Exploring the dark side of organizationalcitizenship behavior
MARK C. BOLINO1*, ANTHONY C. KLOTZ1, WILLIAM H. TURNLEY2
AND JARON HARVEY3
1Price College of Business, Division of Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma,U.S.A.2College of Business Administration, Department of Management, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, U.S.A.3College of Business, Department of Management and Marketing, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, U.S.A.
The positive psychology movement has sought to better understand desirable human traits and behaviors and toinvestigate factors that enable people to function more effectively (e.g., Gable & Haidt, 2005; Seligman &Csikszenmihalyi, 2000). In recent years, scholars have become interested in applying this perspective inorganizational contexts (e.g., Bernstein, 2003; Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012; Dutton & Glynn, 2008). Organizationalbehavior researchers have specifically focused on positive organizational behavior (POB; e.g., Luthans, 2002; Luthans& Youssef, 2007; Wright & Quick, 2009) and have endeavored to learn more about traits, capabilities, and behaviorsthat lead employees to help others, build connections, and thrive at work. One behavior that has been described asa prototypical POB is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Luthans & Youssef, 2007; Cameron, Dutton, &Quinn, 2003).Organizational citizenship behaviors refer to employee acts that support the broader social and psychological
environment in which tasks are carried out in organizations (Organ, 1997). These actions are typically consideredmore discretionary and less likely to be rewarded and punished in organizations than in-role task performance(Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). In other words, citizenship behaviors are those behaviors that often gobeyond an employee’s job description and include acts like helping others, taking on additional responsibilities,putting in extra hours, defending the organization, and speaking out about important organizational issues(Organ et al., 2006). Although the OCB construct was developed decades before the concept of POB had beenintroduced, it is easy to see why OCBs might be considered a prototypical POB. Indeed, OCBs have undeniablypositive aspects, and investigations of OCB typically emphasize and highlight these positive features.
*Correspondence to: Mark C. Bolino, Price College of Business, Division of Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Oklahoma,Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Revised 19 October 2012, Accepted 08 November 2012
Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 542–559 (2013)Published online 7 December 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1847
In early research, OCBs were described as being analogous to prosocial behavior (Organ, 1988). In fact, initialstudies referred to the interpersonal helping dimension of OCB as “altruism” (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), and many researchers operationalize prosocial behaviorsby using measures of OCB (e.g., De Cremer, Mayer, Schouten, Bardes, & van Dijke, 2009). Moreover, OCBsare associated with both positive antecedents and consequences. For instance, OCBs result from positive jobattitudes, positive affect, encouraging leadership, a supportive organizational climate, and so on (Organ et al.,2006). Likewise, reviews and meta-analyses show that OCBs are associated with various indicators of group andorganizational effectiveness (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009)and that employees who perform OCBs are typically evaluated more favorably by their supervisors with regard totheir overall job performance and promotability (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 2009).Finally, it has also been argued that citizenship behavior facilitates a positive working environment, which enablesorganizations to attract and retain employees (Organ, 1988; Organ et al., 2006). Overall, then, there is considerableevidence that OCBs fit within the POB framework along some important dimensions.However, as interest in POBs has grown, some researchers have raised questions and concerns about the positive
organizational scholarship movement and have called for a more balanced view of ostensibly desirable behaviors (e.g.,Fineman, 2006). Consistent with these calls, others have questioned the notion that OCBs are unambiguously positive.In particular, Bolino, Turnley, and Niehoff (2004) challenged prevailing assumptions about OCB in three ways. First,they suggested that OCBs are not necessarily prosocial and that theymay stem from self-servingmotives (e.g., impressionmanagement), more mundane motives (e.g., boredom with in-role tasks), and even negative forces (e.g., transgressionsand dissatisfaction with one’s personal life). Second, they posited that citizenship could have negligible or even negativeeffects on organizational performance, particularly when OCBs are of low quality or are performed instead of in-roletasks. Finally, they argued that employees who engage in OCBs may experience greater role ambiguity, role overload,job stress, and work–family conflict, particularly if they feel pressured to engage in such behaviors. As such, theysuggested that there may be negative consequences for employees when OCBs are common in the workplace.Although provocative, many of the ideas in their paper were based more on speculation than evidence; however,
in recent years, researchers have published a number of conceptual papers and empirical studies indicating thatOCBs are not always positive. To date, though, this research has not been reviewed in any systematic way. There-fore, in this paper, we examine the growing body of research that has highlighted the darker aspects of OCB. Al-though we do not dispute the notion that OCBs have many positive qualities, by highlighting the darker aspectsof OCB, we hope to provide a more balanced view of such behaviors (Fineman, 2006) and to encourage futureinvestigations that might consider the possibility that OCBs can have potentially negative implications for indivi-duals and organizations.Our paper is organized around the three assumptions described by Bolino et al. (2004). We first describe research
that has highlighted the personal and professional costs of OCB. Then, we examine studies that have identifiedcitizenship motives that are not necessarily positive. Finally, we consider research describing how the link betweenOCBs and group-level performance may be equivocal or even negative. Throughout this review, we highlight thefindings of studies that challenge the notions that organizations where OCBs are commonplace are desirable foremployees, that OCBs are analogous to prosocial behavior, and that OCBs contribute to the effective functioningof organizations. Moreover, we conclude each section by identifying directions for future research that seek todevelop a deeper understanding of the conditions under which OCB can be harmful. Last, we address some ofthe practical realities facing scholars who seek to publish research investigating the dark side of citizenship.
Personal and Professional Costs of Citizenship
As noted earlier, researchers have argued that organizations where OCBs are normative should be better for theemployees and should make it easier for organizations to attract and retain good employees (Organ et al., 2006).
The assumption here is that employees enjoy working in an environment where everyone supports one another andis willing to go the extra mile to help the organization succeed (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). Clearly, there should besome genuine appeal to working in such organizations; moreover, being part of an organization where employeesare poor organizational citizens who are unwilling to help one another and do not care about the organization andits objectives is likely to be dissatisfying and demotivating. However, a workplace where citizenship is the normis not necessarily a blessing for all employees. Indeed, a number of studies have indicated there may be a dark sideto working in organizations where OCBs are prevalent. Later, we describe the personal and professional costs ofOCB that have been identified in this work. The studies highlighted in this section are summarized in Table 1.
Personal costs of OCB
One tenet of Organ’s (1988) definition of OCB is that to be considered citizenship, acts of helping, sportsmanship,civic virtue, and so forth must not be required but instead should be performed voluntarily. Indeed, the notion thatOCBs are relatively discretionary is something that differentiates citizenship from task performance. However,recent theoretical (Salamon & Deutsch, 2006; Van Dyne & Ellis, 2004; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006) and empirical work(Bolino, Turnley, Gilstrap, & Suazo, 2010; Vigoda-Gadot, 2007) suggests that, in some cases, employees perceivethat citizenship behavior is not really voluntary and may even be compulsory. The requirement or pressure toperform OCBs may stem from a number of different sources, such as organizational imperatives to “do more withless” (Van Dyne & Ellis, 2004), the expectation by supervisors that employees should engage in these behaviors tohelp the organization (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006), or the belief by employees that OCBs are simply part of their jobs(McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban, 2007; Morrison, 1994).Prior work suggests that employees may engage in OCBs because they are worried about losing their job because
of poor economic conditions, layoffs, or other uncertainties, and that engaging in citizenship behaviors may providea way for workers to stand out from their peers. For instance, Salamon and Deutsch (2006) argued that employeesengage in citizenship behaviors for instrumental reasons in order to demonstrate that they are exceptional employeesworth retaining. That is, by engaging in OCBs, workers send a signal that they are not only able to carry out their in-role job duties but that they are also capable of contributing in ways that go beyond their prescribed rolerequirements. Over time, however, routinely performing OCBs can have adverse consequences for employees.For instance, Bolino and Turnley (2003) proposed that employees may experience escalating citizenship whenengaging in OCBs becomes so normative that they must continually do more OCBs in order to be seen as goingthe extra mile. They argue that escalating citizenship may make it harder for employees to truly get away from workand could contribute to competition and friction among workers who want to be seen as the most committedemployees. Further, Bergeron (2007) noted that escalating citizenship implies that the value of OCBs may diminishas citizenship becomes normative, such that the costs associated with performing OCBs (e.g., time and energy) mayeventually outweigh the benefits (e.g., rewards and advancement).Exploring the idea that citizenship may lose its discretionary quality, Van Dyne and Ellis (2004) developed a
conceptual model of job creep, which occurs when “employees feel ongoing pressure to do more than therequirements of their jobs” (p. 181). They suggest that when OCBs are performed regularly over time, acts that wereonce considered beyond the scope of formal job requirements gradually become part of employees’ regular orexpected duties (Van Dyne & Ellis, 2004). Put another way, what employees originally did voluntarily is no longerconsidered “extra” but instead is simply viewed as in-role job performance. Furthermore, Van Dyne and Ellis (2004)suggested that job creep makes employees feel that their personal freedom is threatened. Going a bit further, Vigoda-Gadot (2006) argued that some managers or other organizational members may actually require workers to go aboveand beyond their formal job requirements, thereby eliminating the discretionary element of OCB and incorporatingcitizenship behaviors as part of employees’ formal duties. For example, a manager may require that employees staylate to put in extra work on a project, or intrude on a worker’s vacation to have him or her put the final touches on apresentation. Vigoda-Gadot (2006) maintained that OCBs that are required in this way should be referred to as
compulsory citizenship behaviors (CCBs), which he demonstrated is associated with job stress, negligent behaviors,intentions to quit, and other negative outcomes (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007).Somewhat differently, Bolino et al. (2010) argued that even when employees recognize that OCBs are not
required, they may still feel pressured to perform such behaviors. Thus, they define citizenship pressure as a specificjob demand in which employees feel pressured to engage in OCBs. Bolino et al. (2010) found a positive relationshipbetween citizenship pressure and OCB even when controlling for other determinants of OCB (e.g., conscientiousnessand job satisfaction) and other job demands (e.g., role overload). Furthermore, employees who experiencedcitizenship pressure reported higher levels of work–family conflict, work–leisure conflict, job stress, and intent toquit. Thus, when employees feel obligated to engage in OCBs, organizations may benefit from the higher levels ofcitizenship; however, at the same time, employees may suffer from increased job stress and from their workinterfering with their personal or family lives.While job creep, compulsory citizenship, and citizenship pressure have negative implications for employee well-
being, the actual performance of OCB may also have personal costs. In particular, Organ and Ryan (1995) noted thatOCBs could contribute to stress and overload. Exploring this idea, Bolino and Turnley (2005) found that employeeswho engaged in individual initiative (a specific type of OCB that involves behaviors such as working weekends,taking on additional assignments, and attending work-related events on one’s personal time) experienced increasedlevels of job stress, role overload, and work–family conflict. Furthermore, the relationship between individualinitiative and work–family conflict was stronger among women than men. In another study, Halbesleben, Harvey,and Bolino (2009) found that engaged employees were more likely to perform OCBs, but that OCBs, in turn,contributed to higher levels of work–family conflict. Further, they found that the relationship between OCB andwork–family interference was moderated by employees’ level of conscientiousness, suggesting that highlyconscientious employees are better able to balance their citizenship behaviors and their family obligations than theirless conscientious coworkers. The findings of these studies were among the first to suggest that being a “goodsoldier” can have personal costs for employees.
Professional costs of OCB
While a number of researchers have highlighted the personal costs of OCB, it has also been recently suggested thatengaging in OCBs could have professional costs. Most notably, Bergeron (2007) argued that citizenship behaviors donot occur in a vacuum and that employees who engage in OCBs cannot do so endlessly, because time and energy arefinite resources. Using a resource-allocation framework, Bergeron (2007) proposed that engaging in citizenship behaviormay diminish employees’ in-role task performance, which may consequently damage their career. She argued that OCBsare especially likely to have harmful career consequences when they are performed in organizations that reward outcomesmore than behaviors and when employees engage in OCBs that are challenging and time-consuming. In an empiricalinvestigation of how reward systems may influence the relationship between OCBs and career success, Bergeron, Shipp,Rosen, and Furst (in press) found that there are negative career-related outcomes for engaging in OCBs in an outcome-based reward system. Specifically, the more time employees spent engaging in OCBs, the less time they spent engaging intask performance. Additionally, their findings indicated that workers who spent more time engaging in OCBs receivedsmaller increases in salary and fewer promotions than those who focused more on task performance.Finally, although the correlation between job satisfaction and OCB is generally positive (Organ & Ryan, 1995), a
recent study suggests that engaging in OCBs can sometimes undermine employee job satisfaction. Specifically,Munyon, Hochwarter, Perrewé, and Ferris (2010) demonstrated that OCBs were positively related to job satisfactionamong employees who were high in optimism; however, among employees who were less optimistic, therelationship between OCB and job satisfaction was curvilinear, such that OCBs were positively related to jobsatisfaction up to a point, and then additional OCBs were associated with decreased levels of job satisfaction. Takentogether, this line of work indicates that there can be negative personal and professional outcomes for employeeswho go the extra mile for their organizations.
Directions for future research on the personal and professional costs of citizenship
Although there is some evidence that OCBs can have personal and professional costs, additional work in this area isneeded. As previously discussed, researchers have introduced and developed different ideas and constructs thataddress the reality that employees sometimes feel required, pressured, or coerced into performing OCBs. This canrange from cases in which employees simply view OCBs as part of their job to instances where managers forceemployees to engage in OCBs (or CCBs). Arguably, citizenship pressure and job creep lie somewhere along thiscontinuum. Whereas some of these concepts have been empirically examined (e.g., citizenship pressure andCCB), others (e.g., job creep and escalating citizenship) have not. Empirical investigations that enable us to betterunderstand these constructs, how they may be similar or distinct, and their effects on a wider array of outcomeswould be useful. For instance, it would be helpful to know if it is the pressure to perform OCBs, the lack of freedomor discretion in performing OCBs, or the ever-increasing levels or ratcheting up of OCBs that is most harmful toemployee well-being. Likewise, although most research has examined (and measured) the quantity or frequencyof OCBs that employees perform, it is possible that OCBs performed under coercion or pressure may be of a lowerquality than those that are truly discretionary. Examining this possibility is particularly important given that low-quality citizenship may be less likely to facilitate organizational effectiveness (Bolino, 1999).As noted earlier, Bolino and Turnley (2005) found that engaging in OCB can lead to role overload, stress, and
work–family conflict. However, the focal OCB in their study (i.e., individual initiative) tends to be rather time-consuming. Likewise, Halbesleben et al. (2009) found a link between another time-consuming OCB (i.e., interpersonalhelping) and work–family conflict. It is unclear, though, whether engaging in OCBs contributes to stress and work–family interference only because of the time and energy that employees devote to such behaviors. Indeed, some OCBs,such as tolerating inconveniences at work (i.e., sportsmanship) and touching base with others (i.e., courtesy), are lesslikely to require significant time and energy. Thus, some types of OCBs may be more likely to have personal costs thanothers. In addition, the findings of Halbesleben et al. (2009) regarding the personality trait conscientiousness suggestthat some employees find engaging in OCBs to be more costly than others, based on their disposition. Thus, theremay be individual differences (e.g., skills and personality) and contextual factors (e.g., workload and family situation)that make going the extra mile more difficult or costly for certain individuals, both personally and professionally.As previously discussed, it is often suggested that engaging in OCBs can make employees’ jobs more enjoyable
and rewarding (Organ et al., 2006). At the same time, studies such as the one by Munyon et al. (2010) indicate thatengaging in too many OCBs can undermine job satisfaction. It might be especially worthwhile, then, to view OCBfrom a too-much-of-a-good-thing (TMGT) lens and to consider the possibility of non-montonic effects with regardto citizenship (Grant & Schwartz, 2011; Pierce & Aguinis, in press). Indeed, both Grant and Schwartz (2011) andPierce and Aguinis (in press) specifically mentioned OCB as a behavior that might have harmful effects at extremelevels. In other words, OCBs seem more likely to have negative personal and professional consequences whenperformed under intense pressure, when they are carried out at extreme levels, and when they are performed atthe expense of other important behaviors.Grant and Schwartz (2011) suggested that researchers investigating the TMGT effect focus on understanding how
much is too much and determining why and when negative effects are most likely to occur. Similarly, Pierce andAguinis (in press) encouraged researchers to identify context-specific inflection points in order to better understandwhen something positive can become negative. Applying these suggestions to future research might help us betterunderstand the dark side of citizenship for employees. For instance, it has been argued that engaging in OCBs canconsume time and resources that may detract from in-role performance (Bergeron, 2007). At the same time, priorresearch indicates that employees who are good organizational citizens tend to be evaluated more favorably(Podsakoff et al., 2009). Engaging in OCBs, then, may have differing effects on one’s personal and professionaloutcomes as the quantity of OCB performed increases. At relatively low levels, engaging in OCBs may help onebe perceived as a better employee while having little influence on one’s level of stress. At moderate levels, OCBsmay increase the level of stress and work–family conflict that the employee experiences, but those personalconsequences may be offset by the positive effect that such behavior has on the individual’s professional outcomes.
However, when OCBs are taken to the extreme or performed instead of one’s in-role responsibilities, such behaviormay harm the individual both personally and professionally.Pierce and Aguinis (in press) also suggested that researchers may need to consider the possibility that excessive
levels of a construct, and its darker side, may, in fact, constitute an entirely different construct altogether. This issimilar to Vigoda-Gadot’s notion that coerced OCBs are better thought of as CCBs. Consideration, then, shouldbe given to the possibility that extreme levels of OCB are best conceptualized as a unique construct apart fromOCB. Overall, it would be worthwhile to determine the most appropriate conceptualization of OCBs performedunder pressure or carried out at extreme levels and to better understand when, where, how, and why the personaland professional benefits of OCB tend to accrue while identifying the point at which engaging in such behavior startsto cause harm and how this occurs.
Darker OCB Motives
As noted earlier, initial research described OCBs as analogous to prosocial behavior (Organ, 1988). In addition, theorigin of OCB is linked with the notion that happy workers (i.e., those with high levels of job satisfaction) should beproductive workers. Indeed, years before the OCB label was introduced by Bateman and Organ (1983), Organ(1977) laid out the fundamental argument that although satisfaction may be less predictive of in-role, required jobperformance, it should be more predictive of employees’ willingness to go the extra mile—that is, engage in whatwould come to be called OCBs. Moreover, consistent with the key tenets of social exchange (Organ, 1990), mostinvestigations of antecedents to OCB suggest that employees are most likely to engage in such behavior when theyhave been given interesting and satisfying work assignments, when they work for supportive and inspirationalmanagers, and when they are treated fairly by their employers (Organ et al., 2006). Some work has also shown thatemployees with certain dispositions may be more prone to engage in OCBs. Traits commonly associated with OCBsinclude conscientiousness, concern for others, collectivism, positive affect, and agreeableness (Organ et al., 2006).Thus, taken as a whole, most prior work on the predictors of OCB suggests that OCBs tend to stem from the positivetreatment employees receive or from desirable traits that employees possess. However, a few studies have made theargument that OCBs sometimes arise from less desirable motivations. In this section, we review research that hasexamined darker motives underlying employees’ desire to engage in OCBs. This work suggests that citizenshipmay be driven by impression-management concerns and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). The findingsof key studies discussed in this section are summarized in Table 2.
Citizenship and impression management
Perhaps the most well-established finding concerning the dark side of OCB is that employees perform OCBs notonly to benefit their organization but also to enhance their own image. After nearly two decades of research thatgenerally depicted those who engaged in OCBs as good soldiers who were going beyond the call of duty to helpthe organization (for exceptions, see Eastman, 1994; Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor, and Judge, 1995), Bolino (1999)suggested that behaviors that are conceptualized as OCB may sometimes be considered acts of impressionmanagement—behaviors that individuals use to enhance or protect their image in the eyes of others (Bolino,Kacmar, Turnley, & Gilstrap, 2008). Specifically, Bolino (1999) proposed that in addition to the traditionalmotivations for OCB (i.e., social exchange and personality), employees also engage in OCBs when they perceivethat appearing to be a good citizen will help them achieve their instrumental, self-serving goals. As such, individualswho are high self-monitors or who have a careerist orientation to work will selectively engage in highly visibleOCBs in order to facilitate their own professional success (Bolino, 1999). When performance appraisals areimminent, when OCBs are especially visible to powerful others, and when one’s image has recently been damaged
are times that engaging in OCB may have a particularly positive effect on the reputation of an employee. In thesetypes of circumstances, image-conscious employees are likely to perform OCBs not to benefit their organizationor its members but to improve their standing in the workplace.Empirical studies support the idea that employees may undertake OCBs for impression-management purposes.
For example, Hui, Lam, and Law (2000) found that when employees perceived that OCBs heightened theiradvancement opportunities, they engaged in increased levels of citizenship behavior before promotion decisions.Moreover, those who subsequently earned promotions decreased their level of OCBs immediately following thepromotion decision, suggesting that workers adjust their level of OCBs in accordance with the degree to whichengaging in such behaviors will help them achieve their personal goals. In addition, Yun, Takeuchi, andLiu (2007) demonstrated that self-enhancement motives positively relate to OCBs targeting the organizationand further showed that as role ambiguity increases, employees become particularly likely to engage in OCBsto improve their image. Finally, integrating the “good soldier” and “good actor” perspectives, Grant and Mayer(2009, Study 1) found that impression-management motives strongly relate to interpersonal citizenship, andthis relationship is strengthened by prosocial motives. Taken together, these and a number of other studies(e.g., Bowler & Brass, 2006; Finkelstein, 2006; Snell & Wong, 2007) support the notion that althoughOCB is defined by its positive contributions to organizational performance (Organ, 1997), the motives underlyingthese “good” deeds can be driven by enhancement of one’s own image, rather than the betterment of the organizationor its members.
Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior
Beyond self-enhancing motives, recent theorizing proposes that OCBs may also be performed to make amends forCWBs—acts that directly hurt organizational functioning, harm organizational property, or impede the productivityof other employees (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). When employees engage in CWB directed at the organization,they may subsequently feel guilty for their transgression, which can lead them to perform OCBs in order to try tomake up for their previous misbehavior (Bolino, 1999; Spector & Fox, 2010a, 2010b). Similarly, CWBs aimed atother coworkers may lead the offending employees to feel anxiety or guilt, particularly when other coworkers areaware of their act of abuse. This anxiety may lead employees to perform acts of citizenship in order to repair theirdamaged reputations with coworkers (Spector & Fox, 2010a).Spector and Fox (2010b) went on to propose that under certain circumstances, OCBs may actually lead to
subsequent CWBs. They point out that employees often feel angry and resentful when they feel compelled to takeon extra duties or work extended hours because of organizational constraints (e.g., inadequate resources), poorplanning, or communication, or to make up for the poor performance of their coworkers. These feelings of angermay then elicit counterproductive behavior. In addition, anger may also result when employees do not receive therecognition or rewards they expect as a result of their OCB. When OCBs go unnoticed or unrecognized, this canthen lead to subsequent acts of CWB (Spector & Fox, 2010b).Klotz and Bolino (in press) used moral licensing theory (Miller & Effron, 2010) to explain the conditions under
which OCB will cause subsequent CWB, even in situations in which emotional reactions are not involved. Briefly,they propose that engaging in OCBs that are morally praiseworthy (i.e., those that benefit others or the organization,involve greater personal costs than rewards, are self-initiated or proactive, and are discretionary or beyond formalwork requirements and organizational norms), psychologically frees employees to commit counterproductivebehaviors when the opportunity presents itself. Their paper suggests that good deeds (i.e., OCB) and bad deeds(i.e., CWB) at work are not necessarily antithetical and may be causally related under certain circumstances. Theauthors’ theoretical arguments in this regard are supported, to some degree, by recent empirical investigations ofthe intrapersonal link between OCB and CWB. Most notably, Dalal, Lam, Weiss, Welch, and Hulin (2009) foundthat although OCBs and CWBs are independent of one another in general, they may also be positively (althoughweakly) associated on the basis of the target of the act.
Toward a more nuanced and balanced view of citizenship motives
As described previously, although OCBs have undeniably positive antecedents, there is compelling evidence thatdarker motives for OCB exist. Unfortunately, though, there has been a tendency in the literature to depict citizenshipmotives as either positive or negative. For instance, regarding impression-management motives, Grant and Mayer(2009, p. 902) pointed out that, “Although his article on citizenship and impression management provocativelyraised the question of whether citizens are good soldiers or good actors, Bolino (1999, p. 83) noted that ‘it is likelythat individuals’ motives generally are mixed.’” Nevertheless, in describing this work, Organ et al. (2006, p. 220)stated that “. . .several researchers have argued that the only reason that many employees engage in OCB is to createa good impression. . .” On the basis of their findings that prosocial and impression-management motives interact inpredicting OCB, Grant and Mayer (2009, p. 907) argued that their results “challenge the validity of dichotomizingprosocial and impression management motives, and point to the value of recognizing that the motives of soldiers andactors can be located within the same employees.” Similarly, recent research examining the relationship betweenemployee values and OCB came to similar conclusion. In particular, a study by Arthaud-Day, Rode, and Turnley(2012) found that the most important value predicting OCB was neither prosocial nor manipulative in nature.Instead, the relatively “neutral” value of self-direction was a stronger predictor of OCB than values more closelyaligned with either the prosocial or impression-management perspectives (Arthaud-Day et al., 2012). Accordingly,our review suggests that a more nuanced and accurate view of OCB is that although OCBs are generally positive,there are both more neutral and darker aspects to such behavior that need to be investigated.
Directions for future research on citizenship motives
Although prior research has confirmed that employees have multiple motives for engaging in OCB, more work isneeded that examines how employees’ actual motives and others’ attributions about their motives influence theoutcomes of such behavior. Specifically, although prior research (e.g., Bolino, 1999) has speculated that OCBsmotivated by impression-management concerns may be of lower quality than OCBs motivated by genuine concernfor the organization, that idea still needs to be empirically investigated. In addition, future research needs to examinehow all types of motives influence not only the quantity or frequency of the citizenship behavior performed but itsquality as well.Although a number of studies indicate that employees are penalized when their citizenship is attributed to self-
serving motives (e.g., Allen & Rush, 1998; Eastman, 1994; Johnson, Erez, Kiker, & Motowidlo, 2002), there aremany questions that need further investigation regarding the attributions that others make regarding the motivesfor citizenship behavior. In particular, almost nothing is known about how accurate such attributions are.Supervisors or colleagues may perceive that an individual is engaging in OCB because he or she really cares aboutthe organization, but the individual may be engaging in selective forms of OCB in order to bolster his or herreputation. Likewise, there may be times when supervisors or colleagues attribute OCBs to impression-managementmotives, leading them to discount the value of the employee’s contribution, when in actuality the employee wasgoing out of his or her way, possibly at great personal expense, in order to be helpful.Clearly, supervisors’ attributions are likely to influence how they respond to citizenship behaviors and may
determine the extent to which engagement in OCBs is related to performance ratings and rewards (e.g., Allen &Rush, 1998). However, it seems probable that employees’ actual motives for engaging in the behavior are morelikely to determine the quality of OCBs and the likelihood that OCBs will be repeated in situations where thebehavior is less likely to be observed. It is also possible that when motives are judged inaccurately, or when helpfulemployees are resented by their colleagues, either party may engage in retaliatory CWBs or other uncivil behaviors.Such possibilities remain unanswered and are in need of further research attention.Likewise, more research is also needed to better understand precisely why certain attributions are made, such as
whether certain types of OCB are more likely to be attributed to impression-management motives than others.
Further, research suggests that OCBs are evaluated differently depending on the type of citizenship and the gender ofthe employee (e.g., Heilman & Chen, 2005). It is unclear, though, what role gender plays in the process of makingattributions for OCB. Is the same behavior equally likely to be ascribed to impression-management versusaltruistic motives when performed by men and women, and are male and female managers likely to make the sametypes of attributions regarding the motives for their employees’ behaviors? Finally, it is possible that certainindividuals (e.g., high self-monitors) may be more likely to engage in OCBs for impression-management reasonsyet have those behaviors ascribed to more desirable motivations. Clearly, additional studies are needed to increaseour understanding of how darker motivations (and darker attributions of motives) influence the performance of andoutcomes associated with OCBs.
Citizenship and the Performance of Individuals, Teams, and Organizations
Prior research indicates that OCBs are positively associated with individual performance (Ozer, 2011; Podsakoffet al., 2009). Although fewer studies have empirically investigated the relationship between OCBs and indicatorsof team and organizational effectiveness, the extant research is supportive of the idea that OCBs generally facilitatethe effective functioning of organizations as well (e.g., Koys, 2001; Podsakoff et al., 2009). Nevertheless, asexplained in this section, some studies suggest that the relationship between OCBs and performance at theindividual, group, and organizational level may be less straightforward than it is often assumed to be. These studiesare summarized in Table 3.
Citizenship and employee performance
One controversial aspect of Bolino’s (1999) theorizing was his assertion that when OCB is driven by impression-management motives, its positive influence on organizational effectiveness would be attenuated. He based hisargument on the ideas that employees will dedicate fewer cognitive resources to OCBs, will limit the effort theyput into the performance of OCBs, and will selectively engage in only highly visible forms of OCB when their
Table 3. Articles about OCB and individual, team, and organizational performance.
Article Construct of interest or theoretical lens Findings or implications
Bachrach et al. (2006) Task interdependence High or low levels of OCB harmed groupperformance when task interdependencewas low
Bolino (1999) Impression management Proposed that OCB performed for impression-management motives would have less of aneffect on organizational performance comparedwith OCB performed for other motives
Mackenzie et al. (2011) Challenge-oriented OCB Challenge-oriented OCB had a curvilinear effecton work group performance, and this effect wasmoderated by affiliation-oriented OCB
Nielsen et al. (2012) Resource-allocation framework Task interdependence moderated the relationshipbetween OCB and group performance, such thatOCB had a neutral to negative effect in groupswhere task interdependence was low
Podsakoff and MacKenzie(1994)
Norm of reciprocity Employee helping was negatively related to work-unit performance
citizenship behavior is motivated by self-enhancement reasons. However, Organ et al. (2006) challenged this ideaand pointed out that there is little empirical evidence supporting the notion that there is a differential impact onorganizational effectiveness between OCBs that are motivated by image concerns and those driven by other motives.Although there is little direct evidence to validate Bolino’s (1999) contention, some prior work provides indirect
support for the idea that OCBs driven by impression-management motives may be less beneficial to organizationsthan OCBs motivated by prosocial values or concern for the organization. As noted earlier, several studies indicatethat supervisors discount citizenship behavior and are less inclined to reward it when they perceive it is driven byselfish motives. For instance, Eastman (1994) found that when supervisors interpreted the good deeds of employeesas acts of ingratiation, rather than acts of citizenship, they reduced the amount of rewards associated with those gooddeeds. A number of other studies have replicated this finding by demonstrating that supervisors assign morefavorable performance ratings when they attribute employee behavior to benevolent intentions than when they feelthat employees have engaged in good behavior for self-enhancing purposes (Allen & Rush, 1998; Grant, Parker, &Collins, 2009; Johnson et al., 2002). Given that supervisor ratings are the primary indicator of employees’contributions to organizational effectiveness (Judge & Ferris, 1993), this line of work lends some credence toBolino’s (1999) argument that the degree to which citizenship behavior enhances organizational functioning isreduced to the extent to which it is driven by self-enhancement motives.
Citizenship and group/organization performance
Furthermore, whereas prior research supports the notion that the relationship between OCBs and group- andorganization-level effectiveness tends to be positive (Podsakoff et al., 2009), some studies have shown thatcitizenship behavior may lower performance in certain situations. Specifically, the extent to which OCBs help orharm organizational performance may depend on both the type of task and the type of OCB. For example, Podsakoffand MacKenzie (1994) found that helping behaviors among insurance agents led to lower levels of salesperformance. More recent work helps to explain this finding by suggesting that citizenship behaviors often leadto lower performance in work contexts in which group tasks require little or no coordination among members(i.e., in situations of low task interdependence), as was the case in Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1994) study.Similarly, Bachrach, Powell, Collins, and Richey (2006) demonstrated that in groups with low task interdependence,either high or low levels of OCB tend to hinder group performance. Furthermore, Nielsen, Bachrach, Sundstrom,and Halfhill (2012) found that helping behaviors and civic virtue led to lower levels of group performance(as rated by internal customers) when task interdependence was low. Nielsen et al. (2012) explained this findingby suggesting that the performance of OCBs in groups with low task interdependence may detract from taskperformance and may demotivate the team member who is the target of OCB if he or she interprets it as negativefeedback.Moreover, whereas most prior work on the connection between OCB and organizational performance has
primarily focused on affiliative forms of citizenship, such as helping, recent work has also shown that challenge-oriented types of citizenship may not influence organizational performance in the same way. Challenge-orientedcitizenship behavior, which refers to OCB that goes against the status quo (e.g., voice; Van Dyne, Graham, &Dienesch, 1994), may be more likely to have harmful effects on organizational functioning. Indeed, a recent studyby MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Podsakoff (2011) showed that challenge-oriented OCBs exhibit an inverted-U shaperelationship with workgroup task performance such that these OCBs tend to facilitate workgroup task performanceat moderate levels, but they tend to harm group performance at high levels. Further, the effect of high levels ofchallenge-oriented OCBs on group performance was most harmful in groups characterized by low levels ofaffiliation-oriented OCBs (e.g., helping, courtesy; MacKenzie et al., 2011). Although future work is needed tomore fully understand the mechanisms underlying the dysfunctional effects of challenge-oriented OCBs onworkgroup performance, this study suggests that the dark side of this form of OCB may manifest itself quite readilyin workgroups.
Directions for future research on citizenship and performance outcomes
OCBs are theorized to contribute to organizational effectiveness by lubricating “the social machinery of theorganization” (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997, p. 263) and through the creation of social capital (Bolino, Turnley,& Bloodgood, 2002). In other words, citizenship behaviors not only have a direct effect on those who immediatelybenefit from them but each act of citizenship also tightens the knit of the social fabric of the organization. For exam-ple, when an employee helps a colleague, the coworker’s burden is immediately relieved by the assistance, but be-yond that, trust and communication between these two organizational members may grow as well, thereby indirectlycontributing to future workgroup performance. Indeed, the contribution of OCBs to “the social and psychologicalcontext that supports task performance” plays a prominent role in Organ’s (1997, p. 91) definition of the construct.However, as we have discussed, prior work has shown that when supervisors and coworkers attribute OCBs to
self-enhancement motives, they do not react favorably (Eastman, 1994). It is possible, then, that althoughimpression-management driven OCBs may have the same direct effect on organizational effectiveness, its positivecontribution to the social context of the organization will be attenuated and may even be negative. Therefore, futurework should seek to better understand the degree to which self-serving citizenship motives reduce the degree towhich OCBs maintain or enhance the social context in organizations. For example, in workplaces with high taskvisibility, and where employee performance is highly scrutinized (Kidwell & Bennett, 1993), workers may be moreinclined to engage in relatively high levels of impression-management driven OCBs. Researchers could examinewhether OCBs contribute as much to the formation of social capital in these organizations as they do in thosecharacterized by low task visibility. Moreover, in this way, some OCBs may support the task environment whiledetracting from the social or psychological environment in which work occurs.On a related note, Johns (2006) implored researchers to take the context (e.g., occupation, location, time, and task)
in which organizational phenomena occur more seriously, partly because it can help us understand how “individualor team activity gets translated into larger organizational outcomes” (p. 389). Research on OCBs, however, has onlyjust begun to investigate contextual moderators of the relationship between citizenship behavior and outcomes at thegroup and organization level. The research that has been conducted, however, indicates that when the influence ofcontextual elements of the work environment are examined, the conditions under which OCB harms group andorganizational effectiveness become more clear (Bachrach et al., 2006; Nielsen et al., 2012; Podsakoff &MacKenzie, 1994). As such, it is critical that future investigations of the link between OCB and group- andorganization-level outcomes include the effects of context in their theorizing and testing. For instance, in results-only work environments, employees have discretion over when, where, and how long they work as long asthey meet their objectives, which is thought to increase employee satisfaction, productivity, and commitment(Cabrera, 2008). In this context, though, certain types of OCBs, such as working long hours or taking on additionalresponsibilities could actually undermine the positive implications that a flexible work arrangement like this isintended to have for employees.In addition, the potential negative impact of OCBs on group and organizational outcomes is likely to differ
depending on the type of OCB. For example, because helping and civic virtue require significant amounts of timeand energy, such behaviors have greater potential to detract from task performance than working extra hours.Similarly, when workers engage in high levels of sportsmanship, they may refrain from speaking up even when theysee problems that need to be addressed in order to enhance organizational effectiveness. Finally, when teammembers are excessively courteous and try to avoid creating problems for their coworkers, groupthink may result(Janis, 1982), thereby harming the team’s performance. As these examples illustrate, future research on therelationship between OCBs and group- and organization-level effectiveness should include tests that account forthe possibility that different types of citizenship behaviors could be more helpful or more harmful than others.Finally, we have already discussed how the TMGT effect could explain how high levels of OCB may lead to
negative outcomes for individual workers. However, when one employee chooses to engage in exceptionally highlevels of OCB, coworkers may feel compelled to engage in extra-role behavior in their own jobs as well(Turnley, Klotz, & Bolino, 2013), leading to higher levels of overload and burnout across the entire work group.
Aggregated across the work unit, the harm to coworker well-being caused by one “rate-buster,” then, couldultimately undermine the collective functioning and output of the group. Likewise, in the examples mentioned inthe prior paragraph, OCBs such as sportsmanship and courtesy may be helpful up to a point, but extreme levelsof such behavior may be problematic. As such, investigations of the TMGT effect in relation to citizenship behaviorsshould explore the impact of excessive OCBs at the group and organization level.
Concluding Thoughts
Over 30 years of research has highlighted the positive nature of OCB and how citizenship can have desirableimplications for both employees and organizations alike (Organ et al., 2006). Over the past decade, the emergenceof positive organizational scholarship, and POB in particular, has encouraged researchers to focus even moreheavily on positive interactions and behaviors in organizations (e.g., Bernstein, 2003; Cameron & Spreitzer,2012; Dutton & Glynn, 2008; Luthans, 2002; Luthans & Youssef, 2007; Wright & Quick, 2009). However,Fineman (2006) suggests that it is often difficult to distinguish the positive from the negative and calls for a morenuanced and balanced understanding of behaviors, such as OCB, which are ostensibly positive. A similar call for amore balanced view of OCB was made by Bolino et al. (2004), and a number of researchers have explored theways in which OCBs may have personal and professional costs, darker motives, and negative implications forthe effective functioning of individuals, teams, and organizations. In this paper, we reviewed this recent literatureand identified directions for future research that might further examine the idea that OCBs can be negative indifferent ways. We conclude our paper with two pieces of advice to researchers interested in investigating the darkside of citizenship.First, because OCBs are undeniably positive in many ways, it may sometimes be difficult to uncover the
negative aspects of citizenship. For this reason, proper theory, research design, and measurement are especiallyimportant. For instance, it has been argued that some employees who engage in OCB may neglect their in-roleresponsibilities (Bergeron, 2007; Bolino et al., 2004), but as noted by Organ et al. (2006), the averagecorrelation between OCB and in-role performance is positive and quite strong (r = .50). This finding, then,suggests that the notion that engaging in OCBs could undermine in-role performance is dubious. However, adeeper examination might yield a different conclusion. In particular, Bergeron (2007) offered an explanationfor why researchers have seldom found a negative correlation between OCB and in-role performance.Specifically, she observed that studies of OCB and in-role performance have typically been conducted incontexts where employee resources (i.e., time) are relatively unlimited. According to her theorizing, in contextswhere time is a relatively fixed commodity, the relationship between citizenship behavior and in-roleperformance is actually negative.There may also be methodological reasons for the strong, positive relationship that has commonly been found
between OCB and in-role performance. For instance, when OCB and in-role performance are measured usingdifferent rating sources, the average correlation between them is actually quite weak (r = .08; Organ et al., 2006),which suggests that these behaviors are unrelated. In most studies, though, supervisors provide ratings of bothin-role performance and OCB, making it highly unlikely that a negative relationship will be found in such work.Put simply, the strength of the correlation between task performance and OCB may be artificially inflated bycommon-method bias and percept–percept inflation (Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,& Podsakoff, 2003).Furthermore, established measures of OCB often capture behaviors that would generally be considered in-role,
which may also increase the likelihood that these variables will be positively correlated. For instance, items thatassess OCB directed at the organization include behaviors such as “taking undeserved work breaks” and “givingadvance notice when unable to work” (Williams & Anderson, 1991), and measures of conscientiousness (a specifictype of OCB) include behaviors such as “attendance at work being above the norm,” “not taking extra breaks,” and
“believing in giving an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay” (Podsakoff et al., 1990). In addition to the clearconceptual overlap with measures of in-role performance, these measures also have questionable relevance in thecontext of white-collar employees or professionals, even though they are commonly used in such settings becausethey are accepted measures of OCB. Unfortunately, when researchers use established scales without modifying themto account for the breadth of their respondents’ job roles (Morrison, 1994), they risk collecting, analyzing, andreporting data on in-role performance while labeling it OCB.Given these issues, researchers seeking to deepen our understanding of the negative aspects of OCB must think
carefully about how to design studies and develop theories and measures that will allow them to find such effects.For instance, in Bolino and Turnley’s (2005) examination of the personal costs of OCB, they focused on howbehaviors such as staying at work after normal business hours, participating in community activities for the benefitof the organization, and rearranging or altering personal plans because of work might contribute to job stress, roleoverload, and work–family conflict. To do so, they developed a measure of individual initiative that was moreappropriate for the sample of working professionals in their study than existing measures of conscientiousnessthat focus on punctuality, obeying rules, and so forth. Although they found support for their hypotheses, it isunlikely that traditional measures of employee conscientiousness would be correlated with the focal outcomes intheir study.Second, as a practical matter, researchers hoping to investigate the dark side of OCB should realize that there may
be some resistance from reviewers to any study that challenges the notion that OCBs are positive. For instance, thosewho seek to demonstrate that OCBs might undermine organizational performance may encounter reviewers whoargue that OCBs are, by definition, behaviors that facilitate the effective functioning of organizations. Thus,reviewers may suggest that any study that finds that citizenship harms organizational performance cannot reallybe examining OCBs. Similarly, there may be reviewers who maintain that helping one’s supervisor or colleaguein order to look good is an impression-management tactic, not an OCB. According to this mindset, only behaviorsstemming from a desire to help the organization, or others, should be considered OCB.In our view, OCBs are best conceptualized as specific acts of going the extra mile (e.g., instances of helping,
taking on additional tasks, and defending the organizations) that are not inherently positive or negative; nevertheless,given that OCBs are typically conceptualized in positive ways, the hurdles to publishing such work may sometimesbe higher. Of course, Davis (1971) suggested that papers that contradict our common understanding of aphenomenon tend to be more interesting than those that confirm commonly held beliefs. As such, we believe thatthere is much to be gained by investigating the dark side of OCB.
Author biographies
Mark C. Bolino is a professor of management and the Michael F. Price Chair in International Business in the PriceCollege of Business at the University of Oklahoma. He received his PhD from the University of South Carolina. Hisresearch interests include organizational citizenship behavior, impression management, global careers, and psycho-logical contracts.Anthony C. Klotz is doctoral candidate in organizational behavior and human resources in the Price College ofBusiness at the University of Oklahoma. His research interests include organizational citizenship behavior, teamconflict, employee resignation, and counterproductive work behavior.William H. Turnley is a professor of management and the Forrer Chair of Business Ethics at Kansas State Univer-sity. He received his PhD from the University of South Carolina. His research interests include psychological con-tracts, organizational citizenship behavior, impression management, and business ethics.Jaron Harvey is an assistant professor of management in the College of Business at the University of Wyoming. Hereceived his PhD from the University of Oklahoma. His research focuses on why employees go the extra mile fortheir organizations, and the individual and career consequences of these behaviors.
ReferencesAllen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field studyand a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247–260.
Arthaud-Day, M. L., Rode, J. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2012). Direct and contextual effects of individual values on organizationalcitizenship behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 792–807.
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., & Richey, R. G. (2006). Effects of task interdependence on the relationshipbetween helping behavior and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1396–1405.
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.
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy ofManagement Review, 32, 1078–1095.
Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (in press). Organizational citizenship behavior and career outcomes: Thecost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management. DOI: 10.1177/0149206311407508
Bernstein, S. D. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Meet the movement. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 266–271.Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review,24, 82–98.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Going the extra mile: Cultivating and managing employee citizenship behavior. TheAcademy of Management Executive, 17, 60–71.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individualinitiative and role overload, job stress, and work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740–748.
Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motivesand behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 1080–1109.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organiza-tions. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505–522.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., & Suazo, M. M. (2010). Citizenship under pressure: What’s a “good soldier” to do?Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 835–855.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions aboutorganizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 229–246.
Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: A social network perspective.Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 70–82.
Cabrera, E. F. (2008). Protean organizations: Reshaping work and careers to retain female talent. Career DevelopmentInternational, 14, 186–201.
Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (Eds.) (2012). Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. London: OxfordUniversity Press.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. (2003). Foundations of positive organizational scholarship. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton,& R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 3–13). San Francisco, CA:Berrett-Koehler.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. (1994). Percept–percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation ofprevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76.
Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L. (2009). A within-person approach to work behavior andperformance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship–counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect andoverall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1051–1066.
Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting!: Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophyof the Social Sciences, 1, 309–344.
De Cremer, D., Mayer, D. M., Schouten, B. C., Bardes, M., & van Dijke, M. (2009). When does self-sacrificial leadershipmotivate prosocial behavior: It depends on followers’ prevention focus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 887–899.
Dutton, J. E. & Glynn, M. A. (2008). Positive organizational scholarship. In J. Barling, & C. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbookof organizational behavior: Volume 1: Micro approaches (pp. 693–712). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenshipbehavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1379–1391.
Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. F., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Organizational politics and citizenship: Attributions ofintentionality and construct definition. In Martinko, M. J. (Ed.). Advances in attribution theory: An organizational perspective(pp. 231–252). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management Review, 31, 270–291.Finkelstein, M. A. (2006). Dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior: Motives, motive fulfillment, and roleidentity. Social Behavior and Personality, 34, 603–616.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors andorganizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior,59, 291–309.
Gable, S., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9, 103–110.Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives asinteractive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900–912.
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectiveson Psychological Science, 6, 61–76.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what youvalue and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62, 31–55.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationshipbetween work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452–1465.
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruisticcitizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 431–441.
Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A fieldquasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 822–828.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408.Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Liking and attributions of motives as mediators of therelationships between individuals’ reputations, helpful behaviors and raters’ reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 808–815.
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36,80–105.
Kidwell, R. E., & Bennett, N. (1993). Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues ofresearch. Academy of Management Review, 18, 429–456.
Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. (in press). Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: A moral licensing view. Academy ofManagement Review. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2011.0109
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizationaleffectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101–114.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,695–706.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321–349.Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Challenge-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors andorganizational effectiveness: Do challenge-oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organization’s bottom line?Personnel Psychology, 64, 559–592.
McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived rolebreadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,1200–1211.
Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. In P. Z. Mark, & M. O.James (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 115–155). Boston: Elsevier Academic Press.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behaviour: The importance of the employee’s perspective.Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.
Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). Optimism and the nonlinear citizenship behavior–jobsatisfaction relationship in three studies. Journal of Management, 36, 1505–1528.
Nielsen, T. M., Bachrach, D. G., Sundstrom, E., & Halfhill, T. R. (2012). Utility of OCB: Organizational citizenship behavior andgroup performance in a resource allocation framework. Journal of Management, 38, 668–694.
Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy ofManagement Review, 2, 46–53.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenshipbehavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, andconsequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ozer, M. (2011). A moderated mediation model of the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors and jobperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1328–1336.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, J. (in press). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management. DOI:10.1177/0149206311410060
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). An examination of the psychometric properties and nomological validity of somerevised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 702–713.
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., & Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations ofemployee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. In G. R. Ferris, & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research inpersonnel and human resources management (Vol. 11, pp. 1–40). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research:A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects onfollowers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences oforganizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 1306–1314.
Salamon, S. D., & Deutsch, Y. (2006). OCB as a handicap: An evolutionary psychological perspective. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 27, 185–199.
Seligman, M. E. P. & Csikszenmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 68, 653–663.
Snell, R. S., & Wong, Y. L. (2007). Differentiating good soldiers from good actors. Journal of Management Studies, 44,883–909.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010a). Theorizing about the deviant citizen: An attributional explanation of the interplay oforganizational citizenship and counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 132–143.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010b). Counterproductive work behavior and organisational citizenship behavior: Are they oppositeforms of active behavior? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 21–39.
Turnley, W. H., Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. (2013). Crafting an image at another’s expense: Understanding unethicalimpression management in organizations. In R. A. Giacolone, & M. D. Promislo (Eds.), Handbook of unethical work behavior(pp. 123–139). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Van Dyne, L., & Ellis, J. B. (2004). Job creep: A reactance theory perspective on organizational citizenship behavior as over-fulfillment of obligations. In J. A. M. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employmentrelationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 181–205). Oxford: Oxford University 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.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome inorganizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36, 77–93.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees’ performance. Personnel Review, 36,661–683.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizationalcitizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.
Wright, T. A., & Quick, J. C. (2009). The emerging positive agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 147–336.Yun, S., Takeuchi, R., & Liu, W. (2007). Employee self-enhancement motives and job performance behaviors: Investigating themoderating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 92, 745–756.
