contextual/OCB performance influences several
key managerial decisions. Interestingly, although prior research has not predicted
interactive effects between in-role and extra-role performance, every study that
has tested for interaction effects has found them to be significant. Therefore,
future research should investigate the nature of these interactions more carefully
to determine whether they are consistent and generalizable across samples and
criterion measures.
Taken together, the findings summarized in Tables 4a, 4b, and 5 indicate
that: (a) OCB/contextual performance has a positive impact on several important
personnel decisions made by managers; (b) the weight of this evidence suggests
that the effect of this form of performance is at least as great as the effect of in-role
performance; (c) there is evidence to suggest that in-role and extra-role perfor-
mance may interact when influencing managerial judgments and decisions; and
(d) common method variance has a substantial impact on the relationships
between OCB/contextual performance and managerial judgments; although this
bias generally weakens these relationships, it does not eliminate them.
Effects of OCBs on Organizational Performance and Success
A key tenet of Organ’s original definition of organizational citizenship
behavior (Organ, 1988) is that, when aggregated over time and people, such
behavior enhances organizational effectiveness. For many years, this assumption
went untested and its acceptance was based more on its conceptual plausibility
than direct empirical evidence (cf. Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ &
Konovsky, 1989; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). Conceptually, there are several
reasons why citizenship behaviors might influence organizational effectiveness
(George & Bettenhausen, 1991; Karambayya, 1990; MacKenzie et al., 1991,
1993; Organ, 1988, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994,
1997). For example, as summarized and illustrated in Table 6, OCBs may
contribute to organizational success by: (a) enhancing coworker and managerial
544
Table 6. Summary of Reasons Why OCBs Might Influence Organizational Effectiveness
Potential Reasons Why OCBs Influence Work
Group and/or Organizational Performance Examples
OCBs may enhance coworker productivity ● Employees who help another coworker “learn the ropes” may help them to become more
productive employees faster.
● Over time, helping behavior can help to spread “best practices” throughout the work unit or
group.
OCBs may enhance managerial productivity ● If employees engage in civic virtue, the manager may receive valuable suggestions and/or
feedback on his or her ideas for improving unit effectiveness.
● Courteous employees, who avoid creating problems for coworkers, allow the manager to
avoid falling into a pattern of “crisis” management.
OCBs may free resources up for more productive ● If employees help each other with work-related problems, then the manager doesn’t have
purposes to; consequently, the manager can spend more time on productive tasks, such as planning.
● Employees who exhibit conscientiousness require less managerial supervision and permit
the manager to delegate more responsibility to them, thus, freeing up more of the
manager’s time.

● To the extent that experienced employees help in the training and orienting of new
employees, it reduces the need to devote organizational resources to these activities.
● If employees exhibit sportsmanship, it frees the manager from having to spend too much of
his/her time dealing with petty complaints.
OCBs may reduce the need to devote scarce ● A natural by-product of helping behavior is that it enhances team spirit, morale, and
resources to purely maintenance functions cohesiveness, thus reducing the need for group members (or managers) to spend energy
and time on group maintenance functions.
● Employees who exhibit courtesy toward others reduce intergroup conflict, thereby
diminishing the time spent on conflict management activities.
OCBs may serve as an effective means of ● Exhibiting civic virtue by voluntarily attending and actively participating in work unit
coordinating activities between team members meetings would help the coordination of effort among team members, thus potentially
and across work groups increasing the group’s effectiveness and efficiency.
● Exhibiting courtesy by “touching base” with other team members, or members of other
functional groups in the organization, reduces the likelihood of the occurrence of problems
that would otherwise take time and effort to resolve.
OCBs may enhance the organization’s ability to ● Helping behaviors may enhance morale, group cohesiveness, and the sense of belonging to
attract and retain the best people by making it a team, all of which may enhance performance and help the organization to attract and
a more attractive place to work retain better employees.
● Demonstrating sportsmanship by being willing to “roll with the punches” and not
complaining about trivial matters sets an example for others and thereby develops a sense
of loyalty and commitment to the organization that may enhance employee retention.
OCBs may enhance the stability of oragnizational ● Picking up the slack for others who are absent, or who have heavy workloads, can help to
performance enhance the stability (reduce the variability) of the work unit’s performance.
● Conscientious employees are more likely to maintain a consistently high level of output,
thus reducing variability in a work unit’s performance.
OCBs may enhance an organization’s ability to ● Employees who are in close contact with the marketplace volunteer information about
adapt to environmental changes changes in the environment and make suggestions about how to respond to them, which
helps an organization to adapt.
● Employees who attend and actively participate in meetings may aid the dissemination of
information in an organization, thus enhancing its responsiveness.
● Employees who exhibit sportsmanship, by demonstrating a willingness to take on new
responsibilities or learn new skills, enhance the organization’s ability to adapt to changes in
its environment.
Adapted from Podsakoff & Mackenzie (1997). Used with permission.
545

productivity; (b) freeing up resources so they can be used for more productive
purposes; (c) reducing the need to devote scarce resources to purely maintenance
functions; (d) helping to coordinate activities both within and across work groups;
(e) strengthening the organization’s ability to attract and retain the best employ-
ees; (f) increasing the stability of the organization’s performance; and (g) enabling
the organization to adapt more effectively to environmental changes.
However, despite the intuitive plausibility of the assumption that OCBs
contribute to the effectiveness of work teams and organizations, this issue has
received little empirical attention. This is surprising because much of the interest
in organizational citizenship and its related constructs stems from the belief that
these behaviors enhance organizational performance. Indeed, although over 160
studies have been reported in the literature to identify the antecedents of OCBs,
to our knowledge, only five studies have attempted to test whether these behaviors
influence organizational effectiveness.
Perhaps the first study to explore whether citizenship behavior is related to
group or organizational effectiveness was Karambayya (1990). She found that
employees in high performing work units exhibited more citizenship behaviors
than employees in low performing work units. Unfortunately, although these
results were promising, they were far from conclusive because unit performance
was measured subjectively rather than objectively. In addition, the data were
obtained from raters in 12 different organizations, raising the possibility that
different raters used different criteria in their evaluations of organizational suc-
cess.
However, a more recent series of studies (cf. Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994;
Podsakoff et al., 1997; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Ahearne, 1996; Walz & Nie-
hoff, 1996) has addressed many of the limitations of Karambayya’s research. As
indicated in Table 7, these studies all used objective measures of unit perfor-
mance, held variations due to industry factors constant by sampling multiple units
within the same company, and were conducted in four distinct organizational
contexts including insurance agency units, paper mill work crews, pharmaceutical
sales teams, and limited-menu restaurants. In addition, aspects of both the quantity
and quality of performance were examined.
Table 7 shows the sample size, the nature of the objective measure of
organizational performance used in the study, the forms of OCBs influencing
organizational effectiveness, and the percent of variance in organizational effec-
tiveness accounted for by the OCBs.4 Taken together, the overall pattern of results
reported in this table provides general support for the hypothesis that organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors are related to organizational effectiveness. On aver-
age, OCBs accounted for about 19% of the variance in performance quantity; over
18% of the variance in performance quality; about 25% of the variance in
financial efficiency indicators (operating efficiency, food cost percentage, and
revenue full-time-equivalent); and about 38% of the variance in customer service
indicators (customer satisfaction and customer complaints). Helping behavior was
significantly related to every indicator of performance, except customer com-
plaints in the Walz and Niehoff (1996) study. Generally speaking, helping
behavior was found to enhance performance. The only exception was that helping
Table 7. Summary of the Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors on Group and/or Organizational Effectiveness
Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, Podsakoff, &
Podsakoff & MacKenzie MacKenzie (1997) Ahearne (1996)
(1994) (N ⫽ 116 Insurance (N ⫽ 40 Paper Mill (N ⫽ 306 Pharmaceutical
Agency Units) Work Crews) Sales Teams)
Quantity Produced
Index of Sales (% of Maximum Product Quality (% of Team
Description Performance Production) (% of Paper Accepted) Sales Quota)
Helping Behavior 3 Organizational Performance (⫺) (⫹) (⫹) (⫹)
Civic Virtue 3 Organizational Performance (⫹) n.s. n.s. (⫹)
Sportsmanship 3 Organizational Performance (⫹) (⫹) n.s. n.s.
R2 17% 25.7% 16.7% 16%
Walz & Niehoff (1996)
(N ⫽ 30 Limited Menu Restaurants)
Food Cost % Revenue Operating Customer Customer Quality of
Description (Waste) FTE Efficiency Complaints Satisfaction Performance
Helping Behavior 3 Organizational Performance (⫺) (⫹) (⫹) n.s. (⫹) (⫹)
Civic Virtue 3 Organizational Performance n.s. n.s. n.s. (⫺) n.s. n.s.
Sportsmanship 3 Organizational Performance (⫺) n.s. n.s. (⫺) n.s. n.s.
R2 43% 18% 15% 37% 39% 20%
547

behavior had a negative impact on the quantity of performance in Podsakoff and

MacKenzie’s study (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), which they attributed to the
unusually high level of turnover, and other reasons unique to their insurance
agency sample. Sportsmanship had more limited effects. It enhanced the quantity
of performance in two of the three samples where it was studied (insurance
agency units and paper mill work crews) and increased some aspects of financial
efficiency and customer service in the limited-menu restaurant sample. Finally,
civic virtue was found to enhance the quantity of performance in the insurance
and pharmaceutical sales samples, and to reduce customer complaints in the
limited-menu restaurant sample. Thus, the available empirical research clearly
supports Organ’s fundamental assumption (Organ, 1988) that organizational
citizenship behavior is related to performance—although the evidence is stronger
for some forms of citizenship behavior (i.e., helping) than for others (i.e.,
sportsmanship and civic virtue).
Where Do We Go From Here? Future Research Directions

In the following section we will attempt to identify some important areas for
future research. Briefly, these recommendations involve the following areas: (a)
conceptual/theoretical issues; (b) antecedents of OCBs; (c) consequences of OCB
at both the individual and organizational levels; (d) citizenship behaviors in a
cross-cultural context; and (e) methodological concerns.
Conceptual/Theoretical Issues
Are Citizenship Behaviors Distinct From In-Role Behaviors? Organ’s
original definition of OCB (Organ, 1988) has spawned a debate in the literature
over whether citizenship behavior is, in fact, distinct from in-role behavior.
Morrison (1994) has provided empirical evidence that many of the specific
behaviors Organ (1988) claimed were “discretionary” and “not formally rewarded
by the organizational reward system” were perceived by employees to be part of
their role requirements. However, these findings may have been an artifact of the
global manner in which Morrison (1994) asked respondents to define their in-role
requirements. In this study, respondents were asked to classify each behavior into
one of two categories: (a) “You see this as an expected part of your job,” or (b)
“You see this as somewhat above and beyond what is expected for your job.” The
potential difficulty with these questions is that people can say that particular
behaviors are “expected” as part of their job, even though they may believe they
are discretionary forms of behavior that are not formally rewarded by the orga-
nization. For example, when asked this question, many employees may feel that
they are expected to do anything that contributes to the effective functioning of
the organization. Therefore, by Organ’s definition Organ (1988), every form of
organizational citizenship behavior would be perceived by employees to be an
“expected” part of their jobs, even though they still perceive these behaviors to be
“discretionary” and “not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward
system.” We believe that to test whether a behavior is an organizational citizen-
ship behavior according to Organ’s definition, it would have been better to ask
respondents if the behavior was: (a) an explicit part of their job description; (b)
something they were trained by the organization to do; and (c) formally (and
explicitly) rewarded when exhibited, and punished when it was not exhibited.
However, despite whether we feel Morrison (1994) asked the right questions,
other research (cf. MacKenzie et al., 1991, 1993; MacKenzie et al., 1999;
Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Van Scotter &
Motowidlo, 1996; Werner, 1994) has demonstrated that when managers are asked
to judge the performance of their subordinates, they definitely take citizenship-
like behaviors into account. Moreover, research by Park and Sims (1989) and
Allen and Rush (1998) indicates that OCBs influence managers’ decisions about
promotions, training, and reward allocations; and research by Orr, Sackett, and
Mercer (1989) found that OCBs influence managers’ estimates of the standard
deviation of an employee’s performance contribution in dollars. These findings
suggest that managers either view citizenship behavior as a required part their
employees’ jobs, or they define performance more broadly to include any behav-
ior (whether required or not) that contributes to the effective functioning of the
organization.
Thus, the distinction between in-role and citizenship behaviors is one that
both employees and managers have difficulty recognizing. However, in fairness to
Organ (1988), a closer reading of his original discussion of the distinction
between in-role and citizenship behavior anticipated this difficulty from the very
beginning. Indeed, Organ (1988: 5), argued that “realistically, what we have in
organization environments is a continuum such that different forms of contribu-
tion vary in the probability of being rewarded and of the magnitude of the reward.
What we are doing is simplifying the issue, for purposes of argument, by
containing OCB within that region of nonrequired contributions that are regarded
by the person as relatively less likely to lead along any clear, fixed path to formal
rewards” (emphasis added). Thus, from the very beginning, organizational citi-
zenship behaviors have been viewed as behaviors that are relatively more likely
to be discretionary, and relatively less likely to be formally or explicitly rewarded
in the organization. Indeed, this is the position that Organ (1997) and Borman and
Motowidlo (1993, 1997) have recently taken.
Do Different Forms of Citizenship Behaviors Have Unique Antecedents
and/or Consequences? However, regardless of whether OCBs are in-role or
extra-role, what really matters is whether these forms of behavior have indepen-
dent effects on organizational performance and whether they have different
antecedents. In other words, if these forms of behavior do not have unique effects
on organizational success, or do not have different antecedents, they are essen-
tially equivalent constructs. On the other hand, if they have unique effects on
organizational success, either because they increase the proportion of variance
accounted for in this criterion variable, or because they influence different aspects
of organizational success than task performance, then they are important to
understand. Similarly, if the causes (antecedents) of citizenship behaviors and
traditional aspects of in-role performance are different, then they are important to
understand, because it suggests that there are multiple mechanisms through which
organizational success can be achieved.
Therefore, we would argue that the distinction between these forms of

behavior will be useful to the field only to the extent that these behaviors have
different antecedents and/or consequences. As far as the antecedents are con-
cerned, Borman and Motowidlo (1993), Motowidlo et al. (1997), and Organ and
his colleagues (Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995), argue that OCBs/contextual
performance should be determined more by personality and dispositional vari-
ables than by ability and motivational (or incentive) factors. However, the extant
empirical evidence has not been very supportive of this prediction. Contrary to
expectations, personality and dispositional predictors have had a weaker than
expected relationship with OCB/contextual performance when common method
variance is controlled (cf. Organ & Ryan, 1995), and incentives and rewards (in
the form of leader contingent reward behavior, how much employees value the
rewards they receive from the organization, and whether the rewards are outside
of the leader’s control) have had a stronger effect than anticipated. Indeed, in a
summary of the research in this area, Organ (1994: 474) concluded that “Overall,
the scorecard for predicting OCB from measures of personality might be taken as
disappointing. Many of the correlations are both trivial and nonreliable, such that
any idea of a dispositional basis for OCB seems unsupportable.”
Organ and Ryan (1995) note that one potential reason for the weaker than
expected findings is that a relatively small number of dispositional and personality
variables have been empirically examined. In addition, they note that perhaps it is
more appropriate to treat dispositional variables as social constructs and measure
them from the point of view of one’s coworkers or leader (e.g., ratings from
others), rather than from the person’s own point of view (e.g., self-ratings). Thus,
future research might include other personality and dispositional variables and
obtain measures of these variables from someone other than the focal employee.
Although Organ and Ryan (1995) do not specify which “other” personality or
dispositional variables might be worthwhile to examine, Van Dyne et al. (1995)
suggested that a broadened set might include the propensity to trust, need for
affiliation, and empathetic concern. With respect to the consequences of citizen-
ship behaviors, no one has ever predicted that the different forms of citizenship
behavior would have different consequences. However, since citizenship behav-
iors have been hypothesized to influence organizational success through a wide
variety of different mechanisms (cf. Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997), it would not
be surprising if some of the citizenship behaviors worked through one mechanism,
while others worked more through another. This may lead to somewhat different
consequences for the organization. For example, whereas helping coworkers with
their work-related problems is likely to result in improved productivity for the
work group or unit, good sportsmanship may enhance the morale of the work
group, and thereby help to reduce employee turnover.
Similarly, whereas organizational loyalty (representing the organization to
the community in a positive light) may enhance the organization’s ability to
attract good talent, self-development behavior may reduce organizational training
expenses and/or improve work effectiveness. Yet another example is that, al-
though taking the initiative to make constructive suggestions about how to
improve production processes can improve the efficiency of the organization and
reduce costs, civic virtue in the form of halting a dangerous production process
may prevent injuries from occurring. Thus, although no one has formally pre-
dicted that different forms of citizenship behavior would have different conse-
quences for an organization, there is good reason to believe that they may.
Indeed, the empirical evidence provides some support for this intuition. The
data reported in Table 7 supports two broad conclusions about the consequences
of citizenship behavior. First, different forms of citizenship behaviors have
somewhat different consequences. For example, helping behavior was found to
influence product quality in the study by Podsakoff et al. (1997), but civic virtue
and sportsmanship did not. In contrast, civic virtue and sportsmanship were found
by Walz and Niehoff (1996) to reduce customer complaints, but helping behavior
was unrelated to this criterion variable. Second, various forms of citizenship
behavior have been found to have independent effects on the same outcome. For
example, helping, civic virtue, and sportsmanship were all found to have inde-
pendent effects on sales unit performance in the Podsakoff and MacKenzie study
(1994).
Thus, we need additional theory development that identifies the potentially
unique antecedents and consequences of the different forms of citizenship behav-
ior. Van Dyne et al. (1995) took an important step in this direction when they tried
to provide an overview of the antecedents and consequences of four different
types of “extra-role” behavior (e.g., affiliative/promotive, affiliative/prohibitive,
challenging/prohibitive, and challenging/promotive). However, their forms of
extra-role behavior were conceptualized at a fairly aggregate level, and it would
be more instructive to develop theories at the individual citizenship behavior-
construct level. In addition, we need empirical studies that include multiple forms
of citizenship behavior, and statistically test for differences in the strength of the
effects on various criterion measures. This is necessary in order to determine
whether individual citizenship behaviors have unique effects.
Other Antecedents of Citizenship Behavior Worth Investigating
Although dispositional, attitudinal, and ability/skill-type variables have re-
ceived a considerable amount of attention in the literature, task variables have not.
This may be an important omission because all three of the task dimensions
included in Table 2 (i.e., task feedback, intrinsically satisfying tasks, and task
routinization) were found to have fairly consistent relationships with OCBs. These
promising results suggest that it would be worthwhile to explore other possible
aspects of tasks that may have effects on OCBs. For example, in addition to the
task factors previously examined, Hackman and Oldham (1980) have suggested
that characteristics like task identity, task significance, and task autonomy have
important effects on employee psychological states (e.g., perceived responsibility
for work outcomes, experienced meaningfulness of work), job attitudes (e.g, work
satisfaction), and aspects of employee work performance. Another possibility is
that task properties are surrogates for other things (i.e., job level), or that they
influence employee attitudes and perceptions (like job satisfaction and commit-
ment), which are known to have an effect on OCBs. For example, it is likely that
higher-level jobs are less routine and more intrinsically satisfying than lower-level
or entry-level jobs.
Leader behaviors also appear to play a key role in determining OCBs. As
noted earlier, with a few exceptions, almost all of the leader behaviors examined
in Table 2 show consistent relationships with employee citizenship behaviors.
Unfortunately, the mechanisms through which these leader behaviors influence
citizenship behaviors are not always clear. Some of these behaviors, such as
supportive leader behavior, may have their primary effect on OCBs through the
norm of reciprocity. For example, employees who receive personal support from
their leaders may wish to reciprocate by expending extra effort in the form of
citizenship behaviors to help the leader. Other behaviors, like providing an
appropriate model, may influence OCBs directly through social learning pro-
cesses, because the leader models various types of citizenship behaviors. Still
other leadership behaviors, such as contingent reward behavior, may have a direct
impact on citizenship behaviors. For example, if a leader defines performance
broadly to include OCBs, and administers rewards contingent upon this definition
of performance, then one would expect the frequency of OCBs to increase.
Finally, it also is possible that contingent reward behavior and other forms of
leader behavior might influence OCBs in other ways. For example, even if
managers define performance narrowly to include only in-role behavior, one
might expect that a leader’s contingent reward behavior would cause employees
to perceive that they are being treated fairly, and/or it might enhance their job
satisfaction. Both fairness and job satisfaction have been found to be positively
related to OCBs (cf. Organ & Ryan, 1995). It has also been argued (cf. Podsakoff
et al., 1990) that the effects of articulating a vision on OCBs are mediated by
employees’ trust in their leader, and by job satisfaction. Therefore, future research
needs to carefully investigate how and why these leader behaviors influence
OCBs.
Finally, future research needs to examine the causal relationships among the
proposed antecedents of citizenship behaviors. Most prior research in the OCB
domain has treated attitudes, dispositions, task variables, and leadership behaviors
as direct predictors of citizenship behavior. However, we know from other
research that these variables are causally related. For example, Konovsky and
Pugh (1994) have demonstrated that trust is a key mediator of the effects that
procedural and distributive justice have on citizenship behaviors; and Niehoff and
Moorman (1993) have shown that the effects of certain types of leadership
monitoring behavior on citizenship behaviors is mediated by justice. Taken
together, these findings suggest that leaders who monitor the performance of their
subordinates effectively increase their subordinates’ perceptions that they have
been treated fairly, which in turn enhances subordinates’ trust in their leader and
ultimately increases OCBs. Our theories of the antecedents of citizenship behav-
iors should take indirect relationships like this into account.
Other Consequences of Citizenship Behavior Worth Investigating
Individual-Level Consequences. A substantial amount of research (see
Tables 4a and 4b) has demonstrated that managers do, indeed, include OCBs/
contextual performance in their performance evaluations. This raises several

important questions for future research. First, we need to gain a better under-
standing of the reasons why managers include citizenship behavior in their
evaluations. The literature (cf. MacKenzie et al., 1991, 1993; Podsakoff, Mac-
Kenzie, & Hui, 1993) has identified a number of potential reasons that have only
recently begun to be tested (cf. Allen & Rush, 1998). Obviously, this issue
warrants more extensive investigation and empirical testing.
In addition, future research also needs to more carefully examine the impact
of OCBs and contextual performance on other managerial decisions (e.g., reward
allocation and compensation decisions, promotion, training, termination, and
reduction in force). To date, only a few studies (e.g., Allen & Rush, 1998; Park
& Sims, 1989 have investigated the effects of OCBs and contextual performance
on these types of managerial decisions. Moreover, when investigating the effects
of OCBs and contextual performance on these managerial judgments, prior
research suggests that it is important to examine not only the main effects, but also
the interactive effects of in-role and extra-role behavior. This is important be-
cause, as Table 5 indicates, in those laboratory studies that have examined the
interactive effects of in-role and extra-role behavior, the impact of extra-role
behavior on managerial judgments changes depending upon the level of in-role
behavior. Unfortunately, the specific nature of this interaction was not reported in
most of these studies, and in the one study in which it was reported (Park & Sims,
1989), the interaction effect varied across criterion variables. Thus, future re-
search should examine the nature of the interaction between in-role and extra-role
performance in more detail.
Finally, we need to move beyond managerial decisions and judgments, and
examine an even broader range of subordinate criterion variables. For example,
recent research by Chen et al. (1998) and MacKenzie et al. (1998) has shown that
OCBs are negatively related to turnover. Although we are not aware of any similar
research on the relationship between OCBs and other forms of withdrawal
behavior, like employee absenteeism, lateness, and tardiness, we would expect a
similar pattern of effects.
Group or Organizational-Level Consequences. In view of the fact that
OCBs have been found to be related to group and organizational effectiveness,
there are at least three additional issues that future research should address. The
first issue is derived from the fact that the pattern of effects across studies was not
completely consistent. Indeed, as indicated in Table 7, helping behavior some-
times increased and sometimes decreased the quantity of performance, while
sportsmanship and civic virtue seem to have had an impact on this criterion
variable in some samples but not in others. This suggests that there may be factors
that moderate the impact of OCBs on the quantity of performance.
Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) identified several potential reasons why
the relationship between helping behavior and the quantity of performance was
negative in one sample (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), and positive in others
(Podsakoff et al., 1997; MacKenzie et al., 1996). One reason for the differences
in the findings is related to the compensation systems in the three samples. In the
insurance sales sample (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), agents were compen-
sated on the basis of their individual sales performance. Under such individualistic
compensation systems, agents might be less willing to provide help to their peers,
or might be less concerned with the quality of their suggestions, because there are
no personal consequences for them. On the other hand, in the pharmaceutical sales
sample (MacKenzie et al., 1996), 15% of compensation was based on team
performance, and in the sample of paper mill work crews (Podsakoff et al., 1997),
compensation was based partially on team performance and partially on the basis
of job responsibilities and tenure. Thus, one could argue that when a portion of
one’s pay is determined by group effort, OCBs might be expected to be directed
at helping and supporting one’s peers.
Another potential reason relates to the nature of the samples in the three
studies. For example, in the life insurance sample studied by Podsakoff and
MacKenzie (1994), turnover was extremely high (45% in the first year of
employment and over 80% within the first five years); and the average tenure of
the agents with the company was only 5.29 years. This led Podsakoff and
MacKenzie (1994) to speculate that although inexperienced agents may sell more
with the help of experienced agents, many of the inexperienced agents may not
stay with the company very long. Thus, the increase in their sales productivity
resulting from the help they receive from the experienced agents may not offset
the corresponding decrease in the experienced agents’ sales caused by their taking
time out to help inexperienced agents. In contrast, the average tenure of the crew
members in the sample of paper mill employees studied by Podsakoff et al. (1997)
was over 18 years, and the average tenure among the pharmaceutical sales people
studied by MacKenzie et al. (1996) was about 8 years. As a result, it is likely that
helping behavior provided by crew members or pharmaceutical sales team mem-
bers actually paid off in terms of increased productivity.
Still another potential moderator of the relationship between helping behav-
ior and the quantity of performance may be the technological requirements of the
job. For example, building on Thompson’s taxonomy (Thompson, 1967), one
might expect OCBs to be more critical to organizational success when long-linked
technologies, as opposed to mediating technologies, are employed. Unlike the
mediating technologies employed in the insurance industry, which require virtu-
ally no cooperative effort or mutual dependence among the agents, the long-linked
technologies used in the paper industry require what Thompson (1967) calls serial
interdependence among the crew members. This type of interdependence de-
mands a considerable amount of cooperative effort by the work group to accom-
plish the task. Thus, differences in the relationship obtained between helping
behavior and work unit performance in the two studies may, in part, reflect
differences in the nature of the dependency relationships required in the two
different types of jobs included in the two studies.
In addition to the potential moderators of the relationship between helping
behavior and the quantity of performance, the results suggest that there also may
be some potential moderators of the relationship between civic virtue and the
quantity of performance. Table 7 shows that civic virtue had a positive impact on
performance for the two sales samples but not for the paper mill sample. It is
possible that this pattern of findings results from the nature of the job included in
the samples. Sales people are boundary spanners, who are one of the primary
points of contact between a company and its customers, competitors, and the
environment in general. As such, they often possess critical information regarding
customers, the competitive environment, and/or business trends that others in the
organization do not possess, and that will allow the organization to adapt to
changes in its environment. Thus, when sales people actively participate in
meetings, provide constructive suggestions about how to improve the way in
which the organization does its business, and are willing to risk disapproval to
express their beliefs about what is best for the organization, they may enhance the
organization’s performance more than when non-boundary-spanning employees
engage in these behaviors. Future research should explore this possibility in
greater detail.
Another possibility noted by Podsakoff et al. (1997) is that the differential
impact of civic virtue on the quantity of performance across settings may result
from the differential quality of suggestions or the nature of participation by work
group members. It is possible that suggestions are not helpful or that participation
does not result in useful discourse for some organizations. In such cases, high
civic virtue would not translate into high organizational effectiveness.
Taken together, the above discussion suggests that future research examining
the relationship between OCBs and organizational effectiveness could benefit
from examining the moderating effects of organizational context (i.e., the level of
turnover, the nature of the compensation system, etc.) and task and technological
requirements (i.e., the nature of the technology and/or tasks that employees
perform, the amount of teamwork required across jobs, etc.). In addition, future
research also might investigate the potential moderating effects of individual
differences such as ability, experience, training, and knowledge. It seems plausi-
ble that an OCB such as helping behavior might have different effects on
performance in units where employees are low in ability, experience, training, or
knowledge, than in units where employees have high levels of ability, experience,
training, or knowledge.
Since the available empirical evidence indicates that OCBs do influence unit
performance, future research should also examine the mechanisms through which
this influence occurs. Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) have identified several
different reasons why OCBs may influence unit performance, raising some
interesting questions. For example, do OCBs influence unit performance directly
by reducing the need to devote scarce resources to purely maintenance functions,
or indirectly by enhancing coworker or managerial productivity? Alternatively, is
the impact of OCBs on unit performance immediate, because they serve as an
effective means of coordinating the day-to-day activities of team members and
across work groups, or delayed, due to the fact that OCBs enhance the organi-
zation’s ability to attract and retain the best people? Finally, do OCBs enhance the
effectiveness of organizations because they reduce the variability in the quality of
performance; or because they allow the organization to adapt more effectively to
environmental changes? Obviously, these are fundamentally different mecha-
nisms, and it is important to understand which of them underlie the effects of
OCBs on unit and work-group performance.
Another interesting direction for future research would be to examine the

extent to which managers weight the importance of OCBs when evaluating their
subordinates. Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) and Conway (1999) have argued
that overall ratings of performance can be taken as measures of an individual’s
overall value to an organization. This suggests that the weights managers give to
OCBs when forming these evaluations correspond to the actual impact that these
citizenship behaviors have on unit/organizational performance. Interestingly, the
existing empirical evidence (cf. Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994) is only partially
supportive of this expectation. Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994) contrasted the
relative effects of OCBs on managerial evaluations with their relative effects on
organizational effectiveness. They found that managers tended to overvalue
helping behavior and undervalue civic virtue, relative to their actual effects on
organizational success. Although their data did not permit them to determine why
managers would tend to undervalue or overvalue different forms of citizenship
behaviors, they noted that one possibility is that managers do this out of ignorance
because they simply do not realize the impact that OCBs have on unit perfor-
mance. Another possibility is that managers give greater weight to some forms of
OCBs because certain citizenship behaviors have a greater impact on the man-
agers’ personal performance. However, regardless of which of these explanations
is correct, it would be unwise to extrapolate too far from the results of only one
study. Therefore, a priority for future research should be to determine whether the
same sorts of discrepancies occur in other environments.
Finally, the impact of organizational citizenship behavior on a broader range
of work-group or organizational-level criterion variables should be examined. The
study by Walz and Niehoff (1996) took an important step in this direction.
However, much more research is needed. It might be particularly interesting to
examine the effects of organizational citizenship behavior on the sorts of criterion
variables advocated by Kaplan and Norton (1996). In their book on the balanced
scorecard, they argued that organization success must be defined broadly to
include not only financial measures such as ROI, profitability, and growth, but
also customer criteria (such as customer satisfaction, customer retention, brand
equity), improving business processes (e.g., best practices, innovativeness), and
employee criteria (e.g., employee satisfaction, employee turnover/retention, and
job involvement) because all of these factors are interrelated in a firm’s value
chain. Consequently, it is possible that OCBs may have stronger effects on some
links in this value chain than on others.
Citizenship Behaviors in a Cross-Cultural Context
Research also is needed on the potential impact that cultural context might
have on citizenship behavior. Several distinct cultural effects are possible. Cul-
tural context may affect: (a) the forms of citizenship behavior observed in
organizations (e.g., the factor structure); (b) the frequency of different types of
citizenship behavior (e.g., the “mean” levels of the behavior); (c) the strengths of
the relationships between citizenship behavior and its antecedents and conse-
quences (e.g., the moderating effects); and (d) the mechanisms through which
citizenship behavior is generated, or through which it influences organizational
success. Of these, mean level differences do not appear particularly interesting

from a theoretical perspective, as long as the relationships between citizenship
behaviors and their antecedents and consequences remain the same—although
such mean level differences could have managerial implications since OCBs have
been found to influence unit/organizational success. However, all of the other
types of effects may have important theoretical, as well as managerial, implica-
tions. For example, Farh et al. (1997) examined the different forms of citizenship
behavior observed in Taiwan and the potential moderating effect that tradition-
ality and modernity had on the relationship between organizational justice and
citizenship behavior. They argued that although three of the OCB dimensions in
Taiwan were similar to those found in the United States, two other dimensions
that emerged appeared to be specific to the Taiwanese culture. In addition, they
found that both traditionality and modernity moderated the relationship between
perceptions of justice and OCBs. Although we are not aware of a cross-cultural
study that has examined differences in the mechanisms through which OCBs arise
or influence other variables, such differences may exist. For example, it is possible
that whereas U.S. managers may value sportsmanship because it saves them time,
Japanese managers may value sportsmanship because a lack of this form of
citizenship behavior is indicative of someone who is not willing to put the interest
of the collective above his or her own self-interest. Therefore, we encourage
future research to articulate and test the effects of cultural differences on the
relationships between OCBs and other variables (cf. Hui et al., 1999; Tang &
Ibrahim, 1998).
Methodological Issues
There also are several important methodological issues that need to be taken
into account in future research. First, it is clear from both Tables 4a and 4b that
common method variance (cf. Cote & Buckley, 1987; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986)
has a substantial impact on the relationships between OCBs/contextual perfor-
mance and criterion variables like performance evaluations. Although it has not
been studied, it is likely that common method variance also has biased the
observed relationships between OCBs and their antecedents in those studies
where both the OCBs and the antecedent variables were obtained from the same
source (e.g., O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Tang & Ibrahim, 1998). This suggests
that future research needs to take steps to control the contaminating effects of
common method variance. There are several possible ways this could be accom-
plished. One is a statistical form of control, which involves adding a first-order
method construct to the hypothesized latent variable structural equation model (cf.
MacKenzie et al., 1991, 1993). Another way to control for this bias is by
designing the study so that the measures of the predictor and criterion variables
are obtained from different sources (cf. Borman et al., 1995; Van Scotter &
Motowidlo, 1996). However, regardless of which of these techniques of control is
used, the important point is that some method of controlling for this bias must be
used.
Another important methodological concern is the need for future research to
obtain better evidence for the direction of causality between OCBs and their
antecedents and consequences. Indeed, since the vast majority of research in this
domain is cross-sectional in nature, one cannot be completely certain whether
OCB is the cause or the effect in the observed relationships. For example, the
positive relationships observed between OCBs and unit performance have been
interpreted as an indication that OCBs cause performance to increase. However,
it also is possible that units that perform well have more time, are under less
pressure, and/or have members who are more satisfied, than units that are not
performing well. Therefore, these high-performing units are more willing to
engage in extra-role behaviors like helping, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. This
suggests that a unit’s level of performance causes citizenship behavior rather than
vice versa. Or, it is possible that the positive relationship between OCBs and unit
effectiveness is spurious. For example, high-performing groups might report that
they engage in a great deal of citizenship behavior not because they really do, but
because their implicit theories of performance suggest that high-performing
groups help each other, are good sports, and exhibit civic virtue. This is consistent
with the recent study reported by Bachrach, Bendoly, and Podsakoff (1999),
which found that groups who were told that their performance was high rated
themselves as exhibiting more OCBs than groups who were told that their
performance was low— even though the feedback was unrelated to the groups’
actual performance. Thus, future research designed to more clearly establish the
causal direction of relationships between these variables is needed. Obviously, the
best way to accomplish this is through the use of experimental manipulations in
laboratory settings. However, when that is not possible, longitudinal designs
might be used. Although these designs are obviously not as good as experiments
at establishing temporal priority and controlling for confounding factors, they
provide better evidence than purely cross-sectional designs.
Finally, in view of the overlapping conceptual definitions of the different
forms of in-role and extra-role behavior noted earlier, it is essential for future
research to test rigorously for the discriminant validity of the constructs and their
measures. Future research needs to provide evidence not only of whether the
measures of each form of citizenship behavior/contextual performance are reliable
and valid, but also whether they are distinct from measures of closely related
constructs. This probably is done best through confirmatory factor analysis and
the test of discriminant validity described by Fornell and Larcker (1981).
Concluding Remarks
Research on the topic of organizational citizenship behaviors has dramati-
cally increased over the past decade. However, this rapid growth in research has
resulted in the development of several problems, including the need to better
understand the conceptual similarities and differences between various forms of
citizenship behavior, as well as their antecedents and consequences. In this paper,
we have tried to address these issues, as well as identify useful avenues for future
research. Overall, this is an exciting and dynamic field of research, and we are
hopeful that this paper will help to speed progress in this area by highlighting
several key issues that are in need of attention.
Notes
1. It is important to note that it was not our intent to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis of the OCB
literature, but rather to show the general pattern of effects identified in previous research. To do this, we
depended primarily on the meta-analyses conducted by Organ and Ryan (1995) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
and Bommer (1996a). In addition to this, we added information on the relationships between OCBs and the
following antecedent variables: trust in one’s leader, perceived organizational support, leader-member
exchange, “core” transformational leadership behavior, articulating a vision, providing an appropriate
model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance expectations, and intellectual stimulation.
2. For the purposes of the meta-analysis, the “overall” citizenship behavior category was used for those studies
(e.g., Deluga, 1998; Hui et al., 1999; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994) in which the researcher(s) reported their
results using a “composite” OCB dimension, rather than reporting the findings for individual OCB
dimensions.
3. However, it is perhaps important to note that the “other” contextual performance category is comprised of
dimensions that varied considerably across studies, therefore suggesting more consistency than may actually exist.
4. In these studies, Organ’s dimensions of altruism, courtesy, peacekeeping, and cheerleading (Organ, 1990b)
were combined into a “helping” behavior construct.
References
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. 1998. The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments:
A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 247–260.
Avila, R. A., Fern, E. F., & Mann, O. K. 1988. Unraveling criteria for assessing the performance of sales people:
A causal analysis. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 8: 45–54.
Bachrach, D. G., Bendoly, E., & Podsakoff, P. M. 1999. Attributions of the “causes” of performance as an
alternative explanation of the organizational citizenship behavior/organizational performance relation-
ship. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, Chicago, August.
Barnard, C. I. 1938. The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. 1983. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and
employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 26: 587–595.
Berman, J. S., & Kenny, D. A. 1976. Correlational bias in observer ratings. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34: 263–273.
Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. 1997. Contact employees: Relationships among workplace fairness, job
satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors. Journal of Retailing, 73: 39 – 61.
Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bolon, D. S. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior among hospital employees: A multidimensional-analysis
involving job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Hospital & Health Services Administration, 42:
221–241.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations:
71–98. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1997. Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for
personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10: 99 –109.
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. 1995. Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors
on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 168 –177.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11:
710 –725.
Bruner, J. S., & Tagiuri, R. 1954. The perception of people. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology
(Vol. 2): 634 – 654. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Burns, James M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burroughs, S. M., & Eby, L. T. 1998. Psychological sense of community at work: A measurement system and
explanatory framework. Journal of Community Psychology, 26: 509 –532.
Campbell, J. P. 1986. Improving the selection, classification, and utilization of Army enlisted personnel: Annual
report, 1986 fiscal year (ARI Technical report 792). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Cappelli, P., & Rogovsky, N. 1998. Employee involvement and organizational citizenship: Implications for
labor-law reform and lean production. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51: 633– 653.
Chapman, L. J. 1967. Illusory correlation in observational reports. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 6: 151–155.

Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. 1967. Genesis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72: 193–204.
Chen, X. P., & Farh, L. J. 1999. The effectiveness of transactional and transformational leader behaviors in
Chinese organizations: Evidence from Taiwan. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management
Meetings, Chicago.
Chen, X. P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. 1998. The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover:
Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 922–931.
Conway, J. M. 1999. Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84: 3–13.
Cooper, W. H. 1981. Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90: 218 –244.
Cote, J., & Buckley, M. R. 1987. Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct
validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24: 315–318.
Davis, M. 1983. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44: 113–126.
Deluga, R. J. 1995. The relation between trust in the supervisor and subordinate organizational citizenship
behavior. Military Psychology, 7: 1–16.
Deluga, R. J. 1998. Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of subordinate-
supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group & Organization Management, 23: 189 –216.
DeNisi, A. S., Cafferty, T. P., & Meglino, B. M. 1984. A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process:
A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33: 360 –96.
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. 1997. Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational
citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 421– 444.
Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1990. Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader
fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16: 705–721.
Fiske, S. T. 1981. Social cognition and affect. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the
environment: 227–264. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fiske, S. T. 1982. Schema-triggered affect: Applications to social perception. In M. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.),
Affect and cognition: The 17th annual Carnegie symposium on cognition: 55–78. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fiske, S. T., & Pavelchak, M. 1986. Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments
in schema-triggered affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgens (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and
cognition: Foundations of social behavior: 167–203. New York: Guilford.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39 –50.
George, J. M. 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 107–116.
George, J. M. 1991. State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behavior at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76: 299 –307.
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. 1990. Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A
group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 698 –709.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. 1992. Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at
work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112: 310 –329.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. 1997. Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance, 10: 153–170.
Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25:
161–178.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. 1987. Toward and psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings &
B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 9): 175–208. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graham, J. W. 1989. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization, and vali-
dation. Unpublished working paper, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Graham, J. W. 1991. An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 4: 249 –270.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Homans, G. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. 1999. A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity,
leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese
case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77: 3–21.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. 1996. The balanced scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Karambayya, R. 1990. Contexts for organizational citizenship behavior: Do high performing and satisfying units
have better ’citizens’. York University working paper.
Katz, D. 1964. Motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9: 131–146.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1966, 1978. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kelley, S. W., & Hoffman, K. D. 1997. An investigation of positive affect, prosocial behaviors, and service
quality. Journal of Retailing, 73: 407– 427.

Kidder, D. L., & McLean Parks, J. 1993. The good soldier: Who is (s)he? In D. P. Moore (Ed.), Academy of
Management Best Papers Proceedings, 363–367.
Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1999. Main and interaction effects of task and contextual performance on
supervisory reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 602– 609.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne R. A. 1993. Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compliance
with multinationals’ corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 502–526.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. 1996. Procedural justice and managers’ in-role and extra-role behavior: The
case of the multinational. Management Science, 42: 499 –515.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. 1998. Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge
economy. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 323–338.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management
Journal, 37: 656 – 669.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. 1987. The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lowery, C. M., & Krilowicz, T. J. 1994. Relationships among nontask behaviors, rated performance, and
objective performance measures. Psychological Reports, 74: 571–578.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. 1996. Unpublished data analysis. Indiana University School
of Business: Bloomington, Indiana.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. 1998. Some possible antecedents and consequences of
in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62: 87–98.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective
productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123–150.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1993. The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on
evaluations of sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 57: 70 – 80.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. E. 1998. Effects of organizational citizenship behaviors and
productivity on evaluations of performance at different hierarchical levels in sales organizations. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27: 396 – 410.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. 1999. Transformational and transactional leadership and
salesperson performance. Working paper, Indiana University.
McAllister, D. J. 1995. Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 24 –59.
Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do
fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 845– 855.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. 1995. Individualism-Collectivism as an individual difference predictor of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 127–142.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. 1998. Does perceived organizational support mediate the
relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management
Journal, 41: 351–357.
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. 1993. Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship
behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6: 209 –225.
Morrison, E. W. 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the
employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1543–1567.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change.
Academy of Management Journal, 42: 403– 419.
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. 1997. A theory of individual differences in task and contextual
performance. Human Performance, 10: 71– 83.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. 1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from
contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 475– 480.
Murphy, K. R., & Shiarella, A. H. 1997. Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance for the
validity of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studying test validity. Personnel Psychology, 50:
823– 854.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bowles, J. S., MacKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. 1997. An investigation into the antecedents
of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal of Marketing, 61: 85–98.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. 1993. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring
and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 527–556.
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of
compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71:
492– 499.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexing-
ton Books.
Organ, D. W. 1990a. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 12: 43–72. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W. 1990b. The subtle significance of job satisfaction. Clinical Laboratory Management Review, 4:
94 –98.
Organ, D. W. 1994. Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 20: 465– 478.
Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10:
85–97.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. 1989. Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 157–164.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48: 775– 802.
Orr, J. M., Sackett, P. R., & Mercer, M. 1989. The role of prescribed and nonprescribed behaviors in estimating
the dollar value of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 34 – 40.
Park, O. S., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1989. Beyond cognition in leadership: Prosocial behavior and affect in managerial
judgment. Working paper, Seoul National University and Pennsylvania State University.
Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. 1991. Task interdependence and extra-role behavior: A test of the mediating
effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 838 – 844.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity
and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 262–270.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1994. Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness.
Journal of Marketing Research, 3(1): 351–363.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1995. An examination of substitutes for leadership within a levels of
analysis framework. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 289 –328.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational
performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10: 133–151.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. 1996a. A meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr
and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 380 –399.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. 1996b. Transformational leader behaviors and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22: 259 –298.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. 1993. Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial
evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. In G. R. Ferris &
K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 11): 1– 40.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and
their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly, 1: 107–142.
Podsakoff, P. M., Niehoff, B. P., MacKenzie, S. B., & Williams, M. L. 1993. Do substitutes for leadership really
substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr and Jermier’s situational leadership model.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54: 1– 44.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal
of Management, 12(4): 531–544.
Schwab, D. P. 1980. Construct validity in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 2): 3– 43. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. 1996. Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational
support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 219 –227.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment
and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78:
774 –780.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 655– 663.
Tang, T. L. P., & Ibrahim, A. H. S. 1998. Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior revisited: Public
personnel in the United States and in the Middle East. Public Personnel Management, 27: 529 –550.
Tansky, J. W. 1993. Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: What is the relationship? Employees
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6: 195–207.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tomer, J. F. 1998. Organizational capital and joining-up: Linking the individual to the organization and to
society. Human Relations, 51: 825– 846.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. 1995. Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and
definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior (Vol. 17): 215–285. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. 1994. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct
redefinition, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 765– 802.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1996. Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of
contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 525–531.
Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. 1996. Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on organizational
effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. In J. B. Keys & L. N. Dosier (Eds.), Academy of Management
Best Papers Proceedings, 307–311.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange:
A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 82–111.
Werner, J. M. 1994. Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extra-role
behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 98 –107.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601– 617.
Witt, L. A. 1991. Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes—Organizational citizenship behavior
relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21: 1490 –1501.

Podsakoff 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Podsakoff 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Podsakoff 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management

2000, Vol. 26, No. 3, 513–563

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A

The rapid growth of research on organizational citizenship be-

Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. 0149-2063

Figure 1. Yearly and Cumulative Publications on Citizenship Behavior and

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

Types of Citizenship Behavior

Table 1. Summary of Employee In-Role and

HELPING Altruism—capture(s) Altruism—voluntary Interpersonal

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

Extra-Role Work Performance Dimensions

OCB-I—behaviors Helping coworkers— Helping and Cooperating Interpersonal Facilitation—

Helping and Cooperating

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

ORGANIZATIONAL Loyalty Organizational

ORGANIZATIONAL Generalized Organizational

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

Spreading Goodwill—is Endorsing, Supporting,

(Continued on next page)

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

INDIVIDUAL Conscientiousness— Personal

CIVIC Civic Virtue—is Organizational

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

Making Constructive Suggestions— PERSISTING WITH Job Dedication—

(Continued on next page)

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

Developing Oneself—includes all the

The next dimension is derived from Graham’s discussion of the responsi-

Antecedents of “Citizenship” Behaviors

Table 2 reports the meta-analytic relationships between OCBs and their

INDIVIDUAL (EMPLOYEE) CHARACTERISTICS

(Continued on next page)

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

Employee Abilities and Individual Differences

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

Early research efforts on employee characteristics (cf. Bateman & Organ,

Kidder and McLean Parks (1993) discussed a number of plausible theoretical

ification of procedures, or supportive leader behavior), or the Leader-Member

research needs to include a more complete set of these variables to investigate

Consequences of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Effects of OCBs on Performance Evaluations and Other Managerial Decisions

bigger impact on managers’ evaluations of performance.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

Table 4a. Summary of the Percent of Variance Accounted for in Managerial

Avila, Fern, & MacKenzie, Podsakoff, &

Computer Computer Insurance Insurance

Measures of Objective Performance % Quota % Quota Commission $ Commission $

Unique Contribution of Objective .12 .19 .12 [.09] .25 [.10]

Evaluations by Objective Performance and OCBs

Commission $ Commission $ % Quota Piece-rate # Policies Piece-rate Unit-level

performance accounted for a total of 61.2% of the variance in overall performance

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

Table 5 provides a summary of those experimental studies that have exam-

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000